we all know exactly why
1 Like
I’ve won plenty of games at 4.7. If anything, having a coastal vessel in a mixed lineup is an advantage.
Once you secure the caps, you put the slow, heavy battleships on a timer.
They rarely push for objectives and usually just sit behind islands, so controlling the points forces them into a losing position.
2 Likes
Why, please explain ???
Bots!
3 Likes
Or you get that one 5.3 player that is doomslayer incarnate and makes the entire enemy team’s lives miserable, victory not.
Another report on Littorio is in the trash bin, I guess we can forget about these ships.
" The report was based off incorrect understanding of the sources and physics of ballistics.
- 50% zone ≠ dispersion size
- User intuitively assumed guns must having smaller dispersion at short ranges is incorrect. The spread of shells in range can be determined by not only the deviation angle from the barrels but also the trajectory of the shell, e.g. at short ranges the projection of CEP on surface becomes an extremely flattened ellipse due to shallow angle of fall. With the increase of range, the major axis of the ellipse becomes shorter despite the CEP itself is expanding. For most of naval guns, the spead in range is the greatest at short ranges, then reduces with increasing distance, only to increase again near the maximum range.
Currently dispersion parameters of naval guns in game are adjusted following real life data at around 15km firing range. With correct interpretation on information provided by yourself, dispersion of Italian 381mm guns in game is actually smaller than in real life.
Not a bug."
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9Xdpgo1FGZIW
2 Likes
Funny that in those docs horizontal to vertical spread ratio is from 6/1 to 20/1 when in game is 0.6/1 to 1/1(which is quite opposite to IRL, so in game we have bigger vertical dispersion rates than horizontal ones while IRL horizontal is always bigger in times).
And spread rate is different for all shells while in game it tied to gun not to shell and therefore same for all of the shells of the same gun.
So that quote is far from truth.
jesus
500 for 3 kills lmao, this is peanuts
im sure this is on purpose so that grinding events wont be as easy
1 Like
also the amount of research points for modifications is ridicoulos high for rank V ships and boats. Often one needs more than 20 good matches to grind only one mod.
1 Like
Naval’s problem for players and new ships is the inability to actually fight back (most ships have HE standard) at higher tiers and the lack of maneuverability (rudder mod) to even evade against ships that will likely target them.
At low tiers it ain’t so bad but once you start getting to 6.0 it becomes brutal.
Naval is already a struggle for the new player and the tutorial does nothing aside from tell you ‘here’s buttons that do things’. If that.
My solution is such: expand the tutorial substantially.
- Properly explain fire mechanics.
'Fires are one of the single biggest dangers a ship’s crew can face in combat. Where a fire is located also drastically increases - or decreases - its potential threat level as well. A fire in a turret or an ammunition elevator can climb towards the magazine and cause a detonation. A fire on deck can safely be ignored until more important procedures, like unflooding, be completed.
Fires in machinery spaces (like the boiler rooms) can be a death trap if left alone, and precious crew can be killed rapidly without first putting the fires out if attempting to repair.
Firefighting can be prioritized to fight fires first and foremost. (Damage control can be switched to a different version in the hangar menu and is the 6 key by default with this version)’
- Properly explain flooding mechanics.
'When a ship is hit by a torpedo, bomb or shell, a hull breach can occur. Depending where this breach is, the ship will take on water and lose buoyancy (in percentage). As the ship takes on more water, the ship can list in a variety of directions and affect aim or even gun angles.
The faster a ship is moving when the breach occurs, the faster it will take on water. The opposite is also true. If you are stationary, you will take on much less water than if you were moving.
Detonations from ammunition (shellroom, magazine, etc) will often also result in hull breaches.
If the ship reaches zero percent buoyancy, the ship will sink. Note that extreme listing, if not corrected during the timer, will also sink.
Please note; breaches will first be repaired and then unflooding will begin. Should the unflooding process be cancelled, the water will remain but the breaches will be fixed and whatever buoyancy percentage your ship was at will remain. In the example; you flood to 30% buoyancy. If you unflood to 50% buoyancy and cancel, you will still stay at 50%.
Beware, a ship that loses three total sections (barring the frontmost bow and rearmost stern) will lose the ability to repair flooding and eventually sink with ‘Unsinkability Lost’ appearing on screen.
Flooding can be prioritized in damage control settings to be repaired first. (If using the alternative damage control, 8 key is the default)’
- Machinery repair (repair party) explained
'When a ship takes fire, various equipment will eventually break. The repair party will require time to fix - and re-man - these damaged components.
This comes with various risks; repairing while under fire will waste precious crew while any fires onboard will also send crew to their deaths. A ship with roughly 8% total crew left will start to scuttle itself (Some ships start scuttling at as high as 10 or even 11% and I have had a few matches where I got as low as 6% while still ‘fine’).
Repair party, like the other forms of damage control can be prioritized to repair first but is the least detrimental to a ship unless you need something specific. (If using the alternative option, it is the 7 key by default).
4 Likes
I don’t like double posting but given the length of my last post and recent playtime, an addition to the tutorial proposal:
Ammunition:
A ship can only hold so much ammunition, be it main battery, secondary and tertiary (Anti-Air) ammunition. While the captain (player)cannot select how much tertiary their ship can carry, they can opt to change ammunition loads for their ships.
Those who have played ground will know the next bit; very few ships are recommended to carry the maximum possible for the reasons below:
- Less ammunition affects the explosive force of a magazine detonation.
Self explanatory but for those that don’t understand; Say you have 1100 41cm shells with 11.32kg explosive filler in your magazines throughout the ship. That’s a total explosive payload of 12,452kg in your ship.
Now let’s cut that amount down to 550 shells. That’s now 6,226kg total laden throughout the ship. This change can mean the difference between a respawn screen and simply the unfortunate loss of a turret or two.
This becomes increasingly silly when a ship like Tosa can lose upwards of four magazines and still be combat capable.
- Unless in extreme cases, you will often never need full magazines.
Very few ships will burn through even 50% of their total magazine in combat. This is even doubly true for battleships where you can fire all match and maybe go through a third of your total ammo.
Personally, I only ever went through a Yamato’s full magazine once and it was an EC (Enduring Conflict) match.
I’d argue Destroyers are a bit of an exception as they have very little armor to begin with and if they take fire, they’re probably dead anyway.
1 Like
Since this seems to be the general gripes against naval thread, I’ll add my thoughts here after grinding the British naval tree with only the Vanguard and Battlecruisers from Queen Mary to Hood left, barring Renown which I have.
Up until the 7.0 Marlborough I was doing fine, did not see anything blatantly bad aside from the general poor maps.
Then I got the Warspite. I’ve found I am actually LESS durable in matches with an initial salvo typically crippling the engine and wiping out ~20% of the crew.
Someone I know actually tried out the Warspite and compared it with the Barham in the 1916 config of the QE class. It actually seemed more durable than the Warspite. At the moment, he is of the opinion that the superstructure of the Warspite ends up basically being a crew sink. Along with the strange difference in durability, but perhaps that is because the Warspite goes up against the super top tier ships like Yamato, SS and Iowa.
I constantly face Sovetsky Soyuz’s against which the 15in shells, which already seem anemic, become nerf guns.
I’d like to ask if anybody else has the Warspite and if they have the same experiences as I am having, especially when it comes to the durability and guns. The last time I used the 15in Guns was when Renown came out and they seemed fine back then.
1 Like
Soyuz can shrug off multiple 41cm salvos from Mutsu, Amagi, Tosa and Nagato and can often ignore them in order to deal with Iowas, SoDaks, other Soyuzs and Yamato class.
7.7 dreadnought that commonly sees the most dangerous ships in the game. Barham at least has a chance against Bismarck and Amagi.
Anything else is arguably a death sentence (Nagatos, Tosa)
Edit
British naval line honestly peaks at 5.3. everything after is misery.
1 Like
Another! Doublepost.
Because I’m now pissed off. A Soyuz just mag detonated my Musashi with 20 or so rounds left spread across 3 magazines.
90% or so crew left.
Flooding? Nope. Fire? Nope.
Just instant death.
What is the god damn point to taking less ammunition in an A140 if I just instantly die anyway?
4 Likes
I was almost considering getting Nagato, thank you for reminding me how worthless the Yamatos are so I don’t waste the time, money and effort to grind them xD
1 Like
Nagato is alright. It’s really squishy due to losing upwards of over 30% crew per boiler hit though.
I’m not mad I was mag detonated, I’m mad that instantly killed me with maybe 9 to 15 shells left in the front magazine and maybe 87 shells of secondary ammo left (left 15.5cm turret)
2 Likes
Yeah, Nagato herself seems great beyond the crew thing, but the main goal of spending money on her would be to use her as a tool to grind the Yamatos; so the Yamatos being as sad as they are, they don’t feel like an endgame worth going for, hence Nagato would be a waste.
Think its not “often” but pretty much every time, dont think ive seen a ammo rack in some way where they didnt flood afterwards.
This is a Ship specific thing, i think most ships dont actually drown from extreme listing [because most ships dont sink in a way where this even gets enabled] (the only one that i definetly know off where this happens is Dunkerque and Strasbourg, could also potentially be happening to Richelieu and Clemenceau tho).
I swear this is also a Ship specific thing, ive died several times already where the only sections i had lost were the front 3 for example.
There is a timer from extreme listing, it can be seen with quite a few ships in arcade. However, it’s fairly rare (as in I have yet to see it aside from bot ships in test sail) for a ship to die to listing timer. I think I’ve had it happen once and that was in a trenton.
It isn’t. The tip of the bow and stern are the two that are exempt from the rule. Oddly, some ships seem to be a bit buggy with the mechanic as they’ll sometimes require more than three to start flooding to death. Had a Rodney that lost four sections before the process began and an AI Alaska that hit 0% buoyancy for almost 5 minutes straight while also taking fire from a musashi and a Nagato before it finally sank.
Yes, 0% buoyancy. For nearly 5 full minutes. While also under fire.