Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'gameplay'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Official News and Information
    • Project News (Read Only)
    • Updates Information (Read Only)
    • Developers Blog (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
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Česko-slovenská komunita
    • Społeczność polskojęzyczna
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Konuşan Topluluk
    • Comunidade Lingua Portuguesa
    • Communauté francophone
    • Other Languages

Calendars

  • Community Calendar



Found 47 results

  1. OK guys, looking at forums it seems we have dozens of different opinions about BR/MM. Here is thread that will be used to gather your ideas and give best as feedback to developers. Please give your suggestions about BR/MM system, be constructive and write how we can do things better in your opinion.   Thread is heavily moderated as all suggestion threads so please keep it to the topic.   Thanks
  2. Expect for the aa. Most of the vehicles are too hard to play in arcade due to the plane's kamikaze attack,especially the m56,29k.
  3. I like aircraft being part of the ground forces combined arms mode, but the nature they are currently used in both realistic and more blatantly in arcade they come across as power ups, the war thunder equivalent of super Mario's fire flower rather then feeling like another whole side of the combined arms mode. This is not an issue exclusive to War Thunder, I feel battlefield suffers in a similar fashion with it's air support feeling quite often as a tool to reward someone with lots of kills and much less a tool to help complete the core objectives of the match. I know early in testing there was an attempt to give aircraft their own objectives parallel to ground forces, with bases they could bomb and artillery positions to attack on the outskirts of maps like Karelia and kuban, but because these drew players away from the core of the map they never really stuck and were rightly dropped. I'd like to return to the idea of giving aircraft objectives within the game but not to drag them away from the focus of the central battlefield. As such I'd like to suggest that all capture points in ground forces should work with the same mechanics as bases in air battles but on a smaller scale. The objectives in ground forces are meant to be short hand for important strategic points, some maps try to justify this by putting them at key objectives like town centres or fuel depots. So bombing or dropping artillery on them to knock them out makes as much sense. When a point is capped the circle of blue/red that forms the circle on the objective graphic acts like a health bar that can be depleted by artillery or bombs/rockets. Depleting this health bar causes the cap to instantly revert back to decapped status and the players who took part in the decapping via bombing/artillery strike or by entering the point receive some rp, lions and spawnpoints for decapping. Tanks can deplete the circle as normal by driving into the territory and holding it with their forces. Though now they should receive points for the decap instead of the current system where they only receive the points for the cap. Instead it should be half the current amount for the decap and the other half for the cap. I'd extend this ability to artillery because I think it's something that makes it more functional, rather then the rng aspect of it right now. It use to be useful for flushing players out but players have gotten use to its rng nature so outside of those in open top tanks most players make only the smallest adjustment to avoid artillery (if anything at all) but if it can be used also to play the objective it gives it more options to players. So objectives can be decapped with bombs and artillery an rockets, it should work on a system that the more accurate the artillery or bomb is the more damage it does to lead to the decap. So in theory a 500kg bomb dead centre should decap but one on the edge of the objective only drops the health by half. Artillery ordered from the very edge of its range would only knock health down by a quarter but one ordered in from close range would decap etc. This would hopefully create a ripple affecting numerous aspects of the game. 1. In Arcade mode it will change the nature of the bomber and attacker spawns as they'll be less an attempt to try and kill an increasing number of players to an actual tool to either reset the board with the bomber (if the enemy hold all 3 points) or to buy time with the attacker for an assault on one of the enemies caps if they are close to winning holding 2 caps to your 1 and your team is just getting the momentum going to break through. It'll also encourage players to use fighter defence more to stop them. 2. It creates choice for aircraft between high risk high reward tactic going directly for enemy vehicles or safer objective based targets, which gives a wider spread for player skill in aircraft (player's who were not great at bombing were a waste of space in the air, but it's easier to bomb an static objective 3. It opens the way to re-address the spawn point rewards in relation for aircraft. At the moment aircraft make a lot of spawn points doing very little objective wise (it's to do with the proximity reward I think) outright removing it in the current system might be too much, but if there were objectives for aircraft in terms of decapping points then it can be removed or toned down with rewards for decapping points marking tanks etc 4. It changes the nature of single point maps. At the moment the preferred tactic to single cap points is to camp around the objective after taking it, forcing the enemy to attempt a breakthrough, but with the ability of aircraft to bomb the objective and artillery to decap it allows attackers to force the defenders to move one of their own out of position to recap potentially opening a gap for the breakthrough 5. Similarly it allows for teamwork to speed up a series of quick caps, a flanking player can work with a plane and/or use artillery to quickly decap and then recap on larger maps before the enemy can react 6. it'll give points for spaa to focus defending, over the current scenario where most sit in the spawn firing out at aircraft
  4. Hello guys, is there any possibility in the future that War Thunder using client-based anti-cheat software (eg. BattlEye) against cheaters? War Thunder now is a kind of game becoming popular as MMO military game, but one bad thing is that, current anti-cheat mechanism does not work efficiently. First of all, War Thunder is a free-to-play game, many cheaters just apply a new account for cheating (in the banned player lists you can find a lot account with same surname + different number). Even in high BR matches, some players cheating as well. While the main method is replay & report, apply new accounts for cheating wasting a lot of resources for staffs to check and this leads to "Current replay-based method is useful, but it works quite inefficiently(slowly)." There's a countermeasure introduced last year (maybe false memory), which limited the information client received. Before that, ESP cheater easily marks every player on the map regardless of distance. However, in RB ground battles, ESP still did a lot. For example, current esp cheat tools still mark any player if players' location information received by client, with the predicted aim mark. And in this situation, countermeasure actually didn't work. So far as i know, current war thunder still does not have any client-based anti cheat software that reducing cheaters pretty well. Of course, there's no online games with zero cheater, but the great reduction in total number of cheaters will be great for the game, while the left cheaters that cannot detected by anti-cheat software will be handle by Replay-report method ---- which makes replay-report more efficient. Of course anti-cheat software is not free, but i hope developers really think about the importance of fair game in War Thunder, while remember those good games destroyed by cheaters. This is all my suggestion, thanks.
  5. More Interactive Hangars

    How would I improve on the Hangar experiance? So Hangars are quite plain and since it is a map why not use it? I originally got this Idea from having fun with some friends such as BNK_BlackPanther on a map he hosted featuring the Hangar, and I thought it would be amazing to make the Hangar be a test drive location that you can turn on and off, so that way you can go from the UI straight to it going away your propeller spinning and you taxiing to take off, but wait there's more why not make it multiplayer? There are many reasons, But they can be fixed First things first, The Trolls, without a bridge for them to hide under they will be out and about all over the map specifically near people, the solution is not actually adding a bridge, but a zone around the Hangar camera where if you enter you become invisable to the people in the Hangar UI and able to not clip other players and any crashes would be muted, as well as bombs, it should be impossible to bomb or rocket a radius around each of the UI areas so that way you cant spam the audio at the people, but sounds of aircraft overhead should remain. What would we shoot at? Simple question but good question, We would shoot at passive AI that respawns shortly after being killed, or if we turn on the option we can shoot others who have turned on Hangar PvP, And to prevent ramming, there should be a setting for no clipping in the Hangar, so that way people cant troll eachother with ramming, but being a setting for the people who like to joke around they can ram eachother and push their aircraft's around either in Immortal or for people who want to ram eachother because they find joy in it, I sometimes find joy in ramming other aircraft if I know the pilot is ok with it. Another thing we can do to prevent trolling is to have a setting you can turn on or off and modify that basically allows you to choose if you are ok with Jets or higher teired aircraft shooting at you, and if your not, You shouldn't hit them either to prevent the trolls finding another hole in the system before the system is even made. What planes would you see? well for the most part you would see planes of your nation, because you can see them in your Hangar, but what about squads of multiple countries? they should join the fun add a bit more excitment to the Hangar with their aircraft of other nationalities, It would be great for while a friend goes to make some food, go to the bathroom, or while a friend launches the game on a slower PC to have a seemless way to hop into a custom battle like situation in the Hangar and just joke around and enjoy the wait. So what about premium test flights? something a normal user wouldn't think about, Premium planes in Hangar test flights, should only be flown if owned or for a test before purchase, flown on a premium account, But still be able to be test flown without purchase or premium in normal test flights, I think this is a great idea because it allows for Gaijin to maintian its income from people who just buy premium planes for custom battles, The only reason I own a Yak-3T is for custom battles or joking around if you want a example, so its not robbing you from testing the aircraft yourself, but it is preventing exploitation of this being used to just not buy a plane you want to use a lot for casually flying in custom battles with/against friends. Remember the staff need to feed their families and pay bills they are people too, people who provide the hard work needed to keep our community alive. So sorry if this part of my idea bums you out, at least the game is free to play. Will there be bonuses? I highly say NO to this, no challenge in it and ways to exploit it if it had bonuses, Keep the farming to the matches and events, again this is just a new Test Flight feature I thought of. Final Notes So now that you have seen my idea, I hope you guys give it thought and discuss in the comments any other suggestions you think of, any ways for harassment to happen, and how to fix it. Thank you for your time reading this post, I don't have time to read over what I wrote so let me know if I made some mistakes, Thank you
  6. [Tank Commanders]

    Dear War Thunder,   I have a suggestion for a nice feature. This is about tank commanders that pop out of your tanks. Why? Because I think it would be even more realistic if you could just get into the skin of the tank's commander like you would in a first-person shooter. You can use a binoculars like you would zoom in with a sniper rifle, if you get what I mean, those kind of mechanics. I just feel that it gives you a more realistic feeling and it gives you a bit more of a feeling that you're the commander of a tank in WWII. This would especially be nice when you play in simulator mode, because like that, it would feel a lot more like a WWII tank simulator.   Another thing that I would like to see about this feature, is that people would be able to create their own commander and put it on War Thunder Live and such, like people can create Michael Wittmann, Erwin Rommel as their commander etc.   Another nice feature might be when you use a stock command like "Requesting fire on [put player name here]", that your commander will really talk and gesture.   Possibly this has already been suggested before, but I'd just really like to see this in-game.   Yours sincerely,   _Maho_Nishizumi
  7. Hello! I've been playing awhile and I have been paying a lot of attention to these forums. I've noticed a bunch of the newbies (and even some vets) really want Vietnam jets etc etc. So I decided I'd probably explain and disprove some theroies:   Gajin Work Load: Gajin has done an amazing job optimizing and working on the game. We have so many planes and a variety of different, planes countries and loadouts. The time to make a 6th tier would be extremely lengthy, not to mention we haven't finished adding in a lot of beauties from WWII. (like my Ta-154 <3)   Speed: Speed would be a major issue with jets seeing as how it would most likely make the maps seem a tad bit smaller. Not to mention turning time, aiming, etc. The battles would be made a lot longer as well.   MISSILES: A big reason why missiles are a problem, is because modern aircraft warfare doesn't require as much (dare i say "skill") tactics or dogfights as it may have in Pre Cold War Era (and Korea). It's just more "lock, fire, done" and people would believe this as being too overpowered, unfair and not as fun. As well as not being able to manuver very fast due to speed and obviously not being able to outrun a missile. Sure theres flares and chaff, but I'll get to that soon™   "There are plenty of modern combat flight sims out there, I think war thunder would get pretty boring if combat looked like "Tiny dot on radar 25mi away" fire missile, dump flare, miss, fire missile, dump flare, miss again, missile lock, joeblowwhatever115 shot you down." -Molnya5   Disproving Other Ideas: 1) "What if they disabled the missiles and made the planes fire their cannons only?" -Would cause too much controversy on "realism". Modern planes also use missile 99.999% of the time 2) "What if Gajin made a new game with modern jets" -Maybe you could ask them? Or do it yourself? Maybe you can just go out and buy Ace Combat and call it a day 3) There is no 3   How Vietnam Era Jets Could Work!!!!111!!!!11!1 -Gajin:    1) They could just add it in a future update to shut everyone up -Speed:    1) Make bigger maps?    2) Add it to Single Player or Co-Op missions only -Missiles:    1) Missiles during Vietnam were still under a developmental stage. Most dogfighting tactics were kept from WWII due to problems targeting and missile accuracy (Roughly 30%) More problems and issues with missiles can be found in the book "Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War" on page 118-119    3) In order to effectively lock onto another target, you had to lock and stay locked onto a target    4) Chaff/Flares used for evading missiles (Wouldn't work 100% of the time)
  8. Greetings everyone ! At the moment the Germans are in need of some post-war vehicles in their line up to compete with other nations in the game. Today I would like to suggest some of the early variants of the Leopard tank series. Info: Early development of the Leopard series dates back in the mid-1950s when West Germany was allowed itself to rebuild (with NATO’s approval) its military defensive force in case of a Soviet threat. The main battle tank was part of this plan, and at the time Franco-German relationships were at the highest. So a project of common MBT was envisioned since both countries had similar specifications of what tank they wanted. The project was known later as the “Europanzer” and would have equipped the Germans to replace supplied US-supplied tanks like the M47 and M48. The MBT project, also known as the Standard-Panzer project in Germany, started in November 1956, The specifications require a 30 metric tons weight, a P/W ratio of 30 hp/ton, armor capable of resisting rapid-fire 20 mm (0.79 in) hits, and to be equipped with either a 90mm Rheinmetall or the new British L7 105 mm (4.13 in) rifled gun. Later in the production of the Leopard series, it was decided to use the L7 105mm gun as the tank primary weapon. Three groups worked on the project: Team A (Porsche) Team B (Rheinstahl-Henschel) Team C (Borgward). By 1960, Six of the series I prototypes were tested and the German military command ordered the production of the prototype II series of the tanks. Two groups: team A (Porsche) and team B(Rheinstahl-Henschel) completed a total of 32 prototype II series of the Leopard tanks by 1961. The Porsche Prototype II was eventually selected as the winner of the contest in 1963 and soon later production of the modern Leopard 1 went into military service into the German armed forces. Now that you have the history of the production of these tanks, here are the vehicles that I suggest would be useful on the German tank tree. 1. Leopard Prototype I A (Porsche) The prototype I A was armed with the 90mm Rheinmetall BK90 gun. 2. Leopard Prototype I B (Rheinstahl-Henschel) The prototype I B was armed with the 90mm Rheinmetall BK90 gun. 3. Leopard Prototype II A (Porsche) Prototype II A had a slight modification to its hull and armor upgrades. It maintains its L7 105mm gun. 4. Leopard Prototype II B (Henschel / Rheinmetall) Prototype II B has an upgraded suspension and hull design. The vehicle also upgraded from the Rheinmetall 90mm gun to the L7 105mm gun. -Overall, the suggested vehicles I have chosen total up to four tanks. -Two Prototype A series and Two Prototype B series. -BR for these tanks would be at around 7.0-7.3 (Note: BR for vehicles are decided by the developers themselves). Here is a data chart of the engine, suspension, main gun, and statistics of the Leopard Prototype series: Sources: [1] http://www.panzerpower.de/ger/leo1_geschichte.htm [2] http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_leopard_1-a.htm [3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Dieselmotoren_für_militärische_Rad-_und_Kettenfahrzeuge_der_MTU_Friedrichshafen [4] KPz Leopard 1: 1956-2003 (Rolf Holmes) [5] http://preservedtanks.com/Types.aspx?TypeCategoryId=400 [6] Leopard 1 MBT in German Army Service - Early Years [7] Leopard 1 Main Battle Tank 1965–95 Here is a graph with a timeline of the Leopard prototype versions: More Photos of the Leopard prototype series: Leopard Prototype I A: Leopard Prototype I B: Leopard Prototype II A Leopard Prototype II B: So why have these tanks in-game ? By adding these post-war vehicles I think It would put Germany on par with the other nations in the game and would balance out the gameplay of the Matchmaking. Sidenote: Some of the information are from various books and online sites. If there is any misinformation I posted here, please fell free to put them in the comments below. Thank you ! Main Sources: Leopard 1 MBT in German Army Service - Early Years Frank Lobitz (Book) kampfpanzer Leopard 1 mit neuen dimensionen im panzerbau (translation: Battle tank Leopard 1 with new dimensions in panzerbau) Von Michael Scheibert (Book) Tank Encyclopedia: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/West_Germany/Leopard-I.php (Web) Other Sources: http://www.panzerpower.de/ger/leo1_geschichte.htm http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_leopard_1-a.htm http://preservedtanks.com/Types.aspx?TypeCategoryId=400
  9. Now that the update is released I can post this again. This is so very minor, but I can't help it. Gaijin. Can you PLEASE give us the option to RETRACT those anti-HEAT fins on the side of the T-64. This is one of my favourite historical tanks, but those fins are so bloody ugly. I don't even care if my tank becomes a tiny bit less defensively effective. In this case, looks are more important to me than slightly more protection. It will hardly make a difference gameplay-wise and thy still somewhat work when closed. According to Wikipedia (think what you will): The shielding was improved, with fibreglass replacing the aluminium alloy in the armour, and small spring-mounted plates fitted along the mudguards (known as the Gill skirt), to cover the top of the suspension and the side tanks. They were, however, extremely fragile and were often removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64#T-64A Please, Gaijin. I love this tank! Pictures of the T-64 with the flaps either open or closed seem very difficult to come by. This page has a picture of the T-64 (and T-72) with the flaps closed: http://alejandro-8.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/t-64-y-t-72-la-eterna-polemica.html Another, this one from the front: A drawing to illustrate (mod 1972, but the same function):
  10. The suggesstion is pretty straght forward. IS to propse addition of a keyboard button that can be double tapped ( for EG) to jettison all external stores of an aircraft such as bombs and/or rockets instead of manually shooting them off with spacebar and CTrl respectively. There are various legitimate reasons why this would be done. To allow for combat manuvers if engaged by an enemy aircraft or due to battle damage to land the aircraft. Almost all aircraft have such a function. there are various form of jettison but the one im propossing for the sake of simplicity is to dump everything ( emergency Jettison) on the external parts of aircraft, because there is also "selective Jettison" where a pilot could select to jettison specfic hardpoins or pylons. It is impossible to give images and or excerpets here from manuals or other documentation on each and every aircraft because there are Hundreds of aicraft in WAr thunder, but just to give a few examples: AD-2 Skyraider ( manual can be found on avialogs) F-86A sabre F-86F series (manual Excerpt) F9F8 cougar ( manual found on avialogs) Again just a few examples. There are hundres of aircraft in war thunder. Many (Not all) have this feature It would take far too much space to list every single aircraft with emergency jettison function for external stores or ordinance.
  11. The P-38's bomb release should release bombs individually if desired. The Actual P-38's bomb release mechanism was able to release individually left, individually right, or together. In Arcade they release individually; however, in RB they release together. They should be able to be released individually in RB as well on P-38 models. Sources are as follows... Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for Army Models P-38D through P-38G Series, F4, F-4A and F-4A Series (TO No -1-75F-1, Page 10 Figure 7) https://forum.warthunder.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=267638 Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for Army Models P-38H Series, P-38J, and F-5B-1 )1943-TO No 01 75FF-1 Page 3 Figure 4) 85179721-1943-T-O-No-01-75FF-1-Pilot-s-Flight-Operating-Instructions-for-Army-Models-P-38H-Series-P-38J-55-P-38L-1-and-F-5B-1.pdf Pilot Training Manual for the Lighting P-38 -1945. (AAF Manual 51-127-1, Page 38) Manual - http://wwiilogs.com/WTImages/P-38BombRelease/45149839-1945-AAF-Manual-51-127-1-Pilot-Training-Manual-for-the-P-38-Lightning.pdf This should enable the Lightning to strike Multiple Targets in Ground RB and hopefully when the ordinance is corrected to Historic loads we will see more Teufel in "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel." "Ploesti Bound" I don't think this needs a clog.. but just in case.. Here is one. https://forum.warthunder.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=304122
  12. Rank VI for Aircraft How they could be implemented. As a War Thunder player, I already know that the chances of this happening are pretty much a pipe dream, but here we go anyway. As of now the Aircraft line in war thunder has stagnated, while the people in ground forces get to go and put around with their new ERA, (good pun Gaijin, I like). Some people believe that with the addition of the MiG 17, a plane that along side the Hunter F Mk. 1 can almost reach mach 1, that we should finally go past the sound barrier. This, along side other things would almost guarantee the addition of seeking missiles like the AIM 120, AIM 9, R-27, and R-73. of course Gaijin has expressed their issues with implementing such weapons systems, such as how the missiles themselves would function, what gameplay would be like, things like that. But before I address them I'd like to introduce those who are unfamiliar to the pioneers of mach 1 combat to the planes that laid a basis for the fighter planes of today. Firstly the North American F-100D "Hun" Super Sabre The F-100 Super Sabre (AKA the Hun) was the United States Air Force's first combat jet that could operate at mach 1 and above. While it did fire missiles they were limited range AIM 9B Heat Seeking missiles which had no head-on capabilities, could not be fired close to the ground, and could only be fired in close range, and they were used mostly in self defense, as the F-100 was a ground strike aircraft which could also do Air to Air CAP (Combat Air Patrol) missions. In Vietnam they would fly more missions than 15,000 P-51 Mustangs did in the Second World War, and would mostly be lost to ground fire. Guns: 4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Pontiac M39A1 revolver cannon Missiles: ** 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or 2× AGM-12 Bullpup or 2× or 4× LAU-3/A 2.75" unguided rocket dispenser[157] Bombs: 7,040 lb (3,190 kg) of weapons, including Conventional bombs Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney J57-P-21/21A turbojet Dry thrust: 10,200 lbf (45 kN) Thrust with afterburner: 16,000 lbf (71 kN) Maximum speed: 750 kn (864 mph, 1,390 km/h, Mach 1.16) Range: 1,733 NM (1,995 mi, 3,210 km) Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m) Rate of climb: 22,400 ft/min (114 m/s) Now Enter the Mikoyan-Guervich MiG 19 The Mikoyan-Guerevich MiG 19 (NATO Reporting Name: Farmer) was the Soviet Union's first super sonic aircraft, after having been given the order to develop the MiG-17 into something that could go past the barrier. This plane didn't use guided missiles unlike it's comparable NATO counterpart. Guns: 3x 30 mm NR-30 cannons (75 rounds per gun for wing guns, 55 rounds for the fuselage gun) Rockets: unguided rockets Missiles: 4 Vympel K-13 AAMs Bombs: Up to 250 kg (550 lb) of bombs Powerplant: 2 × Tumansky RD-9B afterburning turbojets Dry thrust: 25.5 kN (5,730 lbf) each Thrust with afterburner: 31.9 kN (7,178 lbf) each Maximum speed: Mach 1.18 (1,452 km/h; 902 mph) Range: 1,390 km (864 mi; 750 nmi) at 14,000 m (45,000 ft) with 2 × 760 l (170 imp gal; 200 US gal) drop tanks Service ceiling: 17,500 m (57,400 ft) Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,000 ft/min) So why, should these two planes even meet in the skies in War Thunder? Firstly, the F-100D was developed to be a ground strike aircraft with the optional ability to be used in a CAP environment, the F-100 accelerated slower, had a slower turn time, and rate of climb. it was also built like a brick house, resulting in a much much heavier unladen weight (21,000 lbs). The MiG-19 was built mainly as a fighter jet, being lighter (only 11,400 lbs) it could achieve it's top speed much faster, outclimb its comparable counterpart, and out turn it. It was a delicate plane, but packed a deadly punch. This plane was capable of taking out F-100s, along with F-4s, and F-105s. The latter of the two listed being much more advanced than the Hun. The MiG-19 was also built into variants by China and Pakistan, meaning those two could also be added in as a pair of reward planes much like the La-174. Reward planes are like candy to a War Thunder player, meaning they'll pour money into premium just for the chance to own it. Secondly, while the F-100 has it's much more forceful engine and missiles, the MiG-19 has acceleration, maneuverability, and rate of climb. These three things added up would make somewhat balanced gameplay, as AIM 9s (unless they're the latest generation AIM 9x, which are almost capable of turning on a dime), have never been known for their exceptional turning capabilities, not to mention that the ones mounted on the F-100D couldn't be used in the head on, or near the ground. Wait, I can already hear you asking, "Owl, Owl, how will the maps work?!" With the way that most of the jet maps are now in-game there will have to be newer larger ones, that's the unfortunate truth. However, only two would ever need to be created, and they'd at most have to be triple the size of the Spain map that is used for jets. A good setting for this would probably be Vietnam. The reason for maps having a requirement for their size is so that the jets can get up to speed, and altitude. "What about br." Well considering that these jets will outclass almost all of the 9.0 jets the only viable solution to this would be to stick them at 11.0, and move on up from there. This way we wouldn't have sabres getting suddenly and swiftly killed by a MiG-19, or a MiG-17 being obliterated by a surprise Super Sabre. This would prevent power creep and allow for some wiggle room in terms of futer aircraft development. "What about other nations, Japan, England, Germany, etc." Germany, like it always has, will get both of those jets, the F-100D for the West German line, and the MiG-19 for the East German line. Japan gets the F-100, England had it's own jets for that time, so I'll leave it up to the dev team. And as for Italy... just, no, please. "How would spawn killing be prevented?" Assuming that a jet got past the (*cough totally not MANPADs cough*) airfield triple A, they would have to use their guns, and hope that they didn't die. Missiles like the AiM-9b couldn't be used at low altitudes, which is how many strafing attacks on runways work. For any more questions PM me, leave feedback in the comments. I obviously know that super sonic jets in WT are nothing but a pipe dream, but assuming that we could possibly get it to happen this is the best, most viable way of doing it.
  13. Hi guys, So it's fairly apparent that in RB very little usefulness can come from dropping bombs onto the enemy runway because: The enemy runway will take zero damage until an arbitrary number of smaller bases has been destroyed first RB limits the number of heavy bombers in game so unless four B-29's enter the match the enemy runway will never be destroyed and so there's no point bombing it Any damage/craters done to the runway appear to have no impact on an aircrafts ability to land/take off, even when they roll right over the middle of the crater. I would like to propose the following: Introduce a 'Runway Damage' reward so that bombing an enemy runway (whether it be in their main airfield or secondary airfield) without first taking out the smaller bases will give the bomber pilot some reward SL and RP without necessary damaging the airfields health. Introduce damage to aircraft undercarriage if they roll over the crater where bombs have landed and give the kill to the pilot who made the crater. This in effect takes the damaged part of the runway 'out-of-commission'. Remove the arcade style 'fade to black' shift of aircraft which have landed/rearmed/repaired, and require aircraft to have to taxi to an appropriate location on the runway before attempting the take off. This would allow bomber pilots who bomb the enemy runway to not only get a reward for doing so, but also provide a realistic challenge to aircraft trying to land on a damaged runway. Point number 3 (which in my opinion should already be done in RB) would need to be done for this to work, otherwise it would be all too easy to just bomb where enemy aircraft get 'placed' after rearming. Suggestions welcome.
  14. This is a suggestion for arcade ground forces. Right now if you are in a tank, and the enemy starts spamming aircraft what are your options? - Try and evade them and hope you don't get destroyed - Blow up your tank and jump into a SPAA losing a spawn Instead if you could go back to "the garage" (the spawn point) and pick up another available tank in your roster (a SPAA in our example) you could do something without losing a spawn. Of course once you take a vehicle out that gets "locked" so that you can't use more than three in a match. Example: you have in your lineup a tiger, a panther, an ostwind and a jagdpanther. You take out the tiger and get blown up. You have two spawns left You take out your panther. The enemy starts spawning aircraft, so you drive back to the spawn point and pick up the ostwind. Your ostwind gets blown up. You have one spawn left. You can only use that spawn for the panther since it was already taken out, and any damage sustained by the panther will still be there. This has been thought mainly to counter the aircraft and make SPAAs more appealing, since aircraft can be spawned on the spot while SPAAs can't, and it's not fun sitting there waiting for an aircraft to come by if you spawn in one, but it could also lead to interesting tactics and would allow people to adapt better to changing scenarios during the battle.
  15. Ammo Degradation

    Any plans to introduce ammo degradation for when player ammo racks get hit and go yellow/orange/black to indicate the level of damage. it would be nice to have the ability for ammo to explode if you use damage munitions in the gun.
  16. I would like to suggest adding a Custom Skin preview/extract option for the CDK that is Simple and Easy to use. The times I have made custom skins for my Aircraft in War Thunder have been previewed ingame so I can get a detailed look to see if I have made mistakes such as forgetting to mirror text or decals. There are also times I wanted to use non-default ingame skins (EG: West German Tri-Color camouflage (before KPz-70 was added)) on tanks that normally did not have them, however there is no such option to obtain a custom user skin except through default ones. The Problem: Although I mostly would not mind using the ingame client to preview the final result of my skins, there is the age old bug (It's an issue that sadly affects a lot of games and can not easily be solved), is where if you stay in the menu for too long while going back and forth designing a skin, and reloading it in the client, it will give you the old "Freeze Detected!" and giving you the head scratching "Frames X3 Frames!?" etc... And you have to restart the client and log back into the game. This can happen more than once and can be a bit of inconvenience. Another Problem: If you are like me, when you obtain a new aircraft or want to make a new skin for an existing one, you could spend hours creating your dream user skin, and then you get the annoying poke from your friends PMing you things like: "Hi!" "Want to Play!?" etc... And you don't have the heart to tell them "sorry, I am making a user skin right now". Removing them from your friend's list is out of the question as they will know and spam you asking why you removed them. There was also a suggestion to add a Steam style display as offline fuction, but that's another topic... (Long Story Short: It never happend). Solution: Having an option to preview a Custom Skin or even an existing skin via the CDK would be helpful in finding out what it would look like with out having to log into the game and also being able to extract non-default and even unused skins from the game and making good use of them. The Argument: *insert silly voice here* You can already extract skins from the CDK! The Counter Argument: *normal voice* It's not as simple as it sounds, the system can be difficult to navigate, some skins are so big (because the interface can be obstructive), you can only take small screenshots and try to painstakingly put them together, and even then it may not look right. The suggested system would not only make extracting skins easier and would work similar to the already existing "Create new user skin" system ingame, but would 1: Allow you to extract any and all skins for your convenience, including non-default skins (EG: Late Forest Camouflage used by T-64), and 2: Also allow you to preview your userskin (whether a ingame skin used on another plane/tank, or your very own userskin) with out having to log into the game and experience the problems mentioned above in blue. Here is an example of how the skin preview/extract could work. NOTE: Screenshots were taken ingame, and are for illustrative purposes only. Hope you like this idea and please support.
  17. So, the first post I made about this didn't get through with even a response, so I guess there was some technical problem in submitting the thread. Well, here's my idea:   Flying boat tech tree lines for each nation (including upcoming country, Italy). I promised this in my last thread, so here it is:   P.S. I only used production and prototypes in this, no paper planes. P.S. I'm sorry about the cropped images, couldn't fix it :/   (Sorry you have to download this :/)   [attachment=130949:Floatplane Tech Tree.pdf]   Updated Version (20 March 2015)   -Added Italian Aircraft [attachment=131319:Floatplane Tech Tree.pdf]   Updated Version (21 March 2015)   -Added Italian aircraft -Added Russian Aircraft (Only as a possibility) [attachment=131512:Floatplane Tech Tree.pdf]   Updated Version (25 March 2015)   - Added PO-2  :Ds [attachment=132001:Floatplane Tech Tree.pdf]   Leave any suggestions for changes or implementations below, thanks! :salute:   EDIT: Added Poll
  18. Summary: Game should remember your favorite camo painting skin that you select for each map. Like: If you select desert camo skin on sinai map, when you play this map AGAIN you automatically start with the desert camo skin. If thats not possible: game should automatically switch to the camo that is best for the map. Like desert camo on desert maps and winter camo on winter maps. (if you have unlocked it, of course) There could be a checkbox to activate if you dont want that. (auto selection of camo: YES/NO) Its great to have different skins for tanks like Desert or winter camo but you never change them because when the map starts you want to get into battle as quickly as possible because every second counts when you want to reach the obj before the enemy. You dont want to lose 4-5 seconds by selecting the right camo for the map, cause this 5 seconds may be the time you are late in the obj to capp it. That way I would have all my tanks roll out in winter camo in winter maps, summer camo for summer maps and desert camo for desert maps. Without selecting it every time! That would really help a lot! Thx.
  19. With the changes in 1.43, that in arcade GF you can only spawn in any tank once, regardless of its class, I think the 3 spawn limit should be removed.     It was brought in so people had to think about their actions, Instead of wasting spawns by rushing around. Now that we can only use medium tanks once, people are going to think about how they play, rather than, 'oh yeah, ive got another spawn in this if i die'.   So as I've mentioned, I think it would only be fair to remove the 3 spawn limit now that we can only use any tank, regardless off class, once.   -HB1
  20. Hi all, i want to present you a simple but cool suggestion to improve the "playability" of current tank simulator battles As for now we have a rotation system with two top tier presets that rotate day by day (one day we have "modern tanks" with 8.3 max of BR, and the next day we have "post/end war tanks with max 7.7 of BR) that never changes and other lower tier presets that also rotate day by day (one day we have 7.0 max, another day we might ave 5.7 max, the next can be 2.0 max and so on). Now, i'm quite sure that the simulator community don't really like this kind of gamemode since they aren't allowed to choose what to play and they have to follow what that day gives to them to play (example, if i want to play my Leopard in simulator i have only 24 hours then i must stop for other 24 hours because it's not present anymore in this gamemode, same goes for lower tier that must wait even more time to play with their favourite tanks in simulator). Solution Let's give us a room generator like the air simulator actually works now. It's simple and easy to implement since it's already in game and my friends says that it works quite well. We can choose: -Which nation can play in which team -Which map and gamemode we want to play -The BR spread we want to have and we can uptier small tanks into "big" tanks battle to have fun just like someone does in RB and create more diversity in battle Also, anyone can create it's personal room! Let me know what you think about this!