Send your suggesstions for the improvements in the naval mode into the 2024 Survey

Machinery of War Discussion Navy
,
2

What I sent:

Naval:

  • Change how the weapons are aimed, perhaps make it more similar to WoWS, or create a whole new system? Aiming in naval (and the lack of ability to aim certain weapons, like rockets, hedgehogs, mortars) is one of the biggest obstacles in getting people engaged into naval.
  • Move spawn points and/or redesign naval maps with one fundamental principle: it should be impossible to directly spot enemy ships from your spawn point. I would also recommend removing open sea maps from Naval Arcade Battles ([Conquest] Jungle, [Conquest] La Manche, [Conquest] Denmark and [Conquest] Midway) - these maps fit the realistic theme of the NRB, but give a very bad impression in NAB.
  • ^ these two, aiming and map design, are by far the most common issues I hear from people trying the mode and quitting it. Please, please, please address them!!!
  • Decouple Naval BRs with Airplane BRs in naval modes and extend the BR range for naval to reduce compression (e.g. allow bluewater BR 10.0 fight with BR 7.0 airplanes - perhaps on the tech tree simply display which plane BRs match to which ship BR?)
  • Add torpedo ricocheting. Add a simulation of the bow wave with all the effects it does to the mines and torpedoes.
  • In-battle toggable Torpedo Mode for the torpedoes that had them.
  • Make torpedo tracer variable, depending on things like the torpedo motor and its speed.
  • Make it easier to destroy the moving torpedo if spotted (so now that we have torpedoes which are more difficult to spot, make it also more likely and more rewarding to counter them when spotted)
  • Work on the maps so that they would actually have depth in them (currently a lot of maps simply have a chasm right as the islands end). Allow deploying moored mines only where water is shallow enough for them to anchor. Add bottom mines, and allow player to choose which kind of mine he/she would like to deploy.
  • Coral Islands map - please, redo it with a quality textures. Right now it looks like something pulled out of WTMobile.
  • Add surface-search radars for the vessels that had them
  • Introduce non-spherical Radar Cross-Section for all modes (Airplanes, Ground Vehicles and Naval vessels should have a significant difference in the radar signature depending on the heading - e.g. looking at a fighter from the top should be far easier to spot than side-on)
  • And finally: Improve damage control. Add longitudinal bulkheads. Perhaps let us open a whole new screen during the battle to control specific priorities for our damage control teams.
6 Likes
3

I added the changing of the armament of aircraft when landed at an airfield, as it’s very important for naval realistic. If I spawn in the air with a high-altitude bomber, I prefer ginormous bombs (or even the FritzX when playing Germans), but if I land, I don’t have time to get back to any useful altitude before the battle is over, so it would be nice to be able to switch to torpedoes.

3 Likes
4

I think it is time to consider bigger ships or modern ships, like the big seven or even anti ship missiles and guided torpedoes . still , the missile mechanic need to be researched carefully before they added to the game.

1 Like
5

What I sent

・Sea wake improvements.

・Add HP to the horizontal armor of the navy.

・Give the Japanese Navy the ability to fire its main guns alternately.

・Added “fire” to navy voice.

・Divide the bulge into sections.

・Divide the flooded area vertically as well.

・Add weapon switching button for navy and army.

3 Likes
6

Say question what do you mean by the Japanese armament being fired alternatively?

7

I’ll probably put a word in on this survey tonight but.

Question isn’t WT’s aiming systems more advanced than WoWS since you’ve gotta account for not only the enemies speed & direction but also your own ships speed & direction meanwhile iirc with wows it’s only your enemies you must worry about.

Also speaking of fixed mortars most are set to a range so a Hedgehog/ RBU-600 is 600 metres ahead & rockets are rather easyish to aim with your standard aiming UI (of course the old UI was superior to the new one imo for hitting rockets).

TBH, I’ll probably type up points about ammunition costs, different DM’s, certain repairs meeting to the effectiveness of a vessel over the current rank based system, proper naval classification of warships (Ohh the joy that there’s a destroyer that can be subjected to AI LAA fire because the devs called it a poxy frigate), request of RP/SL requirements of certain vessels (it’s funny to think the LCS was once 14k rp but now is 250k rp), addition of riverine maps for certain vessels, mechanics for less wave action in shelter areas, Certain ships corrected to reasonably BR’s due to their effectiveness an so on.

8

To answer the questions:

Sure, but the sheer fact that all you do is aiming crosshair in vague positions below/above/left/right to the enemy ship is extremely unfriendly to the newcomers. Personally, I learned it, and oftentimes I can hit enemies with a first salvo without aim assist, but for the newcomers? It’s a huge, huge obstacle to overcome, especially in realistic, but even arcade is needlessly problematic.

Support is always welcome: [Naval] Add aiming reticles for depth charge mortars & rockets
Generally, no weapons should be firing without any remotely adequate tools to aim it. You know that it’s 600m, but how a new player is supposed to know this, or even how is one supposed to know that it’s a fixed weapon? And where the 600m actually is in relation to your vessel? There’s nothing anywhere in the game interface that tells you any of that. (Heck: There’s nothing in the game interface that tells you which mortar you even selected (e.g. when your vessel has multiple depth charge mortars))

2 Likes
9

While I really really don´t like current UI and I think that it should have been reworked. I dissagree that the current system in its core is too complicated.

IMO the only difference when comparing it to WOWS is that you need to take into account your own velocity .
Thats all, the other differences are mostly “cosmetic”, the WoWS have advantage that the camera flyes up 100-200 metres so the range correction is more obvious and the ranges in WoWS are extremly out of scale.

I think that if we got better UI (which they might be working on) and good explanation in tutorial (or F1 help) it would be enough.

10

That’s the main theoretical difference, but I don’t think it’s the most important one.

More than the bird’s eye view, I’d say the biggest difference in WoWS is that the shots are basically 100% accurate, that is, the shells land centered exactly at the point of aim. Whereas in WT, even when taking completely stationary shots at targets (like at the training room) you can have shots that miss completely by falling too short or too far

1 Like
11

The WoWS has large disperssion patterns. I would say the the WT guns have in fact smaller disperssion since we are actually able to directly aim at certain modules.

2 Likes
12

Wouldn’t a NAB need an open sea map even more so?
Since name tags are displayed in NAB, removing the open sea map would create a strange naval battle where ships shoot at each other while pistoning behind islands.
Also, long range torpedoes such as long lances will be blocked by islands, allowing larger ships to stop and keep firing. This would make no sense to make naval battles a game.

1 Like
13

I’m not sure I understand your point. Majority of the maps are like that: Shooting at each other while positioning behind islands.

Also: There’s that middle ground between having maps that are a tight maze of islands, and zero cover, the moment you spawn the entire enemy team can lock on you. See: Fiji, Franz Josef Island, New Zealand Cape, Volcanic Island, Norway for some good balancing between the amount of islands and the amount of open space on the map.

Open sea maps are one of the most frequent complaints I see about the Naval mode. They are realistic, so they make sense in NRB, and this is also why I don’t want to see them removed completely, but IMHO they have no place in Arcade.

Do you even play War Thunder Naval? Everything you said makes no sense to me.
Having a semi-open areas or a long stretches of open sea between islands creates great locations for laying down torpedo walls. See no further than North Port, where people regularly dump torpedo walls (when going for C in particular) even though on this map you spawn (almost) without seeing the enemy spawn (that map is actually one that needs some of the least invasive fixes to make it perfect).

14

Do something for the french navy.

Every time I play the French, regardless of the moment in the battle or the place where I appear, it’s the same thing: I am immediately targeted.

After two enemy salvos, I lost 60% of my crew and half of my guns. When I responded, I had the impression that the shells, HE or SAP, did nothing. Torpedoes, when there are any, have no advantage… French ships are only XP offered to the opposing team.

And proof of the lack of interest in gainjin for the French: they don’t even bother to make the model on the catapults.

1 Like
15

I don’t think the open ocean map should be deleted because I don’t think that situation resembles a naval battle.
Even if it is NAB, we should keep the open ocean map where you can play the most naval battle-like game, and you can add diversity to the map.

It is important to note that people who are not dissatisfied do not comment, but those who are dissatisfied do. I don’t think it makes sense to remove it from map rotation at this point.

What you described is a situation that rarely occurs in reality. In reality, the ship moves behind the islands without passing between the islands where a wall of torpedoes could be placed. Even if there is a place to place a wall of torpedoes, by the time the first wall of torpedoes arrives, the actual NAB is camped behind the island.
The proof of this is that the usage rate of Shimakaze and Yugumo-types is extremely low in maps other than close-range combat maps such as Africa Gulf (Domination) and Norway (Encounter) or open ocean maps. If your theory is correct, Shimakaze and Yugumo types are used in many more maps.
You should actually become a torpedo spam monk in IJN DD and know the current situation.

16

Cheers, thanks for clarifying your point of view. I totally sympathize with the realistic PoV, which is why I think it would be best left for Realistic battles, while Arcade should be fun-first, and IMHO there’s less fun in shooting spawn-to-spawn.

And while I agree “that people who are not dissatisfied do not comment, but those who are dissatisfied do” - it’s a very good point - I would note that I’m not looking to keep the current playerbase who is happy with naval, but rather expand the number of active players in naval which is why I put so much more weight on people who do not pay and their reasoning behind it, than I do for those that are already happy with the mode.

If it helps, my suggestion from about a week ago was approved - it includes some ideas of how LoS between spawn points on the naval maps could be changed and some options for you to vote:

17

The fact that it is already the case doesn’t mean that it is good. I would even say that it currently happens because the is no better alternative how to survive and do damage other than this style of gameplay. And I would expect that if we were able to play less statically many players would prefer that.

I would say that some of the maps you mentioned here are actually some of the worst maps ever, especially the Norway is atrocious and Fiji is also very very bad.

Norway (as well as the African Gulf) is the example of spawn to spawn shooting and it is made worse that there is no space to get away from it.

Fiji also doesn’t have much cover and the map layout is objectively bad (as is the layout of Volcanic Island, North port)

I will say there is one flaw with the suggestion is that it actually doesn’t really solve the issue, as long as the maps are as small as they are right now.

The Norway, Fiji and North Port are great examples why. In all these the requirement of no LOS between spawns is met but it doesn’t help. Especially in case of Norway you leave the protected spawn in not even minute and you are left in direct LOS of the enemy and with no space to hide/disengage.

In case of Fiji again you leave the protected spawn after few seconds/minutes but at least here are some spaces to hide or to disengage. But the Fiji has different problem more severe problem and that is absolutely stupid cap layout (same as North port or Volcanic Island)

And North Port has same issues one side of the map is so cramped that not even DD can maneuver there and the other is shooting gallery.

IMO there is no solution to this problem then reworking maps (and in best case also the gamemodes) so the maps can be bigger and provide more ways and more space to maneuver and to pick the fights. For current late BR cruisers (not even mentioning later BBs) the maps are way too small.

As for AB and RB decide I would say Gaijin should make both modes fun, and so the realistic but unfun maps really shouldn’t be in game. I would say that the distinction should be more in line AB = faster pace, RB = slower pace (and therefore allowing more realistic gameplay).

I would say that maybe AB can keep cap points (with improved maps) and RB should get more AI based objectives (like in the battle of the Atlantic). Of course if AB players would want such modes they can get them too.

1 Like
18

I agree with everything here EXCEPT with the aiming, it’d be far too easy for the more experienced naval players who know where the ship magazines are to just point and click on it and instantly kill the enemy ship. With the current aiming mode, you at least need to aim to counteract the fact your ship is moving in a certain direction. And if that’s simply too much to handle, you can always reduce speed so it’s not as pronounced.

1 Like
19

Sorry. I will state first that I am using a machine translation.
The IJN could not fire all main guns at the same time until the Nagato type battleships underwent refit work.
This was due to the performance of the parked aircraft, which was operated by water pressure.
As a result, each turret had to alternate between firing the right gun and the left gun.
This had the effect of making deviation shooting easier and improving accuracy, since instead of 1/2 the firepower, the firing interval was also halved.

20

I’d suggest for RBs and the aiming system:

In general, to create an option of disallowing mouse moves to change the elevation (so, shot distance). Moving the mouse to change the asimuth and inadvertently changing the elevation is one of my biggest griefs with the new aiming system.

The range closing/opening automation might stay or be gone. IRL it was present on Russian (so, supposedly ‘backwards’) battleships in ww1, and yet we have mostly midwar, ww2 and early cold war vessels. But I just never could make it work in-game.

The RBU mounts and the likes of those need some sensible aiming means. Preferrably some sort of surface hitting distance indicator.

Possibly make RBU/likes have their own horisontal traverse correction (like moving their aim indicator with shift+mouse), as they have that long flight time. Auto-computable for the actual elevation?

Untie shot distance INDICATION from ship movement. It’s a mega bother on river boats like Russian and US armoured cutters in presence of any noticeable waves. Make shot distance to be dependent on gun/RBU/whatever elevation only, we’ll time our shots for when the vessel ‘passes the zero’ (or get an automation for that).

Make it possible to aim the gun or gun mount to any asimuth and elevation and keep it there, regardless of the target lock being active. Right now when the lock goes away, guns first return to 0 elevation super-fast, then return to the ‘marching position’. And when you try to move the aim with the mouse the elevation oscillates uncontrollably (=uselessly). Same goes for the boats with 2-3 gun mounts - there is no way to keep everything turned even in the roughly correct direction.
Make 'return the guns to the ‘marching position’ a control option instead.
Make shot distance indicator and target lock bracket more visible - bigger font, brighter colours.

Some sort of in-built calculator for torpedo shots (where would the torpedo be after like 10, 20, 30 secs, 2, 5 mins) We have green sector already, why not transverse lines? IRL there were torpedo officers doing exactly that kind of calculations.

Make shot distance (elevation) keeping when switching between 3rd person view and binoculars. Right now I’m seeing it changing by itself on a round-trip between the binocs and back even if I didn’t touch the mouse

Related game mechanics:

Autocannons accuracy should be heavily nerfed for any distance from maybe 400 meters up. Right now it’s possible to hose down the enemy with those, and AAA never misses. But IRL such effectiveness came rather recently, if at all.

Generally make the game miss more (have more dispersion), esp. on long-distance shots? Right now it looks like you just have to get your distance and asimuth roughly correct, and the game won’t let you miss. Maybe I’m wrong here.

Gun mounts/barrels should go out of commission for the battle duration after being hit with a resonably heavy AP/SAP shells. Right now you may hit PG02 turret with 76mm HE several times, make it ‘go black’ and it’s still working.

ADDED: make replenishing the ammo on guns like modern QF 76mm or Russian 30mm 6-barrels more sensible. Like replenish those by crates? Not one by one as it is. :)

2 Likes
22

In Q&A two years ago ([QA] Answers from the developers - News - War Thunder) Dev said there are no target for system weapon winged missile + bomber like on Tu-22 and perhap in the future there target will appear such aircraft can be implemented. But in current i saw too much complain about Scharnhorst’s amour, and the limit of aircraft in naval battle is +0,6 BR only so that too much jet bomber cannot approach it. The most possible and earliest system are KSR-1 + Tu-4K however Tu-4 has BR 8.0. I believe that Scharnhorst can not be sinked even get direct hit from two KSR-5 which carried on Tu-16, and it only destroyed when suffered damage from salvo of 3x Kh-22 launched from Tu-22M. Gayjin should remove or release limit of aircraft in naval battle and add some systems missile weapon for naval.