Unfortently yes, its not “it aint me” blasting from the speakers but “gucci gang”.
Diffrent gernation…
They made a game with infantry.
There are games designed to do this. please try them
I feel like 99% of those arguing against the historical mm are doing it because they like the current system more. I enjoy the middle ground between arcade and sim.
Maybe some. At least in my case, I dont like many of the early dart users. I prefer mediums, heavies, and tds over light tanks in most cases. Currently in a heavy phase with the tiger 1 and tog.
3 Likes
You don’t understand that a vehicle’s raw performance is not dependent solely on when it is made.
I’d rather just be able to play Italian Rank IV at all, frankly. Moving the vehicles up way past where they should be (based off of their raw performance) would make the vehicles unusable.
Go play Enlisted if you want a game with infantry.
2 Likes
You still don’t understand, I never said anything about performance in this reply:
Edit: In short, a tank or a plane becomes soulless when it isn’t put in a specific time frame, this doesn’t happen with guns or with cars, which are both much more popular and there are much more generic games about guns or cars.
Because firepower negates the armor the tanks it fights were designed with. The IKV103 is a bad vehicle. It never should have been added. Why should tanks that don’t suck be forced to bad tanks that negate the purpose of their design?
The IKV103 wasn’t designed to be fast, or have armor, so why should its lack of speed or armor be taken into account?
1 Like
That has nothing to do with “realistic vehicles and mechanics,” though, regardless of whether it is true or not.
1 Like
Also don’t forget the Post-ww2 Heavys like the T-10 they too suffer from this
Because vehicles are balanced as a whole, not a single characteristic. Warthunder doesn’t care about what a vehicle was designed for. Doctrine or intended use means nothing here. It is just vehicles fighting in as balanced of a way as possible.
2 Likes
I mean your reply fulfills no other purpose than to demonstrate that abstract thinking is based on intellectual abilities and available capacities…
Your reply (with 2 quotes from me) makes zero sense as i described the lack of realism in the current game play of wt from a neutral perspective.
Quotes like this:
are the equivalent of a reaction after somebody pulled a trigger (aka Pavlov’s experiment) - you simply acted based on a conditioning - without any need.
There is nothing wrong if you can live with the flaws within wt Ground RB game play and have arranged yourself with the status quo - but there is simply no need to reply like this, because this was not the point of my remark:
Some people with higher demands ask for more realism and immersion - and based on current economic realities (=the game is optimized to please teens with access to credit cards) these wishes are not realistic as the game was created to earn money - and not to please long-term players with “higher” demands as addressed in this thread.
Just relax.
Nothing will change - only when gaijin would see the need (and economic justification) for or a more realistic game mode there might be a small chance that they would create a P2P mode especially for them - and this would not affect the core mode as it is right now.
Why would they change anything if they earn a hell of money of wt in it’s current design?
1 Like
That’s not true. Clearly, as heavy tanks have higher spawn costs than light and medium tanks. Heavy tanks should not be more expensive to spawn, if they are going to fight more capable medium and light tanks.
Officially historically accurate. Anyone complaining is against REAL historical accuracy, smh.
3 Likes
Another point of balancing. I cannot comprehend that people think that Gaijin hasn’t used more than one factor to balance vehicles.
You just said gaijin doesn’t care what a vehicle was designed for, but that isn’t true. If spawn costs were about balance, they wouldn’t be fixed by class.
Gaijin doesn’t care what a vehicle was designed for not what doctrine lead to its design. They care about what the vehicle is and can do. Vehicle class is part of what the vehicle is, and SP costs reflect that. That is also why SPAA cost so little SP and why Aircraft with advanced weapons cost so much SP, balancing.
Look at the A-10, it is a great example. It is a 10.3 (10.7) because of its weapons. It isn’t because it is a more modern aircraft and it belongs there or anything. The airframe is the slowest jet airframe in game and is slower than some prop aircraft. If it didn’t have guided munitions and Aim9Ls it would be facing props at 6.3 or so. The ONLY reason it can be used as a faux fighter is because of the missiles, if it didn’t have them it would be effectively useless and would have to go down in BR. The Ikv 103 is in the same situation, but the HEATFS can’t make that big of a difference, even in low tiers.
3 Likes
The A10 should be 6.3, even with its missiles. Thats the same situation as the IKV103 at 3.0.
No it isn’t at all. The Ikv 103 isn’t a 3.0, so stop acting like that is its primary BR. The gun isn’t even more effective at one shotting vehicles as APHE. It can just pen vehicles, the APHE is probably more effective at killing vehicles it sees in one shot. The Sturer Emil is the A-10 with missiles at 4.3, since it can nuke anything it sees including uptiers.
If it was a good vehicle with the massively overpowered HEATFS, then why don’t people play it? Your whole argument is riding on that a vehicle with HEATFS (not that it matters because it starts with standard HEAT anyway) is so powerful against 4.0 vehicles, even though it has less kill potential in a single shot than ALL of the APHE users at that BR.
I bet the Sturer Emil makes you soil yourself when you see one if you are this disturbed by high pen vehicles at low BRs. It can see 3.3s with 248mm of APHE pen instead of 250mm (starting HEAT) for the Ikv 103 and actually nuke anything it pens. Where is the outrage about that ACTUAL IMBALANCE in a vehicle? “But the Sturer Emil was used in WW2 so it’s ok”, right?
2 Likes
A-10 is a great example of what’s wrong with this game. For some reason a pure attacker has to be good in air to air combat. The devs ignore countless calls for new game modes, to make attackers and bombers have a purpose.
It it wasn’t you’d be dogfighting an A-10 in a late prop fighters because it wouldn’t have any ability past that. The greater air to air kill ability allows it to be near (enough) to planes it should be around.
You don’t get the point, A-10 should be dogshit in air to air combat, it’s an attacker, it’s role is destroying ground units and it needs air superiority established by, for example, a friendly F16, to do it safely.
You don’t balance B29 around it’s dogfighting capability, why A10 should be any different? Oh wait, I know why, because A10 has a huge fanbase and the devs know that the game modes are purely about air to air combat. So to please this huge fanbase and sell more premium A10s, they made it good in air to air combat.
It’s a poor and lazy game design, nothing more, nothing less. Don’t cover it with the playerbase wanting this format, I’m sure everyone would like to see new, more interesting game modes.
2 Likes
Ok, 4.0. Not that it matters.
The A10 cannot compete with fighters at its BR but it still is at that BR. The IKV has 400mm pen and would be capable enough at higher BRs. The M56 doesn’t even have any armor and is still 6.7 BR.
The Sturer Emil is an open top TD with half the rate of fire. And no, I don’t soil myself when I see one. Don’t be dumb.