Not completely true, it depends where the flooding is located and what the ship it doing, if a ship is holed on the port side and turns to port it will list to starboard and raise the hole closer to the water line and flood slower then if stationary, if it turns starboard the hole will go deeper increasing water pressure and flooding.
if a ship is holed on the bow it will flood far quicker when moving forward than it would if stationary due the the pressure created by the ships motion, if holed on the stern it will flood slower Etc.
Flooding is also far more dangerous on real ships due to “free surface effect” that doesn’t seem to be a factor in game
2 Likes
I understand water coming in while moving but under steam the ship would condition z, ship sealed tight. My point being if you are sitting still and getting barraged by multiple ships while you are sitting still would be more damage by not moving especially at the water line where sometime you see 10 to 30 shells hit a ship and the ship shrugs it off like nothing. You do not even see the crew go down, concussions alone in the hull of the ship would be horrible, then leaks, also fuel tank hits are not serious in this game. Just wanting little more fair game play. I know it will never be perfect.
Your stationary thing is still arcade. I understand that you dont want people sitting still. But atleast stop pretending like your increased damage thing is realistic.
3 Likes
Honestly, naval RB as it is right now is fairly realistic. For a more realistic experience you gotta go to EC
That being said, my thoughs on each your points:
- This is fair, but honestly I think its fine to leave them for gameplay purposes unless you want to make it even harder to shoot things. A quick search tells me that many guns did have tracer shells available, like the US 6inch. Tracers were also used for main guns in night battles so you could tell who was shooting at who.
- This is a video game. Using islands as cover was something done in the Pacific plenty as well. I don’t see why this is an issue
- This is outright wrong - ships that are still, anchored or moored in harbor don’t take more damage, they are easier to hit. It doesn’t matter if 500kg of boom hits something while its moving or still its going to be 500kg of boom. Your examples are all examples of ships being easy to hit due to not moving or evading. Moving ships tends to accelerate flooding and make it more difficult to manage things like engine fires and repairs in general, in fact.
- You can consider crew losses in WT to be completely out of action. An infirmary aint going to sew an arm back on. Minor scratches and burns were never enough to stop naval crew members from continuing their duties, as many acts of valor have been recorded on warships. However, if you want a World of Warships style HP recharge ability on larger ships a case can be made for that in arcade.
- The BRs are built on capability. time frames don’t matter. I don’t care how fancy your 1960s PT boat is I can and will blow it out of the water with my battleship from 1912. Previous points you made about fire control and so on are moot. My favorite example of a destroyer having every advantage on a heavy cruiser and absolutely whaling on it would be Chikuma against USS Samuel B. Roberts. Chikuma couldn’t hit Roberts once, and Roberts whaled on Chikuma, emptying her entire ammunition and torpedo storage. At the end of it… Chikuma, damaged and most guns disabled, was able to steam away under her own power. Johnston later got split in half by a single volley from Kongo. (3 shells from Kongo hit Roberts, tearing a huge chunk out of her hull and sinking her) In a similar vein, any ship-to-ship gun battle in WT’s maps will always result in the one with bigger guns winning. Its not a matter of better technology, its a matter of theres only so much a 5inch HE or SAP shell can do against a 14 inch thick brick of solid steel. All examples of a destroyer successfully getting close enough to a bigger ship have a common theme: some kind of visibility factor. Whether it be Laffey charging Hiei during the Solomon night battles, Glowworm charging Hipper, or Johnston charging Yamato, it always requires some kind of visual distraction or cover and always ends in the destroyer sinking while doing scratch damage to the bigger ship. A Scharnorst will always flatten a Gearing, a Mutsu will always flatten a Des Moines. it doesn’t matter how fancy your electronics are, it aint gonna help against a 16 inch shell with your name on it.
- Ship damage is def something more unrealistic in war thunder, but I feel like its better to be able to end a battle in 20 minutes than to spend hours whaling on each other with nothing but scratch damage to show for it. Additionally, the hit rate in WT is far higher than in real life. Besides, destroyers have been known to get split clean in half by larger shells. The only reason Johnston took more than 1 shell from Yamato was because Yamato was firing AP shells, which essentially went clean through the thinly armored destroyer. A solid HE shell hit like what Kongo scored on Roberts would’ve split her in half in one shot. Theres plenty of other examples of ships getting split clean in half by gunfire.
- Instakills are rather common in WT yes. in real life they were entirely down to luck. This can be attested to the ease and accuracy of aiming in war thunder, as well as the closer ranges. While this can be annoying, it also is more or less a feature and some ships can survive ammunition detonations (looking at you, Helena)
- This is also wrong, newer ships have faster and more accurate aim markers and updates. Additionally, ships with modern air radar gain spotting targeting and lead indicators with them. Anything else comes down to player skill. Washington vs Kirishima was also largely crew skill. The captain of the Washington was a skilled sniper, and he trained his crew to treat the 16 inch barrels like giant sniper rifles. Washington registered one of the highest hit rates of all ships in the war, beating out many ships with more advanced radars.
- In case you didn’t know, ships could cruiser thousands of miles, for days on end. Also, fuel tanks are spread across the entire ship in many compartments. This is just a pointless addition. Adding it would do nothing aside from adding more file size and processing requirements which I personally am not a fan of.
- We don’t need friendly fire in realistic battles. Imagine some dude in a Shimakaze nuking their entire team in spawn just because. I shudder just thinking about it. It already happens in Air battles.
- Night battles would be awesome. Join the naval night battles waiting squad brother.
- There is no such ‘bug’. Engaging in evasive maneuvers is normal, and while this specific movement forward/backwards is unique to the video game environment of war thunder, its not difficult to deal with. All you need to do is bind distance control to mouse wheel (or other applicabble throttle button) and manually adjust fire without blindly relying on the lead indicator. The lead indicator takes the current speed at time of measurement and predicts based on it, it doesn’t factor acceleration/deceleration and previous movement patterns. Thats up to the player to deal with.
1 Like
i aint gonna read allat
1 Like
Thanks for the response.
- Oh yes they did have tracers, but being in the military you did not fire them all the time you spaced them for the targeting in the beginner then went off splashes. Later the allies did not have to worry about this because of radar targeting. Murphys law of combat tracers work both ways. I think the use is over kill, but could tone them down a bit. Naval gunnery was never that accurate to many variables involved. I know its a video game lol, just thoughts that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee.
- Ships did use islands for cover, but it was to move behind and escape or repair not to sit there all day moving back and forth like a tank. This would destroy naval machinery of the time.
- Moving ships will accelerate flooding but ships would be a condition z and water tight so would a sitting ship. Difference in this is a moving ship can shrug and absorb damage better then a sitting target. All naval doctrine is to keep moving altering course and closing and destroying the enemy. When you are sitting you have water pressure around the hull. I will see sitting ships take 100 shots in a game and shrug it off like it is nothing. The concussion of shells hitting below the water line would take out many crew, I do not think this is reflected. When you look at times when this happened in history the ship sitting has not faired well.
- In a wartime situation there would be walking wounded that would go back to station. USS Johnston closed on 32 Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers, not taking damage in the initial run. Eventually it was game over but during the time the Bridge was destroyed, and captain Evans wounded. The Johnston withdrew under smoke but was able to repair and Johnston with arm in bandages was at the back of the ship using the emergency steering to get the ship back in the fight which it did. One gunner on another destroyer kept returning to his positions with fatal wounds until he died. It happens I just think it could be tweeked. Are you going to get everyone no but some yes.
- People keep thinking I am saying that a destroyer is as capable as a BB. Not my point, in this game you cant get close enough to launch torpedoes or fire 5 inch guns effectively. my point these DDS had radar speed and maneuver and newer construction, and could evade like they did with Taffy 3. Yes Taffy 3 got destroyed but not before getting close and causing havoc. The point about time period is you have ww1 boats operating as efficient as a modern ship. The P.T. I like as built in 1940s other patrol boats I face were built form 60s on, my tech does not even come close to being fair.
6 I agree there has been improvements, Nothing drastic to the damage, still short battles. But some ships are way overpowered in this game. and yes destroyers split in half but when I can not get close because one shot kills 60 percent of my crew. Engines are taken out to quickly. - I agree with that just saying it happens more then it should.
- Agree with that but when you have many ships from different decades getting the same accuracy as more modern ship. Not good with me.
- I know a ship has a large amount of fuel been on many. But lets look at coal fired ships and Fuel oil ships. In a battle when a coal bunker is destroyed it shows no hindrance to to that ship. Men are down there shoveling this would effect there output more than shown. Especially when crew numbers are getting low. Fuel oil ships yes they have many tanks but tanks get destroyed and fuel has to be rerouted, tanks closed it is not something that is going to happen that very second. Also big chance with fire on the water or ship with as many high explosive flying. I just feel this could be reflected in some way.
- Then in a simulator mode maybe.
- Everyone likes that one lol.
- I know how to deal with it been playing long enough to figure it out but you see many players struggling with this, maybe not a bug but something to take advantage off.
thanks for the response good points.
13.switching from main guns to secondaries ,you can’t switch back so you have to either J out or play rest of the match like that.
1 Like
Switching back from secondaries to main is possible though, just navigate through the ‘Y’ menu
1 Like
- Fair enough. Personally the tracers make it more fun so it’s fine
- Naval machinery of the time could handle emergency full reverses just fine, as well as maneuvering in port. If we’re going down machinery restrictions we’d start getting into engine tune-ups every few battles as well and honestly war thunder is not the place for a naval milsim
- I don’t know what this ‘z factor’ is but I’ve yet to see you actually provide an example of a ship taking extra damage from a given hit because it’s sitting still and not taking extra damage because… It’s easier to hit due to sitting still. A ship is big. If you can hit a factory with a level bomb you can hit a moored ship. Moving ships don’t take less damage from getting hit, they evade hits. Ships that take plenty of punishment would take the same amount of punishment regardless of their mobility status aside from a few exceptions (where the bow got blown off and the ship reversed to port for repairs)
- These wouldn’t count as “out of the fight” in WT. Your example is a prime example of “the ship bridge got destroyed and command response speed has been reduced” which is a feature in game. They don’t “return” to battle (like HP Regen) they were never counted as “combat incapable” by the game. I can say with some confidence of a destroyer gets perforated by 15 155mm shells it will lose most of its crew and systems
- Taffey 3 had rain squalls, smoke, and other visibility cover. Additionally, Taffey 3’s encounter was unique, which is why it’s so famous. It’s also worth noting that Taffey 3’s destroyers didn’t sink any ships, and they were up against 23 ships not 32. Chikuma and Chokai both were sunk by aerial attack after the battle, and Kumano lost her bow but was able to reverse to port. Nobody knows how Nowaki sunk. They threw the Japanese formation into chaos because the Japanese admiral gave out conflicting orders and ships had to make drastic maneuvers to evade torpedo spreads. It is also worth noting in this battle all it took was one single cruiser shell to destroy the engine of the destroyers and destroyer escorts. Getting close to bigger ships in WT is really difficult due to lack of serious weather conditions; if it was clear and sunny Taffey 3 would’ve been removed from existence far faster and outside their combat ranges. The Yamato opened fire at 25km, and the cruisers were scoring hits at 15km. Also, patrol boats in general die the same regardless of their era. Some exceptions like the SKR-1 and 7, and the JDS Ayanami aside, things like the PG-02 will get ripped apart by a 40mm bofors PT boat from 1940 all the same
- Gun accuracy hasnt changed much. It’s all in the targeting systems. I can say with some confidence that the British WW1 15inch guns on the Hood and similar are more accurate than the 1940s 127mm guns on the Fletchers due to how barrel length works. Hell, it was Warspite using these same vintage WW1 era guns that scored the farthest range hit on a moving target ever.
- Fires are simulated already, and a coal bunker being ‘destroyed’ doesn’t magically vaporize all the coal. You look at history there’s basically no examples of a ship struggling to maneuver due to losing fuel via battle damage. It’s always engine damage. It’s also worth noting that in this game you can put a fire out in 15 seconds and repair a destroyed turret in 20. Irl it’d take minutes to hours to put the same fire out and a destroyed turret would require a return to port.
1 Like
you can switch back tho just press like alt + 1 or whatever your keybind is
-
Still a fun game just ideas
-
I know it could handle reverse and it was tough machinery. My thought is if you repeatedly do this, big engines will have problems.
-
Water tight condition. USS Massachusetts vs Jean Bart North Africa. USS. Arizona the bomb that penetrated and went to the magazine. The bombs they were using were armor piercing battleship shells fitted with fins. If the Arizona had been under power the bomb would of not penetrated that deep. Tirpitz sinking in Norway sitting still with air cover, sank with three bomb hits. Tirpitz under power and moving this does not happen. When you see a ship take 30 to 100 hits with no crew loss and it just shrugs them off.
-
I agree they have some great damage and damage effects, and understand the quick repair of a turret is a little far fetched. Big shells do damage to little ships. There are many instances when armor piercing shells passed right through the destroyer without any damage, taffy 3 this happened.
5 I understand this is a special case, in the beginning the USS Johnston had no cover and was able to follow splashes to get close enough to fire its torpedoes but other examples of actions like this. Suirago Straight, HMS Glowworm. This is where the tracer argument comes in if we did not have those destroyers could possibly get close enough to fire its torpedoes. Then die like most of the destroyers that have done this. -
With this thought, Later allied ships had radar controlled fire control this is not reflected. USS Washington and Kirishima at night, I know they fired at the other BB first but the Washington using radar moved and fired and was hardly detected.
-
Water will destroy fuel oil, it will also destroy Coal. Bismarck started leaking and ruined other tanks of fuel, had to head back to France. Nothing reflecting this in the game in my opinion.
Thanks for the response.
-
“repeatedly.” so what, a couple dozen times? far more times than what you’d usually get in a typical naval RB match and far more than a typical EC match. Seems pointless, as it wouldn’t even be noticeable as a ‘feature’ for the vast majority of games.
-
It feels like you’re taking correlation and turning it into causation. If the bomb that struk Arizona was a normal AP shell, she wouldn’t have exploded. The ‘modified’ shell was in fact a bomb, with several times as much explosive power as a typical shell of the same size due to lack of need for a propellant charge and ability to use the space for more boom juice. If the Arizona had been under power and she was hit in the same place by the same bomb, it would have done the exact same thing. Its also worth noting that, as a bomb, it comes in from a vertical angle, bypassing the armored belt and directly hitting the much thinner deck and horizontal citadel armor, allowing it to punch far deeper. Tirpitz sinking in Norway was due to being level-bombed by Lancasters dropping absolutely massive 12,000lb (yes, twelve-thousand) Tallboy bombs onto her since, again, she wasn’t moving so it was an easy target to hit. No battleship can survive getting bombarded by bombs of that size. Not to mention the bombs touched off her ammunition in much the same way Arizona exploded. Additionally, no ship can ‘take 30-100 hits with no crew loss.’ There always is crew loss. The only factor is that if the hits were small enough to where it doesn’t affect operational capacity. Many ships were able to take a beating before finally sinking, due to redundant flotation bulkheads, repair parties, and general size of the ships. This has nothing to do with movement or not. The Italian battleship Roma was sunk by a single Fritz-X bomb. She had previously taken multiple 2000lb AP bombs from B-17s while (stationary might I add) in port, and shrugged them off, but while moving and having been repaired, a single Fritz-X (which has far less boom juice than a pure 2000lb bomb) was able to sink her.
-
Overpenning happens in War Thunder too. Anything bigger than 6 inch AP against destroyers does next to nothing, and SAP is best. HE is jank and generally does too little damage.
-
Surigao Strait was, you guessed it, at night. The PT boats were able to sneak up under cover of darkness. Glowworm was able to use smoke screens much like Taffey 3 did to get closer to Hipper.
(Part 2) We have American radar control, American radars already update far faster than any other radar save for a huge difference in crew skills in game. American radars are also (as far as I know) the only (world war 2) radars to give lead indicators on aircraft (I head this from a friend, have yet to confirm myself). There are quite a few Japanese ships with radars in game, but none of them are good enough to matter or match up to American radars. -
Water will indeed destroy fuel… but not enough to matter within War Thunder. Bismarck turning around to France is cool and all, but it would have taken her hours to days to get to France… indicating she had enough fuel to sail for said hours to days. Again, any kind of fuel limiter in War Thunder won’t matter, since the sheer volume of fuel carried in these ships is far beyond what a small 20 minute RB or even 3 hour EC battle needs.
2 Likes
Don’t work for me
1 Like
I can appreciate that thanks for the response.
- All I am saying there is maybe it would stop the sitting and moving back and forth to much and hiding. Maybe something on a simulator level.
- Point being if you are standing still you will receive more damage. We can talk about details or our opinion. If I come at someone with a club and the stand still and let me hit them, they are going down for the count. If i come at someone with a club and they are allowed to move freely, and yes I could take them out, but more likely the person will dodge and counter to attack me. When I was in the Marines, military doctrine was to close with and destroy the enemy. That standing still meant death. Same in ground warfare as in ocean warfare, missile cruisers and destroyers today will move when firing. Still death, moving life. I do not know if the person was cheating but I had the Roanoke which can throw mucho shells at a target. But I was nailing his super structure while he was standing still and nothing.
- I know it does, just saying improve on smaller ship survivability some how, maybe simulator type.
- It was a morning battle, The were able to sneak up and close with something that you cant do in the game. Why doesn’t WT get rid of every other ship and make it more like Dreadnaught commander, might be getting that wrong. I know what you get in the game, there is not much distinction between arcade and simulator. I can agree about the fuel in a 20 min battle but increase map and battle area in a simulator mode.
yes, but it’s not because when you’re standing still the club does 2 times extra damage, its instead that by standing still you present an easier target and so are more likely to be hit
superstructure alone can’t kill a ship. its why all the destroyers that mauled battleship/cruiser superstructures got sunk while the battleship/cruisers were still mostly fine. you gotta actually hit somewhere where water can get into the ship for it to begin to sink
increase map area yes, but any map size increase will never be enough to make fuel matter
1 Like
-
I agree with the standing still more damage. Other people do not agree with me and I understand gameplay and it is not irl. Maybe a simulator mode.
-
I know it will not kill a ship, but it would be hitting open gun mounts, look outs, fire control, machinery. My hits were not reflecting that.
-
Maybe come up with some scenarios that could show this effect.
Ok so I get very clearly that you dislike players either sitting still or making small evasive maneuvers while mostly staying still, however none of your arguments for trying to prevent that are remotely realistic.
- Yes… This is what I have been saying. If you are standing still, it’s easier to hit you. There’s nothing like a x2 damage modifier due to staying still, it’s just a clean hit because it’s easier to aim at a stationary target. That’s all there is to it. As it is on War Thunder, this is already implemented. Ships that are still are both easier to hit and more vulnerable to torpedo attacks due to not moving. The benefit of staying still is you have a more stable gunnery platform, which, you guessed it, was also true in real life as shore bombardment was generally done while (mostly) still, or greatly slowed down from combat speed.
No offense, but your so called marine doctrine is irrelevant. Not only are Marines not sailors and are the land troops of the Navy, closing in on enemy ships was always done to get within gunnery and torpedo range. There’s no reason to close on on an enemy if you can hit them. In every battle you’ve cited except for Glowworm the destroyers always turned AWAY after launching their torpedoes. AWAY, as in, turning around and getting farther.
Also, shooting at the superstructure of the ship will get you limited results. The majority of the crew is below deck, not chilling on the balconies. The most you can do is generally injuring the command deck, messing with targeting systems (but remember many ships have multiple rangefinders spread out across the ship) and knocking out light AA armaments. There’s a reason all the destroyers who raked the superstructures of larger ships didn’t do much serious damage. There just isn’t much to damage. Most of the superstructure is empty, as a major part of its role is to get the eyes and ears of the ship higher up. I suggest aiming for the hull next time, doing internal damage is far better. - Surigao was at night, and I agree that war thunder is lacking in serious weather effects. As for fuel… You’d need a simulator battle bordering on 24 hours long to get any kind of fuel need. Ships never were immobilized in battle due to lack of fuel. If they didn’t have fuel they wouldn’t be sortied. Doesn’t matter how much you destroy fuel tanks on one side the fuel on the other side of the ship will be fine. Every example of a ship being dead in the water is due to something damaging or destroying the engines or propeller shafts, not ‘leaking out the fuel’. I do agree with expanding map size tho, Naval EC is great fun albeit somewhat dull at times as you sail for 30 minutes between points without seeing anything
Yep sitting still is easier to hit I’m glad we agree on this. No need for some damage modifier based on speed.
It’d be hitting light gun mounts (limited crew), fire control (usually redundant and spread out across the ship), machinery (all the important machinery is below deck so I actually have no clue what you’re referring to), look outs (see fire control), and all of these are almost impossible to actually see the effects of unless you’re on the receiving end and are getting said systems destroyed.
Scenarios? What scenarios. “Sail 36 hours from Leyte Gulf to Ironbottom Sound, engage in a 9 hour long night battle, and then return”
Seems rather impractical for a video game, no? Naval battles take place on the scales of hours and days, not minutes. Ships need to get across oceans without resupplying. The fuel storage ability is super large. I don’t know why you’re so insistent on fuel limits like in air RB but it’s not realistic in the slightest
2 Likes
You are correct. During battle stations 98% of the crew are in other places in the ship with the Commanding officers and Select enlisted being in the Bridge at any given time. Aiming at the Super structure would jsut be for removing Commanding officers/ Steering/ Or Communication from Ship to ship /crew. Which is what those ww2 Destroyers were aiming for.
- No they arent tracers but you can think of it as your gunnery officers taking in the distance of the “splash”.
- I mean youre correct…but most ship battles dont take place in a cluster of islands where you can see the enemy ship. It’s a video game some liberties need to be taken. And if they could you deff know they would hump and island and fire at the enemies decreasing their chances of being hit.
3.I also agree with your statement on 2x damage is jsut silly. Ships arent taking MORE damage because they are standing still its because the ship is easier to hit. A moving target is always harder to hit with the changing of direction/Angles and Having to readjust the guns. A target in port (the french fleet) you can just set the distance and pelt away.
-
Naval Corpsman cant cure fragmentation wounds. Most of the time people are taken out of the Fight and given triage. I dont think the game has a system of Seeing whos “green, yellow, red, or black carded” so this wouldnt work.
-
This i will agree with. I have been stating for years Coastal needs to be treated like Air/ground battles. No Bluewater in coastal but take your PT to coastal and be the menace you always wanted to be.
-
thats realistic…Being Pelted with a 16 inch Shell in a Destroyer would Knock her out pretty quickly.
-
we have advanced targeting systems in game and are not using binos and a guy named jerry to see where our shells are hitting. Of course theres going to be more one shots.
-
Yes but again…its a video game.
i -
the flecther class Destroyer in ww2 had a 6,300 miles at 15 knots If you think your moving 6,300 miles in a battle that battle went really wrong. (i know were full hoofin it in RB so its less but its not 6300 miles less)
-
I mean…sure but also why?
-
this one im not against.
-
dnt know of the bug.
1 Like