This bugged me enough that I had to look up some figures for it. Turns out very few ships have ever had a magazine detonation due to a shell exploding their ammo: Queen Mary Indefatigable Invincible Defense Bretagne Hood Hayate
More have had their ammo detonate due to being struck by a torpedo: Pathfinder Pallada Recruit M28 Pommern Suffren Armando Diaz Reuben James Juneau New Orleans Liscome Bay (aircraft carrier) Boadicea Unryu (aircraft carrier) Taiyō (aircraft carrier)
A few had their magazine detonate due to a fire (most likely due to shellfire): Raglan Leonardo da Vinci Tsukuba Kawachi Mutsu Barham
One due to mines: Halligan
And finally bombs: Marat Arizona Shaw Roma (guided bomb) Janus (guided bomb) IJN Yamato (possibly torpedoes though…it took a lot of hits before capsizing) Aikoku Maru (cargo ship) Nachi (possibly torpedoes though…it took a lot of hits before breaking into 3 parts) Kashii (possibly torpedoes though…it took a bunch of hits of both types)
And a there’s a bunch of ships that just exploded in port due to mishaps: Bulwark Natal Imperatrista Mariya Vanguard Etruria Glatton Kawachi Capitan Prat Maillé Brézé (cargo ship) USS Serpens (cargo ship) Mutsu Ukishima Maru
This isn’t a complete list, but as you can see the chances of blowing up due to being hit by a SINGLE SHELL are frankly impossible. Yet this happens on a regular basis in War Thunder. Even if this list is only half of the ships that exploded due to an ammo explosion, ~80 out of the hundreds (thousands?) of warships built between the start of World War I and the end of World War 2 is good odds (let’s generously call it a 1% chance). Yet in War Thunder, I suspect the reality is 30% chance because at least one of my ships will die to an ammo explosion every battle.
So what you propose?(Despite that is the game, not real life) But remember that some ships in game is barley killable from crew died out. And “hull structural integrity” was nerfed by community whine, caused by some bloggers and bugtracker moderators thought that will make ships too killable, but never tested it properly on dev server in match like environment and devs nefred it too much on feedback, so now it almost non factor. In game most of the ships die out on heat attack due to crew loss which is maximally unrealistic, but community itself killed devs attempt to change that.
I got idea how to change it but will post it after we look at patch changes at devserver.
Change for the crew loss mechanics. Currently, automatic flooding is triggered when 60% of the crew of a large ship is lost. At the same time, all repair options are disabled except for those already in progress (P.S. I am referring to the overall crew, not the percentage displayed in the interface for the opponent’s ship, as the survivability model is based on that).
This can be reworked as follows: when there is 40% remaining crew, disable all survivability options except for ongoing “repairs”(new one will not start) and propose the player to open the seacocks and accept defeat, but not automatically sink the ship. Then, when only 20-25% of the crew remains, forcibly flood the ship (there will be a chance for fires to cause an explosion, cook the crew, hull breaches to sink it, or continue fighting and firing from remaining guns depending on damage).
This would create in-game situations where “ship keep being a treat for long even it could not fight for survival anymore” adding more dramatic moments. Currently, 90% of deaths happen because the ship “died of a heart attack” due to crew exhaustion change will bring death from fires from flooding or ammo explosions over simple crew loss, and get some longer survivability for all big ships.
They should introduce a visibilty mechanic as in tanks, even a basic based on tonnage could do a big difference.
A small PT is not delectable at the same distances as a Destroyer and the latter is not as a BB.
this would be a very good change - the same should be applied to planes, they shouldn’t be able to target precisly by a 40mm Bofors many km away. Prev. the lead indicator on planes showed up only at close distances - and even then planes were not OP
Ahhh like at BR7 were crews are like minimum 40, destoyers are invisible?
You have like only one map that is 4X10=40sq klm and I just played on a 2X4X10=24 aq klm.
I had a full view of everything, so no it is not working as intended !!!
By the way, since you enjoy watching replays, go see that game.
I find it very funny that upon spawn I immetiatlly got under fire by a coastial BOT at 15klm.
Then lets have the same convertation once again, it’s same for 4.3 Jaguar, shooting heavy cruisers at 10klm.
This means I have to make a bug report for every dam weapon in NAB so NO!.
Are choosing to ingore these stuff or refusing to reilize that the game is not an early release ?
anyway it’s not surprising when you see how armor is made and work on ship in this game it’s ridiculously bad for a “realist” game at least on warship bow and stern is taken into account
What do I propose? Pretty damn simple: Turn down the chance of ammo explosions by a factor of 30! Pretty simple. There has to be a mechanic in the game that says “If shell hit generate a random number. If random number is greater than 30 (or some number), blow up ammo”. Start that chance at 0 and increase the chance by a tiny amount based on how many shells have hit the ammo. This eliminates the possibility of dying to an ammo explosion on the very first hit. Obviously this is over simplified, but let me remind you that I am not a Gaijin dev, I’ve never seen the source code, and War Thunder is not my game. It is not my job to fix their mistakes. They had a game that I enjoyed. I enjoyed it so much that I spent a couple hundred dollars buying things. They changed that game. I no longer enjoy it due to things like losing 3 top tier battleships in 3 minutes due to their changes. Their changes have made certain daily tasks virtually impossible. You mention a dev server, but it is painfully obvious that they did not test some or all of these changes. Certain bugs like being unable to shoot over terrain would have been caught had they actually beta tested. If I was a dev, I would test my code before pushing to production, and if War Thunder were my game, testing would be a requirement which a dev’s job would depend on.
You’re being a little rude and absurd. 5.3 out of 7.0 is not low. And again, it’s socially awkward to stalk a player’s stats to try to shame them.
Agreed. It’s not the community’s job to harass the developers into making the game enjoyable. It’s Gaijin’s job to find out what they’re doing wrong from that community. And Gaijin doesn’t exactly make giving input in the suggestions the easiest.
That’s the point of this post. To offer Devs of Naval a chance to understand what LARGE LARGE swaths of the community feels and wants.
Hey ,don’t get confused.
You are the NAB Messiah and we are angry paying customers so stop fooling around and make the bugs go away!!
By the way I don’t feel anxious, depresed or something, I just avoid playing broken aspects of the game until they fix them, as probably others too ;-)
it’s actually 5.7 out of 7 but it wasn’t looking good for his narrative ;-P ;-P
ps-> I bet his next post will have pompous SSs of his achievements, xaxaxa
A little disappointed there weren’t greater efforts to differentiate AB in Leviathans, with just the aiming gimped it’s still just the “training wheels” version of RB. I suspect we’ll see the inversion of the player base to the higher-skill mode continue. But making planes and radar somewhat more viable in RB was a big part of what was holding that back.
