In these images the tanks are stationary, either to act in ambush or to hide from aerial reconnaissance. As soon as they move and begin to perform manoeuvres the branches will fall off, something which does not happen in game.
6 Likes
Here he move:
And here he move too:
And here:
And again here…
Yeah, you are right, massive bushes camouflage it is only when they stopped…
6 Likes
Not sure you’re making a strong point here. Yes, IRL tanks could be bushed up to the eyeballs. But they could also do hundreds of other things to give themselves an advantage, not implemented in game because doing so would make gameplay worse.
You don’t have to deal with infantry support, artillery fire anywhere near the scale or effect of IRL, being outnumbered, or being jumped while your tanks are not combat ready. You don’t have to worry about your tank breaking down, or running out of fuel due to limited fuel supplies. You don’t have to worry about only the Allies having any air support for their late WW2 lineups. You don’t have to worry about the enemies starting on highly advantageous terrain that you have to somehow assault.
All of these things make War Thunder unrealistic, but they also make it fun. Gameplay should alway trump realism when the two are in conflict. Bushes may be (somewhat) realistic, but they make gameplay worse. And so there should be an option to not render them.
By the way, note that in every photo you posted, the tank that’s bushed up is clearly identifiable (And in the M48’s case, has it’s weakspot showing). Compare that to the magic floating bush nonsense you can pull off in game which turns a tank into an indistinct wall of bushes.
3 Likes
I completely agree with you. Personally, I find ground realistic mode to be a tough and challenging game mode that most players have mastered through trial and error. While it may appear logical to provide the ability to hide bushes from view as a fair and newbie-friendly option, keep in mind that many other factors affect and offer those “little advantages” as well.
- What about crew levels? They are very important, especially when it comes to repair and reloading time.
- What about the free, but kill-based, unlocked camouflage skins? Certain camouflage skins, when used right, blend in well with the match’s environment.
- What about the modules? There is a substantial difference in performance between stock and spade vehicles.
- What about BR? Nobody wants to fight against a vehicle a full BR higher (do you want to take on the Tiger II H in your T-34-85?).
As many can see, the list of elements that provide a minor edge over one another is endless. While I agree that some of these factors can provide “small advantages” at times, I also believe that it is precisely these elements that make this game so dynamic.
So, the question is, how far are players ready to go in terms of “presumed balance” to ensure fairness amongst participants in ground realistic mode? Turn off crew levels? Turn off camouflage skins? Turn off vehicle modules? Or just turn off everything, to the point where every single player has identical crew skills, vehicle skins, vehicle modules, and the exact same tank? In that instance, that player has completely missed the essence of playing in a ground realistic mode.
4 Likes
-
Crew skills give an edge, but it’s not an insurmountable one. Give a less skilled player a higher level crew, and a more skilled player a stock one, odds are still good the better player wins. A slight buff to reloads, a saving grace against bad shots, and the ability to recrew and repair faster will not outmatch a better placed shot, a better positioned tank, or a better application of game knowledge. It lessens the skill gap, but player skills will overcome crew skills 9/10 times.
-
It may help them blend in slightly, but it doesn’t break up the silohette. A tank still looks like a tank. Just a beige tank on a beige background. An experienced player will still spot one, especially if positioned predictably, or poorly.
-
The game would be better if stock tanks weren’t a thing (especially certain elements, like stock APCR/HEAT, inability to repair, etc, but it being the cornerstone of the game’s economic model, it’s not going anywhere, and it’s foolish to think it might. It’s a bit of a false comparison to adding an option that merely disables the rendering of bushes. That’s not depriving Gaijin of anything but a few bushs sales.
-
The game would improve from a tighter MM spread if feasible (I don’t have the queue numbers, so I can’t say for sure), but at the end of the day, you can play around it. It requires skill to overcome a Tiger II in a Hellcat, and that’s a good thing. It’s rewarding the player who positioned better, who knew the map well enough to get a flank shot, who knew to hold their fire until the Tiger II gave them a good angle. Conversely, bushes reward the player who has bushes, and prevents a more experienced player from utilizing the skills they have learned to win the engagement.
1 Like
This is a very hypothetical scenario, but in matches, experienced players often have a higher-level crew than less experienced players, thus widening the skill gap. In my opinion, this plays a bigger role in winning engagements overall than covering the tank with bushes.
The bushes are never behind a strict paywall. They break as much silhouette as the bush size allows. In higher BR, where tanks are increased in size, bushes do not play much of a role in breaking tank silhouette but rather in the coverage of weak spots to make it harder to hit. With the current bushes options, in order to break the tank silhouette effectively to the point where it is unrecognizable, you have to apply multiple “different color/type bushes” at the front. This in fact allowed me, or just any experienced player, to have an easier time recognizing the tank (imagine looking at a tank covered in multi-colored palm/fir/weed leaves from a distance on a winter map; you can hardly miss that one).
4 Likes
My argument isn’t nessesarily that bushes are the single most unbalanced thing in the game. That’s an impossible argument. I’m arguing simply that bushes, rather than adding skillful gameplay, or at minimum allowing a way to play around them, simply remove gameplay. They dumb the game down and make player skill less important in a fight. It doesn’t matter if I know the weakspot of the T26E5 are the hull hatches if I can’t see them. It doesn’t matter if I can identify every single tank within a BR range when I’m staring at a bush.
And for the record, much like with stock grinding, the game would probably be improved via the removal or the drastic speeding up of crew training, but in Gaijin’s grindcentric economic model, it’s impossible.
You’re conveniently forgetting the infamous 6 pack of bushes, which are pay to win and can completely cover a tank with completely innocuous looking bushes. But that’s not nessesarily relevant to my argument.
Bushes can make you more conspicuous on certain maps, but A) you have to manually set up bushes on a winter camo for that to happen and B) they do still allow you to conceal the type of tank and/or the weakspots. Which is often just as impactful or moreso.
Doesn’t matter if I can see a KV-1B thanks to his bushes on a snow map, if I cannot then take aim for the bottom half of his driver’s port or the tiny gaps in his armor. It doesn’t matter if I guess that a tank is probably an Abrams if I can’t get a clean shot into his turret ring. And if my shot lands wrong, because I had to take a blind guess at a tank or a weakspot, my penalty is usually death. For failing to have psychic powers. Replay that engagement where I can actually see what I’m engaging and therefore what I’m aiming at, it comes down to my skill in picking out a weakspot and hitting it accurately. Tell me that bushes improved my gameplay experience.
1 Like
A skillful player avoids bush placement by shooting from the sides or rear.
I look forward to the reversion from all the face banging lemming trains.
There is much more luck than “skill” (press fire button?) in GF and believing most “opponents” give some sort of challenge is questionable at best since this is an open game.
Edit: sorry @Aegis270, clicked wrong reply button as is a general reply, not one focused on you.
I don’t mind the reply, it is a counterargument.
So to be clear, your answer to bushes is to never engage enemy tanks frontally? Under no circumstances?
What if you’re in a tank unsuited for flanking? What if you run into an enemy tank on the same flanking route you’re on? What if an enemy reacts to your flank and pushes you? What if you get outflanked? What if you need to push a cap point to win the game?
Feels a little reductive to just say “Don’t engage them frontally” when there are so many ways for that to happen that aren’t up to you.
2 Likes
Bushes are free in-game if you decide to do the objectives and tasks.
You do not need to be a wallet warrior to earn bushes.
No, I’m saying many of the times the front is not the only part you will face.
No tanks are unsuitable for using flanks since many maps are quite small, just easy to flank as most players yolo one part of the map; hence the luck part. I’ve even flanked in the Tortoise.
Which moves to your next queries which I answer with: I hope the enemy do; it shows players are back to playing the game and not just headbutting W. But yes, many circumstances can exist but there are usually multiple ways to navigate them, and the fact there is “team” and a reasonable range of options (push together, arti to scare, airplanes to attack, smoke to try and distract, etc.).
Yes I agree, but it is also worsening the game where most matches I’ve seen involve a lack of thought meaning most engagements for them is frontal where it need not.
Very very rarely will you meet a true bush monster (not including some of the tiny vehicles) as very few in comparison have that option of 6 packs. Bushes are linked to camos and so in one map it might help them, in another they make themselves obvious. Heck, if they really annoy you the game lets you revenge bomb them, where those bushes will not help at all.
Anaecdotal but on my first run in the SU-57 (on release so higher BR) there was a squad of 3 bushed KV-1Bs murdering my team (all frontal smacking). So I trundled to the side by 20 metres, shot two in the sides then followed the “leader” and turret ringed him (not very quick at communicating).
The issue is they exist, to “remove” (options to see) then causes issues to compensate those who grinded them (Had all but 1 before the new lot came in recently).
They are an advantage, but not always that much of one, can be a hinderance (making vehicle obvious or blocked views), and we all can have exactly the same if you put the time in (same with crew skills etc etc). 6 packs were a mistake and if they hadn’t added such features we wouldn’t miss them, but they exist so we make the best of it.
I always liked the idea gunfire/bombs/fire would remove them in battles, but I’m sure there are technical/sync issues.
1 Like
Ahh ok, and this “bush camouflage” was undestructible taht even flamethrower couldn’t burn it? And it was only accessible to crews that paid real money for this? The answers are 2xNO, so your argument is invalid. If i can’t destroy it so it should be option in graphic settings to turn it off.
2 Likes
Hilarious how people always say it’s just cosmetic but then you suggest a toggle for it and suddenly it’s so much more apparently.
It’s a pay to win advantage, nothing more, nothing less.
7 Likes
Ho and just because it is not realist that bushes cant be destroyed, you suggest more realism by a graphic option who hide them? yeaaaaaaaaaah it is totaly realist …
And … Just read that:
Q. Is it possible to make 3D decorations physical so that they can detach from vehicles when hit?
- Great idea! We’ll look into how complicated this would be to implement, and if it is indeed possible we’ll aim to make them destructible and prone to catching fire as well.
You can have all bushes for free with warbonds. Just play and up your battle pass for up your warbond shop (free parts of BP) and buy crates with bushes.
Your remark about a PAYING benefit is erroneous.
And my arguments just are on the volume of bushes can be used on a tank for hide it. Not on the irealistic of permanent status of bushes.
And IRL, tank crews camouflage their tanks much better: IG we are limited with 6 bushes. with the exception of very small tanks, you cant camoufling all your tank and you can hide only front of the tank.
3 Likes
It is not only available to paying customers.
Bushes can be obtained for free, so calling them a p2w advantage is simply wrong.
4 Likes
Bushes are not currently available in the warbond shop, as much as people like to shout that as fact despite having no idea about this, how is that not pay to win?
Even when they were in the warbond shop, it requires players to grind to something stupid like level 50+ in the warbond shop, whilst also completing a bunch of special medals, a very demanding task for players just to have a chance at getting a bush, and with almost 40 bushes available, half of them probably being small or whatever there’s a good chance you’ll get a bad bush or even just SL as a big FU.
And with BPs lasting over 3 months, it’s going to take you one a half years at best to get 6 bushes, one and a half years of continuously logging in, playing, completing dailies, completing challenges and special medals, likely 6 completely mismatched and hideous bushes because I love seeing tanks be completely ruined with these things, as well as neon signs, sparklers, fireworks, anime pillows and flashing lights in my supposedly realistic game.
Insane if you think this is even remotely reasonable, a new player is going to require several years to obtain these bushes, forgoing the other rewards in the process as well, during which they’ll be at a disadvantage.
Of course this is in the case that those bushes are actually in the warbond shop, which they are not, something you might want to check before throwing that out there.
If you believe bushes don’t give an advantage, you shouldn’t be opposed to a toggle, if you do believe they give an advantage, they need to be accessible or it’s pay to win, which it currently is.
12 Likes
Free bushes “pay to win”.
I don’t think you understand what paying & free are.
2 Likes
I earned the majority of my bushes for free by simply enjoying the game. The most important factor is to play for enjoyment rather than for the grind. You experience far less stress and far greater satisfaction when you play because you enjoy it rather than because you need something.
Personally, I interpret “pay to win” as anything that is locked behind a strict paywall and cannot be obtained unless you pay with real money, which is not the case in this scenario. For the battle pass every three months, you probably have a chance of getting one free bush, but you also have opportunities to get free premium vehicles, tailsmen, camouflage, and so on. That is a lot of free items you can obtain if you are just actively playing.
In my honest opinion, if you think doing daily objectives will take a long time, you are probably playing inefficiently. I never took more than an hour every day for the previous three years to complete the two daily missions (occasionally I could complete the two daily missions in two matches). The Battle Pass is likely to be more difficult to achieve, but it is still well within reach.
4 Likes
That actually depends on which ones you get. Some can be done fast, others rely on luck (win x amount of matches while achieving y). And you can only switch a limited amount for free (SL) each day.
I agree with most of what you said here, as well as with the notion that fun should trump realism every time. But I come to a very different conclusion than you.
Recently, my most played vehicle in game has been the Jagdtiger. Many reasons why I love it, which I won’t get into now, but one of the things I find very rewarding about it, and really 6.7 in general, is that shot placement is incredibly important. A big tank destroyer with a giant “f you” gun would basically be able to click and pen almost anywhere at lower BRs. Not so here: either you meet light vehicles that require you to aim your APHE for crew location (less they simply overpen and pass through without damage), or you meet enemy mediums (let alone heavies) with lots of sloped armour that you can’t just expect to lolpen. You need to memorise weakspots religiously or you’re screwed.
This is even truer because in the current “meta” (god I hate that word), heavies are at a severe disadvantage. This is a balance problem that I hope gets rectified soon, and the recently announced decompression is a good step, but still, generally speaking: if you have an 18s reload, and you’re usually pitted against opponents with autoloaders and greater pen than yours (if lower postpen damage), you need to make every shot count. Period.
This is where I come to bushes. First defensively, and then in terms of the shooting skills and weak spot memorisation we’ve both been talking about.
Defensively, bushes make my Jagdtiger a lot more viable. They’re part of the layers of security onion, beyond just relying on armour. “Don’t get spotted/hit” is always the first, of course, but in a prolonged engagement - especially if you’re 1v2 or 1v3, you need to stay alive in-between those 18s of reload. That means angling between shots, wriggling unpredictably in place, moving the gun so you don’t get barreled. And good bush placement also allows you to survive far more often in these situations.
This is true for all heavies, and some more than others. Tiger II P is a completely different tank now that I’ve bushed it up. And lol, the Sturmtiger, don’t even get me started :D
Mobility is always an advantage. This is especially and acutely true in a game built on capping points. Armour is always a disadvantage, and quite literally dead weight, up until the point that it actually guarantees a bounce. And while you can mitigate the lack of armour in a variety of ways; you can’t do much to mitigate a lack of mobility.
Vehicles that sacrifice everything for armour protection (they’re slow and have either mediocre guns, or good guns with long reloads) can’t actually benefit from said armour protection, if the game is balanced in such a way that even very light and fast vehicles can cheese their way through your frontal armour. This is why, while many people have rightly the image of an invisible bushed-up ASU 57 or AML in mind, I’d argue that the biggest beneficiaries of bushes are actually heavies, even more so in the current imbalanced situation that greatly penalises them.
(Of course that is realistic, and the reason why heavies went away IRL, but like we’ve established, fun is more important than realism, and there’s no reason to have a vehicle in game if it is not competitive).
Now, let’s come to the question of bushes from the offensive perspective. You say bushes nullify your skills of ID’ing the tank and having weak spots memorised. I agree to an extent with the former, but not with the latter. Countless times I’ve spotted, say, a bushed-up IS tank at a distance and wondered, is that an IS-3 or an IS-6? Obviously that is a moment of indecision, because while their respective weak spots to an APHE shot are somewhat similar, they’re not exactly overlapping. But you can aim for the tracks or the gun, and do real damage, while also knowing that the “hit cam” will show you what tank you’re engaging (even in simulator!).
And once you know it… you can still aim for the weak spot. Yes, the tank is covered in bushes, but you’re familiar with its proportions, size… and when you get it right, it feels incredibly rewarding. One-tapping an IS-6 absolutely covered in bushes at 1600m through the gun mantlet weak spot at Sands Of Sinai is an amazing dopamine rush. And just as skill-based as locating and hitting the same weak spot on an IS-6 without bushes, in my opinion. :)
3 Likes