I think you are on the forum for an argument rather than to say anything useful, nice try ,not biting.
Again, I’ve asked you for you point of view multiple times and you refuse to provide it. It isn’t possible for me to have a discussion of differing ideas alone.
37 likes for the op yet you pick on one person and think you are correct.I think the idea for a break to make WW2 separate is old and as popular as any other subject on here.
1 Like
There is not a “correct” or “incorrect” here. This is a preference thing. One is better for WW2 only players and one is better for everyone else. “Old” and “Popular” ideas that never get implemented probably aren’t GOOD ideas for the game overall. If the progression issue was addressed in a meaningful way this wouldn’t be such a bad idea, as we discussed. The majority of people pushing for this don’t care about the negative ramifications that other players will have to deal with.
Oh boy, I’m such a bad person for asking someone for their opinion on a discussion about a topic and then being told I have no points when they clearly just ignore almost everything I’ve said. I’m 100 percent the bad person, trying to have an actual discussion to someone who replied to me and tried to challenge my point of view and then dug his head in the sand when I counterargued. Dispicable…
Likes also mean nothing, 37 whole likes out of how many players or forum users? Statistically insignificant to say the least.
Oh boy, I had to edit this post because the flagging system is abusable and someone didn’t agree with what I said.
The conversation is behind us,we have had it.If you want it again then read back over this thread
1 Like
Ahh yes, FIFA does things that Warthunder doesn’t. That is the only thing we’ve established in our discussion.
1 Like
Now that’s just a bad take. Humm dur M36b2 can pen a mause, mast be moved up.
2 Likes
Following the BALANS arguments some people bring in here, im wondering why Germany didnt used the King Tigers up to the late 1960s.
Following Gaijins (and some players) logic here, this tank faces oponents up to from that era and later. Surprisingly, in reality, they didnt used the KT after the war but continued with more modern tanks.
1 Like
Oh, I can think of a few reasons.
-
War Thunder’s portrayal of the Tiger II is incredibly generous to the tank. Like all tanks with APHE, it gets a better postpen effect than it had IRL. It doesn’t suffer from the shortages of raw materials and fuel that hopelessly hampered it during service. It doesn’t break down. It can turn the turret at full speed even when engine RPM is being used to drive somewhere. Its steel is of regular quality.
-
Unlike Panthers, which were used postwar by France, Tiger IIs were rare - so there were very few survivors when the war ended - and the Henschel factory was in no position to build any more in 1945.
-
It’s a costly vehicle to produce, and an even more cumbersome one to field and maintain, so it wasn’t really worth it. If you read the French 1947 report on usage of the Panther, for example, it already talks about the logistical hurdle of getting it to places conveniently (it might have ended up stationed in Indochina if not for the fact that it was a hassle to get it there, for example). So you can imagine how there was no impetus to restart Tiger II production.
Like, I’m shocked I even have to say this, but WT isn’t real life. They’re not balanced the same way (in fact, reality tends to not be balanced at all. That’s what happens when you’re an emergent property, and not game design, lol).
That glides over the fact that Germany wasn’t officially allowed to rearm until 1951, and produced the Leopard I much later. There is a significant gap between the end of WW2 and the next generation of German armour design.
If you imagine an alternate scenario in which Germany had been in a position to retain a military force in some capacity, it’s probable Tiger IIs would have been in service longer, just look at how long some Soviet WW2 designs spent in service in the USSR itself (so ignoring exports). But officially there was no such thing as a German military until the Korean War, and by then, the Tiger II was obsolete.
3 Likes
Valid points,
still, Gaijins PR trick is to call the battles REALISTIC mode where it´s 90% pure fantasy.
And you still can´t convnice me why a KT should face 1970s technology in WT.
1 Like
What you’re talking about is Historical, Realistic refers to vehicle performance and how they move.
2 Likes
Yea, people can’t separate the concept of Realistic (being like reality) and Realistic Mode (being not Arcade or Sim mode) and think they must be the same or something is wrong.
2 Likes
99.9% of war games are completely unrealistic, even though they say they’re realistic.
It’s paradoxical to consider, because war is almost omnipresent in human entertainment and storytelling, but in reality there is very little about real war that is story-friendly or game-friendly. Most of the time the prevailing emotion is boredom and extreme personal discomfort, followed by moments of utter adrenaline and confusion where every participant tends to have very little idea of what’s going on around them, beyond the immediate need to survive.
Modern war is even worse. It’s won or lost in the factory, and no one is going to want to look at Excel spreadsheets for fun. Engagement distances and even maneuver distances are absurd.
The German medium tank company manual from 1941 postulates 50 metre gaps between individual tanks in a formation, which if you were making a movie about Barbarossa, means it would be impossible to have all tanks clearly visible in the frame. And the same goes for videogames. Company Of Heroes, Call To Arms, take your pick, engagement distances are always very short because it makes for better visual impact.
What’s the point of all of this? Realism is a completely subjective parameter, so you can freely use it in advertising because it can’t be fact-checked.
An example of what I mean when I say that realism is subjective: you may draw the line at killing an M109 with a Tiger II, but for me it would be much more absurd to consider the fact that apparently in the world of War Thunder, the world’s nations have decided that infantry isn’t a thing anymore. :D
It doesn’t actually bother me because I know War Thunder is not a realistic game at all. I play it because it’s fun, not because it actually simulates a world war.
What’s easier to kill with a Tiger II? An M109, or an IS-4M?
Obviously the former.
Since balance is done by performance, it’s perfectly fine for you to face an M109 more frequently than an IS-4M.
Honestly even that isn’t really true. Even in realistic and sim, most vehicles in WT are way more capable than their real life counterparts: you can always hit theoretical top speed with anything because there is no stress to mechanical components, your Panther D isn’t going to be stuck with a final drive failure because you hit its theoretical top speed. I already cited the Tiger II turret rotation thing, but there’s more, like tanks without turret baskets not needing for the gun to point forward in order to reload, or early tanks without commander cupola still having the exact same FOV as tanks with cupolas, so on and so forth.
The more you know about RL tanks, the more arcadey War Thunder looks, and that’s not criticism, it’s supposed to be like that. It’s fine. It’s silly to expect anything else.
4 Likes
Of course there should be a separation of ERA’s. Gaijin deny us awesome vehicles like the Panther II, Coelian and Tiger II 10 5 for not being “realistic”, yet my IS-7 from approx. 1946 gets one tapped by a Type 99 from the year 1999. An enemy 53 years more advanced!
Its comparative “realism”. It is more “realistic” than AB. The fact you can hit internal/external parts and crew is more “realistic” than a global HP system.
I agree mostly with your post; words/descriptions/expectations are subjective. Hence the furore over the name “Ground Battles” when a 1 minute check (and almost 10 years of existence) solves that “debate”. But even more so in the arguments over “Realistic”, as we see here.
No one in game has to start from scratch or be removed from the game forever, as what happens to “unconscious crews” in the real world.
Tanks in game can fall from 100m+ and be fine. Go try throwing a modern tank hard into a steep ditch (my anecdotal story is a broken drive shaft), it is not “realistic” in game.
Thing is, Gaijin rarely react to these differing opinions and it is just mainly RB players duking it out with words that won’t amount to anything (the flaw of this subject, often based purely on pen and not the reality of how they generally work on game).
1 Like
And CAS would be super dominant cause most SPAAs are post war.
It fails to do even that. WT used to aim for far more immersion and historicality btw. It was removed piecemeal over the years.
1 Like
No, we already have tools to balance vehicles. No need for some fancy seperation just cause you like heavys.
And we can laugh at the nations with gaps created regarding other classes of vehicle. But hey, sod minor nations, they deserve to be beaten up as only my nation matters 👍
2 Likes
Tiger needs to be as good as the German propaganda portrayed it.