Separate BR for various game modes is a big one as I am tired of seeing my favourite CAS being hiked up due to success in ARB.Can anything be done about M109 spam at 6BR? 6BR really does have a WW2 canon despite what others say.Can we stop at 6BR ,make all upto and including 6BR WW2 then have another 6BR with all the post war stuff? Era separation is so much more than personal taste now ,playing WW2 tanks with modern vehicles is just no fun and free of immersion which is a big part of any game as its all role play to a degree and the M109 really is unwelcome ,a real blot on the immersion landscape.Abandoning immersion was a real mistake on warthunders part as it was a big plus in early BRs ,why celebrate war heroes then abandon WW2 as area of immersion and enjoyment? Whole 5-7 BR feels wrong to anybody who plays for fun rather than scorekeeping.
Hidden profile begging for arcade era separation.
Realism & immersion > unbalanced nonsense.
Vehicle capabilities matter far more than some unrealistic war game where 1945 vehicles somehow never have a chance of facing vehicles from 1955 when that’s unimmersive as well.
Real wars have been fought with larger disparities.
The howitzer is from 1910, the modern howitzer design was made in the 1930s.
Honestly sick of anti-realism arguments trying to destroy War Thunder with their constant “Germany could’ve won WW2” arguments.
This is not what is holding it up at all and Gaijin has yet to confirm what issues do hold sales. i.e. so far Gaijin has said things that were not true about pack quantity limitations on the Xbox store i.e. no more than 5 packs on sale at a time which is disproven by other games listing more than 5 and now this year we have had sales on Xbox finally having more than 10 packs on sale at once.
They are really tight lipped about what the issues are and all I can guess it is due to a agreement they have with Sony since it launched there before Xbox. I cannot confirm this and doubt anyone can as it probably is part of the agreement to not disclose anything.
Lets take on the forums resident clown.I quite clearly stated why I and so many others think immersion is important.its a huge part of why adults game in the first place and I am baffled as to why Gaijin sought abandon it in order to make Warthunder an ultra competitive stat based shooter and all with the full support(of course) of people like you. One poor fool goes out of their way to recreate a Tiger tank exactly how it was then another clown just dumps a 60s tank in along side it.Pure stupidity and a realism game killer.Canon destroying,meta befuddling rubbish. I know you must defend all that is Gaijin but you are helping to destroy this game here so please just shut up and trot off.
@BoveyBadBoy69
I’m glad War Thunder is a realistic immersive war game simulator, and NOT an “ultra competitive stat based shooter”, cause such a War Thunder would be terrible.
Yes, War Thunder’s realistic simulation has support from EVERYONE that loves realism.
Realism > stat based arcadey nonsense.
Process harder.
Realism > your post’s demands, all day every day.
Not sure why you claim that everyone that loves realism is bad.
Not sure why your posts portray you as hating realism and opposite of reality.
You hid your profile, and your posts contain trolling language and derail topics with insults toward everyone that loves realism and immersion.
Honestly the way we’ve got this whole heap of ‘You’re wrong’ and ‘dismissive’ trolls on the forum, there’s a significant issue that needs to be addressed, as it’s not being addressed properly and it leads to situations developing which shouldn’t even be a thing with our EULA that we agreed to…
I don’t feel safe around these sorts.
You should feel safe, all they can do is post provocations at us.
I should, but the fact that moderators aren’t stepping in to quell them, or to actually get rid of those who are causing this it gets stupid.
I had the EULA posted up a clause about disrupting the community being a reason to breach… I should’ve taken it as a threat in the first place, but I didn’t… And now I recognize that it was.
Its not by any means and people like are preventing it from being one.
What is realistic about an M109 in a BR that is all about WW2 and WW2 vehicles? Are you having a laugh here deliberately trolling?
Please stop derailing the post.
M109 uses technology invented during WW2 with the exception of the fire computer which isn’t in War Thunder, and is primarily for indirect fire on infantry positions which isn’t in War Thunder thus not necessary.
M109 is just a higher velocity Brumbarr with less armor and a turret.
M109 is 1960s and no place in a WW2 game whatsoever and its destroyed the game for many at that BR so I suggest a cut off point to the OP ,just suck it up and move along.
Is there any news about leopard 2a7v armor fix? fixing its many armor hole and making hull ufp base armor have D-tech armor, or atleast making overall ufp KEP the same as strv 122’s?
and any news about dm53 density fix to 18.5g/cc?
“As always, our teams are hard at work fixing bugs and improving the game based on your reports and feedback.”
Do you want to take a look at how many bug reports I have that nobody cares about? There are even bug reports for more than two years! No one is even looking! No response given! Have you really cared about players?
[DEV]The armor bug of the T-64B // Gaijin.net // Issues
This is the bug report I gived two years ago, and no one has checked it yet. No one has told me what the issues are with the bug I raised, nor have they submitted it to the developers.
You can go to my homepage and see how many bug reports I have without anyone managing them. I completely don’t believe what you say.
The vote was an overwhelming yes for extra modules. Don’t try to lie.
He didn’t say you were wrong, he stated your sources conflicted with each other, thus the report cannot be considered.
Except the sources didn’t conflict with each other at all , all sources show the same feeding mechanism for the heavy type of turret which is the one employed by the 2S38. He just wasn’t competent or motivated enough to do his job correctly , read correctly the provided primary sources which did infact complement each other and come to the correct conclusion. Instead he prefered to double down on cosmetic differences which were unrelated to the matter of the report in order to deny the obvious . That was the whole argument . Anyhow .
For tanks, but there are also aircraft playing under completely different rules in the same battle.
GSB in it’s current form is a joke. It shouldn’t be dragged through the mud further. They could just delete it and the players would simply play RB.
How is not putting crew healing in sim reduce it’s players if we don’t have crew healing currently anyway?
It just stays the same.
At the same time:
What is it?
Ground forces is a shooter atm. Not a Simulation.