Reprise du message précédent :

 
On en revient toujours à vouloir des missions intéressantes et à limiter telle ou telle unité.
A voir si Gaijin va écouter les beta-testeurs.
 
Merci pour l'ordre de bataille.

 
ben dans les nouveautés navales y'a ça  
 

C'est un "liberty ship" si je ne me plante pas, non?

 
oui, le modèle HD a été inséré il y a peu dans une maj, ne devant pas être jouable c'est qu'il est donc prévu ingame comme IA. un mode d'escorte/destruction semble être d'actualité a priori.

Bah, çà sera des IA.

Je préfère avoir des missions avec des gros navires en IA tout de suite, plutôt qu'attendre 2 ans pour avoir une hypothétiques limitations du nombre d'unités "lourdes".
C'est comme le RB, tout le monde joue pour sa pomme sans aucune stratégie.
En tank T5, tout le monde joue celui qui a le plus gros canon. Les unités de reco & co, tout le monde s'en fout. A part quelques blagueurs en BT5.

Si un jour il y a des battleship jouable, çà sera bien, mais en AB/RB, on verra du battleship vs battleship. Avec un ou deux destroyers qui se baladent au milieu.
Mais les batailles "un battleship et 50 destoyers", il faudra forcement restreindre les droits des joueurs. Et j'ai pas l'impression que ce soit le souhait de Gaijin.
Et même si ils y arrivent, je vois bien le battleship partir à droite, et les 50 destroyers rusher à gauche

Mais on verra.

 
Il y a un petit air de troopship. C'est pas ce modèle, mais c'est pas bien loin.
 

 
ben oui ça sera des IA, mais c'est la preuve que Gaijin semble vouloir intégrer des IA dans les missions navales. après, encore une fois, il y a très peu de bateaux pour l'instant et il en faudra bien 20 par pays, donc le développement est au début et les joueurs sont intégrés très tôt. Donc intégrer de l'IA très tôt dans le développement c'est, selon moi, la preuve que Gaijin semble vouloir faire mieux niveaux gameplay avec le début de la phase navale qu'avec ce qu'ils ont fait avec les chars.

 
les troopships n'ont pas les portes de soutes comme celui du modèle sur l'image, là il s'agit d'un navire de commerce avec les portes d'accès aux soutes avant bien visibles sur l'image. Je suppose que pour l'instant il n'y en aura qu'un assez générique (ici avec drapeau anglais) mais qu'in fine chaque nation devrait en avoir un ou plusieurs modélisés.

 
Je pige plus.
Le début de la discussion, je demande à avoir des bateaux IA pour avoir des missions un peu mieux.
Tu me dis que çà serait mieux d'avoir des bateaux jouables.
Et au final, on est d'accord sur les IA.

 
C'est pas sûr. Sur les derniers events (Ardennes), il y avait des limitations côté allemande sur le nombre de chars lourds (Tigre I/E/IIP) qui pouvaient sortir simultanement. Ils y réfléchissent quand meme/
 
Le mieux à mon avis serait que l'on se dirige vers un système à la Red Orchestra pour le parties random de base (au moins pour le RB/SB) avec un nb de chars/bateau/avion pour chaque catégorie (Lourd/moyen/TD, ou fighter,attacker,bomber, idem pour les navires). En ajoutant à ça le fait d'imposer des véhicules de chaque sorte dans le deck pour pouvoir partir en battle, ça limiterait l'effet gros contre gros.
 
Après, vis à vis de ta dernière phrase, t'as tout à fait raison. Mais à un moment donné, si les joueurs sont cons ou veulent pas entendre parler de team play, à part désequilibrer les recompenses dans le bon sens et ajouter des points de "protection de bomber/base/Cargo" etc, y a pas grand chose à faire. Et meme là tu viens casser des styles de jeu qui, meme si beaucoup les considèrent comme de l'anti-jeu (ouiii, la campe c'est nul, un chasseur de char qui se cache dans les bois pour sniper c'est lamentable gnagnagna, et le mec qui te B&Z dessus pendant que tu stall il sait pas jouer, et chasseur contre attacker c'est pas du jeu, gnagnagna...) reste des styles valables et souvent réalistes.

 
non j'ai dit que ce serait mieux de les avoir dans les missions en tant qu'IA pas seulement en tant qu'event  
 
edit : et puis, honnêtement, des cuirassés à jouer non merci  
 
pour t'en convaincre un petit truc que j'avais à peine commencé à préparer pour discuter des bateaux sur le fofo international :
 
Global questioning/reasoning about Naval Forces in WT :
 
This analysis will be divided in several parts, each one focusing on a specific aspect of NF, most of those reasoning is about SB/RB :
1- Global gameplay (without Heavy units)
 
o Basic Naval units  
To remain in a simple realistic battle environment, i will separate ships in different analysis simply because each class above destroyers (and some light cruisers having a main gun caliber@ 127mm) brings gameplay problems that should be highlighted and not mixed with the rest. So this first point mainly focus on ships from Torpedo boats (MAS/MBT/PT boat/S-Boot) to some Light Cruisers which are generally nothing more than a bigger destroyer and do not bring a different problematic in behavior, armament, speed and fight within a range of 15 km (Torpedoes or ~127mm guns).
o Objectives :
Actual tank Meta is based on a “cap the flag” system, a monstrosity still available years after GF launch, Gaijin recently stated that they wanted to change that … Still, a Soon™ will hardly make that available for NF release. Do a NF game based on a Zone capping gameplay “à la” WoWs is what we want? What we need? So what?  
Potential objectives to a realistic game :
- Encounter battle
- Convoy escort / Convoy interception
- Landing protection / Landing destruction
- Destroying harbor / Protecting harbor
-  …
o Refilling :
Most units during WWII do not carry spare torpedoes, even those carrying some rarely carry enough weapons to refill all tubes. Consequence is evident, once you have fired your torpedoes, a refill is necessary. But where?
Cargos and harbors are the best options, those refill points being available as targets or capture points to weaken the enemy. A fictional zone of supplying in a middle of nowhere is as stupid as a capping circle.
o System of deck :
GF is based on a SP system in RB, on a 1v/1p (one vehicle/on plane) system in SB, 3 vehicles in AB.  WT (planes) is based on a single plane in RB/SB and a full deck in AB. So what should we expect?
A priori a GF format is expected.
 
o Combat zone :
 
Naval battles are not only about gun or torpedo range, they are also about positioning, with standard guns and torpedoes having an effective range above 10km, a speed of 30/40 knot (55/75 km/h), a minimum of 30*30 km seems a necessity in a random battle. I personally do not expect a full sea map as Gaijin is now trying to set tank maps in air maps with in mind the “World War”, so prepare to see Naval Forces using existing aerial maps.
 
o Planes and AA Gunnery :
So what is the problem with planes in NF?  
From anecdotic before the start of the war, the AA weaponry saw a huge improvement quite quickly as the war goes on. Numerous ships had specific AA refit making them an absolute nightmare for aircrafts. As Example, the Farragut destroyer Class (US – 8 build from 1932 to 1935) goes from 4*.50 machineguns to a 2*2 40mm + 5*1 20mm in a 1943 refit, losing in exchange a 127mm gun which is also available for AA by the way. By the end of the War, some US destroyers were equipped with ten 40mm Bofors guns and as much 20mm Oerlikon guns.
In fact we should expect the exact opposite of the GF situation, a plane alone can’t be a problem. AA density even in a small unit like a PT Boat/MAS/S-Boote/MBT (choose your word) is so heavy, so strong than a lonely plane is a dead target. In an open sea battle, you have no way to hide, a single torpedo-bomber is a dead duck. So what is the option to make planes playable without being dead meat? Well, as it sound impossible to coordinate all the available players to attack a single target at the same time, a certain number of AI planes are required to achieve a somewhat realistic plane vs ships environment in addition to allow players to get closer to ships (without marks).
A destroyer is close to be a nightmare for a plane, can still be for several planes, then how about a squad playing as destroyers or even with a light cruiser like the USS Atlanta Class (main guns @127mm) and it’s devastating AA capacity?
What can a player do with a torpedo-bomber if a single destroyer with dual effect main gun can shoot him at 5km (ceiling for the US dual purpose 127mm is 12km)?
Do we need a lot of AI planes to allow flying players “not to be too much focused” by AA?
Should AA be manual or AI controlled?
Without even considering Heavy Units for the moment, the question already pops … then with Battleships entering in battles what will it be?
In GF, aircrafts have a small travel for a reload but in NF with Guns shooting above 10 km, will it be “fun” to go for a reload with a swordfish fx ? Using scouting mechanic, sending a squad member in a plane and the rest of the squad shelling the airport, is it an issue? Should planes have to fly 60 km to refill and being back ?
Is attacking players controlled ships with planes a useless gameplay in War Thunder? Should there even be player controlled planes in NF?
Gaijin has excluded a pure tank game, can Gaijin exclude planes in naval battles ? As said the problem is not the planes presence but the poor impact they could have.
 
o MM parity with Aircrafts/Tanks :
Making a BR system matching between naval trees is rather simple, matching it with the two other environments (planes/tanks) is more difficult.
The BR system actually confront both planes and “tanks” in certain modes that for some requires to build decks with both (Mixed RB/SB), not being perfect, most spaag fits relatively well in their BR when confronted to planes of the same BR to tend to a form of parity between aircraft and  ground vehicles.  
Now, let’s take a PT-Boat, a mid-war Higgins in that demonstration, and list it’s armament :
- 2*1 20mm Oerlikon
- 2*2 .50mm
Armament is serious for a small ship (24m), fitting an anti-aircraft armament more or less equivalent to a Wirbelwind (4*20mm), so a rather close BR could be needed as you “may” mixed planes and ships (even maybe tanks) and as planes have already a BR “on par” with spaag. This leads to 2 possibilities :
- Give a PT-boat like this mid-war Higgins a BR more or less equivalent to its spaag counterpart : the Wirbelwind, adding torpedoes to it leads it to a 4.0/4.3 BR. With that method first torpedo-boats start at 1.0 with their small armament but then quickly bigger units will quickly reach the actual 9.0 ceiling as some destroyers are equipped with literally tons of AA weaponry (fx destroyer USS Fletcher with 20 dedicated AA weapons + dual purpose main armament).
- Decrease theoretical AA value of ships by increasing the number of targets available and so leaving player controlled aircrafts with more survivability by reducing the ability to focus fire on a single aircraft. Negative point is that by adding AI, and we’re not talking about 4 planes, you’re increasing artificially the hardware requirements to play those battles as AI raids should be constant through the entire battle. This solution rejoin the Ships/Plane playability where AI presence also appear as a solution.
2- Heavy units
The precedent point brings to a more important ascertainment :
If a small PT boat like the mid-war Higgins can be define by a 4.0 BR, a destroyer packing far more powerful armament, having far more armor than a wood built PT Boat while maintaining a close speed must be far higher in BR. But then where do you put Heavies ?
o BR Range – MM for heavies – Par with Planes :
As seen just above, while a huge variety of ships are available, only a small part of them looks to fit in a BR range from 1.0 to 9.0.  
As seen previously, even a single destroyer has the ability to repulse any aerial attack made by a single or even a squad of planes. Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Battleships have far more dedicated anti-aircraft armament. A Battleship like the Bismark had an outstanding firepower with 8*2 105mm, 8*2 37mm and 12*1 20mm allowing her to shoot aircraft to very long range with an effective ceiling of 9450m. The ability to strike efficiently such a ship with a single plane is actually close to none … and the Bismark is far to be the strongest ship to counter planes. That means that it becomes close to impossible to air strike those potential late T5 Ships in the actual 16 vs 16 format without adding serious AI support (see previous point with basic ships).
o Fleet organization :
Most of the time during naval battles in WW2, the core of the ships represented were destroyers, rarely battles implying a format close to the 16 vs 16 used in random battles were fought with fleets in which Heavy Cruisers (CA), Light Cruisers (CL) were only a few and the core of the fleet were Destroyers (DD).  
Should we expect/want an historical fleet composition or should we have a BR only fleet composition ? Do RB/SB players want historical fleet type of arcadish* fleet type ?  
*arcadish meaning here not close to reality/history
In a more visual way, if you have the choice between those 2 random battles below, which one would you chose to participate in NF ?
1. Historical fleet :
a. US fleet :
 2 Heavy Cruisers (CA)
 4 Light Cruisers (CL)  
 10 Destroyers (DD)
b. Japanese fleet :
 1 Battleship (BB)
 2 Heavy Cruisers (CA)
 4 Light Cruisers (CL)
 9 Destroyers (DD)
 
2. MM fleet :
c. US fleet :
 5 Battleships (BB)
 8 Heavy Cruisers (CA)
 3 Light Cruisers (CL)
d. Japanese fleet
 4 Battleships (BB)
 9 heavy Cruisers (CA)
 3 Light Cruisers (CL)
For those thinking that we can have destroyers at high tier games, I will just remind you that most of the time (95%) you can’t reload torpedoes and that you can’t vanish at 7 km (Real life visibility and radars do not like arcade features). Do not expect Destroyers to work “à la” WoT, it can’t happen. So if it can’t have unlimited torpedoes and invisibility, it can’t match heavies in BR.  
That leave high tier with heavies only, is it a gameplay needed ? Wanted ? Should there be a mechanic from the start forcing historical fleet battles instead of BR battles ?
Gaijin has started to work on air restrictions (Bombers limit for RB fx), on ground restrictions (for some events you couldn’t start battle with certain vehicles or they were even limited in numbers), so can Gaijin use a “fleet format” for battles ? Should they try it or should a pure MM should be played during random battles ?
Start to think about it, you will have to choose at a moment or another especially when you will reach T3 and heavies (CA-CL) will appear in the main tree, because that implies long range battles only and …
 
o Long Range Battles :
The standard US destroyer carries a 127mm (5”) dual purpose gun (From USS Farragut Class in early 30’s till after war). The range at which it can fire is above 15km and accuracy hum … not really good, in fact “efficient” range is more about 10 km and even then dispersion is strong making long range battle for medium units quite boring and random when it’s about a “I don’t want to be hit” gameplay.
Now let’s raise above “small” 127mm guns and play with real big bad boys and let’s take a 406mm/45 (16”/45) which equipped 3 Battleships launched in 1920-1921 :
- USS Colorado
- USS Maryland
- USS West Virginia  
During the 1930-1931 period, they all three participated in a Force Battle Practice. They all fired 7 salvos (56 shots) at the same practice target at ~12800 yards (11700m). Let’s remember that the maximum range of such a naval caliber is … 35000 yards (32 km), the firing exercise is at “short” range well below the “effective” range (23000 yards/21 km).
And the result speak for itself :
 

 
 
Conclusion of that “long range battle”:
With the accuracy found during those practices, if a rather short engagement (far below maximum range) gives a lower than 5% accuracy, just imagine the result just at effective range in battle conditions (more speed, maneuvering, enemy shooting, damages on board,…). If Gaijin still take the realistic way for ships, how can we be surprised that first tests last more than one hour for a random arcade battle !!!
 
.....
 
 
o Game mode :
Standard game mode for planes and tanks is “Random Battle”, a 16 vs 16 battle. The standard map going from 2*2 km to 4*4 km in GF to 145*145 in WT (Norway), we should expect that NF will mainly be played on existing WT maps. Due to the necessity to allow players a certain liberty of movement, closer to what WT can offer in RB/SB, and to the range of naval weaponry (we will discuss heavy units later), we could expect maps to be over a 20 * 20km square.
But wait a minute,  

 
En 1 an, j'ai vu 2-3 event utiliser cette limitation sur le nombre de lourd.
En RB air, je crois qu'ils ont limité les bombardiers à 4, mais sont revenu en arrière.
 

 
Ok, j'avais pas compris, désolé
Gueule de bois + vendredi, çà fait pas bon ménage

 
Tu as coupé volontairement ? Du coup tu ne l'avais pas posté ça sur le forum WT ?

 
non c'est pas coupé, j'ai commencé à rédiger une trame, et puis à enrichir chaque morceau. en toute honnêteté je pense que y'a pas 10% de ce que j'aurai voulu mettre  

 
Je me rappelais pas qu'ils avaient fait des test avec ce système ya si longtemps. Comme quoi ça passe vite un an, putain...  
 

 
Franchement, faire la fête en semaine !    (   )

 
putain ouais un an, ça doit faire au moins 3 changement de pseudo pour Temu ça  

 
J'attends de voir le prochain pour essayer de deviner combien de temps il tiendra.    
 

La dernière fois que je me suis fait changer de pseudo, c’était sur Wow y'a 15 ans... j'était Healer à l'époque.. et mon Pseudo était : Benny-Heal... et PAF ! renommage

n'oubliez pas que les Shuriken c'est à partir d'aujourd'hui  

 
Je pense que Marokava, il apprécierait. Trouvez le jeu de mot.

Camel_Tog, ultra jeu de mot bledo-tankiste

 
Je n'invente rien, j'ai deja eu 3 mp avec une citation de l'article 11 a la suite de sanctions. :'D

alors, pour ceux qui voudrait avoir accés a la CBT tank japonais en obtenant les shurikens, un conseil faite le en arcade.
 
C'est une purge mais les 80% d'activité sont impossible a obtenir en RB, donc perte de temps.  
 
pluka farmer en arcade avion pour ceux qui veulent.  

Même en arcade.. J'ai fait 10 partis à midi.. Une seule de gagné..URSS/allemand/anglais/jap.. Tu peut jouer comment un dieu (ce qui n'est pas mon cas ) quand ça veux pas...

C'est quoi ce bug ?? j'ai débloqué tous les véhicule du Rang IV... et je ne peut pas rechercher de Véhicules du rang V ???
 

Pour les rang V, il faut avoir acheté X rang IV.
Chez les anglais, je crois qu'il faut en acheter 6...
 
Les RP sont stockés dans un coin, c'est pas perdu.

 
c'est écrit à gauche, 5/6  

 
Rechercher c'est pas acheter chez moi  

 
et je parie qu'en anglais c'est pas la recherche mais l'achat qui compte  

 
Traduction de merde  

Depuis le temps que je vous dis de jouer en anglais

Sympa ce petit event Ruhr.
Même si l'écart de BR se faisait vraiment sentir. Du 30mm (Tata, K4, G10/14, ...) contre du P47/P51, çà finit par faire tâche.

Nouvel avion premium créé par la communauté : le TA154A-1
 

 
Bon sinon, bien tôt la MAJ, les cockpits, les japs, tout ça, tout ça !