The distinctive feature of the Hiei was that it was equipped with a tower mast as a prototype of the Yamato class. Introducing the Kirishima in its final form and making the Hiei a premium ship in its old, pre-renovation form…to be honest, I think they should have switched the Hiei and Kirishima.
5 Likes
Cool, thanks for letting me know!
Couldn’t agree more. I also think it’s a bad choice for a premium like that, woukd literally the worst compared to the others
1 Like
After checking GitHub’s Datamine, it appears “fatalExplosion”: false has been added to Yamato’s secondary guns/high-angle guns/anti-aircraft machine guns ammo storage.
This may resolve the issue where any explosion other than the main gun’s charge would inevitably cause a sinking explosion.
7 Likes
Found this as “40mm anti-aircraft guns mounted on an Akizuki-class destroyer”. The main gun turret shape and placement are similar to the Akizuki-class, same for torpedo crane
1 Like
I’ve never heard of this before, but apparently the Akizuki-class was once equipped with four 40mm anti-aircraft machine guns. Bofors or Vickers? Anyway, don’t you think a premium Akizuki-class would be a good choice for a newcomer? The Suzutsuki, in particular, has a square-shaped bridge, additional triple 25mm machine guns on both sides, and the Kikusui mark on the funnel. (The armor also has a picture to identify enemy aircraft.) The Yukikaze is quite powerful, but like most IJN destroyers, it primarily serves as a torpedo carrier. I think a premium ship capable of artillery combat would be welcome.
1 Like
The Hiei battlecruiser was added to the dev. But the model is not finished yet + the Hiei has incorrect main battery turrets modeled… And the funny thing is that the Hiei has more armor than the two three Kongos…
1 Like
It’s a shame Hiei doesn’t have the pagoda…
2.48.0.23, Hiei’s armour added and more detailed internals
Shell rooms and magazines are super vulnerable to capital ship guns when not angled
How amusing it all is… They implemented ALL the Kongo armor BEFORE the upgrade, but they don’t want to give the upgraded Kongo armor, bravo!
3 Likes
I have included a short thing on Amatsukaze below for those unfamiliar, basically a Japanese equivalent to the Charles F. Adams. Also compiled are options for the other nations.
3 Likes
Why not consider the Tachikaze-class DDGs pre-1984? No CIWS then, and you could temporarily disable the Sea Sparrows. These ships would be more apt counterparts to the CFA instead of the Amatsukaze, which while notable as being the first JMSDF DDG, and having the same SAM system as the CFA, will have slightly anemic guns at its expected BR.
How significant of a jump is RIM-24 vs SM-1? What about compared to the Bravy’s?
Yamato Needs More Hull Compartments ! ! !
I’m a hardcore naval battles enthusiast, and I truly love War Thunder’s naval forces. I’ve researched five naval tech trees all the way to the top. But honestly, does Yamato—maliciously treated by Gaijin—really deserve a BR of 8.7? At the same BR, both the Iowa and the “dev-favorite” Sovetsky Soyuz can easily dominate anything below 8.7. Yet Yamato is the only ship treated this unfairly.
For those who haven’t played naval battles, here’s how ships get destroyed in the game:
- Ammunition explosion – instant death.
- Crew wiped out.
- Flooding and sinking. In-game, the hull is divided into N compartments (usually about 10). The more compartments a ship has, the smaller each one’s hit area, meaning the ship as a whole can withstand more damage before sinking. Conversely, fewer compartments mean the ship is easier to sink. The hull damage model isn’t detailed— even if a shell only hits the upper deck, the entire compartment takes damage. Once three compartments are blacked out, the ship irreversibly sinks (the very front and rear compartments don’t count).
Now, here’s why Yamato is maliciously treated by Gaijin. According to the third destruction mechanic, Yamato has the fewest hull compartments of all bluewater ships in War Thunder—only 8. In comparison, Iowa has 11, Sovetsky Soyuz has 10, and even the smaller Bismarck has 9. This means Yamato can be sunk very easily just by damaging the hull; you don’t even need to penetrate its main armor—just keep dropping shells on the deck. On top of that, Yamato is riddled with ammo racks that explode at the slightest touch, countless hitbox and armor bugs, and its interior is modeled as empty space without any structural bulkheads. Submitting issues with documentation only results in them being dismissed as “not a bug.”
As a monster designed for WWII armor-piercing shell duels, and as the highlight ship introduced in the Leviathan update, Yamato should not be left in this miserable state. Gaijin, you really need to play naval battles yourself and experience just how bad Yamato is. If this isn’t addressed, naval players will only continue to drift away from the game.
5 Likes
You could, I just think the Amatsukaze is the stronger analogue, but you could add both. The CIWS is something not in-game so i’d omit that, and then you’d have to go to the trouble of disabling the Harpoons or not modelling them etc. So I think the Amatsukaze is a better fit, and of course they don’t have to be at the same BR’s.
The SM-1 uses the same missile body as the RIM-24C with a different seeker initially so its already slightly an upgrade over the RIM-24A used by every nation bar Japan (who used the B). It’s not a huge jump but its a new missile to add. Compared to the Bravy’s missile any SM-1 or RIM-24 derivative is a straight up upgrade in range, speed and warhead weight.
If I’d have remembered I’d have done a short write-up for the Tachikaze also, but this further proves my point, that when the USSR and US are getting their second missile boats particularly with dual-purpose capabilities, when no other nation has them (or at least credibly if you include that thing with SS.11’s), its not for lack of options.
Since updates to the naval polygon have stopped, I added a new battleship for testing.
Hitting Yamato’s secondary guns or anti-aircraft weaponry ammunition depots makes you keenly aware of how crucial the “fatalExplosion: false” setting added on the development server truly is.
Why didn’t the developers notice the fatal bug in the vehicle featured in the trailer at the time of the Leviathans update?
The same goes for Yamato’s limited compartment configuration of just eight—when implemented sloppily, it causes suffering.
1 Like
Have you been able to test whether shell room detonations are still fatal?
Last I remember, they would also be fatal regardless of ammunition load. According to the devs, the force of explosions from a shell room detonation should depend on the amount of explosives carried, yet some people had tested and were able to detonate Yamato by a shell room explosion with only 18 shells loaded, and even with 0 shells loaded.
1 Like
Unfortunately, I couldn’t create the mission before the Dev server closed, so I couldn’t verify the details.
However, on the Dev server, I fought with the Yamato and got hit in the forward secondary shell room, causing an explosion, but it didn’t sink.
I also saw a video where the main gun shell room caused a massive explosion on the Dev server, and even with additional explosions from the fire, the Yamato didn’t instantly sink from the explosions.
https://x.com/i/status/1964169580978589708
In that video, it sank because the pumping couldn’t keep up, but on the Live server, it would have sunk instantly from the explosions.
2 Likes
I see, hopefully it’s better when the update comes. That video is interesting, because you see two fire pillars for the first explosion, which typically only happens for magazine detonations, later on you get the single fire pillar for the shell room detonation.
I hope they also worked on her armor and the issue of nonpens detonating ammunition. It’s very annoying that they regarded a bug report about that to be a duplicate to the one you made about the ammunition clipping into the armor, which they didn’t fix (it’s beyond me why they won’t fix it and be 100% sure it’s not a problem rather than testing it and judging it’s not a problem).
which is especially funny because theres a certain ship in game which shall not be named which i have never seen dying from a magazine explosion. Just a hint since you mentioned the ammunition load and “explosives carried”: Its ap shells have twice the tnt equivalent filler of any other top tier battleship and its sap shells hold almost 90 kg of tnt equivalent. but somehow, yadayadayada the russian bs magic apparently doesnt make this giant tnt load rip the ship apart. while a yamato without any ammo dies you say? i see…
i could swear i have even seen them continue firing with the guns that just had a massive explosion right underneath them after some short “russian water removal” and some quick fixing. unless im hallucinating and already got ptsds from that fantasy crap.
Like, either you have shells with insane tnt fillers but you have a problem when those go boom or you dont. (or youre lucky and you were ahem…built…in russia)
Either you have shell storage rooms in the barbettes that can go boom but even with my very limited naval knowledge i would guess then maybe maybe those could go boom BUT you could have fire proof stuff in between that and the magazines (which could lower the risk of the fire and explosion spreading to the actual magazines) Or you’re the sojuz and just have shells and propellant just run straight from the magazines through the barbette to the guns through somehow invisible bulkheads so you can keep the shells moving even if the elevator or barbette is on fire, no problem. because fire never reach magassin, da comrade? because made in rossia??? and if fire reach magassin, no big problem, pump some water repair some gun, good as new.
1 Like