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
  • DEV Server Section
    • Dev Server 1.69 "Regia Aeronautica"
  • 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 40 results

  1. 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:
  2. Hi, I would like to suggest more realistic sights for ground forces sim battles in era V. So, what would be the advantages of what I am suggesting? Well, it would create a more immersive experience for sim battles of that era, and it would get rid of that annoying parallax that we get from when the gunners sight is very far away from the gun's position (M103 and era V British tanks especially). Here is a video from the tank simulator "Steel Armor: Blaze of War" that I recorded. (Please ignore that bandicam bar). As you can tell all you have to do is get the range set in the firing computer and your sight should allow you to hit your targets with a little less clutter in the way. You also don't have to deal with parallax as much as I stated earlier. Mind you it can be a little difficult to get used to at first as you can tell by my accuracy, but I think it would be cool to see, have as it is called simulator battles as well. Perhaps even set it as the default sight when you set camera to gunner's sight in the interface options. As far as functionality it would make since to use your ranging key and that would automatically set the sight to the correct distance when the task is complete. Also one last thing is that the Russian era V tanks would have to use a different sight style than the NATO tanks just for the sense of immersion to set in. *Note: I still need to record the video for the russian style sights, but that may take a while, and this initial post is not the final format.*
  3. This is essentially to save our space bars. I know that there has been the addition of the "drop bomb series" button but I am unaware of any intention to add a feature where one could select the exact amount of bombs that would be dropped. In arcade, this isn't an issue, as you get new bombs every half a minute, but in realistic, thanks to the 10 minute return trip and the base bombing chart topic, bombing has become very precise, and there is a great need to ensure that all of our bombs reach our target. This would be a way to enhance it. When you have to spam your space bar, and keep an eye on how many bombs you have, it can be very difficult to ensure that all of your designated bombs reach their target (stock Stirling am I right), so to aid this I propose that there should be a way to select how many bombs you want dropped, say selecting three of your 9 MC.1000 1000lbs bombs on your halifax, or 19 of your 27 250lbs bombs on your Stirling, or perhaps a combination - 6 500lbs and a 1000lbs for example. I do not have a definitive answer of how to implement it, but in my opinion, the best way to go about it, is to replace the "Drop Bomb Series" button. Holding the button would then bring up a small menu, around the size of the Steam notifications you get when a friend is online. It would show a couple of options - dropping the full load, dropping all of a single bomb type (if the plane carries multiple types of bombs) and up to three possible custom loads which would have been pre-selected by the player. Pressing the button once would drop the selected load - if none is selected, the entire load will drop (default), and if a certain load has just been dropped using the binding, nothing will happen - perhaps a warning at the bottom of the screen will appear notifying the player, or it will bring up the bomb selection tab.
  4. I made a similar topic in the AB forum, but I want to hear opinions here as well. What do people think should be done to bombers, amidst all the "Bomber Op" "flying tanks" talk I've been hearing lately?
  5. Hello there! As a player who often plays tiers 4 and 5 of Japanese tanks, there are some problems I've noticed with making Japan always fight with Germany against USA/BRITISH/USSR tanks, and I think it could alleviate a lot of the issues players are facing. Issue 1: Long Queue Times. I've had queue times for tiers 4 and 5 range anywhere from 30 seconds, all the way to 5 minutes, and this is with all servers selected, and I play at normal times (at least for US players). It's frustrating when you get one shotted in a match, only to be awaiting a 3 minute queue time, only for this to happen again. I know, the player should "get good," but the thing is, they will struggle to if they keep on having to wait in these ridiculously long queue times. Issue 2: Inability to Play in Squads With Other Nations. Several times, my buddies message me and ask to play a match with me, and so I join their squad, we decide on a BR, pick our tanks, only to be greeted by an error that says something along the lines of, "Selected nation cannot play with squad's nations." This is incredibly frustrating because I'd love to play in a squad with multiple people and play out an "allies vs USSR/East Germany" scenario. This is also frustrating because few players play Japanese tanks, so much so that of my almost 100 contacts, none play Japanese tanks. Issue 3: It Gets To Be Extremely Repetitive. Honestly, constantly facing American, British, and sometimes USSR tanks can get to be extremely frustrating. It loses all immersion at tiers 4 - 5 as well, and I'd honestly really just like to mix it up a little with the opponents I come across, and develop new strategies for attacking/defending against said opponents. Historically, it wouldn't be USA + Brits + USSR vs Germany + Japan, it would be USA + Brits + Japan + West Germany(if possible, maybe divide some players on each German team) vs USSR + East Germany. These are my thoughts on this, I'd love to hear what you guys have to say in regards to this. Please specify why you are for or against this, and what reason you have for picking a certain poll option!
  6. 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... Edit2: Map and spotting system example on page 2
  7. EDIT: wow, 30 something replies. my most popular content. So I've seen many complaints about bombers on the forum recently, and have discussed the fine details from the perspective of a bomber pilot and a fighter pilot - survivability, power, and game breakyness. I currently think bombers are balanced, and that they don't have it as easy as people think. But I'm intrigued, and genuinely want to know what you think should be done to bombers in War Thunder. NOTE: I know this is in the AB section, but would also like to hear RB opinions (I play mainly RB).
  8. This is essentially to save our space bars. I know that there has been the addition of the "drop bomb series" button but I am unaware of any intention to add a feature where one could select the exact amount of bombs that would be dropped. In arcade, this isn't and issue, as you get new bombs every half a minute, but in realistic, thanks to the 10 minute return trip and the base bombing chart topic, bombing has become very precise, and this would be a way to enhance it. When you have to spam your space bar, and keep an eye on how many bombs you have, it can be very difficult to ensure that all of your designated bombs reach their target (stock Stirling am I right), so to aid this I propose that there should be a way to select how many bombs you want dropped, say selecting three of your 9 MC.1000 1000lbs bombs on your halifax, or 19 of your 27 250lbs bombs on your Stirling. Essentially, I want to get feedback on if this would be a welcome addition, how it would be implemented (I haven't a clue) and if this has been suggest before, and if so, where, before I make a tit of myself on the moderated suggestions. If this is made into a suggestion, I will credit everyone who helped.
  9. I would like the ability to have larger squads in pve modes such as assault . 6,8 to the entire squad limit needed to fill the assault compliment War thunder could be the best LAN party game of all time if they allowed more friends to play this game with each other. Groups of 6 8 10 should be possible in assault mode, where team play is needed against waves of enemy bombers and because it's against pve nobody feels they got shot down be a OP squad. I often have 10 people at my home for LAN parties and this game gets pushed to the back reluctantly because we cant all play it together. I have been able to hook a few people on your game but larger squads would help me do it faster. If I've posted this incorrectly could you please tell me what I've done wrong. Thank you for your time! A lot of us gamers play games with friends from around the world forming guilds, clans, squadrons across many platforms. Playing games is a way of keeping in touch. I would like the ability to have larger squads starting with game modes such as assualt. Squads of 4,6,8 to a maximum compliment for the mission should be possible. When we play warthunder, if more than four people are on we don't get to play with each other, and have to choose the three to fly with. But what if, say in assualt mode, a mode where team play is needed for completion, we could fill the squadron with friends. Also any of the problems that a larger squad may cause in a PVP enviroment are moot in a PVE enviroment. Steam only has first person shooters that have the ability to have up to 10 on the same team. Warthunder has the potential to become the best game on steam with this tweak and the best LAN game of all time. I personally have many LAN parties at my house with 8-10 people, and we play warthunder till everyone gets here, but have to stop and play a game that everyone can play at the same time. All those people for the last three years have said "if only warthunder had larger squads". Thanks for the opportunity to make a suggestion.
  10. For every tanker, the unlock of a new vehicle comes with a major ''problem'' ; the lack of spare parts and fpe. Without these the player is put to a disadvantage against his opponents cause any damage to the gun breech/barell, transmission and engine means that the tank is combat ineffective, unless it manages to reach a capture point if available. Also if the fuel tanks are hit, a fire may start and the player is doomed to a slow virtual death which cannot avoid. While many suggestions have been made about this issue, i think that this one fits better in the game and wont create any problems at all. So here we go. So i have research the M36 Jackson TD and im currently researching T95. I take a look at T95 modifications. So heres my suggestion. What if you could pre-research 2 modules of the tank you are currently researching by using the previous tank. Of course in order to do that you should have the previous tank with all its upgrades researched. In this case, if i had the M36 fully spaded, i could use the modifications RP earned from battles to actually pre research a module of the next tank in the line, here the T95. For example, i could pre-research the ''parts'' and ''T13'' modifications and actually compete in my first game with the new tank given the fact that i have the ability to repair my tank. An option like this would be really helpful and player-friendly cause it can remove the stock-syndrome of many tanks in the game(M47, M48 etc) and the players would have more fun playing the game. Also by having a premium account, someone would be able to pre-research 4 modules, another + of having a premium account. This can be applied to aircraft as well. So what do you guys think?
  11. Most of this suggestion is geared towards making gameplay with a stock tank less frustrating, especially on Rank IV and V tanks where it can take dozens of battles to get the tank into a "combat ready" status - ie. both Parts and FPE upgrades unlocked. However, I would also like to see the fire and extinguisher mechanics made both more realistic and more fun to use, so I will be addressing that as well. Summary of suggestions - in-depth reasoning below 1. Currently, only Tracks can be repaired on a stock tank. In my opinion, it should be possible to repair a tank to restore limited mobility and fighting ability without having the Parts upgrade kit. This includes Tracks, Transmission, Engine, Breech, and Gun Barrel. Parts upgrade should make these repairs faster, as well as unlocking repairs to Turret Traverse, Turret Elevation, Fuel tanks, and Radiator. 2. There should be two kinds of fires: Engine compartment fires, and fighting compartment fires. These fires should also have varying degrees of severity. 3. Tanks should have automatic engine compartment fire suppression system. FPE upgrade should improve it. Having to manually use the extinguishers for engine compartment fires offers no benefit to gameplay, and atomatic fire suppression system should not occupy the crew, as it would be automatic. There would be a set amount of fire suppressant carried by the tank, and the amount used to put out a fire would depend on severity of fire. So instead of being able to put out two fires (like now) you might be able to put out ten small fires, or you might end up using almost all your fire suppressant on one huge fire with ruptured fuel tanks. 4. Crew should be able to put out fires in fighting compartment with hand-held extinguishers that you could carry up to maximum of one per crew member, but they would take space from ammo racks. Field Repair crew skill should affect the crew's ability to put out fires. Again, severity of fire should determine how much of the fire extinguishers is consumed by putting out a fire. The crew would be occupied by fire-fighting efforts, and unable to perform fighting tasks while putting out a fire (much like how the current FPE works). Full version with argumentation below. 1. General repairs should be possible even as you start playing with a new tank, with no Parts upgrade unlocked. This pertains to basic functions of the tank - mobility, and firing the gun. Mobility means you can return to an occupied cap zone to complete full repairs there, and being able to fire the gun means you can fight back - albeit possibly with suboptimal effectiveness, if you can't properly aim with damaged turret ring or gun elevation mechanisms. Currently, the only component you can repair in a new tank is Tracks. This is unhelpful if your transmission or engine dies, or if your gun barrel or breech gets damaged. I would propose that the list of components that can be fixed in a new tank is expanded to following components: * Tracks * Transmission * Engine * Breech * Gun barrel These would restore a tank to a *minimum* fighting condition, but without parts these repairs would be incomplete, for example making it possible to only use engine up to certain RPM because the radiator is damaged and engine will overheat at high power, or maybe you would lose certain gears from your transmission (which would be a more realistic failure mode than just completely dying when it goes "black" due to damage). This way, you could at least have the chance to return to a cap zone where you could perform more extensive repairs. Unlocking the repair parts would enable repairing the rest of the components, mainly turret traverse and elevation, but also fuel tanks which would be relevant to the improvements I'd like to suggest on fire and extinguisher mechanics, and radiators which could act as an "engine power regulator": With damaged radiator, you would be limited to lower engine RPMs, otherwise the engine would overheat. Fixing the radiator would then restore the repaired engine to full power. Parts upgrade would also improve the speed of all repairs. The crew's field repair skills are fine as they are. 2. Fires and fire extinguisher mechanics Currently, the fires and fire extinguisher mechanics are rather simplistic and unrealistic. Granted, full realism is probably not ideal (although that is certainly debatable) for the type of semi-realistic gameplay that War Thunder currently uses, but regardless some aspects of real tank fires and their suppression could be included. The current system has tanks with no firefighting ability when you get them. This means the moment they catch on fire, you might as well abandon it. While this is actually more or less realistic, it is also very frustrating to play any new tank until you get the FPE upgrade. However, the FPE itself is really simplified and "gamey": You get to put two fires out, and most likely you'll be able to put those two fires out. There are some cases where a fire spreads so quickly it blows up your ammo before the fire extinguisher can work, but if there's enough time, the fire extinguisher will put out a fire - small or big. It makes no difference whether it's a fuel fire, oil fire, or a fire in the crew compartment. And, again, from gameplay perspective it's incredibly frustrating to drive a tank with no way to put out fires, while other (more researched) tanks have that ability. If the tank had a fire suppression system installed, it would have had it from the factory; much like the other upgrade modules, FPE should be an improvement you can unlock - in some cases a significant upgrade, but the vehicle should be able to perform the task of putting out fires from the moment you get it. To fix this, I have two main suggestions. Suggestion 1: Divide fires into two sub-categories - fires in engine compartment, and fires in the fighting compartment. Fires in the engine compartment would include oil fires and fuel fires, much in the similar way as airplanes currently have them. Of course, the characteristics of the fuel fires would depend on whether the tank uses petrol or diesel fuel, but the idea is the same. Primary fires in the crew compartment would be a result of a penetrating shot throwing hot metal fragments somewhere that starts a smouldering fire, which could lead to ammo propellant catching on fire if not extinguished quickly. Secondary fires in the crew compartment would be if a fire spreads there from the engine compartment (like, for example, if the fuel system of the tank leaks all over the place). Suggestion 2: Have different fire extinguishers for the different types of fires. While historically speaking I can't say how many tanks had automatic fire suppression systems for the engine compartment, I think for gameplay reasons it would be best to implement them as equal fire-fighting systems for all tanks in the game. They would automatically detect a fire, and flood the engine compartment with fire suppressant - be it carbon dioxide, foam, or fire suppressant powder, that is really unrelevant to the game. The alternative would be to go down the rabbit hole of figuring out which exact tanks had automatic fire suppression systems and which ones had to rely on crew's extinguishers alone (Panthers I know had automatic extinguishers, while T-34 series tanks didn't, but that's about the extent of my knowledge on the matter). While normally I would strive to achieve the highest degree of realism, for a gameplay element like this it's not necessarily ideal, so I have no problem with tanks having equal "auxiliary" system like that installed. The point is that automatic engine fire suppression system should work independently from the player, and consume no crew resources. If you get an engine fire in combat, currently you have to decide whether to put the fire out or continue fighting before putting out the fire. Putting out the fire somehow stops your crew from doing anything else for a moment, even though there is no way for the crew to get into the engine compartment, and the fire suppression requires no actual work from your crew. There could be an override switch that you can use to manually activate the engine compartment fire suppression system (which could be useful if the fire is not detected quickly enough for your liking by the automatic system), but even that would only take a moment of the Commander's time. Additionally, the automatic extinguishers' fire suppressant should be treated as a resource similar to fuel or ammo - you have some amount in your tank, and you should be able to put out fires as long as you have some. However, the amount consumed would depend on the severity of the fire. If you just have a small oil fire in the engine compartment, it might just take a little spritz of suppressant to put it out before you can repair the damage. On the other hand, if you have a full on inferno fed by several ruptured or punctured fuel tanks, then it might take all your fire suppressant to put out that one file. The unlockable FPE upgrade would *upgrade* the tank's automatic fire suppression system: Better nozzles to use the suppressant more efficiently, better sensors to detect fires quicker and put them out before they spread, and maybe even a larger reservoir of fire suppressant. The specifics are irrelevant, the idea is that an upgrade of this kind should improve on the tank, rather than add a completely new ability. Fire suppression systems were not field upgrades. Fires in the fighting compartment, on the other hand, would be more similar to the current fire prevention equipment. The main difference is that they would use consumable hand extinguishers, and of course a fire in the fighting compartment would require the crew to stop doing combat tasks and focus on putting the fire out before the turret explodes. To this end, I propose that you could carry a maximum load of one hand extinguisher per crew member. You could choose to carry less; the maximum amount of fire extinguishers would use some space in the tank, reducing the maximum load of ammo you can carry. And, again, it shouldn't be a simplified system like "one extinguisher puts out one fire". It doesn't work like that in reality and shouldn't work like that in the game. A small fire could be extinguished without even consuming one full extinguisher, but if there's fuel leaking into the fighting compartment and it catches on fire it might require all of the crew's fire extinguishers at once to put it out. So, fires in crew compartment should also have a variable scale of severity. Also, the crew should be able to fight fires even in a new tank. Instead of a tank module determining whether they can carry extinguishers, I would like to see their fire-fighting ability determined by their crew skills. Field repair skill would be a good skill to link to their fire-fighting abilities. Better trained crew would be able to spray the extinguishers more accurately. Other comments/observations/opinions offered free of charge: * Transmission fires are a bit of an anomaly. I don't think they should exist in the first place (what's there to catch on fire?), but if they must exist in the game, then they should be treated based on whether the transmission is in the crew compartment or in the engine compartment. If the transmission is under the engine compartment or at the back of the tank, it should be handled by the automatic fire suppression system. If the transmission is at the front of the tank and accessible from the fighting compartment, then the crew's hand extinguishers would have to deal with it. * This also seems like a great chance to implement the possibility of running out of fuel if your main fuel tanks are pierced or ruptured. Of course tanks wouldn't normally run out of fuel in a single game, but losing all your fuel tanks should do it. That kind of damage would then first require repairing the fuel system enough that you can use the jerry tanks to have a re-fill. This could also add a practical quality to the jerry tank decoration... * On the conceptual basis, I can understand that a free-to-play game needs to give some incentive to spend money, and I suppose buying upgrades with gold is one such way. However, I would argue that the length of the grind to get repair parts and FPE in Rank IV and especially Rank V tanks is probably not working as an incentive to spend money, rather it's working as a deterrent from playing the game. That means, the amount of people who decide to shell out cash for the upgrades is probably smaller than the amount of people who decide to just not bother upgrading a new tank, since it takes so damn long to get even the bare necessities to get the tank into "combat ready" condition compared to other tanks. * I personally have certainly had times where I've avoided using new tanks simply because I don't feel like dealing with the horrific stock grind. I believe that is hurting the game by driving players away from the high tiers, and limiting the variety of vehicles people can use. Planes have similar issues, but to slightly lesser extent as the only new things they acquire from grind is new payload options. Assuming that is a common response that people have, that means the stock grind is actually reducing the amount of players on Rank IV and Rank V battles. And that is probably hurting the game much more than the lack of paying customers is. After all, the best way to increase the amount of paying customers is to increase the total number of players. In a given demographic of players, there's more or less a fixed percentage of people willing to use money for a free-to-play game. Without changing the target demographics, the only real way to increase that percentage is by driving away non-paying customers, and some games do this by simply making the game too frustrating to play without paying. War Thunder isn't quite like that in most respects, but the tank stock grind is sort of close to that idea. The problem with that is that while a higher percentage of paying customers looks great on stats, it doesn't necessarily mean a bigger cash flow... that you can only secure by increasing the total number of players, and to that end, using frustration as an incentive to pay for premium is a bad idea. I think. This last paragraph is more of a personal observation/opinion. * As far as realism goes, I mentioned that in reality some tanks didn't have engine compartment extinguishers, but I feel as though implementing this difference would be maybe a bit too hard-core for a game like War Thunder. As long as it's possible to repair an engine with a 75 mm hole through the block in 45 seconds, I don't really think it's relevant to argue whether tanks should or shouldn't have automatic fire extinguishers. So while it could be interesting to have only a few tanks with automatic fire extinguishers installed, it's probably not worth the effort of trying to research which tanks had this feature for certain and which ones did not. EDIT: Stuff about historicity of fire extinguishers and how it applies to War Thunder (or rather, doesn't).
  12. Hi all, today i want to expose you a suggestion about a new game mechanic that could create a more dynamic gameplay Randomic fires caused by plane crashes As we all can see, when an aircraft crashes into the ground the 99% of times it brusts into flames and create a little fire all around the crash zone and everything ends there, just graphic stuff Now: What if that little fire could ignite an even bigger fire, if the conditions allows it (example: enough trees and bushes around the zone), and this fire could interact with tanks by damaging them, set them on fire or even destroying them? I know that a simple external fire wouldn't deal a lot of damage to most of the tanks but what about small unarmored tanks? Stuff like light tanks, open top tank destroyers, most of the anti air vehicles we have in game would suffer a lot about this, trucks wouldn't be able to move through a flaming forest, open top tanks and tanks destroyers would have an hard time keeping all the crewmembers alive but even bigger tanks could have a verry small chanche to be set on fire maybe through the engine ventilation ports This would also give us a small possibility to see incendiary tanks in game such as the Churchill Crocodile, Flammpanzer I etc. (but this is not the point of my suggestion) Implementing this would mean that in some maps there would be some zones unreachable for a variable amount of time and force the players to take other routes or risk the tank by going through the fire creating a more dynamic approach to the map It could also be added a new symbol that shows the state of your tank while being inside the fire (see pics) same as when you're drowing there will be a round counter showing how much time you can stay there before your tank starts to get damage and this counter would be also dynamic depending by the type of tank are you using Examples: -Trucks would have a verry short counter maybe 5-10 seconds and an heavy possibility to catch fire and get destroyed -Open top tanks and TDs could have maybe 20-30 seconds and an high-to-medium possibility to catch fire and even get destroyed or crew forced to leave the tank due to the high heat -Light tanks 30-60 seconds and a medium-to-low possibility to catch fire and even get destroyed or crew forced to leave the tank due to the high heat -Medium and Heavy tanks could even not have this counter since most of them are too much armoured and could resist a lot inside a fire but still have a low chanche to catch fire On a side note: This kind of mechanic in game could be a bit too heavy for low specs PCs and needs a lot of optimization if implemented in game Let me know what you think about it guys!
  13. Suggestion for planes and tanks :3   We have been told in the past (I believe there are still posts of Senio around in recent threads) that the devs would love to reduce the BR spread further but sadly cant do that because the overall population of players isnt big enough to allow this without significant wait time increases.   Thus i want to suggest a scaling method that upscales the BR spread based on the time a user has waited in queue allready.   That means, the sprad would start out at 0.7 (the smallest number that doesnt screw the BR steps). If a user was X minutes in queue now, for example 3 minutes, the system would adjust the allowed spread upwards, to 1.0, allwoing for a wider number of matches and enemies. If a game still isnt found in the next ~3 minutes, the spread gets set to the max spread of 1.3 up or down, so that the queue time doesnt become unbearable.   It would be possible to allow the users themselves to set the steps at which the BR spread would increase, but especially new players might not understand it, so i think set time stamps of wait time brackets by the devs would be the better option.   The advantage would obviously be more balanced matches overall, especially on the peak times, while still allowing for reasonable wait times when few players are online. This could also be bound to player numbers, meaning if only 20k people are online, the spread allready starts at 1.0, and goes to the max of 1.3 after 3 minutes allready.   Discuss? :3
  14. 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
  15. Recently I had been driving a lot of rocket tanks such as the calliope. Aiming with rocket vehicles at distance currently gives zero feedback unless an enemy is actually struck with a rocket or shrapnel from the blast (close miss). In game with airplanes there is the known feature of the "track bomb/rocket" camera that players in the air can activate with the "U" button to watch thier bomb drop to the ground or watch a rocket on its trajectory as it flies through the air. I propose that all indirect fire weapons on the ground be able to utilize this camera function in order to assist with getting thier fire in the "ballpark" so to speak. This would allow someone using one of these weapons to fire a single rocket, note where it landed, and to make firing adjustments. I do not believe this would make these vehicles any deadlier as rocket/indirect fire in game is has well modeled dispersion mechanics and other effects that would not allow this feature to be used for instance at a moving target or a target (arcade for example) that is not spotted. However, implementing such a feature(bomb follow camera) into these types of vehicles would not only benefit the players by being able to provide longer range support to thier teammates, through area fire, but also by denying areas of advance by being able to tune in the map area for non target barrage (area denial). Another provided side effect is that it could pave the way for player controlled self propelled artilley that would be as indirect as the current "call for artillery" is as well as the current state of rocket barrage mechanics. So too could be said for large caliber main guns and weapons on war ships (cruiser battleship,etc) to be made to fight at realistic distances without being overpowered compared to even a patrol boat. Having the current aim system be line of sight only forces these vehicles to operate unnaturally and un realistically in both the proximity a person need to get (close) to use the weapon with any effectiveness, as well as the immersion of using a vehicle for its designed purpose. Thanks for listening and I welcome discussion on the pro/cons anyone would have.
  16. 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
  17. gameplay

    Hello, i would like to suggest commanders copla's for tank sb to make the game mode more immerse and realistic. i tried to collect pictures from inside the commander's copla's, but couldn't find anything (sadly). i did found pictures of outside the cupola. i made a video of the vision ports in-game of the sheridan (it has windows (!) standart in-game. this is the only tank (as far as i am aware) that has actual windows in them. (as of right now the video is BEEING uploaded, if it still isn't done, hang tight :P ). (sorry for the heavy dutch accent, apperently my mic makes it worse than it is xD) most of the cupola's require little editing as they are the same. list of US tanks with the same cuploa's with multiple vision slits/ports (why us tanks? answer: because i got most tanks of usa compared with other nations) cupola nmbr 1 (not sure abouth historical name:) m4a1 (76), m4a2 (76), m4a3 (76), m4a3e2 (75), m4a3e2 (76), m26, t26e1, m46, t34, t32, m103, t95, cobra king, m26 t99, t28, t26e1, t29, m46 tiger. t92 (heavily modified nmbr 1 copla) cupola nmbr 2: m47, m41a1(slightly modified) cupola nmbr 3: m60, m48 (modified), m60a1, cupola nmbr 4: m551, as you can see most cupola's are the same. this is the same case with the other nations. warthunder: what abouth interiour of tanks? we have to model those! me: don't worrie abouth that. they are already in-game in a low resolution version, and you guys added low-res bomber cockpits, so why not have low-res interiours (these are already in-game and require no to little change). the only thing you guys need to add is movable hatches and actual ''windows''. warthunder: what abouth copla's without multiple vision ports? me: well yeh.. eh... you see.. eh... i have thought abouth that, and eh.... it seems like those tanks would need to use their 1 or 2 vision ports. these could rotate (and british ones could elevate), but i haven't really thought this out yet myself. luckly you guys are a big team with many open-minded people (i hope) and so you guys can think of something or brainstorm with me. pictures of cupola's (as i already said i could not find any pictures of inside the cupola's or the commander seat). sherman (desighn 1) m60 (desighn 3) m48 patton 3 (modified desighn 3) ooh look, looks like i found one after all. the enteriour would be low-resolution, but the view ports would all be in there and a panzer 4G commander's cupola Goloso/Panzer IV/DSC05711.jpg.html (also this website has a nice album of interiour panzer 4g pics :3 i hope you guys will consider this final question from the mods (i assume this is something that they will ask:) mods: what will this add? me: gameplay wise, not much, but it would add realism and immersion for normal players, and players that use a VR-headset. greetings, Sven
  18. This kind of sight in game can be very powerful in the right hands. The only problem is that the version offered in-game is not real nor accurate: its main problem is the fact that it's fixed (and by the mistakes it can lead to, due to its un-accurate system can make sighting and shooting very difficult) SO I want to suggest 2 kind things: one "short" solution and one "good" solution Short Solution: make the lead removable with a key, so that if you prefer you can turn it off to avoid "disturbing" movements on the HUD Good Solution: make the sight historically correct adding a set of keys to adjust it The main problem is that this kind of sight needs to be adjusted to the wingspan/distance of the enemy target This is the long explanation, for the TL;DR the current sight is WRONG! and if you use it most of the time you'll miss at shooting
  19. Gameplay

    Currently in War Thunder all sounds are heard instantly as whatever causes them happens in the game regardless of distance. When something happens 2km away, you instantly hear the sound of it happening as if it happened right next to you, just with a lower volume. Be it exploding bombs, someone getting hit by a tank shell or whatever. This means that the speed of sound is not implemented in a realistic manner and it ruins the immersion if you pay any attention to the sounds.   Currently in the game, the speed of sound is exactly the same as the speed of light. The speed of sound is approximately 343,2 m/s and it should not be confused with the speed of light which is 299 792 458 m/s.   Example audio files of firing the 105mm K.18 cannon with Pzgr.rot (822 m/s) at a target from 0.51km distance.   Math bits (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong): Distance: 510m Speed of projectile: 822 m/s Speed of sound: 343,2m/s   Time for shell to travel the distance: 510 m / 822 m/s = ~0,62s Time for sound of hit to travel back to shooter: 510m / 343,2 m/s = ~1,49s Total time after shot taken for the hit to take place and the sound to travel back at the shooter: ~2,11 seconds   As you can hopefully hear from the attached audio clips, the sound is currently instant when the target is hit and destroyed. In reality there should be a delay because sound travels really slowly.   EDIT: Video of the suggestion:
  20. 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 ?
  21. Hello everybody this is just a poll that I made to hopefully gather the spread out opinions in this forum and centralize what the community feels about Ground Battles in this game. I'm also gunna voice my opinion on each of these polling questions so people can better understand the perspective I'm coming from. If you disagree with what I argue or find that the poll is missing important questions, feel free to comment and voice your opinion. 1) I believe AI ground vehicles have no place in Arcade/Realistic/Simulator battles. They detract from the game itself, since they are A) unable to actually damage the player B) Reveal the position of players in Realistic C) Confuse players into thinking they might be real enemy vehicles. AI vehicles just don't really make any sense in this game, they are just this weird side show. They don't really match up with the era of vehicles in the game regardless or the nations the team is playing with. However, they still reward points for kill streaks which seems cheap and unfair. They offer no benefits, and they make the game less serious and competitive. Off with them I say. 2 & 3) Air Vehicles in Arcade Ground Battles play a very weird role. In a way, the system works a lot like Call of Duty, where after a certain amount of kills, the players gets an "Attacker" or "Bomber" kill streak. It is War Thunder's way to fill the void of the niche for SPAA vehicles in War Thunder. However, the game play produced is unfair and unrealistic. Tanks have no way to defend themselves from planes, so it is completely out of their hands to survive, making the game unrewarding. The players using planes always kamikaze, since they only get the plane for 30-45 seconds, making the game seem ridiculous. The planes are not in any way attached to the player's tank nation, so they seem completely abstract. Every times a player enters a plane, a tank is left inactive in the battlefield, slowing down gameplay. Not to mention that most players who get in fighters to defend their bomber or attacker merely ignore their roles and just try to slam into lightly armored vehicles, since War Thunder has added back the ability to destroy vehicles by ramming for some odd reason. My solution to this problem would be to implements planes somewhat like the artillery system, where you would call in an airstrike on a certain location, and some AI attackers or bombers would fly into the map, with the opportunity to be shot down still by SPAA, drop their bombs or rockets, and fly out without being kamikazes. This keeps players focused on tank warfare in battle and still keeps SPAA vehicles relevant and perhaps even more vital. It also allows the ground vehicles to avoid being destroyed by moving out of the area before they are bombed. The airstrike ability could be more costly than the artillery ability, and players would have to choose between calling in artillery or saving up to get an airstrike later on. 4) This is a very interesting question to me. Playing both arcade and realistic ground battles, I'm well aware of the drastic differences in the two game modes. Arcade vehicles are much faster, can rotate their turrets much quicker, and have extra aim assist through boosted turret elevation controls and artificial rangefinders. Personally I find it somewhat fishy how slow vehicles are in Realistic, and overall I think it negatively impacts the game as a Medium Tanks move just about as fast as Heavy Tanks. In Arcade, faster vehicles are much more rewarded, but I don't really enjoy artificial solutions, I don't want this game to become WoT. What I would like to see happen is War Thunder perhaps revising how horsepower and torque is directly connected to tank movement speed in game, as speed is actually a peculiar thing to program into a game, as the unit's of measurement are based on hard to virtually produce values, like weight, acceleration, and units of distance. If War Thunder revises the speeds of vehicles I would like to see this change across the board in both Arcade and Realistic. As for Turret Rotation speeds, this is actually much easier to calculate and I believe these values need to be realistic. So turret rotation speeds from Realistic should be implemented in Arcade. This rewards flanking and lighter tanks, since they can get the jump on unsuspecting enemy vehicles and those tanks won't be able to respond as quickly. And for the aim assist and rangefinders in Arcade, I believe they need to be removed. It makes the game to point and clicky, it is more exciting to shoot at an enemy and guess their weak spots. Removing that Red/Green cross marker from the sights will add to the survivability of vehicles across the board, increasing the amount of bounced shots and increasing the skill gap. 6) Does the artillery system need to change? (Circling back to question 3/4) Yes. I think that artillery spam is annoying and unnecessary. Having the ability to call up to 3 artillery strikes at once at any location in the map desired then multiplying that by 32 players on one map, it makes the game feel like it was directed by Michael Bay. Let's just tone down the artillery. Make it harder to obtain, but still connect it to skill and not just on a timer like realistic. Remove the ability to call it anywhere on a map and bring it back to when you could only call artillery on enemies in your visibility range. Add a cool down preventing players from spamming it. Then, you can make artillery more powerful and realistic, making enemy tanks take it more seriously when an artillery strike is called on their position. I know War Thunder put artillery in the game to combat camping, but the current system makes artillery so useless that any moderately armored tank camping could care less. 7) Come on. Come on. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. I don't think there will be very many people in the community arguing against me on this. We have been asking to raise the BR in ground forces ever since tanks like the Leopard 1 and M60 came out. War Thunder said it was waiting for more modern tanks to get in game, and now, after ATGMS, super modern SPAA vehicles and many many MBT vehicles all loaded with 400 mm penetrating HEAT-FS ammunition, I think it's about time we raised the BR to least to 9.0. Let's give our WW2 tank buddies some breathing room. The 6.7 BR has been bombarded with modern invaders, and it's clearly producing unfair gameplay (I'm looking at you RU-251 and IS-6). The only reason I think War Thunder hasn't changed this yet is because in their minds, they don't wanna "fix something that ain't broken". But it kinda is... there are clearly some tanks that you have to avoid in this game, and it's all because BR compression. Moving the max BR to 9.0 is a very popular move for War Thunder, so they should cash in on it. 8) Another difficult question, but a good one. If any of you were here for when War Thunder ground battles were first release, there was a very interesting mechanic. First, you were only limited to how many lives you had in battle to how many tanks you could equip in your inventory. Second, medium tanks would give you two lives, while heavy tanks would only give you one chance, just like now. I actually found this system quite balanced, as War Thunder developers foresaw a spam of heavy vehicles in their game, so they wanted to give more advantages to lighter ones. But for some reason, they took this system out, or, they monetized it, so now you must purchase a spare vehicle. I think the old system worked great and we need it more than ever actually. Heavy tanks, especially at later tiers, receive tons of spam. At some tiers this produced terrible gameplay, like USA vs Germany at tier 3, where each game plays out with a horde of M18 Hellcats running around the map as a horde of superior Tiger 1's just smash them like bugs. Bring back the old system, or, implement ground forces like Air Arcade battles, where players can downgrade their overall tier by bringing in a vehicle with a lower BR. And if you look at the rule's for downtiering, they are very specific. You can only go from 5.7 --> 5.3 for example, and only if you have one 5.7 vehicle, then a 5.3, or a 5.0 or lower vehicle. 9) This is a pretty big aspect of this game, at least for Arcade Battles, and it need to be changed. Almost every single new map release focuses heavily on close-quarters style city battles. And my question is, why? Why are we forced to play in such close proximity when most tanks were meant to face their enemy from hundreds of meters away? It's ok to have some city maps, like Berlin, where the whole map is in a city, but other maps seems needlessly constricted in. Why would War Thunder code dozen's of square miles of map, only for the whole battle just to occur in one portion of this? There should be room in the game for all play styles, not just one. This is the reason why so many people claim "Russian Bias" when in reality it is just a fact. Russian vehicles are just better at close-quarters combat. I'm not saying each map needs to be a giant open field like Kursk, just try to open up the maps you already made so gameplay is more varied. Idk why the polling goes from question 4 to 6 so I just re-labelled my explanations.
  22. Nie jestem do końca pewny, czy taki temat mogę założyć (najwyżej mod usunie), ale jakie kawałki polecacie do latania lub przy których gra wam się najlepiej?   Ja od siebie dodam:
  23. Equip flying boat/seaplane with tow rope. This suggestion is to equip seaplanes & flying boats with a tow rope, (like that for ground forces) giving them the ability to be towed by ships, boats and even other seaplanes. The roots for this suggestion are from history. Here are two examples. A damaged Sunderland flying boat put down in the Atlantic Ocean off the East African coast and was towed by HMS Auricula back to port in Freetown. A distance of about 350 miles, It took 74-hours in a heavy swell and violent electrical storm. They made it back safely. Sunderland's were maneuvered in harbour by fast boats commonly known as dinghy's (Pictured). With changing tides flying boats when moored to a buoy, weren't always facing the same direction they were left in. It would have been a lot quicker and cheaper to get a fast boat to tow her into position and also to lead them out to the take off area, as well as towing them back into port. Hopefully this small, but important detail will give a little more historic realism and allow teamwork between players, maybe awarding players points (but this should be a separate suggestion I know). It may also give the developers options for creating repair areas for both boats and flying boats in harbours. The tow rope like in ground forces might only be used in an emergency situation, but when it does it will be worth its weight in gold. I believe this is a worthy suggestion and hope it will be implemented in the near future. Many thanks Max
  24. 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.
  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.