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 38 results

  1. With recent changes in the BR and new vehicles additions we are creating a dangerous gap at 6.7 BR. Looking at the tree: Relevant 6.7 vehicles (RB) USA T34 T29 (PREM) T95 T26E1 M46 M56 T92 M26 (PREM) M46 (PREM) M26 T99 (PREM) German King Tiger King Tiger (PREM) RU 251 (PREM) URSS (yes it's in portuguese so nevermind it) T34 100 (PREM) Brtain Caernarvon STRV (PREM) FV4005 Tortoise Japan Type 60 SPRG As you can see there is a serious tank gap for Japan, Germany and Russia, this is becoming a serious issue that causes a lot of problem in the game. For example overtier happens much more for 6.0, 6.3 (because there are way too many 7 and 7.3 vehicles in the game and a lack of 6.7) Vehicles like Panther A, G, F, M26, Jumbo, ST-A1, A2, IS2 etc end up suffering a lot in these cases On the other hand the 7br has most benefits, almost all games are undertiered (7br mixed with 7.3 and 6.7 and lower) and 8 br games are extremely rare. Other problem is for the very common German + Japan games. If a 6.7 game happens the chance of the team losing is very high, this happens because as shown above Japan and German desperately need 6.7 vehicles, Russia even tho they lack a 6.7 tank don't suffer so much in this case as most of the games they fight alongside USA and Britain. What should be a solution for this issue?
  2. like to suggest that when playing ground forces that you could mark the map with Binoculars as there is no function in Binocular view. In the first picture you will see the mini map this is what happens after Assigning a button to "mark map" thus also "marking the main map" In the second picture, is how easy it is, point the binoculars at the point you want to mark and hit the assigned Button, its as simple as firing when in Binocular mode, would add great tactics and also stop having to bring up the map to mark in the heat of battle, you could also only have it on light/ scout tanks adding a hole new job for them. And in only some modes AkA AB, RB this would also stop light and medium tanks giving away there location if they come across a heavy tank they don't want to spray MG fire to mark. And its as simple as firing when in Binocular mode, would add great tactics and also stop having to bring up the map to mark in the heat of battle, you could also only have it on light/ scout tanks adding a hole new job for them. And in only some modes AkA AB, RB this would also stop light and medium tanks giving away there location if they come across a heavy tank they don't want to spray MG fire to mark. The last Pictures is how easy to is for a commander to mark his map after scanning the terrain with important locations and his map is always in arms reach. These pictures are of me as i was in the army and a AFV commander. I beleave this would also give the commander a function as well, If the commander is knocked out you no long have that future, Just like the top MG on some tanks.
  3. Hello all. Imagine the following Airplane Arcade scenario. You want to shoot at a bomber of 1km away, you don't see the arcade-reticle yet, another team mate is circling around it while his marker (the distance/name/plane-tag) is completely invisible. That teammate is being filled with lead by the turrets, requests backup from you frantically and is put on fire. So you come to his aid by pulling the trigger, but you kill him because you were unable to get a reading of his distance. So the problem is that it fades out your team-mate, the one you want to see at all times because it is important to not hit him. Even more important than hitting the enemy. Because of that I would like to suggest expansion of this behavior by giving it a recognizable name and adding a generic on/off switch(1) or advanced options(2) for it. Option name -- type 1)Fade out team -- On/Off Switch A) On. Default, always fading out team mates regardless of their relative position to the enemy in your line of sight. B) Off. Do not fade out any. Alternative B) Off. Fade out the enemy instead of the team mate. or 2) Advanced Fade-out options. Dropdown menu. A) Fade out team mate. (Default) B) Fade out furthest. (regardless of team) C) Fade out nearest. (regardless of team) D) Fade out none. (simply overlap) E) Decrease strength of team fade-out. (default behavior but limits fade-out to just 25%) F) Fade out enemy. (regardless of which is closer) or Simply change the current behavior to Fade out furthest. (regardless of team) This way you can always have a reading of the most important one which is of course the nearest target. Thanks all, I hope this type of suggestion doesn't need visual representations as it's quite memorable to most of us how this system works thus with a bit of imagination you can see what I mean. I adjusted the topic Tag after noticing Fade-out wasn't being used at all.
  4. 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
  5. 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:
  6. Basically my problem is When I shoot someone no hit indications pop up on my screen showing either (critical strike, hit, aircraft destroyed etc.) it only comes up on the bottom right where it tells the rest of the team that you shot the enemy down, it's hard to play like this because you don't know what damage you've done! I've went through the settings looking for an option but didn't find anything. BTW I have 2 accounts on my main account it works but on the account i'm currently playing it doesn't. Is it an option in the settings that I'm missing?
  7. War thunder ground forces Armoured cars For long term consideration     Afternoon chaps     This post is a look at some of the armoured cars that could one day appear in war thunder, why armoured cars? Well firstly I’m tired of writing about tonks, honestly I got tired (for now) of writing up stuff about the tracked variety. So I decided to delve into the wheeled type. Secondly its Ground forces which leaves a lot of opening for interpretation and as WG have never managed to get it right it leaves a good opening for Gaijin to steal their thunder..   Would they be any good?     Most certainly, despite what WG might have done to muddy the waters of history, great numbers of armoured cars were built by all sides to fill a variety of roles in WW2 and the Cold War. From recon and scouting which was the logical choice, thought too high speed raiding and tank busting or Anti-Aircraft roles. Their low cost and maintenance makes armoured cars very versatile, while their rugged bodies and ground clearance allow them to go off road in harsh terrain.   There is also the marketing aspect, there are many, many owners, collectors, and enthusiasts out there that prefer these to tanks and including them in the game would open up new gaming revenue for those fans, as well as beat popular Belarussian companies who state they can’t get this aspect to work.      The armoured car also opens up new tactical options in the game, their speed and in some cases firepower can easily get the better of slower heavier vehicles or hunt down and finish of weak or damaged tanks while being balanced for game play. they also fill areas that a tradional branch might be weaker in, the same applies for half tracks.   There will always be players that believe in the old saying that speed is the best form of defence, the players that play light tanks, rouges, assassins or similar classes of fast moving killers in a variety of games, the AC is the WT version of that.     Pros:   Fast and agile, able to avoid fire and explore maps. Great scouts with good view range. Can have weapons allowing them to fulfil a variety of roles but best utilised in hit and run strikes. Cheaper to maintain and repair thank tanks. New tactical options. Better hard ground speeds than Tanks.   Cons:   Very poor armour, apart from a few exceptions. Poor traction in heavy muds or very soft ground. Requires more skill than tanks.   Roles in WT   The Armoured car in WT is used as a scout, spotter, or fast killer for your team, and while light tanks can fulfil the role, these are even better at doing the above; many armoured cars were used by famous generals such as Rommel in his Greif, and their ability to carry extra radios, communications and spotting gear is well documented. like light tanks the Armoured car is the spotter, but can have several upgrades, here are just some ideas:   Binoculars:  Add + 50 to view Extra radios: relays tank positions to aircraft from further away Light support fire: call in mortar fire smoke rounds Heavy support fire: target nearby artillery to a point    But please see the UK below, this isn’t by no means an exhaustive list, but give the devs an idea of progressions and uses.       Great Britain Armoured cars I-V       The UK produced thousands of armoured cars in WW2 and had far more of these available than they had tanks, fighting in France, North Africa, Italy and even the USSR under lend lease the British armoured cars saw distinguished service on all fronts of the war. In gameplay terms they are a very good branch to go down, packing great guns, good speed, and even good armour on a  few. The British armoured cars offer one of the best all-rounder’s out there.     Tier I [spoiler]   Humber armoured car   Mk1 with 15mm Besa   Widely produced with 5400 built in WW2 with production beginning in 1941 and saw service with various nations until as late as 1949, even the Germans used a captured one in Arnhem. The vehicle is lightly armoured with only 15mm of armour but can carry a variety of weapons.   Firepower wise the Humber starts with a 15mm Besa heavy MG and can be upgraded to M5 or M6 37mm gun or a 40mm 2 pounder gun, mobility was provided by a 90hp Rootes 6 cyl engine giving a speed of 50kph.   A good tier 1 for the Brits; the Besa can engage low tier aircraft while the 37 and 40mm let you seek out and destroy other armoured cars and light tanks, while your speed gives you room to escape and manoeuvre.     [/spoiler] Tier II [spoiler]   Daimler Armoured Car     Designed in 1939 but produced from 1941 the D.A.C is considered to be one of the best AC’s that saw service in WW2, fast, hard hitting and reliable the D.A.C saw service into the 1950’s with at least 10 countries, lightly armoured apart from the gun mantle, but carrying a harder hitting 40mm due to the little john adapter that can be mounted.   Firepower; The D.A.C comes with the 40mm Vickers QF gun that could be fitted with a little john adaptor that allowed it to penetrate the sides and rear armour of German tanks, while the Mk 1CS could be fitted with a 76mm close support howitzer. Mobility was provided by a Daimler 6 cyl petrol engine giving 95hp.   A decent tier II fast an agile, but able to engage tanks with the 40mm and even destroy heavy tanks with careful shots when equipped with the little john adapter.    [/spoiler] Tier III [spoiler]   Coventry Armoured Car       Built by the Rootes group (who also built parts of the Humber) the Coventry saw service from 1944 until Vietnam where it saw service fighting the Viet Minh, the Coventry was designed like many armoured cars to be light and fast and carried little armour but packed a larger selection of firepower than the others.   Primary weapons for the C.A.C were either the 40mmQF or a 57mm gun, later this was upgraded to a MkII 75mm gun for hitting armoured targets. Top speed was an impressive 68kph driven by her Hercules 6 cyl petrol engines rated at 175hp.   Providing fast and hard hitting firepower at Tier III the C.A.C’s 75mm gun while not ideal for frontal engagements will easily overcome the sides and rear armour of most opposition, while her armour is light; the agility will allow you to get into good spots and target the enemy’s vulnerable flanks.    [/spoiler] Tier IV [spoiler]   AEC armoured car     The AEC was developed and build before the C.A.C above but is considerably more armoured and packs an equally deadly selection of firepower while keeping up a good level of speed. Based on a Matador truck chassis the Heavy armoured AEC saw service from 1941 until 1976   Firepower for the AEC is similar to the C.A.C with either a 40mm gun, 57mm gun or a longer and a better MkIII 75mm gun, the AEC is also quite distinctive in that it has tank like turrets, from a Valentine turret with the 40mm to the Cromwell style turret with the 75mm gun. As an optional extra the AEC can also mount an AA turret carrying a 40mm AA gun for tactical flexibility     The AEC is not lacking in speed despite being well armoured (65mm) she can easily reach 58kph and hit 65kph over short distances utilising her top engine; the AEC 197 diesel giving 158hp allowing her to circle and flank tanks in War thunder or deploy her AA to useful locations.       [/spoiler]  Tier V [spoiler] Alvis Saladin     The Penultimate vehicle for the Brit line the Alvis Saladin packs firepower and speed into a deadly package but at the cost of weak armour. The Saladin was part of the FV600 family that entered development in 1948 with the first prototype (FV 601A) ready in 1948 – this version was armed with a 40mm gun but was quickly replaced by a 76mm  gun and re-designated FV 601B – with various prototype and version being tested until 1953.   Firepower is provided by a 76mm L5A1 main gun was able to fire a selection of rounds and was effective against cold war tanks from the side and rear, but the greatest strength lay in the Saladin’s speed and she was able to get to 72kph, but paid for this with very low armour of just 32mm max.     At tier V the FV 601B has great potential, at this level armour is not a priority, if one wants tank proof armour, buy a tank, this is all about speed and calculated strikes that allow your team to win, the FV 601B can easily out manoeuvre and out flank any tank in the game, while delivering telling blows to the softer flanks and rear armour. – A great Tier V and a good finish to the line.   Or   Tier V   T17E Staghound Multipurpose vehicle     The Staghound was the brit version of the American T17E1 armoured car which was not widely used by the US as they preferred the lighter M8 Greyhound. The Staghound was larger and fatter than most armoured cars in British service and was widely tweaked to carry a huge amount of fire power.   The Staghound was given a variety of weapons from 37mm 57mm several types of 75mm gun, AA guns and 75mm Howitzers and even large rocket pods mounting AT rockets that while somewhat inaccurate would obliterate any tank in the field.   With 44m or armour and a top speed of 89kph the Staghound is a foe to be reckoned with, able to attack and target with a high chance of destroying it, and scooting away before and retaliation. Staghounds saw service around the world until 1980     So there we have the UK line (or at least one that makes sense) it’s a well balanced mix, being fairly well armoured (by car standards) and packing guns that are all effective at their own tier, while having a turn of speed that belies their little size, the last advantage is they are all turreted and this gives more options when circling and flanking units. – Hope you enjoyed   [/spoiler]
  8. 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
  9. 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:
  10. 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...
  11. 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 BR adjustment for a tank or plane for unlocking certain ammo types, gun accuracy upgrades, and engine power would be anywhere from 0.0 to 0.7, dependent on the tank/plane. 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 breaks up the clubber brackets in planes as well, which although less apparent, still exist. Those brackets are 2.0, 2.3, 3.7, 4.0, 5.0, 5.7, 6.3, 7.0, and 9.0. - 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. Happier players are more willing to spend money to show their support. I know I would definitely show my support. - Finally, fixing this mess will prevent it from becoming a problem when boats go into open beta and beyond. Because with the player base stagnating at best and slowly shrinking at worst, if this is not fixed by the time boats come out it'll leave a bitter aftertaste in everyone's mouths, no matter what boats turn out to be.
  12. Hi HI. Above shown is the settings for Toggle Controls, I currently use this on occasion when performing some not-very-healthy maneuvers, it can be fun and useful at times, such as turning at a high speed while holding your speed or letting your plane stall out more naturally. (My experience is based on the 262 series). My problem with the current situation is that when I want to Toggle between the modes, it cycles through All Four of them, I intend only to Toggle between "Mouse aim" and "Realistic controls", but the other two just get in the way. So I was wondering if we could see something such as a setting implemented below 'Toggle Control' mode taking up the 5th slot under "Controls Mode" to refine this option to be selective of which control modes you only intend on using, maybe a menu with 4 Check Boxes? Something more practical because at the moment, you have to Double Click the toggle key every time you wish to go from Mouse to Realistic mode. If you wanna see exactly what I'm talking about check here, Thankssss! Sorry, I also posted this to a previous thread section yesterday(in the wrong discussion section). I haven't been on the forums in over a year or something, but I think this feature should be added for the sake of practicality. (I know it may look silly, but it is very fun and you can possibly kill someone in a forced flatspin with it, which I almost did in a custom battle with my squadron mates last night.)
  13. Overview WarThunder features Empires Headquarters Sectors Sector menagement Taking sector control Strategic view World Map Example of World map of Mexico Empire: Mexican players control over 70 sectors, many of them are rich in resources (huge fuel production). Rest of Latin America looks easy target. But what does Uncle Sam do? Aggression? Embargo? Secret agreement with Mexico? Looks on Canada territories? Who knows... Empire leader HQ Council Continuation will be added in next posts to this topic.
  14. are you working to fix carpatian?? ,i got 20 fps drops on this map, new patch comed out and it is still t same
  15. hello, i was wondering if we would be seeing more advanced transonic (couldnt quite reach the soundbarrier in level flight) aircraft added to WT like the mig17F, Hunter mk6, or f3h demon for example? especially since the aviation cutoff has been extended to 1960? (and obviously no guided Air to Air missiles)
  16. Simulation & Custom Battle Mode "External Views" for "Situational - Awareness" (S.A) Realistic Operational Requirement Checks REQUEST :- Add External "Camera Views" to be added in Simulation & Custom Battle Mode as Choice 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. POSSIBLE SOLUTION:- Maybe implement a time-limit for other views of say 45 seconds between switching from cockpit view to another as a solution to accommodate everyone's concerns. Option for Single-Player no time limit but in Multi-Player time limit applies. 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 Side and Rear-seat View Example from another combat simulation to model the idea:- *** Reference taken from Falcon 4.0 Manual - Chapter 22 pages 1-10 Link :- 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 proposals if 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 two proposal are here:- Training Range - Custom Battle Mode further development - 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
  17. gameplay

    i was thinking, now that tanks and fighters get a PVE Mode.. why not let bomber and attacker pilots in on the fun too? It would be quite simple, a number of bomber players (i would take more than in the fighter mode if technically possible) have to reach a enemy airfield and bomb it, they start like 20km (balancing needed) away from the airfield and have to fend off waves of increasingly good AI fighters together to succeed. the longer they survive, the better rewards they get, they win if they bomb the airfield (shouldnt have too many hitpoints) the only thing i would disallow for this mode would maybe be completely unarmed ones like early canberras and arados.
  18. 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 ?
  19. Gameplay

    I've been playing today on Mozdok and while defending a point in the middle I realized something. Ammo always reloads in order we have it set up at the bottom of the screen. Let's say we are driving M36 (like I did in that match) and we have 3 types of shells chosen: APCR (25) APCBC (5) HE (2) I took mostly APCR, because on Mozdok you usually fight on long distances, so I needed some good penetration values. Especially since M36 often goes against Tiger Is, Tiger IIs and IS-2s. APCBC is good if you manage to get close to said tanks, as it does more damage inside after succesful penetration. HE was just for SPAAGs.   The thing is, that I ended up defending middle point, on a hill, so I was fighting mainly at close range. APCRs were good, but I needed something more devastating for close encounters. APCBCs were gone very quickly, so I started reloading... and here we come to the point of this suggestion.   War Thunder reloads ammunition in such way, that first to be refilled are shells in first slot, up to the number we took at the beginning of the match. After they are refilled completely, second slot starts refilling. And so on. In my case I needed to quickly reload APCBCs, but I had to wait for almost a minute until my APCRs reload first. So here are my suggestions: We should be able to choose which rounds we want to reload first - and that can be easily done. As we choose which ammunition to use during the match, there is a yellow box around the chosen shell type. I suggest this yellow box to indicate which shells are currently being restored. This way we have control over which shells are being restored and for how long - we can even switch the priority by simply switching chosen shell type. It's the easiest way to implement control over reloading I can think of.   Another suggestion is to connect reloading speed with the crewmembers' skills. Because current reload speed is very frustrating. Developing certain crew skill could quicken the restoring time (I think currently it's 1 shell per every 4 seconds, so reloading 15 shells takes a minute). It might be connected to Field Repair skill or maybe add a new skill for a Tank Loader.   Lastly, I bet it was already talked about, maybe we could finally reload our tanks at spawn?   What do you think of them? Share your views and concerns and participate in poll :)
  20. Coming from RB and SB ground forces the different speeds for "cruise control" has always been a pet peeve of mine, but the addition of stabilization was the last drop in that regard. Here the problems and solutions are broken down more in detail: The first step of cruise control (CC1) is too fast and serves no real purpose other than matching the max stabilized speed for Shermans. The problems are multiple: CC1 is too fast for spotting things: When not having a marker over other tanks there must exist a speed setting that allows movement while still moving so slow that it is possible to spot a partially concealed enemy. Moving at 15kph is too fast for that. Somewhere along half that speed (6-8kph) would be more suitable. CC1 is so fast it causes "suspension wobble" when halting: There exists no single speed setting at which a tank can crawl so slowly that there is no mentionable suspension wobble when stopping the tank unless it has modern and fantastic suspension for its weight. Sometimes it is far more important to be able to "stop & shoot" quickly than it is to move quickly. This isn't really an issue for the most modern post-war tanks, but for rank 1-4 it is a very real problem. Reducing CC1 to 6-8kph would mean that pretty much all tanks would have acceptably low suspension wobble during "stop & shoot" CC1 is too fast for tanks who have the "shoulder stop" or other more primitive stabilization: Judging by the speed I managed when climbing hills the maximum speed at least with the British 2-pounder is 8-9kph. Go any faster and the gunner can't keep the unlocked gun stable anymore. It is 100% pointless to have the "shoulder stop" and Sherman/Stuart stabilization if there exists no standard speed setting at which they work. CC2 is too fast for a "stable firing platform"-speed for all tanks with worse stabilization than for example a Centurion. The movement is so fast it causes significant suspension wobble during "stop & shoot", it makes spotting hard, it is too fast for most stabilization, and for 99% of the play-time there exists no reason to at all use the setting. People either use CC1, CC3, or use the W-key. By reducing CC2 a bit in speed, or even adapting it to tanks where so is suitable (for example to 15kph for Stuarts and Shermans where their stabilization still works) there would exist a reason for people to use CC2 during situations where they are willing to sacrifice ability to spot for movement speed, but still want to be able to react fast when they need to. TL;DR: Reduce the CC1 speed to 6-8kph to make it universally useful, and reduce CC2 to speeds that are meaningful from a general "stop & shoot" or stabilization perspective, so that CC2 gives an advantage in some area over CC3.
  21. New Battle Mode "The Semi Realistic Battle" Currently a lot of players face many issues with the current ground forces game play that wreck their playing experience. I am trying to count below the good and bad about each battle mode and suggest a solution to the issue at hand. Arcade Battles: A) Positive points: Very tense and fast paced game play extremely fun and satisfying to play you get to meet a lot of foes with increased chance of killing or get killed relatively short battles which allow you to play many maps in a shorter period of time number of spawns is relatively higher. B) Negative points: Visibility and system auto spotting makes maneuvering and flanking not effective tactical game play has less effect which turn most of the duels into tanks shooting at each other face to face unrealistic shots behavior some times in terms of effectiveness after penetration or unrealistic non penetration bouncing some shot types are not effective the way they are in reality (specially Armor Piercing ones like AP, APC, APBC, APCBC, APCR) which in turn make playing the nations that mainly use them (USA & UK) not fun and extremely hard. it favors and give great advantage to players playing heavy and tough tanks in comparison to players playing SPGs or light tanks, the reason being that the later vehicles require flanking and ambushing tactics that can not be done with the visibility system playing newly purchased vehicles with no modifications extremely hard and such an agony with very high weapon spread and in-effective basic shell types that are useless in a face to face confrontation with other opponents within the BR spread Kamikaze airplanes attacks are dissatisfying and hinders ones efforts Realistic Battles: A) Positive Points: it favors the tactical side of game play where team play, player skills and smart approach to the situation are the major factors in deciding the winning side it allows efficient utilization of all types of vehicles and give players opportunity to enjoy each and every machine War Thunder has to offer (which are many) through ability to play each vehicle in the role it is intended to be played with in reality guns & shots behavior, penetration, damage and effectiveness are so close to real world scenario it puts all nations and their vehicles on equal terms in a battle eliminate the element of unrealistic airplanes attacks it allows and encourage players to buy and utilize vehicles' different camouflage and decorations it give any player a fair chance even if he is in a situation where his opponents have great advantage over him B) Negative points: machines speed and turret & gun movement feels somehow heavy and slow for people who want to play but not to simulate time needed for gun to stabilize and aim cause a lot of wasted shots and opportunities the time needed to reach point of engagement is painfully long and sometimes you might go through the whole battle without even seeing an enemy or landing a single shot which makes this mode boring for some of us points capturing time and rounds all over time is too long and not suitable for people with other responsibilities in life who can't afford more than 1 or 2 hours of playing time a day (some times a single enemy plane left which can not have any real effect on the final result can delay the whole round for an extra 4 or 5 minutes of waiting 1 As a result of the above I keep bouncing between the two mods with no full satisfaction earned by any, and the solution I am proposing is to have a third battle mode which is a mix of both that try to implement the best of two worlds The new battle mode should be a Semi-Realistic mode which mainly implement the movement and physics of the Arcade and visibility and damage models of the Realistic Specification Mode Benefit Vehicle Rating Realistic Rating this mode are more close to reality Movement / Vehicle Physics Arcade Eradicate Negative points number 1, 2, 3 & 4 of Realistic battles Aiming Reticle Help / Prediction Realistic Visibility Realistic Eradicate Negative points number 1, 2, 3 & 4 of Realistic battles Damage Model Realistic Eradicate Negative points number 3 & 4 of Arcade battles Shot / Projectile behavior Realistic Eradicate Negative points number 3 & 4 of Arcade battles Crew Replenishment Realistic Technical Specifications Arcade Eradicate Negative points number 1, 2, 5 & 6 of Arcade battles Modification Research Arcade Vehicle Research Arcade Rewards Arcade Repair Cost Arcade Battle Time / Rules Arcade Eradicate Negative points number 3 & 4 of Realistic battles Zone Capture Time / Rules Arcade Eradicate Negative points number 3 & 4 of Realistic battles Re-spawn Rules / Numbers Arcade Eradicate Negative points number 3 & 4 of Realistic battles Aviation Movement / Physics Arcade Eradicate Negative points number 1, 2, 3 & 4 of Realistic battles Aviation Aiming Reticle Help / Prediction Realistic Aviation Damage Model Realistic Eradicate Negative points number 3 & 4 of Arcade battles Aviation Re-spawn Rules / Numbers Arcade but limited to one sortie for player per match Eradicate Negative point number 7 of Arcade battles A mode with specifications drawn from each mode like the above table will eradicate most of the negative points (mentioned above) of Arcade and Realistic modes and will reduce drastically the number of complaints from players. Most importantly is easy to implement by developers since it doesn't include any new elements but a mix of already existing options I am ready to give more detailed explanation about each option in the grid above if it passes to development but refrain from now to keep the post as short as possible If you agree with me and feel that this mode will be fun for you and remove the problems the game play currently suffer from then help by voting, commenting and spreading the word for other players to visit and vote.
  22. Hi Community, i would have a suggestion about the preview of camouflage in tankbattles: Some tanknations have plenty of different camolages (eg. USA) or plenty of differend "Standard" camolages (eg. Germany) - it would be very helpful to add something like a preview like in the picture below: I think it wouldnt be important to get the exact camoscheme on this icon (stripes or spots) - the main colours would be enough to differ from Winter, Summer, Desert. Thank you for reading See you on the battlefield! Noir89
  23. The current kill award system in War Thunder is a subject of much consternation   I am proposing getting away with the kill assist system entirely and replacing it with a split kill system.   OPTION #1 Kills / split kills are only awarded based on the number of players achieving a critical hit on a target up to a maximum of six people (1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6) The six most recent players to achieve a critical hit on a plane are in the pool to receive a split kill award Multiple people (>1) recording a critical hit on the plane removes the possibility to receive a whole kill, negated upon a successful repair Players awarded a split kill receive the kill bonus divided by the number of players on the kill OPTION #2 Kills / split kills are awarded based on the number of players achieving a hit on a target up to a maximum of six people (1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6) The six most recent players to achieve a hit on a plane are in the pool to receive a split kill award Multiple people (>1) recording a hit on the plane removes the possibility to receive a whole kill, negated upon a successful repair  Players awarded a split kill receive the kill bonus divided by the number of players on the kill
  24. My idea is to add a new game mechanic for air forces in which flying too close to an enemy plane that is on fire would damage your plane also. This would cause engine damage because harmful gases would enter the air intake potentially causing engine failure. I have noticed that when I trail an enemy plane and shoot at it, sometimes it catches on fire. I can trail the plane with my plane and not take damage from the plane in front of me. Not being able to take damage from the plane in front of me gives me a great advantage over the enemy especially if it's an attacker/bomber. Attackers and bombers turn more slowly so any planes following them could just unload all of their ammo on them and easily destroy them. If flames from a burning airplane would damage planes behind them this would make it harder for the attacking plane to stay directly behind them and may make it easier for the gunners on the bomber/attacker to shoot down the enemy plane. Please let me know how you guys think of this new game mechanic. Best Regards, Yourdonefor
  25. Muy buenas gente, este post esta dedicado completamente para el posteo de mis vídeos tutorial, también tengo otras listas donde hago gameplay y rompo lo que es la seriedad para hacerlo mas divertido.   Desde ya espero poderlo ayudar, este es mi canal de youtube y mi facebook.    Me tomo el trabajo de leer cualquier duda y de ayudar a cada uno con su respectiva incógnita   Mi patreon por si desean apoyarme para mejorar mi equipo de video.   y bueno aquí les dejo las listas de reproducción de mis vídeos:   Tutoriales Para el Recien Iniciado:   C.L.A.S.E.S. Warthunder (Tutoriales puramente de aviones)   B.A.S.E.S. Warthunder(Tutoriales puramente de tanques)   Históricos Warthunder:   Warthunder Videos Random:   Versus De Warhunder:   Puntos débiles de tanques   Vídeos Informativos (del canal)   Guías Especificas de aviones y tanques   Que opinas vos Becha? (Preguntas a mi sobre el juego)   Este post lo dejare cerrado a comentarios, cualquier duda por MP(mensaje privado) o en mi pagina de facebook, desde ya muchas gracias.