Naval mode is finally dead

[dragloon]

lots are not playing
because the troll had some silly ideas

[FuegoTigre]

Dog. I’m here post screens of players, IN GAME, talking trash about Arcade Naval Aiming. Get real. Please. Your Propaganda is WEAK, brah. Tell The Ministry of Truth you need more backup.

Naval mode is finally dead

Thought I’d do a couple more. No one is confused about what the problem is. …ok… well… one guy. [image]

[Kweedko]

Try harder. If you can’t out-argue me, why devs should even bother listen to you?

[FuegoTigre]

There’s no argument brother. Just your subterfuge and topic derailment. We’re all having a discussion and you keep interrupting it.

[FuegoTigre]

From the latest War Thunder FB post:

The players are making their voices heard… and Kweed over here trying to muffle all of them.

[Lauri_Heino]

You can’t out-argue an argument that was never there.

When people play AB, they expect it to work (at least approximately) the same way across modes.
When people play RB, they expect it to work (at least approximately) the same way across modes. (The single-plane lineups in RB are another topic altogether.)
When people play SB, they expect it to work (at least approximately) the same way across modes.

Someone who is used to Air or Ground AB is going to be sorely dissatisfied when they try out Naval and realize that all the skill and fun has been taken out of the mode by snipe-bots / kill-steal bots and full-auto-aiming. I know I was certainly wanting to start out on naval, expecting at least similar mechanics to other modes, or at least to when I last saw Naval in 2019.

Why would I want to play a mode that has all the fun automated away?

[Kweedko]

When new people come to game they didn’t expect anything except what was in advertising, they they come try and learn.

@Lauri_Heino

know I was certainly wanting to start out on naval, expecting at least similar mechanics to other modes, or at least to when I last saw Naval in 2019.

Wanting to start since 2019, keep on starting man.

btw. Your expectations it’s your problem.

[wolftale]

Let me put it this way:

When aiming in AB, you are the fire director:

• You are provided: range
• You calculate: target point (the end result)
• The firing computer calculates: relative speed in both axes, relative heading, lateral lead, vertical lead

When aiming in RB, you are the fire control room:

• You are provided: range, then periodic target speed and relative heading
• You calculate: lateral and vertical lead

In this case, AB is technically closer to life than RB in your role as CO.

The problem in my mind is not necessarily the automation of this process. In fact, I think it’s stupid that the so-called “firing computer” doesn’t give you rate of close in RB. Instead you have to guess on experience and crank the mouse wheel to provide the right vertical lead, which can lead to wild variation between shots.

The old AB system did all of this. The problem in the current AB system is that it relays the firing solution instantly to the guns with no ability to correct it, removing any sort of agency in where your shells go. This ironically makes them less accurate between two highly skilled opponents, while uplifting noobs that don’t need to learn how to lead and therefore get overwhelmed when they try RB.

[Lauri_Heino]

@Kweedko

When new people come to game they didn’t expect anything except what was in advertising, they they come try and learn.

And what’s in the advertising? Realism, accuracy, and tough-love skill attainment that would make Miyazaki blush. Y’all had all the handholding you could have ever needed with the old system, and you cry and you moan until Gaijin gives you a paci to shut you up.

@Kweedko

Your expectations it’s your problem.

My expectations are that people would actually want to learn how to play the game. If you want gameplay you don’t have to think to get good at, go play WoW and leave us to the game we were promised.

[Kweedko]

@Lauri_Heino

people would actually want to learn how to play the game

People who want to learn the game start playing and learning not arguing on the forums.

[Lauri_Heino]

So start playing.

[Kweedko]

Discussion that you played 3 battles to post on forums?

[FuegoTigre]

There’s nothing to learn, brah. I’m playing. There’s no game. Players PLAYING the game are ACTIVELY saying that there is no game AS they’re Playing the game.

…you’re just saying words.

Here, I’ll do it too. @Kweedko , how about you play a few matches before you start trying to have an opinion here. All these players are telling you you’re wrong. All you do is play Air Arcade. Try playing some Naval matches and you’ll understand what we’re talking about.

The overwhelming majority of players think the aim system blows. Revert the Hornet Aim Changes.

[Lauri_Heino]

He never played Naval until the day after Hornet’s Sting, when the aiming mode got lobotomized.
My man never once got to experience the original aiming mode at all!

[pooqich]

it all suddenly makes sense now x)

[Daffan]

@Bruce_R1

they have managed to get naval up to… 1.5% of random games played and <5% of players.

The gameplay is absolutely horrid. Straight up zero skill zero effort zero strategy zero anything. Torps useless. Planes useless. Auto aim. No movement gameplay. Horrific spawns. Bad maps. What is even going on at development side I have no idea. Complete RNG dmg model where the worst players in the game can 1 shot you from 10km away (At least in air/ground you can out-maneuver, flank, hide, strategize and use teamwork etc)

Skill ceiling is non-existent, which is caused by zero depth. The only people who like it are people who like boat-history and people who abuse OP ships against cardboard enemies. This is both NAB and NRB.

[SilentTracker]

@Lattrell_Spencer Heya fren! Are you still around/active? Since your thread has become the de-facto “main thread” about the current issues/complaints players have with Naval Battles, I wanted to see if you are still able to modify the tags for your post because this one only shows up in the Arcade section of the Naval threads:

@SilentTracker

@Rikers_Beard

The problem is that that thread is in the Arcade subforum. Naval also exists in RB. That thread needs to be non-specific for higher visibility. I never check the Arcade tag.

I will see if the OP can edit the tag, or might require a mod to edit it. I just know that every new thread like this gets closed in ~1 day lol. Will see what I can do 👍

If you are not around, or are no longer able to edit the tags, please let me know. Might ask a mod to edit the tags if possible so that both the Naval Arcade and Naval Realistic forum sections can see it.

And/or if anyone has a better suggestion/idea for the tags on this thread, please let me know. I am not an expert on the best way to tag threads for best visibility, especially within the Naval sections.

Thanks!

[Kweedko]

@magazine2

In the future (follow the news!) we’re planning some changes to how spawn points work for aircraft in Ground Realistic and Naval Arcade / Realistic Battles.

How does it work currently? To give you a refresher: if you spawn the same class of aircraft twice, the SP cost for the second spawn increases (so if you spawn an AD-2 and then an AM-1, for example). But it does not increase if you spawn again in a different class of aircraft — which effectively means you can spawn a fighter, attacker/bomber aircraft one after the other at the default cost.

How will it work instead? The spawn cost of the second and subsequent planes you spawn in Ground Realistic and Naval Realistic / Arcade Battles will be determined by the ordinance you used with the previously spawned aircraft, and won’t be impacted by aircraft class. As an example, if you spawn an aircraft with bombs, the cost to spawn another aircraft equipped with bombs increases, even if the class is not the same.

There will be effectively two types of aircraft spawns in regards to SP, fighters (aircraft of any class equipped with air-to-air missiles or no additional weaponry at all) and aircraft equipped with “Strike weapons” (bombs, rockets, AGMs, torpedoes, mines, AP piercing belts).

Two more specific examples include:

• If you spawn a P-47 with bombs (strike weapons) for 600 SP and get shot down, the cost to spawn it again with a backup with no strike weapons will be at the default cost (540 SP).
• If you take a fighter with one bomb (like a Spitfire), the next aircraft you spawn with strike weaponry will increase, and not for fighter aircraft with no strike weapons.

Overall, this changes the SP cost of additional aircraft spawns from a class-based system to a weapon-based system, which is much more streamlined and works more effectively with the intentions of the mechanic. The actual class of an aircraft is almost arbitrary, when it’s the weaponry that actually has an impact. In addition to this being an overall fairer way to distribute spawn cost, this will also result in less strike-capable planes in ground battles, as now it will be more difficult to spawn these aircraft multiple times.

You gonna get nerf for Aircrafts in Naval if you don’t say anything against it.

[Rupert64]

additional nerfs for aircraft in naval arcade is totally silly. But as it seems that the only voice that GJ is listening to is yours, @Kweedko there is no need to invest effort from others

[SilentTracker]

@Rupert64

additional nerfs for aircraft in naval arcade is totally silly.

I do not see it as a nerf. They are removing the separation of Strike/Bomber/Fighter classes, and making it solely dependent on load-outs. This makes more sense overall imo.

For GRB and Naval, there are some BR ranges where there are not enough different classes of CAS to use, thus severely nerfing your ability to spawn CAS more than once. With this new concept you could use a CAS load-out with ATGM’s, die to other fighters, and then still be able to come back in with that same CAS vehicle but with just AA missiles, since the spawn cost should be much lower than the first spawn in. Whereas before the Spawn Point cost goes up by 2x or something? I think this new system will be better overall.

The only question is precisely how many spawn points will be required, for exactly which load-outs, and if it calculates based on previous or current spawn. Regardless, those specifics can and will be tweaked I am sure, but I still like the sound of this new system rather than the simple and “dumb” system now that only looks at the differing classes for multiple spawn ins.

Further info/opinions:

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

It’s only really a change to repeatedly spawning aircraft with bombs. The first spawn will still cost the same as it does now

@Morvran coming in as always with some excellent info, insight and opinions, cheers brother 🍻

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

Only things that have been nerfed is that the US can’t spawn in an F15E and F16C with A2G fits and the USSR cant spawn in with Su30s and then Su34 with A2G fits. Most nations won’t notice a difference. It’s a good way to balance multiroles

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

No it didn’t. It buffed them imo. Before If I spawned in say a typhoon, and then died. I could either spawn in a tornado Gr4 or nothing at all because I couldnt respawn in a fighter. Now I could spawn in the Gripen or Typhoon with A2G and then respawn in the other with A2A. It’s also been a massive buff for the SHar FRS1s as they were erroneously classed as a strike aircraft meaning Britains only fighter at 10.3 couldn’t be spawned in after bringing a much better CAS like the Jaguar. Now the…

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

It’s become better balanced. This is a good thing. For 80% of nations, they did not have a powerful multirole CAS aircraft classed as a strike aircraft. This have those 2 nations a massive and overwhelming advantage

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

They might, they might not. THere is no guarantee that something like the Gripen D would A) be added to the game or B) be classed as a strike aircraft. Sweden is going to perticuarly benefit from this change because the highest BR Strike aircraft they have at the moment is an 11.0. They can now spawn in the Gripen A or C and respawn in the other with just pure CAP. This basically makes the Gripen A worthy to bring to a top tier line up. Its a huge buff for CAP and balances CAS

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

Not really. Im personally looking forward to this change at 10.3 because Britians ONLY CAP aircraft was classed errenously as a strike aircraft and now I would be able to spawn in a CAP after spawining in CAS At 9.0, It will change nothing for me, as I would use the Hunter F1 and Buc S1 as my CAS and CAP. Going lower like say 3.0. I can now bring a Typhoon Mk Ia with bombs and then respawn in a Spitfire MkIIA or Sea Hurricane. All of which are classed as fighters. Before I would have only be…

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

I thoroughly enjoy CAS in GRB but this is a good change. You should not be able to jump in an Su-30SM (a fighter) with a full loadout of KH-38s, get a stupid amount of easy kills from a very OP missile, and jump into say an Su-33 (a bomber) with more Kh-38s and not see an increase in SP cost. This is a really good change.

EDIT 2025.08.18: Comment/opinions from @Bruce_R1 , thanks Bruce 🍻

@Bruce_R1

The impact on NRB of the proposed CAS change next update will be minimal-to-positive, assuming they’re rigorous about having anything with good CAS in the “good CAS” category and not leaving something out. You have to do extremely well to generate enough spawn points for a second plane of a different type now, almost never happens, so making the second preferred spawn into a pure fighter spawn won’t change much. If anything, it’ll increase the number of fighters up from players with no boats left in their lineup… without targets they’ll focus on each other… won’t impact the battle good or bad most of the time.

The exception is things like Pe-8s in NAB able to bomb multiple targets, they often get enough SP for a second plane, especially if they started the game with a good SKR-7 or Pr.206 session. Not sure I’d miss that if I still played NAB tbh.

If they want to spice things up a bit, they could always exempt hydroplanes from the “added second spawn CAS cost” requirement for the naval modes, and get some interesting late-game cap plays.