Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 19/12/21 in all areas

  1. I think it is time to address one of the biggest issues that has been plaguing the game for years at this point, harming the game and its playerbase, and that has been a major complaint of thousands of players who have never been listened to, but dismissed with cold and baseless claims instead. Thousands of players are negated the right to play with certain vehicles just because they aren't considered to be "worthy" of them for not having the personal performance Gaijin with its formulas expect them to have out of their "statistics". Vehicles don't have performances. PLAYERS do. Just because lots of competitive players got to play a vehicle before me, raising its performance statistics, doesn't mean that I should be expected to perform like them, and, if I don't, then me losing thousands of SL for playing with it is deserved because "I don't perform good enough". Those Skynet formulas of Gaijin don't take into account the HUMAN FACTORS that are involved, only baseless numbers without context. This system DOES NOT WORK. I have spent time, effort and MONEY into grinding many vehicles only to have my right to play with them denied because I don't have a pro player's performance because apparently vehicles are magical wonder-machines that earn statistics by themselves. I deserve my RIGHT to play these vehicles even if I am not the Doomslayer and I am here to demand this right in the name of all the players that, like me, are being neglected and denied the right to play the vehicles we like and HAVE EARNED. Some of us are just casual players who want to have some fun with War Thunder after arriving home from work or school. Yet Gaijin PUNISHES us for not being top-performance competitive players like the ones who got to play certain vehicles before us. What are we, expected to take War Thunder as a job in order to earn our right to play the vehicles that we enjoy!? Here's the thing: we are stuck in a neverending cycle that, unless we use some logic, will NEVER end: 1- top players get and perform well with a vehicle. 2- said vehicle gets extreme repair costs because "it performs good according to statistics". 3- no player that isn't a top player can play with that vehicle because they lose thousands of SL because its repair cost was based on the top players' performances. 4- the vehicle's performance statistics keep increasing as less and better players play it every time. I personally guarantee you that, if you gave, for example, Strv 122s a minimally decent repair cost, their performance would drop DRASTICALLY as more average players like me would at last be able to play with them, just in a matter of days. I am TIRED of having the Strv 122s collecting dust in the hangar just because Gaijin thinks it's fine to FORBID me to play with it because "if I don't have a 5:1 KD/R and 90% WR with it it's my problem because according to sTaTiStIcS that should be a typical value for a player using this vehicle". I am using Strv 122 as an example because it's been more than a year since I spent 60 GJN and 1 month of grind with a vehicle that I hated just to get it and yet I still can't play it, but same goes for many vehicles in many ranks accross all the trees. Repair costs should be based, if anything, on the objective capabilities each vehicle’s technical specifications grant them for their time compared to their contemporaries, not in player performance.
    28 points
  2. Okay, I'll admit it, the end of this month (January), I turn frickin' SEVENTY! 70! If I knew I was gonna live this long I would have taken better care of myself. The game keeps me active and in touch with other gamers and it's hard to find an older streamer. So, whose an older geezer regularly playing the game? Got to be a couple, right? Actually, gaming at this age is a win-win. You shoot me down, it's like, "You shot down the decrepit old geezer, big deal, xxxxxxx." I shoot you down, it's, "HAR-HAR, you got shot down by a Grandpa!" CYA out there.
    26 points
  3. This is somewhat of a continuation to "An open letter to Gaijin, from the warthunder sim community." My in-game user is LawManDan. I have been a member of War Thunder since late 2013/early 2014. I have enjoyed many aspects of this game, but nothing has brought me more joy than the air simulator mode. I have made a huge investment both in game and in real life, such as purchasing hardware for simulator (H.O.T.A.S and various equipment). I have never regretted any time that I have spent on this game, and I am still extremally active. I am the commander of a very competitive air sim squadron, to which everyone in will agree to this post. I do not mean any offense or ill intent to those who have spent countless hours to try to help and get sim to where it is now. I feel that sim is at its all-time lowest and that Gaijin is on the verge of losing its legitimate player base forever. One of the top complaints you will find with any legitimate sim player is the economy system. I feel that the developers were taking a step in the right direction from trying to implement a new economy system in response to the above listed thread, and I was genuinely excited when the change first happened. That excitement was quickly killed for the following reasons. I find it absolutely asinine that in order to spawn you have to pay the complete repair cost of which ever vehicle you choose to spawn. This would be acceptable if the SL spent was awarded back to the user if you are not killed but that is not the case. You are getting punished for playing the game mode. Sure, it's okay with some vehicles, but with others such as the F-4EJ KAI for example, it's next to impossible to make any SL in a match you go in. That's with even using premium account. To spawn in a spaded F-4EJ is 65K SL that you will not get back. The useful actions implementation did absolutely nothing for air sim. Anything other than flying around not doing absolutely anything at all would be considered a useful action. The main complaint from the previous economy system was the SL output for actions not being enough vs the time spent in the game and completing those actions. Now the issue has been amplified. A player who goes out and gets 10 air combat kills, bombs 2 bases, and captures an objective will virtually make the same amount of SL as a player that bombs two bases and then does donuts on the airfield for the next two hours (I'll get to this point later on in this post.) It's not fair that everyone will virtually make the same amount. If you are truly skilled at this mode, work and earn your SL, then you should be awarded more than the zomber who suicided himself 6 times and did donuts on the airfield for play time. The absolute number one complaint you will receive from your air sim player base is the abuse of Chinese farming accounts. This is absolutely what has ruined the air sim community combined with the current economy system. With just a few small tweaks the majority of air sim farming would cease to exist. The main method that has an always will be is the abuse of spawning in bot accounts and killing them non-stop on the runway. Gaijin did help slightly with the implementation of the new runways with SAMs, but sadly it wasn't enough to stop the issue. The farmers will spawn their accounts (usually 2-3 biplanes) on the runway and kill them non-stop for around 20-30 minutes. This results in them having 10,000+ game score. After this the farmer will do one of two things. You will see them literally do donuts on the airfield for the remainder of the match. If that is not the case, then they will leave one biplane in the match and both the bot account, and the farm account will fly into outer space for the remainder of the match as it is highly unlikely that any players are flying 35k plus feet. The second form of farming is normally seen in rocket strafing airfields. Sometimes even in combination with the bot killing. All of this is also 99% of the time seen on the Tunisia map. The implementation of three things will almost certainly fix the above listed issues. Sure, there will always be some form of abuse, but this is literally what sim players have been complaining about for over two years now. First, the inactive state needs to kick the player for being on the runway and not spawned in flying. No matter what, if you are on the runway for a certain time period (let's say 4-5 minutes) then that player should be kicked. This will eliminate the players who do donuts on the airfield for 2 hours and take up lobby space. Until those wheels have lifted off of the airstrip then that timer should be in effect. Second, I honestly don't want to recommend this, but I feel as if it has come to this point. Remove player damage on airfields. Parked targets should not receive damage due to Chinese farming. If the first mentioned suggestion was the only thing implemented, then the farmers would simply just spawn their bott accounts in a minute prior to them reaching the airfield destination. Leave it so that the airfield will still take bomb damage as it is an objective, but that players parked on the airfield do not receive damage. This will also somewhat help with the issue of the farmers using their bot accounts to team kill you as you take off. I have seen recently that when trying to combat the farmers that they use their bott accounts to team kill you before you even get off of the runway. Thirdly, reduce the SL output for rocket damage to airfield objectives. If using rockets for bomb objectives, then it should have the same SL output as bombs do per tonnage. That would stop the rocket spam and leave rockets for their intended purposes. Circling back to the economy. Seriously something needs to be done about this. There is no reason I should be able to jump into a 10-minute realistic battles match, kill 2 air targets, bomb one base, and make 80k SL, then turn around and kill 20 air targets, bomb three bases, and not die, and only make 30k in the time span of an hour. I feel that much more can be said in this post but if you take the time to look through other forum posts then you will quickly see the issues in sim. I hope that the recruitment of sincere GM applicants will assist in these issues. Thanks for taking the time to look at this post. Fellow users feel free to post other solutions below! See you in the skies! Sincerely, LawManDan [REEPR] REAPER Commander
    25 points
  4. Dear Players! With the start of a new year, its often good to reflect on the previous year. As you may remember, at the beginning of last year, we announced the Active Bug reporter recipients for 2020, in which we thanked those users who have contributed towards improving the game, by submitting a number of high quality bug reports throughout the year of 2020. Progressing on from that, we are very happy to announce that several members of last years program have now progressed to join the Technical Moderation team and now are part of our Community Staff team: @HK_Reporter @Stuhlfleisch @UNIT_normal @_David_Bowie_ We are also pleased to announce the recipients of the Active Bug Reporter rewards program for 2021: @VonarianTheGreat @ACR-N64@psn @dlwlehd @CaID @Flame2512 @Sirchby @TyphoonCro @nxdefiant001 @Magiaconatus All of the Active Bug Reporter's will receive the following over the coming week: Unique Forum Title / Group - “Active Bug Reporter” 1000 Golden Eagles as a 1 time reward of appreciation from the team Expanded forum upload space In addition to the above, those within the active bug report program who continue to show extraordinary commitment may be considered for invitations to the Technical Moderation team. Thank you all for your contributions and helping to improve the game! The War Thunder Team
    25 points
  5. Mini Aviation Tech Tree For The Arab League Introduction This suggestion is for a "mini" tech tree for the Arab League, similar to the Israeli tech tree, which does not start from rank 1. Since Israel has it's own tech tree in War Thunder, it makes sense for the opponent of Israel (which generally are the Arab countries in the Arab League) to have it's own tech tree - similar how we have Axis and Allied nations in WT for the WWII era. This tech tree would mostly consist of the most unique aircraft used by the Arab League, to prevent a "copy+paste" tech tree scenario. Each rank would have a minimum of 4 aircraft, so that people would need to research all 4 aircraft before advancing to the next rank. Historical Basis Arab countries, had many different various aircraft, and many modifications of aircraft from other countries. I chose to add Arab countries together, because they all have a similar culture and language to one another. Throughout history, Arab countries have mostly acted together unilaterally on major world issues. All Arab countries are members of the Arab League, and have many treaties together. The Arab League As all Arab countries are members of the Arab league, I chose to add the Arab League flag to represent this tech tree. However, each stat card for each vehicle, would have the flag of the country which the vehicle is originally from, and not the Arab League flag. There are a total of 22 member states of the Arab League, and a few observer states. So in total, this tree would encompass vehicles from about 22 Arab countries. You can read more about the Arab League below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Arab_League Entry Requirements Much like the Israeli tech tree, this tech tree could start from rank 4. Players will need to have at least 1 rank 4 vehicle from the UK or USSR tech trees. Or players could buy a premium or gift vehicle from this tech tree to enter. Existing Arab Aircraft Since there already are some Arab aircraft in WT, such as the Syrian Su-22M3 and the Egyptian Su-7BMK, they would ideally be moved into this new tech tree. Tech Tree Vehicles List Here is a list of some of the vehicles that would be in the Arab Aviation tech tree. Each vehicle is fitted with a historically accurate flag, from the time period, and country, that it was produced in. Rank 4 __________________________________________________ Iraqi Sea Fury F.Mk.X Saudi B-26B Syrian Spitfire F.Mk.22 Egyptian Spitfire Mk.IX Egyptian Lancaster B.Mk.I Be-12 Rank 5 __________________________________________________ Helwan Ha-200B Al-Kahira Egyptian Meteor F.Mk.8 Iraqi Falcon 50 "Susanna" Hunter F.Mk.59 (Export Version For Iraq) Rank 6 __________________________________________________ English Electric Lightning F.53 (Variant Only Used By Saudi Arabia And Kuwait) Egyptian modified MiG-21RF Helwan HA-300 Jordanian F-104A Tu-16 Rank 7 __________________________________________________ Mirage IIIEL (Special Variant Made For Lebanon) Mirage 5EAD (Special Variant Made For Abu Dhabi) Mirage 5SDE (Special Variant Made For Egypt) Mirage F1EJ (Special Variant Made For Jordan) Iraqi Mirage F1EQ-4 (Modified to carry Kh-29L laser guided A-G missiles) Algerian MiG-23 BN (Modified to carry Mk.81 and Mk.82 bombs) Syrian Modified MiG-23MF
    21 points
  6. You want to solve the 1DL problem? Okay, here's some actual suggestions. 1. Better maps that aren't easy to spawn camp or spawn snipe - creating maps that people will actually want to play. 2. BR decompression - Creating more balanced matches that people will actually want to play. 3. Repair cost changes - Only USSR and China players can afford to throw the whole kitchen sink into a match and still come out with positive SL. This needs to change. 4. An end to the selling of top tier vehicles - This will put an end to people who have 1 top tier premium who will leave after 1 death because they have no actual line-up to run with it.
    20 points
  7. Gaijin it has been multiple patches already where anything has been barely addressed with balancing issues, bug fixed and outright quality of life improvements. Volumetric shells and volumetric armor still broken and as frustrating as possible. To the point you can die because something dumb like a sheet of metal in the side skirts of a tank ate an entire shell, or because something really stupid happened like hitting two 100mm plates and them suddenly being "worth" more than 200mm of armor. BR compression is a massive issue the further you move up in the tank tree and your balancing "statistics" are outright sending excellent tanks down, while moving outright worse tanks up because you are not measuring pick rate, vehicle characteristics and average skill gaps between the playerbases. We have several tanks with major bug fixed not attended to, while you keep adding more and more tanks to the game at questionable BRs. We still have downright awful ammo balancing, with HEAT-FS being extremely frustrating to use because bushes setting them off or doing no damage at all because some optics ate the entire post penetration. APCR still doing horrible damage, uncapped AP still missing penetration and still doing poor damage, APHE still a nuke and ATGMs are inconsistent at best. The research and SL economy are downright awful. SL and RP gains the higher you go the worse they get, combined with a painful stock grind that outright makes anyone who isn't willing to spend GE, want to quit playing outright. It is annoying to see multiple patches worth of content that is downright broken or worthless, like Ground Breaking or the new Israeli tank tree being shoved into the game with what can be considered pretty empty lineups, while minor nations aren't getting the tanks they need to fill their tank trees. And actually spending some effort to balance the maps, like Middle East being a mess and Port Novo favoring one side easily, making some maps where you can't spawn camp from spawn to spawn, would actually improve the game. The traction nerf that outright created more problems than it fixed, which made maps like White Fortress a nightmare to play at. The constantly lower SP costs of tanks that outright harm small lineups and made increasing the SP for CAS moot because the tank SP reduction compensated for the air SP increase. Gaijin should at least focus two or three major updates without adding more worthless content and actually fix major issues with the game.
    18 points
  8. Arab-Iranian Ground Forces Tech Tree Introduction This suggestion is for adding an Arab-Iranian Ground Forces tech tree to War Thunder. Arab countries and Iran, had many different various aircraft, and many modifications of vehicles from other countries. The total tech tree size would be above 190 vehicles, which is bigger than the ground forces tech trees of the: USA, USSR, United Kingdom, and Japan. I chose to add Arab countries together, because they all have a similar culture and language to one another. Throughout history, Arab countries have mostly acted together unilaterally on major world issues. All Arab countries are members of the Arab League, and have many treaties together. I included Iran, because Iran helps and supports many Arab countries in the modern world, and has a similar culture and political system to Arab countries. Iran also has many of it's own vehicles, which would supplement this tech tree. Iran is geographically next to Iraq as well, which is an Arab country. It is also possible that the Arab League and Iranian tech trees may be separated, so that there would be an Arab League tech tree, and also a separate Iranian tech tree - as Iran has enough vehicles to become a minor tech tree on its own. Summary Of Arguments For Adding The Arab-Iranian Tech Tree Into War Thunder Here is a clear and straightforward list of points that summarizes why this tech tree should be added into War Thunder. This tech tree would help introduce a NATO vs. Warsaw Pact match-maker, as many Arab countries sided with the USSR. Currently, there is a major lack of Warsaw Pact/pro-Soviet nations in War Thunder. This tech tree offers some unique modifications and unique Arab/Iranian vehicles, and has some good looking camouflages. This tech tree would make Gaijin more money from the premium sales, so it would help give Gaijin more resources to keep developing War Thunder. This has the potential of introducing famous Arab vs. Israeli battles and events in the future. This would help introduce more desert maps and camouflages, since Arab countries are mostly in deserts. Many people are happy to play the Chinese tech tree, although it has many "copy+paste" vehicles. So people would be happy to play this tech tree, as it has many unique modifications of vehicles. There are 501 million people in Arab countries and Iran combined, who love their countries. So, why not have a tech tree that would attract some of the 501 million Arabs and Iranians to the game? Arab countries and Iran, were involved in many wars over the past 70 years. This gives us the opportunity of having new fun events, and match-maker battles based on these modern conflicts. People want to play famous planes and tanks. We always hear about the middle east on the news, so why not let people enjoy using famous Arab/Iranian vehicles that they see on the news and read in books? Iran was previously called "Persia", and has a very long history. Why not give one of the worlds' longest lasting and famous civilizations, a tech tree of their own? It would give enthusiasts of Arab countries and Iran, a tech tree to enjoy. This tech tree could be added as a subtree for a bigger nation, that way only the most unique vehicles would be added, to reduce the number of copy+paste vehicles. This would effectively add 23 more countries into War Thunder, which would give the game more variety of nations. It would be better than seeing the usual USSR/USA/Germany/UK in battle, which we've had for years without change, and this status quo has become boring. This game is called "War Thunder", not "Peace Thunder", so let's add countries that actually went to war, and not a bunch of boring neutral countries like Sweden or Switzerland. Every nation in War Thunder has it's own maps - we have American maps for America, and German maps for Germany, and French maps for France, and Japanese maps for Japan. We even already have Arab maps that take place in Arab countries, yet no Arab nation to play on these Arab maps. There is an Israeli tech tree in War Thunder, so the opposing countries to Israel should be added, such as Iran or the Arab League. The Arab League As all Arab countries are members of the Arab league, I chose to add the Arab League flag to represent this tech tree. However, each stat card for each vehicle, would have the flag of the country which the vehicle is originally from, and not the Arab League flag. There are a total of 22 member states of the Arab League, and a few observer states. So in total, this tree would encompass vehicles from about 23 related Arab and Iranian countries. You can read more about the Arab League below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Arab_League Countries that are in the Arab League Below is a list of every country that is in the Arab League, and thus is represented by the Arab-Iranian tech tree. Iran can be by itself Iran is not an Arabic country, but the culture and language of Iran is similar to that of Arabic countries, and there are many people in Iran who can speak Arabic. Iran has many of it's own vehicles, enough to make an independent tech tree. It is thus possible to create two tech trees out of this idea - an Arab League tech tree and an independent Iranian tech tree. Promotional Forum Signatures If you support this tech tree, you can use our forum signatures to help spread the message of the Arab-Iranian tech tree. But just make sure to credit the creator, @Borotovas. Vehicle Count Here is a count of how many vehicles are in this proposed tech tree so far, and also in each tier. Tier 1 - 13 Tier 2 - 14 Tier 3 - 25 Tier 4 - 22 Tier 5 - 34 Tier 6 - 34 Tier 7 - 20 Premium/Gift/Market - 32 Total - 192 Arab-Iranian Tech Tree Fan Art Here is some fan art for the Arab-Iranian ground forces tech tree. This is a possible layout of only Syrian ground vehicles. Unknown creator. Arab-Iranian tech tree visualization Here is a visualization of what the proposed Arab-Iranian tech tree would look like, if it was added into War Thunder. This visualization was made by @PikPikker. An interesting observation, is that this tech tree would be larger than the tech trees of: France, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and China. https://pikpikker.neocities.org/arab_wt.html New vehicle type for War Thunder - the "technical" As this game is moving forward to adding more modern tanks, I have noticed that something was missing from War Thunder, that is present in modern wars. That thing, or shall we say the "vehicle type" that's missing from War Thunder, is the technical. Technicals are essentially flatbed trucks or pickup trucks which have weapons mounted onto the rear truck bed. These vehicles may seem simple, but they are extremely effective, and would add a new dynamic to War Thunder. These vehicles would essentially be revolutionary, and game-changing in War Thunder. Technicals have been used in many modern wars, and there are countless amounts of technicals that were built and used in many modern world conflicts. However, Arab countries have used technicals in very large quantities in various recent wars, so the "technical" vehicle type should be introduced to War Thunder, with the implementation of the Arab-Iranian tech tree. More information about technicals is linked below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle) Arab-Iranian tech tree vehicles list Here is a list of some of the vehicles that would be in the Arab-Iranian tech tree. I will try to add vehicles from every country that is in the Arab League, or as many that can fit into the tree, in a unique way. Each vehicle is fitted with a historically accurate flag, from the time period, and country, that it was produced in. __Tier 1__ __Tier 2__ __Tier 3__ __Tier 4__ __Tier 5__ __Tier 6__ __Tier 7__ __Premium/Gift/Market__
    17 points
  9. Dear Dev team, I have enjoyed your game since long ago and now I see the rise of NFT games. I am invested in some games already. That is why I wanted to ask you, if your company is thinking about embracing NFTs sooner or later. Best regards Phil
    17 points
  10. Well, apparently ka50 dominating Heli EC and Ground Sim for years was not enough. So multiple top tier MBTs with laughable repair costs were added. Apparently that wasn't enough too, so we now have Air RB devolved into Mig23MLD hunting zone. Kindful reminder that statistically, 70+% winrate and 2+ frag per death means that most of the time said vehicle is curbstomping the opposite site into the ground and the matches are completely devoid of any semblance of balance. TLDR: top tier is bricked now across ALL modes. Eagerly awaiting the increase in repair costs to 20k+ like it happened with other overperforming vehicles in French, Italian or German trees /s
    16 points
  11. Just reminding people that in real life, there was no such thing as a proper separation between generations of war machines. Some examples: - The first recorded kill by a MiG-15 was by a Communist Chinese one, when it shot down a Nationalist-Chinese P-38 Lightning - The P-51D saw service with the USAF during the Korean War, where it encountered the MiG-15bis. On the Royal Navy's side, the last Seafires also served during the conflict, as well as the Sea Fury and Firefly. - P-47D's remained in service with the French Air Force up to 1960, latterly in a training capacity; however they were used in combat as COIN aircraft when the Algerian War of Independence broke out. At this point, they flew alongside more modern French aircraft such as the Mistral (a French variant of the British Vampire); and even the Super Mystère. - In the early 1960s, Indonesia had confrontations with both Great Britain (Borneo) and the Netherlands (Netherlands New Guinea). While the Indonesians had MiG-17s at their disposal, due to the ranges involved, the more common aircraft used were P-51Ds and B-25s - the RAF had the EE Lightning at their disposal (and practiced intercepting P-51s with fast jets using Spitfires as stand-ins at home); while the Netherlands had the Sea Hawk and Hunter at their disposal. The conflicts slumbered on for a while - the sole real air-to-air kill recorded was a Dutch P2V-5 Neptune that shot down an Indonesian C-47. - In US service, quite a lot of propeller aircraft still saw service during the Vietnam War - including the A-1 Skyraider and A-26 Invader - this alongside such modern aircraft as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader. - The M3 Stuart light tank saw service with the Indian Army during the 1965 Indian-Pakistani War, where it encountered, and was massacred by Pakistani PT-76s - Dominican Stridsvagn m/40s saw service (alongside the AMX-13) during the 1965 Dominican Civil War, where they encountered USMC M48 Pattons and M50 Ontos. They did not fare well. Some of the survivors served on until they were finally withdrawn from service in 1999. - Syrian StuG III, Jagdpanzer IVs and Panzer IVs were slightly massacred by Israeli Super Shermans and Centurions during the 1967 Six-Day War. - T-34/85s deserve more than a mention, being involved in numerous wars well beyond obsolescence, including the 1967 Six-Day War; the Angolan Civil War of the 1970s-1980s; the Afghan War of the 1980s; the Balkan Wars of the 1990s - and some even reported having seen active duty during the recent Yemeni war (2015-ongoing). And let's not forget. The P-51D last flew in military service in 1986 (Dominican Republic). The last Sherman in military service bowed out in 2018 (Paraguay). The T-34/85 is still seeing active service in a number of countries to this day - and in some cases, active combat as well. The MiG-21 will this year see its 63rd year in frontline service, often still operating alongside much more modern aircraft as well. It's impossible to do a 'hard' separation between generations, because no such hard separations exist in real life, either...
    14 points
  12. Here is the fun part of the Type 10. This thread is for collecting the issues of the new top tier MBT Type 10 so please try to not making any argument and if you can't resist, here is a thread for it. With that out of the way feel free to post all other issues regarding this troublesome tank in here. I'm honestly prefer to stay out of the classified information such as armor thickness, armor layouts etc i know many of us don't agree with the armor value gaijin has provided but please don't bring it up in here because it is usually causing unnecessary fight over it as we have already seen in the thread above so i'm asking you to please not do it here. 1) Side skirt. Reported. Status: Approved. 2) Headlights: Reported. Status: Approved. 3) Hydropneumatic suspension: Reported. Status: Approved. 4) A forth-generation MBT that utilized hand cranking turret... Reported but the report is mysteriously dissapeared https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/541943-type-10-correcting-xray-modules/&do=findComment&comment=9190777 Status: Unknown. Will probably retry it again later, no worries. 5) Broken wheel: Reported. Status: Approved. 6) Hull traverse: Reported. Status: Will be reported by @KnightoftheAbyss 7) Copy-paste Type 90 powerpack: Reported. Status: Approved. 8) M2 50. cal mount: Reported. Status: *Approved. 9) Uneven composite armor. Reported by @AnimeThighs Status: Waiting for investigation. 10) Armor holes: Status: I might report it myself unless a brave soul will do it/ already did it. 11) Lacking of CVT: Status: Someone reported this back on devserver and since then one additional gear had been increased but is this consider as ''fixed'' since the mobility is barely improved ? 12) Copy-paste Type 90 gun handling: Two seperated reports by 1) @AnimeThighs & 2)@_David_Bowie_ Status: 1) Waiting for investigation. 2) Approved, Respectively. 13) Missing additional turret basket. Reported by @Tamamo_no_Gozen Status; Approved. End... (or is it ?) Things that had been fixed so far since dev server: ''Where can i bug reporting?'' 1) https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1973-ground-vehicles/ 2) https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder (Recommended for those that don't have much data space available to upload required files for a bug report or simply don't want those files to take up their data space).
    13 points
  13. The following instruction is for War Thunder accounts created in the Xbox version of the game and linked it to email in order to login in the PC-version of the game. We are now offering opportunity to unlink your Xbox-bound account. As a result of this procedure, you will have 2 separate accounts - original one that you can still use from the console (but can't use in PC version anymore), and another fully fledged PC-account with no restrictions for using Gaijin Store etc. In-game progress will be saved at the moment of unlinking and after that will be no longer be shared and will become independent on each platform. Prerequisites For technical reasons, we do not offer the unlinking for accounts that also played PC versions of our games (Crossout, CRSED, Star Conflict). If you are willing to sacrifice your progress/purchases in PC versions of those titles, inform support about this in your request. The email your Xbox-account is bound to has to be verified (you can check this in your profile at https://store.gaijin.net/user.php), otherwise you won't be able to reset your password and enable 2-step authorization once the unlinking is complete. In order for email to be verified, it has to be working address and you should have access to it. Please ensure it before proceeding with unlinking, this article might be helpful for you - https://support.gaijin.net/hc/en-us/articles/115005277969-Additional-e-mail-addresses-binding-Linked-e-mail-addresses-removal-Login-management You have to leave your squadron if you are a member of any. You will have to enlist back to it once the unlinking is finished. Keep in mind: Purchases made for GE in-game (including active premium account time) will remain on new PC account, but Golden Eagles balance will be set to 0. So it is advised that you spent any Golden Eagles left on the original Xbox-account before initiating the unlinking, although it's up to you. Silver Lions balance is preserved. All vehicles and premium account time (unless expired already) included into vehicle packs from the Xbox Store will be preserved. All "market" inventory items such as unused vehicle and skin coupons and trophies will remain on the original account. If you want to keep the content provided by those items on new PC account, you have to consume them before unlinking. But boosters, wagers, orders, discount coupons etc will be transferred to new account. Save your controls presets into a file while in PC version with your existing account, so you can import them later with a new one. All vehicle presets will not transfer to new account, you will have to recreate them. Friends list will be reset, you will have to repopulate it. Squadron vehicles research will be saved on a new account except for the last 3 days. To continue research, you will have to join squadron again. It's a one-time, one-way offer. It is not possible to link the accounts back again, or bind another email to your original Xbox-account. Once you spent all GE and inventory items (or are willing to proceed regardless) and left the squadron, login at https://support.gaijin.net and submit a new request (use the button at the top of the website next to your nickname). Pick category "Other" and name the request "Unlinking Xbox-bound account". Note! The process may take up to 48 hours and is provided only on business days (Monday to Friday). While the unlinking is undergoing, your account will be frozen to prevent login to the game and interfering with the process. You will be notified in the support ticket once all is done. Due to upcoming holidays, unlinking requests will be accepted until December 29th of this year and will be continued in mid-January.
    13 points
  14. i think i like it specially the camouflage in the Desert
    13 points
  15. Yes Coincidentally, some of last years have just become full Technical Moderators. _David_Bowie_ HK_Reporter Stuhlfleisch UNIT_normal
    12 points
  16. A common but relatively untackled discussion that has appeared numerous times is a separation of World War 2 vehicles from their future successors, the Postwar vehicles. For various reasons, a certain part of the community wanted WWII vehicles to play, and only play against peer adversaries of the same era, naturally pushing Post-WWII vehicles out of the scope. There is a long-standing objection that the postwar vehicles simply have too much advantage in many regards against the wartime ones, therefore, is considered imbalanced. Postwar tanks have access to modern munitions that would render wartime superheavy tanks meaningless, or advanced fire control that negates the old tanks still relying on shoot-and-scoot tactic, or any hardliners' personal favorite card: "It's unhistorical". In any case, They have to be separated regardless of the final outcome. After all, the game's timeframe can be traced since the Beta with the introduction of vehicles starting from World War 2 and ending at early Cold War. The justification to separate them only further intensifies from there. In a scenario where such event occurs, numerous ideas came up that would divide the wartime vehicles to the postwar ones ranging from hard tech tree cutoff, increased BR for postwar vehicles, to special matchmaking for late war tanks, and the list goes on. But no one has ever managed to come to terms of what defines a WWII vehicle... a WWII vehicle. Various arguments were frequently thrown toward each other, cases like how a tank can still be a WWII product when it was only assembled months after the war's end, or why an unfinished tank is technically a WWII product when it never materialized into operational status, or something as basic as the tank not even participating in combat were not a rare sighting around the discussion board. The closure date of WWII isn't completely in the clear from being a subject of debate either, with one trying to rendering the other irrelevant when implemented as a hard cutoff line. The V-E Day (8 May 1945) is the commonly preferred cutoff date, marked by the defeat of Axis forces in the European Front, which would consequentially cause all late war projects of the US and Japan to be irrelevant past that date. The two others are the V-J Day(s), as officially recognized by Japan with the initial announcement of Japan's defeat (15 August 1945), and as officially recognized by the US with the surrender document formally signed aboard the Battleship USS Missouri (2 September 1945). There are already some fundamental factors out there to draw distinctive lines of a WWII product, such as classifying WWII by doctrine, WWII by first laid down plan, WWII by design, and so on. But noticing the discussions I saw around, they still couldn't reach conclusion with the others simply because most of these are... *subjective*, to say the least. One example would be the T29 Heavy Tank. It was developed to combat the German heavily armored and reinforced units, was laid down in September 1944, and was constructed on the similar framework as the M26 Pershing, assembled with existing WWII tech. So by default it should be considered a WWII vehicle, correct? Apparently not according to some players, as it never saw combat. Another factor has been added to the list with no one realizing, and that is WWII by service. But this factor can be easily flawed when viewed as a sole entity, as not few WWII vehicles did not enter service at all. Some even existed since 1940 and still never saw any combat. Therefore, I attempted to combine these classification into a rather simple chart that includes these multiple factors, primarily WWII by manufacture date, some WWII by design, and a bit of WWII by service. A World War II vs Postwar Classification Chart. This chart will have several segments, starting from Wartime Combat and gradually progressing further to Postwar, with main emphasis put into WWII by manufacture date. The main reason is that a vehicle's manufacture date is one of the most concrete and objective data one can reliably trust upon, and works well when combined with the other types of classification to provide context. The cutoff date itself will be set as the V-J Day (2 September 1945), as it signified de facto end of WWII as a whole across the globe. Choosing for the V-E Day would make little sense from geopolitical standpoint, as it would completely disregard the still ongoing conflict on the Pacific Front. Wartime Combat Vehicles with all parts, modules, and modifications designed and produced during WWII, and entered combat service. Vehicles that were involved in combat during the war, significant or insignificant. Their involvement automatically puts them into service and have them assembled with all the parts, modules, and modifications into operational status during the wartime era. The most appropriate category of a WWII vehicle by all accounts. Examples: Nation Vehicle Detail USA T26E4 Sent for combat trial in Germany Germany Sturer Emil Sent for combat trial on Eastern Front USSR SU-100Y Deployed in emergency to defend Moscow UK Crusader AA Mk 2 Deployed for a limited time on Western Front Japan Ho-Ni I Sent in small number to defend Philippines Italy 75/46 M43 Operated by Germany France AMC 35 Saw limited action during the outbreak of WWII Sweden L-62 ANTI II Operated by Finland China M4A4 ✵ Lend-Leased by UK Wartime Non-combat Vehicles with all parts, modules, and modifications designed and produced during WWII, but did not enter combat service. Vehicles that had finished production during the wartime period, with no postwar retrofits being added. Myriad of factors can contribute into the vehicles ultimately not participating in combat. Army's lack of preparation in adopting new tanks, unfinished trials, bombed factory, shifted priority for homeland defense, to even capitulation of an entire nation. Most often, the bulk of vehicles that will fit into this category is comprised of limited procurements and prototypes that had reached operational status. Considering all the vehicles in this category have to be successfully assembled before the cutoff date in similar fashion as the Wartime Combat vehicles, the vehicles is considered a wartime product. Examples: Nation Vehicle Detail USA T29 T29 Pilot No. 1, completed assembly for trials in July 1945 Germany Maus Maus Typ 205/2, received final module for trials in September 1944 USSR IS-6 Object 252, completed assembly for trials in November 1944 UK Centurion Mk 1 A41 Pilot No. 1, partially assembled with mild steel for trials in June 1944 Japan Chi-To Chi-To Prototype No. 2, completed assembly for trials in February 1945 Italy Breda 501 Semovente Ruotato da 90/53 Breda 501, completed assembly for trials in July 1943 France B1 ter B1 ter Prototype No. 1, assembled for evaluation in 1937 Sweden Sav m/43 (1944) Pav m/43, prototype completed in 1943, and entered service in 1944 China n/a Unfinished Vehicles with all parts, modules, and modifications designed during WWII, but never finished production or assembly. Vehicles that had been in development before the end of WWII, but never fully materialized into running condition. The main suspect of this category is the Axis vehicles. Modules such as weapons, propulsion, and/or chassis could have been already manufactured, or at the very least planned, but the vehicle itself would not be assembled into a completed package. Causes may vary, but share some similarity with the Wartime Non-combat category, including lack of raw materials, insufficient time to finish assembly, termination of project, or a shift in development priority. Some Unfinished vehicles might be lucky enough to be reassembled again during the postwar era for evaluation, with a certain degree of accuracy to their initially planned design from WWII. This is the starting point where the line between wartime and postwar product becomes obscure, depending on how the vehicles were reconstructed, either with existing wartime parts and modules or modified with postwar features. Vehicles from this category often get denounced for being an unfinished product, and thought to be unrealistic, potentially prone to inaccuracies. Although there is a way to deduce on whether or not the vehicle is realistic enough to be reconstructed during the wartime period, i.e. reassembling existing but separated parts into the vehicle to reflect the planned design*. The project has to proceed through sufficient amount of progress in the development to generate adequate specification for the purpose of building the vehicle. If feasible enough, then there should be issue for the Unfinished WWII vehicles to be in this category. Examples: Nation Vehicle Detail USA n/a Germany E-100 Sole prototype partially manufactured Reconstructed with Maus Versuchs-turm 1 turret based on existing WWII design in the game USSR n/a UK AC IV Project terminated before any prototypes were manufactured in July 1943 Reconstructed based on the preliminary specification and drawing in the game Japan Chi-To Late Parts including the hull and turret partially manufactured Reconstructed based on the final specification and drawing in the game Italy n/a France n/a Sweden Sa China n/a *Some vehicles like the Panther II and Tiger 10,5 cm in the game are well-known to be unfeasible for reconstruction. Latecomer Vehicles with all parts, modules, and modifications designed during WWII, but did not finish production until Postwar. Vehicles that had been in development before the end of WWII, but did not meet the deadline for completion by the end of WWII, only after that. The main suspect of this category is the Allied vehicles. Modules such as weapons, propulsion, and/or chassis could have been already manufactured, or at the very least planned, only to be fully assembled during the postwar period. Causes ranging from decreased development priority of ongoing projects for postwar preparations, lack of funds, to constant revisions to the project specification during development. In my humble opinion, this category is easily the point of contention across the entire chart, and the most divisive one depending on which side to ask. On one side, it was only fully assembled postwar, therefore, NOT WWII by manufacture date. On the other, it checked all the other classifications defining a wartime product, therefore, IS WWII by doctrine, WWII by first laid down plan, and WWII by design. However, it should be noted that, most players generally accepted the fact that plenty of the Unfinished vehicles are still considered as WWII product with all the parts and modules (and sometimes modifications) designed during wartime era, despite sharing the same problem as the Latecomers of having insufficient time to complete the construction and assembly. It wouldn't make sense to exclude the latter when both categories have the same starting line. Examples: Nation Vehicle Detail USA T30/T34 First prototype delayed by 2.5 months behind the T29 to finalize gun mount assembly and to install a substitute engine AV-1790 T32/T32E1 First prototype delayed by 3 months to October 1945 due to a change of hand to a new manufacturing firm in Postwar period Germany n/a USSR n/a UK n/a Japan n/a Italy n/a France ARL-44 (ACL-1) First prototype finished assembly in March 1946 as a transitional vehicle for the production ARL-44, mounting 76 mm ACL-1 turret with lighter armor Sweden n/a Semi-postwar Vehicles with some parts, modules, and modifications designed and produced during or after WWII, but retained aspects from preceding WWII vehicles. Transitional vehicles that still had most of their roots from their wartime predecessor while manufactured according to postwar standards. A common trait of the vehicles inside this category was the retained chassis from WWII era vehicles to be retrofitted with upgrades with the aim of extend their service lifetime, in response to the potential future threats in the Cold War era. Modernized WWII modules also apply, like a development of modern munition to defeat modern armor designed for old gun. A rather difficult category to come up with, as not only the aspects of the vehicles themselves are subjective by nature, but also the fact that the vehicles belonging to this section are postwar by default (though not necessarily postwar by design), yet these same vehicles remained performing a role close-to-similar to their Wartime counterpart, just in a different era. My personal suggestion is to look at the vehicle's background history and see how much postwar modifications were incorporated into the vehicle, and whether or not the difference in design and performance is proportional to the amount of retrofits. This also includes the vehicles manufactured in wartime era but equipped with postwar features, such as munitions or production specification that were only available postwar. Examples: Nation Vehicle Detail USA M46 Patton Postwar modification of M26 Power pack configuration partially tested on M26 in WWII Germany n/a USSR IS-3 Postwar upgrade Equipped with BR-471D APCBC-HE UK Centurion Mk 3 Postwar production specification of Centurion Mk 1 QF 20-Pounder was developed in WWII as QF 3.3-inch Tank Gun Japan n/a Italy M26A1 Pershing Postwar modification of M26 90 mm M3A1 is a modernized 90 mm M3 with bore evacuator France ARL-44 Project initiated in 1944 Schneider turret and 90 mm SA45 gun configuration did not appear until 1946 Sweden Sav m/43 (1946) Postwar modification of Sav m/43 (1944) psgr m/49 is a postwar munition China M4A1(75)W Postwar modification of M4A1(75) M4A1(76)W reconfigured with 75 mm M3 Postwar Vehicles with most if not all parts, modules, and modifications designed and produced after WWII. Vehicles that have leaped past the transitional phase to fully partake in the Cold War era development. Early True Postwar vehicles may retain some aspects from the Semi-postwar vehicles, which originally came from the Wartime vehicles, notably the chassis, main gun, and propulsion. What distinguishes the true Postwar to their WWII counterpart is the level of modernization upgrades to achieve drastically improved performance, to the point where the semblance between them becomes less apparent. A completely new design pitched to replace the aging tanks in service was the standard, and if the old parts were reacquired, enhancement usually came along as well with a purpose of greatly surpassing the Semi-postwar vehicles. Postwar novelties such as oscillating turret, tank-launched guided missile, laser rangefinder, and reactive armor offer technological advantage that simply wasn't available nor feasible yet during the transitional phase. Examples: Nation Vehicle Detail USA M41A1 New light tank design to replace the M24 in 1951 Germany Ru 251 New light tank design to replace the M41 in 1963 USSR T-10M New heavy tank entering service in 1957 UK FV4005 Stage II Prototype self-propelled gun based on heavily modified Centurion in 1952 Japan Type 61 New medium tank design to replace the M4A3(76)W in 1961 Italy R3 T20 FA-HS Prototype armed reconnaissance car developed in 1982 France AMX 50 Surblindé Prototype heavy tank developed in 1955 Sweden Ikv 91 New self-propelled gun entering service in 1975 China Type 69 Upgraded T-54 with new sets of fire control and munitions entering service in 1974 That's all so far for the World War II vs Postwar Classification Chart. This is by no means a solution to separate WWII to Post-WWII vehicles, but rather a pointer that could be utilized by everyone who would want to have a constructive method in categorizing them. Of course, it's not perfect in any shape or form, and still prone to loopholes caused by vehicles that do not exactly fit into any of the categories. Hopefully this chart can be useful in spite of that. Any feedbacks are appreciated to improve the chart as well. War Thunder Ground Vehicles as implemented in the World War II vs Postwar Classification Chart: US: Germany: USSR: UK: Japan: Italy: (WIP) French: (WIP) Sweden: (WIP) China: (WIP)
    12 points
  17. The Pucara is not part of this battlepass. I would also readjust your expectations for a French vehicle this BP, as France has had one in the last 3 and has a whole season themed around them.
    11 points
  18. The American MTB-422 torpedo boat, transferred to the UK under the Lend-Lease program, received reinforced deck weapons. Higgins 78 ft. HMS MTB-422, torpedo boat, Britain, III rank. Premium. Features Fast and agile 40mm automatic gun No spare torpedoes History The PT-92 torpedo boat was built in the USA at the end of 1942 at the Higgins Industries shipyard in New Orleans, LA, amongst the bulk of the sister 78-foot boats she was intended for Lend-Lease delivery to the Soviet Union. Due to the cancellation of the spring convoy in 1943, the boat went on to serve in the Royal Navy, where she received the hull number MTB-422. Here the boat was used in combat operations in the Mediterranean until the end of World War II. After the war, the boat returned to the United States, where she served at least until the mid-1950’s; the further fate of the boat is unknown. The boat was finally decommissioned from service late in 1985. MTB-422 will be one of the prizes in the new War Thunder Battle Pass season. The American torpedo boat of the Higgins 78-feet family has undergone noticeable changes in service with the Royal Navy. Instead of four American torpedoes, the Brits decided to use only two domestic torpedo tubes that reduced the weight of the boat, increased her maximum speed, and also made it possible to install more powerful deck guns. Two twin heavy machine guns remained at the wheelhouse, and the 20mm Oerlikon Mk.II auto gun was moved to the centre of the deck, making it possible to install a punchy 40mm Bofors automatic gun on the vacant stern - a more than welcome addition for a torpedo boat! Download Wallpaper: 1920x1080 2560x1440 3840x2160 In the game, the MTB-422 will become the fastest rank III boat from the British coastal fleet research line, while the boat quickly reaches her maximum speed and maneuvers perfectly. Guns of three calibres at once - 12.7mm , 20mm and 40mm - as well as two steam-gas torpedoes make the boat a very versatile small ship, perfect for capturing and defending points. From the entire artillery arsenal, the commander can concentrate on the 40mm Bofors, which has an average rate of fire, smooth ballistics, and a choice of high-explosive and armour-piercing rounds. It is reasonable to set the heavy machine guns and the 20mm cannon to automatic firing at surface and air targets, which will be useful in sea-borne dogfights with low-ranking boats. The War Thunder Battle Pass is a great opportunity to get unique game equipment, decorations, and boosters. Don't miss your chance!
    11 points
  19. Researching repair parts and fire extinguishers is not content, it just increases the user's pain. Where in the world is a soldier going out without repair parts and a fire extinguisher? Light tank help? To hope for that, the proportion of light tanks in this game isn't that much, and it's too much of a luck factor. please put an end to this old problem Or doubling the basic repair time and cutting it in half if you have a repair kit. One fire extinguisher is provided as standard. I think it will be more fun if you add one more or reduce the time to turn off the lights if you research. There may have been strange words in the middle because of the translator. I translated it into Korean.
    11 points
  20. As the title says, not only do you make it incredibly obvious that you are about to end the match by dropping a nuke (thus giving away your position to every fighter in the enemy team), but you also have the haha funny blueberries that think your hard work carrying them away from defeat is cause for a minor penalty from killing a team mate. The only way to make it work would be to remove the team killing and maybe even allied collisions with nuclear bombers. Please do leave your opinions in the comments, though I can hardly see how anyone could disagree with something like this
    11 points
  21. This game would much better if everyone can choose the map they want to play on. The map rotation is ridiculous. Instead of giving me maps that I liked, the game gives me the same map (even a map i disliked) every 2nd time 3-4 times in a row. (i get the same map 3 times in 6 games) I am not making this up, it is very frustrating. Why cant we choose the map we play on? For hundreds of online games its not a problem.
    11 points
  22. That's a lot of comeback for my one sentence Niether is there a unified Chinese or intra German military either. Nor unified Italian co-belligerants and collaborationists. Nor did the IJA ever coordinate with the JSDF.
    11 points
  23. The last paragraph really sounds like a "wahh I've run out of arguments" to me.
    11 points
  24. The OP explains how it would be implemented and why.
    11 points
  25. This legit makes no sense anymore. 11.3 is a thing, put them at 10.0 where they belong, they wont face top tier and can still have a fighting chance against 10.3/10.7s, they have no place facing 8.7s and constantly facing a plethora of 9.0s as much as they do. We just gunna ignore the 60%+ WR for the AV8A and 75%+ for the AV8C..... these better go up in the next BR adjustments come Jan/Feb
    10 points
  26. hello camel here, I would like to take this opportunity once again to write down my disappointment. the last half year in Air Sim was a disaster. after the developer @lastGrayAngel built the new EC-7 airfields in July, we players were full of hope that many, many more improvements will come! ... but then came "usefull action"! this was the beginning of the end! - many have left Air Sim/ War Thunder - there was an open letter. hundreds of pilots signed it. maybe there were even thousands. I didn't count all of them. https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530617-an-open-letter-to-gaijin-from-the-warthunder-sim-community/ ... the answer of the developers was punishment in the form of systematic dismantling of Air Sim: - the timer was removed. the timer was important and proven element. now only the respective top planes fly in each battle. - the self created battles were made useless. these are hard to start. by removing the AI, self created battles are completely ruined. - the Arcade Nation settings have completely destroyed the simulator feeling (ww2 EC-1 to EC-5 and cold War EC-6 to EC-7 would be a good solution). - these arcade nation settings have significantly increased friendly fire. the whole game fun suffers. - the AI units (Recon, Attacker, Bombers, Tanks, Howitzers, Convoys) are completely messed up. necessary map maintenance is simply not done. the locations look loveless. - and many more details could be listed here. https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/535049-sim-ec-problematic-spawn-cost-system/ we simulator players know what our mode is not a priority! there are more RB players. but until July last year they always took care of our mode. now they let it rot. the War Thunder mode that stands out the most from World of Warplanes is Simulator! what happened? you are sacrificing the best that war thunder has to offer! take care of our mode! we spent money on premium! ... to support Air Sim! not so that Air Sim will be systematically nuked. greetings Camel by the way: IL-2 & DCS provides a good template how to build a flight simulation! sorry but this sentence you have to slam the developers here in front of the head! besides I would like to criticize here some players in this forum. many open topics here about some "unimportant" details.... as if everything else is ok in Simulator. nothing is ok here. the problem is not only the developers but the players with RB claims who just accept this negative development. so nothing will ever change. the developers need feedback and pressure. ..the most SB Vetranen have left us. unfortunately. we need these players back. the developers are playing for time. until we lose interest. Put pressure! do not fall asleep please. the current desolate state of Air Sim can not be accepted
    10 points
  27. 2.13.0.59 → 2.13.0.60 changes: Weapon renamed – 37 mm Breda Model 39 37/45 → 37 mm Breda Model 39 37/54. Added longer descriptions to collection decals and to the recently added sale titles. M36 GMC – Olive-sand camouflage: 260 / 130 / 130 kills or 0 GE → 260 / 130 / 130 or 200 GE. Statcard changes: Mutsuki, Satsuki – main calibre turret armour: 13 / 13 / 0 → 15 / 15 / 0 mm Scharnhorst – main calibre turret armour: 170 / 140 / 80 → 360 / 200 / 170 mm F-4J – AIM-9D and AIM-9G launch G-limits removed in all loadouts, except in all the unused AIM-7E loadouts and the following: 20 mm + 18x 250 lbs + 4x AIM-9G + 4x AIM-7E-2 (DF) 20 mm + 228x 2.75-inch FFAR Mk. 4 + 4x AIM-9D Bf 109 – 50 kg bombs are now dropped separately. MiG-21MF – unused pylons in the R-60 loadouts hidden. ITP – visual break-off points of the tail changed. A-4E (all), A-4N, F-4J, Su-17M2, Su-22M3 – display range in sights increased 4x times. M18 GMC (all, except the 90 mm M3 variant) – sight: M76C → default SPG FoV – 25.7-24.7° → 40-21° zoom – 2.88-3x → 1.85-3.52x Expeditionary Tank – the coaxial MG could elevate independently from the turret, this was fixed. Leopard 2 K – highest forward and highest reverse gears are now a bit shorter. Challenger 2 (TES) – the roof MG NVD/IR is no longer disabled. Eland 90, Ratel 20, Ratel 90, ZT 3A2, AML 90 – smoke grenades in a salvo: 4 → 2. VBT Mk. 3 – hidden armour between the engine and the crew compartment: 500 → 10 mm. M4A3(76)W (JP) – roof MG: horizontal speed – 30 → 90 °/s vertical speed – 20 → 90 °/s STB-1 – roof MG vertical limits: -10° / 60° → -10° / easier with an image. ZTZ59D1 – smoke grenades: NATO → "modern". (heavier, slower, larger dispersion, faster activation) Char 25t turret horizontal speed – 24 → 36 °/s sight: Periscope 40t → Periscope 25t FoV – 13.3-12.3° → 9.4-9.3° zoom – 5.56-6.02x → 7.87-7.96x Ikv 91 (all) turret horizontal speed – 20 → 25 °/s turret vertical speed – 10 → 15 °/s sight: TZF-1A → No. 1 Mk. 3 FoV – 9.2-4.63° → 7.37° zoom – 8.04-15.98x → 10.04x Bartolomeo Colleoni, Eugenio di Savoia, Raimondo Montecuccoli, Pola, Trento, Zara – Cannone OTO da 100/47 Mod. 28: horizontal speed – 7 → 13 °/s vertical speed – 13 → 7 °/s Gabbiano (GB) – Cannone OTO da 100/47 Mod. 37: horizontal speed – 7 → 13 °/s vertical speed – 13 → 7 °/s Eugenio di Savoia crew – 578 → 694 (but the statcard remains the same) min crew to be able to repair – 202 → 242 min crew – 173 → 208 the crew increase is in compartments, auxiliary ammo storages, engine rooms and transmissions Raimondo Montecuccoli crew – 578 → 648 (but the statcard remains the same) min crew to be able to repair – 202 → 226 min crew – 173 → 194 the crew increase is in compartments, auxiliary ammo storages, engine rooms and transmissions 12.7 mm Ho-103 – HEI in the stealth belt (now the same as the HEI in the air targets belt), Ho-103 (turret), Ho-104 (turret): explosive type – PETN → RDX (TNTe – 1.7 → 1.6) explosive weight – 0.8 → 1.8 g hit power multiplier – 3 → 1 fuse sensitivity – 3 → 0.1 mm fuse delay – 0 → 0.1 m 12.7 mm Ho-103 (turret), Ho-104 (turret) – HE, HEI: explosive type – PETN → RDX (TNTe – 1.7 → 1.6) explosive weight – 0.8 → 1.8 g hit power multiplier – 3 → 1 fuse sensitivity – 3 → 0.1 mm fuse delay – 0 → 0.1 m the HE can no longer cause fire 155 mm kan m/60 – the HE no longer has a tracer. 800 kg Type 99 Mod. 80 No. 5 – explosive type: Type 97 → Type 91 (TNTe – 1.28 → 1.05). Raw changes: https://github.com/gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine/compare/2.13.0.59..2.13.0.60 The version shown in the launcher / client is often incorrect, as it doesn't take into account the "hidden" updates, downloaded in the background. Current dev version – 2.13.0.60 Current live version – 2.13.0.60
    10 points
  28. We already had this for several years with the War Thunder chronicles events. Everyone who wanted a historical matchmaker wanted it up until the point they realise it involves situations like P-51/B-17 vs Me 262, wherein the events, nobody wanted to be the P-51 and B-17 even with vastly superior numbers. Additionally running any form of permanent mode alongside the standard formula random battles splits the population, increasing queue times and lowering the chances of further BR increases and expansions. Neither are healthy in the long run and given the lack of popularity for purely realistic historical matchmaking, its not something considered viable. We have nations that never fought one another, fighting on locations they never fought in with aircraft that never actually fought in combat. This immersion is very selective here. As I have explained, we already have a way of distinguishing rank and this has been long established in the game for years. Helicopters are a different vehicle class entirely and will not be present in Air RB. Lets keep things on topic and sensible please without the need for unnecessarily sarcastic and quite obvious questions.
    10 points
  29. I'm surprised such fringe arguments would be brought up to try to discredit my suggestion. Lebanese Forces believe in something like that, and if you check how many seats they have in parliament, it is only 12 out of 128. It is not a very popular or realistic view of Lebanon. Syria has nothing to do with this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Forces I think most arguments against this tech tree were already discussed. People just keep bringing up the same arguments over and over again. So, that's why I'm referring people to simply read the OP or read the past 20 pages of comments; instead of copy+pasting what I already said before. I don't really see many original arguments anymore. I think people ignore the past 20 pages or the OP, and they end up bringing up the same things that we already talked about before. Before posting, read the OP and read the past 20 pages. Also, read about the history of the Arab League. That's why I included links in the OP.
    10 points
  30. I must issue a correction, since that is completely irrelevant and not based on the facts. I did not lump all the big "Muslim" countries together into a single tech tree. Where are these countries on this list? - Turkey? - Pakistan/Bangladesh? - Afghanistan? - Indonesia? - Malaysia? - Albania/Bosnia? - Kazakhstan/Tajikistan/ Uzbekistan/etc.?
    10 points
  31. This is not a tech tree for the "middle east". This is a tech tree for the Arab League, which is specifically defined as having the Arabic countries. This has nothing to do with "Muslim" countries, as not all Muslim countries are Arab countries.
    10 points
  32. Faster than a m18, 1/2 second reload. Super fast turret traverse. Stabilized gun at any speed. Is the armor supposed to balance this tank? I'm just curious what kind of thought process came up with this much of a OP mess.
    9 points
  33. for me, all the chinese overtiered vehicles: ZTZ59D1: must be 8.3, as stated here ZTZ96: it's a worse T-72A. turret can be penetrated so easily, unlike that on the T-72A. must be 9.0 M41D: TRASH at 8.0, no stabilizer, sluggish, terrible postpen of top round. It's an AUBL HVG that is worse in everything else except optics and rough terrain mobility. Type 59: no rangefinder, stabilizer disengages at >40kph. must be 7.7. Though it doesn't really suck at its BR, 8.7-9.0 uptiers are hell for this vehicle. You wouldn't be able to use that APHE when first off, you can't even line your sights up with an XM-803 or Leo L44 at cruise speed. PGZ-04A: trash SAMs, guns can't penetrate sides of most MBTs at its tier even point-blank. must be 9.0 max! ZTZ99-II: a T-90A with almost no armor. why is this still lingering at 10.7 when everything there, even Arietes/Type 90s outperform this thing by a lot of criteria? This type of MBT with no backward mobility should have armor as its saving grace, right? but why still at a BR where its armor is just laughable? ZLT-11: This thing is considered overtiered until its reverse speed gets buffed! (and that reverse speed disappoints me so much because it's just too conservative) must be 9.0. No contest for the Stryker because despite its powerful round, at least the Stryker has decent reverse speed, which is a vital factor in every MGS-type vehicle. if someone disagrees, please prove why i'm wrong.
    9 points
  34. There's no debate about Syria or Lebanon being Arab. That's like debating if France and Germany are European. ROC and PRC also fought a civil war. It doesn't change that they both claim to be Chinese. And both are in the same tech tree. This would not be any different.
    9 points
  35. Friendly reminder that not every nation on Earth has to be on War Thunder. We already have ten, TEN (10) nations in game (some of them already have significant amounts of copy-pastes because the main weapon manufacturers and distributors are already ingame), of which: -Three are missing Naval trees (France, China and Sweden, not counting Israel because they don't have any that could be implemented ingame) -Three are missing Helicopter trees (China, Sweden and Israel) -One is missing a Ground tree (Israel). And not only that; many of the existing trees are missing lots of things: -France is missing proper 10.7/11.0/11.3 planes and a Premium Rank VI plane. -Italy is missing a Premium Rank VI plane, hell it does not even have Rank VII planes at all on the first place. -U.S and Italy are missing competitive Battleships. Can we just stop asking Gaijin to add whatever X country we are from, and focus on fleshing out and COMPLETING the ones already ingame?
    9 points
  36. Its probably the mix of almost unkillable tanks and op helis. Add high flying Mig-27 and other guided weapon carriers to this and you've got your explanation why russians win roughly 8/10 matches. DM53 bounces of russian side era blocks, frequently even at 90 deg angles. Early heli rush's decimate NATO teams and slow them down alot, so russian T-80 racers occupy all power positions unchallenged. Why are they so cheap to spawn? Why are their cannons so deadly vs MBTs? Vikhr-capable helis without counter appear already after 2-3 minutes matchtime, pinning down the whole team and camp the allied heliport. Guided bombs dropping down from orbit. You never even know someone is up there, thx to radar dead zones and tiny pit maps. The ground combat zones are too small and often lowered down into the landscape...your radar detection cones have no chance. To low rep costs and an abundance of competitive tanks simply result in endless waves of rushing tanks. Vikhirs are still detonating incoming SAMs. Despite they're just beamriders, russian pilots can fire and steer many Vikhrs simulteanously. Which results in mass killings, since they just fire several ATGMs with a delay and can strike multiple ground/air targets with one volley within seconds. This way one heli easily overpowers 3 AA units or stop the advance of the whole team. Alot small maps, full of corners, obstackles and maze-like structures, which just favour one side... No Fuldas, no Red Deserts, no Poland ...but like 1243124124 WW2 soviet factory maps. Very favorable BRs. Ka-50 at 10.7? BMP-2M 8.7? Alot more like this. Too well gun handling, to good armor, too much speed, too much maneuverability, too much firepower (In relation to ingame Nato armors, while other nation's top shells just fail vs russian tanks). Extremly op tandem ATGMs, which even kill Leopard II's with frontal turret hits.
    9 points
  37. My facts are accurate. Several people already mentioned those same exact questions before and I answered sufficiently in the previous thread pages. The OP also answers these questions.
    9 points
  38. Just recently around the holidays, I figured I would purchase both a Premium Account and Battle Pass which ended up being a complete waste of money for me $70.00 to be exact something I won't ever do again. I don't feel either one of these promotions has added to my playing ability. I continue to be slaughtered by very high-level players (65 -100) in rank one feeling the need to drop down from higher ranks possibly to replenish their main currency. To be honest it's a complete drag and complete waste of time and I'm lucky if I'm able to get one kill per game. I don't claim to be a great player and probably never will be and will most likely lose interest in this game well before I reach level 20. I've heard from many high-level players that the game only gets worse in higher ranks and I tend to believe that. That type of talk coming from higher-ranking players can leave a low-ranking player a bit bewildered as if there is nothing to look forward to. I know many players are either on TeamSpeak or Discord behind the scenes and leave someone who isn't basically doomed from the start. It's like a constant ambush throughout every game. I'm only a level 12 and these past few weeks have been less than enjoyable for me and I find myself getting extremely frustrated behind my monitor as if to say, (can you possibly suck this bad?) and usually the answer is yes providing I'm being truthful with myself. I guess you are either good at something or your not. It's just that simple and maybe this isn't the game for me and along the way you have to lose money to find out. I will give this game at least another few weeks and if I'm still at level 15 it will be time to throw the towel in. I know for a fact I speak for many players in this forum who probably fear they will get ambushed for typing something like this by players whose heads have exploded with overconfidence. You know the type. The ones who leave silly emojis after each of their responses as if they find some kind of amusement putting people down in a sarcastic way. There are plenty of them in this forum and this will probably be the last thread I ever type. Anyway, I will give this game another few weeks and if things don't get better it will be time to move on and find another game that whets my appetite losing $70.00 along the way. By the way, I have tried both arcade and realistic battle which basically in arcade you're constantly like a sitting duck because everyone knows where you are on the map at all times. Realistic is probably better because nobody can see you on the map except when someone is shot at and they briefly blink red. Like I said earlier, I find this game to be extremely frustrating. It's very slow-paced while trying to get your tanks from Point A to Point B and by the time you get there you're taken out by another tank after spending almost 5 or more minutes to reach the zone. Is this game a time-waster? Most definitely so and that's why I'm expecting or hoping it gets better but right now I'm not having good vibes about it. Anyway, courteous feedback would be nice. This is a perfect example as to why nobody wants to type anything of substance in this forum.
    9 points
  39. Did these get buffed recently? I've noticed they're eating a lot more shots than normal. Especially side shots. I'm pretty used to aiming front wheel when I see some side, but all the T series tanks' side ERA blocks are eating a ton of my shots that used to auto-pen. Just wondering if I've been unlucky or this is a trend.
    8 points
  40. If NNHacK really is the one in charge of the Type 10, it would explain a lot about the sorry state the tank is in. Here's a translated copy of something he said one week ago. His post was in response as to why USSR/Russia currently have the highest number of GEN2/GEN3 thermal in the game when they historically shouldn't: "The Russian lag in the field of thermal imaging technologies was caused by the largest catastrophe of the 20th century - the collapse of the USSR and subsequent events, i.e. 1985-2000, now it is quite a leader, although there is a slight lag behind France and the United States in terms of LWIR technologies. In any case, unlike Japan, Sweden, Britain, Italy, etc. The Russian Federation has been putting its thermal imagers with domestic FPUs on tanks since 2017, and does not buy from abroad, and in this they are not outperformed. " Here, he's advancing that Russia now manufactures better thermal sight than the US lol. In reality, Russia is still lagging behind western thermals by about 20 years. Russia received French GEN1.5 thermal(Catherine FC) at 640x512 resolution in ~2000 because their own thermal research had pretty much come to a halt after 1991. Only in 2017 did Russia manage to build a complete new homemade thermal sight in the form of the orbis-k,(based on the french thermal). And the resolution went down in the process to 640x480. Meanwhile, the Stryker MGS has been using thermals with resolution in the 1980x1024 since its introduction in 2002. NNHacK post should tell you all you need to know about not only his view of the world but what he thinks of non-Russian technology. (The Sosna-U was created in Bielorussia and is built under license in Russia.)
    8 points
  41. The Ju 288 is what makes many Ju 288-populated games unsalvageable for German teams. Regardless of whether the the P-51H should or shouldn't go to 6.7, it's irrelevant. Because it'll still be in the same 6.0 matches. You're also deliberately comparing two 6.0 planes and a 5.7 plane to a 6.3 plane, while intentionally excluding a German 6.3 plane, with zero mention of the German 6.7 and 7.0 planes. You're clearly talking about uptiers, despite 5.0-6.0 and 5.3-6.3 not being at all uncommon. It's not hard to make a situation look bad when you're this hyper-specific about it. The biggest problem here is the Ju 288 spam. The second, third, and fourth-biggest problems are also Ju 288 spam. The next problem in line is that Germany didn't really have late-war superprops, thus having a black hole of props in the 6.x range. The only real solution to the latter problem is to add some late-war designs and prototypes to the game.
    8 points
  42. Now that flares attract everything so easily, there is literally no need for the F5E to have astronomical repair costs when its main killer weapons are TWO AIM-9Js. Those WERE extremely powerful before the flare buff, but this advantage is now gone. It's time to reduce the repair costs.
    8 points
  43. 2.13.0.56 → 2.13.0.57 changes: Text changed (in every language other than English) – PlayStation®Plus Monthly Award → Monthly Award. AN/APG-53 (A-4N), AN/APG-59 (F-4J, Phantom FG. 1, Phantom FGR. 2), AN/APG-66J (F-4EJ Kai), J/AWG-11 (T-2), J/AWG-12 (F-1), PS-37A (AJ 37), PS-46A (JA 37C) – switching from ACM track to PD search was bugged and it switched to PD standby instead, fixed. AN/APG-59 (F-4J, Phantom FG. 1, Phantom FGR. 2), J/AWG-11 (T-2), J/AWG-12 (F-1) PD search scope ranges removed and it's now locked to 92.5 km (reverted the change of 2.13.0.46) PD ACM lock removed (reverted the change of 2.13.0.46) ACM lock mode width of relSpeedGatePos – 1350 → 1950 Raw changes: https://github.com/gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine/compare/2.13.0.56..2.13.0.57 The version shown in the launcher / client is often incorrect, as it doesn't take into account the "hidden" updates, downloaded in the background. Current dev version – 2.13.0.57 Current live version – 2.13.0.57
    8 points
  44. please read the suggestion before you typing thank you
    8 points
  45. Make bombers start on the runway and then rebalance them based on their performance in that situation. Bombers right now benefit from the airspawn that makes them into easy to play SL/RP farming machines. It's really stupid when bombing Andy's complain about not having fighter cover when their default plan involves running into the enemies fighter opposition first.
    8 points
  46. Anyone else think it's stupid how people keep bringing little low tier vehicles to a really high BR for no reason? Sure for the L3 it's funny since it can't even hurt much of anything but i mean stuff like the M22, Pe-8, BT series.. all the things that are capable of killing. They are placed at low tier, and so should stay at low tier. It's not even an overly funny thing to face them at high tier it's purely annoying. I've lost count of the number of times our team was winning but a Pe-8 manages to drop it's bomb dead in the middle of 8 of us despite it's wing having been sheared off by a rotary 20mm.
    8 points
×
×
  • Create New...