@AlvisWisla Please read this thank you
Ground is just repitition with very few people actually using diverse playstyles (and when they do, the AMX-13 goes up another BR), and air is just up to whoever has more ARHs rn
I think Gaijin should embrace protoypes more, they add much more uniqueness to the game and 90% of the time they don’t hurt anything, imo the R2Y2s were fine.
I’d also love if Gaijin could add prototypes that may not have carried weapons (due to not being adopted) to the game with “what-if?” loadouts based on the weapons of the time and constraints of the platform (GAIJIN PLEASE GIVE ME THE FUNNY VTOL MIRAGE)
4 Likes
Exactly we already have stuff as a “what if” (Yak-141 being the bullied child in this example)
Another example, Yak9K - Yes it can use the APHE however irl it effectively shagged the engine when it fired. but in WT? haha funny aphe go brrr (engine is perfectly fine)
so why cant we have more of it. Eventually they’ll slowly lose main content, like modern stuff etc. So this can be a good filler and honestly pretty nice piece of history for enthusiests
2 Likes
What pains me is how ridiculous the gap is between these three ships and what everyone else is getting.
I personally have no particular liking for either yamato, iowa or this pile of garbage and thus do not intend to play them. I feel absolutely shafted as a UK/Italy player seeing something like this get added. Like, wtf is Vanguard supposed to do against a 63k ton ship ?? Just lay down and die ???
2 Likes
Any reason why naval still exist?
1 Like
Naval was always supposed to exist.
It’s been part of War Thunder’s plans since 2012.
Air, ground, and navy all in one game.
You think profits drive anything other than making their dream a reality?
4 Likes
Gajin sees naval as either
A: Profitable enough to keep updating
B: Valuable enough to keep competitors out
C:A potential for growth with investment
I leave the decision to gajin, not you
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
They’ve worked since (however long Naval’s been a thing), if they were to just outright delete it it would be a giant waste of time and would put them in legal trouble
No it was because they were too heavy.
The turrets themselves would have been too heavy for the hull. Internally they are virtual identical to coastal mountings that were used in Denmark. These achieved a peak reload of 70 seconds. The devs might choose to ignore that, but then they’ve got no excuse not to buff the RoF of the US standards, Rodney and Colorado (they had no real excuse anyway but even less of an excuse now).
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Again I’d trust a company which runs the game more
If you really don’t like naval, fine, no one’s forcing you to like it. Just take your crass attitude elsewhere if you don’t want to discuss in good faith.
9 Likes
The beta was around March 2016
I would agree with you if naval was a separate game.
But since it’s a part of game with also ground and air battles whch people plays most, i would say - it’s in tow
D: A Cash cow to milk people who enjoy naval
ig im part of that 0.004%
only the based of based war thunder players play niche game modes
Mald till u go bald
1 Like
0.004%
Cmon man…
Just remove your eyes if the mere sight of naval in WT offends you so
5 Likes
Btw, how worth it would you say Japanese naval really is? I have a 4.7 lineup rn that I use occasionally
1 Like