Naval mode is finally dead

Game Discussion Arcade Battle
,
85

Since oct 2024 up to this day, I made a log of the games I played and what issues I encountered
starts here

the latest is

This last navy update tries to do everything but what was needed. I get it gaijin, you try to be realistic, and in reality most US navy projects made in the last decades were abject failures. Maybe try to implement the good parts, like fixing what the community is asking not the bull that makes everything worst.

Many thanks & much appreciation to all the users who speak up on this thread, mine and others.

6 Likes
86

I dont think aiming is that bad. Just gotta get used to it. Tho why are AAs tryna hit me from 10 km now?

image
image1139×846 46.2 KB

5 Likes
87

I agree Naval is all dead and all, but I think that there is a very reasonable reason for Gaijin to do this. Gaijin has made the game like no other games before it–no name tags in realistic tank battles, no HP bars…These are all elements Gaijin put in to make the game much more realistic. It is much easier to type in 10,000HP for KV-1 rather than having to model the gun, turret ring, etc. The gun aiming is simple, you can see where the barrel points. When they are all pointing where you are aiming, then you fire. Besides, WW2 battleships and ships had terrible dispersion; the smallest rounds on the battleships were 40kg, and they didn’t have laser rangefinders. It’s like tank simulator battles if you know what I mean; the gunsights are where they historically were, not directly in the gun.This makes in hard to aim, and a single man peeking out with no gunsights makes the huge turrets very inaccurate.

2 Likes
88

This is 100% absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. I don’t have the data on hand, but the accuracy of WW2 ships was incredibly good. I’m sure some the others in the thread here can post some data and facts, but you are just making claims with 0 evidence or support. When the actual real life battle results completely contradict your statements.

7 Likes
89

OK, it’s true I just wrote that up, BUT most top tier ships Aren’t WW2. There are WW1 Battleships too, and the guy didn’t say what ship. WW1 Ships were damn inaccurate, AND battleships were commanded by experts who’ve spent years training. Not what a WT player does. Let him off to the sea aboard the Bismark or the Schanhorst and he’ll learn how to snipe armoured carriers 20km away.

90

My effective engagement range is now 60% of before that FCS update. Ruined +1

7 Likes
91

That is not the point. No one asked for this.

3 Likes
92

Wholeheartedly agree.

3 Likes
93

I so totally agree, most of the Naval hate comes from those who don’t even play it. All that negative commentary is just straight up trolling. I put it in the same trash can as the rants that start off with garbage like "Warthunder will die in X(number) years ! ". Ideally posters should either make a constructive suggestion or get off the bus. But, it is their free speech moment , so, oh well …

7 Likes
95

Good point. I should probably just act like troll 🧌 back a little bit at them rather than actually taking the trolling seriously 😂
Cheers 🍻

HEADPHONE WARNING! 👇

(Sorry, accidentally deleted first post lul)

2 Likes
96

Alvis doesn’t know Naval from navel, but that never stops him from generating complete tripe. At least he is always consistent: Consistently wrong, consistently annoying, and consistently fatuous.

8 Likes
97

I play it.
here have a read, from someone who does play it.

4 Likes
98

The Iowas had gun sights in the turrets of the main guns where the gunners could check their aim. This was shown in the movie “Under Siege”. Also the whole point of games like these is the aiming. If the aiming is done for you, what’s the point? GJ really blew it on this one.

4 Likes
99

Aiming ain’t done for you just aim adjustments for your and target speed and directions. And yet you still need target maneuvers correction. So you have more time for prioritizing and choosing targets, maneuvers and strategic planning instead of staring and aiming at the point at sea.

2 Likes
100

EDIT#2: After re reading your comment, I am not sure if you are arguing for or against the idea that us “Captains” in game should need to do manual aiming. So, sorry if I misunderstood your point, and the following information can be directed at whoever thinks we should be doing manual aiming in game, especially in Naval Arcade. (IRL the Captain et all NEVER concerned themselves with aiming/leading, only deciding on which ships to fire on, and where they wanted the ship to move.) Cheers

Original post:
There were dozens if not upwards of 100 sailors on duty for aiming on an Iowa. Here is a video talking about just ONE of the plotting rooms, 18 sailors in just ONE of the plotting rooms. And there were multiple plotting rooms, and backups to those too. Not even counting the sailors in the rangefinders themselves:

There is another more recent video going through all (or at least most) of the rangefinding compartments, will edit when I find it in a few mins.

EDIT #1: Here it is, if you want to watch a veteran go through all of the various rangefinding/targeting compartments that again, were ALL filled with sailors during battle:
(I don’t think they even go through the plotting compartments in this video, JUST the rangefinding ones)

The point of all of this is that the Captain or whoever was in charge of deciding which targets to shoot at had nothing else to do but effectively say “I don’t like that ship, vaporize it” and the shells would start flying, immediately. The targeting and lead calculations were completed before the enemy ships where within gun range. There was no “aiming” done by the Captain et al, it was all taken care of by the dozens/hundreds of sailors who’s specific duty it was to handle all aspects of targeting/rangefinding/leading etc etc etc.

SO, “technically” the “realistic” way to play in game would be to simply highlight an enemy ship and only concern yourself with steering your bote around 😂 Not saying it should be like that, but the current Naval Arcade aiming system is actually far more “realistic” than the current War Thunder Naval Realistic aiming. So there 😝

(Please feel free to pick apart my arguments/evidence and how it relates the current state of the game. I thoroughly enjoy the discussions about our War Thunder Naval games, and IRL history, cheers bros.)

5 Likes
101

And he is not wrong, either. Snail has an infuriating tendency to “fix” stuff that isn’t broken, that no one asked for, making it worse while ignoring what the community has been asking for all along (Recent example the player card). It’s just that the “NAVAL IS DEAD, I’M NOT PLAYING THIS ANYMORE” proclamations do not add value either. I think it’s better to remain patient, and continue to offer constructive suggestions as opposed to foot stomping tantrums, which causes everyone to ignore the central point.

6 Likes
102

its not trying, its WILL hit you from 4km+ now unless you do some bullshit dodging maneuvers

4 Likes
103

they looked at all the feedback and suggestions and decided to ruin a perfectly good mechanic instead

15 Likes
104

I would be fine with these changes if they nerfed their accuracy against planes and firing range

2 Likes
105

yep. i have no idea who even asked or wanted bots to be laserbeam accurate and the new aiming mechanics. They could have done something about compression, bots, OP ships, ridiculous damage models (looking at you lowtier coastal DD damage model ships), and the atrocious grind, but they butchered the ability to fly a plane without being lit up at over 7km+… accurately… It was bad enough before with bots targeting and lighting up skies when a single plane spawned but now they are 10x more accurate

13 Likes