Jump to content

Historical accuracy or balance? (POLL)


Historical accuracy or unhistorical balance?  

108 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you prefer historical accuracy or unhistorical balance for the content of the game?

    • I prefer if the game would be as historically accurate as possible, even down to mach-making were only period correct vehicles can face each other for maximum immersion.
    • I prefer historical accuracy for the immersion but can understand if some liberties are taken to make the game function better.
    • I prefer a mix of historical accuracy and unhistorical balance.
    • I like historical accuracy but prefer unhistorical alterations to make the game balanced.
    • I don't care for historical accuracy and prefer if all stats and features are altered for maximum balance.


So as the title says. Do you prefer historical accuracy or unhistorical balance for the content of the game? A simple poll to understand the community.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion Vehicles should be as historically accurate as possible when they are working in ideal conditions but they should be matched against vehicles they would be balanced against so if that means some awkward match ups (Tiger 2 vs Cent 3s for example) then so be it. I'm also in favour of Axis vs allies & NATO vs Warsaw pact wherever possible for the added """immersion""" it brings.

Edited by the_suztown
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me, historical accuracy plays a key part. but i do want tanks to fire the shells they actually fired, planes to get the bullets and missiles they used. helis to get their loadout they had/have. with considerations to limetations of other nations at the time of playing. in due time a veichle can get more and more of their actual loadout if the opposing nations can have a counter. 

some nations are always gonna be top dog. what we can best do is bring stuff as close to the top dog as possible. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many way that historical opponents that are "unbalanced" can be balanced - saying that it's too hard to achieve is just laziness - I've been playing games where Tiger 1's faced Shermans...  and stood a coin flip chance of losing - since the early 1970's.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historical performance. Unhistorical match making.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mix of both. I like historical accuracy with vehicles and scenarios, but won't say "no" to something like an interesting prototype or the sacrifices made for the sake of balance.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want both but the current system doesn't allow for that.

Vehicles are given BRs which is suppose to indicate: Higher BR -> Better vehicle.

But that only works in the context of what the vehicle is going to fight and some vehicles simply don't have a place in the game.

 

The game also has some issues with the gameplay that prevent both realistic and balanced performance.

 

Issues:

  1. It's only important how well a vehicle can deal with tanks and not infantry or other light targets -> In reality thats much more important than the pure AT capabilities
  2. Damaged from certain shell types (mainly APHE) is completely game breaking while other shells like APCR/APDS are often inadequate despite their high penetration.
  3. Maps are completely unbalanced, often favoring either close range or long range vehicles.
  4. All vehicles perform with 100% efficency, punishing well designed vehicles that have features that would give them an advantage over vehicles without them.
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure this poll will do much though because I am sure it could be said "forum doesn't represent game population", which I do believe to be true. My thought is that on the forum you will actually find people more skewed to the direction of answers 1, 2, 3, same as me.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

I want both but the current system doesn't allow for that.

Vehicles are given BRs which is suppose to indicate: Higher BR -> Better vehicle.

But that only works in the context of what the vehicle is going to fight and some vehicles simply don't have a place in the game.

 

The game also has some issues with the gameplay that prevent both realistic and balanced performance.

 

Issues:

  1. It's only important how well a vehicle can deal with tanks and not infantry or other light targets -> In reality thats much more important than the pure AT capabilities
  2. Damaged from certain shell types (mainly APHE) is completely game breaking while other shells like APCR/APDS are often inadequate despite their high penetration.
  3. Maps are completely unbalanced, often favoring either close range or long range vehicles.
  4. All vehicles perform with 100% efficency, punishing well designed vehicles that have features that would give them an advantage over vehicles without them.

a part of bigger picture.

 

honestly high historical accuracy with proper BR system along fixing everlasting Map issue it would pretty much balance itself.

still few things

1.  Spawn system: lineups in itself create quite mess, MM just can't keep up with amount of variables (in case of WoT with 1 spawn per battle were MM have specific weight's for tier's and classes, along with invidual weight's for specific vehilces is having problems, don't even thing about WT MM)

somewhat preffered older RB/HB spawn system were ligher vehilces (MT/LT/Light TD) had two spawn while heavier vehilces (HT and TD) had one spawn, but in general vehilces that got two spawn's had higher BR than ones with single spawn, allowing heavy tanks to have higher power at BR at cost of bigger risk.

 

2.  Quantitive MM: it's even working? guy with single stock high tier BR vehilce isn't equal to guy with full spaded line up (part of issue with lineups).

it could borrow again from old mechanic of 0.3BR reduction when you have only single top br vehilce in lineup and just only one 0.3br lower, either to directly lower br by 0.3 or bypass Quantitve MM

 

3  Rank MM restrictions: orginally only vehilces within range of 1 Rank (-1 /0/ +1), that's could be very useful with vehilces that's have troublesome uptier's/downtier's or more modern tank's that's didn't had suffien't performance for high BR

for example in old times Tiger E (6.0br rank 3) coudn't face M46 (7.0br rank 5, with exception of Premium with was rank 4...)

 

  • Like 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tricky one. Ive read so many times on the forums and on reddit that some vehicles are this or that overtiered/undertiered, often regarding 109s. At 3.0 Yak 1b faces 109 E4s (there are probably multiple examples like this) and i am pretty sure 1b got introduced 43 facing 109s from 1940. Like i wrote earlier, this is not the only example but some nations just need an extra boost i guess. Historical would be 109 G4-G6s against Yak 1bs, La 5s and people are complaining about the 109 over performing as it is atm so i wonder how much they would complain if it was historical. Then again, how are you going to balance the factors of the German team consisting of lets say 10 109s vs 100s of Yaks and La5s. Because that would probably also be historical.

 

Tanks then, same problematic situation there.. Tigers and Panthers vs a majority of early t34s except it being 10 vs 100 or 1000 of them...

 

I do want as much historicity as possible and i did enjoy the last Air RB EC with historical lineups a lot! It was a lot of fun playing both teams although obviously it was hard being in a Yak 1b facing G6s everywhere. If they can create and develop EC further though i dont think it would be a problem being historical. IL2 is historical and that game works very well, all aircrafts and tanks have their pros and cons. The major problem i see with historical battles is the number-aspect.. 100s of tempest vs some G6s and maybe one or two me 262..

 

A bit of a confused message here for you but i guess it comes down too this: I want it as historical as possible and ofc it needs to be worked on a lot and balanced in some way for it too be fun for all. I do think that the last EC RB worked really well and was a lots of fun and could be a possibility when it comes too future historical aspects of the game.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gemanuel1 said:

Then again, how are you going to balance the factors of the German team consisting of lets say 10 109s vs 100s of Yaks and La5s. Because that would probably also be historical.

 

Tanks then, same problematic situation there.. Tigers and Panthers vs a majority of early t34s except it being 10 vs 100 or 1000 of them...


there are a number of methods of achieving balance in scenarios like these where absolute numbers are not actually appropriate - eg there were not hundreds of VVS a/c fighting every LW a/c in 1943.

 

Obvious ones off the top of my head:

  • limiting number of respawns available
  • limiting number of the superior type available (so other types have to be used once they are used up)
  • Increasing waiting time between respawns
  • defining missions - eg VVS perhaps more likely to be escorting bombers/sturmoviks and mission success is defined by them
  • Limiting crew stats - eg respawns might have lower stats than the original
  • limiting availability of types based upon "reliability"

 

and so on - I'm sure you (or someone) can easily come up with reasons why these won't work - it is easy to do so and requires little imagination - it is the implementation of interesting a subtle balances that requires some imagination and a bit of work - not the negation of them!

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Josephs_Piano said:

and so on - I'm sure you (or someone) can easily come up with reasons why these won't work - it is easy to do so and requires little imagination - it is the implementation of interesting a subtle balances that requires some imagination and a bit of work - not the negation of them!

Hm, don't really understand where that came from or was about but alright.. your suggestions sound good to me. Let me just:

 

2 hours ago, gemanuel1 said:

I want it as historical as possible and ofc it needs to be worked on a lot and balanced in some way for it too be fun for all. I do think that the last EC RB worked really well and was a lots of fun and could be a possibility when it comes too future historical aspects of the game.

 

Edited by gemanuel1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thermal sights is another good topic that falls in this historic/compromise situation. I think they should give all nations thermals or just remove thermals altogether... I'd rather they give all nations thermal sights, historical or not. 

  • Haha 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Spu7nik said:

Thermal sights is another good topic that falls in this historic/compromise situation. I think they should give all nations thermals or just remove thermals altogether... I'd rather they give all nations thermal sights, historical or not. 

 

There are other games that cater to fantasy.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Josephs_Piano said:

 

There are other games that cater to fantasy.

Tanks with health bars lol.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All tanks should be modeled as accurately as possible, including ammo load outs. One of the major issues in this game has always been Gaijin's unwillingness to get ammunition to perform properly. Fixing those issues would go a long way to fixing unbalanced game play. Then, work on creating map designs that aren't basically Call of Duty maps. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, *MiseryIndex556 said:

All tanks should be modeled as accurately as possible, including ammo load outs. One of the major issues in this game has always been Gaijin's unwillingness to get ammunition to perform properly. Fixing those issues would go a long way to fixing unbalanced game play. Then, work on creating map designs that aren't basically Call of Duty maps. 

God how I hate 50% of the maps. It's really rage inducing when you hit play, have to wait for half a minute before the match starts and then are forced to fight on a map that you know you can't be perform in the vehicles you have against the enemies you fight.

  • Like 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'd say generally historical accuracy, but not so accurate the game doesn't let you engage M1A1s in a Sturmpanzer. Accuracy in modelling, not so much in lineups. There should be balanced BRs and some "what if" in the scenarios. For that matter, I'd like to see a paper tanks game mode if it doesn't make normal battles less accurate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me it would be historically accurate as possible, even down to mach-making were only period correct vehicles.

 

However there are a few issues with that from what I call secondary elements, lets use BMP-2 and the M1 tank as an example. 

 

Both entered service roughly the same time, both fill different functions yet they are not in the same BR range, both have vastly different cost.

 

Cost IMO is a function missing in balance, sure there is SP cost but it barely effects balance in most cases, not that matters as the most matches are around 15min so it does not factor in the current system.

 

Simple fact as long as the current game mode and only game mode is Team death match with chapter points, balance with period correct will never work. an Enduring confrontation Method however will work if the map is large enough with better laid out objectives. where in a system like that you can have quantity/quality/Price formulas baked into the game for balance. "T-72 is around 2mil, Bmp-2 around 1mil and M1 around 6mil" one factions has 3 T-72s for each M1 for example. but it needs enough time, and plenty of new mechanics and smart mechanics to make it all work. its not impossible to make warthunder a game above the rest but sadly we been stuck in same old instant action TDM since 2012.

 

 

Imagen a game, where you control groups of units over a vast map "RTS style" while you are doing logistics and transportation, and hop on into your group of tanks when you reach a conflict zone, each of your spawns depends on how well you and your team moved your logistics, and defended them from air interdictions. Or the ability to move a group of Bmp-2s to a building  or village and set up a defensive position, deploying AI infantry into buildings or defensive positions, and taking control of the building shooting RPG7s or ATGMs or setting up a pack AT gun front in ww2 scenarios.

 

 

 

 

Heck make it simpler, add a new tree of vehicles  that are only commanded with a tactical Real time strategy point of view, where deployables static AT guns/FLak/SAM/Radar/ATGM teams and Light APCs with mechanized infantry that can occupy a building. the player will be able to take direct control of those items and limited to a few units per spawn  "3x Sd.Kfz. 251 with 1 Pack 40 + 2x panzergrenadier squad "1xMG42, 1x panzerschreck +1x panzerfäust+ 6x riflemen". 

 

Assuming the map is large enough "maginot line or larger", you spawn with those objects all 3, move to a position and set them up from a special forward spawn points, you move your vehicle's to buildings or a hill set up the defensive position and deploy your pack gun, and send your infantry into 2 buildings. your APCs will now with AI command will move back to the tank spawn to bring more AI infantry" each squad goes into a building and is able to shoot only with player direct commands "as in you have to aim the pack40 or panzerschreck and only move infantry from one building to the other". Only infantry can cap zones, infantry can shoot other infantry and buildings.  

 

This is a top of my head example to how or what is the next step for warthunder, its simple, but also makes a significant amount of tanks more viable. if the game has a true multi combined arms aspects, plenty of tanks which in theory are supposed to be infantry killers "main gun on the tank is the Mg theory etc etc" then something like 4 shermans are much more viable than 2 tigers.    

 

 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Depends on the game mode. In tank SB Germany or Russia vs the world IMHO gets a little boring. I know a lot of people like it, but I wouldn't mind having a change up once and a while like RB does.

 

My observation is people only want "Historical" if it acts as either a buff to them or a nerf to the other team. The problem is with how rewards are set up and repair costs one team is going not only be the constant loser, but also punished the worst. You already see this in tank SB where one team has 20+ players waiting and the other team is 0. The weaker team would need to have more rewards and points for a motivation to play.

 

There's some game play features that IMHO wipe out any realism.

 

1) The almost star trek level ability to teleport and replace new crew members. I've had guys replace them faster then I can reload. If a gunner in a plane dies you are hooped. Yet tanks which are even more tight and hard to get in and out of can be under a second.

 

2) Ability to shoot when your tank is on fire. Have you seen tank drills on how fast a crew has to exit a tank on fire? Not only fire but smoke can kill your crew members in real life. Yet people can take their time to turn their turret, line you up perfectly and fire as if everything was normal.  Some tanks take forever to burn.

 

3) The ability to raise your pilot height past the cockpit window.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I prefer historical accuracy vs balance.

 

Second, with all of the efforts Gaijin puts in to make the vehicles as accurate as possible, logic dictates they also offer a consistent mode called Historically Accurate along with Arcade, Realistic, Simulation for those that prefer matches accurately supporting what history shows us.  (I have tried SIM but am not a fan of the complexity for something I do for enjoyment and fun)

 

Yes, that will mean Jumbos going up against tigers.  They did in real life, heck that's what they were designed for, then up-gunned to the 76 and long gun versions for more effective pen leading to the super pershing at the end of the war. So if implemented you could chose to play Germany or US or others early or late WWII and see overmatch in vehicles strengths and weaknesses everywhere.

 

Third, I humbly submit the following observation  based on my Real Life experience with M1's and Bradley's as well as countless hours spent playing WT at ALL levels.  (BTW I was drawn to WT for its WWII stuff so I play that genre ALOT).

 

Tanks and planes are only as good as the person commanding them or piloting them.  Period. 

 

Having spent countless hours in the UCOFT (Unit Conduct Of Fire Trainer), along with Live Fire Gunnery on Table Eight and Twelve (and way too much time playing WT) this has shaped my opine. 

 

Yes a bad player can do well in a tank with overmatch.  But I have seen and killed ALOT of players like this using skill, cunning, instinct, (Gasp) tactics, terrain masking, etc.  Conversely a great player can do poorly in the same vehicle if the enemy uses the aforementioned traits against them.

 

So to sum up, I look forward to historical accuracy exactly for the reason stated, IT CAN OFFER A REAL CHALLENGE if you take the underdog role and be quite rewarding when you best someone in a vehicle with overmatch. One only need to look to many utube content creators to see this in RB today.

 

PS. Gaijin PLEASE if you implement something like this use bigger maps!  All of the maps could use a refresh.  They are stale, everyone knows them by heart, and frankly are quite boring to play on.  But I digress off topic.

 

For your consideration.

 

V/R,

Max

 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...