Countries-based match-making rules

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
17

If more people played ground and air sim, the more likely Gaijin will stop ignoring us and fix long-standing bugs and issues.

As such -

Ground sim has what you yearn for - fixed team vs fixed team including fixed lineups. Unfortunately, those lineups are seriously in need of balance passes themselves and also need to be made more frequent (WTLineup)

Air is a bit more functional due to rotating BR brackets and multiple possible nation groups.

(USSR vs GER/ITA,
GB/US vs JAP
GB/US/USSR/FRA vs GER/ITA/JAP
GB/US/FRA vs GER/ITA/JAP/USSR

and some more variants. I can’t recall what SWE/CHINA are doing. IIRC china usually follows USSR, Sweden usually follows france. US/GB always together. GER never on side of US.)

So come play GSB and ASB and hopefully we reach critical mass with you joining up so gaijin stops ignoring us!

18

Biggest mental gymnastic i’ve seen here recently

19

I’m well aware. I was being intentionally daft.

20

It’s already not realistic in grb with nations USA getting teamed with ussr to fight Germany and Sweden etc. what we want is the ability to play a game with certain nations on both teams since the realistic aspect of team is already gone and it would be much better for balancing

1 Like
21

Not really… Germany military is still quite a joke right now, their news had reported most of their tank is not operational 😅

1 Like
22

THEN WE NEED TO GET IT BACK

just because it is gone does not mean that we need to get comfortable with bad and unrealistic MM

Old axis vs allies style MM was good. Simple as.

23

Go figure. America got what they wanted at long last: the German military being inoperable and reliant on American weaponry. Truman must be so glad.

24

Ever heard of World War 2?

USA teaming with USSR to beat the hell out of germany is more or less what happened during the Race to Berlin.

Sweden, if we treat it as Finland, also make perfect sense in such a context.

25

Well, America wasn’t beating up Germans in Berlin, and Russians weren’t fighting in Flanders with France and Britain.

26

With Lend-leae in mind, seeing T-34s and Shermans side by side doesn’t sound implausible.

There were plenty of P40s, P47, P39s/P63s and Spitfires on the Eastern Front as well. Especially spitfires.

1 Like
27

I disagree with having an axis v allies / bluefor v redfor mm it’s better to keep it in sim battles since it’s a simulator mode which rb is not and having matchmaking be limited to a few nations that can be paired with each other really makes it easy to one side to completely stomp one side out example being F15C/E bluefor stomping on redfor with their best plane being Su27sm/j11A and mig 29smt last year

28

No really, their military is indeed inoperable but they also not that reliant on US weaponries, because they just turning into a incentive machine that try to milk the money from the gov as many as they can

1 Like
29

Nah.
Pure random is the best option, it’s the most fair and causes the least issues with vehicle balance.

@Hudler
That’s not what realism means, and real-life wargames do exactly that and more.
We have realistic battles back, they’re currently here.
What you want are historical battles, which have nothing to do with realism.

@NOR_Tissetassen Again, not what realism means.

30

You are wrong again, as ussual.

Please don’t make any effort to respond, as i will not be talking with persona non grata such as you

Thanks

31

if we’re arguing about what “realistic” means, its kinda getting into semantics, everyone has different ideas of what they think warthunder being “realistic” should entail

32

The definition of “realistic” is not something to debate.

Something either is realistic or not.

US Abrams and RU T-90A fighting against Ger Leopard 2 and CHRL ZTZ simply IS NOT realistic.

Or GRB should be renamed “Ground Somewhat-Kinda-But-Not-Really-Realistic Battles” - GSKBNRRB in short

33

The irony of this post is off the charts.
Here you are debating what realism is, claiming everyone is wrong but you.
What you want is historical authenticity, which is not realism.

Words have meanings, use the correct words.

34

for some people realism is accurate mechanics which warthunder has, for others it is historical realism more similar to sim battles, people can have different ideas of what level of realism they want

35

You’re thinking historical authenticity, which is the actual term for the meaning you’re trying to portray.

Realism comes from the driving simulator games, which has leaked into shooters to relate to gunplay and character movement, and vehicle combat games to relate to physics and systems functioning in a realistic manner.

36

yes which can be argued to be a form of realism, its further down the realism scale, i.e how real do you want your game, real in that it portrays events that could in theory happen happen or real as in it has an accurate physics engine etc