Create a gap between ww2 and cold war vehicles and tech

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
1037

A word to an aircraft split in 1953:

  • Even as this looks somehow comprehensible it makes no real sense. Why? The development of jets after WW 2 relied strongly on captured German technology and the increase of thrust of early jet engines.

  • Countries like Germany and JP as losers of WW 2 would be limited to WW 2 designs without giving them the possibility to benefit from own stronger engines like the HeS 011 and to benefit from their technological advantage.

  • There were no competitive USSR jets - the sole exception, the MiG 15 is powered by a copied British engine and looks like a c+p version of the Ta 183. Even the P/F-80 was inferior as the airframe design limited the performance - the F-86 used the swept wing research results by captured scientists.

In other words: As gaijin stated multiple times that they wont add Luft 46 aircraft - there is no need for a such a cut at 1953 on a stand-alone basis. In case there would be a hard cut in 09.1945 upfront it looks different.

1038

Not all nations had WW2 era jets.
Japan literally has only Kikka, and the only other one that can be implemented is the trainer models of Vampire and F-80C, which is technically Korean War era jets.

1039

The Maus was operational as a test platform outside WW2 and into the Cold War.
It is likely one of the reasons for T-55’s turret armor profile later on.

Changing definitions, which is what the posts of you and Panter are doing, is a terrible way to present posts.

If I or anyone else made exceptions to vehicles you would CORRECTLY call us out on it.
I however wouldn’t cause I constantly compare my views to each other to retain consistency.

An era split will be based on an arbitrary year, not your posts’ more arbitrary definitions.
In-fact, era split with how you’ve defined it here means Maus would be banned from random battles.

All 3 would have Maus banned as it wasn’t combat capable.

1040

I mean the 1953 cutoff existed for many years in the game.

That’s why UK has Hawker Hunter, West Germany has CL-13A, Russia has MiG-17.

1041

Oh, I am referring to compression of the postwar props after an era split. Said Korean War era jets with lighter armament are exactly the kind of planes I am talking about that can possibly bridge the gap between heavily armed propeller aircraft from after WW2 and actually competitive Korean war jet fighters like the Soviet ones with autocannons and such.

1042

The performance of those trainer models is very different from the late props and almost same with the actual Korean War era fighters, just like MiG-15UTI.

Reminder, late props doesn’t have ANY issues for killing some WW2 era jets and even some early jets that flown after 1945.

Also, before talking air, I really recommend to play these BR because You will see many “late props” wipe out jets, just like Spitfire Mk.24.

And no… 1945 gap isn’t needed for aviation.

1 Like
1043

I was just thinking a gradual incline in capabilities, postwar props fighting trainer jets with weakened armaments and engines, and those slowly improving until they reach the normal loadout of a Korean war jet fighter.

We already see this progression naturally in WW2 props and that of Cold War jets slowly transitioning to more and more powerful AAMs. Sure, it isn’t super streamlined at times, but it works and is practically already extant in the tiers we are talking about, the only difference in my opinion is that the WW2 jets would be separated leading to a more unique playstyle over their postwar jet relatives.

But like I said, while I don’t have any experience with specific aircraft in this broad idea, I feel that this is more of an overarching suggestion about the natural progression that we see in our own world.

It is certainly not hard to understand that the differences between jet propulsion and conventional propellers can be signifigant at times, which is why I suggested lighter armed trainer jets to fight postwar propeller aircraft that armament wise stand enough of a chance.

I feel like this is a bit subjective, I see a lot of conversation revolving around the dynamics between these two types of aircraft, and the opinions on their effectiveness against one another seem quite mixed at times.

1 Like
1044

The playstyle for jets in that era was not that different from props before WW2 and Korean War. Rather, the performance gap is larger with afterburners, AAMs, and supersonics.

When the playstyle remains exactly the same across eras, there is no point in installing a gap in the MM, and in fact it would be counterproductive from a balance perspective.

That’s why we need the old No afterburners, No supersonics, No AAMs gap, NOT the WW2 gap.

1 Like
1045

We just need decompression instead, because that will cause issues when planes have some of that, but not all of that.

Why can’t aim-9Bs be allowed to face stuff like a Mig-17, or what about stuff like an F-86K?

1046

That’s because it used to be in jet games.

Also, balancing vehicles suffering from Maus syndrome, like Hunter F.1 and French Vautour IIA, is impossible, even with decompression.

Also, IMO MiG-17 still face against AIM-9Bs if you bring MiG-17PF/Lim-5P, MiG-17AS, Shenyang F5.

F-86K can face against these MiGs and SMB2, Etendard, CL-13B Mk.6, G.91R/4, F3H, Hunter F.6(NL) etc.

1047

Never really been able to get onboard with a TT era split idea.

The VE/VJ day split onwards suggestions, to me, just feel like a Jagtiger / Tiger II / Maus players fantasy and nothing more.

The ‘cold war’ split suggestions, just feel really arbitrary. Where do you draw that line in the sand? Because where ever you do, you’re going to seriously upset some countries who had a major addition / counterpart introduced right after whatever cut off you choose.

The ‘cherry pick’ / flexible approach suggestions, where there is no hard date, but you can move things across the dividing line based on perceived balance, just sounds like a recipe for disaster. Would cause far too much argument.

Don’t think any option is better than what we do now. We just need more decompression.

2 Likes
1048

The aviation tree, up to a certain point, had technical limitations and when it did it worked very decently except for the MM issue, just like CL-13A Mk.5.

Everythings became worse when they added supersonics/AAMs in the game.

1049

I just feel as though, if the whole point, purpose and sentiment behind the sort of things threads like this call for, is to experience more realistic matchups in their battles, then we don’t need to completely upend the game in order to achieve it.

Just revive and reboot Historical Battles. Make it an RB controls version of what ground Sim does with its cherry picked vehicle rosters.

Put it in say, every Fri-Sun when the player count is highest to support playerbase fragmentation.

Same end result with none of the chaos associated with severing tech tree’s in half along unclean lines.

1050

I assume that if MM and TT were separated, it would also allow for the decompression that people have been asking for far longer.

I mean, if separates TT, they need to implement new “reserve” modern vehicles so, new player can skip pre ww2 stuffs and play modern stuffs first. If the waiting queue is commonplace with new players, it should be possible to decompress BR even more. Also, as more Gen 4.5 aircraft are implemented in the game, it will be necessary to separate the TT, just like boats because it is just ridiculous that new player joined the game with tomcat or hornet(soon tm) hype or something else but, they need to play pre ww2 biplanes first.

At the very least, separating the TTs with the same criteria as when the technical cutoff was in the game would solve most of the problems you have in mind. For players who prefer the old stuff, it literally just goes back to pre-2018 games.

For modern stuffs, hopefully, we may gets vehicles that was ignored by Gaijin, such as F-102, F-4B, F-4D, MiG-21M, MiG-21SM etc.

Historical battle is just ARB before it gets renamed…

1051

This is true and what I prefer.

1052

You still fail to realize that just because something can penetrate and kill stuff at a higher BR, doesn’t mean it should be there. Vehicle balance is much more than that.
With your highly questionable logic, following would apply:

  • VT1-2 to at least 10.7, same round as on Leopard 2A4
  • M60 AMBT to at least 11.7, same round as on M1A1 AIM
  • M1128 to at least 11.3, same round as on IPM1
  • …

It’s a very good thing someone like you isn’t in charge of the balancing department, the game would be in a much worse state than it is now.

Tanks like that need to have mobility to work properly. At ~4.0 it is much faster than most mediums, but at 8.0 it would be on par (or even slower) than most mediums. One of it’s biggest advantages, gone instantly.

It’s a casemate that has terrible zoom, piss poor shell velocity and below average reload speed. At ~8.0, most of it’s kit would be straight up bad, with round being decent (if you ignore shell velocity) and gun depression being the only good thing about it.

Also, if you want to put Ikv 103 at 8.0, at what BR would you put something like JPz 4-5 ? It can’t be 8.0 because those two can’t share the same BR since one is objectively a better vehicle.

First of all, AVRE is a meme vehicle and you’re actively trying to make the same thing out of all early HEAT slingers.
Second of all, just because something could be playable at the given BR, doesn’t mean it actually deserves it, it’s crazy how much your logic is flawed.

Let’s just place [insert most 9.0 / 9.3 vehicles] to 12.0, they won’t be meta, but they will definitely be playable. They wouldn’t be meta at 12.0, but they don’t have to be.

As I said, good thing you aren’t in charge of balancing, this game would be in absolute shambles.

1053

You sure about that claim?
M48 was introduced in 1952
That’s quite a bit after the 1945

EDIT: There is also another factor to consider
(Which goes both ways actually) Even in 1952 when M48 was introduced, it would still take time to reach frontlines due to transportation of spare parts and due to crew training.

1054

I mean, I always have fun with my heavy tanks. Some are better than others but eh. I don’t think a hard split would help anything, I think it would legit just become a huge new problem. Also I honestly get targeted by CAS in basically everything except my heavy tanks. But experiences are different. All I know is that I think more BR decompression is the best option. A hard split definitely would be more painful than not. But that’s just what I think.

1055

What BR are you playing at?

1056

Just getting into 8.3 for my americans, working on getting another couple vehicles to fill out the lineup, but play 8.0 Americans. Played a bit of 7.7 Germans, just starting work on 8 for the germans. Russians max is 6.7. British I’m working to unlock my 8.0 lineup but played my 7.7 a good bit. French I’m working on the 7.7 and 8.0 lines simultaneously since their so intermingled and wonky, but played my 7.0 a bunch. Italy just got to my 6.7 though still working on getting the little recoilless rifle car at 6.7. Japan I’m also at 6.7. Sweden I’m at 6.7 and working to unlock the Bkan to use the 6.7 lineup as a 7.0. Israel just working to the Sho’t, got the other 2 7.7 tanks already.

As for what I play the most, probably a mix of 3.7, 7.7, 6.7 and 4.0. I always have fun at 6.7 and 7.7 though. And I definitely enjoy the 7.0 French.

1 Like