War thunder needs a better naval line

well, we all know naval by how trash it is. I’m a naval guy and I think we can get more attention war thunder naval is so trash I have to play World of warships (the rival of war thunder)

the first thing we get is a destroyer and at the end of the line is a battleship. but the snail dose not know that battleships, cursers, and destroyers are all types of ships. But from the best destroyer to the worst Cruser in the US line? (USS Fletcher to the USS Phoenix).

one BIG thing we need is the 3 best battleships of WW2 USS Missouri, KMS Bismark, and IJN Yamato.
then there are some other good ships like the Vangard and the Dunkirk class. But back with the Main 3, Because we have 1980s jets and tanks why can’t we have battleship from then like the USS Missouri with the Tomahawk and harpoon missiles.

2 Likes

no we don’t, post your opinions as yours, not some nameless collective

I have no clue what you are trying to say here? we don’t even have uss phoenix lol. ships are lined by their in game performence which makes most sense to me. if they were separated by types, which is what I guess you wanted to say, you would end up with Vth rank uss somers.

we definitely dont need them since we dont have yet a WW2 refits of major WW1 ships.

because we dont have intermediate designs yet? not so long ago, best tank in ground battles was Leopard 2A5, 90s tank, when in air best plane was f14, 70s vehicle. Every tree in wt progress at its own pace.

13 Likes

As another naval main, I can’t deny it is still trash too.

2 Likes

Naval used to be great. Coastal and bluewater were all in one big tree. 4.3 boats didn’t cost as much RP as an 11.3 tank… then they split it into two

2 Likes

What naval needs is not more modern, or more powerful ships. Those are just shiny keys to jangle in the faces of those with a narrow vision and no attention span.

It needs a complete rework. New maps, better spawn system, coastal completely separated from bluewater in BRs and both decompressed by a mile.

Damage model rework, fixes to ships with false waterlines and missing shells (Des Moines for the first, Renown for both) along with fixes to armor holes and under-armored ships.

Scharnhorst to go to 8.0 lmao

And most of all, with how aircraft BRs are now separate between ground and air RB? Do it for naval, too. Extend ships all the way to 13.0, but have aircraft BRs modified accordingly so the current 7.0 aircraft see the current 7.0 (would be 13.0 under new system) ships.

5 Likes

I feel like naval split is brought up too often as a gamebreaking problem. Like yes, it will take you 5 times more RP to get a top tier boat than a IV rank bluewater ship, but that’s… pretty much it?

On the contrary without the split you had to progress through the dingy boats to get a bluewater ship which also felt like ages. And dont get me started on countries with poor starting coastal vessels.
Without the split I wouldnt start playing navy regularly and from what I gathered plenty of people too.

It is good to give people a choice what they want to play, especially since coastal and bluewater have vastly different types of gameplay. The only solution I see is to enable coastal research with bluewater ships, so if you are don with battleships, you can effectively research frigates with them.

3 Likes

If there were no connections between the coastal and bluewater lines this would have not been a problem. It would have also forced people to grind at least one rank or two of coastal because naval was designed with coastal to be present on all BRs (as you can tell by having coastal caps on 90% of top tier naval maps). Plus it would also teach the basics to newbies

Why not? Still Omaha class is more powerful than Fletcher.

‘Famous’ is not equivalent meaning of ‘good’ on irl or game

Actually very bad day when you have to research tremendous amount of ‘not interested’ coastal boats to research one destroyer.

Those two battles are very different. Coastal is not a good way to learn basic for bluewater.

Then there’s no point in researching “not interested” WW2 tanks to get to the fancy cold war tanks right?
Because there is obviously no learning curve

Thats why foldering happens more often these days. And also, coastal & bluewater and ww2 & cold war tanks are little different as 'role’f of those equipments are not as different as coastal and bluewater.

The split trees are infinitely better, all we need is the ability to research coastal using bluewater, just like tanks/helis.

Outside of that, Naval is a very solid mode these days; it only needs improvements to what we already have (as any game or mode does), not any kind of rework or overhaul.

2 Likes

Meh, its better then it has been before… comes in waves, ya know ^_^

Also I agree. Coastal is not the same gameplay as Bluewater. Very different and one of the biggest, if not the biggest learning curves is moving from DD to Cruiser. Different mindset/playstyle.

I could agree with that but seeing how whiny wt players can be about “waah I dont want to contribute to my team, I will spawn big boat three times and lose the game”,I doubt it will make any difference.

There is no comparison between the two. Tanks use the same damage models, map strategy, and playstyles. Coastal and bluewater are vastly different.

I wholeheartly agree. After damage models got polished naval gameplay went from decent to great. It is very relaxing mode but I guess not every person can get into it since it both requires a good deal of patience as well as multitasking, especially on AB.

I mostly wish for every nation to get decent lineups which is currenly happening as well as filling the trees with different ship classes they are missing.

And would it be that a bad thing? Or more likely have continuous progression from Clemsons → Farragut → Fletcher → Gearing → Spruance → Arleigh Burke. We all know that Gijin is trying to find a way how to include subs and maybe even CVs into NF and there is no way how to do that without disastrous consequences other then era based progression.

Even now we are already starting to see problems with current progression set up because of player planes and thats just singular planes not subs or worse CVs.

I somewhat agree with the need to decompression and the complete rework of maps but I doubt that getting rid of coastal is viable. There wont be enough population to sustain both aspect as completly separate gamemodes.
I would personally wouldn´t have issue with actual inclusion of the coastals, with modern ships comming sooner or later the coastals have chance for much better integration with blue water fleets.
What is needed IMO is to limit the overall impact of coastals on the game results because some maps are horrendous with that and even better would be to limit the need of big ships to interact with them (at least when it comes to the small boats) since it is frustrating for both sides.


IMO coastal TTs would be great place to put subs in since the interaction and objectives overlap for these far more balanced then putting subs anywhere in blue water TT.

↑ 100% this ↑ Also maybe some kind of “check points” where you could get to researching coastal ships just from specific rank if you have same rank in blue water or vice versa would be also great.

While I agree that the DMs are finally polished (which IMO took way way too long) and I also really enjoy NF gameplay. And I would say that the actuall gameplay ie the shooting, movement ect. are indeed very solid (even though I would like to have the shooting systems still improverd and have FCS and radar be able to be on together).
I wouldn´t say it is great there are a lot of issues the map layouts, balance and general objectives still need a lot of work and easily can spiral into much much serious issues.


For example the balance and BR compression are basically imposible with current TT and progression layout there simply isn´t enough BRs and vehicles for that. With current TT layout it really isn´t viable to properly fill the TT with enough ships (DDs and CVs) since they would be foldered regardless.
But changing TT to allow the the proper BR spacing and progression across different ships of the same type. Like the era based progression but that is impossible to implement since current objectives don´t allow proper inclusion of DDs and BBs in same batlle without DDs being wiped out.

And I could go on.


So what I mean the NF is that NF really need some improvements because it still have lot of issues and I wouldn´t say that player numbers are at healthy levels and therefor gaijin doesn´t have lot of incentive to focus on it.
So I would say that increasing player number should be something in our interest but that wont happen by introducing fancy and shiny new toys (at least in long term) but by fixing the issues and I feel like Gaijin somewhat backed itself into a corner. I feel like the only way out of this corner is to at least partly reinvent the gameplay.

Honestly right. Naval is fine. It’s not good, not by a long shot, but it could be way worse and half the people who actually play naval know that.
We don’t need the stupid famous ships like the Iowas, Bismarcks, or Yamatos because they just don’t fit in current naval. We don’t even really need new battleships, instead the whole mode needs a rework.
Naval also doesn’t need more (any) anti-ship missiles because then you run into the issue of “how do you counter an anti-ship missile in a battleship from 1943.” Ironically this is exactly what caused battleships to no longer be prevalent in the post-war era, besides costing stupid amounts of money, and we are quite literally going to see it happen in game if AShMs are added.

As others have pointed out, the disparity between Coastal and Bluewater needs to be addressed. The two do not work in the same gamemode, outside of something like Naval EC. They can’t balance well, any half decent destroyer can murderize a coastal ship no matter the BR. So either there needs to be a gamemode split or just a revamp in general. The issue of “useless in an uptier” also has to be addressed, probably by decompression, but by other stuff as well. As an example, a destroyer is practically useless in a game where you are fighting heavy cruisers. One thing that I think that could help with this is removing the 3-spawn ship limit, and giving free “backups” to ships made in large numbers, such as destroyers or early light cruisers. In real life, any given battle will probably have 3 times the number of destroyers as capital ships, but in War Thunder, that isn’t the case, which leads to ship classes that aren’t the big powerful ones essentially becoming obsolete as soon as they are required to go up in BR. As another example, if you’ve ever played 6.0 cruisers, you constantly get uptiered to 7.0 battleships/battlecruisers, and have practically no way of harming either of the latter.
Another way to possibly reinvent naval would be to introduce modes like “convoy escort” or “fleet action” where there is a set objective for each team to accomplish one thing, such as destroying/damaging a convoy or destroying/damaging as many enemy ships as possible. I’m not really sure how respawns would work in a gamemode like this, maybe time-based reinforcement spawns that occur every 30 seconds or so. One thing that needs to happen, in my opinion, is that capture points can’t be present in these two gamemodes. Ships are, obviously, horrendously slow and cannot move fast enough to capture points in a reasonable manner. They are also (generally) made to fight at ranges that would make the capture points a deathzone for anyone that ventures towards them. Such a problem already partially exists, as in most maps (especially the ones with coastal cap points), the spawn zones are not even half of the battleship’s maximum effective range.

On the topic of the Coastal/Bluewater split, I do think it was a good idea, I just think it was executed poorly. I personally would have kept them all in one “Naval” tab, but separated the lines for the now-Coastal ships and the now-Bluewater ships. But due to engine limits, or something, the game is only capable of having 5 vertical tech tree lines (at the moment) which probably led to the split. If that could be revised, and horizontally scrolling trees similar to other games could be added, I think merging their tabs (BUT NOT THEIR LINES) would be a good idea.

Sorry for the rant, I just want naval to be better because boats are cool and the gamemode right now feels like something good that is just being held back.

3 Likes

No need for counter as AShm, especially after 1970s don’t have ability to pen armored ships. What put battleships to death is two thing. Big AP bomb from heavy bombers like Fritz-X(which is not as strong as irl in wt because of insufficient alittude), and budget shortage affected every nation after WW2.

1 Like

kinda yes, it would be ultimate deck building game, and even tho wt navy already is deck building-ish game and I like it, but I would not want it to go extreme. I dont want to grind till battleships to get the best destroyer for my 5.0 lineup

only way I see “one line- one type” tree working is with separation like this:

destroyers rank 1-3
light cruiser rank 2-4
etc.

Esentially with rank you get a choice of researching better lighter type vessel or crappy heavier type vessel. Where it stops working is with the countries that have too many ships of certain type and little of different. means a lot of foldering and a lot of bothering. Not gonna happen tbh

both are far future, gaijin is slowly implementing SAMs

I really like that combination of gameplay. What I usually am proposing is to further implement coastals in bluewater battles. In AB V990 deals easily with any destroyers and pt15 with cruisers and battleships. Caostals should be decompressed which would give room for bluewater decompression.

hm I dont really see any map problems asde of the ones starting at 15km range. On BBs they are somewhat decent but getting one on 5.0 just drags the timer, because nothing happens till both parties reach 10km distance.

idk, in my timezone Im getting frequent matches. I don’t think there is much to do when it comes to wider audience, navy gameplay just doesn’t fit that many people as air or ground, and it is general trend (how many people play navy games out there, compared to tanks and planes?)

the usual topics brought up on forum by people who “don’t play navy because it is broken” are either irrational rants driven by lack of knowledge of the gamemode or suggestions to turn it into simulator battle, basically forcing people to play another EC. And seeing how EC is doing I doubt this would be the change for the wider audience.

1 Like

No, I doubt it, harpoons have 200kg warheads and they come in dozens. Barrage of them in wt would be enough to poke enough unrepairable holes anything would sink within 10 seconds. Now, soviets loved to used large warheads, 500kg up to 1000kg. Again, sinking + unrepairable breeches and a good likelihood of ammunition detonation.

We are not ready for anti ship missiles, we need more SAMs and modern battleships in top tier.

Personally we don’t need either of those if they make a limit to the BR of planes that can join naval battles (say, up to 7.3 or so), but they already added Bravyy so they put themselves on a path that they have to fulfill now.

still can’t penetrate ‘armored’ part, and we can’t lock on seperately to hit on ‘unarmored’ part.

Depends, but usually they are SAP warhead, meaning explosives are less than half. Besides, unrepairable breech needs to be reworked as it is currently too big than irl.