i get what you mean and i guess it is fair that there are players in naval that prefer a more fast paced gameplay and quick action. But i think there might be an inherent problem with how naval combat for the big ships basically works. engagement distances are up to 20 km or more. But the ships go 50kph, some 60. A lot of times on the open sea.So even going straight towards each other at full flank speed it takes them 15 minutes to cover that distance. and they are designed to fight at that range. and are well protected. lots of these engagements took days and it took single ships hours to sink. So in reality you could say usually it was “slow paced” with days of following, flanking or trying to cut of enemy ships even before the engagement due to the insane distances and the ships speed.
While ofc thats also not suitable for this multiplayer game, i at least play the big massive ships also because it feels like youre in such an engagement, slugging it out with another tough opponent that is very hard to crack. if you dumb that down to a maximum 2 minute engagement it feels a bit ridicolous. who would put 1000s of souls on such a massive and expensive ship that takes years to build if every one of them sinks in two minutes? It takes two minutes to turn 180 degrees and almost a minute to come to a full stop, but if two cruisers decide to target a giant battleship all its crew is dead in under a minute? Hell nah man, im out… it just doesnt feel right for me. They are built and a lot of them did, survive insane punishment and crazy amounts of torpedo, bomb and shell hits. Im playing these to feel like im commanding one of them (well to be fair one of my top tier and favorite is the yamato so thats a bit contradicctory to my statement but she feels a bit wrong too, ngl :-D) but i hope you get my point a bit…
Also its not like theres already completely ridicolous matches in naval RB on some maps (if i remember correctly on japanese port, or maybe new zealand cape, cant check in game atm…) the one where one team can immediately reverse at spawn to sit behind a peninsula while all the bots drive out as bait while the other team spawns 12 km in front of that peninsula in the open. I played matches on that map where not a single enemy, no player or bot, made it further than 1 km out of spawn. they all sank there and it was a giant maze of half sunken ships hulls. Absolutely ridicolous and i bet a lot of fun for the enemy team. (and not slow paced, those 20-30 enemy ships sank incredibly fast even with the current damage control system ;-) though ofc you could argue that that is more of a game and map design problem than the damage, but with these maps and the new damage control system all of them would sink even quicker so…who tf would enjoy that? 5 ppl sitting behind an island decimating the whole enemy team in their spawn, just because its the best thing to do and easiest way to win the match, you can’t even blame them…
EDIT: i checked in game the map is Norway, notorious for insanely dumb matches, strong contender on the throne of worst match quality in naval with african cape and japanese port (sit stacked on the edge of some island because the one who pushes to the caps just dies, well unless its a sojuz ofc…)
Why are you not implementing the new coefficients for repair speed based on ship generation? This was literally the most logical thing in this entire proposal! Are you going to continue to let low tier battleships curb stomp cruiser lobbies and remain invincible to anything below an 11 inch caliber??? What is this nonsense, there is no reason why the damage control coefficients cannot apply even with the old repair system. Sovetsky Soyuz will remain the most overpowered ship in the game and have the same repair speed as Yamato despite having HALF of the crew count, and WWI dreadnoughts with primitive damage control will continue to have the same repair efficiency as a 1945 Iowa. Got it.
Yes, so I believe naval battles should clearly differentiate Arcade and Realistic modes in their core gameplay attributes. Realistic mode should be as you described, focusing on historically accurate clashes between these steel behemoths. Meanwhile, I think Arcade mode should be more relaxed and entertaining, similar to how Air and Ground battles are handled.
As for the maps, this is one of the earliest issues in War Thunder naval battles. To be honest, the initial design of naval maps didn’t consider battleships at all. The maps we have now are essentially just scaled-up versions of cruiser maps. The large capture circles are merely a makeshift solution that often results in pure meat grinder battles (which, perhaps, is what suits War Thunder naval battles best, QAQ). If we had more maps with numerous islands, like in World of Warships, we’d encounter the same problems as the current Yokohama map, creating a vicious cycle. As my friend says, War Thunder naval battles aren’t particularly fun because naval simulation games aren’t well-suited for fast-paced multiplayer online battles. T.T
I hope that one day they can figure out how to properly do this differentiation (ofc after finding out if the arcade players would really like that) me for myself i mainly play naval ec atm so i got literally 0 experience in naval arcade, though it could very well be how you described it. If most arcade player really prefer a much faster paced and simplifierd version of it (which maybe in a lot of cases doesnt leave enough time to also handle damage control?) then i think gaijin would also have to go with quite some buffs to the speed and maneuverability of the big ships, don’t you think? similar to how world of warships handles it, with ships that feel like zooming around on rails. and also how it is in ground and air arcade. i never really understood why in all arcade modes all vehicles are buffed in their mobility, gun handling and power except for naval arcade (ships handle basically the same if im not mistaken, its only the aiming thats different?)…But that would lead to a much more dynamic gameplay, covering distances faster, evading shells and torpedoes easier (which on the other hand would possibly also be quicker so…) but also playing much larger areas on the map? with 20 km maps and the speed and turntime of the current top tier ships im not sure how a fast paced and really dynamic gameplay could look like…no one wants to sail and fight 15 minutes to get to an advantegeous position just to get all his crew melted in 30 seconds, thats just dumb…
Yes, for now, we can only hope the development team carefully considers what they truly want naval battles to become. This mode has great potential, as it’s still in its early stages relatively speaking. There’s still a long road ahead.
yeah i can’t wait for the introduction of submarines for example, though i also dont know how exactly those could be implemented in rb and especially ec because of how slow they are to still be useful/fun but also not broken or overly annoying…The ww2 event was so cool diving below the surface with the sub destroyers zooming around above you, you got a really eerie (?) feeling of how scary it might have been sitting in a metal can down there in complete dark and silence…i would play those just for how cool the diving and ascending looked even if they would be largely useless. big bonus if you could dive around at the sea bottom, sonar scanning for other subs and the ground trying to get to an unexpected angle in almost complete dark (with adjustments obv, i think no one wants to stare at a black screen hearing only sonar pings for half an hour…)
All it’s missing is some control of the direction of repairs and systems - something like the new radar interface would be great - plenty of room for more keys and binds IMO
We need to be able to disable parts of the ship - it’s wrong to have AA and some aux guns (especially on top of main guns) manned for long range battles anyway.
Disabling main guns, bridge and fire control probably doesn’t make any sense, but a toggle for propulsion repairs would in terms of coefficients/parallel actions/crew interop.
Disabling AA,Aux and torps also evacuates the crew, with a delay for crew to get there and be vulnerable, and more before firing.
Empty guns should not repair or get crewed
Also, AI target selection needs changing: ships, boats+air (also 40mm cannons should shoot destroyers when in ships mode too? like the 30mm do (bug?)
Also2, really the whole default controls for naval needs a rework:
firing on capslock (or tab, bigger keys = more satisfaction ;)
1,2,3 to select gun class
4 to link firing
alt-1,2,3,4 for ammo
` (~ or whatever on yours) cycles ammo type
Some small subs in the coastal tree would maybe work - even if generally useless except for those times when ships have pushed in and speedboats aren’t able to get to cover fast enough
No,at least no for any ship below a battleship.
Maybe you want AB become faster,but i don’t think that way is good.DC control should be a strategy for players,maybe control flooding is not very fair like you said below,but it should not be solve in this way
To be honest, my read of the situation is that it dumbs down the game mode. We already have lead indicators in the form of the fire control system (even though I’ll admit that I am not sure how else to integrate them as a feature) and the overshoot indicator that is needed for some reason. I feel like these types of “quality of life” feature just simplifies the game mode to the point where the learning curve is flattening out to a boring line.
Edit: Ah, just saw that the idea have been listed as optional. I’m not sure how optional this will really be, since the two systems aren’t really mutually exclusive from the “saving crew” problem they wanted to fix.
I suggest to add a hotkey for changing of DC mechanic, instead of “in options” switch. So every player could switch it in battle, according the current ingame situation, which will add more flexibility to gameplay. If you not ready to combine them, having coefficients with in battle changeable presets and manual damage controls at the same time.
i see, well yeah i think i experienced it because i think some custom servers use the arcade modifiers for ships mobility. Anyhow it doesnt feel like such a big increase no? Maybe 10 kph higher top speed and marginally quicker acceleration…
Yeah flooding (or not repairing and pumping flooded compartments) or having to flood because a need to counterflood if compartments on the side that is getting shelled are flooded beyond repair should have at least some downsides (besides the obvious much bigger draft so much lower top speed, much slower acceleration.) But because they basically removed underwater shell pens it means ships with already low ammo racks become almost unrackable. Then why not make that an option, but with more drastic downsides (maybe on reload or whatever, I’m not sure what would or could be most realistic) So you could flood (or counterflood) which was an automatic thing i think some years ago, to preserve the ship but at that point you would have to rely on allies te realize you need immediate support because it leaves you more defenceless. Or somehow rework underwater shells, which were a thing irl, as people posted on this forum…
In Arcade EC there is no acceleration for ships so they sail as in RB. In regular battles it’s 30% difference, but most of this boost is in the modules, so you have to research them to be faster in AB. It’s a big disadvantage for a stock ships in AB versus topped ones. Besides that bots in AB sail with RB speed - it’s one of the reasons of them piling up on respawns.