Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 18/10/19 in all areas

  1. 31 points
    I would like to point out some issues that are present, but not usually seen by the community when it comes to sources and bug reports. The reason why this usually goes unseen is because when people submit bug reports they are not visible to anyone until a moderator approves them. As someone who occasionally puts out bug reports and talks to people who do also create bug reports the standards for what is ok and what is not ok is becoming very unclear. This is most evident with the recent (in my opinion) unnecessary change to NATO 120mm HEAT-FS and the source Gaijin used for that. The biggest issue many people have is where Gaijin sourced this document from: the DRDO which is the primary military research organization for the Indian government. They are responsible for what is objectively the worst MBT ever created, the Arjuna. Many people consider the DRDO to be a corrupt institute with a vested interest to flub the numbers on a rival weapon to make their expensive and resource hungry MBT project look better. This combined with the fact that regular people who have limited experience with weapons tests have pointed out that the DRDO messed up on basic factors for this test such as standoff distance and the numbers put out by the DRDO directly contradict many primary sources from countries that actually operate the weapons system has made people very unhappy with this change. So this raises the question of what this change means to player bug reports and the future of the game. Usually when you make a bug report Gaijin wants 2 reputable sources to show that a test wasn't a fluke and that the info has enough ground behind it to implement the change, but sometimes an exception will be made if a single source is reputable enough. The problem is this isn't a flat standard applied to everything. There are cases with vehicles such as the challenger 2 where the loader is sitting in X-ray when he should be standing that are shot down because not enough evidence is provided even when pictures are provided. Other cases where bug reports on the reload of some vehicles with autoloaders are submitted with videos of the reload process happening, but that being considered not enough. Another big example I can think of was when Gaijin put out an official forum post documenting the sources they used for the Type 90 when it was added. In this they sourced the armor array of the Type 90 off of a pre production prototype by measuring the weld lines for the composite. When it was pointed out that the vehicle sourced was a prototype and the pictures dont even match the model of the Type 90 in game using the exact same methods used by Gaijin, these claims were dismissed as Gaijin only making a vehicle that was representative of the Type 90. Now this is 100% ok, because this is Gaijin's game and they can do what they want to it and make any changes they want to. I think the real issue here is the communities understanding of this. Most people assume that Gaijin is out to make these vehicles as accurate as possible to the sources that are available to them, but this is just not true. Gaijin uses a lot of digression and assumptions when they implement these vehicles and us as players have to put in a lot more work in order for things to be changed to be more accurate, and even then all that effort might not even mean anything if Gaijin doesn't feel like they want to make the change. There is a clear double standard when it comes to what is considered a usable source and when and how assumptions can be made when it comes to making changes to vehicles in this is game, but the thing is this is Gaijin's game so there is nothing that we can do about it except that acknowledge that it is there. Gaijin isn't making vehicles based off of how they perform irl, they are making them based off how they think these vehicles should perform.
  2. 23 points
    RIP maus you glorious thick god. Well gaijin what are you going to do with the KA-50 then? please tell me how you intend to balance it? for that matter how you intend to balance anything at top tier, especially every other helicopter that was overnight made from obsolete to worthless. What can possibly be done short of removing it? You've had your fun, you just made an obscene amount of money off this helicopter, its time to stop the madness and fix the game. Top tier is on life support in a matter of days after this patch, dozens of premiums made obsolete, even more freemium vehicles made useless. WHAT WILL BE DONE?
  3. 15 points
    With two nations missing mach 2 planes and of them not even having a super sonic plane at all I don't think anyone should be getting a second mach 2 jet.
  4. 14 points
    Hi folks! Tomorrow we have a very special stream - we'll have Kirill Yudintsev, Gaijin's Chief Creative Officer right here in the stream studio. He will answer some of the most awkward and tough questions that the War Thunder's community has right now. Don't miss it! November 8th, 2pm GMT/WET, 6am PST, 9am EST. The War Thunder Team
  5. 13 points
    I have added to the main post: Added nations in the order they appear in game in each section, e.g. USA, Germany, Russia, Britain (before it was all in random order) Added new section called Helicopters Added all nations to Helicopters Added China to air, ground and naval Added Sweden to air, ground and naval Added French naval From this Q&A from October 2019, I have added to the main post: Plans for several MiG-21 variants Mirage planned and in development Plans for Chinese helicopter tree Plans to develop British helicopter research tree further Not enough evidence for British Gazelle armament, therefore denied for now, need more information on it Considering other British helicopter options like Westland Wessex And from this Q&A from August 2019, I have added to the main post: Plans for Italian ground vehicles between 4.3 - 6.0 BR Armoured trucks like Humvees, buggies, UAZs, Toyotas are in development Chances of adding Su-25 and A-10 are good When/if Kirill Yudintsev's Q&A is up in text form, like Stona mentioned here, I will add some of that to the main post too. If there is anything I have missed, please mention it to me on this thread or PM me.
  6. 13 points
    Because at that BR range, three things are the more important than stabilizer: One-hit kill ability with APHE Enough armor to bounce APHE Speed And British tanks lack all three of them. None has APHE, Centurion can be killed by BR 5.7 APHE rounds and they are slow. The gun stabilizer helps to fire first, but lets not forget the slow British tanks can never get to advantageous position before the faster enemies. Which is why they are at current BR. Gaijin balances using player stats that isn't publicly available.
  7. 12 points
    Welcome to the 1.95 Rumor Round-Up and Discussion thread! Here you can discuss everything related to 1.95, such as rumors and discussions. Please no wish listing! There's a separate thread for that here! Please keep in mind that all vehicles already in game have their own dedicated thread in the Machinery of War Discussion. Please use the 1.93 update thread to discuss Update 1.93 "Shark Attack". Complaining here won't solve anything.  FAQ Q: What is this thread about? A: This thread is about the upcoming patch 1.95 and future content. Q: Shouldn't the next patch be 1.94? A: No. The even patch numbers are reserved for internal test builds. Q: Will you add...? A: No. We are no developers, just nosy players. Q: Why isn't [vehicle] on the list? A: Either because there is no evidence that this vehicle will be added, or because no one told me that there is such evidence. Q: Why is [vehicle/feature] on the Denied list? A: Because said feature or vehicle was denied by Gaijin developers or their representatives at some point in the past. Q: Where did my post go? A: Off-Topic comments will often be hidden (not deleted) to keep this thread readable and on topic. No need to be alarmed or comment on the disappearing post(s), if concerned then PM Forum Moderators or Seniors. Q: What does (data finds) mean? A: It means that evidence of this vehicle, map, or feature has been found in the game files. Q: When will we get the patch? A: Currently our best guess is in December. Q: What if I don't want to read all these pages to find out what will come? A: Read the OP. I will frequently update it with new information. Unconfirmed / General overview of new stuff (to be updated regularly): Stuff that has been confirmed will have "Confirmed:" in front of it. Air: Ground: Naval: Helicopters: Other: Unclear: Denied: Thread last updated: 9th November 2019.
  8. 12 points
    Hello, as the title say i want to discuss about the XM 1 that literally SWARM the game this days. In my opinion this is a tank that should be 9.3 for 3 (and more) resons: 1: Mobility and max speed are over the top of average tanks available for other nations in game, you gonna get spawncamped after 2 minutes of match, its like setting a race with a fiat punto and a lamborghini. 2: Its not fair that peoples at 8.0/8.3 keep getting matched with XM 1, for russia and china its a 100% loss game since they have the slowest tank with the slowest turret traverse speed and absolutely no depression and dont talk about the total randomic invented reloading time, you get spawncamped to death in like 1 minute, but even for Japan, france or germans its hard to keep up. 3: The lack of match making balancing make every match painful and not funny at all since EVERY SINGLE MATCH you gonna find 7/13 XM 1, its already hard to keep up with 3 or 4 of them and we gonna have to deal with full teams of XM 1 Etc. etc etc Everyone like to win, but this is way to much guys. (i know this thread will have dislike by those who just sit in theire XM 1, camping behind corners looking at enemy spawn) but if you all guys have some good sense in you, you will understand. I'm against this total ABUSE of premium tanks in a match, there should be a limit of them, ofc not only for XM 1 but for every premium in the game, to prevent other players to get swarmed by OP tanks that can ruin other players game experience. Let me know what you think guys, about XM 1 in general and about XM 1 spam with this patch. Sorry for my bad english guys. Have a good day
  9. 12 points
    To be fair, the answer was a complete cop-out. It's exactly what I had expected: ''uHmmM tEcHnicaLlY tHeSe PrEmIUms aReN'T tOp-TieR, ThEy aRe oNly rAnk 6'' Because the Battle Rating 10.0, Rank VI KA-50 totally doesn't get matched with Rank VII 10.3 BR'd vehicles on a consistend basis, amirite?? Further: ''wE wAnT to aLlow nEw pLaYerS tO eXpeRieNce mOdERn cOmbAt'' That's why they sold 8.7 premiums like the Leopard 1 L/44, a tank that features a modern gun, modern thermal sights and high levels of mobility, but that apparently wasn't enough, so now we're stuck with newbies driving/flying premium vehicles in the utmost highest ranks, and causing massive balancing issues. Even worse, some of these premium vehicles are factually (it's not even up to debate) superior to their tech tree counterparts, which boils down to blatant Pay 2 Win elements now being in the game.
  10. 10 points
    Really though @gromvoiny, if I remember correctly, you guys expressed the intention to have better communication with the community and for that reason decided to make the recent Q&A stream of Kirill. How about making more occasional surveys? I personally see this as a method to achieve this - I am aware that there are all kinds of opinions out there, but these surveys could reflect the general idea of how people currently feel about the game and what they would like to see. I know that after every update we get a survey*(for some reason we didn't get a survey to fill for 1.91 and 1.93), but from what I remember, the questions in them are more tied to the recent update, I am talking about surveys that refer to the game in general. One more thing, I think that surveys in general should also pop in the in-game menu(not too intrusive, but in a form of a notification that would not be missed so easily or something like that) for the reason that I think there's quite a significant portion of players that do not browse the news page, or at least frequently enough... and because of that, those who may be willing to spare a few minutes to fill a survey might miss a survey when there's one.
  11. 10 points
    The radar doesn't work all the time to alert you to the enemy Anti-air .. you have to be at a distance of 10 kilometers and then you don't see the difference between the allies and the enemies of the tanks .. and the tanks know how to disappear in the country .. you see them a little not..so this helicopter is not even a little OP.. so don't cry
  12. 10 points
    Why post a skin suggestion in the RRD thread?? Could not be more offtopic.
  13. 9 points
    Type 10 Prototypes History: JGSDF wanted newer/better C4I systems (basically computer command and control) in the 90's Renovating the Type 90 and Type 74 was considered, but they were too heavy/old respectively. They decided to use one of the Type 90's prototypes, the TKX-0006, as a testbed for new equipment Tank Test Bed (TTB) was converted from the Type 90 prototype "TKX-0006". A new 120mm cannon was built and tested around the same time too. This would eventually become the Type 10 120mm gun The prototype tanks themselves were made and tested throughout the mid-late 2000's. A low-res timeline of the Type 10's development Name/identification: The prototypes are sometimes referred to as "TKX", which literally means "Tank experimental". This designation was also used with the Type 90 prototypes. However, unlike them, the Type 10 prototypes don't have "TKX" written on their nameplates. Instead, it literally just says "Tank #" for the respective prototype (for instance, the first prototype's nameplates says "戦車1号車", which just translates to Tank #1) All of the confirmed prototypes have a chassis number starting with "99". This number shows that the vehicle belongs to the Technical Research & Development Institute, (which was renamed to the Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency after 2015). The first prototype is "99-0237", the second "99-0238", the third "99-0239" and the fourth being "99-0240". All of the production models have chassis numbers starting with "95". When/if the vehicle's affiliation changes, it becomes "95-XXXX". External Differences: There are several external differences between the Type 10 prototypes and production models. However, for the most part these won't affect gameplay in War Thunder at all. The exceptions are the dozer blade of Prototype 3 and the extra plates of Prototype 4, though these won't make much of a difference at top BR. There are almost certainly more internal differences, but there isn't any information available about those. Here are all of external differences between the prototypes and production models I could find: Headlamps different position (Prototype 3 only) Dozer blade (Prototype 3 only) Plates for mine-clearing device (Prototype 4 only) Place in War Thunder: The Type 10 prototypes could work to fill in the tech tree gap between the Type 90 and the Type 10 (whenever that is inevitably added to War Thunder) However, they mostly have the same specifications as the standard weight (44 ton) Type 10. One way Gaijin could justify having a lower BR than the production-model Type 10 would be to simply not give the Type 10 prototypes the Type 10 APFSDS. Instead, the prototypes would just have the same ammunition as the Type 90 - that being the JM33 APFSDS and the JM12 HEAT-MP. While the Type 10 prototypes could fire the Type 10 APFSDS, and were almost certainly tested with the shell, Gaijin giving tanks limited ammunition choices in the sake of balance(?) already has precedent (see the M833 APFSDS) The Type 10 APFSDS was developed under the name "徹甲弾Ⅲ型" or "徹甲弾IV型" (armor-piercing shell Type III/IV), but it's unclear what differences these shells had to the Type 10 APFSDS Specifications: Since there doesn't seem to be any exact specifications for the prototypes, these are for the production model Type 10's, from the suggestion thread by aizenns. Miscellaneous notes/features: Famously, the Type 10 can drive backwards at 70 kph, the same speed as it can drive forwards. They have a camera on the rear of the tank to help with this. This also applies to its prototypes. Below is a video of the first Type 10 prototype, chassis number 99-0237, driving at full speeds backwards. This video dates back to when the Type 10 was first officially announced/revealed in 2010. The prototypes' side turret armor can be removed, like the Type 10's. The Type 10 and its prototypes use an autoloader. Apparently its pretty similar to the Type 90's, with two main differences (according to Wikipedia): 14 shells in the autoloader (Type 90's autoloader has 18 shells), with another 2 behind the gunner and 6 in the hull. This leaves the Type 10 with just 22 shells. The autoloader can reload the gun at a wide range of angles regardless of gun elevation, unlike the Type 90. Type 90 autoloader Rheinmetall 120mm gun vs the Type 10 120mm gun. While both guns were L/44, the Type 10 120mm gun is lighter and can withstand higher pressures. The trunnion block (metal block behind the gun mantlet/composite armor) is 300mm thick, and likely made from cast steel The Type 10 and its prototypes also have hydropneumatic suspension, like the Type 74 and Type 90. Notably, they can tilt from left to right, which the Type 74 can do but the Type 90 cannot do. Apparently, the system has been improved such that the stabilizer works better while using the suspension. The Type 10 and its prototypes have night vision for the gunner (including thermals), commander, and driver. As mentioned above, the driver's night vision camera changed between the prototypes and production models. It's unclear how the two types compare with each other. Prototype driver's night vision camera Like the Type 90, the Type 10 and its prototypes have laser detection systems on the turret. The one used by the Type 10 is the American "Model301MG laser warning system". It's thought that these work in conjunction with the smoke grenade launchers to protect against ATGM's, similarly to the Type 90. Gallery: "Prototype 1" (chassis number 99-0237, though the number has apparently been painted over) "Prototype 2" (chassis number 99-0238) "Prototype 3" (chassis number 99-0239) "Prototype 4" (chassis number 99-0240) Possible prototypes: "Prototype 0" (chassis number 99-2014 or 95-2014) Unknown history Modular side armor on turret is removed (all Type 10's can do this) Similarities to other prototypes: Same number of steps on side of tank Muzzle verification device is above gun, instead of to the side Same position of headlights as prototype 3 It's hard to tell if the chassis number is 99-0214 or 95-0214 Name "Prototype 0" is just a placeholder - it doesn't have any known official name 6-wheeled Type 10 (chassis number 95-4001) Unknown history 6 road wheels, like the Type 90 and unlike every other Type 10 Sideskirts seem to resemble a Type 90's as well Similarities to other prototypes: Separate smoke grenade launcher holes Same number of steps on side of tank Muzzle verification device is above gun, instead of to the side Same position of headlights as prototype 3 Has the "95" chassis number used by production model Type 10's Currently being used for decontamination training at the JGSDF Chemical School Sources: http://eaglet.skr.jp/MILITARY/TK-X.htm http://www.hyperdouraku.com/military/type10mbt/ http://type61tank.la.coocan.jp/sub-type10tank.htm https://dragoner-jp.blogspot.com/2013/04/10_10.html https://dragoner-jp.blogspot.com/2013/04/10_12.html https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1bBFzEpjn41OzWhtwL53n8rcMuD277nSN http://goinkyox.com/Gunji/Tank/JTank/Type10P2.htm https://twitter.com/crazyquail_BT/status/897066634375974912 https://aobamil.sakura.ne.jp/Photo/10TK-TKX/TKX.html https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/10式戦車 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/10式戦車砲 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/日本のナンバープレート#自衛隊車両_(防衛省) 陸上自衛隊10式戦車写真集 (JGSDF Type 10 Photo Album), 浪江俊明, 2013
  14. 9 points
    I have another amazing idea, bear with me for a second Why not completing already existing tree ? crazy right ? I know it's quite an impressive idea
  15. 9 points
    Noone agrees with you. You guys just don't care, the entire Q n A was a giant middle finger to the entire community as well.
  16. 8 points
    You want it. I want it. We need it.
  17. 8 points
    Well done to the War Thunder team for replacing that boring old Ground Forces mode and making this new mode.....AA Vs Aircraft. Great move in having sooooo many Bombers & Fighters in "Ground Forces" that you might as well just spawn in an AA and have a blast fighting off wave upon wave upon wave.....etc of aircraft!!!!!!
  18. 8 points
    Well let's take a look: -airplane bugs that make them literally unplayable; -missing ordinance left and right; -the only nation without any supersonic plane, let alone bisonic; -no heli TT, just one premium heli which has no way of difending itself. And don't even get me started on tanks. Yet we don't complain, or at least nowhere near as much as you do. But hey, that's not enough, is it? Whatever fits your narrative, I guess.
  19. 8 points
    The Phantom FGR.2 (F-4M) is a country spesific aircraft that was created to British specification and used only by Britain.
  20. 8 points
    Germany only need 2 things to be competitive against USA right now. -Leopard 2A4 get C hull+DM33-->sent to BR 10.3 -An early Leopard 2 with B hull/turret and DM23 at 10.0 That way we get: Leopard 2A5=M1A2 Abrams Leopard 2A4C/DM33=M1A1 Abrams Leopard 2B/DM23=IPM1 Leopard 2K=M1
  21. 7 points
    Dzień dobry Tym razem scenariusz na łuku kurskim, czyli bitwa z 1943 na froncie wschodnim, która zakończyła się ogromnymi stratami po obu stronach i choć podobno taktycznie Niemcy wygrali to straty poniesione w bitwie były nie do odrobienia. Ta bitwa jest uznawana za punkt zwrotny WWII. Więc jeżeli chcecie do nas dołączyć, po prostu wejdźcie na Team Speak: hgt.ovh o wymaganej godzinie. Planowany przebieg spotkania (ramowy plan, może ulec zmianie): 2019.XI.16 20:00 - zbiórka na serwerze TS3: hgt.ovh Kanał : "WT SB Event" hasło: WT 20:15 - zamknięcie listy obecności 20:30 - zamknięcie serwera dla wszystkich spóźnialskich. 20:35 - sesja >> FAQ i "dlaczego" << (odpowiedzi na pytania, ale nie dyskusja) 20:45 - rozdzielenie graczy do drużyn 21:00 - przejście na kanały aliantów i osi, odprawy i wyznaczanie zadań dla drużyn, łączenie/zapraszanie graczy do pokoju gry customowej. 21:20 - rozpoczęcie walk (pierwsza bitwa) około 22:00 - przerwa po pierwszej połowie, odprawy i wyznaczanie zadań dla drużyn po zmianie stron. 22:10 - druga bitwa 22:40 - zakończenie spotkania, dyskusja dla chętnych po spotkaniu. 23:30 - oficjalne zamknięcie spotkania, afterparty :-) Lista maszyn poniżej zapraszam
  22. 7 points
    Okay I heard there were BR changes. They were announced Monday I went to reply it is now Wednesday by barely 2 hours and its closed. So since I cant reply there anymore I really really really want to know why the JU288 is not on that list! Vehicles Battles 4 Ju 288 C Battles68 Respawns68 Victories53 Defeats15 Deaths16 Air frags / battle2.4 Air frags / death10.4 Overall air frags166 Ground frags / battle0.2 Ground frags / death0.7 Overall ground frags11 P.S. I dont want to hear from the bomber scrubs about attack angles and BS! This plane can still keep pace with most fighters at its BR and play shooting gallery as they close inch by inch to go along with its tanky DM.
  23. 7 points
    Will the VFW ever be fixed? Get hullbreak?
  24. 7 points
    Greetings filthy fighter pilot peasants. As some of you may have seen I've been flying the elite aircraft known as attackers lately and a few different things have come to my attention. The main thing being that they're actually a bit useless. Granted you can make your team some points by killing tanks (around 500 points each if memory serves me correctly) or pillboxes if you can find some that are actually willing to die and not just eat all of your ammunition. The problem is that while they can be effective you're mainly just sitting there for most of the match waiting for a new battle area to open up. There are some tanks scattered around the map but searching for these usually ends up in floating around the map for ages and praying that you can find something. There are of course the convoy missions which are essentially almost always a suicide run for any attacker. For one you need to pray that you can make it to the convoy in one piece as they're on the far edges of the map most of the time and nobody seems to want to help out attackers these days no matter how much you ask/beg/plead/threaten. But on top of that who on earth decided to put them right next to the enemy airfields? This creates multiple problems as I'm sure you can all imagine. For one you're usually in something twin engined or slow so you're easy pickings for any fighter that decides to take off and get you. The Mollinsquito isn't quite so bad because you can usually run away... except you cant, as before you've reached the convoy the airfield defenders will swoop in on you with a massive energy advantage and either cripple you or force you to bleed energy so Hans in his 109 has no trouble catching and killing you. Finally while all this is also happening you're getting peppered with AAA fire from the base (and the trucks) which while both are a bit useless at the moment once the airfield guns do get you zeroed in it doesn't take long for you to lose an engine or worse have both of your radiators destroyed. What adds even more insult to injury is that whilst this is going on and you're trying your hardest to play objectives so your team wins, Fritz.. in his rocket powered kite that is the Me264 only has to make a couple of suicide runs and he's sure to earn his team more points with zero risk as he knows he's going to die anyways. To top it all off you earn absolutely sod all for doing your job. Dedicated attackers need a huge increase in rewards to show the amount of risk there is when flying them (and heck it might actually make people play the objectives for once). So in short: Fix the the convoy missions, give attackers more ground targets to kill, give them better rewards and for gods sake give them some cover if you can instead of flying in circles!
  25. 7 points
    I thought the immersion was dying before the last couple of patches but holy heck was I wrong.. Now with China in the mix and a couple of other US tanks being gifted out to other nations tech tree's like they've all attended a live Oprah show, I find myself in my US tank getting killed by other US tanks on the enemy team almost more often than anything else. Honestly this is getting beyond a joke. Gaijin needs to stop lolly-scrambling the US tanks to all the other nations because trying to get immersed in a WWII game and getting shot/bombed by US equipment on the other team all the time is just absolutely killing this game.
  26. 7 points
    Last week Britain vs France This week France vs Italy
  27. 7 points
    You find that immersion is broken more with planes fulfilling other missions in wartime than using completely fictional ones?
  28. 7 points
    La solution est simple, au lieu de supprimer graphiquement la modélisation de la foret il y aurai qu'a avoir des rectangles pleins dégelasses pour représenter les arbres. Comme ça les ULQ et les joueurs abusants de ces graphismes seraient à la meme enseigne que les joueurs en ultra au niveau de la visibilité.
  29. 7 points
  30. 7 points
    SB (Sim) battles lock the gunner view to 1st person only. Simulation mode should be as close to real experience possible. Third person overhead views destroy the play experience in Sim (EC and Operation). Aircraft with single gunner offer a first person view, however it is not a locked feature for Sim(!). There is an option in settings to turn that off: Camera from aircraft gunner sight YES (as shown above) Camera from aircraft gunner sight NO
  31. 6 points
    Now that it has thermal vision it has become a real beast especially against other nations 9.0s that don't have them.
  32. 6 points
    After the release of update 1.93, American teams seem to dominate with games ending in five minutes or less. I have been playing Russia and China for the last two days at 9.0-10.3 trying out the BMP-3 and ZTZ96. I have yet to get a single win from either nation without being paired with the Americans. My current ZTZ96 w/r is 0% and my BMP w/r is 12%. I have tried out the KA-50 but it seems that all Non-American helicopters just get killed before they have time to get any kills for themselves. This is mainly due to the ADATS. According to Gaijin, the XM1 is an equal opponent to my BMP-3 bc of their BRs, which is just crazy. The ZTZ96 is literally a worse T-72A with a better round (Better pen flat and angled.) But this really doesn't justify a .3 BR increase as it has significantly less armor. I can already kill any 10.3 with the T72's best round so the new Chinese round does not improve that tank that much. Some Suggestions I would like to make in order to make the game a bit more enjoyable for non-american teams. 1) XM-1 goes to 9.3 - It's obvious that this tank does not belong a 9.0. It is a very fast and meta tank compared to its Russian and Chinese counterparts. It has decent APDSFS for 9.0 with amazing survivability. 2) ZTZ96 goes to 9.3 - It is literally just a worse T72A but with a negligibly better round. It's also rather slow, like the T72a, which is very important for 9.0-10.3. 3) BMP-3 is fine at 9.0 - you might argue that it could go to 8.7 but I think it really doesn't matter bc it will be top br most of the time. 4) Increase the SP needed for all SAMs and ATGM helicopter so that they can't be spawned in first thing. This would encourage people to use a Helicopter at the beginning of the match without ATGMs. I think this would make Helicopters more fun to play and make ADATS a little less broken. 5) Limit the number of SAMs, heilis, and planes to 3 per team. - This is the most controversial of my suggestions. This would help to prevent the spamming of helicopters, cas, and SAMs. It would also shift ground RB more toward to a meta where ground vehicles do most of the work but with SAM, cas, and heli support. This would also help to bridge the gap between nations with few helis and cas and make them more competitive. (I mean three per category: so three helis, three planes, and 3 SAMs at most for any team. I would like constructive feedback on what you like or don't like and why.
  33. 6 points
    why T64A with 1 gen range finder, no armor, bad ammo choices, slow tank, very bad gun handling, no termal sigth its still at 9.3?, this tank its not competitive at all, even some 8.7 are better than this tank, i think GAIJIN really needs to review this tank BR. on the other hand 8.7-9.0 SOVIETS tanks are being massacre by nato, t55am and t62am are overclased aswell by leo l44, xm1, super amx30. i think t62am should go down to 8.7 and T64A should take it place at 9.0, and even like this i dont think SOVIETS will be the best nation at this this br range.
  34. 6 points
    He's been put on the spot and just started talking trash to cover his own back. He's doing what they've always done, and that is to blame someone else. It's always somebody else's fault. Simple solution.... Grow a pair.... Just flick that switch again and allow us all to play cross platform (like w we briefly did) and just deal with the consequences. A fine? Pay it. Be a the shepherd, not the sheep. Pull a bold move and make others take notice. Take a stand that you ARE putting your players first. You claim that they're not putting their players first, but let's be brutally honest here Anton/Krill..... Neither are you.
  35. 6 points
    Warum sollte man das nicht dürften? Es gibt ja nur einige wenige, die permanent alles versuchen zu vertrollen. Natürlich ist der Thread alt und in dem Kontext ging es mir eher darum, eine bestimmte Behauptung zu wiederlegen. Auch spielt er in der ganzen Diskussion noch eine Rolle, da es erst nach massiven Protesten über alle Foren hinweg mal bei GJ angekommen ist: "Hey, wir haben hier evtl ein Problem". Was man vorher eher wegignoriert hat. Man sieht bei diesem Thema wieder recht deutlich: Kein Aufschrei in der Comm, keine Probleme. Das BR-Fiasko im Hightier ist auch so eine Baustelle. Auch hätte die Übersetzung besser ausfallen können ... aber gut, ist nunmal so. Btw. denke ich nicht, das es hier seit Beginn ein passives Programm o.ä. gab, was nur sehr "unempfindlich" eingestellt war. Es gibt soviele Videos allein auf YT die das Gegenteil bei den GF oder der Fleigerei bezeugen. Aimbots sind nunmal essentiell auf das Gameply auswirkende Cheats. Ob sie nun Daten vom Server oder vom Clienten manipulieren ist egal. Nur weil man sich versucht auf eine recht weit gefächerte Definition von "Gameplay" einschießt macht die, auch in der Schwierigkeit mangelde Übersetzung nicht richtiger oder oder falscher. G€/Geldcheat, Teleport, DMG-Hack .... das sowas nicht funktioniert im Spiel sollte den meisten zumindest klar sein. Wir könnens nicht beweisen, nur vermuten. Es geht einfach um Aimbot, Wallhack, auslesen & visualisieren von Infos, die so schon gesendet werden & ich will nicht soweit gehen und dummdreist behaupten, diese Tools erweitern nur das von GJ implementierte Helferlein zum anvisieren und aufschalten, was Konsoleros wie PC´ler gleichermaßen nutzen können. Das Mod zu definieren wäre einfach nur eine steindumme Aussage. Es war hier zeitweise möglich, kleine Programme laufen zu lassen, die schon Jahre vorher funktioniert haben und genau das ist für ein Programm in der heutigen Zeit ein NoGo mMn. Vor allem wenn man solch horrent hohe Preise für digitale Lizenzen und Dienstleistungen fordert. Da muss jeder mit sich selbst in Reine kommen. Natürlich muss Software auch gepflegt werden und ist keinerlei 100% Heilmittel gegen Bots oder Makros. Natürlich soll auch eine Testphase stattfinden um nicht die Büchse der Pandorra zu öffnen, das aufeinmal jeder mit Kaspersky & Co. gebannt wird. Natürlich ist eine Eigenentwicklung nicht in zwei oder drei Tagen auf dem Niveau wo es funktioniert. Gerade nicht bei einem relativ "alten" Produkt wie WT, wos im nachhinein implementiert wird. Besser eine schlechtere Software als garnichts. Und hier wurde über Jahre nicht gemacht & mit welcher Dummdreistigkeit diese Tools verwendet werden schreit hier teilweise zum Himmel. Und wieder driftet der Berufstroll des deutschen Forums in die Verallgemeinerung jedlicher Kritik ab, da seine Aussage die einzig richtigen sind und er ja von der Spielerschaft WTs nicht besonders viel hällt. Umgedreht jedoch seinen Worten uneingeschränkt Glauben zu schenken hat. Mal ganz ehrlich. Der "technische Unterbau" des Spieles interessiert die meisten Spieler keineswegs. Denen geht es ums Gameplay im Sinne von Spaß, ausgewogenen Karten und fairem MM in Form des BR ... das es daran allzuoft hapert & Kritik berechtigt ist kann man auch nur verstehen, wenn man das Spiel genauso frequentiert wie das Forum. Du hast es immer noch nicht begriffen, dass es nicht darum geht jeden Cheater mit einem Programm zu erwischen, sondern das einfach über Jahre sich selbst überlassen wurde. Dafür, dass du im Forum mehr aktiv bist wie im eigentlichen SPiel, solltest du darüber besser Bescheid wissen ... da wären wir aber wieder bei Berufstroll! Nur weil du eine Menge an digitalen Angeboten von GJ erworben hast, macht das deine Aussagen qualitativ nicht besser. Die sind Großteils einfach Schrott, Wortverdrehungen und Unterstellung.
  36. 6 points
    The Italian M109 General Info The M109 is an American Heavy SPH that was aquired by the Italian army in 1962. It was introduced as italy was looking for a heavy SPH that was also mobile and able to be used in multiple types of enviroments. Initially Italy bought 221 M109's without armament, which later was equipped with an italian made 155mm barrel. In addition italy did purchase 62 complete versions of the M109A1B. Some of the original M109's later got upgraded to the M109L that had the FH-70 howitzer. Various variants are currently is service in and outside of italy, it has been in service ever since and currently contuines to be upgraded. Italy has used it in various safekeeping missions such as kosovo. Equipment and Armament 155mm L/39 howitzer 12.7mm M2HB heavy machine gun FH-70 howitzer L15 HE M107 HE M795 HE Specifications Why it should be added in the game I think the M109 should be added into the game because other than the Palmaria and the PZH 2000, Italy doesn't have or use any other modern SPH's. Although im expecting America to recieve it first, since Gaijin recently added Japan's Type 75 it the tech tree, we can expect more to arrive.This specific vehicle is also actually used by the italian army unlike the palmaria which was only made for export. The M109 can be force to be reckoned with as it's main gun can output a lot of firepower, and overall will be nice addition to the Italian tech tree. Sources https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_(semovente) http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3729.html https://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/DD04 - M109.html https://digilander.libero.it/jml/macca/Armi/obici/m109.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_howitzer https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m109-var.htm http://www.67auc-bracciano.it/miscellanea/semoventi.html https://svppbellum.blogspot.com/2019/09/lm109-e-un-semovente-dartiglieria.html https://www.janes.com/article/86031/leonardo-testing-upgraded-m109l-sp-artillery-system Pictures
  37. 6 points
    So let me understand. if I say "I think we will see the Viggen" (as you have done) it isn't wish listing but if I say "I really hope to see the Viggen" is wish listing?
  38. 6 points
    Because map design and game modes allow for hull down tactics to lead to victory...
  39. 6 points
    We’re getting to battleship and France and Italy don’t even have a navy yet
  40. 6 points
    @Smin1080p @Stona @gromvoiny I think we had this discus for a long time now. in Short: You (Gaijin) makes Content the wrong way. Thats a fact you can see. The Playerbase dont like it (as far as you can read this here) and... Why the hell do you guys plan Content without planing the propper NEEDED Counterparts for that??? Why should I Cooking a Meal with only meat where the rest is missing? o_O Yea, you are planning Content Months or even a Year ahead but, cmon.. This is silly, and i think you know that. Its not good for the Game and the Players dont want this. We want Content with the Propper Content in the right way: Making Mach 2 Jets? = Hell, make it so, every nation get it at the same time or at least make it so that only Mach 2 Jets can fight against Mach 2 Jets and set them 1.2 BRs over the Top... Making SAM Tanks? Instead of making one at the time, give all Nations at least ONE Premium with the same abilities. I remember the Day where the IT-1 was announced. It was the first ATGM Tank. No other Nation had one. Dont go this road again in the future..... I dont know why its so hard to work a more Logical way. I mean: In no other Game so far you see this... Example: EA doesnt develop a Gamemode where you must destroy a Battleship with another Battleship - but only one Side get a Battleship. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q&A Question Dear Gaijin, Dear Kirill, I can only Speak for myself. I'm here since early 2013, I played over 2,9k hours until today (I think its even over 3.3k at this time - Stopped Counting after I Stop play it over Steam^^), I think I can say from myself, im a Loyal Player. I love War Thunder. And I will try to Support you guys so good I can and as well as the game quality allows it. I think, you are making a Good Job to Creat a Game in the old era of World War 2 and the Cold War. But there are also many pitfalls on the Road. Some Pitfalls are not so big as others but some are scratching very hard at the Motivation to Playing War Thunder. Planning Content ahead issue & Mach 2 Jets You are Planning Content, Planes, Ships, Maps, Mechanics, Features etc. Months or years ahead. But how is it possible that we can Content without any balance or a propper Counter? Why do we got only 2 Mach 2 Jets (USA and UDSSR?) at the first place? Why didnt you make Content and bring them out with a propper Counter for every Nation? Or ar least, set the BR for this Jets 1.3BRs higher as the rest, so Mach 2 Jets fight only itself? The same Story with SAMs. Germany, Japan, China, France are still missing propper SPAAG for Jets (Italy is still the only Nation today with an propper *Fire and Forgot* Surface-to-air missile. Would it not be better, for you and for the Community itself when you Planning such Content propper so every Nation get at least a Premium with the same abilities (Mach 2 Jets, SAM etc)? I dont think it would drop the queue-times down to much when only Mach 2 Jets would fight itself so the other Nations can fight in there propper BR without feat to fight against a Phantom against better A2A missiles. And whats the deal, if it does? After a test Week, set the BR down again, if it doesn't work More *Immersive* Gamemodes You have developt the World War Mode for 5 years - and I think it was a flop so to say. I, and many of my friends in the Platoon aren't happy with that what you have developed for 5 years. I assumed the World War Mode would be something like a mix from Planetside 2, DCS Worlds and IL2: Sturmovik. Where you have a very big map with different Objectives. The possibility to make ambushes against Enemy Tanks or an Convoy to provent Enemy supply to the Front or so. Would it not be better to make the WWM into a EC Mode for Tanks in RB or SB instead? One big map where Players can Play for hours agaisnt the Enemy Army, March ... Drive forward against Enemy Anti-Tank Pillboxes, Capeture Enemy Supply lines, Citys etc. And March every territory and quadrant forward on a big map to the Enemy HQ in "Real time" as in EC-SB for Planes we have already? There are many good Maps with a way better Immersion-Visually of *war* as you default Maps (exception Berlin) in the Rotation. War Thunder is still my favourite game. But over the years I developed a love-hate relationship because of your Content and Map Balancing decisions! Dont let the Game fall into the ground. Dont kill War Thunder yourself. Make the Game out of it, it should be and many want. You could make more Money with good decisions. I, as a Player, will have something that I have the feeling I play against/or for something meaningfull - Like the Fight against an Enemy Army in and on a EC-Map and Mode. And not in a "Arena" where I know Im dead in 4 Min. because there is no real possibility to fight with tactic or Hunt enemy players like in other Games. I dont have the feeling its "my" Tank because I drive him only a short time on this little Arena. ONE MORE THING... Make the Development more transparent. Many Users DON'T trust you and you sources for some Nerfs in the past (NATO HeatFS) and other Stuff. Your reputation isn't the best anymore (for very good reason). Take this opportunity, communicate more, be transparent and Honestly and you and War Thunder will get Money, Love and Players you can only dream from. Say when you Nerf something dir balancing or other reasons. BUT SPEAK with us, COMMUNICATE about IT with honestly. I know, Russian people may have a Problem with Honestly and Teamplay. But then don't promote the Game in the West, eben its so hard for you with an Western target Gruppe. I'm tired nie and go to sleep :> Salute from Germany o7
  41. 6 points
    I think we had this discus for a long time now. in Short: You (Gaijin) makes Content the wrong way. Thats a fact you can see. The Playerbase dont like it (as far as you can read this here) and... Why the hell do you guys plan Content without planing the propper NEEDED Counterparts for that??? Why should I Cooking a Meal with only meat where the rest is missing? o_O Yea, you are planning Content Months or even a Year ahead but, cmon.. This is silly, and i think you know that. Its not good for the Game and the Players dont want this. We want Content with the Propper Content in the right way: Making Mach 2 Jets? = Hell, make it so, every nation get it at the same time or at least make it so that only Mach 2 Jets can fight against Mach 2 Jets and set them 1.2 BRs over the Top... Making SAM Tanks? Instead of making one at the time, give all Nations at least ONE Premium with the same abilities. I remember the Day where the IT-1 was announced. It was the first ATGM Tank. No other Nation had one. Dont go this road again in the future..... I dont know why its so hard to work a more Logical way. I mean: In no other Game so far you see this... Example: EA doesnt develop a Gamemode where you must destroy a Battleship with another Battleship - but only one Side get a Battleship. Edit: I post it also in the Q&A if it gets deleted
  42. 6 points
    I save you from many pages of useless speculation while waiting for devblogs to come. I should remind everyone an obvious thing - our aircraft guys are fully loaded with upcoming Swedish tree and don’t have much time for other nations in 1.95. There will be some ofc, but not many at all.
  43. 6 points
    It doesn't, (it has 350mm, M456A1 has 400mm) but making that assumption off of round-size is erroneous. 1) The standoff distance changes with the size of the original warhead, so it wouldn't need as much, being a smaller round. 2) M830A1 is Comp A-3 (T2) which is more explosive than Comp B, found in Dm12A1/M830 having a much higher amount of RDX in the mix. So yes, while it doesn't (and shouldn't) have as much Penetration as the 105mm M456A2, that's because it's smaller and they're both Comp A-3. If M456A2 was Comp B like M830, it would be greater or equal.. Comp A is about equivalent to the OCFOL found in the T-80U's HEAT-FS. Which makes the 3BK18M round a bit suspect having .26kg (25%) more explosive mass/power than M830A1 and a standoff not any better than M830 for the size...but 60% greater penetration. Needs further research, but I don't bugreport anymore. KOTA killed that.)
  44. 6 points
    We simply wish to extend more communication and answer some of the serious and tough questions the community wants answered. I can assure you it will be very useful.
  45. 6 points
    ^^^ Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. Considering that there is no purpose behind the Ka-50 in RBGF other than unskilled trolling of people who are trying to have an actual battle on the ground, I file the people who play it under "Not worthy of further consideration". Sorry if it hurts feelings to hear it, but people who want to hover in one spot out of range and click people back to the hangar are everything that is wrong with this game, and the human race for that matter. At the very least the Blackshark's BR should be 10.3 so that it is coupled to the ADATS and they can play stupid games / win stupid prizes against each other to their hearts' content. As it stands now there are the occasional 10.0 battles where no ground-based weapons can touch the Ka-50, which is dumb. Practically guaranteed 5+ kills for them in that case per my observation.
  46. 6 points
    TL;DR: The 10.5 Geschützwagen B2 is a French tank, heavily modified by the German army after the fall of France in 1940, the Germans mounted a 10.5cm leFH 18/3 howitzer on top of an open topped casemate on an emptied out Char B1 Bis. There were 16 made. Normal: The 10.5 Geschützwagen B2 is a German captured French Char B1, modified to the point where it uses no original guns, and serves the purpose of a howitzer, firing (For the most part) indirectly. It is a open top casemate, and it has no secondary armament. I believe that it would be more of a fun vehicle to roll out in, and would make a good event vehicle, or premium. Here's some stats I've pulled: (The 10.5 Geschützwagen B2 itself) Source: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/10-5cm-lefh-183-sf-auf-geschuetzwagen-b2f/ "It had a five-man crew: commander, driver and three gunners. The Char B1 main gun in the hull had been removed. It was not replaced with a hull mounted machine-gun. For self-defence, a 7.92 mm (0.31 in) MG 34 machine gun was available to be fitted to the top of the gun casement." "The Char B2 tanks already had a very high profile. With the mounting of the 10.5cm leFH 18/3 howitzer on the top, it was very tall. Its height was 3 m (9ft 11in). This made it easy for the enemy to spot, so it had to be deployed behind the initial front line of tanks." Geschützwagen B2(f) specifications Dimensions (L,W,H)7.62 x 2.4 x 3 m (25′ x 7’10” x 9’11”) Total weight, battle ready 32.5 tons Crew 5 (commander, driver, gunner, 2x loaders) Propulsion Renault 307 water cooled, 6-cylinder gasoline/petrol engine, 272 hp Top road speed 28 km/h (17 mph) Off road speed 21 km/h (13 mph) Operational range (road) 135 km (84 miles) Main Armament 10.5 cm (4.13 in) leFH 18/3 howitzer Secondary Armament 7.92 mm (0.31 in) MG34 machine gun Armor (chassis) Front 40-60 mm (1.57-2.36 in) Sides and rear 55 mm (2.16 in) Total production 16 (The gun) Source: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/10-5cm-lefh-183-sf-auf-geschuetzwagen-b2f/, again "The 105 mm high explosive HE shell weighed 14.81 kg. The armor piercing shell weighed 14.25 kg. It had a muzzle velocity of 470 m/s, and a maximum firing range of 10,675 m (11,675. With a good gun crew, it had a rate of fire between 4-6 rounds per minute. The high explosive shell was in two pieces. It was a ‘separate loading’ or two-part round. First, the high explosive HE projectile would be loaded and then the cartridge propellant case. Depending on the range of the target different sized bags of propellant were inserted into the cartridge. More bags were used for longer range targets." (Random details) Source: https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=1048 The tank was 7.62 meters long, with a width of 2.4 meters, and a height of 3 meters. It weighed 29,500 kilograms, and had a top speed of 25 kph. It had a crew of 5, a commander, a gunner, a driver, and two loaders. (Final thoughts) I think the tank would be a nice addition as a gift, event, or premium vehicle (For about 2,000 ge) for the German tree, at around 2.0. The reasoning for this, is that the HE shells only penetrate about 52 mm of armor, and it's a big target, the casemate has less armor, and therefore, is easier to kill. It would be more unique than the Italian Semovente B1 bis, and would be more playable, because it would have a gun, that while not being able to turn much, would turn a lot better, and penetrate a lot more armor, than the regular 75 in the original tank. Let me know your thoughts on it! Edit before approval: Here's some images I found. (I had more pictures showing the MG position, and where the gunner, loaders, and commander would sit, but it seems I can't find them. Odd.)
  47. 6 points
    Bambi nie zawodzi. dalej zero jedynkowe postrzeganie gry. Edit: Ale ok, żeby nie było że się czepiam. Ja popieram oddalenie startu śmigłowców, co więcej lądowisko bliżej wywaliłbym całkowicie. Przeszkadza tylko w skradaniu się by ubić Ka-50. Samoloty natomiast powinny startować z lotniska. Mi-4AV to zasługuje na 8.0. Zresztą jak większość wczesnych śmigłowców.
  48. 6 points
    I mean, what's the point of, say, the Pz. II H then, or the newly added Chinese premium planes? Not everybody plays top tier all the time, some just enjoy the lower BRs more.