Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

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)
  • 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


  • Community Calendar

Found 6 results

  1. I made a suggestion a few days ago, which was summarily deleted The best posts I make are deleted or censored. But I think I can touch on this delicate subject here in the simulation session WT needs to give more freedom to its players The fact that the game is centralized is good in many aspects. On one hand this is good and simplifies things. On the other hand, it can be considered a disadvantage, especially in the simulation mode The simulation battles have: Limited Maps, limited simulation difficulty, absence of historical battles. People who want a totally no-icon simulation are forced to play Tank SB. People who want historical battles are ignored. This excludes people who really like simulation And... I suggested that users create fully customized rooms. But!!!!! I believe this goes against the ideology of the game of centralizing everything and making everyone play the same mode of battle (And play to make search points, eventually with premium account). This is a problem because the player is so limited, has limited battle options, simulator levels and no historical battles So... making the second suggestion, on second thought... it is almost impossible for it to be approved. It does not seem intere$ting to the game to give this freedom to its players. In addition, many forum users would be against. Many members vote against extra modes or extra vehicles, people want in a way for everyone and this obviously is not democratic Anyway I posted my suggestion again. Here is how it was sent
  2. "Add on" armor for the Tiger 1H

    TIGER 1H "ADD ON" ARMOR SUGGESTION The Tiger 1H; a heavy german tank, beloved by many players in War Thunder. Since the announcement of "add on" armor, many tanks have recived the modification to install the additional tracks on their tanks, giving them some "extra" mm of armor on their tank. However not all tanks have recived that modifiacation. The upper and lower glacis plate of the Tiger 1H is 102 mm thick ( not counting the effective thickness of the lower glacis plate ). This on paper is alot of armor, however in game its an huge weak spot. Many tanks in 5.7 BR can easily penetrate that armor ( T25, M36 GMC, T-34-85 etc... ), making the Tigers front plates useless. But during WW2, Tiger tank crews actually had the additional tracks placed in front of the upper and lower glacis of the tank and there are pictures to prove it: ( Additional track on the left side of the tank ) In game the Tiger 1 tracks are 30mm thick. Adding those 30mm tracks on the upper and lower glacis plate will significally increase the overall armor of the tank; Upper glacis : 102 + 30 = 132mm Lower glacis: 102 + 30 + ( 24 ° slope angle ) = "150mm - if faced directly front" Even with the increased armor, it wont be effective againts all enemy tank shells ( APCR, APDS... ) and high caliber tank guns ( 122mm, 152mm... ), but it will be effective againts shells like the AP, APHE... fired from smaller to medium caliber tank guns ( M4A3 (76) W, Jumbo Sherman (76) W, M-18 GMC, T-34-85 ( D5-T ), IS-1 etc... ). The position where the additional tracks would be placed / upper and lower glacis plate ( pic made by Me with photoshop / Live: ) In my opinion, it would be a great addition to the tank, not only to the Tiger 1H but for the Tiger 1E asweel ( the upper front plate ). Please support this suggestion, if you agree !
  3. Wouldn't it be less frustrating for players if they had a motive to stay in battle after they get killed? Like a constant ressuply of spawn points that could be spent later to come back to the fray? This question has struck me for a long time, since I've been in a lot of similar situations where i wouldn't be able to come back into battle for a mere few points (for example, once i required around 600 SP to spawn with my lowest vehicle but had only 597 SP).
  4. Hi HI. Above shown is the settings for Toggle Controls, I currently use this on occasion when performing some not-very-healthy maneuvers, it can be fun and useful at times, such as turning at a high speed while holding your speed or letting your plane stall out more naturally. (My experience is based on the 262 series). My problem with the current situation is that when I want to Toggle between the modes, it cycles through All Four of them, I intend only to Toggle between "Mouse aim" and "Realistic controls", but the other two just get in the way. So I was wondering if we could see something such as a setting implemented below 'Toggle Control' mode taking up the 5th slot under "Controls Mode" to refine this option to be selective of which control modes you only intend on using, maybe a menu with 4 Check Boxes? Something more practical because at the moment, you have to Double Click the toggle key every time you wish to go from Mouse to Realistic mode. If you wanna see exactly what I'm talking about check here, Thankssss! Sorry, I also posted this to a previous thread section yesterday(in the wrong discussion section). I haven't been on the forums in over a year or something, but I think this feature should be added for the sake of practicality. (I know it may look silly, but it is very fun and you can possibly kill someone in a forced flatspin with it, which I almost did in a custom battle with my squadron mates last night.)
  5. Salut! The topic of a new B-17, whether it being added or a replacement for an already in-game variant, is a very touchy subject. Some believe a new variant is a welcome sight, some believe that it doesn't need to be in game at all, and some just could care less. For me, I can see a certain model of the B-17 working well in game as not only a perfect replacement for the B-17E/L, but as an important piece of the game's battles! To start off, a little bit on the B-17F. It was built, obviously, as an upgrade to the former B-17E. It was also the first Boeing B-17 built by anyone other than Boeing themselves, by names like Lockheed (Vega) and Douglas. Things added such as stronger undercarriage, which gave the B-17F a larger carrying capacity from 4,200 lbs (1900kg) to 8,000 lbs (3,600kg), "Tokyo Tanks" in the wings giving it a much larger range, which consisted of nine self-sealing rubber-composition tanks mounted inside each wing on each side of the joint between the inner and outer wing sections, a longer bombardier nose-glass section, seen on the later model the B-17G, as apposed to the former B-17B styled ten panel. The B-17F also boasts an improved armament as well as the option of mounting external racks. On to my suggestion. To why I think the B-17F would be a perfect replacement to the B-17E/L, the latter is just a variant mounted with a ball gunner in the belly. The B-17F is an actual improvement, albeit with some of the modifications it reduced speed significantly, but it was at the advantage of the larger bomb load. In short, the B-17E/L is just not needed. Something like the B-17F, in my eyes, is not only a great replacement but also a wonderful aircraft to add into the already amazing inventory of historical bomber aircraft in War Thunder. A little more info on the development of the nose guns of the B-17 can be found here, and the armament here. I will include a few photos to help show some of the difference between the E and F models. The nose is a big difference to tell what is a B-17E and what is a B-17F. to start, the B-17E: You can see the ten panel styled nose glass of the B-17E. Here is the nose of the B-17E from the outside, you can see the different positions fore the mounting of a machine gun as well as the shorter, flatter appearance of the glass overall. Now for the B-17F's nose. Right away you will notice some differences int he form of the lengthened, one piece glass. You can see the glass is all one piece as apposed to the former ten panel as well as much larger windows in the bombardier's position. and the left side of the aircraft. Here are the aircraft side-by-side showing the differences in better view. Some models of the B-17F even had similar parts of the nose seen on the B-17G model. Things on the B-17F that are a welcome improvement include the mounting of external bomb racks, placed between the wing-root and number's 2 and 3 motors. I can see these being very useful at 5.7, the B-17E/L's current BR. Here you can see a full-view of the B-17E, which you can see has a belly turret mounted. and a top view. Here is a formation of B-17Fs, showing some subtle but noticeable differences in design. Differences in the aircraft aren't just on the outside, also. Like mentioned earlier, the B-17F was fitted with "Tokyo tanks", giving it a much larger fuel capacity and they're self sealing tanks to boot! Info on Tokyo Tanks can be found here. The schematic of the "Tokyo tank" system on the B-17F. In conclusion, the B-17F I feel would be a welcomed introduction into the game, and a perfect replacement to the E/L. Where as the E/L is a version of the E that mounts only a ball turret, the F is an entirely new variant with much better changes in design and combat capability. I'm hopeful that others can agree with the B-17F making her long overdue appearance in the skies! Happy flying! ~Keebird
  6. Honestly for some reason the Arado is not in the Sim event but the easier to play and superior in every aspect il28 is in it. With its gunner it is nigh impossible to kill without either a hunter or a dedicated AAA. Even with other 9.0s like the Cl13 and f2 the third person gunner makes it so easy to kill other planes. Thoughts?