Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
tbh i think controls and gameplay sucks so bad in naval modes... my aim just starts going further or closer on its own and i still dont get how damages work other than ammo detonation... i mean if i use SAP and it goes and blows in it just damages if i use HE i only break their guns... but how do i ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ destroy a ship ? just spray and pray until that dude dies ?
Without carriers or submarines OR missile destroyers you can say goodbye no one wants to play the rest.
True. We have mines, depth charges and both of them are useless. We have tons of different ship classes - half of them mean crap. Armored boat? Sail into the open sea, because that's how we roll in WT. Battleship? Fight between tiny islands. A flak ferry? Blast bluewater ships apart with two salvoes, while sailing in an open sea and somehow being stable.
Naval is the biggest development mistake in WT. It is terribly done.
Aircraft carriers are useless, there are already planes available in naval (airspawn) and hardly anyone in a plane goes back to the landing strip to rearm and reload.
The maps suck I totally agree, there are either too few spawns, or the map favors one team. They feel as if they're just "flooded" ground maps.
It's playable in my opinion, sure there's a lot of room for improvements, but players who don't like naval warfare won't ever like it - or play it - anyway.
No, because first we'd actually have to get missile cruisers and anti-missile defences such as the Phalanx system. There are ways to make that work too - just while writing these, I already have two good designs in my head on how to implement cruise missiles into WT Naval, but then again I'm learning game dev.
This is true. War Thunder's game-size isn't meant for aircraft carriers, because it's more-focused on small, individual battles of 1 on 1, rather than huge battles with only ships taking part. Still, they are trying to implement it on a small scale.
There's actually a disgustingly-bad Naval map that is literally just a flooded ground map.
Peak laziness.
It's very bad. If WT was only Naval, it would probably have under 1000 players at one time.
It's like playing UK tanks, you have to dissect the enemy one by one (actually it's not very hard)
Or you take the russian BS vessels and yell YOLO while sinking ships left and right with minimal effort
Map using modern ships would need to be hundreds of miles. Putting the carrier back into the mix
I don't care who said this apart from me, this is my opinion of submarines in WT, what's the point of your question?
Okay, let's take early (WW I or II) submarines, where would you put their spawnpoint?
If their spawn is out in the open water same distance as bluewater ships - then they're mostly about 13 to 15 km away from the enemy bluewater spawn. Now take the speed of a submerged sub and add torpedo range..... Add to this all those "obstacles" like islands and shallows in between them... and then you might realize the enemy bluewaters would be long gone from spawn once the subs are ready for action,, and it takes ages for them to advance - gone is "Activity" since simply sailing somewhere doesn't give you any reward.
You can't spawn them in the shallow coastal area either, there they're absolutely useless for lack of water depth.
Or do you want to spawn them right in torpedo firing distance - for free kills?
All those modern systems you speak of, like phalanx, anti-ship missiles, they're incompatible with all-gun-ships, basically with every ship now in the tech tree. Do you have an idea how a "modern day sea battle" would play out? It would just be a missile spam, whoever fires more missiles wins. I highly doubt we will ever see ships like the Arleigh Burkes or Ticonderogas in this game.
If I want to play submarines, I play the Silent Hunter series....
The rocket boats are crazy enough and the anti air missile boats that can shoot at ships take the point to the very limit. These missile boats operate inside enemy gun range. While they are very annoying changing the missile launcher for a dual gun mount would make them more effective in the present battles. (the amount of time required for a player to acquire a missile target and guide it would have allowed them several salvos of gun fire more accurate to begin with.
The mines are usless because they disappear and it doesnt really fit the current game modes, and the depth charges are useless because we have no submarines, YET we have a large fleet of anti submarine patrolboats frigates and more but once again no submarines. Then there are a few boats with SSM(anti ship missiles) one is in the italian tree as event vehicle the other one in the american as premium then theres a SAM platform destroyer for soviet union but its kinda strange since you have surface air missiles but your targets are mostly slow bombers its a confirmed kill see the pattern ? cold war ships mixed with ww2 ships and ww2 battleships fight ww1 dreadnoughts, this is awful game design.