Camel´s Air SB Nation lineup


I wrote down my ideas, to somehow solve the problem with the nations at EC Sim. This is how I would try if I were a developer. not an easy task! the tech trees would have to be modified!
giphy (3)

the first picture shows the selection of nations for the user created rooms. (all maps as desired). these user created rooms should be the most important in EC Sim. important would be that you can start these rooms easier! so we could build beautiful battles as desired!

what stands out is a clear separation between ww2 and cold war:

and the good old official lineups:


What problems does this actually solve besides segregating the player base into an even greater number of partially full rooms?


For China/Taiwan and West and East Germany it should ask you to select a lineup for SB Battles:
NATO alignment or Soviet/CCP.
When you select the alignment, only the planes corresponding to that coalition will be available for the Vehicle deck or will be greyed out if they stay in it. The function of locking planes/vehicles has been in the game for over 10 years, so doing this just for SB requires no magical concoction of any kind from Gaijin’s side.
That way, friends will be finally be able to fly together and not against eachother ever single time
I am researching Israel
Oh damn, I wanted to fly my IDS Tornado today…I guess we won’t be playing together

And regarding "splitting the communities: This is being done by the decision makers themselves.

You could also have West vs East Germany in matches, something really interesting but that will never happen in SB.
I am pretty sure the difficult topic here is China & RoC (Taiwan), but that is on GJ themselves, they HAD a version running exclusively for that region and decided to drop it for convenience, filling the servers up with people who have difficulty sometimes communicating in chat or also many, many abuser/hackers and people grinding accounts for the sole purpose of monetary compensation. This has nothing to do with the regular community.
If this is such a complex geopolitical matter, deactivate the option in the SA/CIS servers. CCP players then have to “agree on terms” in case they change to EU/US servers and it’s on them, not us or Gaijin.

Here, an image as an example (sry, really quickly put together)



Agreed, “the tech trees would have to be modified!” is an understatement
One thing at a time.


yes Bogey, you know how the current nation lineup torments me. i just had to hoof type my ideas.

yes Sim needs its own tech tree! AB/RB tech trees are no good for Sim. and this is getting worse update by update.
after the tech trees have been rebuilt in a way that makes sense, the nation lineups would have to be reworked. step by step.
Finland with swedish tech tree is especially hard. in WW2 the Axis and later on the Nato side with soviet material. we see such a techtree is made for arcade.

the thing with the chinese bot farm industry. i always say gaijin wanted chinese. now gaijin got chinese :D


At any one point during the day there might be two mostly full rooms at whatever the flavor of the day is for prop BRs. I don’t think you understand how vastly small the sim community is.

So if those two rooms are not on servers close to you…then you just have to play on bad ping? Or just not play at all?

Or what about games where one side just has an overwhelming PvP advantage? Players on the losing side will not stick around for those games. So do they just get locked into being a pinata for me and my squad mates? That would certainly benefit us…but probably doesn’t benefit the game as a whole.

The same issue applies when you didn’t bring the most meta line-up possible. Oh you’re playing a plane that is objectively bad and a bunch of meta mobiles end up on enemy team…so you are just locked to that game until it’s finished. What does something like P-47 D-22 do against P-47 D-30 at the same BR when it’s on the opposite team?

That’s not even mentioning that Sweden and Israel just… don’t get to play props in Sim according to your blue print.

So what problems does it actually solve? A return to some sense of historical roleplaying? What’s the cost?

1 Like

it makes no sense what you write.

Also, you didn’t read the first post.
otherwise you would know that the user created battles I suggested solve many problems. and that the official “historcal” battles are simply an additional option.

since you have not read it and you just write wildly on it, I go on what you write no further on it.

1 Like

What are these “many problems” it solves?

Are we playing the same game?
If so, why do I have to explain to you the problems EC Sim has?

I want the old User created battles with clickable lineups back. clear logical lineups. and it should be easier to start those rooms.
To increase the choice of rooms, I also want the old official rooms back.
no one should sit in the lobby and see only crap anymore.

I am asking you what specific problems your solution actually solves.

It seems to me that the only thing that it solves is making match-ups more “historically accurate” but doesn’t really take into account the fact that there really isn’t the player counts to support pure historical battles, that player retention in losing matches is a running problem, and that minor nation tech trees do not nearly fit into the World War II dichotomy.

1 Like
  1. increase of rooms will attract more players. many sim players sit in the lobby and unfortunately play only RB or not at all because there is too little sim selection.
  2. one-sided filled rooms are not an argument against because new enemies can join at any time. sometimes these new enemies even turn the battle. I have experienced this myself many times. also, there is the placeholder AI that could help the most disadvantaged teams. provided the AI is programmed more logically.
  3. more historical rooms increase the quality of EC Sim in general. I do not need to explain. that’s self-explanatory.
  4. at least I make the effort and make suggestions. others just complain and have no idea themselves.

So are we increasing the number of rooms or decreasing them? Because in previous statement you said that players should be locked into one or two of the “full” rooms.

The selection criteria that you layed out reduces the possible number of match-ups while arbitrarily separating things into different theaters of warfare / i.e Japan is never paired with anyone other than itself in the World War II bracket.

Your suggestion only increases the number of rooms by arbitrarily separating nations into different war theaters. Japan is never paired with Germany or Italy and in essence needs to go play by itself against US/GB or just US.

With the current playerbase, instead of creating one room of axis vs allies that is up to 16 v 16…you just create two rooms that are basically capped at 8 v 8.

To me it looks like you are just taking the existing playerbase and spreading it even thinner.

One sided rooms are definitely an argument against it. There are certain planes that are terribly balanced in Sim and with limited nation lineups it becomes even easier to game and already easy to game battle rating system.

Planes like the J2M2 and Ki-84 have effectively no counterplay on days where they are the top of their battle rating bracket. Similar things can be said for things like the Yak-3U…especially when it’s opposition is limited to German and Italian props.

Or you even have the odd situation where one nation has planes in their tech tree that are just outright superior to the opposition like P-47 D-30 vs P-47 D-22.

That isn’t even to mention situations where you end up with 3 or 4 heavy hitters on one team and coordinated in voice channel with meta planes. If you are stuck in a lobby against hardcore team players there is very little you or your team is going to muster just by spamming T-4-2.

It’s not self-explanatory. Pure historical EC is only better from an IFF perspective.

Pure historical EC also limits that number of match-ups that players have to learn and also creates much a more clearly defined meta with less room for experimentation.

1 Like

War Thunder isn’t a simulator game and doesn’t require everything to be historically correct, which even you pointed out that your post still isn’t.

Getting to play only a select amount of nations on a select amount of maps would discourage the vast majority of people from even touching the EC mode.
I highly doubt that Israeli players would be willing to play only Sinai and Golan Heights over and over and over again versus the same enemy every time.

And as you yourself mentioned, the split this would create in certain trees would a problematic endeavour that would not only pull away recourses from better causes for this game but also discourage you from grinding certain nations if you’re interested in EC at all, not a good business move!

1 Like

What? I want more rooms! Whatever it says somewhere is a typo. because I usually write in German.

no! no! …no! only in the additional official rooms! as before

The main feature is the user created battles!!! with the clickable selection!

Both of these statements conflict with each other.

If I am understanding things correctly…

You want more rooms.

But you want more limitations on who can fill those rooms.

And you want to force players to only play in one or two lobbies.

1 Like

User created battles!!! read the first page: User created battles!!! clickable selection

damn the historical ones are the official battles from 2 years ago. I would also like these back because they were good.

You’re making a public post on a forum where you expect the dev’s to read and make the necessary changes. Of course you need to lay out the problems along with your “solution”.

I was writing a response to your list, but Feetpics beat me to it with a great response.

you’re telling me the developers don’t know their own Sim Nation selection?

No, that’s not what I’m saying lol.