Leaderboard

According to Stona, a new spec has been abruptly released that allows all avatars to use only in-game images and also makes signatures unusable. I really do not like this spec. Why didn't Gaijin notify us before implementing this specification? Custom avatars are especially important on a forum like this, and I feel like this change has taken away a lot of people's individuality. I personally hope they revert back to the old specs now. If you support the Friends of RU forum: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/332008-ubrat-na-forume-sistemu-avatarok-iz-igry/ https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/332038-vernut-kostyumnye-avtarkii-i-podpisi/

Dear players, Firstly, we would like to extend our sincerest apologies to each and every one of you. We deeply regret the fact that our actions have let you down, and that we have failed to adequately address the concerns you have voiced over time. We share your passion for the game, and it pains us that our decisions have not lived up to your expectations. Over the past week, we've been diligently analyzing the feedback you've provided. We acknowledge and agree with your concerns regarding the balance of the economy (Silver Lions and Research Points), as well as modification research. We have therefore prioritized addressing these issues as our immediate concern. We are in the process of creating a plan to tackle these problems. While we have made some initial progress in understanding the scope of these issues and potential solutions, we anticipate providing a more detailed roadmap by the 14th of June. We understand the urgency you feel for changes to be implemented, and we assure you, we share your eagerness. However, given the scale and complexity of a project like War Thunder, some time is required to ensure that any changes we make are both effective and beneficial to the player experience. We are also continually reviewing the vast array of other feedback and suggestions we receive. Rest assured, these are important to us and will be addressed, but at this moment, our first priority remains the game's economics and progression. We are truly sorry for the disappointment and frustration that we have caused. We commit to you that we are doing everything we can to improve the game, and regain your trust. Thank you for your understanding and patience during this time. We value your continued support and your dedication to the game we all love.

This topic is made with the intent to appeal to change the new swiss Hunter F.58. As most people now knows, the Hunter F.58 is currently in the german tech tree. I am suggesting that the Hunter F.58 be removed from the german tech tree and be instead but either in the british tree or the french one. My arguments supporting my idea are that the Hunter F.58 is plane that is british in design and operated by a nation that is not (or should I say "was not until now") represented into the game. For the sake of the argument I will formulate my points as if the Hunter was not yet in game. Switzerland not being represented in game should have its vehicles put in a nation that represents it the most or that at the very least the designing country gets to have it. In this case, Britain and France. Why Britain? Because as simply as it is, the Hunter is a british plane in design. It was britain that developped the skeleton of it so to speak. Why France? Because yes, one might argue that Switzerland has connections to Germany and it is true. This can be seen with swiss cold war era tanks, a good example of it being the Leopard 2A4. However it is not Switzerland's strongest connection. The strongest connection Switzerland has being France. I could be very wrong with the following point but I do have a strong feeling that the main reason the swiss Hunter got added in Germany was due to the fact that both countries share a language and that Switzerland's relation with France in the past is not too well known. Switzerland has been closer to Germany militarily speaking since the middle of the cold war. While with France it has been for over a century now (more notably during World War 2). Switzerland made a secret military agreement (La Charité-sur-Loire secret archive) with France during the middle of the 30s in case of german invasion of the french territory. Agreement mentioned on the official swiss government web site At the time, to Switzerland, Germany was seen as a threat. The agreement consisted of forming 9 french divisions that will cooperate with Switzerland aswell as other french infantery divisions to make contact with the swiss army around the village of Gempen, outside of the city of Basel. Switzerland purchased some two hundreds of AMX-13s in the middle of the 50s. More in the past, France also had major influence on Switzerland's development, the most notable one being the formation of the Helvetic Republic, where France imposed a centralisation of the cantons. Making cantons no longer sovereign. As before this, each cantons at the time were fully sovereign, ruling over their own territories and there was no central power. So, for all of these reasons, I do believe and highly suggest that the swiss Hunter be put in the french tech tree. Similarly as to what was done to the SK-105.

We have Commonwealth Nations Vehicle already in-game C2A1 and M1A1 AIM to its orignal developer Country which is Germany and US Adding T-90S to British TT is completely inconsistent. If you look at the Commonwealth relationship, Even Australia and Canada have much closer relationship with UK than India Also India has much closer relationship with Russia than UK. That is why India imports and operates Russian weapons. +Not only It is very awkward to give a Russian-designed tank to Britain, which is pivotal in the NATO/Western world, also the characteristics and uniqueness between Tech Trees disappear. Giving T-90S to British TT is Nonsense What are you even thinking Developers. Please listen to our opinions

Hi, first of all, we have seen Turkish camouflages in the data mine recently, it is true to say that we got a little hopeful about this, first of all, when I saw the camouflage of the Leopard 2A4 tank, our community suddenly revived and I felt the need to open a topic. In addition, the survey is quite ahead in the ground forces opened by PikPikker. If it is going to be a tree study, we try to help with the information we have, it is enough to have the first aircraft and tanks in both the land forces, the air force and the navy You can also add the topics opened in the forum about the Turkish Tech Tree under this topic.

1) I gave two polite and constructive opinions under your newest article: https://warthunder.com/en/news/8260-how-progression-and-economy-is-built-in-f2p-games-and-war-thunder-in-particular-en 4h later still didn't show up. Giving feedback can be very frustrating. 2) The forum is very strictly moderated, with many subforums that are attended by active "few". Personally if I will pop in here, I would read just general discussion. I would rather play in my free time than spend an hour on forum. Closed and moved topics in "general" are norm. All that seems to be not a problem on Reddit. 3) You receive regular feedback about the Heavy grind and "crazy" events, even on premium accounts, from paying players and its getting only worse - clear signal that you are not listing enough. My perception is that feedback is only slowing down the "degradation". The biggest win perhaps is when you cancelled plans for "premium" vehicle modifications based on feedback. I get it is F2P game, but at least reward and ease up the grind for already paying players in more significant way. Premium time feels like standard time, or less. Negative* Reviews are just the next step for tired and frustrated fans to express disappointment. The article suggest that it is unfair and you are misunderstood, but I don't think this is the case, I think it is you who don't understand your long standing player base. *Edited to rectify incorrect use of "Review bombing"

Ukraine Ground Forces Tree A Ukrainian T-64BV moving towards combat positions. Emblem of the Ukrainian Army, the Ukrainian Flag, and the Emblem of the Ukrainian National Guard. The Tech Tree as it would appear in-game. Description: The current form of the Ukrainian Armed Forces came about in 1991 with the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the Soviet Union. During this time, Ukraine declared its independence and inherited several Guard's Army's and Tank Battalions which included several thousands of pieces of military equipment. Due to budget constraints, much of the equipment was sold, however Ukraine continued to develop its proven arms industry and exported its military hardware to country's like Pakistan, Thailand, Georgia, Azerbaijan, or the Congo. Ukraine today continues to be a global producer of arms and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. This tree is to bring about the introduction of the Ukrainian Armed Forces into War Thunder. This is due to the many unique vehicles developed in Ukraine throughout its history, even through the Soviet Union. In recent history, organizations/entities such as Ukroboronprom and/or the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau have coordinated in developing vehicles like BTR-3, and BTR-4 series of vehicles and the BM-Oplot. Ukraine has also developed new vehicles altogether such as the Varlan, the Otaman-3, and Kevlar-E. The Ukrainian BM-Oplot, a heavily modified T-84 Oplot that features several enhancements in firepower, maneuverability, communications, and protection in the form of the Shtora-1 APS, and indigenous Duplet-2M ERA . An advanced 3BM44U1 APFSDS-T round developed for the autoloader of the T-84 Oplot/BM-Oplot with over 600mm of penetration. It’s status and development into the 3BM44U2 APFSDS-T round remain unknown. Rough translation: "A promising Ukrainian development, the 125mm armor-piercing sub-caliber 3BU44U1 projectile features elongated rod and new firing device. The total weight of the round is 22.1kg, the declared initial speed is 1700m/s. Some advertisements have claimed that this round provides armor penetration of at least 600mm. Developed by TASCO Corp., in Kyiv." The Otaman-3 IFV, one of Ukraine's newest 6x6 vehicles that was developed for the Ukrainian Naval Infantry Corps. Different ATGM's and GL-ATGM’s produced by Ukraine. The ‘Konus’ is designed to be fired from 120mm barrels like that if the T-84-120 ‘Yatagan’ and the ‘Kombat’, the primary GL-ATGM of the Ukrainian Army, is designed to be fired from 125mm barrels like that of the T-64BV zr. 2017, T-84U Oplot, or BM-Oplot. The smaller RK-2's are designed to be fired from portable launchers or from light vehicles such as the Otaman IFV and the larger ones from dedicated missile carriers like the Barrier-S. Ukraine has expanded its technology footprint with the introduction advanced ERA such as the Nizh (or Nozh) family which consists of Nizh-LM for light vehicles, Nizh-1M and Duplet-2M for heavy vehicles and main battle tanks. The Nizh-1M and Duplet-2M are designed to offer more kinetic and chemical protection than 4S20U (Kontact-1) and 4S22U (Kontact-5), which Ukraine also can produce. They also introduced or continued to produce Active Protection Systema such as the Shtora-1 and Zaslin. The Zaslin has 3x different types, the standard Zaslin, the Zaslin-L, and a Turkish development of the Zaslin-L, the Akkor-Pulat. The Zaslin is in use with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Türkiye. ERA protection values which includes: Nizh-LM, 4S20U (Kontact-1), 4S22U (Kontact-5), Nizh-1M, and Duplet-2M. Image comes from an article 'Ukrainian Defense Review #4' which routinely provides updates on the Ukrainian Defense Industry, and is in regular contact with Ukrainian engineers. Zaslin Hard-kill Active Protection System that can be equipped to main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other platforms. Other than ground vehicles Ukraine does have a unique development of helicopters, aircraft, and coastal craft that could be added like the MiG-29MU1 or MiG-29MU2 which fires locally developed ‘Gran’ air-to-air’ missiles, enhanced R-27ER1 and R-27ET1 missiles, and the Kh-29T Air-to-Surface missile, the Su-27UBM1, Su-25UBM1, Mi-24PU1, Mi-2MSB-V, Gyurza-M-class gunboat, etc. No generation V aircraft though. A Ukrainian modernized Su-27S1M multi-role jet. The Ukrainian MiG-29MU2, upgraded to allow it to combat modern aircraft. The indigenous ‘Gran’ air-to-air missile developed by the Ukrainian State Company Luch. It has been in service since 2007 and can be mounted on the MiG-29MU1 and MiG-29MU2. A Ukrainian MiG-29MU2 equipped with a Kh-29 Air-to-Surface missile during testing making it a true multi-role aircraft. A Ukrainian Navy Mi-2MSB-V assault helicopter, based off of the Soviet Mi-2, features armament capability, new engine, electronics, etc. The Gyurza-M-class gunboat. Incorporated into the tree are Georgian vehicles to assist in filling gaps and differentiating from the in-game USSR tree. Can be seen as a minor Georgian Defense Forces sub-tree. In-game: Ukraine has many unique vehicles that have a home in-game. Way to many vehicles in order to be placed as a sub-tree within any nation therefore here is an opportunity to add Ukraine as an independent tree in-game. In order to prevent excessive copy and paste (which is inevitable as Ukraine was a Soviet Socialist Republic/part of the Soviet Union), the tree would start similarly to Israel, beginning at Rank IV. In order to start progressing in the Ukraine Tree, players must reach Rank IV in the USSR Tree. Ukraine can support itself at high ranks with the use of the T-84, and BM-Oplot which has similar capabilities to other MBT's at Rank VII. Arguments/Disclaimers: Arguments for an independent tree: One of the main reasons why this tree was created is due to the vast amount of Ukrainian vehicles that could be added in-game. There are way too many vehicles to be implemented into the USSR tree without overhauling the U/I. According to mods/developers in the past, the addition of extra nations to trees is situational based on needs of the tree and in some cases based on vehicle manufacturer. The UK needed the addition of SA due to vehicle limitations. Same goes for Sweden receiving Finnish vehicles. They both had 4 lines of vehicles, falling behind other nations and a solution was developed. The idea is in the works with Italy receiving Hungary (and possibly some other minor nations) vehicles as well. China, and Israel may receive another line to close the gap between major nations. Germany received Argentine TAM’s in order to have a light vehicle line. The USSR tree is in no way in need of Ukrainian vehicles to fill another line of vehicles. The USSR tree only needs its gaps filled between BR’s which can be filled with existing Soviet vehicles. Russia has a lot more modern vehicles that can also be added to the tree. Therefore, the idea that Ukraine must be attached to the USSR tree is baseless as its based on the needs of the game. There isn't any other post-Soviet state represented in the USSR tree other than Russia. Copy and paste is seen within every tree. The copy and paste in this tree is negligible. Potential compromise: Alter the U/I to allow for multiple-full trees in one, meaning the option to be able to select sub-nations within the USSR tree, with Soviet vehicles being able to be used fully between the different nations. Example, Soviet-era vehicles produced until 1991 can be used by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Russia, etc., while vehicles developed after that are broken up between the different nations depending on who developed it or if they purchased vehicles from one another. This however, isn't that significantly different from being its own tree that relies on unlocking Rank IV for the USSR. There was no mention of captured vehicles due to political sensitivities. Please keep politics out of this suggestion. Vehicle descriptions will be updated with more information. If there are vehicles that you like and want to change the description i.e. adding more data, PM me with what you want and I will add it to the suggestion. Sources for the suggestions can be found in the associated suggestions. Other sources can be found here: http://progress.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/armored-military-vehicles.pdf https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr_july18_prewi https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr3_magazin_ https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr1_magazine_issuu https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr-03-2015_screen/31 http://uoe.com.ua/main/en/ https://www.ukrspecexport.com/uploads/files/Categories/pdf_5/be2e23.pdf - Copy Link to Search Bar https://glavcom.blogspot.com/2017/03/ukrainian-combat-modules.html https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/ussr/coldwar_soviet_tanks/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Soviet_Ground_Forces#Tanks - References https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сухопутна_військова_техніка_України - References https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/ukrtransgaz_from_ukraine_develops_new_mobile_anti-tank_gun_using_soviet_mtlb_and_mt-12_100mm_gun.html https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/1886258.html?ysclid=lbb5bfwaow482714047 https://tanknutdave.com/t72mp-tank/ https://mil.in.ua/en/mass-production-of-shershen-and-zaslon-active-protection-systems-launched-2/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150606103344/http://wartime.org.ua/1895-samohdniy-zrpk-donec-ukrayina.html https://vpk.name/en/494663_the-t-64-t-72-t-80-apu-in-the-donbass-can-install-the-turkish-kaz-pulat.html https://www.generalequipment.info/BTR-70DI.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20200304082417/https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/kb-luch-predstavyv-ptrk-amulet-na-shasi-brdm-2/ Special thanks to everyone who contributed there ideas to the development of the tree. Special thanks to @eleks12 for there Ukrainian Sub-tree suggestion! Suggestion posted below: List of Vehicles Light Vehicles: Medium Vehicles: Heavy Vehicles: Tank Destroyers: Self-Propelled Anti-Air: Premium: Squadron: Event: Drones: Honorable Mentions/Future Additions: Decals and Camouflage "Destroyer" sign on a 2S3M1 Akatsiya of 128th Mountain Assault Brigade. Thanks for Viewing!

Gameplay is too fast at top tier you are encouraging toxicity with your greed. The most equitable outcome (in my view):

People haven't been asking for reduced traction. If anything, people want more traction since tanks right now neither have the traction nor torque to climb slopes that actual tanks easily can. Tackle the issue at its core for once: fix map exploits instead of making traction worse for everyone.

Friends! Ten days ago we asked you to share your key suggestions and complaints about the game in a special survey. As a result, we received 14,562 player submitted entries - many of them being very constructive. It is a very impressive number! Some submissions made a few pages of well organised bullet points. We are very grateful for such active support for the project and a desire to help us make War Thunder better! It is very difficult to process such a great amount of information. But we managed to isolate most of the repeating points and are already working hard on them. Economy and progression More than 90% of feedback entries touched issues with economy and progression. The majority of them were: repair costs and the ability to pay for it by being active in battles and performing specific actions. Including rewards for assisting enemy kills, kill-to-death ratio, point capturing in a team, repair and other help to teammates plus many others. A separate layer of concern was expressed about the time needed by new players to progress all the way up to the top-tiers. About one third of players are concerned with the current BR distribution and methods of assigning BR to a vehicle. As well as about the BR ranges of vehicles in battle. At least 4% of players also paid special attention to such topics as the need to purchase modules, the possibility to have free - perhaps lengthy but free - repairs, and many suggestions in not modifying or significantly rebalancing premium vehicles. All in all, we understand these concerns and will try to encompass ideas on most of them in the upcoming economy roadmap we promised to publish by June 14th. Gameplay About 10% of players also took time to share their ideas and observations about various gameplay issues in War Thunder. We are still assembling the full picture of those thousands of points, but have already focused in some of the most repeated ones: Locations. Especially their size and how susceptible they are to being shot-through in Ground battles. It is a very important topic. We have tried to study our maps over a long time, creating special tools like ‘heatmaps’ of deadly shots together with the player system of likes and bans. With the game growing and many new vehicles added many maps demonstrated either new issues, or older ones became too significant. We are already engaged in reviewing and ‘polishing’ all locations - and it is sure to be part of the upcoming game improvements. Many of you spoke about the inconvenience of night battles. Though we already tried to make some improvements there - like lowering their appearance probability, addition of illuminating shells,- it turned out not to be enough. We will also look into new solutions here. Some other given complaints were about aviation streaks in Arcade Ground battles, ideas how to improve voting mechanics for favourite maps, and ways to improve the survivability of stock vehicles both in ground and air battles. The was a separate pool of ideas related to PvE modes and ways to improve their gameplay and attraction. Naturally we received literally thousands of ideas on specific vehicle models, modules, weapons and features. It is impossible even to list them all here. Which is actually good - since War Thunder is a game about military vehicles, so it is expected they are in the focus. We are carefully studying all feedback and will try to look at it from a fresh point of view. As mentioned, we are still in the process of analysing all of the survey entries and picking up more and more points from these worth examining and doing some extra to work on them. Currently the survey form is closed, but we will continue to make similar general broad feedback polls on the game in the future again. We will also continue to actively listen to your feedback on the forums. Our plan is to conduct such intensive ‘general questions and suggestions’ sessions at least once every 3 months. Some of your suggestions can be put in the game quite quickly - and War Thunder game design and development teams are already working on them. Some will require a more complex approach, and we will plan for them in our roadmap. We will also cover more about these in the news for the game. So since we are planning to release a large economy and progression changes roadmap by June the 14th, we hope to meet many of your wishes on abovementioned issues there. By the way, we have just published a detailed Q&A for video content creators, you might find the answers interesting and relevant to some of your points in them (link). Conclusion Once again, thank you for taking the time and effort to share your thoughts! We have always tried to pay attention to your feedback, but getting such a massive pool of information from players all over the world - is a limitless source of inspiration and motivation for us. Do not be upset if you don’t find your exact points in the summary above - it comprises the most repetitive ideas, but we do and are studying them all. We will work diligently to look at issues from various viewpoints and try to improve as much as possible to allow you to continue to enjoy War Thunder for many years to come.

As you all have seen the Su-39 is coming in the next patch as a premium, It's the most advanced variant of su-25 while they called it export and put it as premium. I suggest replacing Su-39(Su-25TM) with Su-25T that will be the tech tree version aka the baseline that the su-39 was made off Su-25TM(Su-39) modernized Su-25t

Dear War Thunder Developers! We, players of the War Thunder simulator mode (SB), who play mainly Enduring Confrontation mode, turn to you with what we consider to be currently the most critical matter related to this game mode. Firstly we would like to thank you for all the effort you put into our game mode, Enduring Confrontation, detailed cockpits, and VR support. From our side, we try to show our appreciation to the game from it's very beginning. Not only do we play it, enjoy it and bring friends with us to play, but also those who can afford it are happy to spend their money to purchase premium accounts and vehicles. The problem we now all see with Enduring Confrontation (EC) and reason behind this petition, is the current in-game economy. In a series of changes and especially as result of the latest economy updates, player's progress through ranks has been slowed down to the point of making the game unplayable. Currently even very good players with premium accounts and vehicles struggle sometimes to generate positive income of in-game currency - Silver Lions (SL). Because of the high skill level entry point of the air combat simulator genre, most less experienced players, who often have kill-to-death ratio (K/D) below one and who on average win 50% of their games, are constantly facing risk of monetary loss. Because of this, their progress in the game is stopped at a very early stage and they often get discouraged from playing. We understand that the economic changes of the last 2-3 years were largely due to the struggle of developers with abusers and professional “farmers”, but we believe that countermeasures against violators should not deprive honest players of the opportunity to fly in your flight simulator. In regard to the above, we urgently ask you to improve the economy of the Sim Enduring Confrontation to an acceptable state as soon as possible. This would allow the players to feel comfortable even when playing the now very popular jet planes. If those changes will not happen soon we sadly foresee substantial outflow of players from our game mode and game altogether. Many left already, but every day more and more people are considering this move. Some will leave as a sign of protest but most will leave out of frustration of not being able to progress in a game they like, even despite having a premium account. Sincerely, Pilots of the simulator community of War Thunder ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @Stona @Smin1080p @OrsonES The above message is also posted on Russian War Thunder forum: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/309806-otkrytoe-pismo-razrabotchikam-ob-ekonomike-rezhima-sb-protivostoyanie/ ,translated versions can be found on sub forums of regional communities: French: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530628-lettre-ouverte-aux-développeurs-concernant-la-situation-actuelle/ German: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530616-ein-offener-brief-an-gaijin-von-der-war-thunder-simulator-community/ Italian: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530623-una-lettera-aperta-a-gaijin-dalla-comunità-sim-di-war-thunder/ Korean: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530624-%EC%8B%9C%EB%AE%AC%EB%A0%88%EC%9D%B4%EC%85%98-%ED%8C%8C%EC%9D%BC%EB%9F%BF%EC%9D%98-%EA%B3%B5%EB%8F%99-%ED%83%84%EC%9B%90%EB%AC%B8/ Polish: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530619-list-otwarty-społeczności-symulacji-do-twórców/ Portuguese: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530621-uma-carta-aberta-para-gaijin-da-comunidade-de-simulação-do-war-thunder/ Spanish: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530618-una-carta-abierta-para-los-desarrolladores-de-parte-de-la-comunidad-de-simulación-de-war-thunder/ Turkish: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530620-simulator-savaslari-gelistiricilerine-enduring-confrontation-ekonomisi-icin-mektup/ same statement can also be found on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/osqs5a/an_open_letter_to_gaijin_from_the_warthunder_sim/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/WarthunderSim/comments/osqs00/an_open_letter_to_gaijin_from_the_warthunder_sim/

As we all know the Russian Top-tier aircraft are lacking proper IR missiles. Since no-one is using the R27T because of it unreliable flare ressistance and low turning and little energy we are stuck with R27ER(Which are great for BVR and Radar engagements) and R60s. The addition of the first type of R73 from the first Apex Predators Dev server is needed.

The F-4F IRL has access to 4 AIM-9L's as opposed to 4 AIM-9J's. Gaijin knows this (they said so in a stream), but the F-4F still has 9J's as opposed to 9L's. The initial argument for not giving it the stronger 9L's was that it would be unbalanced, which at the time, I could get behind, after all, it was a slightly worse version of the best plane in the game at the time, the F-4E. Flares hadn't received their buff, and the MiG-23's and F-14A hadn't been added yet, so the F-4F was, while nothing special, relatively competitive with just 9J's at 11.0. It did, and still does, force the F-4F into a dogfighter/BnZ vulture role. It could do that relatively well before the flare buff and the addition of the Floggers and Tomcat. The problem is that the F-4F needs to be either faster or more agile than the enemy, and survive long enough to get in range. The MiG-23's are faster and more agile than the F-4F, and have MTI radar which not only works like a PD radar in that it filters out ground clutter, but (allegedly, I haven't actually seen this in an actual match) also doesn't nail or spike RWR, leaving the target oblivious to the missile. They also have radar missiles to go with it. The F-14A is (by a small, but noticeable amount) faster and much more agile than the F-4F, with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles that can hit their targets from 150 km, and AIM-7F's that, in combination with the Tomcat's powerful radar, are also extremely strong. Both these aircraft are 11.3, only 0.3 br above the F-4F. This means you will encounter them in every match, in fact, they'll make up the majority of the enemy team 8-9 times out of 10. Dealing with them is extremely difficult, while it's extremely easy for them to deal with you. Giving the F-4F AIM-9L's would help a bit, not much since all the things they can do to counter you (shooting you down before you get in range, outturning you so you never get your nose on target, dumping flares as soon as you launch a missile), will still work, it'll just be a bit easier to kill them quickly if you get in range. Because of this, I think the F-4F should finally get the AIM-9L's it has IRL. Maybe also the ability to carry 6 AGM-65B's instead of only 2, I know they only carried 2 at a time during training missions, but in a real battle they would obviously carry more. But if it would just get the 9L's, I would be happy too.

just want to voice my support that, recent coordinated slander by westerners on gaijin is unfounded i will keep supporting this game because this game is the best. ?

Hey, I'm creating this topic after the last update where Russia is the new star again with the brand new pantsir. First of all the 2S6 was already competitive so they were no need to add a new AA to top tier russia. It's been like 2 or 3 maj that Russia is the star of the show and it's really annoying when you are playing others nations (I'm playing french and that is not funny but Im used to it). The Russian top tier is to dominant, I'v been playing like 5 games in a row and despite playing well (making 5-6 kill) I lose all the games because that was the world against russia. The problem is that they have to much vehicules in comparaison of other nations. They are not just good in top tier but also in low to mid tier, basically if you can play correctly you can win pretty much all your game. They don't just have to many vehicules, all there vehicules are competitive and far more powerful than they should be (like the KA-50 amazingly powerful in the game, but in real life it's a brick, laser warning don't work, they are fragile etc..). Russian top MBT are the worse IRL, the recent event show that more than enough. I can understand a little bit why Gaijin just seem to love Russia, bc they love money and a lot of player play Russia. But it's to much, top tier is broken bc of Russia (I'm pretty okay with all the other nations who seem balanced and quite realistic but just Russia is not) and if Gaijin will make Russia the star of the show again in the next update, I think I will just stop playing this game. I could say the same for US in Air RB, but all the nations seem to have a F-16 now and in real life the F-16 is this powerful so I'm more than okay to accept that, but I can't accept the fact that Russia is this powerful in ground RB. My post look like I'm crying bc Russia is to strong, and the answer is yes I'm crying a little but I'm mostly disappointed, I love this game but I can't handle top tier now. Am I alone thinking like that ?

As of the first devserver, Freccia has no commander sight whatsoever. This is clearly wrong, since the CC variant (Contro Carro, meaning anti tank, which is what we'll have in game) uses the Janus commander sights, which are also able to provide day/night imaging through a thermal sensor. Moreover, both CIO (the manufacturer of the Freccia) and Leonardo (the manufacturer of the Janus sights) clearly state that the vehicle has such a device (the latter going as far as clearly stating: "It is an upgraded version of the field-proven JANUS multi-sensor selected by the Italian Army to equip the Freccia multirole Armoured Vehicle (VBM)").

So Gaijin has recently expanded their poor implementation of Air RB EC which is thrown in randomly to jet tier matchmaking. This has led to a big increase in threads here complaining about the "big maps".. I think most of the complaints are valid. However, one type of complaint must be addressed. The new maps "take too long". People complain about travel time, or just the length of the match in general and the size of the maps. This is a simple thing. If you are only interested in rushing into the furball as soon as possible, have no interest in flying planes outside of a furball, or just don't have time for even a 20 minute match, Air RB has never been for you. You should be playing arcade mode for short matches with no travel time or strategy and quick chaotic action. RB is supposed to be longer form with travel time, strategy, and more complex engagement. Don't keep making RB into arcade lite.

At the moment general rules of the matchmaking based on BR. The matchmaker selects the game session for the player in which the spread of the opponent’s vehicle BR will not exceed +/- 1.0 BR from the player’s vehicle. This means that the player will not meet a vehicle which exceeds the BR of his key vehicle (the one on which the matchmaker bases its search for a game session) in battle by more than 1 point of the BRITISH. But if the BR spread is 0.7, it will be easier for everyone to play. That is, when playing on a 4.0 machine, you will come across a maximum of 4.7 or 3.3, and not 5.0 and 3.0, respectively. I think that due to recent developments in the economy of the game and because of the negative reviews, we will be able to do this. Please distribute.

Widen your eyes to see what this is? The J-8D can play PL11, the J-10 can play PL11, that is, the J-8F in the middle can't play PL11, right? Your logic is like a clown！ Could it be that PLAAF is so advanced and powerful that it hurts your Russian pride that you want to do it? Anyone who knows about radar knows that all active radar shells can be used as semi-active missiles, so you think that the J-12F, which is allowed to fire PL12, is not capable of launching PL11? 1473 that's a pulsed Doppler radar! What disease did PLAAF make them deliberately cancel the PL11 guidance capability of the 1473 radar??? The contemporary F8IIM even allowed the launch of the R27, but if you think about it, you won't think that the J8F can't use PL11

Pantsir 20km range insane detection arc making it now the "High Altitude Bombing" obsolete which was at least one thing to stand at least a little chance to russia in top tier. Thank you Gajin. I hear the russian crowd allready loughing t us other nations beeing even more cannon fodder. Russia dominates like ages but that didnt seem to be enough for you....must be masochists to keep playing agains russia. i wish all non russia players would just leave the game or just play russia aswell making que time unbearble for all so you are forced to do something thats called "balancing" Just leave me alone with your "but all other AA have better w/l stats than russia had" The reason is othr nations AA facing 100% more heli spams from russia which we have to take care off no wonder they got more kills.... i switch to russia aswell now Edit: i uninstalled the game...

For other countries: m1kvt for US which not even exists gaijin: good! r27er for mig29 in German which not exists gaijin: for fair play f16aj for Japan which not even exists gaiji n: ok For CN: PL11 for J8f gaijin: not exist! PL-8 for j7e and j8b: gaijin: too competitive! well play well play, another reason dont play this game for next two weeks

Hello! This thread is dedicated to the little things that would improve our War Thunder experience. Most of these things will not affect the gameplay much, but will give the game a bit more authenticity and visually diversify it. This list will be split into 3 main types: Air / Ground / Naval. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas. AIR: animations, visuals and details Modern parachutes and eject animations Refreshed afterburners Refreshed missile rocket moto r graphics Rotating front wheel on some aircrafts Air intakes animations for all jets that have it (we already have them but not functioning as we can see here) Folding wings for carrier based aircrafts Functional blast deflectors on carriers Vapor effects when doing high-g turns Refreshed mach cone Optional lights on aircraft (formation lights, landing / take off lights etc.) Runway lighting on modern airfields More pilot 3D models considering the times Cockpit sound / visual warnings Weather effects on cockpit canopy RWR sound depending on aircraft More realistic audio sound when pulling high-g maneuvers (example here) Bullet holes and cracks in cockpit glass after being hit Proper bomber cockpits life improvements Fuel "slider" Ability to see the current M TOW and TWR based on the set up of the aircraft RWR toggle Jettisoning for aircrafts Better SAS controls in simulation battles (forum suggestion here) Autothrottle / autopilot implementation Ammunition status for bomber gunners Ability to see selected bombing target on the minimap Ability to zoom-in the sight in the cockpit without locking the view Pop-up window if created cuson loadout already exists HUD indicator when engine is off Bomb fuse delay saved separately between the planes systems and gameplay Remodeled RWR (missile launch warning etc.) Working optical landing system (OLS) on carriers NAVAIDs system implementation Multi stage afterburner implementation Fire extinguishers Drop tanks Radar lead indicators Radar jammers IR jammers Implementation of MAW system for some top tier jets Ability to drop chaff / flares separately Compressor stalls Terrain-following radars Performance penalty for ripping off canopy Implementation of flying cysterns and air refueling Implementation of AWACS aircrafts for simulation battles Implementation of proper "loft" mechanics for missiles GROUND: animations, visuals and details More tanker 3D models considering the times Custom commander sights Camouflage nettings Detailed tank crews animations Detailed MG animations Ability to remove mudguards Ability to remove additional armor plates (Schurzen plates for example) More destructible buildings Working lights Animation for tank commander popping out of the turret when using binoculars in game Addition of realistic optics filter depending on type Addition of realistic blurr on the edges of gunner's sight (real life photo for reference) Different thermal vision color depending on the vehicle Reworked tank crew sounds (similar to new crew sounds for naval) Crew sounds depending on the operator country life improvements Stock APFSDS shells for top tier tanks Stock NVD for tanks that have it (thermals should stay researchable) Stock FPE and Parts (more info here) More detailed information about tank's engine in x-ray view (full engine name and type etc.) Ability to manually lower / fold the ATGM launchers on some vehicles Removal of "white tint" in binoculars and gunner's sight systems and gameplay Radiator damage affecting engine performance (RB / SB) Commander sights expanded to lower rank vehicles that had them Regenerative steerings (forum post here) Loader's skill expansion to ammunition replenishment and MG reload Ability to replenish FPE on capture zones Ability to replenish ammo and repair on spawn NAVAL: animations, visuals and details Improved visual destruction models Captain view available (something like 1st person view here) Custom sight functionality Scout Plane cockpits Bomber sight for the Scout Planes (the ones added to ships in naval) that should have them Visual holes after torpedo penetration life improvements In-battle torpedo settings adjustment Ammo rack and ready rack status (similar to ground vehicles) Ability to create user skins for Scout Planes systems and gameplay Improved scout plane mechanics (existing suggestion here) *additional* GENERAL GAME IMPROVEMENTS: Overall interface rework (for example we have this concept) HUD rework for all branches Ability to view the full battle report after closing it More camouflage patterns Reworked clan battles Similar vehicles foldered (A-7E and A-7D for example) Warbound shop test-drives including rare / event vehicles Expanded map ban and dislike options Reworked and expanded personal stats Increased decal / decoration slots Addition of semi-historical filter for decals when selecting what content to be shown in game to a user. Separation of semi-historical category for skins into two categories: semi-historical for skins that were used on the same vehicle model (just a minor variant like MiG-23M/MF) and semi-realistic for skins that are based on historical patterns, but not used on the vehicle variant specifically Ability to filter unlocked skins from skin list (Gaijin market and in-game) Separate "Camera shake" sliders for Ground, Air and Naval Naval aircraft and helicopt ers to be shown on carrier decks in hangar instead of ground base Map rotation depending on era (WW2 / Cold War / Modern) Simple interaction with vehicles in the hangar (flaps, cockpit etc.) Addition of search-filter for decals More lively maps (birds flying in the distance etc.) Expanded weather types in matches (storm or night in air battles for example) Dynamic weather implementation Repair indicator for damaged vehicles in the tech-tree Reworked spectator mode camera (battles and replays) Modification cost in SL and GE in advance before researching and unlocking the mod (visualization here) Separate columns for event / premium vehicles in the tech-tree I'll try to update the list regularly

Guys: If you would like a tank-only mode added, but don't want to read 700-ish pages, just add the comment that you would support a tank-only mode of realistic combat to this thread. I propose they add a tanks-only mode, just like "Ground Realistic Battles", but with the old style of spawn points and without any air spawns. (planes or helicopters) They closed the thread where people were complaining about CAS being overpowered. It is obvious the developers do not want to move on that topic, but not every battle in the war had tanks and airplanes. Only the end of the "Battle of the Bulge" had air at all, due to dense fog and low cloud cover, just as one example. I don't ask that anything be changed about the current "Ground Realistic Battle". If, as the pilots tell us, this is not a fun mode of play, then it will quickly die from lack of interest. If, however, it does have lots of interest, then maybe this game will keep more active players, as not everyone wants to be a pilot. There are actual players that only want to drive tanks, believe it or not. I think the only objection to this will be that tankers will largely desert the current realistic tank battles in favor of tanking without airplanes. I see this as something that is actually likely, in that tankers are frequently disappointed when too many of either side takes to the air and ruins the game. (Successful planes on the enemy side mean your side gets slaughtered. Successful planes on your side mean the other team is blown away and there are no more targets, except there's always someone hiding somewhere, so everyone winds up just waiting for the round to end. Crap pilots on the other side mean there are suddenly no more ground targets, and your side winds up waiting for the game to end again, only if one of the enemy goes afk, his plane can keep the round going for quite a while, while everyone waits again. Lastly, if your team takes to the air and leaves you on the ground, and they aren't brilliant at killing tanks/planes, you quickly find you cannot cap anything, and are outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 no matter where you go, and then you're spawncamped. This is the worst and most likely to occur when there is only one zone to capture, in that the advantaged team will nearly always have at least someone go and spawncamp the enemy, then the rest of the tanks need to either follow the camper to the spawn or just sit and wait for someone on the other side to kill the camper. Can we give a Tanks-only mode a shot? If it does empty the tankers out of the combined arms battle, it could always be adjusted in some way to entice tankers to come back to it. Also, events could be set up where tanker skill could actually be good for getting the tanks. (Pilot skill is currently the more useful in events for getting both tanks and planes, with tanking skill not being anywhere near as rewarded) Until such time as Gaijin does decide to set up a mode for tanks-only, if you're not happy with the current GFRB, please say so on the forums. If you're not the sort to type on the forums, at least quit doing what you're not enjoying. Try something else. Try cap-and-flying or maybe naval battles instead of beating your head against the same game mode if you're not having fun. The benefit to trying flying is that you might learn better how to kill aircraft. (Or what can be done in a ground vehicle to make a harder target for planes!) A poll is available for those who care to quickly show their opinion on the matter:

sup, I would only speak for the battle rating between 2.0 and 8.7, because above you just need to click a button to perform a kill (nice gameplay btw) Since some updates I have the impression that the cannons, regardless of the nation, do a lot less damage and have the unfortunate habit of making 'hits' or 'crits' while before it ended in a kill for sure. Speaking of the Shvak, can we say that they are the worst guns in the game right now? No matter how much ammo you use, it always ends in a hit, or even a crit, if you’re lucky, and if you’re lucky, you spray like crazy and you get a kill, Let us not forget also the Japanese 20mm and 30mm which do less damage than the 12.7mm of the same nation, go understand why, for the moment I myself do not know anything about it. We will avoid talking about other guns for the shot because we should list them all one by one, the only ones who do not look too disgusting are the Mg151 but well we have the habit since they have been getting nervous for 5 years. I would point out that we already had a **** like this a few months ago when the cannons were really 0 damage, now I have the impression that they are the same in a little less worse, so that we make 'hits' where we should not make them. We really need to review the gun damage or the He ammunition which I think have a slight balancing and damage problem at the moment, I think it is more profitable to play a P47D or something with 50layers than to go on the big caliber, This greatly reduces the gaming experience on this "banger" that is War Thunder.

Nobody ever asked for even less traction. We asked for more traction, since the in-game traction is currently too low. If anything, block off areas you don't want players to go. Or, my favorite, don't block them off unless there is an imbalance between the two teams on a certain map. There are certainly broken parts that should be blocked, but overall a more interesting three dimensional battlefield is more interesting than a two dimensional flat map. So please look at these map issues on a case by case basis and alter the maps if needed, don't change the games physics for worse... Edit: If this is really just a fix to suspension mechanics to make them more realistic, please consider increasing traction alongside it for the same reason.

Having tried a couple of wheeled vehicles in the dev server since this change, it is aggressively bad. The traction loss is far too great, even on lower gradients, and it makes it feel like you are driving on ice. If you get one side of the tank caught on a slope then you are just sucked down that slope with little hope of recovering. You did this previously with tanks as well instead of fixing the maps/ adding out of bounds areas and it was a bad change all around, please do not keep these changes and fix the maps instead.

Frankly, this update is not a good one at all, and should be rejected immediately. It has a negative impact on all vehicles and renders previously usable map positions completely unusable. The update, which is supposed to prevent people from reaching places they were never intended to reach by map design, is a very bad update that renders some of the most popular places currently in use completely unusable. For example, the F3 mountain on Guadalcanal Island and the mountains north of the American Desert, for example, make it impossible for vehicles to slide into position. Also, in maps with many dunes, such as the Second Battle of El Alamein or the Sinai Desert, all vehicles are forced to fight in the valleys between the dunes because they cannot use the dunes to their fullest. I do not agree with this change at all!

This game is becoming more and more arcade, and I really sad about it and I know I am far from being alone in this matter. Ok I don't do this here, I allways do this in battle chat like any good ranting player because some battles or session is going bad. But now, I really have to do this in the forum because the game I play since 2014 is something completly different nowadays, and it's is not becoming frustrating because of skill issue or bad servers or anything else, but because gaijin allways tries to please both parties and that won't do. First of all, AIR: I was there 3000 years ago. Where every nation had super planes so gaijin could convince us not to play with american planes because of qeue waiting time(like 60 guys waiting to play with U.S. and some 2 or 3 waiting to play with other nations, by the time Ger URSS and UK). The B.R. was not compressed, and someone who faced the Japanese, had to learn the hard way not to loose energy at dogfighting them(and american plane players never learned it). I look at my service record, and my top 5 planes where I had most SL profit, and most fun, are just impossible to play today. I mean, B-29, Tu-4, Hunter f1... to name some. My first suggestion #1 : Decompress the B.R. system please. At the time we were sad to be in a prop facing jets, but nowadays the iconic sabre died, the couger died, the g91 died, the hunder f1 is dead, the b57s camberras etc are food for missiles, the tu4 is food for missiles, and so much planes we loved so much due to, repair price/B.R compression are just impossible to play and have fun with. So, basicly people complained in "germany suffers" mode, because of long range strategic bombers, because we climbed to around 20k feet and they didn't want to hunt us, staying still in a b-29 six for example and getting killed. No more fun in air battles managing the fight against fighters, trying to kill the bombers, before they destroyed our bases and airfield. Or doing side climb, strategic escorts, bomb their bases and destroy their airfield. Don't fogert the B-29 reached 64k SL repair in realistic and the tu-4 57k SL just for players to stop playing with those bombers. Gaijin removed almost all maps where we could destroy the bases and then the AF, now we have mostly 4 bases that respawn over and over rendering bombers useless and with no purpose. That and spoiled kids complaining the strategic long ranger bombers is too high and they don't want to climb so they going to report... c'mon, is it suposed for the bomber that delivered the nuke in hiroshima to go low and dogfight? I really don't understand the logic of such complains.... Oh and BTW, the war had bombers.... My second suggestion #2: Bring back at least in prop planes but ideallly to all planes, the sense of purpose when using bombers, that if the enemy team don't take some time to try and destroy bombers instead of flying left(high tier) and then headon and die or front(low tier) head on and die. Bring back the ability to destroy enemy airfield. It was just something people could do in bombers instead of just points and some SL or not even that because nowadays bombers just spawn so they can die in most part. Every "operation" map I get, it's a breath of fresh air in a game that has become more and more fast, fast and faster please, die quickly so we can go to another mission, forget strategy, or side climbing, or escort, whatever, just go fast and kill fast or die fast. Most of those missions where there is some luck/strategy/stealthness and the thing becomes more even, equal, and it can go both ways, in most B.R.s just end with time after 25 minutes. Ok so if you don't die fast, you die by time..... because before we could play 40 minutes or more and now we are capped at 25 minutes. I understand gaijin did this because you wanted to free up servers etc etc, but was there so many missions going above 15 or 20 minutes? nahhh.... it is just another way for you to put this game more and more arcadish because some complained they were too skilled issued to try and kill a bomber. The other thing is the grand cannyon operation map the first time I got to try it was in a p-39 with max 16 mins of fuel... c'mon in jets that start over mach 1.0 you give me airspawn in a city mission(not arcade at all (Ironic mode=on)) but a slow 3.7b.r plane gets an operation map? Didn't even reach 1/3 of the map turned back and mayday mayday mayday no fuel. Best almost 25 minutes of my life(NOT). My third suggestion #3: Bring back the 40 minutes, or at least 30 minutes battle time cap. Sometimes even 5 more minutes would be enough for the last to planes to finally face eachother and have an amazing moment of WT. My fourth suggestion #4: Put people in jets more and more in operation maps, they want fast battles? go play arcade that is why the game has 3 game modes. don't like arcade? go play realistic and face that realistic mode is not arcade and people that don't like arcade don't have to play arcadish "realistic" BS. If gaijin is so focused on pleasing both parties on this matter, wich we know it is impossible, create 4 game modes: "arcade battles", "realistic arcade battles", "realistic sim battles" and "simulator battles". So at least we can have a choice. My fifth suggestion #5 : Bring back night battles to Air battles. My sixth suggestion #6 : Refresh the w/l status of the planes so you can lower their repair price. Exemple, f9f cougar, 20k repair? you want to tell me that the statistic of that plane is win win win? and that the statistic is up to date? Stop making it impossible to reach top tier without premium vehicles, I know you are a company and you need to make money, but people will still buy premiums but have more pleasure and that way, we can use those "forbidden" to use planes because of repair cost. This plane is just one example, there are many many more vehicles in WT with this problem. My seventh suggestion #7 : Really punish team killers. At least in Air battles, it doesn't matter if it is 5.0 or 3.7 or 11.7, there is allways some c**t shooting team members, in top tier there is allways a squad with someone with a biplane with airspawn that just enters battles to shoot the jets that are trying to throtle up so they can takeoff... put some mechanism that if you kill a team member in the first 30 seconds or 60 seconds of battle you get 30 minutes crew lock and if you do that more than x times in a day you get one week banned. And I know, some missiles go crazy and change target and kill a team mate, much more rarelly, you are in a prop dogfight and some guy just crosses between you and the enemy and you end up killing him by mistake. Killing a team mate by mistake is not what I have been seeing in more than 50% of air battles in WT. It is totally different of killing team mates on purpose with intention just to screw everyones battle even before it starts. Do something about it or this game will end up dying soon and me and everybody that loves WT don't want that to happen. In ground you already have implemented that if you kill 2 team members(easy with the pe-8 5 tons to do that by mistake), you are kicked out of the battle. In air battles bring that mechanism and add mininum 30 mins crew lock so who does that can only do that 48 times in one day. And not 48 times in 48 minutes.... My eight suggestion #8 : I will suggest that gaijin changes the b.r. you get in battle to be -1.0 to +1.0, and change it to -0.3 to +0.3. If you don't decompress the b.r system that was compressed around the time of first jets, at least don't make me face 9.7 planes in a 8.7 sabre or g91, I don't have flares and I don't want to take the yak38 or su25 r60 or r60m. If you are in a 9.3 you shouldn't face the A-10 missiles. If you are in the A-10 you shouldn't be facing f14. You shouldn't even be having civil wars because people don't want to wait 3 or 4 minutes in qeue time. I'm not the one who likes to J out but, If everyone stops accepting being matched in battles with 1.0BR above their vehicle, by J out or not even entering the battle on takeoff after checking tab, you guys in gaijin will understand that when that happens in a compressed B.R. system it only makes your player base more and more sad and with less will to play WT. And I could suggest a lost more but I'll stop it for now.. Now second of all, GROUND : It is completly ridiculous what is happening in ground battles in WT, a game that brought so many thousand of hours of joy and some frustration to so many players of your playerbase. Specially when you go to premium B.R, 7.7(because of 8.7) to 10.7(because of 9.7) and everything in between. Major problem is one death and out. You can't do much if a player only have reserve tanks and buys a 9.7 premium to grind the nation, and I get Gaijin has to earn money and that the company is a business, I get that, but this players only transformed a good game with some really close battles, that until last minute you wouldn't know who would win, to a game that, everybody is dead with 1 death and then J out in less than 4 minutes. My nineth suggestion #9 : I would like to know what to suggest you about this issue, but I don't so I ask you to please do something about it, when you play 1.0, 3.0.... 5.0, everybody respawns, tries to win the battles and play for fun, and when you go to 7.7 to 10.7 you just end up playing something that is disgusting. People ignore cap and go straight to spanws to die and go out bam 2 minutes no team... it is just disgusting. Please fix this I don't really know how. My tenth suggestion #10 : Most of the maps are the same since the WW2 tanks era in WT, and they are amazing for that vehicles era, some are new but have the same problem, but a lot of them are just with bad design specially in size, and spawn points positioning. So you get to your missile ultra thermal view shot laser rangefinder kill machine to kill people in spawn in less than 30 seconds of battle start. That happens in: - Middle East - Hürten Forest - European Province - Ardennes - Poland - Mozdok(this one is just one of the worst in domination #2 mode) - Second battle of el Alamein (Domination #2 mode) - 38th Parallel with now shooting from up from C to down to A paths... you can last longer playing a match in a fighting game or in a pinball machine - Fields of Poland Winter - Fields of Poland - Sinai - Maginot Line - Fire Arc - Fields of Normandy - Surroundings of Volokolamsk(this one is just the worst and I'm not really sure what have you fixed...) - Sands of Sinai - Pradesh And everytime I die in less than 60 seconds in a the beginning of a "realistic" battle in warthunder ground(not arcade at all(Ironicmode=on)) I will J out and I won't respawn. Yes I have premium account, yes I have premium vehicles, but I'm not willing to pay more and more SL in repairs just for the "realistic" fun of it, I'm not. Player base complained they had to drive 3 minutes to a point? well I complain I want to start a battle with some strategy and fun and not die faster than in a Mortal Kombat or a Street Fighter battle. It is just simply not fun. Those maps work good in a WW2 era tank, yes but at 11.3 they simply don't work. So my suggestion also aplies to: - Seversk-13 - Campania With all the other maps, make spawn points move. For example in Campania, if they aren't in the left and on the right of the map, and instead on the top in the middle and on the south in the middle, for example, it would change the map for the far far better. In Sinai if one team started behind where it is A and the other where it is C it would change the map completly. And then for another example and for me one of the most important ones if in Domination#2: Mozdok one team was to spawn in A7 and the other in G1 it would change that 20 seconds and took a shot completly for high tier. Make spawn points move around because this way is allways about exploit the maps weakness and allways the same paths and the same sniping points and the same thing. Make some maps better for high tier, make the other maps what they already are, good for the mid to low tier. My eleventh suggestion #11 : Bring back friendly fire in tanks. I know gaijin don't want to be the same as WoT but, c'mon kids are bored they start the battle already with W and left mouse click on, they shoot and shoot and shoot and then keep shooting I congratulate them on discovering how to shoot they reply they are bored and they keep shooting. Do you know what they don't shoot? THE FRICKING ENEMY!... I know that 2014 brough a problem, that's why the flags now cost GE and the friendly fire was removed but, Like in planes, that is not the solution, the solution is to make maps where the enemy don't kill you in less than 60 seconds, and if a team member kills you in less than 60 seconds he goes 30 or more minutes crew lock to learn that shooting in a start of the battle is just stupid. And I know this would take some time for people to adjust, but they would learn fast trust me. And after that you already have implemented the kill 2 get kicked out so, no problem. Oh repair prices cheaper, but killing team members price go higher, something like 50k, and the killed one doesn't pay nothing, C'mon Gaijin if we have had before 57kSL to repair the Tu4 50k fine for each friendly tank you kill would be just..... fair. My twelfth suggestion #12 : Make a way that people can't start in planes or Helis with missiles in Simulator battles. I just did some myself today and that thing is filled with the beginning of battle to see who wins, the AAs or the Air. If the Air wins, team wins, if the AAs win, the ground wins.... Make it like it is on realistic mode. My Thirteenth suggestion #13 : Let us do daily taks, special tasks, and battle pass tasks in simulator battles please. Do you know why more than half of people that like me is finding Realistic to become more and more arcadish didn't migrated once and for all to simulator battles? because of suggestion #12 and because we can't do tasks in simulator. My fourteenth suggestion #14 : Like in planes, finish the predetermined list of ground vehicles we can use in simulator battles. Sometimes you have other vehicles that are not allowed and that only makes less and less people want to play simulator battles. Or add more lists that use all of the vehicles in techtrees. Something.. And I could go on and on about suggesting this or that but for now, I think I managed to make the really important ones that are simply ruining the game that we all love so much. If I remember more I will edit the post. EDIT My fifteen suggestion #15 : Bring back helipad AAs. What is up with Helipads AA? why in the genious mind of anybody the(I think good complaining about the too much of helipad AA) meant they wanted helipad AA turned off? There has been months that if you don't have any anti air armament in your heli, you just should not play with it because there is a prop or an enemy heli meters from our helipad waiting for you to show up just to kill you because the helipad AA is turned of, or worst, turned on but not working. Move the helipad back, make the helipad AA be deadly only for 2 or 3km and not the usualy 5 or 6km, but don't turn it off like you did... AA worked too much too good, so solution is to not work at all? wrong.

I don't care what no one says there should be a major fine for those who leave the match either because they don't like the map or they get hit one time and run back to the hangar! And not this time penalty where they can't use their tanks for a specific time, but a Silver Lions Fine and a major one at that! By players leaving the match because, as stated previously, it ruins the whole match for those who stay and play and the odds are those players who stayed lose the match! Fines should be anywhere form 50,000 to 100,000 Silver Lions for individuals who ruin the match for others!! Why start a match or even play the game if you are going to run back to the hangar for dislike of a map or you get killed one time and run back to the hangar crying? Stop ruining everyone else's enjoyment of the game and Gaijin take notice that a "Fine" in monetary and not just a slap on the wrist with absurd time out! They should also lose any research points or experience points for that vehicle played and I mean all points so they will have to start again if researching for the next vehicle!

I’m reposting this from my previous comment in the Update Discussion page just in-case since this is a focused topic. The BTR-80A needs a serious change: It needs to be given 3UBR8 APDS rounds (the same as found on the BMP-2, BMP-2M, and BMP-3). The BTR-80A can fire these rounds IRL and allow it to remain competitive. Giving it the rounds will allow the vehicle to penetrate armor, especially heavier tanks. It needs to be moved to Rank V with a Battle Rating of 7.0-7.7 with the APDS rounds because it does not belong fighting WWII-era vehicles. If we go down this route, it will just dilute the enjoyment of playing WWII vehicles with other players in RB/SB, and set a new standard that many do not want to see (this can be said of the Type 87 RCV (P) as well). In an extreme case, you could even give it the 3UBR11 APFSDS-T rounds (which I'm pretty sure it can fire) and move it to BR 8.0 like the Type 87 RCV. It essentially fits the same role as well as you can folder the BTR-82A in the future with it. Side note, the BTR-82A features a stabilized gun, can utilize thermals, can mount a Kornet ATGM above the turret (similar to the Warrior with the Milan, etc.), and can fire the 3UBR11 APFSDS-T rounds as well. Moving it to BR 7.0-7.7 will allow it to fit in just fine since it would be armed with more powerful ammo, allowing it to penetrate many of the tanks in Rank V which already lack heavy armor due to newer munitions developed (like the Leopard 1 using light/spaced armor due to HEAT rounds, etc.) and like many vehicles around this Rank, it lacks a stabilizer so it won't be a ground-breaking move. Overall very happy to see this vehicle being added to the game as it is one of my favorite wheeled IFV's, however it needs work.

你们不觉得现在的经济系统就是一坨吗？，就掠夺者那东西都能两万维修费195%的收益，怎么他是9.3挂了八个牛D？更别提现在开低级车不开高涨完全做不到收益为正的，哪怕你有高账如果你做不到KD为正你的收益也是负数，我反正是彻底忍不下去了，以前砍砍砍就忍了，现在都给砍成这样了，哪怕在站不起来的也忍不了了吧，而且最主要的是，凭什么那些BMP2M和Su25k没有涨维修费降维修，BVM也是，就公羊那玩意什么德行我猜大家伙都知道，公羊都涨维修了凭什么BVM不涨维修费，凭什么你那么逆天的BMP2M都不涨维修费，上一个这么干的游戏是逃离塔克夫，现在变成什么样了哪怕我这个完全不了解也不玩那个游戏的都知道了，我觉得大家伙也都知道。

Hey guys, we'll be having a look at a rather interesting support vehicle for France today: the AMX-10RCR T40M This vehicle is nothing more than a demonstrator and testbed for the T40M (manned) turret. It was shown at the SATORY exposition in 2013. The vehicle features an early version of the turret that we now see on the ERBC Jaguar, the latest support vehicle to have entered service with the French army. While that vehicle's hull was still developing, the turret was already in a further stage. Test firings had to be done; therefore, the turret was mounted on top of a pre-existing AMX-10RCR hull, resulting in this vehicle. While it might only be a one-off testbed, I still feel like this vehicle could have a place in the game. The turret found on this vehicle is an early version of the T40M turret, this one has 2 crew in it, and, unlike the ERBC Jaguar, lacks the Akeron missiles. Instead, the boxes on the side of the turret are mockups that would be able to hold other ATGMs. Likely these missiles would be either HOTs or TOWs. It fires case telescoped ammunition, which gives the weapon a great punch for its size. The cannon can fire a very wide variety of ammunitions: GPR-AB-T, GPR-PD-T, APFSDS-T, TP-T, and TPRR-T. The APFSDS has up to 140mm of penetration against NATO standard RHA and features a muzzle velocity of over 1500m/s. The gun also has excellent elevation limits, from -10°to +45°, which gives the vehicle great flexibility in its engagement choices and even allows you to attack aircraft and helicopters. The turret holds 60 rounds of ammunition ready for use with more being found in the hull. The gun has a fire rate of up to 200 rounds/minute or up to 80 rounds/minute with high accuracy. Besides the main gun and (possibly) ATGM launchers, the turret also features a remote weapon station. This RWS has a 7.62mm machine gun mounted. As far as mobility goes, the vehicle obviously profits from the excellent characteristics of the AMX-10RC we know in-game. The 6x6 vehicle is powered by the Baudouin GF-11SX diesel engine, developing 280 horsepower. The overall empty weight of the vehicle should be around 14400kg, a small reduction compared to the 15000kg of the AMX-10RC. This difference is the result of the new turret weighing 3800kg, which is 600kg less than the TK105 turret which supposedly weighed 4400kg (assumption made based on the weight of the very similar TGG turret). The vehicle doesn't have steering wheels, instead using skid steering. The principle is similar to how a tank turns, with the wheels on one side turning faster or slower to turn the vehicle. It can also turn in place by driving the wheels on one side forwards while the others go backward. Unlike the AMX-10RC though, the added armor of the RCR model means that the vehicle is no longer amphibious. Protection-wise, the vehicle profits from the changes that were made in the RCR upgrade program that this vehicle is based on. It features side skirts as well as some extra armor on the front of the vehicle. This should give the AMX-10RCR T40M a small but noticeable survivability increase over the AMX-10RC in-game. The turret features STANAG level 2 protection which means it can survive 7.62×39mm API BZ at 30 meters at 695 m/s. This should make you immune to most small arms fire to the turret, but you are still vulnerable to 12.7mm armaments. General Characteristics: Crew: 3 Weight: 14400kg Engine: Baudouin GF-11SX diesel engine (280hp) Power-to-weight: 19.44 hp/t Maximum speed: 85km/h Length: 9,15 m Width: 2,95 m Main Armament: CT40 40mm cannon, firing case telescoped munitions of the following types: APFSDS - Armour Piercing: 1500m/s muzzle velocity, 140mm penetration against RHA. GPR-PD - Point Detonating: 1000m/s muzzle velocity, 210mm penetration against concrete. GPR-AB - Airbust: 1000m/s muzzle velocity, 210mm penetration against concrete. TP - Target Practice: 1000m/s muzzle velocity Secondary armament: (optional) HOT (likely HOT-3) ATGMs firing from launchers mounted to turret side. (whether or not these launchers are made functional is entirely up to the devs, the launchers on the vehicle were only mockups). Remote weapon station with 1x 7.62mm machine gun. Smoke dispensers: 12x Turret rotation speed: 60°/s Gun elevation/depression limits: -10° to +45° Additional features: Laser rangefinder. Acoustic gunfire detector. Latest generation thermal sensors. Fully stabilized main gun. Place in the game: While the vehicle was never destined to be a production vehicle, I still believe this one-off model has a place in the game. This vehicle, together with the VBCI 2, offers something great to the French tree, a truly top tier support vehicle that doesn't have fire-and-forget missiles. They should therefore be much easier to implement than the ERBC Jaguar which does have them. This means that either of these vehicles are perfect additions for the current state of the game. Being more than adequate support vehicles while we wait for the ERBC Jaguar to no longer be outrageously overpowered. Implementation-wise I think this vehicle is best suited as a premium/event/squadron vehicle due to it being a one-off. The VBCI 2 would then take up the role of tech-tree vehicle since it is actually planned to be produced as an export product. Sources: Additional images:

Do not fix what is not broken, or implement anything remotely game breaking. This is not a good change for gameplay purposes. Focus on more important things like un-screwing traction that was touched on years ago (since the devs have already implemented boundaries on maps that will cause you to die if you stay too long) and implementing/working on regenerative steering on tanks that has them. For the dev's reference:

Yeah nations that aren't russia can't have nice armor at top tier.

except we did. there are a tonne of RH and KMW demo vehiecles that could be added Leo 1A6 Leopard 2 AWiSS Leo 2A4 Evolution Leo 2A4 Revolution Leo 2A6 PSO TVM-Min/max (Pre-2A5) Leopard 2 Advanced Technology Demonstrator and if fantasy Jets like the 16AJ are allowed to exist or russian vehiecles that still havent concluded trails, then these tanks above can be added, no questions asked. So yes how about blaming the snail instead, ey?

Hi all! Lately we have received a huge amount of feedback from players and have been hard at work analyzing, processing and preparing to answer your questions. The most heated discussion came from questions on the economy, and we will definitely answer these too once we’ve had time to look through them all! In addition to dozens of thousands of feedback messages from players, we received a long list of questions from our War Thunder content creators from YouTube, Twitch and other platforms. While we are still analyzing requests and suggestions from players, today we’ll answer some questions from our creators, maybe you’ll find answers to your questions here too. Let’s go! Vehicles Q.We are concerned about the comparatively low efficiency of the post-penetration effect of low-caliber HEAT rounds, for example on such vehicles as Ru 251, AUBL 74, leKPz M41, AML-90, PT-76, T92, etc. We’re planning to rework certain aspects of shaped-charge jets for lower caliber rounds. These rounds do have a very narrow post-penetration jet, and there are lots of real world examples of instances where lightly armored vehicles remained mobile and even in fighting condition after taking a hit from HEAT. Because of this we don’t plan on making these particular munitions overly powerful, but in regards to destroying modules and incapacitating crew in the path of the jet we are planning some changes that will make their damage more consistent. Q. Light vehicles might be very die-hard, being able to absorb 3-4 rounds, because fuses are unable to arm. This is a big topic for players and a common talking point inside our team as well. There are several possibilities we’re considering but they will take some time to develop. We're keenly aware of this issue though and will introduce a solution if and when we can. Q. Is it possible to make 3D decorations physical so that they can detach from vehicles when hit? Great idea! We’ll look into how complicated this would be to implement, and if it is indeed possible we’ll aim to make them destructible and prone to catching fire as well. Q. Is it possible to refine the reloading mechanics, when the loader is knocked out during a gun misfire, then the reload cycle starts again? Absolutely, it’s a good point to bring up, especially for vehicles with a very long load time. We have a solution in mind for this one - we can try to save the reload progress after a certain percentage of the reload cycle is reached, say 80% for example. At this stage the round is already in the breach so there’ll be no need to start the entire process over. Also for two-part ammunition, the loading process could be split into two stages, so the cycle won’t reset to the start if one part of the projectile has been prepared and the loader gets knocked out. Q. Do you plan to increase the mobility of heavy tanks and slow SPGs in the RB mode, like it is in the Arcade? No this one isn’t in our plans. RB is where vehicles should behave as authentically as possible, low mobility is just a real-world drawback these kinds of vehicles have. Q. Do you like the idea of giving free back-ups when purchasing top-tier Premium vehicles? We do! We’ll consider including an initial amount of free backups with high tier premiums in the future to incentivise players to stay in battle. Q. There are still turret desync bugs. It’s a complicated issue to solve but an important one, we’re currently working on a fix. Q. Is it possible to get rid of the desync of server and client? Unfortunately in any network model, including ours, desynchronization between the server and client is sadly inevitable. This is a con for sure. The pro however is that these desyncs usually do not affect the gameplay for all players which is important. The War Thunder networking model (State Sync) was chosen to be the most cheater-proof (in contrast to lag-compensation models like in CS), and, more importantly, it allows us to implement relatively realistic physical interactions. The shortcoming of our model is that there is the possibility of minor (and more rarely major) desyncs, as all clients see the ‘possible present’ of other players, instead of recordings of the past. The lower a player’s ping, the less often desyncs happen, but they will still happen anyway. Q. Any chance to fix the bugged spotting, when vehicles are invisible for no reason? This issue comes from the server’s anti-cheat algorithms. We do our best to sync them with the game render, but in a dynamic environment with huge open spaces and various client pings, it’s unfortunately impossible to maintain perfect synchronization. Q. Damage by excessive pressure needs more calibration, and also damage of high caliber shells of ground vehicles needs to be increased. For improvements like these we need some more precise examples as there’s a lot of factors involved here, often issues in this area are not reliably reproducible, so we’d appreciate any replays or recordings of issues you’ve found so we can investigate them more effectively. It’s easiest to do this in the hangar. Q. Please fix the bug that doesn’t allow you to turn over the tank if it’s turned upside down and lies on top of the turret. Ah yes, it's very rare but annoying when it occurs, we’ll look into a fix. Q. Do you have plans to create a tutorial on mechanics of top tier vehicles, such as anti-aircraft missile systems, drones, etc - with an option to customize controls for such mechanics? Yes we do! We’re planning various tutorial elements for our more modern systems. Q. Due to the difference in the vehicle generations, there are big problems on Rank V, particularly on BR 7.0-8.0, where there are tanks with APFSDS and stabilizers and without them. Indeed, the technology jump in this BR range is problematically abrupt, we’ll pay special attention to this area in particular and come up with some solutions. Q. The Killer-Hunter feature is toxic and requires a 2-3 sec delay to make it possible for the commander to take over or react somehow. A delay here would make sense, we’ll consider this. Q. Currently graphics can noticeably influence player skill: for example, an enemy tank can be almost invisible in deep shadow until it fires. Locations are full of decorative elements that overload players’ attention. Is it possible to brighten up the shadows and lose some greenery and decorations on the locations? It’s a tough question that requires more complex solutions and precise fixes rather than a sort of ‘global update’ to the graphics. The thing is, we can’t just make a game where pro players have their own minimalistic graphics mode, while more casual players have a different one (since that’s just not fair). Dumbing down the game graphically so it’s purely structured around competitive gaming also isn’t an option - our game has and always will be oriented towards a wide spectrum of players with different tastes and preferences, so on this one we’ll have to look at more specific elements that could be improved. Q. Upgrading helicopters through PvE is too long and hard, and their stock versions are often almost unplayable in other modes. We’re currently trying to figure out what to do with the mode, we’ll announce our decisions at a later time. Q. Remove volumetric damage. It makes certain tanks too well-defended, track fenders and side skirts absorb hits. Volumetric damage brings many tanks closer to their correct level of protection (Tigers and Panthers for example), and this can’t be achieved without maintaining our current realistic armor model. However, as with every complex system it’s hard to perfect across the board. We need your reports here - you can send us your replays or record anomalies in the hangar. In all cases where volumetric (and every other damage system) isn’t working correctly, we will fix it - or at least we’ll do our best to. We appreciate that volumetric was a big adjustment to tank battles as it wasn’t present from the start of the game and thus required some adaptation, but we believe this more realistic armor model adds to War Thunder, so we’ll work hard on improving it as much as possible. Q. Decrease the numbers of all convoy AAA in EC and/or give them less accuracy. We’ve fixed this one - already in production. Q. For Air sim float plane spawns. Instead of spawning all the way back on the map and taking 25 mins to get to the battle, have it be able to spawn at any AF or spawn on the fleet with your float planes. Suggesting when spawning on any AF of course you spawn in the air, and if you spawn on your fleet have it spawn you on the water next to your carrier. We’ll think about this one, the current system was chosen based on player requests. However there are not many floatplanes and they’re almost universally slow, so it probably won’t negatively impact immersion too much if they spawn in the air closer to the action. Q. I would like to see if WT naval arcade could be made a bit more arcadey to attract more people to the mode, mainly by making rangefinding faster so it might be more fun to play. Maybe also add what ammo to shoot at which target so people have more of an Idea when to use AP or HE and SAP. We agree here - We’ll try to do something to make the mode more approachable, and will likely start with rangefinding. Q. The attack drones should be removed, they don't bring anything new to the table (helicopters and planes do the same) except that they are much harder to hit/kill. With that there aren't really counters against them except hightier AAs. We’ve spent a lot of time gathering examples and analyzing feedback regarding drones, we’re going to move them up to a higher BR where they can be more easily countered by advanced AA systems. Q. Suggestion to stop helicopters (and other aircraft) from firing their weapons after they are considered ‘dead’ by the game, as it’s not enjoyable to die to a player you’ve already beaten. In reality, ‘destroying’ an aircraft (in terms of inflicting damage that makes the aircraft uncontrollable) doesn’t make it harmless. We do like this ‘last chance’ aspect to gameplay (There's a beast deep inside you, it will not die.. It will fight back!) It’s a system that goes both ways, firstly it is realistically possible - and it might make a player's day to get a kill with a doomed aircraft. However we do see the issues it brings, especially with misleading kill messages. We need to do a bit more thinking on this one. Q. Suggestion to allow phasing through teammates at the start of the match to prevent blocking, in the same way air realistic has after just taking off. We can’t see a way to do this one for ground vehicles - players inevitably will exploit it (when spawning, players will deliberately try to drive through each other to end the cooldown while taking up the same space, which will cause a lot of issues unfortunately). Other Q.Add the ability to report racists, homophobes and similar to customer support Good idea, we’ll add an easier way to report such instances. Each in-game report already has a chat log attached. Creating an automatic screenshot or something along those lines though is much harder and can introduce difficulties. We’ll try to show the chat log to the user submitting a report to streamline the process. Matchmaking Q. Please add more maps to the top tier Air RB (12.0 BR). Even smaller maps. Some maps are very rare. Currently we have 10 maps at this BR. Certain maps will appear more rarely if players have them banned. We’ll aim to add more maps at this rating. For smaller maps though, players often request less of this for top tier jets (usually words like ‘claustrophobic’ are used). Q. For me, the big problem is the size of the maps on the Air RB. It happens that prop planes are thrown on a simulation map. Please remove large maps from Air RB on low and medium tiers. Agreed - big maps can become boring sometimes when populated with slower aircraft with a lot of downtime between engagements. When we implement a way of displaying which maps appear at which BRs (see below) we’ll adjust the appearance of large maps at the lower tiers. Regarding smaller maps for top tiers though - see the request above. We’re trying not to add smaller maps to fast jet battles and will try to introduce less instances of this, however currently many players do still ask for them. Q. I’d like you to increase the chances of going into battle on a vehicle of maximum available for this battle BR. I once performed an experiment and found out that I got into battles using the highest BR vehicles only in 11-14% of cases. Sure, overcoming hardship is valuable, but not that often: it’s demoralizing. Ultimately, the session consists of players within your BR spread who are currently in the queue, there’s no additional factors that directly put you at a certain battle rating. On top of this regarding ‘full uptiers’, only 4 players on each team have the possibility of being at the top BR, so even if you are at a lower BR relatively in a match, you won’t be fighting a team entirely comprised of vehicles more advanced than yours. Q. Add an unlimited amount of bans/5 bans. The problem with this one is that we already have situations with the current one ban system, where some maps are rarely ever played. Adding additional bans (5 bans for sure) will lead to situations where all available maps are banned from the current queue, meaning matches won’t be able to start at all, or only after significant waiting times. Q. Add some way to vote for map/map preferences. This is something we want to think about more. We are willing to have some kind of voting system in place, but at the same time it’s important for players to have a variety of maps too, especially as certain vehicles are inevitably more suitable for certain styles of map. Q. Add BR limitations for each map and show it to players. Good idea - showing the BR range for a map in the map preferences window would be very useful, we’ll try to implement it. Q. My biggest and worst problem in WT is maps in Ground RB is that I don't want to play small maps in top tier battles (things like Berlin - Finland - Cargo Port - Alaska - Small Fulda - Small Maginot Line... etc). We also don’t like all of the maps at high ranks as well, although players’ opinions differ (Many players like Finland or Berlin at high ranks, but at the same time many also don’t), but as suggested above we’ll introduce a way to show the BR limitations for maps. The enjoyment a map brings is often very subjective, but in instances where a particular map is noticeably widely disliked we will pay it extra attention. Missions and locations Q. In Tank RB we often get Battle mode with points already captured, and that demotivates the players from moving. I think this mode should go. These scenarios can foster a more sedentary style of gameplay, we’ll probably reduce the chance of these maps appearing in the rotation, and likely remove some of them. Q. I’d like the developers to manage the maps in a way so that modern vehicles won’t appear in WWII locations like Berlin. We partially agree on Berlin (and maybe Rhine too) but not generally. We’ll try to remove the most obvious elements from maps that specifically relate to a certain timeframe to make them more universal, and we’ll think about introducing a modern version of Berlin too, that could be interesting. Q. Do you plan to exclude night missions from rotation in case the player doesn’t have night vision and thermal sight modules, or maybe introduce an option to disable those missions? We have decided to make night battles optionally available, we’ll announce exactly how this will be implemented a bit later. Q. Collision models of various obstacles, garbage and other things should be either removed, replaced or reworked. We’re working on it! Collision with even small objects can be jarring sometimes in certain circumstances, any examples you have of such issues with screenshots and descriptions will really help us improve this area as quickly as possible. Q. It would be great to increase the duration of session creation to increase the number of players in battles and make them more intense. I think that waiting for 20 more seconds in the hangar and not ending up in an 8v8 battle on a large map is worth it. We’ll think about this one - Unfortunately there’s no universal solution regarding a bracket of queue time that would apply to every situation, but some additional matchmaking options could improve the situation. Q. Are there any plans to additionally reward the top 5 players at the end of the battle? We do have plans along these lines for sure, but we’re just not sure if rewarding the top positions is the healthiest way to go: it’s tempting and a good reward, but it creates unhealthy competition for those 5 places (meaning that players may be compelled to grief or get the way of those in the lead). Q. European Province: The city part is done well because it is separate small location. The open terrain around can be shot through the hills and there is also the possibility of shooting from one spawn to another. Indeed, we’re aware of the problems here. We will aim to fix the instances where it’s possible to engage from spawn to spawn in some of the higher BRs. Q. Surroundings of Volokolamsk: Very large location with a huge unused space. If your flank is clean then you are either too lazy or don't have enough time to react to the other one. I think it is necessary to leave only a small version of it. It’s certainly a large location with a lot of empty space - we’ve already changed the rotation settings for this map, now it’s only available in ground RB and only from the session rank of 9.7 - also please note, a session rank of 9.7 means that these are battles for vehicles between the ratings of 8.7 - 9.7. Q. Red Desert: Huge spaces with shots from covers on the top of rocks. Maybe you will remove this location from the rotation? At the moment this map is only available from 9.7 and above so the huge spaces can be crossed relatively quickly by the faster vehicles at this tier, Red Desert is also still in the top 5 most liked locations from our map “like” system. However we will keep an eye on its overall popularity among players. Q. El Alamein: Positions on the tops of the cliffs make it difficult to play. Line A and line 8 You’re right, we’ll fix them. Q. Battle of Hürtgen Forest: Now in the rotation we have the larger version where the activity of the players is lower than before. I propose to return the old version with 3 city capture points. We don’t see a decrease in activity in this arrangement, but the capture points really do need to be redone, we’ll improve them. Q. Mozdok [Battle]: The location is either for the fast tanks which can take up positions at the beginning or about “standing at one point” as the respawn points are located opposite each other and are shot through. There is no goal to capture the point, no goal to leave the position. Can this mission be removed? It’s possible, we will yes. The mobility of the tanks that see this map do make its layout quite unsuitable. Q. Fields of Poland: the situation here is better than with the “European Province” although the expansion doesn't look justified everywhere. Perhaps we can remove the forests around the edges of the map and replace them with fields to deter players from focusing on the outskirts. Q. Port Novorossiysk [Domination]: the teams capture their points being fully defended, and then meet up in front of a huge open area that makes them afraid to advance, so they just stick to the corridors. We need a full rework of the central point, with safer passages from both sides. The fact that you can effectively fire from across the river also contributes to the stalemate, making the players stay on line 7 with zero kills. We see your points, but have to disagree on this one - from our data and heatmaps (and also personal experience!), the map has a good intensity of action, it often only takes one or two tanks from either team to funnel in behind enemy lines to break defenses. We’d also highly recommend some smoke shells for this map too if your tank carries them, as the sightlines are quite narrow it’s possible to block one entirely with a single shell, allowing your team time to advance. Q. Sinai: a great map, but positions on spawn points on A1-A2 get in the way: it’s hard to get to the player who camps there. Would like for those positions to be removed on Sands of Sinai as well. Thank you for bringing this one up, we’ll look into it. Q. Ardennes: there’s a lot of excess space from А1 to С3, same as in the opposite corner on G8 It may seem like empty space, but we see these routes are often utilized by players. Q. Poland, Abandoned Factory and Eastern Europe: examples of good maps. I’d like to see a new location in the future update that is similar in size and junction layout to these maps and hear the player feedback. We’ll try to introduce a map along these lines in one of our next updates, probably at the end of the year. We’re actually working on something quite similar to what you’ve described at the moment. Q. Vietnam: have you considered partially draining the swamp on point A? Many players avoid it since it’s so hard to move around there. Yes this is possible, that’s a good point. Leave your comments here! We’d like to thank all of our players and creators who’ve submitted comments and suggestions for the development of the game. In this text we’ve responded to the feedback we managed to sort and take into account, we appreciate everything you’ve sent us - even if it hasn’t directly appeared in this text. We’d also like to remind you that this is only the beginning, and we have a lot of work ahead of us! We plan on continuing to promptly share our upcoming plans with all of you, along with regularly answering your questions. The War Thunder Team

Because your comments on the form they set up for our thoughts on the economics last week go into the ether and you can't resubmit or change them, now that I've mulled it over a bit more I wanted to offer here the six things I think Gaijin could do to help players struggling in War Thunder that would not require very much work on their part, and could help restore community trust. Offered as friendly suggestions. Day 1: Improve Convertible RP. Improve the GE exchange rate on convertible RP from the current 1 GE to activate 45 CRP to 100 per GE. Right now it's just simply not a good deal. At the same time, offer a pro-rated conversion of CRP to SL to help those who are struggling. Players could exchange some or all of their CRP at a 1:20 or 1:10 exchange rate for SL. If people's holdings are very large this could be pro-rated so the first million SL exchanged was at a 1:10 rate and the rate got worse for more exchanges after that. Day 2: Put a minimum SL value to achievements. New players get a lot of their SL from achievements, but many don't reward much, or only reward CRP. Put a minimum SL reward on all achievements of 1,000 SL. When you're just starting out and you're earning achievements fast that can really help. Day 3: 100 GE for 100 days. Put a little something extra in the 100 days consecutive login awards, which are currently just one extra booster. Reward people for still coming back that much with 100 GE each time they get another 100, 200, 1000, etc. days in. Day 4: Mod reductions for naval and helos. Halve the research costs of high-tier naval parts and FPE mods. At the same time, also halve the 1st rank research costs of helos, which are currently probably the hardest vehicles to spade. Day 5: Wager/order conversion. Give the option to convert any wagers or orders you have for 500 SL each, again giving players an option about whether to keep them or expend them for something they need more. Day 6: Prestige Levels. Finally, increase the player level cap to 200. Any player at level 101 or higher gets a 5% increase (or more) on RP and SL in all battle results, calculated end battle same ways as premium account modifiers are now. Throw in another million SL prize or equivalent for reaching level 200. Put a little gold border around the player pic or restart the rank titles with a star after them if you want to get fancy. Anyway, that's what I'd do. As suggested by the "days" above, I'd stagger out announcements like this for a week in June, so people get a little something new each day. Then on Day 7, I'd reinstate the economic changes that had been planned with one exception: just stop with the normalizing stuff and just give us the full effect all at once of what we voted for in 2021, with a commitment to revisit the economics again every three months (no more one year delays). I'm sure there were a lot of good little changes in there, but I'm not qualified to talk about major changes to the game economics, and I don't think many of us are. The above economics tweaks are just little things Gaijin could change, mostly within existing mechanics and without any major changes to game systems, to help make us feel we were heard and get the dialogue back on track here. There are other tweaks like this, but these would be the six I would pick as being the most unobjectionable to all concerned. Cheers.

So france gets a leopard but not germany?

I'm no expert but I don't think tanks should slide like this when stopped on a hill. On an icy surface maybe, but not dirt, grass and mud. Tracked vehicles have never handled particularly well in-game in my opinion and this change definitely doesn't help, see below.

Plus, first off, no one becomes a villain overnight, okay? There is a rationale. China has been the most deprived WT nation back then and is still somewhat lagging behind as of now compared to its real life potential. Let me tell you these: -last nation to get radar SPAA -last nation to get top tier MBTs -last nation to get a helicopter tech tree -no IFVs until now apart from a BMP1 copy (QN506 is not researchable) -one of the last nations to get guided munitions -one of the last nations to get proper BVR fighters -not a single export vehicle until now (VT, VN series) -the cold war MBT lineup is still severely lacking (ZTZ79, ZTZ59-2, etc) although this is getting better now -one of the smallest tech trees despite it being a global superpower -one of the most common victims of artificial nerfs. (PL8 was introduced late, some MBTs are proven to have underperforming armor, aim speeds, etc) -lastly, China was castrated for years under a consultant who deliberately sabotaged the research procedures for expanding the tree. It took community effort to address that problem. Let the facts speak for you.