Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 22/02/19 in all areas

  1. 45 points
    General note before providing feedback: I play four nations, Britain, Germany, Unites States and the Soviets, I will restrain myself from providing any feedback on nations outside of my experience. Chieftain Mk 5 - Realistic Battles - From 8.7 to 8.3 Quite simply: it's virtually identical to the Chieftain Mk 3, which sits at 8.3. This glaring inconsistency is further highlighted by the fact that the Panther A is currently sitting at 5.7, whilst it's notably less mobile Panther G counterpart still sits at 6.0, therefore, a marginal mobility increase that the Mk 5 Chieftain offers is not enough of a justification to increase it's battle rating. -Alternatively- Provide it with L23 APFSDS and change it's designation to 'Chieftain Mk 5/4', then also keep it's battle rating of 8.7, this would allow it to adequately perform it's role as a long range sniper whilst still having the drawbacks of poor hull armour and lackluster mobility. Chieftain Mk 10 - Realistic Battles - From 9.0 to 8.7 The Chieftain Mk 10 is a legacy tank with applique armour and increased firepower via the addition of an APFSDS shell, this also applies to: - Leopard 1 A1A1 - T-55AM - Type 74G - M60A1 RISE Except, all of those tanks are at 8.7, not only that, all of them have vastly superior mobility, superior hull armour and some even possess superior firepower, there is no reason for the Chieftain Mk 10 to be going up against the likes of Type 90's and T-80U's. Important: this should only be done if the BR ceiling is not raised to 10.0+, I will provide further details down below. M1A1 - Realistic Battles - From 10.0 to 10.3 (preferably from 10.0 to 10.7) The M1A1's M829 APFSDS allows it to fully negate any armour that the previous generation of MBT's possess, it also retains the excellent gun handling and mobility characteristics of the M1 series. I only suggest a relatively minor increase of 0.3 as this vehicle does not gain a protection upgrade compared to it's opposition. Leopard 2A5 - Realistic Battles - From 10.0 to 10.7 (preferably from 10.0 to 11.0) The Leopard 2A5 is very much similar to the M1A1, save for one crucial difference: it's turret armour offers VASTLY superior protection, this makes this arguably the most potent hull-down vehicle in the entire game, even more so than the Challenger 2 due to the Leopard 2A5's increased mobility characteristics. It's DM33 APFSDS shell also allows it to fully negate any armour of the previous generation, this vehicle should be seperated from the older vehicles as much as possible, especially now that the hull armour is proof against shells like M774, 3BM-22 and L23 APFSDS. As I stated, this needs to be as high up as possible, 11.0 would be ideal, but I do not believe Gaijin is willing to go that far, still, I can't help but note this. T-80U - Realistic Battles - From 10.0 to 10.3 (preferably from 10.0 to 10.7) The T-80U offers the highest level of forwards mobility of the new MBT's, additionally, it retains excellent portection that is largely proof against the vast majority of tanks it is likely to meet, especially so against the previous generation. Much like the M1A1 and Leopard mentioned before, the T-80U has access to the 3BM-42 shell, this once again defeats any older generation of armour at virtually all distances, this vehicle simply cannot be allowed to continually meet 9.0 and preferably, even 9.3 vehicles. Important: these following changes should only be made if the Battle Rating maximum were be lifted to 10.3 or (preferably) 10.7. Leopard 1 A1A1 and Leopard 1 L/44 - Realistics Battles - From 8.7 to 9.0 With the increase in battle rating of the various top-tiered vehicles, this premium tank can quite easily return to it's previous spot, it's powerful gun will allow it to compete quite handily against the enemies it is likely to face, whilst also providing some breathing room to the non-stabilized 7.7 vehicles that it currently dominates quite regularly. It's mobility is also sufficient to atleast get this vehicle to proper power positions, this is also another reason as to why it should not be able to meet 7.7's, those vehicles often cannot contest the Leopard 1 in reaching such positions. T-55AM - Realistic Battles - From 8.7 to 9.0 Very much the same story as before, this vehicle can now move upwards where it won't be as harmful to the 7.7 bracket any longer whilst also not having the T-55AM suffer too much due to the majority of 10.0 vehicles being dragged up into 10.7 territory. Type 74 and Type 74G - Realistic Battles - From 8.7 to 9.0 Basically, refer to what I stated on the Leopard 1 A1A1. XM-1 - Realistic Battles - From 9.0 to 9.3 At the risk of repeating myself: now that the battle rating ceiling is heightened, this vehicle should be moved up and slightly seperated from the previously mentioned premium tanks, mainly because this vehicle has exceptional mobility, rivalling that of the T-80U or Leopard 2A5, not only that, it is also equipped with a excellent stabilization system and has good gun handling characteristics overal, it's survivability is also slightly higher than those mentioned above.
  2. 44 points
    Vehicle: Lorraine 40t, Amx 30 (1972), AMX 50, AMX M4 Mode: All modes Suggested Change(s): Reduce repair cost Reason for change: France is the only nation with such high repair cost amongs all of it's main tank fo 2 rank. How can you even consider reaserching french tank if it's to not be able to make any money and thus be obliged to grind even more for sl ?! Thoses repair cost just kill the game, they don't make it better, they only make people wanting to play less... and at one time to just leave ... Why is the lorraine 40 t so high to repair whe n the Centuro can do the sam ebut cost way way less ? Balance should not be done through repair cost ! never ! You are just killing a nation while other have the same issue ! You need to give france it's tank back !
  3. 43 points
    Vehicle: All non-premium helicopters Mode: All modes Suggested Change(s): Reduce helicopter RP and SL costs extensively. Reason for change: Gaijin, I'd respectfully ask that you take another look at helicopter RP and SL costs. As of right now, most helicopters - including the ones that aren't the top choppers - cost 390k RP and nearly 1 million SL. This needs to be changed, as it makes grinding exceptionally hard for those of us that can't purchase GE, or use premium account/vehicles. I can understand the top chopper from each nation costing that much (in most cases), as helicopters are truly lethal weapons. However, right now, helicopters are virtually impossible to grind. Thank you for this thread, and I hope you'll take this into consideration.
  4. 33 points
    Vehicle: MD 452A Mode: RB Suggested Change: 9.0 BR to 8.3 BR at least Reason for change: well this plane is pretty useless, has been declared by gaijin themselves on YouTube that it was equal to a la 200 which is at 8.0, finally it is far behind saber, mig 15/17 and hunter if we compare their performances. I don't even speak about the 10.0 which out perform it in every single statistics Vehicle: MD 452C pre série Mode: RB Suggested Change: 9.0 BR to 8.7BR at least Reason for change: same reason as above without the comparison to the la 200 Vehicle: AMX-13 HOT Mode: RB Suggested Change: 9.0 BR to 8.3 BR at least Reason for change: it has nothing to do at 9.0 with all MBT when the most comparable vehicle design are the IFV of every other nation (which actually outperform it) and those ifv are at 8.3 for the highest (type 89) Vehicle: AMX 30 B2 brenus Mode: RB Suggested Change: 8.7 BR to 8.3 BR at least Reason for change: the only thing that he got over his brother is the era at a br where the only shells which are used are apfsds maybe if it received the ofl G2 it could stay at 8.7 but currently without stabilizer it is useless (especially compared to the leo A1a1 120) i would like to mention the fact that gazelle are actually at the same br as some hind and cobra which are way more powerful but I don't get the gazelle yet so I won't pronounce anything
  5. 29 points
    Vehicle: almost any tank and plane from 7.0-7.3 to 10.0 Mode: AB, RB and SB Suggested Changes: decrease ALL ammunition cost. some tanks (e.g. T-62 or Chieftain Mk.3) dont need (or have) any upgraded shell and thus no ammo cost. but most of them pay up to 1000 SL per shot (e.g. M60A1 RISE (P) pays 1000SL for HEATFS) reduce vehicle repair cost in general! reduce the total SL cost to make a vehicle playable (buying + assigning a crew + upgrading the crew) Reason for change these overpriced but needed shells can easily amount to 20k SL ammunition cost in a single battle, and even with lots of kills, assists and a few captures you barely ever make SL my suggestion: the best shells should cost at most 500SL, considering a basic kill is worth ~1k SL and you need more than one shot pretty often as well even if top tiers are the "endgame" content of the game, people should always be able to move forward, not be punished for playing top tiers if top tiers are too expensive to play, people will move away from it again after the hype from a patch drops over 10k repair cost is far too much in addition to exorbitant ammunition cost. a lineup can easily cost 40k+ SL, making sure you almost always loose SL if you respawn in order to win (for crew cost) a new rank7 tank costs a total of 2.310.000SL, which is for many people a few weeks of grinding with premium and premium vehicles. it takes far too long to reach the point of making a vehicle playable! (expert crew is an absolute MUST HAVE)
  6. 28 points
    Vehicle: Amx 30 Brenus Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : 1/APDS-FS lower the sl cost per round down to 400 sl or less, add OFL 105 G2 for 820 sl. 2/Lower repair cost Reason for change: 1/ The same apfs-ds on the Amx 30 B2 are cheapest yet Brenus need them more. Type 74 or 74 kai got as powerfull Apfs-ds round as standard ammo and is at the same Br. 2/Tank is not competitive against other 8.7 dur to lack of gun stabilizer and poor mobility (compared to leo 1a1a1 and type 74). Vehicle: Amx 30 B2 Mode: /RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Lower repair cost Reason for change: Lack of gun stabilizer make it less competitive to play: no fire on the move, no reaction shot. Vehicle: Leopard 2a5 / T80U / M1a1 / chalenger mk3 Mode: AB/RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : increase br to 10.7 at least Reason for change: 9.0 tank can't even face them. Higher Rank need a decompression Vehicle: T80 / Leopard 2a4 / M1 IP / M1 abrams/ Type 90/ chalenger mk2 Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase to 10.3 Reason for change: to allow to Decompress 8.0-9.7 tank and have fairest match Vehicle: T64b/Leopard 2k/Amx 40 Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase to 10.0 Reason for change: to allow to Decompress 8.0-9.7 tank and have fairest match Vehicle: T72 Mode: /RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase br to 10.3 Reason for change: It got good enought mobility, top gun, and good armor, even more if decompression of Br as proposed above is made. Vehicle: T64a Mode: /RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase br to 10. if decompression of Br as proposed above is made. Reason for change: It got good enought mobility, top gun, and good armor, even more if decompression of Br as proposed above is made. Vehicle: Leopard 1a1a1 L/44 Mode: AB/RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase br to 9.0 Reason for change: Have better firepower than the leo a1a1 which alow it to take on pre 1.87 10.0br tank. Vehicle: Object 120 Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase to 8.3 Reason for change: Fire power si too powerfull to 7.7. Got an Ok mobility as well. Vehicle: bmp-1 Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase to 8.0 Reason for change: All other light recon tank/IFV with atgm are at 8.0 or 8.3. Its main gun si powerfull enought compared to other 20/25/35mm canon of its other nation counter part. Vehicle: T-55am-1 Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase to 9.0 or 9.3 if decompression of Br as proposed above is made. Reason for change: Got a atgm luncher gun. composit armor, wide range of amo including apfs-ds. Vehicle: Xm-1 Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase to 9.0 or 9.3 if decompression of Br as proposed above is made. Reason for change: Great fire powar as it got apfs-ds as base amo, excellent mobility, spaced armor. Vehicle: Type 74/Type 74 G"Kai" Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Increase to 9.0 or 9.3 if decompression of Br as proposed above is made. Reason for change: Great fire powar as it got apfs-ds as base amo, good mobility Vehicle: Amx M4 / Lorraine 40T/ Amx 50 / Bat chat 25T Mode: RB/SB Suggested Change(s) : Decrease repair cost by half Reason for change: At their current Br, those tank are no better than other. Are only competitiv due to their autoloader. Even when making an good game, losing one tank mean losing SL at the end. Repair cost should NOT beind e mean of balance. .
  7. 27 points
    Vehicle name(s): All newly added rank VII vehicles (Leo 2A5, T80U, Challenger 2, M1A1, ZPRK 2S6) Modes: RB (SB too but SB uses lineups and its not as important there) Suggested Change: 10.0-10.7 Reason for change: These vehicles are simply too powerful for the existing 9.7s and below. The new vehicles have the same or much better mobility, yet also the firepower to automatically pen the older ones almost anywhere, while the older 9.0s and 9.3s can barely touch the new ones without hitting small weakspots multiple times in a row. Many older vehicles also have much worse mobility, gun handling, and fire rates. Tanks like the T64A, Chieftan mk 10, and amx 13 HOT just cannot compete with the new vehicles. Furthermore, by adding this many new and popular tanks at BR 10.0, all 9.0s and 9.3s are nerfed to an even greater extent than the 10.0 popularity already did, and will suffer even worse matchmaking. Meanwhile 8.7s will continue to see near constant downtiering that discourages players in the 7.7 to 8.3 bracket from continuing to progress against very unfair odds in the majority of their matches. In the custom battles setup screen an option to limit the game BR to a max of 10.7 was added in 1.87, telling us that gaijin did consider putting these vehicles at this higher and more fair BR, but then backed away from that idea, a very big mistake if you ask me. I know that the developers want to keep matchmaking to a limited number of brackets to decrease waiting times (I was told as such by staff), but the bottom line is that you are adding more and more advanced vehicles with each update. If the matchmaking constraints that they are squished into do not expand, the game will become progressively less and less balanced at high tiers. At some point the benefits of compressing the playerbase are outweighed by the reduction in playerbase of people leaving due to frustration or moving to other areas of the game. Also, the way that high tier progression works right now acts to create a "club" where it is extremely difficult to progress into rank VI, but very easy to play once a player does have a top tier vehicle. Players first entering this bracket at 9.0 and 9.3 get wrecked by vehicles that are entire generations in armored technology better than them, and because of this they struggle to make it to 10.0. This causes less players to be playing there and longer queue times, the exact opposite of what the 9.0 to 10.0 supercompression was meant to cause. If you want to reduce waiting times in top tiers, make it easier for players to unlock these vehicles, making it even more difficult to unlock 10.0s won't help. Thanks for taking the time to gather feedback on this issue o7.
  8. 25 points
    I've already started two discussion topics why the current system for AP shell performance is is flawed since it leads to unrealistic penetration results for both 0° and against sloped armor. The current system uses the slope modifier from WW2 Ballistics: Armor & Gunnery for thee different types of AP rounds. Sharp nosed AP, APC/BC and blunt nosed AP shells (APBC). However as pointed out in my previous topics, this system is flawed since it uses the 0° penetration value to determine the penetration against sloped armor, however some shells don't have the expected 0° performance due to shell design or deforming when penetrating thick armor, thus reducing the slope performance when using a modifier that only relies on 0° penetration. It also differentiates between these three types of AP shells when in realitiy the difference against sloped armor is hardly noticable. I therefore suggest to implement the system I came up with, using the kinetic energy of the shell to determine the slope performance using: Shell diamter Weight of the AP body without caps Velocity An energy factor that determines how well the round can penetrat sloped armor The details can be found in my discussion topic about this slope performance calculator that I created: Currently the calculator gives pretty realistic results for angles between 45-65° (I don't have much reference for angles above 60°) and it can also be used to some extend to determine the penetration for 0°-44°. While 0°-44° doesn't necessarily result in very accurate results for AP shells, it gives pretty reasonable results for APC shells. Edit 27.02: However the energy factor doesn't seem to translate to 0° necessarily and is either similiar or lower since flat armor doesn't put as much strain on the projectile. A good quality round might require the same energy as against both flat and sloped armor while a regular quality AP round might require more energy against sloped armor due to the shell deforming. Therefore AP rounds are a bit unpredictable as always as they most likely penetrate more armor at lower velocity due to not deforming but less at high velocity or against sloped armor. Shells that give realistic results for 0° are: 50mm PzGr. 39, using the energy factor of 8J/mm² results in 103mm flat armor penetration at 0m which is the same as my estimation using De Marre. 75mm PzGr. 39/42, using the energy factor of 7.25J/mm² results in 192mm at 0m which is 10mm more than my estimation using De Marre but actually matches British penetration graphs. 88mm PzGr. 39/43, using the energy factor of 7.7J/mm² results in 226mm at 0m which matches my estimation with De Marre. 76mm M62, using the the energy factor of 9J/mm² results in 128mm at 0m which the same as given by WW2 Ballistics. All of them are APC type shells and the cap seems to protect the nose from deforming which results in the expected penetration values for both flat and sloped armor. AP and blunt APBC require some extra care since blunt shells are by default very ineffective against thick armor and AP shells also tend to suffer from deformation against thick armor which reduces the effectiveness when a certain T/D ratio is achived and the armor overmatches the shell. For AP, realistic results can only be expected at low velocity (probably with a lower energy factor) while the results for blunt APBC are not realistic at all. This is also an issue with the current system where blunt APBC shells are treated as effective against 0° as regular AP shells. But as WW2 Ballistic: Armor & Gunnery wrote: De Marre can't be used to determine the penetration of blunt shells. I've determined in my topic about Soviet blunt shells that they infact penetrate flat armor using their momentum which always makes them worse than regular AP shells but the difference is less noticable for low velocity guns. And also made some estimations for these shells in my 0° estimation sheet for AP rounds and these values are pretty close to actual Soviet penetration tests, though the values could be up to 2.5% higher. Shell Weight Weight w/o windshield Velocity Old Values Current values Estimation estimated 45mm BR-240 ~1.43kg ~1.39kg 760m/s 62 69 64 57mm BR-271 ~3.14kg ~3.05kg 990m/s 121 144 115 76mm BR-350A ~6.3kg ~6.11kg 612m/s 73 77 80 " " " 662m/s 80 86 86 76mm BR-350B ~6.55kg ~6.36kg 655m/s 98 93 89 76mm BR-350SP ~6.8kg ~6.6kg 655m/s 105 101 92 76mm BR-361 ~6.6kg ~6.41kg 813m/s 123 120 114 85mm BR-365 ~9.2kg ~8.93kg 792m/s 142 135 121 100mm BR-412B ~15.88kg ~15.42kg 895m/s 215 217 170 107mm B-420 ~18.71kg ~18.17kg 830m/s 197 197 163 122mm BR-471B ~25kg ~24.27kg 795m/s A-19 207 205 160 " " " 781m/s D-25T/S 207 205 157 152mm BR-540B ~49kg ~47.57kg 600m/s 150 165 153 So despite these shells performing very poorly against flat armor, they penetrate sloped armor like any other AP round. The same is true for AP rounds that for the most part can't penetrate 0° or 30° armor as effective at high velocity as APC shells, thus having lower penetration against mostly flat armor. So this system that uses shell energy and overmatch to determine sloped armor penetration should be implemented and replace the current system, to allow for more realistic tank gameplay. Edit 26.02.19: An additional advantage of using this energy formula is that it allows to realisticly estimate the shell performance when fired from aircrafts. The faster the plane flies, the faster the speed of the shell and the higher the penetration. Using this calculator the planes speed can simply be added to the muzzle velcoity of the shell to calculate the new penetration at higher velocity.
  9. 25 points
    Vehicle: CL-13A Mk. 5, CL-13B Mk. 6 Mode: RB Suggested Change: 9.0 BR to 9.3 BR Reason for change: The CL-13A Mk. 5 has been long characterized by the community as the best jet in the game (before the introduction of the T-2), due to it being the fastest subsonic jet in the game, with remarkable turn time, acceleration, and climb rate, among other things. In flight characteristics, then, it outperforms virtually all other subsonic aircraft in the game, and is comparable even with a great number of supersonic aircraft. By moving it up to 9.3, at least it will not longer face 8.0 aircraft, which have virtually no chance of beating it. Vehicle: CL-13B Mk. 6 Mode: RB Suggested Change: 9.3 BR to 9.7 BR Reason for change: Essentially a better CL-13A, and thus the same principles apply. However, the fact that the CL-13B gets A2A guided missiles (an asset that not many other competitive subsonic jets get) merits a BR of 9.7, which would reduce the number of aircraft without air to air missiles that this aircraft would have to face.
  10. 25 points
    Vehicle: Both Mystère IIMode: RB Suggested Change: 9.0 BR to 8.0 BR for the IIa and 9.0 BR to 8.3 BR for the IIC Reason for change: No both Mystere II are not balanced ! If you even try to play them once after playing any other 9.0 you will find a huge acceleration, top speed and climb rate differences ! The plane just can't compete with other 9.0 and even less against the new rank VI jet ! Stats show it too (even tho gaijin seems to not take into consideration the number of game (sample size) for balancing which is the most basic error a statitician could make) ! Both mystere II are way underplay compare to other 9.0 because everyone knows how bad they are ! With the arrival of the super Mystere how can those two still be at 9.0 ? The only way you can score kill is through head on or on very bad player, but I don't call that balance, it's purely based on luck ! If two player of the same level where competing in a 9.0 battle, than the one playing the Mystère II would always loose ! It would loose all of it's energy instantly and than be food for the other player : that's not balance, that's unbalance between the Mystère II and all the other jet. It will also bring more power to the 8.0 ally line up that suffer a lot from g91, me262c and me 163
  11. 25 points
    After the last dev-server playtest, some users raised concern over planned changes for Italian premium M60A1 "D.C. Ariete" tank in update 1.87 Namely, the removal of the gun stabilizer that it most likely never had in real life according to our sources and lowering the vehicle’s BR accordingly from 8.3 to 7.7. We’re always striving for historical accuracy in our game, and premium vehicles are no different from regular ones when it comes to fixing bugs etc. It should also be noted that this planned change may actually benefit the tank - due to lowered BR it will meet less enemy vehicles it struggles against in battles and will have a solid line-up of regular tanks. However, we also think that altering premium vehicle characteristics significantly (that was caused by our oversight in the first place) on a short notice is not fair to customers. So, we made the decision to stop selling this tank in our store once the update 1.87 is released, but it will retain the stabilizer and its current BR while we’re thinking on further actions. We're going to carefully evaluate the situation and keep you updated. Feel free to leave your feedback here!
  12. 23 points
    Vehicle Sea Hawk FGA.6 Mode: all Suggested Change: Should only cost 200,000 RP to research Reason: It costs 380,000, the same as an endgame 9.0 Jet, despite being a 7.7 Jet and being placed behind the Sea Venom on the research tree
  13. 22 points
    It certainly feels so sadly. With the implamentation of th enew and classified tanks where the armour composition and values are always questionable, and the new pen calculator which is straight up contradicts many shells historical values but they refuse to change it, because "they use it and that's it". Lately a Challenger 2 reload time bug report with many video evidence showing the real life reload time was refused saying "there's no need to change it"! NO NEED! Where is the accuracy?? Here it is: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/261189-skorostrelnost-120-mm-orudiya-l30/ I'm pretty sure you guys could list a ton more vehicles with inaccuracies. I do understand Gaijin tries to balance out the game, but they did it in thepast with BR changes and repair costs, now they are flat out changing values throwing out the historical accuracy on the window if they see fit. Yhis is really sad in my opinion What is your opinion? Balance with made up tanks/planes, or do we need the accuracy too?
  14. 21 points
    I used to get very hyped, looking forward to every update in WT, especially big ones with more excitement than for Christmas. Nowadays I look at the changelogs laconic, with little more emotion than mild curiosity if I don't just ignore the changes as they matter little to me. I am not a fan of reaching so far into post-WW2 territory. Not to take away from anyone who is a fan, by all means, more power to you and if you enjoy it. But since this is a feedback thread I would like Gaijin to know that my attachment to these recent updates, mostly in the Ground and Air Forces department, is very low. I know we do have quite a lot of WW2 vehicles and decently fleshed out tech trees for that. But I would always again prefer something new there, even if a similar version to what we already have than postwar tech. Kind regards, Stahlvormund101
  15. 21 points
    Why I play WT: WW2 tanks and planes Korean war tanks and planes What made the game better over the years: More Nations Solid AP was buffed RNG bounces got reduced due to overmatch mechanic Hullbreak made lightly armored vehicles easier to kill Graphics/Physics updates Map improvements Lowering spawn costs for tanks What is bad: City Maps for tanks Large maps for tanks that force you to fight at short range Gun inaccuracy, especially for guns <75mm RNG bounces TKK is unreliable. Either you one shot a tank or it takes several hits to finally kill the last crew member. APCR is useless for 95% of the tanks that have it because it deals low damage and can't pen sloped armor. APDS isn't as effective as APHE in killing tanks making postwar tanks using this ammo hardly better than WW2 designs. Spawncamping Slope performance of AP shells Light armored vehicles can still take way to many hits to get destroyed What made the game worse: Replacing historical penetration values with calculated values that don't match historical values Making AP slope performance even worse Reducing the slope performance of APC/BC rounds What I didn't care for: Ships Helicopters MBTs
  16. 21 points
    Over the years of playing War thunder I have collected a number of wagers, both SL and GE ones, but never really use them due to both the gambling aspect (I have had some less than positive experiences with these things in the past) and they simply don't comply with my playstyle ( fly helicopters mostly, RB air after that, and good luck getting half of those SL wagers in RB) . I really wish I could just fob them off for a few lions that I can actually use as a garneted figure, even better if other players could buy them off me so that they can perhaps get more use out of them than I would. Otherwise these things are going to clog up my inventory for years to come, I won't be using them that's for sure. Anyone else have the same opinion? if you could, would anyone want to buy them (as I said, for lions of course, not real money )?
  17. 20 points
    I thought it got removed, and rejoiced. Now it is back. It should go in my opinion.
  18. 19 points
    I think the last reasonable update was when they added france and fixed ap shell damage but since then after every patch the game is just more broken and unbalanced than before. The last update which changed pennetration for selected shells was nonsense just complete garbage. With that they completely broke some vehicles and shells and some were so useless that they have to remove them because this fomula simply does not work at all. Now they made another move to broke balance.. change BR of some broken vehicles and while that looks ok at first it just broke more stuff than before. Anybody remember the time when there was some kind of balance at 6.7 for all nations? I will speak about my experience from AB but I am sure it is very similar in RB now. The BR system is prefering all br that is 0.3 which means for example: Russian lineup at 5.3 T34-85, KV-85, IS-1,SU-85M Russian lineup at 6.3 T44, IS-2 1944, SU-100 Russian lineup at 7.3 IS-3,IS-6,T44-100,Su-122-54 All of these BRs have advantage that they pretty much never get full uptier. Yes 5.3 may see 6.0 tanks but chances to get full uptier to 6.3 are really low. Mostly you will fight 4.7-5.7. The same apply for 6.3 it goes against 5.7-6.7 and the chance that you will get to fight T29,T32,T34,IS3,IS6 .. are really low now. Now what the hell happened with 6.7? ITS GONE! Well the old guys that were competing against Tiger2 moved away. Russian vehicles went down and american went up and the germans stayed same with majority of their main enemies on different br now the chance to get uptiered to 7.0-7.3 is 85% if not more. The only countries that have still viable lineup on 6.7 (in AB) are germany and british but the amount of britsh players is just too low to fill this BR and they get uptiered as well. The game is complete garbage right now let me tell you that! And yea I complain about germans because its just mindboggling what they came up with this time. The brittish are in even worse position but that is the only tree I never bothered to play. I was playing russians and it was gabage too just too easy point click kill on 8.3 that is currently the most broken br for russia T55,T62 and IS7 its just too op lineup imho. These tanks lolpen everything germany and usa have up to 9.0 but they get mostly 7.7-8.7 matches as some of you might expect. I also have the USA op lineup of T29,T34,T32 that goes against those poor tigers this game is not fun anymore at all. Not to speak of T80 leo2 etc. its just not fun gameplay. Its not that I have to play germany because I am german fanboy its just that this game is slowly becoming complete garbage. There is no historical accuracy and no balance either. In the old times when there was only russia and germany it was kind of ok just back then russian sloped armor was much more magical than it is now but other than that the game was really great back then I would say it was much better than it is now after years of developement. With addition of USA it still worked fine. Everything started to go downhill when they added hesh, heat, rockets and now helicopters which are completely useless addition to the game they are in game just to ruin "tank" battles a nothing more. This game is going to be complete trash if devs doesnt overhaul it completely. But that wont happen we will get 1 new tank for each nation and more broken stuff to enjoy. War Thunder completely derailed from what it was and these days the game is just about powecreep and cash grab.
  19. 19 points
    The German Leopard 2A5 was a main focus of one of our past April Fools’ Events. Not much time has passed since then, and we are now happy to present you this new top-tier vehicle in the German ground forces tech tree – this time we are dead serious! Briefly: this is the modernized version of previous modifications of the Leopard 2 main battle tank. Its main difference lies in its noticeably better-armoured turret, especially around the front. The War Thunder Team
  20. 18 points
  21. 17 points
    Hello, as some of you might know, the T-2 outperforms all jets that are currently in the game. It outspeeds, outturns and outguns every other jet. And to top it off, it also gets aim-9E missiles and it has radar. I have a MiG-19PT (spaded) and a Mitsubishi T2 can keep up with me in a stall climb and has good energy retention. The Mitsubishi T2 is from 1971, while most other supersonic(transsonic) jets are from the 1950's. This jet is currently spammed in (almost) all top tier jet battles and it's really annoying. This thing cannot stay at 10.0 and should be nerfed. *Tip to gaijin: play your game and feel the pain.* How is a mig 15 going to fight a T-2. Supersonics can barely kill it, let alone a poor mig 15. I don't hate Japan, just this is not fair for all the other nations.
  22. 17 points
    Vehicle: Emden, Köln, Nürnberg Mode: RB Suggested Change(s): Reduce their stock 20,000 SL repair cost to 5,000 SL, just as every other cruiser. Reason for change: Their current repair cost is excessive and implies losing several thousands of SL every battle, as they get destroyed easely by ships like the Brooklyn and yet have a repair cost four times more expensive.
  23. 17 points
    Vehicle: M60A2 Mode: All Suggested Change(s): Decrease research cost Reason for change: The M60A2 "Starship" is a neglected vehicle that is no longer being played or obtained as 380,000 research points is excessive for something with ATGMs that are ineffective against most of it's opponents. I suggest 210-280k rp for the starship as it still keeps the starship relatively expensive, but not absurdly so.
  24. 17 points
    I'm inclined to agree. All this modern stuff is just ruining the game in the long run :/
  25. 16 points
    Nice to see some new mechanics. But i do hope 1.89 brings some new WW2 vehicles. There are a lot of aircraft in the files that you could easily be added. Some of them might not bring that much new to the game. But they will at least be WW2.