Bro is arguing with AlvisWisla 🥶🥶🥶
I think it’s nice just to be able to chill and take the game as it is.I struggle with the realism angle to be honest and the era thing rankles me quite considerable that is just a taste thing on my part if I’m honest.I just see it as a wasted oppertunity. I spent possibly too long playing WW2 and after around about four years only just moved into the 6-8 BR and maybe its not so much my thing. I do find the USA to be fun though the T34 is great despite its solid shot.I just play that on it’s own sometimes.
I really only advocate a gap because Gaijin play act at realism especially in the adverts, if they came clean from the start as to what a silly game War Thunder especially at mid tier is then I might not have had any expectation or subsequent disappointment,although it’s possible I may not of bothered at all : )
I think they should give us an option to keep WW2 tanks VS WW2 tanks… the higher the BR… your playing germen tech against modern cold war… doesnt seem right at all
It’s not only Germany. In fact you have three lower BR modern vehicles which can make the traditional armoured WW2 tanks into nothing more than a steel deathtrap for the crews.
2 Likes
I find 7.7 Germany easy with how the BRs were decompressed.
Which is why I have no issue.
@山_田_凉
Careful now, you agree with me more than you disagree:
If you have no issue then you are missing something big and you really are no friend of the game.We should all be open to good changes and the complaints that many forum members make.
By agreeing with me that people should be open to good changes, that implies you agree with me about opposing the terrible unrealistic historical battles ideas people present with arbitrary unrealistic rules.
Glad you are still stating that players are doing the opposite of what they are actually doing.No doubt you will apologizing soon for your autism or whatever it is you hide behind in situations like these.
@EddieVanHalo
So you’re not open to good ideas? Or what?
Your post makes no sense outside pushing hate speech.
1 Like
???
You know what I mean Alvis. You are doing it again.No hate here ,I feel sorry for you.It’s just a shame that the game has defenders like you making all the bad pints alright.
The era clash has long since exceeded peoples own personal ideas about immersion and become something that effects game play and subsequent enjoyment.You employment as a Gaijin stooge actually does nothing to help Gaijin as this issue does not help the game.
I am all for seeing WT survive after the time and effort put into it ,shame you are just content to let it roll as it is.
@EddieVanHalo
Weird of your post to defend War Thunder by claiming that criticizing War Thunder is defending it.
Custom battles exists for people’s unrealistic fantasies about Germany winning World War 2, etc.
I was the first one to criticize the existence of historical battles in the early days, and thankfully we got a 2nd playable game mode outside arcade battles, and later a 3rd playable game mode with simulator EC.
All thanks to the thousands of US that criticized the game while you defended it.
Weird of you to get our roles reversed.
Where did that come from?
Thank you for your service Sir.
???
Yeah the forum is full of me defending the games faults.
I will gladly shout about all the good bits of War Thunder and there are many to lament.
"Alvis Wisla, Warthunder’s biggest critic " Said nobody …ever.
Still according to you we are in agreement then that some form of spit is needed.That is a start.
People think criticizing Russia is defending Russia, so that’s on-point that the same people would think me criticizing War Thunder is me defending it.
Something like “Criticizing is when you hate-praise, the more you hate-praise the more criticizer you are.”
I don’t hate, and I don’t praise; I analyze and specify things, as any good critic should, the good, the neutral, and the bad.
Right now the only bad of realistic battles is air RB is still Counter Strike with wings, which can only really be changed with new AI for vehicles.
Most of it is neutral and good.
And all of realistic battles is superior to historical battles.
Those of us that love realism hate historical battles, there’s a reason why we flock to games like DCS and War Thunder where we can play without reenacting history.
I am not a “defender” of anything other than good ideas and facts.
No ,only you do.
I can see the acting at realism thing and I get that.
Personally, I’d rather things be balanced by what they can and can’t fight. The amount of times I’ve watched HEATFS absolutely fail to put down some armored behemoth is probably equal to the amount of times I’ve seen it one shot them. Like the Jpz, I love that tank, but the HEATFS shot definitely needs good placement to be effective, otherwise you just have to slowly take apart the enemy, and if it fails to disable it’s gonna die.
But yeah, I enjoy my heavy tanks, do I sometimes wish they were sturdier, sure, but I also wish there were more tanks at various levels and that APHE needs to be less cartoonishly powerful. But I accept the lack of realism. To me it seems warthunder isn’t necessarily about realism but about having the variety of mechanics at play. Frankly, I wish they would just make a tank game with completely fictional tanks in a fictional setting, like when they did that dune inspired event. A game like that with the same mechanics but no historical constraints would be amazing.
In any case yeah, gap won’t fix things IMHO, decompression and vehicles targetting the gaps would.
I’m not looking at it purely from the balance standpoint, even though I could.
I’m arguing with @Ion_Protogen about “any sort of historical MM” being in fact not hard to make “enjoyable and balanced for all players”.
I focus here more on the enjoyable to play part and consider it synonymous with balanced.
Putting Ikv 103 at the same or nearly the same BR as T-54s or T-55A would not make it unenjoyable to play. It would however make the game more historically accurate and by extension more enjoyable, if you value historical accuracy/vibe of the era.
I’m coming back to the Ikv 103 example, because it is one of the most extreme ones, being around 4 BRs too low for no good reason, unlike it’s brother Ikv 72.
Tanks really don’t have to be that balanced to be enjoyable to play. Unlike with planes, practically everything can be mitigated with skill, if you can physically kill your opponent. You can kill a top tier MBT with a BT-5, you can’t really kill a top tier jet with an I-15. (It doesn’t mean BT-5 should be at top tier, if it was made in 2024, stay calm)
On top of that lineups exist. Majority of lineups are made of 1-2 solid tanks, the backbone of the lineup, and the rest are some fun, weird, interesting tanks or planes. Not every vehicle has to be the absolute best in class.
The only time you can’t mitigate your weaknesses in a tank, is if you’re big and slow. When you play a heavy tank, it’s all about your tank, with all other classes it’s all about you.
If someone can lolpen your armor, when you’re playing a Maus, you can’t really do much about it. You can hide and roleplay a Sturer Emil, but I think that’s missing the point of playing the Maus.
A counter to Maus should be an IS-4 or AMX-50 Surbaisse, not BMP-1 or AMX-10M.
More or less.
The only difference is that I would put VT1-2 at 10.3 and M60 AMBT at 11.3.
Thank you btw. I didn’t know that a tank with a Leopard 2A4’s gun, DM23 and 5 second reload can meet an IS-4. It’s absolutely NUTS.
No, they need 2 bushes for 500 GE each.
The bigger they are, the more mobility they need.
17hp/t, and top speeds of 53 kph forwards and 11 backwards is definitely enough for a tank of this size.
An Ikv 103 can peek fairly safely from behind cover with that 16 degrees of gun depression and it’s small size, it’s not awkward like a Nashorn for example. These are the nuances that actually make a difference.
Doesn’t really matter. The only thing that actually matters (from the ones you listed) is the reload speed and that’s the 1 thing that would make it not meta. I don’t think it’s a big deal.
Decompression + what I said earlier - tanks don’t have to be perfectly balanced to be fun.
Some of the undertiered vehicles (not just HEAT slingers) are just that. M50 is a meme vehicle, VT1-2 is a meme vehicle, 120S is a meme vehicle.
Not all of them are meme vehicles though, for example Puma (WW2), M24, M41 (both German and American), M51, M56 or Jpz 4-5. They are just underrated. Pretty much every vehicle with scouting ability either is undertiered and treated as if it didn’t have it like Puma or M24, or shouldn’t have it like M18. All IFVs are undertiered too.
I don’t consider Ikv 103 a meme vehicle, I genuinely think it’s on par with M56 (excluding scouting ability). They also entered service around the same time. M56 is faster and has quicker reload, while Ikv 103 offers more firepower and better protection.
1 Like
It would.
True, but an imbalanced tank is less enjoyable to play.
This means so much more than you are saying it does.
3 Likes
Skill issue
Not necessarily. A bigger challenge = more satisfaction. Unless you have some crazy high expectations of this tank and for some reason you expect to compete with WW2 tanks in a 1950s infantry support SPG. Then you will be frustrated that your favoured tank isn’t meta.
You’re acting as if Ikv 103 was slow. It really isn’t, it’s just not very fast. 17hp/t, 53kph forwards and 11 backwards isn’t bad. The reload isn’t horrible either, only 2s (33.3%) longer than M56’s on aced crew, while having twice the TNT equivalent and better pen. It’s not like it has a 20 second reload or something.
no.
You should, balance is much more important than historical accuracy.
Nothing that’s unbalanced would be enjoyable to play.
The problem is, why should one invest much more skill to perform the same as in another vehicle ?
This is also not only about tanks, I-15 can physically kill a top tier jet as well.
Nothing is stopping you from taking Ikv 103 in your 8.0 lineup if you think the vehicle will perform on par.
Your game would be hilariously unbalanced.
It also has two barrels that can fire at the same time.
It looks nuts until you learn about all the disadvantages that tank has.
Just because you have bushes it won’t save you from an enemy that’ve beat you in the mobility game.
Yeah it is for 4.0 but at 8.0 you’ll barely keep up with medium tanks, which is an issue for such a fragile vehicle.
That gun depression is the only positive of Ikv 103 at 8.0. Everything else would be sub-par with the armor penetration being mid. You firstly need to get to the spot unharmed and then aim that super slow shell.
It does matter but I’m afraid you’ll never understand why.
That’s just your opinion mate.
No it’s not. When sniping, 120S can be really good, which can’t be said for AVRE. That thing doesn’t excel in anything.
Firepower is a mix of both shell penetration and reload speed. M56 has both HEAT-FS for heavy targets and APHE for side shots. Don’t know about you but I’m sure most would agree M56 has better firepower.
Also, you’re trading ~11HP/t for “better protection” which won’t let you be safe even against 7mm MGs lol.
2 Likes