Maybe, but would likely do damage to about 2 sections of a cruiser and cause the ship to eventually sink
HMS Sheffield vs Exocet:
Spoiler
1 Like
Ironically the devs have implemented a mechanic for this, damage-based reward where if you dealt 70% of the damage you’d get 70% of the kill RP, and the kill stealer would only get the last 30%.
In reality, it works maybe half the time if not less. The other half of the time it’s still buggy and not triggered despite them repeatedly claim to have fixed this bug.
Severe damage should just be implemented and solve this issue once and for all.
5 Likes
Which is weird because we already have permanent waterline damage in the case of unrepairable breaches, which could be caused by either bombs, torpedoes, or large caliber APs. The amount of water taken is then computed realtime with the hole size and ship speed.
Instead of refining that solid mechanic they decided to reinvent the wheel.
7 Likes
Yeah, I agree, the existing system needs some work, but this feels. A tad ott.
But ASMs would explain why hits above the water line results in flooding/kills though
2 Likes
I may be misunderstanding something here, so feel free to correct me, but heres another issue I can think of.
This seems to punish people for not repairing their ships, as it prevents players from just sitting in a non-combat capable ship and tanking shots with the crew still in the citadel mostly safe until the shooters get tired of trying to pen the citadel and move on to another target, since if the destroyed sections are not repaired (my understanding is that the sections can be repaired, please correct me if im wrong), the ship will just begin magically sinking.
I’m ok with this goal to some degree, but the repair mechanics need some major reworking before something like this is implemented. As it currently stands, all the non-critical components to surface combat are repaired first, prioritizing stuff like AA batteries and the likes over things like the main guns and bridge. Once repaired, those AA guns become crewed, making it substantially easier to destroy the ship via crew loss, wile often perma-locking the ship in repairs that do not even render it combat capable, as the crew repairs AA guns and crews them just in time to eat another volley of main gun shells from an enemy ship, increasing the repair time and decreasing the remaining crew.
If a mechanic that punishes people for not repairing is implemented, repairing needs to be reworked in a way that it isnt suicide to try to repair your ship in the first place.
2 Likes
Building upon previous discussions regarding the naval development team’s flawed understanding of game mechanics, allow me to elaborate as a player since the game’s open beta. For battleship gameplay, players naturally assume the role of a captain - when facing critical damage, our instinct is to fight for survival through skillful damage control, not passively watch our ship sink. The developers must NOT invalidate player agency through unrealistic mechanics. Instead, they should refine internal ship modeling: compartmentalization, crew distribution, armor joint integrity. While full blueprint-level accuracy isn’t demanded, current implementations like HMS Rodney’s laughable compartment count (which would’ve made her historically unseaworthy) are unacceptable. A ship that sinks from trivial flooding due to missing bulkheads isn’t a battleship - it’s a floating joke.
During naval mode’s early days, the map/objective design worked tolerably well. When matches featured cruisers, destroyers, and riverine vessels with rapid-fire armaments, the faster pace felt natural. But with the introduction of battleships - vessels designed for extended fleet engagements, armored behemoths meant to withstand punishment - the existing mechanics became fundamentally incompatible. These steel fortresses shouldn’t sink like plastic toys under arbitrary damage models in a “realistic military simulator”. However, as an online game requiring reasonable match durations, the solution lies not in fake mechanics, but introducing natural counters: player-controlled submarines, carrier strike groups, land-based bombers, or even postwar missile ships.
The development team’s past claim that “carrier gameplay would be boring” reveals their fundamental misunderstanding. Boredom stems from repetitive objectives, not the concept itself. Many naval veterans (myself included) deeply enjoyed the now-neglected Enduring Confrontation mode - its true potential squandered by low rewards. In EC, destroyers conduct ASW patrols, cruisers provide AA screens, battleships duel at range, while carriers could coordinate reconnaissance, air superiority, and strategic strikes. This multi-role ecosystem naturally balances battleships through combined arms warfare, not artificial nerfs.
The path forward is clear: Rebuild naval mechanics around historical ship capabilities rather than forcing vessels into arcade templates. Maps must accommodate realistic engagement ranges (not cluster ships within 10km brawling zones). Objectives should reflect actual naval warfare goals - convoy protection, shore bombardment, fleet interception - not endless capture point grinding. Most crucially, all changes must involve ACTIVE player consultation through transparent test cycles. The current pattern of unilateral “balance” decisions based on flawed metrics only accelerates the naval mode’s decline. Remember: We play War Thunder’s naval battles precisely because we crave authentic warship experiences, not World of Warships-style cartoon brawls. The time for half-measures has passed - structural overhaul is overdue.
22 Likes
I agree with others who have brought up that more than two sections of a vessel should be destroyed before a ship losses unsinkability. Ideally more than half of all compartments should be destroyed before a ship loses its ability to unwater. There should also be a more prominent visual or audio que that you have lost the ability to unwater. The current que you receive is very easy to miss.
The coastal changes should ideally not come to the game at all. The ability to kill a player by only shooting one area of a boat is not enjoyable at all. Especially with the current implementation where players are not shown how close a player is to either getting a kill or dying. Boats just appear to randomly die after shooting the same place over a short period of time.
7 Likes
That does actually make a lot of sense
Yep, given relatively recent overhauls to how missiles target ships + another new ASM with the last event and big calls to add more and then finally complaints about how little damage ASMs actually do. I do wonder if this is their solution for why above waterline damage can cause waterline damage.
This entire mechanic doesnt make total sense to me otherwise
2 Likes
I semi agree with this
I do agree that it is unrealistic for a boat to sink just by shooting only the forward or rear most compartment however I feel like (for PT boats) if you shot one of the centerline compartments enough that should sink the boat to simulate it being literally torn in half from all the bullets
1 Like
Gaijin is bringing WT mobile aiming to arcade
And what else is in WT mobile…?
AShM, Submarines, CIWS and naval ECM
2 Likes
I would say it is rather for punishing people who stay alive for a very long time in battle, as this mechanic clearly wants your ship to unstoppably sink after prolonged exposure under fire, and such fate is unavoidable because:
- The nature of bluewater fleet battle means that you cannot avoid getting hit like in air/ground battles
- Armour is practically irrelevant in this case
I think this is a very dangerous move, because it departs from a very basic concept of any war simulation game - which is to minimise the risk of getting killed while maximising the damage you inflict on the enemy. Instead, it now encourages players to turn off their brains and just throw as many shells at the enemy as they can to get kills before they inevitably die sooner or later.
16 Likes
Gaijin on their way to “fix” something that wasn’t broken in the first place for the 20th time
9 Likes
What do you mean “not broken”? This thread - https://forum.warthunder.com/t/nerf-scharnhorst-armor-or-make-it-8-0/ - exists largely because the old unsinkability mechanic work in a very unrealistic way, hugely favoring Scharnhorst.
2 Likes
Yes, ship sinking with 70% of the crew alive is 100% normal. Ships almost never “died” because of the crew deaths.
With new system Scharnhorst will going to sunk Yamato with ease,
It’s literally the opposite. It’s the old system that made it impossible for Yamato to sink Scharnhorst with AP shells. The new system finally makes it possible.
The Scharn is OP because it is under BRed which is Gaijins fault.
Even if the system currently unrealistically favors a ship, you can move that ship up instead of creating a completely new system for the rest of naval.
7 Likes
At the expense of every other ship and by adding a very frustrating mechanic that favors the old braindead HE spam gameplay
8 Likes
Yep. The optimal solution right now is to immediately move Scharnhorst to 7.7
4 Likes
And honestly
I may be a bit paranoid, but that mechanic also reeks of gaijin trying to punish good players by forcing them to die to limit their research speed, since you’ll die much faster and have to respawn in an non-premium ship instead of spending the entire match in your premium/talismaned ship
9 Likes
My opinion about this mechanic.
I tested destroyers,cruisers,battlecruisers and battleships.
If for destroyers(BR 3.7-5.3) changed nothing but for cruiser and,especially, battleships situation become dramatic. Role of armor reduced.
I need 6 salvos from Moffet to destroy Koln because even HE shell dont penetrate plate hull receive damage. It`s unlogical.
First problem - Hitpower of HE shell.
2nd - number of section required to cause loss of unsincability. For destroyers 7-2-2=3 sections need to stay alive. Its 3/7= 42%.When ship become bigger this percent become higher - 10-2-2=6 or 6/10= 60%.
3rd - Decreasing hull section HP. Minus average 20-25%.It.s very big nerf.
But positive changes make me happier. Kinetic penetration and hydro shock for torpedoes.Its an important changes for fleet damage system.
1 Like