Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'gameplay'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Official News and Information
    • Project News (Read Only)
    • Updates Information (Read Only)
    • Developers Blog (Read Only)
    • Reference Library (Read Only)
  • Academy
    • Welcome New Recruits - Check in Here
    • The Academy
  • Game Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Game Mode Discussion
    • Machinery of War Discussion
    • Historical Discussion
  • Knights of the Sea - Closed Section for Beta Testers
  • Technical
    • Community Technical Support
    • Moderated Bug Reports
    • Moderated Suggestions
  • Mobile Applications
    • War Conflict
  • Community Related
    • War Thunder Live Community
    • War Thunder Wikipedia
    • Squadrons
    • eSport Section
    • Fan Zone
  • War Thunder Player Council Hall
    • WTPC Discussion
    • Player Council Information Area
    • WTPC Election Station
  • National Communities
    • Česko-slovenská komunita
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Communauté francophone
    • Społeczność polskojęzyczna
    • Comunidade Lingua Portuguesa
    • Türkçe Konuşan Topluluk
    • Other Languages


  • Community Calendar

Found 37 results

  1. From its early days, War Thunder's aerial combat modes haven't changed a great deal. There exist three types of aerial battles: Air Arcade Battles (AAB), Air Realistic Battles (ARB), and Air Simulator Events (ASE). Currently, the format of the latter seems to be Enduring Confrontation but gameplay is much the same. Despite large differences, all three modes have something in common: Players only play aircraft, anything on the ground (or in the water) is controlled by artificial intelligence, to serve as objectives or targets for ground attackers. Player-controlled ground forces have subsequently been added. In the beginning, the available game modes did not include any aircraft; but over time, aircraft were included into all three difficulties. So, currently, we have Tank Arcade Battles, Tank Realistic Battles, and Tank Simulator Events, although technically speaking, calling them "Combined Arms AB/RB/SE" would be more appropriate, because player-controlled aircraft play quite a sizeable role in all three modes. Let's look at how aircraft are integrated: Ground Forces + Air Strikes AB: After having contributed enough towards the battle, the player is sequentially granted a fly-out in a fighter, attacker or bomber. Fighters are supposed to defend friendly bombers, but lots of players seem to rather try to cause some damage on the ground instead - after all, it takes less effort to hold down your machine guns and fly into a ground vehicle than pursue an evasive bomber. Attackers and bombers have bombs and/or rockets. Dropped bombs stay on the ground for several seconds until they explode, unless dropped from large altitude, which gives the bombs an audible whistle on the ground. Bombs dropped from higher altitude, however, are usually larger ordnance from heavy bombers with a big blast radius. Rockets are very easy to use in AB, flight input is virtually instant so it's very easy to line up a target, and your victim is clearly marked. Furthermore, there is no incentive to actually survive the fly-out so consequently, almost all players tend to suicide into a valuable ground target, firing off their rockets in the last fraction of a second, which basically guarantees a kill with no actual skill required. This can be particularly frustrating as there is no counter to this whatsoever. While there is a limitation of sorts on how often sorties can be flown, it isn't long after one attacker or bomber makes a run that another will be available, along with the fighter planes that will more than likely nose-dive guns blazing into the ground. Combined Arms RB: If the player has aircraft in their lineup, they can can use them to spawn later, given enough spawn points have been achieved. The added benefit is you actually are able to gather vehicle and modification research points for these aircraft, which is an incentive to fly the aircraft properly. Suiciding is of course more costly in RB because of the repair bill and the amount of spawn points required for a plane. However, unlike AB, there is no limit to the number of aircraft than can play at once. AA is something of a mitigation, but if enough aircraft are present, it's easy to overwhelm them, or just avoid them. In the latter stages of a match, when one team begins to gain the upper hand, it's usually air forces that quickly break the back of the enemy ground force and deliver the coup de grâce, while ground forces, which are supposed to be the main force which aircraft support, scurry around the map and fight over scraps. Finally, there's the post-death "kill cam" which shows the dead player where their killer was. The dead player can, if they have enough points, jump in a plane with bombs and zoom over to their opponent's last known location and get revenge. Some players also exploit the cheap spawn-in cost of anti-air, rush an objective, and capture it for a quick plane spawn. Combined Arms Simulator Events: In AB and RB you typically get an air start, and landing even with critical damage is quite doable. Flying in the simulator events requires people to get off the ground first, which seems to be a sufficient hurdle for some of the community. The skill hurdle factor, and the fact that mixing tanks with planes isn't an option, means that aircraft play a more minor role. On the other hand, aircraft can be extremely efficient on the battlefield in simulator events - this mode attracts many seasoned simulator pilots with great proficiency in aircraft simulation games, and War Thunder's air sim mode. A small band of experienced sim pilots can spot the enemy on the ground, bomb them to smithereens, reload, and repeat. Some battles can be over (or at least effectively won) with very little contribution from ground forces. To summarise, the current tank gameplay experience is greatly affected, often negatively, by these factors: There is no ground forces mode without aircraft. Pilots have this luxury, but tankers do not. In all three modes, aircraft are very powerful, and counters to them have dubious reliability much of the time - especially if the pilot is competent. For a game mode that is supposed to focus on ground combat, pilots get a very large slice of the pie. To potentially address this, and to gather data on how the entire player base feels about the status quo, the implementation of alternative modes could be tested in an event-style format: Tank AB: Just like normal ground forces AB, but without the fighter/attacker/bomber events. As they are now, air strikes are quite an awkward feature of AB tank battles with the kamikaze crashes and heavy bombers carpeting the small maps with thousand-kilo bombs. AB tanks worked perfectly fine before they were implemented, and I'm certain many players would like to see them removed, or at least an option to drive AB tanks without air strikes interdicting their experience. Tank RB and SB: Ground vehicles only, without the involvement of air forces. The already existing "Combined Arms" battle modes would not have to be changed at all. The following points should also be considered: Implementation effort is minor, since no new balancing or creation of modes would be required Gaijin would get further user information about the interest of the community to have combined arms vs. tank only battles first hand - making a request for feedback in these modes would be beneficial to players and developers. The addition of these modes would, if implemented as full-time events, divide the community up slightly more. However, quality of gameplay is considered by a great deal of players to be much more important than queuing times, as have been expressed on the forums many times, and planes have a detrimental effect on the quality of gameplay for many tankers. Finally, initial testing done as a trial in the Events tab, even if only temporary, could be an educational experience for Gaijin and an interesting, refreshing one for ground vehicles players.
  2. Sometimes it happens my team doesn't have a single SPAA and we get clubbed by enemy planes, and if the enemy team doesn't have SPAA it becomes to easy to destroy enemy tanks. So if the enemy teams lacks of SPAA players don't allow us to spawn planes, same vice versa, if we didn't got any SPAA don't allow the enemy team to spawn planes. Second, the amount of spawned planes must relate to the amount of SPAA, if the team has only one SPAA (what automatically allow the spawning of enemy planes), then the amount of spawns for the enemy planes must be low, if the team has two SPAA then the sky will be filled with more enemy planes, if the team got 3 or more SPAA then the enemy gets more spawns and so. Also if the team didn't get any SPAA, but one of the players of the team has a SPAA in his line-up, but is not using it, then there's no spawn of enemy planes, the spawn will be allowed until the moment when one of the players spawn a SPAA. Do you support?
  3. Suggestion: Make players select a plane into their crew lineup before joining a AB Ground Forces match, and if they use the plane, it counts as one of the three vehicles that they are allowed to use in a match. If a fourth vehicle is needed to be allowed to make room for it than so be it. It would finally give me a really good reason to use the SPAA. This would also work well to have the reload timers for bombs and guns doubled to reduce the amount of bombing. Background: The planes are currently automatically chosen for you in arcade in an attempt to prevent GF players from having to play AF matches enough to unlock them and be able to use\experience them. This system works on points gained due to killing or capturing objectives to 'Unlock' the plane. It has very many good points for it's use, for example: If someone only wants to play in GF they don't have to play AF to be able to get into an FW 190 and shoot down a bomber. Details: I'd like to see players use planes that they own to use in AB GF matches. This allows the modules to be used and earned as part of the 'grind'. It would also cost you SL for the repair and count as one of your allowed vehicles in a match (currently 3). With this change the reload timer for bombs should be doubled to slow the pace of bombing down since it is a tank match. These factors should have a positive effect on the 'Kamikaze' attacks everyone is upset about. While it won't stop it all, think about this: If you reload like arcade and stay in the plane until you die (shot down or wrecked) then wouldn't you stay alive rather than ram someone? That will also allow the public to see what I've tested so many times...It's not the plane hitting you that kills you. It's the bombs\rockets he dropped. He just could not pull out of the dive afterwards and your game shows you everything at once. **All open topped vehicles do not apply to the previous statements. Damage is possible without death.** Also, the lack of a good airplane may just motivate someone to go fly to get a better one. More gameplay and experience in a plane would help a lot of players be able to pull out of that bombing dive wouldn't it?. Call it a reward for playing all those planes if you like but having played the planes should earn a player the right to use them when it counts. I think that this will be very important when the ships have real players in them. It also helps the game get players into playing more (to unlock planes) so it should be good for business. Edit: Sorry, I forgot to add the link where this is discussed in the forums:
  4. Hello, This suggestion is simple, and will probably not cause much of discussion, but I feel I have to do this. Maybe other players are feeling the same way I do, so the idea might have chance to be implemented. If You fell the same way - please leave even a shortest comment, as it's the best way to pass the idea to game Developers. Since we got no friendly fire in ground RB it is safe to shoot the enemy, while Your ally is in line of fire - if You will miss the enemy and hit the ally - there is no punishment. No punishment leads sometimes to very irritating behavior of players, who shoots their allies on purpose. Sometimes for fun, sometimes as a revenge, because "he blocked my way". Some of them (this is the worst case) are shooting an ally to highlight him in front of enemy team!!! The friendly fire is not causing markings on the map, and over the enemy vehicle, but still the enemy might spot the explosion, machine gun sparks, shot sounds and so on. The idea behind this behavior is to expose our ally to enemies, so they will shoot him and reveal their positions, so we can shoot them back. In other words one players are using their team-mates as baits. Personally, I would ban such people from the game for minimum a week, but it's very difficult to code the game in such way it could separate this awful behavior from unintentional friendly fire. Turning of friendly fire was largely discussed, and both sides have a solid arguments. Friendly fire is realistic feature, so it should be a part of the game, but on the other hand in real world intentional friendly fire was probably rare enough to call it non-existent. My idea is - let's keep friendly fire turned off, but bring back the SL punishment, to stop this unrealistic, annoying and in many cases very unfairly used possibility to shoot an ally. I'm all for harsh punishment, because it's the only punishment that works good. If the player is even considering braking the rules, it means the punishment is not harsh enough. My proposition is: 1000 SL for every machine gun round 10000 SL for every tank gun round That simple fix should stop the "funny" shooting around at spawn, "mean" shooting to reveal Your tank to enemies, and also will make the players to shoot really, really carefully - just like it should be, and just like it was and is in real life. Again - please comment the idea if You like it, and thank You all for reading
  5. I'm curious of what the logic is behind unbreakable mode on airstrip. Cya next patch, if I'm really, really bored.
  6. The Problems: - The Matchmaker tends to drag planes and tanks into certain distinct battle ratings due to popularity of certain tanks as opposed to others. A few things are capable of handling such uptiers but most are not. - The BR of a plane/tank does not take into account whether that plane/tank is spaded or not - often times a vehicle only deserves the BR it has when its reached certain critical modifications (Engine Injection/New Jet Engine on Planes, Unlocking Certain Ammo Types on Tanks which vastly improve their ability to fight enemies) The solutions: For the matchmaking itself, I've proposed many solutions on the RB GF forum where uptiering is most evident and problematic, but its also noteworthy for high tier aircraft matches as well, specifically jets. The following is the simplest and easiest to implement solution for the problem. - There would no longer be a fixed BR spread for the whole game. The reason is that some numbers work for some tiers and others do not work for later tiers. In general early tiers are markedly more balanced than later ones. - Instead, each plane and tank is assigned a BR range. What this means is that if a plane/tank is your highest BR vehicle, then you could be placed in matches anywhere within that range. If a plane/tank is very robust and flexible it could have a 1.0BR spread (things like the M18 Hellcat). If its not flexible (most heavy tanks and heavy tank destroyers fall here) it would have a narrow BR spread, sometimes even a single number. - The other point in this idea would be that the BR range of a plane/tank with no modifications unlocked would usually be slightly different than one with all its modifications unlocked and installed. Since I primarily use high-tier German Tanks, I will use those as an example. Panther A: 5.7-6.0 would be its range, since the turret is the same as the D with the shot trap, and the fact that the T-V is 5.7. (On a side note, APCR should not be used in calculating a tank's tier unless it provides ridiculous advantages compared to normal munitions, example would be US 76mm M1) Panther G: 6.0-6.3: eliminates shot trap, but rapid advancements in gun/armor development quickly render it less effective, hell early Panthers are usually just cannon fodder in 6.7 matches. Panther F: 6.0-6.3: different turret eliminates shot trap and reduces front weakspot size but same problem as G emerges. Panther II/"King Panther": 7.0-7.3: the only German tank in higher tiers with mobility and gun power to counter T-54-47s even somewhat effectively. Hence it is tiered to fight them. Tiger II (P): 6.3-6.7: due to lower zoom level than the H model it is tiered here. This would be one of the few tanks whose BR spread is not effected by its stock vs spaded performance. Tiger II (H): 6.7-7.0: This is much like the Tiger II P, but it gets better optics and a different turret similar to the Panther F with a very small front weakspot. But, this thing should not fight T-54s, which are faster, equally if not better armed, and better armored than this. Hence its tiering would make it no longer fight T-54s. Ferdinand: 5.7-6.3: This thing was built on the premise of sacrifice most performance for armor and gun only. When most tanks it fights can frontally pen it, it becomes useless. It can at most be in 6.3 matches because 6.7 introduces the T29 which shrugs off its main gun and laughs at its front armor. Nevermind things like T-54-47s and the newly downtiered Conqueror. It needs to only be in matches where its front armor is actually effective at longer ranges, otherwise its useless. The Ferdinand is slower than the Panzerbefelshwagen VI(P) (forgive me if I misspelled that), it has no turret, far worse hull traverse, and it still retains the extremely vulnerable hull cheeks that can be frontally penned by guns over a full BR below it, even more so if it tries to angle. Jagdpanther: 6.3-7.0: This thing replaced the Ferdinand in its intended role and unlike its predecessor it has the speed to make up for its armor often being ineffective in the face of 100mm, 105mm, 84mm, 94mm, and other guns in that range. It should actually come after the Ferdi in the tech tree. 10.5cm Tiger II: 6.7-7.0: The gun on this thing is different than the Pak43 but not necessarily better. Reload time is almost doubled, accuracy is questionable due to it apparently being modelled after the StuH 42G's gun (as a side note will you ever fix that problem and make the gun accurate?), speed is slightly better (about equal to the premium diesel king tiger), but everything else is the exact same. Maybe with fixed gun accuracy it could feasibly be tiered to fight T-54s and IS-3s, idk really. Maus: 7.0-7.3: This thing is a mess. The turret front armor is blatantly wrong, the turret traverse is wrong (huge diesel-electric generator inside tank for a reason), the hull traverse is wrong, the main gun pen is wrong due to wrong charge, and the optics are wrong. Even with all these being fixed, this should be its BR range. It's barely able to fight T-54-47 and IS-3s well, and anything past that BR (alongside some things at that BR like the Conqueror) invalidate its armor in the same way as the Ferdinand. Jagdtiger: 7.0-7.3: Less of a mess than the Maus but still incorrect main gun pen, hence this is where it belongs. The BR adjustment for a tank unlocking certain ammo types would be anywhere from 0.0 to 0.7, dependent on the tank. Aircraft BR variation could potentially be larger. Basically to wrap this up: - it fixes the problem of constant uptiers in many sections of all tech trees for tanks - it breaks up the clubber brackets in tanks somewhat as a result of point 1, those brackets being 2.3, 3.3, 5.3-5.7, 6.7-7.0, 7.3, and 7.7-8.3. Currently anything in between those levels gets forcibly shoved up. - it makes the BR of a plane/tank vary sensibly with how spaded it is, sometimes a stock plane is actually worse in performance than the fully spaded one preceding it, and sometimes without ammo unlocks a tank literally CAN'T do its intended job. - it mostly solves the problem of WWII stuff vs Postwar HEATFS/APDS problem. - players get happier overall with a fix of some kind for a major problem coming to the game, leading to increased player retention.
  7. Background: Often during realistic tank matches as the game reaches the end phase (specifically on conquest) there can be an entire team left on one side versus a couple of players. The problem stems that this is a tank game mode, and the last remaining players will be Air and not in or near the battle. A game can be dragged out up to almost 8 minutes depending on how fast one team gets knocked out of the game. Suggestion(Few Options): If your team has no ground vehicles (tanks) left in the battle, the match should be treated as no vehicles left in the battle and end the match. (This is a tank game-mode after all) Too often 1 or 2 players will be left in the battle and fly their plans to the airfield and linger there for the last 3-8 minutes of the match forcing the rest of the enemy team to sit in an already decided game. If your team has no ground vehicles (tanks) left in the battle, the match should be treated as no vehicles left in the battle and end the match IF the remaining planes are not within the battle zone (able to be fired at by AA/tanks) This prevents few players left on the enemy team from taking their planes back to the airfield and stalling the game unnecessarily If your team has no ground vehicles (tanks) left in the battle, do not allow players to spawn in air vehicles. Benefit: Realistic games can end a bit faster. Directs more people to think about getting back in a ground vehicle instead of air. Makes people stay within the battle zone instead of returning to their airfield to the safety of the AA.
  8. Due to some confusions in comments, I need to clarify : this suggestion is about Arcade Tank Battles only. Also, "leavers" are the players who leave the battle while they can still spawn : this suggestion isn't to force you to stay as spectators until the battle ends when your 3 tanks are destroyed. Sadly, I think it's obvious to say that "crew lock" doesn't work to prevent players from disconnecting during the match. In Air battles, it's a little balanced by the lack of spawn limitation. In tank arcade battles, with limited respawn, it causes the battle to be totally unbalanced if 3 players of your team use only one vehicles each. It means that your team already lost 6 vehicles ! Worse, when a player is "grinding" a vehicle, he uses only this one then disconnects. The others get crew locked, but he can still connect with the only vehicle he used, and continue the grind. So "crew lock" can encourage this behavior. But even before implementing one of these solutions, something must be done with the calculation of the Battle Activity : in its today state, it increases the leaving temptation. I have two ideas. 1) to extend crew lock to the whole country, not just the vehicles that weren't used. In this case the leaver won't be able to continue the "grind" of a single vehicle. 2) to give no reward for the battle if the player leaves while having still available respawn. Some video games, like Ghost in the Shell Online, are using this system, and I think it's a great deterrent. To prevent the players whose computer crashes to be punished, we could apply the penalty when the player clicks on "yes" while having the "you still have crews ready to fight" message. kireta21 also remembered me that new players have only 2 tanks. So, the suggestion can be applied as soon as new players buy their 3rd tank. What do you think ? Edit : 3 more ideas : 3) georathien and kireta21 solution : distribute the unused respawn (from leavers), to the top scoring players of the battle. Or the better dead 3 times player. This extra respawn could work as a back-up vehicle, to allow the player to respawn even if he has only 3 vehicles in his preset. Example : after 5 min of battle, a player disconnects after having used only 2 tanks. So he had one respawn left. In his team, the first scoring player is still alive. The 2nd and 3rd have already been killed 3 times. So, the respawn of the leaver is immediately given to the 2nd player. If another respawn is available (because an other player disconnects), it will be given to the 3rd player. An so on. This suggestion won't totally solve the outnumbering of a team : if 3 players disconnect in a team and none in the other, the fight will still be 13 vs 16. However it is the most conciliatory solution, it doesn't punish leavers. And it will allow a team to use its 48 tanks, regardless of the number of leavers. 4) the absolute, however constraining, solution. To not let players to leave a battle before they died 3 times. By simply locking the "Return to hangar" button, and unlocking it when the 3rd tank is destroyed. Also, leaving the War Thunder and restarting it will result in an automatic return to the battle (no more the "You've been disconnected. Do you want to return to the battle" message). In this case, if you don't want to respawn, you'll have to stay in Spectator mode until the end of the battle. This solution would totally solve the problem, including the internet connection loss : no sanction nor crew lock, the player will simply be back to battle if he restarts the game. Also, if a player "ejects" 3 times, he'll have his crew locked, as it works today. 5) remove spawn limit : the players could spawn with every vehicle of their preset (like in Air Battles). This idea has been suggested several times in comments, so I bring it here. However, in my opinion, it will make the Arcade Battles longer, and, like the idea 3, won't totally solve the outnumbering of a team : if 3 players disconnect in a team and none in the other, the fight will still be 13 vs 16.
  9. I want you firstly present problem what worry many players. It is very often bomber spam in Arcade battles. This problem making games shorter than 2-3 minutes. The biggest problem is in Ground strike mode what is the most often mode in AB games. Frontline and Dominations are quite OK. From my view any game shorter than 10 minutes it too short. Normal game time for me is somewhere between 10-20 minutes. Yesterday I made screenshots of battles for showing you what I talking about. You can see how many players took heavy or any bomber an finish game very fast. Here are 9 ground strikes with sreen what players took for first spawn and finnish screen for see how much time took them to finish game. It is 9 battles in a row no some 9 battles what can distort view of real problem. Problem with bomber spam starting somewhere in BR 3,7 and ending in 8.0 where are enought fast jets to eliminate bombers faster than they fall their load. Game starting with 25 min. countdown but you are spawned at time 24:35 and you going ahead to your opponents. You can see there only 2 games are longer than 10 minutes. And some are shorter than 5 minutes. This making this game mode so boring and lot of players stop playing normal random AB air battles. Some of us like me dont playing RB mode. They are more boring for me. And same saying many of my friends. So I ask you for making some changes to make this game mode fun again. I can give you some solutions for it. 1. In RB you set bomber limit 4. There is only one possible respawn so it is easy. But think it is possible to make it in AB mode too. It will be working little differently because you dont know what players will take from their line up. Limit in AB can work this way. Lets say 4 or 5 bombers will be limit. If there will be filled bombers spawn and another player will try take bomber it will warn him with message too many spawned bomber please choose different vehicle or wait in queue for the first possible respawn. After some of player lost his bomber it will make place for another bomber spawn.... 2. More target for bombers. Let make them more work to do and it will take them longer time to destroy all vehicles / bases. Make more bases or raise their durability 3 times + airfield 2 times. It will do enough time for fighter to kill bombers. 3.Do something similar like is in RB air battles. After 20 minutes are there light vehicles what can finnish battle. Here can be it little different. Lets do some Groung stages of targets. For example first stage will be bunkers and pillboxes. After players destroy them it will show up second group of targets. May be tanks with armored trucks. After they destreoy them can be third stage. It is up to tier of playing. Lower tier less targets. NEW : 4. If all ground targets will bombed ther will be still credits. Credits what can be lost only by destroing opponent planes. For exapmle. One destroyed plane will be -30 credit for opponent. There will be 1500 extra credit for it. Som if ground strike will have 30 vehicles it is 3000 + 1500 = There will be 4500 credits what can be raised down only killing opponents planes. Same will be with destroing base. All basses + airfield can raise down max 2000 credits and all other credits can be raised only killing planes and ground targets. I hope you will understand our AB comunity too. When RB players have complains for bomber spam it was very fast from your side to solve it. So I hope you will not let waiting us several months for some good solution. Also I asking other players to write down their view on it and if you have other good solution for it wrrite it downs. More views more they can choose
  10. Hi members! I think the game would be much better, if use at the gun optics the original reticles. German types: Pz.II - TZF 4 (Ausf. а, Ь, с, А, В), TZF 4/36 (Ausf. D, E) TZF 4/38 (Ausf. С, F) or TZF 10 (Ausf. G, L). Pz.38(t) - T.Z.F.43(t) Pz.III - T.Z.F.5 Pz.IV - ? Pz.V - early T.Z.F.12, later T.Z.F.12а Pz.VI Tiger - early T.Z.F.9a, laater - T.Z.F.9e Pz.VI Konigstiger - early T.Z.F.9d/1, later - T.Z.F.9d. Maus - T.W.Z.F.1 Like these Panther (early and later) reticles: I hope this is a good idea! Regards, Thiky
  11. gameplay

    Sugesting option, to press and hold the "drop bomb" button (space by default), that would release bombs untill button held down or bombs are all dropped, in order to carpet bomb, as it should work. OR Give us separate bindable bomb release button, to make this choise. There's not too much of a use for pressing and holding the space bar, so you could chasecamera the last bomb you dropped to the ground. For those, who want to see the bomb fall, there's allready implemented button (U if i'm not mistaken, by default), that chases the last bomb dropped. And honestly, who does it more than 10 times? Exept for maybe some video recorders/directors. However pressing 3 x 40 times spacebar per 2 or 2,5 minutes, is kind of killing the fun of having a huge payload packed in small packages. Supposedly there should be "release all bombs at once" button as well for some planes, but i'm not pushing my luck here.
  12. Dear Gaijin, I am a long-time player of the game who really has had high hopes throughout all of development. Recently, I have been finding myself growing tired and bored of the game when playing ground forces, and I think the main cause of this can be attributed to the spotting system. Allow me to first delineate the problems which I believe exist due to the current spotting system. 1. Unrealistic gameplay: War thunder has always been marketed on the fact that it is one of the most realistic vehicle simulators on the market. We frequently see that many deisgn decisions are heavily influenced by maintaining this realism. Now consider the following video and its implications on the realism of the game: In this video we see an ISU-122 driving on the other side of fairly dense foliage. The T34 which ends up disabling it has its name dimmed out: implying that there is no line of sight between it and the ISU-122. In fact this is not the case, we see the T34 shoot across the map and disable the ISU-122, and subsequently land 2 more shots ultimately destroying the ISU-122. Unfortunately, What is not present in this replay is the trajectory of the round which went through a building and a couple of trees. It goes without saying such a situation is unrealistic and would have never occured, since a target in a real tank can not be seen on the other side of foliage or a building. 2.Linear "Brainless" gameplay: One of the results of being able to see enemies through buildings and across vast distances is that players are more likely to both sit in their place and attempt to "snipe" as well as less likely to attempt any flanking maneuvers. Gameplay typically revolves on a "head-on" engagement of tanks shooting at each other from the front. Attempts of flanking will instantly leave a tank exposed and frequently disabled as seen in the video above. Here is where one must consider the balance of certain mechanics. On the one hand, Gaijin has chosen to very realistically model their tanks and the modules within them so as to make them very fragile. Allowing yourself to be shot is typically an extremely high risk choice which leaves the tank dead. This aversion to risk is exacerbated by the fact one is so easily spotted in the game. What results is gameplay in which dynamic, "fast-moving" tanks are severely penalized since they are both quickly spotted and almost instantly destroyed. The gameplay becomes one in which tanks are largely stationary and whoever decides to move is typically dead since they do not get the first shot. The Solution: I genuinely believe the solution here is simple in both comprehension and implementation. It requires two changes in the current model. 1. Remove any indicators of tanks which are not in direct line of sight with the player's tank. This is more realistic, as one should not be able to see an enemy tank through solid objects. This increases dynamism of the game by giving tanks the ability to move with increased safety through foliage or behind buildings. The choice to do this is still risky, as a tank may run into the jaws of a waiting opponent, but likewise rewarding as he may disable multiple enemy tanks which will be unaware of its presence. 2. Make tanks which are spotted by allies visible on the minimap but not on the screen of the player. Currently, the screen of the player in arcade mode is a mess of names appearing through buildings and who are not visible. In addition, one can see the movement of these names through buildings as enemies decide to "peak" and take a shot. It is a frequent sight to see two tanks hiding on other sides of the rock, unwilling to move because they know of each others presence, and can tell exactly which side and at what time the other will peak around the corner. Removing this type of spotting will give the people peaking a slight advantage, since the enemy will not be able to know exactly at what time they will come around cover (the motionless "camper" already has the advantage as he can see the enemy tanks frame before the "peaker" will have him in his sights AND the "camper"'s gun is already aimed and requires no stabilization). Keeping the tanks spotted by allies on the player's minimap still allows players to retain virtually the same amount of usable information, since players are typically focused on a single target at which they are aimed at. Again, the game becomes more realistic since radio information sent between tanks still required interpretation by a radio operator/commander and visual contact with the tank had to be made by the crew. Dynamism of the game improves since players have more of an incentive to peak a "camping" tank. As we see, both of these require little additional development effort. Simply removing tank indications which are already present in the game. As such, this will require little to no development (even a test of this idea could be simple to implement to check out players feedback and feasibility). I believe that both of these changes are in-line with the core goals of War Thunder's arcade mode. Creating a historical, realistic game which retains the fun and dynamism of a typical arcade shooter. Realism is enhanced because (frustratingly) impossible shots through foliage and buildings will be eliminated. People will not have the knowledge of knowing exactly when and where an enemy tank will appear from cover unless they pay attention to the minimap. Dynamism of the game will improve as camping will become less dominant of a tactic, and players unlock the avenue to explore more risky tactics which may also provide a significant reward. I appreciate all feedback, and would especially love to see a Moderator explain to us why the current design decisions were made. Thanks, Angelfishgod
  13. Recently i knew that gaijin finally began to BAN those cheating guys for "forbidden modifications".Bravo! Bravo indeed,but i also find out many other people was banned without using cheats(Luckily i'm not one of them).most of them use some mods like home-made vehicle mod in custom battle or home-made sound effect packs. And others using CDK in this game to find new tanks. But while i was playing in the realistic mode or sim mode,there are still some coward using “forbidden modifications”.So heres the question in my mind:How do this game find cheating player?only by reporting?
  14. Hello dear WT developers and community Since the introduction of groundforces i see many players complain about spawncamping. IMHO this is not justified, since a spawn that is being camped, is a spawn of a team that did somtheing terribly wrong in the match... BUT Tanks appearing at the same spot all the time, wich is also brightly marked with a flag on the enemys map is at least a bit irritating for me. It produces a very static gameplay wich is: Secure cap - > drive enemy team towards their spawn -> camp it until match is over. My suggestion: Let the players decide where they want to spawn at their teams edge of the map! In a real life combat situation, reinforcements would not always drive to a single spot and then engage in combat. They would rather wait for intelligence and enter the combat zone at the most suitable location. All planes on your team wich fly below 200m above the battlefield should reveal all enemy tanks positions. But only for the players selecting a spawn location. This would be like planes sending intel to headquaters, and they send it to the reinforcing unit. In combat on the other hand, you have to rely on the old fashioned way of spotting the enemy. In the end, this would provide a much more diverse gameplay experience. At the beginning, every match will feel different. While in the match, players can react to the position of the enemy and mount a much better defense. Planes would have an additional purpouse. Very good teams can still achieve map control, but it takes a number of tanks and good coordination to control a whole 1 - 4 km long strech of land. Not just one player with a rapid fire gun at the exit of a spawn. What do you guys think about that? And is it even possible from a technical point of view (dynamic spaws, intel tat is just shown to certain players and so on)? Edit: This should only be applied to new and only some old maps. Maps would have to be open to the sides to allow this. Not many maps are right now...
  15. Hi everyone :salute: For SB In order to increase realism in the ground force battle, will be a good idea to make physical the presence of the cannon of the tank, for the following reasons: - no more cannon crossing wall, obstacles, trees and other, when are behind a building keep distance from the wall or cannon crashed against; - no more cannon crossing other enemy vehicle in the close quarter combat, if you ram a enemy vehicle and strike whit the cannon, the barrel will damage according to speed.
  16. Following some misunderstandings in comments, I need to clarify one point : this suggestion is about adding AI infantry (bots), not playable infantry. What is tank desant ? Simple : this is a military tactic in which infantry enters battle by riding tank. You've probably seen it in movies, games, etc... Whole article : While playing Heliborne, I noticed how simple was the deployment of infantry : you go to a specific point, and the infantry dismount and run to a fortified position. No need to AI, the soldiers run from A to B, clipping through obstacles, and disappear when they reach B. Instead of them, there is now a heavy weapon ruled by AI which will shoot every enemy unit at range. Imagine this in War Thunder : there is already infantry models, which already have some animations (you can even shoot them : There is already fortified positions on most maps (trench, pillboxes). There is already AT gun models (at some point of the game, they were even active on some SB maps). There is already bots tanks : remember that an efficient fortified position could be a simple tank turret on the top of a pillbox. It won't require a new AI system to rule it. How to implement it ? -Receiving the ability to transport infantry : exactly like orders. You win it at the end of a match. -Activate it at the beginning of a match : still like orders. Limited to a specific number of players. Orders are limited to one at the time ; here, transport ability could be limited to one-two players by team, and, like orders, it goes to the fastest clicking player. -Spawning : most vehicles, excepting open topped vehicles and SPAA, could be used as infantry transport. So you spawn with a group of soldiers on your back. They would be part of the damage model of the tank (like the crew members on open topped vehicles, they can be killed by mg bullets). No gore effect of course, to not modify the game rating : if they are shot, they have the same animation as crews on open topped vehicles. -No glitch : to prevent the turret to glitch with the soldiers, it's traverse is limited while the infantry is still on your back. -Objective : you receive a specific objective, like a zone to capture, but located not so far, and around a fortified position. -Dismounting : when you are in the objective, the game informs you to press the same key than for repairing. You do so. Your tank can't move during this time (like for a repair). The soldiers dismount, and run to the pillbox. They disappear when entering it (no need of a complicated animation). -Reward. You receive an award, and RP or Silver Lions. You are now free to go. The pillbox "activates" : an AT gun, or a tank turret, ruled by AI, spawns on this pillbox and will now shoot enemies. There could also be a little reward each time the AI turret shoot an enemy. And a little silver lions penalty, if all soldiers get killed before being dismounted (given the pillboxes location, it means that the player rushed into battle instead of going to his objective). Transport vehicle gameplay : depending on its reception, this suggestion could be followed by the implementation of "true" transport vehicles. Armored personnel carriers, or even trucks and jeeps, whose main role would to help infantry to reach their positions. Effect on spawn killing : as the fortified positions are located near the spawn point of both teams, they would protect them. Of course they can be destroyed, but they can also slow down and even kill hostiles. How to defend these new units against planes : -Some of the fortifications will be hard to destroy, like the pillboxes in Air Battles, requiring rockets or bombs -Low RP reward (like destroying a bot) : the players will instead attack more interesting and rewarding targets, like enemy tanks -Hard to spot : an anti-tank gun is easier to hide than a tank ; to represent this, we could have them detectable by planes only at a very short distance (or not at all : no red indicator on them for players in planes, even in Arcade) ; and not present on the map nor minimap. Steps of implementation : Step one : the test. Arcade battles only, very few fortified positions on the maps. If players appreciate it, we could continue with : Step two : realistic battles and simulator battles. More fortified positions on the maps. Step three : improving animations, more fortified positions on the maps. Step four : the pillboxes won't "transform" anymore into an anti-tank gun, but instead use infantry weapons : AT grenades, AT rifles or rocket launchers. Also, we could have a new type of fortified positions : trench. Step five : more AI infantry gameplay mechanics : for example, AI ruled infantry of both teams could fight each other. Additional step : idea by mc07 : control an infantry team (RTS fashion). For more details : GokSung suggested to invert Step 1 and 2, to add this feature in RB and SB first, and in AB after. Explanations here : Anti-tank weapons : AT guns : German : Soviet : British : US : Japanese : Grenades : Rifles : Recoilless weapons : PIAT : The infantry must not be a buffer between the tanks of the two teams : you won't have to fight infantry / fortified position to be able to engage enemy players. On the picture below : Most of the fightings occur in the red rectangle. The "dismounting infantry" zones, and fortified positions, will be the yellow lines : they protect the spawn point. The black rectangles would be the "ambush zones", if the last steps are implemented (infantry with an improved AI and anti-tank weapons) What do you think ?
  17. War Thunder Weapons Target Training Range Development and School Academy Proposal Concept Proposal Explained Map Design and Proving Training Ground Targets Strafing Net and Stationery Military Targets Bombing Bullseye Target and Stationery Military Targets Development feature in Single-Player Training and Multi-Player Coordination Mission Training Weapons School Academy - Qualification Assessments - Weapons and Tactics Employment - Instructor Qualification Brief and Debreif - Level Qualification Objectives and Assessments and Scoring including an Replay Analysis Tool 1. Concept Proposal Explained The proposal suggestion is for a "War Thunder Target Training Range" in Simulation Mode / Realistic Mode/ Arcade Mode of play for the fun aspect offline/single-player and even to have online/multi-player coordinated training aka "Mutual Support Combat and JTACs" with other players and ground forces as part of the combat training Kinda of whats found on ED-DCS A-10C Simulator with the NTTR MAP Link:- As a Single Player option mainly to use various aircraft or tanks and creating your own tactics or even training online before missions if at all possible as the game and maps develop further. A "War Thunder Training Range" is where you can fly to the training range and practice bombing and strafing runs on “Bullseye Targets” for example:- Old Trains Military Vehicles Abandoned Air Craft Hardened Targets like Tanks or Steel Shipping Containers Small Buildings Painted Bullseye Targets *** Including observation towers and look-out bunker in game views. Where you can even earn extra points for successful completion of satisfactory hits on bomb targets and strafing accuracy on target net and/ or other target types. Its also another avenue War Thunder could make revenue as a business, as long as there is also freedom for community free modding as promised by Scarpers reply post here:- This might start off as one Training Range MAP free as part of the game and purchase other MAP Training Ranges from around the world with various terrains and mountain elevations and many add-ons objects to add to the ranges itself. As a revenue concept or simply purchase newer models for practice or other means of developing the concept financially. It might be as simple as just adding more to the game as content, building a larger customer base as a combat game in its own merit, and draw more revenue for current shop setup. They are your choices I guess as a business, but have provided some revenue ideas to consider. Its also where people can select maps or training ranges from their nation of choice and train in online competition scoring but also time in MAP or aka "Time on Station" needs to be increased to 30 - 45mins from the current time spent in MAPs. On average its 7 to 10 mins need more play time in all fairness. MAP design is critical here with the ability to take-off and land on air bases for rearming and refueling then heading out back to the weapons live fire training range. Again having various types of landscapes e.g. valleys, mountains, boulders, trees even snow, increases the level difficulty and intensity for the student/user to focus coming into target range like the "Pilsung Training Range" in South Korea where its tight and difficult to get to. Watch the "Pilsung Range" video below! NOTE:- The "Bomb and Gun Aiming and /or Sighting Arcade Feature" should be an option in the settings menu for more experienced simulated fun. The arcade target sighting circle helps in the beginning, to understand how it's done but it also gets you into bad habits of not flying in cockpit mode and using that as a guide from the nose down view. Google Search Reading Links:- Google Search Videos to Watch:- 2. Map Design and Proving Training Ground Targets Something like this....................... 3. Strafing Net and Stationery Military Targets 4. Bombing Bullseye Target and Stationery Military Targets NOTE:- Adding Observation Tower and Tank or Aircraft Views PLEASE NOTE:- I also consider this proposal added game concept for Tanks as a course proving and training grounds. This is in combination with this proposal to ensure you have "Situational Awareness" though effective camera views:- 5. Development feature in Single-Player Training and Multi-Player Coordination Mission Training Single-Player would be non squadron participants or isolated practice running the program module to refine your own skills and experience as well tactical strategic knowledge of the game. Multi-Player would enable mutual tactical training and coordination training tactics and strategic knowledge of the game. Squadrons then have users passing "Initial Qualification Training" and better equipped at weapons for Tanks - Aircraft - Ships and tactics to use and participate in missions, campaigns and events. 6. Weapons School Academy - Qualification Assessments - Weapons and Tactics Employment - Instructor Qualification The School and Academy aspects is passing assessments and "Initial Qualifications Training and Missions" - IQT and IQM's. I will post more on that later if proposal is moved to be implemented, although you can research this online here is a start:- 7. Brief and Debreif - Level Qualification Objectives and Assessments and Scoring including an Replay Analysis Tool Briefing before going on Qualification Training Level task and passing expectations with detailed instructions. Then Debriefed and your assessment score displayed and suggested corrections needed using an Analytical Data Replay Tool showing your training performance. Something like TACVIEW:- _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ So hoping that developers will consider development suggestion, please. Also aircraft like the North American Rockwell Bronco OV-10 link here.......... i ............... its perfect for training range qualification missions. Gamers just want to have fun adding full realism and immersion and pure entertainment, so here's to all our dreams come true! Kind Regards SkyKnight
  18. ground vehicles

    Hello! Seeing as noone appears to have done it yet,i decided to suggest this-The German Wiesel Armored Weapons Carrier,direct successor to the KraKa (Kraftkarren) ATV in the role of universal light weapons carrier. So what is the Wiesel? Basically,a modern day Tankette that started its life in the mid-70s as a project carried out by Porsche to create a lightly armored vehicle that could carry a Rh.202 20mm autocannon,a TOW launcher or a 120mm Mortar while being airdroppable and light enough to transport with a CH-53 Transport Helicopter.The final result entered service in 1989,and a total of 345 were ordered (MK20 and TOW combined).The Wiesel 1 was tested with various other weaponsystems aswell,such as Rheinmetalls RMK-30 recoilless 30mm revolvercannon,a .50cal M2 in a different turret,a 60mm Mortar,HOT (in up to two launchers simultaneously) and MILAN.On basis of the Wiesel 1,a extended,larger version with 5 roadwheels was developed as Wiesel 2,which was then used as Ambulance,Mortar carrier,mobile command post and even light anti aircraft system (Ocelot,consisting of a radar carrier and a second Wiesel 2 carrying 4 Stinger launchers). Stats Moblity,Dimensions and Armor Emtpy weight without weapon system mounted: 1960Kg Combat weight: 2500-3000Kg Lenght: 3310mm (without armament),3545 with Rh.202 Width: 1820mm Height: 1820mm (Rh.202),1870mm (TOW) Clearance: c.a. 300mm,depending on load Tank volume: 80L (Diesel) Operational range: 200-250km Speed: 80 Kph Armor: Protection against splinter and 7.62mm non-AP ammunition (In other words-Basically nonexistant) Armor material: RHA Suspension: 4 roadwheels+ 1Return roller,Torsion bar suspension Brakes: 2-Circuit hydraulic brake Fording capability: up to 500mm Climbing ability: 60% slope Engine 5-Cylinder 4-Stroke Turbodiesel (Made by VW) Power: 64KW (87hp)/4500RPM,195Nm/1900RPM Compression: 19:1 Displacement 2461cm³ Cooling Water Bore/Stroke 81mm/95.5mm Transmission Hydromechanic transmission type 3HP-22 Gears 3 Forward,1 Reverse Weapons Rheinmetall Rh.202 Caliber: 20x139mm Weight: 64 Kg (Without DGZ),83 Kg with DGZ (Doppelgurtzuführer,can switch between 2 separate loads stored in the boxes left and right of the Weapon Weight Barrel: 28 Kg Lenght (overall): 2612mm Width: 278mm Height: 317mm Barrel Lenght: 2002mm Barrel Lenght (Rifling): 1700mm Amount of Grooves: 15,6° angle Twist Righthand Operating type: Open Bolt,Gas operated Rate of Fire: max 1100 RPM (In case of the Wiesel,operated in single-shot mode or fired in very short bursts) Recoil force: 7.5 kN Ammunition: HEI DM 51A2,DM 81A1,DM 101 1055m/s AP-T DM 43 1100m/s Penetration 40mm/1000m APDS DM 63 1150m/s Penetration 44mm/1000m Practice DM 48A1,DM 98A1 1045m/s Practice DM 88A1 1040m/s 160 Rounds ready to use,standard load 100 HE and 60 AP Traverse 55° Left and Right Elevation/Depression +45° to -10° TOW 2 Type: SACLOS Speed: 278m/S Penetration: ~900mm RHA Warhead weight: 5.9 Kg Amount carried: 6 Traverse: 45° Left and Right Elevation/Depression 10°/-10° Wiesel/TOW can mount a MG-3 next to the TOW launcher. Implementation and Gameplay This vehicle is extremely small and agile,but also extremely vulnerable incoming fire.The Rh.202-armed variant has a crew of only 2 (Driver and Commander/Gunner),the TOW-armed variant has a crew of 3-which basically means that it will often be onehit by even machinegun fire (a .50cal will cut through it like a hot knife through butter even at long range,and a 7.62mm machinegun with AP will most likely still penetrate at extremely short ranges.The amount of ammunition is extremely limited,so emphasis has to be put on making every shot count,regardless of which weapon is used.Basically,this vehicle relies on its small size and extreme mobility to get into capture zones and unexpected positions,and lay ambushes for enemy vehicles or distract them from bigger threats.In terms of balancing,the TOW-armed version would probably end up at 8.0-8.3 simply due to the TOW being extremely powerful (albeit in limited supply),while the Battlerating of the Rh.202-armed variant would largely depend on wether or not a "spotting mechanic" for reconnaissance vehicles is implemented (i did see someone suggesting such a thing not too long ago,basically involving "marking" the target and getting points for the marked vehicles destruction).With such a mechanic,this vehicle could end up at a pretty high BR,possibly at 8.0 or higher, since its very effective for reconnaissance-Without,it would have to end up between 4.0 and 6.0,due to high penetration,but limited ammunition and inability to fire more than quick bursts due to the recoil throwing the aim off.The prototype versions with HOT,MILAN and RMK-30 would fall somewhere in between those,but there is not particulary much information on these vehicles to be found. This vehicle would be for people that like using ambush tactics, and dont mind having limited ammunition and no armor in exchange for a big boomstick-Type 60-players should feel right at home with either of these two.The Rh.202,even with the limitations imposed by the platform its mounted on,can quickly destroy most vehicles from the sides and rear,while the TOW would cause catastrophic damage in case of a Center-of-Mass penetration on the enemy vehicle. As for placement in techtree-this would be suitable for the mid-to top end of a german Light AFV/Weapons Carrier tree,along with vehicles like the KraKa and Sd.Kfz 221/222. Pictures Sources:ärisches_Kettenfahrzeug)
  19. Using wrecks as cover was a valid tactics in WW2 & any other war, it is even valid in "The other game" (WoT) In WT it is completely random as those wreck dissapear at the moment player respawns, so it the most extreeme case dead player can time respawn to uncover enemy at the right moment.   If they must despawn due to engine limitation then there must be some consistent timer, not 2 extreemes of players despawning instantly & bots staying forever.   With bots staing forever I doubt it's technical limitation, but rather "feature" inherited from planes where wreck was mostly cosmetic. It isn't on the ground! Wreck simply need to be "unregistred" from the player, as obviuosly player can have only a single vihicle on the map at a time.   Wrecks are no longer a cosmetic feature like when WT was a plane only game, they affect the gameplay the big way! God damn trees in WT are more reliable hard cover than a destroyed tank! That's RIDICULOUS!!! :facepalm:   Full rant thread:
  20. Appropriate way to credit aerial victories It's getting very difficult to get aerial victories. When a plane is damaged in combat and they lose control and fall, are recorded as an crash When it should be an aerial victory credited to the 'butcher' who shot the plane A some time ago i hit a Stuka. He started making black smoke, and the engine stopped working, i let they go down, all this happened in a few seconds. He dead, but was marked as a 'crash' This issue of aerial victory credit has to be reviewed When a plane crashes to be having trouble flying because of attacks done by enemy bullets. He was shot down, was not an accident. And... the way I think the Air victories should avoid those who "steal kills" That's another tip: The 'kill' must be given to the fighter who made the first critical hit. Especially when the hit is at the engine. Like black smoke, fire or when the engine stop (Edited)_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 21-12-1016 - Tank SB, update 1.65 I attacked an IL-2 His gunner hit my engine My engine ran out of power When I realized it was too far from the base and the engine would die I decided to jump But I was registered as an accident .50 from rear gunner is not an acdent. Good kill IL-2
  21. As of today, I noticed the APCBC round for the M46 has less muzzle velocity. (It's below 900m/s now.) I hit 2 Tiger 2's in the cheeks at 50 yards and in the belly. All of the rounds bounced off, all were near 90 degree hits, when they typically punch straight through. Thank you for negatively modifying the game due to further research, or more likely due to the complaints of less skilled players. Again, as a former US Marine, I will adapt to the new unlevel playing field, further sharpen my gunnery skills, and cause more unnecessary changes to drive more customers away from this game. Please, other players, comment if you've noticed this change.
  22. Hi Community, i would have a suggestion about groundtargets for planes in general: 1. Factory´s: I think the standard groundbases (which needs about 1.5 tonns bombload) are a bit outdated and would deserve a little update to be more realistic and visual appealing. Testflight (German plane) Factory near "Essen" - High Testflight (German plane) Factory near "Essen" - LOW These targets can maybe split to "many" sectors: To be more precise: .) more targets than needed for victory .) these targets should withstand more than one standard bomber can carry (Victory can be done by bombers on the long run, not via rush) .) with more targets bombers are more flexible and the enemy cant predict the attacked target easily .) bigger targets allow high altitude bombing (new players / or poor skilllevel prevents this and support dissatisfaction) .) Sectors could be withstand approx. 1.5 to 2.0 tonns each, which would that mean a 3 Sector factory needs 4.5 to 6 tonns bombload to be destroyed (and only if the complete factory is destroyed, the enemy looses points!) .) Bombers could pre-bomb "Sectors" - and if something of the structure is left, attacker planes could do the rest. 2. Train´s (and Trucks): How factorys usually get their supplies? On the one hand through trucks (which are already implemented) and on the other hand through the railway. I would wish something like a railroad network (and maybe roadnetwork for trucks) which is active and randomly used by trains (and trucks for the road). To be more precise: .) Train´s which carry military equipment could be attackable .) Bridges for trains would be a high priority target (a standing train is a easier target) .) Train´s also can get their AA abilitiy like in this picture: Example of attacking a train: Stuka vs Train (MagzTV) Thank you for reading See you on the battlefield! Noir89
  23. Simulation Battle Mode "External Views" for "Situational Awareness" (S.A) Realistic Operational Requirement Checks REQUEST :- For external "Camera Views" to be added in Simulation Battles. By adding more camera views to Simulation Battle Mode will improve combat "Situational Awareness" so you are aware of air-to-ground and air-to-air situations in aerial spacial relationship through switching camera view as operational requirement checks. List of Situational Awareness Positional External Checks Examples are:- Wing-man Formation Squadron Formation Bomber Escort Formation Air to Ground - Spotting Air to Air - Spotting Air-craft "Blind Side " - behind and underneath Defensive and Offensive strategic air operations Formation Packages in spread groups F.L.O.T (Battlefield) Locations other than Tactical MAP option using external view checks Joint tactical engagement checks ........................ etc The camera views in bullet form below are in mind to improve good (S.A) for many reasons even flying in formation becomes difficult because people are not skilled in this area and to have camera views allows a way for you to maneuver or react to other players unskilled movements. Also this should be an option to select in game menu options for choice. Where I can use my mouse tool as well to view outside the aircraft and check things like battle damage etc and the zoom in and out external view to see map. In aerial missions its a known fact that in reconnaissance and forward air controllers ( RECON & FAC ) missions pilots used small video camera's and binoculars to find and capture images of enemy locations. Example:- Links:- combat pilot binoculars&f=false The main reason is "Field of View" limitations using a PC LCD Screen and not as in the actual world "Field of View" where you have a bubble view out of canopy at a glance as you move your head up and around I use FacetrackNoIR head tracking software like this:- But still its not practical and limited in my spatial view of the world as the cockpit consumes most of the screen in front and also rear view the seat and tail. You need to occasionally use added camera views for good S.A. and even evasive maneuvering or aircraft position when in formation. Also think from the perspective that in SB the MAPS are large and you need to zoom in and out for surveillance tactics. Or at least at minimum give options to decrease the size of cockpit on screen but I prefer more views added and most would agree with me here since this is implemented in other Air Combat Sim games. Camera Views needed are:- External View External View plus zoom in and zoom out Far View Air Base Tower View Ground Vehicle View Top Gun Combat View Birds-eye View Hud Camera View Rear-seat View To illustrate what i mean I have linked two pictures:- Some reading material on Pilot Situational Awareness (S.A.) :- 1999.pdf Another reason is we tend to ask each other in SB game chat where are you or bomber is behind you but cannot see, so by implementing camera views will resolve some of these issues on S.A. To have view options will help if my other proposal is passed to development when flying down into training ranges and strafing down on targets and bomb targets as you make flight path corrections, also in mutual support training operations etc The other proposal is here:- In the above proposal "Situational Awareness" aka S.A is very important for training purpose but in Simulation Mode this is needed Feel free to post replies and expand further this request and topic. Kind Regards
  24. Zdravím, BlitzDivisionTv je nově se rozvíjející youtube kanál, jenž má v plánu tvořit videa z War Thunderu ale nejen z něj pro vás. Přikládám videoukázku, jedná se o trailer na kanál (buďte shovívaví je to jedno z mých prvních střihačsky náročnějších videí.) Trailer zde: Zanecháním odběru, lajkem nebo sdílením zajistíte budoucnost kanálu a přísun nových videí, přeci jen nedělám to pouze pro sebe ale hlavně pro vás budoucí diváky. Nebráním se žádné kritice ani radám PS: Zítra vyjde komentovaný gameplay přímo ze hry, máte se na co těšit
  25. I just got out of a match on Ruhr, where I bombed one of the mini-bases, but the bombs disappeared in mid-fall so I lost credits on them. What gives?