Battle is over Autokill


If my plane is damaged, my plane is automatically killed 1 second before the end of the game. Who the hell comes up with such nonsense ???


It is just part of the new severe damage mechanic. The “severe damage” you took without getting repaired by the end of the game is being officially given out as a full kill at the end of the game.


Maybe you shouldn’t be ‘destroyed’ but the player who ‘got you’ should still get that kill credit at the end of the match.

You’ve been ‘incapacitated’ as you aren’t able to make a dent, and are deemed critical, but not ‘done’ in the end of match.


Just read this:

how are you supposed to repair with the super short games (small maps) ? especially with prop planes and airports 15 km away .


I have been landing and repairing such damaged machines since 10 years

1 Like

As have I…

What I said, would allow you to not be destroyed, and still let them have credit for the kill.

((With the ‘reasoning’ behind that message too, ‘written off’ would imply that even if you had got to the field, your frame would’ve been wrecked… Maybe that needs less severe damage to be ‘acceptable’, but if the actual frame is damaged that it is written off and ‘over’ regardless))

1 Like

You make the decision to turn back and repair. If you’re that badly damaged, it seems like it would be the best course of action to do so. It isn’t really complicated. The mechanic has addressed a large portion of a “problem” in the ccommunity quite well, and they said they were going to favor the attacking planes at the end of each match. Compromise working it’s magic.

Maybe the retreating planes could have a minute or 2 more to get back to base maybe…

1 Like

If the game is over, the game is over. If a plane didn’t make it back for repairs, then that is how the situation played out and they are giving the full kill to the attacker side of the fight. Seems like a pretty fair conpromise that they “doomed” the plane and are rewarded a full kill if that plane doesn’t make it back. A solution was wanted for “kill stealing”, they came up with a good solution, and now it requires compromise on both sides of the coin. Everyone will get their “deaths worth” when the situation has reversed itself.

1 Like

It’s also important that it works this way to prevent potential abuse of the system, such as avoiding an inevitable death just barely long enough to not die before the match timer expires (which is in the same category as crashing to deny a kill).

The rare situations where a player has severe damage but could have landed without crashing or getting shot down, and this is prevented by the timer are drastically outweighed by times in which that kill deserves to be credited. No system is perfect, but the new setup is better.

The issue I have regarding this, is elsewhere I’m currently trying to point out how denying a player a kill out of spite is actually wrong, where this is forcing a player to take a death when they’re still airworthy and able to fly.

I agree with counting such damaged planes as ‘kills’ for whoever damaged them enough. After all, historically speaking it was often enough to claim a kill by showing guncam footage of an enemy aircraft losing its cooling water, since that meant that it was effevtively out of the fight.

But I also think that it is unfair to mess with a pilot’s stats by adding a death to them, if he is still airborne, especially if he is in full control and able to RTB.

IMO, the kill should be rewarded without a death being counted.

Able to fly is not able to fight. This is a distinction that is difficult for the “realism” of Warthunder. Just because you can make it back to base doesn’t mean you are still combat worthy, and this new system highlights that difference in a more positive way.

1 Like

If the severe damage has been rewarded, the plane shouldn’t be combat worthy anymore. Any player causing damage on that scale should be counted as a kill if that plane cannot or does not make it to the airfield by the end of the game. They had to pick between siding with the severly damaged player or the attacking player, and I’d have to agree that siding with the attacking player is more appropriate because of the difference of combat-worthy and flight-worthy is a worthwhile distinction to be made in these circumstances.

1 Like

It means you can get back to base, to repair, for the next battle.

The insta-kill at the end of the match isn’t actually needed, you can still be credited as if you actually did. It’s unrealistic to have the vehicle just ‘die’ like this.

Further to this line of thought, what happens when a severely damaged plane lands on the airfield, do you get the kill, and are they charged the repair as if they had crashed, and get repaired?


They get repaired like they would normally if they would have landed with any other damage. A +1 is awarded until that plane repairs or dies. If they die, a full kill is awarded to the finisher, or a repair is made and the +1 is lost. No charges to repairs unless you’re counted as killed at the end of the baytle.

It is needed, it just brings the “kills” back up to where they would be. The severely damaged plane is simply being marked off as a full kill. It goes back to the combat worthy idea, not combat worthy then it gets written off. That is how combat losses work, and it is a nice thing to see since “kill stealing” had to be addressed in such a way.

1 Like

And this is where the point lays… Why are they forced the repair when they were able to remain airborne?

You can get the credit, that’s not the issue, but why the insta-kill.

1 Like

I mean i understand the new system, but man is it unsatisfying and also not exactly great in terms of awarding “severe damage”

Like wow, i sure am severely damaged

Because it is writing off the fact that you were a combat kill. Be able to fly and being able to fight is a distinction that had to be made now because of the “kill stealing” issue. The insta kill is just checking the boxes fully for severely damaged as being killed because there was no repair made in game.