I don’t know about ground battles but, at the least in air, rotation BR is fine because it makes it more controlled meta.
I mean currently 9.3BRs (mainly late subsonic and early supersonic) often get 9.3-10.3BRs for premium grinders and are completely unable to get games where they are the only ones, like jet matches around 2020.
It is one of another issues but, while some rework is mandatory for RB, at least we can get the game close to the old top tier meta (e.g. F-86 vs MiG-15, century series vs MiG-19/early MiG-21, late F-4s vs MiG-23MLA/MLD, etc.) again.
Why would that be?
Swedish vehicles are very unique and they form decent lineups, especially with Finland’s inclusion.
The fact that a lot of their low and mid tier vehicles are post-war doesn’t make them unbalanced either.
As already stated, War Thunder isn’t just a WW2 game anymore. It would be a huge shame to leave countries such as Sweden in the gutter just because certain people like WW2 better.
This also doesn’t address that some people will not be able to play their vehicles in advantageous brackets due to their schedule. It wouldn’t really be fun to have one chance to play your favorite vehicles when they are strong (equivilent to a full downtier now) because you can’t play every day because of your schedule not aligning with the BR rotation schedule.
I agree, to an extent. The Ikv103 is a great example. It’s just a terrible vehicle and sits at 4.0 because it has no business in the game. Because it’s a terrible vehicle, it gets to sling 400mm pen HEATFS at early WWII vehicles. There is no BR where it will be a good vehicle, so it should not be in the game.
Technology should be the main separating factor, not date of introduction. HEATFS should be separate from WWII tanks.
I never said it was a WWII game. I’m saying if a tree lacks competitive vehicles, at the appropriate BR, it should not be added. Vehicles that don’t fit the game should not be added.
The Ikv103, PT76, the various artillery tanks, etc.
I do not see how these vehicles do not belong in the game.
The given examples meet all the criteria and aren’t bad or broken.
Things such as vehicles that lack direct fire shouldn’t be in game for example, nor should vehicles such as engineering vehicles with 12.7s only. But the ones mentuoned? They have an interesting blend of the classic tank triangle and are just very alternative to the classic things such as light tanks and MBTs. That does not make them invalid.
The Ikv103 is a perfect example. It’s just a terrible vehicle overall. The argument for it remaining at 4.0 is because it’s so terrible. There is no justification for HEATFS being at 4.0.
No, vehicle characteristics should be the primary seperating factor because technology is not always equal to performance.
The PT-76 is competitive, at 5.3. The M109s/2S3 are conpetitive, at around 6.0. They fit the game because vehicle characteristics are more important than the technology. The M109s have the most god awful gun handling, but have large caliber HE that can counter heavier armor.
The Ikv103 has a terrible chassis, and the gun is the ONLY decent part of the tank. Add to that the HEATFS with high pen doesn’t make it some invincible meta vehicle. It is still pretty shit overall, especially i comparison to, let’s say, the 4.0 Stug IIIG. The Stug IIIG only has 145mm max pen, but the APHE shell has better post pen, and can still handle all of the vehicles it can face while actually havong survivability.
As I said, it isn’t even a terrible vehicle. It simply isn’t suited for higher BRs than where it currently sits at.
It’s quite a mobile vehicle with low armor that has very good gun depression, but trades damage for sheer penetration.
A reminder that pen =/= damage.
Us swedes already have to deal with horrendous repair costs and it aint even that good.
Repair and ammo costs are dumb anyways, go back to coping that you played your heavy wrong and got outskilled by an Ikv 103. (Mad respect to anyone that plays that thing well tbh)
I would have thought era related detail would have been a base level requirement upon the games inception to make any war game appealing.Far from being a bad idea i would have tbought it mandatory for any tank game that claims to take it self seriously.Its a far cry from the detail of the tank models themselves.
