Hello out there war thunder players and developers.
I would like to discuss naval realistic battles, how the ships look is about as real as you get. Please make a distinction between arcade and realistic. There is not that much of a difference. Here is a list of what I think is wrong, I would love to hear others ideas on the subject.
In war not every shot is going to be a tracer. Tracer act both ways especially at night.
Captains are driving their ships like tanks, especially the battleships, no navy doctrine in all of time has ever said stop you’re ship and hide behind a island and be able to move like a tank. If you read about naval machinery in large ships it was never meant to do this.
Damage for ships that are just standing still should be doubled. Read about ships that were sitting still and the damaged caused by hits it is double of a moving ship. Examples, pearl harbor, the French in North Africa, the British attack on the Italians. You keep you’re moving to lessen the damage.
Ships crew, yes they take damage and die and get wounded during fighting, but all naval ship have a infirmary and could return crew to duty this is not reflected in a game.
The BR BS, ships that would of never seen each other are fighting example I love using P.T. boats but I am fighting ships that are 4 years newer than mine that is ridiculous having to take a plywood boat and get shredded by modern weapons from the 70s and 80s.
Ship damage first off you make the smaller ships like cruisers and destroyers take a few hits and its game over I have seen shots take out 75 % of my crew in one shot. Read about Taffy 3 or the HMS Glowworm who took on the Admiral Hipper and almost sank her with torps then rammed her. While taking serious damage.
One shot kills, way too many of them, read through history shots are rare like this.
Ships from different eras have the same damage and fire control systems as modern ships. This never worked out for countries that modernized ships from WW1 to WW2. Read about the Hood, or the Washington vs the Kirishima.
Fuel consumption, this needs to be added to the realistic game. One if you are standing still you would use more fuel than moving. Also if your fuel storage areas or coal areas get destroyed that needs to factor in more.
Friendly fire just need to be activated in realistic battles.
Night battles will make it more fair for p.t. and patrol boats to get in the action
The fire control bug that so many players abuse. Where they can sit still all day in one spot and because they just go back and forth on your controls you confuse enemy gunners. naval gunner were way better then being fooled like this and would be making constant adjustments to the targets. Newer players and bots do not know how to combat this and it is not fair.
Thank you for reading and letting me rant. I have been playing since the beginning of this game. I am a average player at best, I have seen some good changes with War Thunder and many many bad ones. It is more pay to win, they have improved but at a snails pace. I understand you want to make money but I think you could make more by giving a good fair playable experience. I have paid golden eagles but still get frustrated. anyway let me know what you think thanks for reading and I hope all is good in your life, if not my friends the good is right around the corner.
Thank you for the response, sorry new to posting on here. My point being which you have made if you want it to be more realistic and different from the arcade changes should be made
Sorry first time posting.
Never said anything about banning players, just that strategy was wrong. Look up naval doctrine ships do not stop in battle.
Yes standing ships are easier to aim said nothing to the contrary, just that damage should be adjusted for still target.
I understand medics cant heal crew with large caliber, what about burns cuts and abrasions, read history amazing what naval surgeons can do.
that would be fine if you upgraded smaller ships damage so they could take more, again look at my sighting of history.
That would be the difference between arcade and realistic, battles already take a while and would be more fun if certain things were approved upon. I think time would be a wash because everyone would be using naval tactic to fight.
The map thing does not make since to me.
I understand targeting speed but when your gunners cant make simple adjustments. There is something wrong there.
Fuel consumption is a big deal, especially if leaks or destroyed fuel storage. You have coal ships burning the same as fuel oil and having the same consumption rate and efficiency.
Thanks for agreeing with that one.
Thanks again
There is a bug in my opinion, I could be wrong it has happened before lol.
Thank you for the response and reading, I love discussions.
Dai Bando
well, if it works it works, at the end of the day this is a game not irl battle, ground and air modes have both unrealistic tactics too
well I don’t see a point in doubling damage then
well crew loss means not able to perform duties, so not just a burn. Anything serious cannot be treated in 20minutes
well 20minute format is what wt operates on, and based on how many people play EC vs regular modes, majority of players dont want lengthy battles. So I would not expect any change in the future. Also even if scharnhorst dealt less damege to lets say usss porter, at the same time porter could still not damage the scharn, which wouldnt make for a fun gameplay. Also, majority of repairs could not be done on sea, but they are possible in wt, yet I don’t see you bringing up this point? :) At some point we should let game be game and not mirror of reality.
ships have lots of fuel tanks, destroying them all and waiting for fuel to spill would take longer than killing most ships, so I dont see a point modelling that
Yes it works, but this is supposed to be a realistic simulation. So make it more historical. Or add a simulator mode to Navy. But make more of a distinction between arcade and Realistic. I agree there are many mistakes with the models and tactics, but does not mean they cant improve.
When you look at history ships that are sitting still will take more damage historically, and sink faster
I understand crew loss, but when you look at loss of a crew they combine wounded and dead because they are combat ineffective. There is nothing distinguishing this so some crew could return, also repairs would be ongoing to the ship while fighting this is not reflected also.
Read about the HMS Glowworm and the Admiral hipper. Glowworm was able to have close quarters battle with a heavy cruiser 30 tons lighter than the Scharnhorst. Taffy 3 where 4 U.S. Destroyers charged a larger force made up of 32 battle ships cruisers and destroyers and damaged and sank some and were able to actually get close which in this game is not possible.
They do but there is a difference between coal and Fuel oil. Coal has to be shoveled first off so if you are losing crew this would diminish you fuel supply and would start problems in powering the ship. Fuel oil you have to consider men manning it, fuel supply system, back ups, fires which never happen on the water. Ships standing still use more fuel and if you hid behind a island and just went back and fourth not going anywhere or sitting will burn more oil and coal.
I think the arcade version is great for arcade type play but realistic does little to difference it self from it.
nope, this is a game, not simulation, and players will always choose tactics that work best for them, not the historical ones
they took more damage because they could be more easily aimed at… you said you get it but then you don’t
because wounded and dead are both combat ineffective
I know the story. Due to smoke and disorientation glowworm managed to get close to hipper, deal insignificant damage and then got sunk. events you describe are also rare irl. Again, this is a game, not real life, there would be no fun fighting 5.7 cruiser in 3.7 ship, BRs should be based on relative performence in game.
still makes no difference within game’s time frame
You are looking for more of a arcade no realism game play and that is good. But there is nothing for the historical player. War Thunder itself has said simulation. The game will never be real life I know this so mute point. Performance is not the best thing to place ratings on Does not make since. Lets take the Scharnhorst built in 1936, why would its performance be better than a gearing class destroyer built in 1945. The destroyer would have better fire control radar guided, modern torpedoes, better coms, better damage control, Better ammunition more maneuverable and comparable speed. Does not make since. Like the Alaska class that was designed to be able to take on the Yamato class Battleship and it was a heavy cruiser. Yet in the game the Alaska get its ass handed to it every time. Also why have we not seen North Carolina class and Iowa if we want to be fair. If we are going with that thinking then the Gearings served until the 2000s upgraded all the way. So would that be less capable of attacking the Scharnhorst, I think not. Same with many other U.S. Destroyers in this game that served into the 80s and 90s. Like I said you like the arcade version great but it is not realistic. The damage thing I think we are both misunderstanding what the other is saying.
You say it is mute point but then you go back to comparing it directly to irl…
Also there are issues with what you said
Gering irl would never pick a fight with scharn. Now irl gering forced to fight irl scharn within wt reality (so 10km apart and determined to destroy each other) would always lose. No amount of fire controls would change the fact that gering cannot pen scharn and scharn can shred gering.
Alaska was not designed to take down yamato and was scrapped solely because of its shit armor
Yamato is not in game, what are you talking about?
Man if I had a penny for every time somebody says we need iowa now… lmao
I have no idea what IRL is, The Gearing would not pick a fight but if it had to it could hold its own no problem. Radar assisted fire control helped win the war for the Allies. Look at Iron bottom sound Washington vs Krishima, Battle of Surigao Straight radar controlled fire won there too Alaska was not a stand up might but a maneuvering and fire fight like I am suggesting. You are solely looking at bigger is better, not always the case in many many examples in history. So let leave out the Iowa, what about North Carolina, Colorado, South Dakota class would have run rings around the Scharnhorst.
Not destroy, but disable…
Sling enough 5in High Explosive at the target while maneuvering and enough will be disabled or destroyed that Scharn would eventually be all but deaf and blind, which would give Gearing the opportunity to torp it.
Wow does nope erase history? Hell 2 destroyers finished off the Scharnhorst after giving supporting fire on the ship. You do know armor if you continual hit in the same area that armor will give away. That is what a destroyer is designed to close with small caliber and finish with torpedoes. The realism ends when the destroyers cant take but about 10 hits before they are done or be able to maneuver around shell shots. Taffy 3 sank 3 heavy cruisers damaged several other before being sunk by using this tactic. That is why I would like to see a difference between arcade and Realistic or make a simulator mode for naval.
I agree that naval RB needs a serious rework, here a few thoughts on your points
the fact that you can see naval shells coming and just sail around them is pretty ridiculous
I’m not sure how you would fix this issue, shallow water and reefs around islands maybe to keep the blue water ship in the blue water. Torpedos where a major reason for ships to keep moving but they are quite in-effective in game, for example the Japanese long lance is the fastest, longest range torp in the game, 91kph speed and 20km range… that means it takes 20 minutes to reach a target its max range… that’s the whole game. usually you are shooting at about 15km in game, thats still 10 minutes of travel time
I think that is more due to ship systems being shut down than the fact that they are not moving, if they are on a wharf running on shore power or running on axillary generators, a large number of their pumps that run either mechanically off the main engines or off steam from the boilers with be non-functional. not to mention that a stationary ship is easier to hit.
Counter point HMS Hood who took 1 hit from KMS Prinz Eugen then 1 from KMS Bismarck and exploded, sunk in about 3 minutes and killed all but 3 of her over 1400 crew.
The battle of Jutland if I recall correctly was notorious for British ships exploding after very few hits.
possibly, but that would cause serious balance issues as both the UK and USA had night vision on their ships from some point mid WW2 while other nations didn’t, having PT boats on a separate, what would you call it? counter for ships used I guess, so that you could pull say 3 coastal and 3 blue waters per match and move the spawns into better cover so that they could actually hunt the stationary campers around the islands would be good, as thats what they are designed to do, but currently they just get vaporized from long range
Scharnhorst’s accuracy at range would be far inferior to what a Gearing could manage at worst. Good luck getting a hit on a moving target that’s absolutely barraging you with accurate fire.
Its probably the same as aircraft fighters staying at 500m altitude in Air RB.
But this is same for airplanes and tanks. Gaijin doesnt care about year of introduction.
Problem with naval is that Gaijin added modern ships and boats, stripped them of their modern systems and missiles and then put them on 3.3.
No, too many idiots and too easy to ruin a game for whole team.
You dont want realistic battles. You want milsim tactics with arcade damage mechanics.
A shell/bomb hitting a stationary targets doesnt magically double the tnt yield and crew getting killed/crippled wont get magically returned to fighting condition.
Yeah no, 2 destroyers finishing a heavily damaged ship with almost no functioning gunnery, slowed down due to machinery hit is not equal to one destroyer soloing a fully operational vehicle. If you want to quote history, read into it. And no 127mm SAP shells could not penetrate Battleships armor even after time.
Not wanting anything magical, just more historical and realistic. Damage is more extensive if a ship is standing still, one being able to move and damage is absorbed through the ship. Another is the water pressure outside of a ship standing still will rush more water in, this is proven through history. Crew magically returning? Come on, on a naval ship you would have doctors corpsmen and damage crews repairing the ship. This would not be magic this would be repairing and healing which the game does not do. In history you have had ships fight without bows, Carriers so damaged, that they started to sail backwards and launch planes off the stern. USS Johnston DD charge 32 ships by herself closed and sank a heavy cruiser and damaged several more, before being severally damage and having to fall back. But was able to make repairs move the bridge and Captain Evans severely wounded stayed in command and steering from the back of the ship and got back into the fight in the middle of 30 enemy ships. This is the realism I am talking about. Not some magical heal all. So if I am in a ship and take damage, but I am able to disengage and hide, my crew just sits there not trying to repair or get men back to positions. Not realistic.
Most naval shells are tracers as the gunners needed to spot the fall of shot to correct their aim.
That’s a player thing, nothing we could do about that aside from introducing like new open-water convoy raiding gamemodes or something.
I don’t think that’s correct, a standing ship is just an easier target and therefore easier to hit but takes the same amount of damage.
Not modeled in game, and all that would be doing is like making the ship HP pool/crew pool larger.
Date based BRs only work with gamemode changes. A 1940s destroyer against a 1940s battleship in a 1v1 is a stomp fest no matter how you look at it.
As the other guy said, battles would take way too long otherwise. So either longer battles or more reason to stay in a crippled ship, as people’s patience is not infinite and it will be very clear when you are basically done.
Small maps and less range than IRL result in easy and accurate shots
They have different targeting speeds and gun training and different amounts of lead update time.
Matches are too short for this to matter
Could be fun but would also only work on bigger maps as the current maps are way too clustered for this
Still waiting for naval night battles
This isn’t really a fire control bug, the system is working as intended, it would be up to the player to see this and correct. But that’s a stupid tactic, however there’s nothing really we can do about it as this is somewhat a symptom of the current maps.