Jump to content

War Thunder "Winged Lions" - Changelog


Stona
 Share

Best answer

Players with Premium Accounts have been given extra 12 hours of premium time.

 

If you want to submit a bug report, please use this section: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/655-bug-reports/

If you want to discuss specific vehicle, please use this section:  https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/981-machinery-of-war-discussion/

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrat to Gaijin to finally put some real change to Air RB gamemode with Air EC. You had the b*lls to try, even after a number of Q&A which said otherwise. So thanks, it's a step in the right direction, and using a proper term of "realistic" (and not Team Deathmatch). at least it's tested, so if it's work it's good, if it's doesn't work everyone will move on.

 

Some suggestion and remarks which can/could improve the mode

 

the Good:

+ Big map for advanced aircraft (+BR 10.0). We have now some space to operate, nothing is rushed, (just a bit frustating to be the first to die)

+ Bomber and striker have time and space to do their job.

+ Allow the stock grind aircraft to be less painfull. Actually people have time to grind their stuff (if they don't get spotted)

+ Less furball fight

+ Match last more than 5 minutes.

 

Some suggestion:

-The first one to be spotted is the first to be ganked : At first it's not a problem (a bad decision making), and it's attrack every fighter player like some honey. Red marker maybe need to be tweaked.

-25 mins is way too short. Need at least 10 minutes more minutes.

-Hard to find this map in the map rotation. Even using the preference map, i get this operation/map only 1/10. Hope to see these operation more often at (and only) end tier.

-EC at lower tier (BR +7.0) seems to be mixed feeling. for multiple reason: Spotting, fuel management (for aircraft like Me.163). EC at lower tier need to be tweaked.

-Allow more players: the max i could see was only 12vs12. Years ago Gaijin tested 64 players battle. Step by step, battle with more players should be test (20v20?), to see if it's work. These type of gamemode can't/shouldn't be played with only 8vs8 (Small team composition) for 128km map range.

Spoiler

 

 

 

Further devellopment:

-Please consider li ne up and respawn to be available on this mode: same as Ground RB (1 life per vehicule) or as EC respawn (Unlimited but time limit + repair bill)

 

-If respawn is allowed, add more airfield to be available: Since we only have one vehicule, one airfield is good enough. But in case if this game mode is expended, 2 to 3 airfields will become necessary. In that case, only the first airfield should be spotted as default by everyone. Others secondary airfields should be hidden but spottable as mission (with reward) for players or a reconnaissance aircraft AI ("Protect/Destroy the reconnaissance aircraft at XX grid)

 

-Consider to tone down the red marker only at high end tier : At tier where radar is the norm (missile marker should stay but can be tested without)

 

-If red marker (spotting red aircraft) is toned down, Make mission having more impact in term of ticket and reward point: 1) In case of red marker being toned down, mission marker will become the choke point for every fighters seeking for some actions, while bomber and striker will be focus on their job. Fighters will need to escort these bomber/striker, protect or simply denied the area mission to the ennemy.

 

-If red marker can not be the main spot mechanic, add new AI asset which help to spot ennemy only in defense (Behind friendly line): Aka Ground unit radar/AWACS asset which can be destroyable,

We can already see some players complain (with reason) about the pace and how hard/long is to find ennemy at lower tier (tier 5). These mechanic should help to find people only in defense, create some players dedicate to interception,

Once you are in attack (behind ennemy line) this mechanic should have no purpose or the effiancy should be extremely reduiced  (range extended to the front line of fight but nothing more.)

Radar unit (ground and air) can manage multiple Square Grid in their area. providing information for the defense. These radar unit should have some realistic setting, are protected and can be spotable and destroyable

 

The reason about all these suggestion: at end and high tier, Aircraft will be become more and more deadly and old mechanic (like red marker) will become not necessary as compared to older tier (Tier 1 to 5)

The purpose is :

1) For the player to rely on their aircraft capacity (radar, missile, ecm, rwr) without using some artificial mechanic. If my aircraft don't have the capacity to strike some objective safely, i will use the terrain to cover me, i will try to plan a route from the airfield to the objective. Or ask some help from other players which are dedicate to fight others players.

2) Rely on communication in team: Doing a mission strike? You will need for Fighters to denied access. Will create some choke point on mission area or during a deep strike behind the ennemy line.

3) Without red marker, it will force people to focus on mission. Mission which will create some furball fight in some area. Some people will do air patrol like IRL.

4) Artificial mechanic can be destroyable with some new asset like destroyable Radar unit (with realistic settings). As default they are hidden, but can be spotable by AI reconnaissance aircraft or by a player. Some new task will ask to destroy these unit. They only provide some advantage for the defense (the more you are far behind the ennemy line, the more chance you will get spotted, and more chance you will have a player to intercept you.). Good striker/fighters will use terrain to sneak before destroy their objective.

The purpose is to give a reason to fight at every altitude.

5) Everyone/aircraft has their job.

 

As Gaijin said on Q&A they don't want to seperate players in different game mode, (so no reason to have a 3hours game mode)

so a good mix is to give the respawn ground RB mechanic (only 1 life per vehicule + back ups card) which allow some line up in air RB. While i am all for a 3 hours EC maps (with the capacity to leave a match without penalty), i understand that not everyone can stand for a 3 hours game mode.

 A 3 hours EC settings maybe should be reserve for Event or World War mode.

 

TLDR:

Short term: 10 to 20 more minutes, more players, more reward mission, more EC map in map rotation.

Long term: More realistic mechanic, communication, new asset (like ground radar unit/AWACS), respawn mechanics

 

Edited by Yukichi
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/12/2021 at 09:04, A_Flying_Corpse said:

why hasnt the jet engine sound bug still not fixed? and choppers are quite silent for some reason particularly the KA50s and Apaches

What bug? Can you link me bug report?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2021 at 14:58, Major_Shaker said:

Whoever did this in Gaijin made me smile. 

Hide contents

 

 

While it is not working on Mi-35 and on Mi-24 Hind D is kind of bugy it is nice detail to see. Maybe make it spin it more? :D

 

Spoiler

There was an attempt.. | Mood pics, Underarmor logo, New cars

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys since the last 2 days I have been expierencing really bad frame dips, I would drop from 60 to 45 within seconds. I didnt get this when the patch launched but now for the last 2 days I have had this performance issue. Are the devs aware of this issue?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Stona said:

What bug? Can you link me bug report?

nevermind, it has been fixed by removing the "masterbank" on the mod files, however there's still weird sound bug with explosions removing all the sounds around me for 2-3 seconds, although i encountered some sound bug where whenever a jet passes, all sounds around me also drowns out to almost inaudible.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/12/2021 at 09:33, magazine2 said:

 

Hide contents

 

I don't understand the purpose of this little fan.

It's the main rotor that is cooling the pilot.

You can find examples of this IRL: when the rotor stops, the pilot immediately becomes sweaty.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a bug about battle generation in new Afghanistan 128 map. As you can see the tanks are attacking nothing and the howtizers and pillboxes spawned outside of the map border

Spoiler

1081837532_CapturadeEcr(214).png.a6f18e8
2099751928_CapturadeEcr(215).png.c1b7226 572529688_CapturadeEcr(217).png.a091c366Also ai attacker pathfinding is pretty bad on these maps, I've seen them die numerous times without any  player intervention, just colliding with the ground one their way to the objective or immediately after making a run.522387952_CapturadeEcr(216).png.00b4635f

 

 

 

Edited by PauloMr
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The naval aiming system really needs a rework. Like, REALLY, ASAP. The UI is very wonky and non-intuitive and the range you're aiming at(displayed below the central chevron) floats about too much. See detailed feedback here

  • But more importantly, the COMPLETE LACK of an in-game detailed naval aiming tutorial is turning away a lot of potential new players for naval. In this video starting from about 13:00, you can see that even a seasoned WT ground/air player like Phly has issues understanding how to aim in naval, resulting in a lot of the shells missing. How on earth do you expect completely new players to hit anything? Earlier in the video, Phly says that the new FCS is "nice" because the range is now partly controlled by the mouse so that there's no need to scroll and the shells "go where you aim". But he didn't realize that scrolling is still required to compensate for movement in an actual battle. That is why his shells kept missing at 13:00. It's not too hard once you know the trick, but there's not a slightest hint in-game(aside from the controls menu) about distance correction and other aspects of naval aiming. 
  • New naval players, perhaps interested by the new scout plane mechanics like Phly was, will play a few battles hitting nothing and will either realize they're doing something wrong and look for guides outside of the game, or get frustrated and leave naval. We're losing potential players here, and when you consider that naval ques are frequently filled with bots because of the lack of players, this is a big issue. We need a detailed naval aiming tutorial(or at least a hint towards the deeper aspects, suggesting to look for guides outside of the game) in the game in a clearly visible place. 

2. The model updates for the OS2U and the Pz. II/IIIs are very nice. Please keep the model updates coming. 

 

3. Seafire LF Mk. III for both Britain and France is very nice. More WW2 content is always very welcome. 

 

4. The only thing I like about Israel is the possibility of adding other nations in a similar manner. I have no interest in Israel itself as there's very little in terms of unique low/mid tier content and a lot of copy paste.  

 

5. Again and again the focus on top tier post-war vehicles for air and ground is getting really boring. Please give some love to the WW2 and 1950s vehicles that are still missing. 

 

6. Why is there at least one large slow coastal gunboat almost every update recently? Flusi 1 in "Winged Lions", Pr. 201M in "Ground Breaking", USS Hoquiam and M-17 and Fairmile H LCS(L)(2) in "Direct Hit", and USS Candid in "Red Skies". Every proper naval player knows that they are completely useless in the current meta, where they face destroyers that are superior to them in every aspect. These large slow gunboats are also significantly more expensive to research, purchase, and repair than the destroyers that outperform them. I've never seen anyone playing them, aside from the AI bots. It's a complete waste of development resources when the bluewater tech trees are lacking a lot of major vessels(especially destroyers). They also impede research towards the fast MTBs that are actually useful even in 3.3+ matches. We need more bluewater vessels and fast MTBs, not more useless large slow gunboats/frigates. 

 

7. As for Scharnhorst, I'm not against adding her, but we should really have gotten an at least semi-full set of WW1 and interwar era battleships and battlecruisers for all nations before jumping to WW2 battleships. Please take your time to fill out the tech trees before you jump to more advanced vessels. 

 

8. JDS Harukaze is nice and fills one of the many gaps in the Japanese bluewater TT. But I really hope this doesn't mean that the rest of the gaps will also be filled by JMSDF destroyers. More IJN destroyers such as the Hatsuharu-class, Shiratsuyu-class, Asashio-class, Kagerō-class, Matsu-class, and Tachibana-class are desparately needed. 
 

9. RN Eugenio di Savoia is a very nice step towards filling up the Italian bluewater naval tech tree, which is very empty right now. I'm guessing that the next and final iteration of the Condottieri series light cruisers, the Duca degli Abruzzi-class, is already planned to come after the RN Eugenio di Savoia. But even more vessels are needed, such as a second line of WW2 destroyers, the Impetuoso-class and San Giorgio-class of post-war destroyers, the RN Bolzano heavy cruiser, and more battleships. At least 2 Italian bluewater vessels per update would be nice to see. 

 

10. The changes to the Italian bluewater tech tree layout are very nice. This better represents the historical continuity of the Condottieri-class cruisers, and leaves room in the right-side line for future additions of later developments of the Condottieri-class, such as the Duca degli Abruzzi-class. This change also benefits the left-side line, better representing the historical continuity of the Italian heavy cruisers and leaving room for the future addition of the RN Bolzano. 

 

11. Naval shipboard scout seaplanes are very nice to see. But again,  naval EC is needed to make full use of these shipboard aircraft, just like everything else in naval.  We're not asking to make EC available all the time. Just please run it as an event with a regular schedule, perhaps weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly. There are other issues as well(although most are probably unintended bugs that I'll try to properly report when I have time):

  • Not having a separate configurable loadout setting/menu/option for catapult-launched aircraft is very annoying. The small bombs these aircraft typically carry are of very little use against enemy ships. And for normal scouting/capturing duties, it would be much better if we could choose to not carry bombs in exchange for better speed and agility and/or more smoke screen charges.
  • When switching to aircraft control, you lose all firing solution calculation progress on your ship and you have to start over again when you switch back. This is non-sensical and highly annoying. 
  • The aircraft are displayed on the ship even when the catapult modification is not yet researched and equipped.
  • The appearance(skin) of most catapult-launched aircraft when they are in flight does not match their stationary models on the ships.
  • The smoke screens deployed by catapult-launched aircraft disappear too quickly. Right now if you lay a smoke screen starting from a ship along her projected course, the smoke screen dissipates long before the ship has passed through it. This severely limits the usefulness of aircraft-laid smoke screens. Please make them last longer.
  • USS Baltimore and USS Wyoming are missing catapult-launched aircraft, even though they clearly have both catapults and aircraft on their visual model.
  • Aoba, Tone, RN Raimondo Montecuccoli, and RN Eugenio di Savoia do have catapults visually modeled, but do not have any aircraft on their visual model and don't have catapult-launched aircraft functionality. Is this because those ships did not carry any aircraft in their particular historical configuration that is represented in-game? Could these ships get their aircraft if the majority of players want them, even if it's somewhat unhistorical?
  • HMNZS Leander has the wrong aircraft. She has the Fairey Seafox on her visual model, but the aircraft that is actually launched is the Hawker Osprey.

12. High fidelity tank models in air battles are nice, but I'm worried about the potential impact on performance. 

 

13. Changing British Mark IX torpedoes to Mark IX** is a nice historical and QoL change. Maybe the Mark VIII torpedoes could also be given the late-war 365kg Torpex warhead and re-named/changed to the Mark VIII**? They actually already have the range and speed characteristics of the Mark VIII**, but with the early-war 327kg TNT warhead. 

 

14. Changes to naval SAP shells are nice and more realistic. But you really should give us more details within the official patch notes. I had to check the community datamines to see exactly what change it was. 
 

15. Is there any chance of aerial smokescreens being added to researchable aircraft in the aviation tech trees that had such capability IRL? 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to remove strike fighters spawn point in RB above 8.0. It's unplayable with bombers against the thuds and A-4 spams

Edited by Hablaty
  • Like 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
On 28/12/2021 at 15:02, kkang2828 said:
  • Aoba, Tone, RN Raimondo Montecuccoli, and RN Eugenio di Savoia do have catapults visually modeled, but do not have any aircraft on their visual model and don't have catapult-launched aircraft functionality. Is this because those ships did not carry any aircraft in their particular historical configuration that is represented in-game? Could these ships get their aircraft if the majority of players want them, even if it's somewhat unhistorical?

If those ships were not carrying any spotter/recon aircraft they wouldn't have the catapult installed in the first place, I know from historical sources that at least the italian cruisers were equipped with the aircrafts and there is also photo proof of that, the only thing I'm not sure if it is the same model of the one already in game or they were equipped with a different one

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Research question... dont know where to ask;

 

I want to get T-34 / KV lineup, 3.7 / 4.something... playing from the start with BT tanks, it would take me like a month of play time,

Then I found this YT video;

Spoiler

 

 

I got 30 days of premium, but it is still very slow, and I dont feel like grinding... or at least would like to speed up grind.

What are ground options to just... skip months of grind ?

If I buy some hi-tier tank, will it flood me with RP?

How much play would it take with SMK?

Any other options? ideas?

tnx

Edited by Milking_Grandpa
why is whole post hidden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...