Please let Gaijin release a good British navy tree on release.
[editline]11th August 2016[/editline]
[URL="http://warthunder.com/en/news/4185-news-naval-battles-in-war-thunder-closed-beta-test-later-this-year-en/"]More news.[/URL]
[QUOTE]"The high level of realism is one of the key design features of War Thunder. Vehicles are as close to their real life counterparts as possible. Classic large ship battles during the war were contests of patience and planning, where engagements could last from several hours to several days. In War Thunder, where all kinds of vehicles fight in one battle and players can control aircraft, tanks and ships, it is not possible to change the size of the ships or make time run faster, as everything needs to remain consistent. [B]Our internal testing showed that battles with large battleships would be too long and boring, or required design changes that made ships entirely unrealistic. For this reason, we are focusing on fast attack-based craft, which are rarely reproduced in games. Ships, that are more suitable for the formula of our game.[/B] These fast, agile and dangerous “Knights of the Sea” are worthy contenders for aircraft and tanks on the ground" - says Kirill Yudintsev, Creative Director of Gaijin Entertainment.[/QUOTE]
Oh noooooo
Wow
Amazing of them to raise and dash my hopes in the same breath
[QUOTE]​Question: [I]Will larger ships (cruisers, battleships, aircraft carriers) be available for player control? If not - why do we need torpedos?[/I]
[B]Larger vessels, while not available for control by players, but will be presented under the control of AI in some game modes.[/B] One of the main tasks of combat torpedo boats will be the destruction of larger ships. [B]Player-controlled destroyers and other large ships may appear later, in other gamemodes, it will be decided based on results of closed beta.[/B][/QUOTE]
[I]Oohhhh nnnnooooooooooooooooo[/I]
Welp, naval shit is going to be lame as fuck then.
[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50866418][I]Oohhhh nnnnooooooooooooooooo[/I][/QUOTE]
While my initial thoughts upon realizing that myself were that or anger, maybe it's not such a bad thing; one of the big things that I feel is missing ingame right now is PVE combat, which while present isn't particularly inspiring. This might be a second chance for Gaijin to implement a really solid PVE experience that takes emphasis away from fighting other players and aims it more towards destruction of larger entities outside of player control.
Idk, either way I'm excited for boats.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;50866453]While my initial thoughts upon realizing that myself were that or anger, maybe it's not such a bad thing; one of the big things that I feel is missing ingame right now is PVE combat, which while present isn't particularly inspiring. This might be a second chance for Gaijin to implement a really solid PVE experience that takes emphasis away from fighting other players and aims it more towards destruction of larger entities outside of player control.
Idk, either way I'm excited for boats.[/QUOTE]
I don't get why Gaijin thinks that we don't want longer battles, especially if shorter battles means that we won't even get destroyers. I want me a [I]Bismarck[/I] goddamn it.
We [i]want[/i] Enduring Confrontation, Gaijin. What makes you think we don't want long ass naval battles either.
I have a feeling theyre delaying on large ships because it requires a ton more work and is radically different gameplay/asset wise than what we have now.
Small patrol craft and riverine boats basically play like tanks on the water, and as evidenced by the preorder russian ship, can simply reuse a lot of tank assets and code.
[editline]11th August 2016[/editline]
Id be perfectly happy with destroyers or frigates as the "heavies" in boatmode
[QUOTE=Orkel;50867251]Patrol boats the main focus? Meh.[/QUOTE]
I doubt they're going for just PT boats, they're saying they're focusing on "smaller ships" but I'd wager that includes a bit bigger things too, like corvettes and stuff. Plus, I'd also wager that the community is going to be pretty vocal about wanting bigger ships, and hopefully they'll cave in.
[QUOTE=Ilwrath;50867263]I doubt they're going for just PT boats, they're saying they're focusing on "smaller ships" but I'd wager that includes a bit bigger things too, like corvettes and stuff. Plus, I'd also wager that the community is going to be pretty vocal about wanting bigger ships, and hopefully they'll cave in.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully not, the only way I see them being able to balance larger vessels would be to devalue their capabilities to the point where smaller ships can compete. WoWs has a nice system because it has no claims to realism and therefore can compartmentalize ship types into classes with respective playstyles and tweak stats as they see fit to balance things out. If WT were to do the same it would just end up being WoWs but with damage models; so you'd still have to have wonky gun dispersion, unrealistic mid-battle torpedo reloads and torpedo bulge characteristics that are inconsistent with reality to have a balanced game.
WarThunder may not be the most true simulation compared to other games but I'd much rather have more consistent, and predictable and even gameplay between smaller less armored vessels rather than having to hope they can figure out how to make something like a DD a threat to a BB without completely skewing performance of one vessel to compensate. That said - I'd be perfectly okay with larger ships being playable as some sort of hero class ala Battlefront.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;50867399]Hopefully not, the only way I see them being able to balance larger vessels would be to devalue their capabilities to the point where smaller ships can compete. WoWs has a nice system because it has no claims to realism and therefore can compartmentalize ship types into classes with respective playstyles and tweak stats as they see fit to balance things out. If WT were to do the same it would just end up being WoWs but with damage models; so you'd still have to have wonky gun dispersion, unrealistic mid-battle torpedo reloads and torpedo bulge characteristics that are inconsistent with reality to have a balanced game.
WarThunder may not be the most true simulation compared to other games but I'd much rather have more consistent, and predictable and even gameplay between smaller less armored vessels rather than having to hope they can figure out how to make something like a DD a threat to a BB without completely skewing performance of one vessel to compensate. That said - I'd be perfectly okay with larger ships being playable as some sort of hero class ala Battlefront.[/QUOTE]
Well, you'd still be able to take out larger ships with smaller ships if the ship itself was designed to be such, like torpedoboats and stuff. The main thing would be designing maps that allow smaller ships to traverse sections where larger ships can't reach, and allow the smaller ships and opportunity to flank and come from a blind spot to strike the bigger vessels, which would be possible, especially in RB and SB.
One way to balance it out would be to limit the amount of ship types per battle, IE you can't have 12 destroyers vs 12 destroyers.
So no battleships?
...
And I ain't re-downloading any time soon.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;50867399]That said - I'd be perfectly okay with larger ships being playable a[B]s some sort of hero class ala Battlefront.[/B][/QUOTE]
[B][I]No.[/I][/B]
[editline]11th August 2016[/editline]
Even if it's ala Battlefront 1 or 2, that would [I]not[/I] fit with what War Thunder is.
Well... we already kinda have that thing with the killstreak planes in AB tanks. Though, I'm guessing for naval, they would be going with different naval planes instead of larger ships that they said they couldn't do.
[QUOTE=Ilwrath;50867467]Well, you'd still be able to take out larger ships with smaller ships if the ship itself was designed to be such, like torpedoboats and stuff. The main thing would be designing maps that allow smaller ships to traverse sections where larger ships can't reach, and allow the smaller ships and opportunity to flank and come from a blind spot to strike the bigger vessels, which would be possible, especially in RB and SB.
One way to balance it out would be to limit the amount of ship types per battle, IE you can't have 12 destroyers vs 12 destroyers.[/QUOTE]
The issue with torpedo boats is they generally carry just 2 torpedoes and maybe a pair for reloading (they can't reload while on the move however) so you'd get 2 torpedo hits at most on a vessel which generally speaking would be completely insufficient against a WW2 era battleship. Relying on Gaijin to make maps decent enough to allow what you are suggesting is a crapshoot at best, and the secondary armaments on most vessels would make short work of anyone approaching provided there were some distance to use them which would have to be the case since you'd need to get into position to fire the fixed torpedoes on a TB to begin with. The issue with limiting the number of ship classes per match is self-explanatory: those who join the match late or have worse internet connections will be barred from playing the bigger ships. When Gaijin did the WW2 Chronicles a while back this feature was a constant source of bitching from the /vg/ crowd. The issue with selecting your vessel with the proposed restrictions before the battle, like plane RB, would mean that you'd have a crowd of people all in the queue with their big boats selected and I can't imagine very many people would be chomping at the bit to feed a BB bristling with fast firing secondary mounts their torpedo boat so in the end you'd have long wait times to find a match.
“Knights of the Sea”... afaik there was already game named [B]"PT Boats: Knights of the Sea"[/B]
which actually was about fast-attack boats too
so not only it's entertainment software with the setting and genre exactly the same too ...
so possible TM(trademark) issues may arise ...
also don't forget [B]"Enigma: The Rising Tide"[/B] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma:_Rising_Tide[/URL]
which actually shown the big ships gameplay can be done well
(note the company went bankrupt long time ago, I remember all assets were on sale, including all those models)
[editline]11th August 2016[/editline]
Gaijin can do fast attack boats, escort boats, patrol boats, coast guard boats, steam gun boats, landing supports etc.
so there is plenty of possible 'ships and types' to be done , like the
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Torpedo_Boat[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-boat[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_boat[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAS_(motorboat)[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Power_Boat_Company[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Gun_Boat[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_torpedo_boats_of_World_War_II[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_D_motor_torpedo_boat[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_A_motor_launch[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_B_motor_launch[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_C_motor_gun_boat[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_H_landing_craft[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Support[/URL]
and I bet submarines, minelayers, minesweepers, escort cargo ships with weapons can be done too ...
so variety is still possible for 'fun' and interest, while starting 'small' size ;)
[QUOTE=snapshot32;50868108]The issue with torpedo boats is they generally carry just 2 torpedoes and maybe a pair for reloading (they can't reload while on the move however) so you'd get 2 torpedo hits at most on a vessel which generally speaking would be completely insufficient against a WW2 era battleship. Relying on Gaijin to make maps decent enough to allow what you are suggesting is a crapshoot at best, and the secondary armaments on most vessels would make short work of anyone approaching provided there were some distance to use them which would have to be the case since you'd need to get into position to fire the fixed torpedoes on a TB to begin with. The issue with limiting the number of ship classes per match is self-explanatory: those who join the match late or have worse internet connections will be barred from playing the bigger ships. When Gaijin did the WW2 Chronicles a while back this feature was a constant source of bitching from the /vg/ crowd. The issue with selecting your vessel with the proposed restrictions before the battle, like plane RB, would mean that you'd have a crowd of people all in the queue with their big boats selected and I can't imagine very many people would be chomping at the bit to feed a BB bristling with fast firing secondary mounts their torpedo boat so in the end you'd have long wait times to find a match.[/QUOTE]
Well, the PT-109 has 4 tubes, so it already is carrying more than you're describing :v:
But in any case, I reckon they'll try out bigger ships at some point.
My only real concern about larger warships is how they're going to balance them out because I can see a battleship or a cruiser sitting a short distance offshore on one of the coastal maps and just raining absolute hell on ground forces if the other team's naval force fucking blows.
With Air vs Ground battles, you at least have anti-air vehicles that can shoot down aircraft and capable tank gunners can shoot down low flying aircraft rather easily, but most tanks will struggle to penetrate the armor on anything larger than a destroyer with the only exceptions being vehicles like the KV-2 or SU/ISU-152 that have extremely large caliber guns. Battlefield 1942 only succeeded in combining naval, air, and ground battles because it wasn't even trying to be a simulator and used health pools instead of complex damage models, War Thunder is using somewhat realistic damage models and if they were really realistic, most tanks wouldn't be able to penetrate the armor of a cruiser or battleship.
I have to agree Gaijin, this is honestly the best option right now when it comes to balance.
But whenever or not this brings me back to War Thunder is up in the air.
[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50866499]I don't get why Gaijin thinks that we don't want longer battles, especially if shorter battles means that we won't even get destroyers. I want me a [I]Bismarck[/I] goddamn it.[/QUOTE]
Gaijins $2 servers would burst into flames if a round went on longer than 15 minutes.
Hoboy is this the next enduring confrontation?
"Guys the realistic mode players all want enduring confrontation to be playable all the time"
"give it to sim players and rarely put it as an event for realistic, that'le teach them to think we give a shit"
????
[editline]12th August 2016[/editline]
Although we black lagoon now so im sort of ok with that
Can we just fuckin' have Cold War Thunder already and just abandon this whole ship idea? Why does War Thunder need to be three different games in one? It's bad enough already that Tanks have already split up this games direction and focus.
But now ships will just spread it out even more. Pretty much say goodbye to air RB ever getting a substantial game changing update to it's gameplay.
[B]EDIT: I know I'm gonna get disagree's with this but I'm sorry, I've been playing for almost 3 years and have over 4000+ hours clocked and this game is just losing it's magic for me. The wonder of unlocking newer planes is long gone, and newer tanks haven't exactly been exciting. Especially with the gameplay focusing more on close quarters combat and less on long distance engagements. ATGM's aren't even that fun.
I just want a whole new era of jets, with a whole new era of gameplay mechanics to come with it. Fuck ships, give me Lock-On and Countermeasures and Afterburners. Just go full Cold War thunder and take a bite out of the flight sim communities pocket.[/B]
[QUOTE=GhostShoes;50869183]Can we just fuckin' have Cold War Thunder already and just abandon this whole ship idea? Why does War Thunder need to be three different games in one? It's bad enough already that Tanks have already split up this games direction and focus.
But now ships will just spread it out even more. Pretty much say goodbye to air RB ever getting a substantial game changing update to it's gameplay.[/QUOTE]
That's been one of War Thunder's main selling points, actually. That all three branches of the military, land, sea and air, would be able to fight and cooperate in the same battlefield, at the same time.
Wargaming was going the same path, until (IIRC) it came across problems with the engine, so they decided to give each branch their own game, but all running under one single account manager.
War Thunder is far from perfect, but at least it tries to recreate the combined arms warfare of WWII, without becoming too arcadey or too realistic.
And I say that it tries because we all know how many good weapons and tactics got nerfed into oblivion so many times, but the point stands.
[QUOTE=T553412;50869836]That's been one of War Thunder's main selling points, actually. That all three branches of the military, land, sea and air, would be able to fight and cooperate in the same battlefield, at the same time.
Wargaming was going the same path, until (IIRC) it came across problems with the engine, so they decided to give each branch their own game, but all running under one single account manager.
War Thunder is far from perfect, but at least it tries to recreate the combined arms warfare of WWII, without becoming too arcadey or too realistic.
And I say that it tries because we all know how many good weapons and tactics got nerfed into oblivion so many times, but the point stands.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it should tbh. Trying to make all these different types of games work on the same engine with the same realistic standard just seems like an uphill battle. I honestly never cared about having combined arms. That's why I play Arma 3 or Battlefield.
I find it quite appalling to hear the CEO mention his focus being more towards action, and quick gameplay. That's exactly what I've hated about what War Thunder has become over these years. There has been significant push to reduce slow gameplay, long traverse, long flight times in favor of instant action and chaotic gameplay. This has just made the game frustrating to play from my perspective because it feels like it's getting harder and harder to be tactical and smart.
Tactical and smart gameplay sounds nice in theory but unfortunately it is not practical for a large audience because popular preference tends towards quick instant action type gameplay. Certain specific types of play can be longer and drawn out but it would be a gamble to adapt such a gameplay style for WT.
It takes time and thus money to build the game further and expanding the audience of the game will make more money. The best case scenario is that arcade gameplay types become popular and make money, and then realistic gameplay types can ride on the back of that success. The flight sim community never really had a big pocket to begin with so taking a bite out of it wont create much revenue.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;50870401]Tactical and smart gameplay sounds nice in theory but unfortunately it is not practical for a large audience because most people dont want tactical and smart gameplay, they want instant action.
It takes time and thus money to build the game further and expanding the audience of the game will make more money. The best case scenario is that arcade gameplay types become popular and make money, and then realistic gameplay types can ride on the back of that success. The flight sim community never really had a big pocket to begin with so taking a bite out of it wont create much revenue.[/QUOTE]
People don't realize it, but simulators in general have small niche audiences that's why simulators tend to have a lot DLC because the devs need to make as much money as they can from a small audience. If you want an example of this look at Train Simulator or DCS.
And if Gaijin wants War Thunder to be successful as a F2P game, they need to make it appeal to as large of an audience as possible which unfortunately means making changes in game play so the game appeals to more players and unfortunately a majority of players prefer arcade gameplay over extremely realistic gameplay.
IMO, battleships don't really work because they would need to be firing at each other from ~10-20 miles away to be realistic.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50870627]IMO, battleships don't really work because they would need to be firing at each other from ~10-20 miles away to be realistic.[/QUOTE]
Well it's not currently like War Thunder is the bastion of realism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
