I’m not ☺️ but if that helps you sleep at night, then be my guest.
Look at the definitions, of prototype and experimental…
Prototype: preproduction model used to find pros and cons of a vehicle before production. VK 45.01
Production vehicle: a vehicle that is produced in great numbers after its prototype has had its flaws fixed (or majority of) Tiger H1
Experimental design: a vehicle that is made when engineers take parts and components from different vehicles or just what they have in stock to make a new vehicle that is not intended to be mass produced. Pz.Bef.Wg.VI P
Prototypes tend to not see combat. Production vehicles and experimental designs do see combat. I’m done with this conversation. I have much better things to do.
T58
F14D
Do i need to go on and on building a list that there not really avoiding placing entirely unique or historical important vehicle as premiums?
I hope they add the US as a Sub-tree for Isreal for historical accuracy
3 Likes
Lets also mention the excuse of “bloated TTs via useless vehicles” can now avoided via Folders AND squadron vehicles.
MLRS vehicles imo would make for incredible squadron material.
1 Like
I don’t really mind the addition of “copy pasted” vehicles too much, as long as they don’t replace (or are added instead of) a nation’s original vehicles, specially when they could fill that same “gap”, and here’s a really good example of it, i don’t agree with the addition of the Stuart I and Stuart III to beef up Rank I of the British Tech Tree. And here’s why:
“oh, but the british did use those tanks”
Yes, but we have original british vehicles that could perfectly fill this “gap” filled by the Stuarts, the Cruiser Mk V, Covenanter (A13 Mk III) and the Crusader Mk. I i would be completely fine with the addition of the Stuarts to the British tree, if we already had the Covenanter and the Crusader Mk. I in our TT, the Stuarts could have been added after those tanks.
So, with much respect, this is the problem guys, we get copy-paste instead of our original vehicles and nothing else, it should be the other way around, unique vehicle first copy-paste second! But instead, we get copy-paste now, and unique vehicle never.
This is the part the devs aren’t getting (for some reason), everyone would stop complaining, if the standard procedure was, here’s all the unique vehicles used by your nation, now here are all the lend-lease vehicles that other nations gave them to complement the tech tree. This is what needs to change, the unique vehicles first, the copy-paste second.
6 Likes
agreed but they specifically point out the german varient in the post instead of the other ones in some cases they even make sense like the british tech tree but adding it to the german tech tree and saying that that one specifically filled a gameplay gap is just bullshit
The gameplay gap in question was “open-top 155mm bonk machine”, and while Germany already had plenty of direct fire tank destroyers and a casemated 105mm (the StuH) it did not yet have a 155 until the M109G. M44 was available and being brought in to fill gaps in other trees so re-skinning it as a Bundeswehr M44 was an easy addition while Hummel was still in development.
Do you think there would have been outcry if the other nations received M44 but Germany did not?
2 Likes
If only the US got it there would be littlem outcry. Outcry would happen if everyone that has it now got it except germany.
1 Like
I’m going to disagree on those filling the gap in the place of Stuarts, mostly as I think Cruiser tanks should all be classified as medium, as not only does that classification match their role in real life as best as possible, when googling UK tank classifications/UK light tanks of WW2, you find a light tank classification that isn’t grouped under Cruiser/Infantry. (Yes, this does mean, I think all Infantry tanks should be labelled as heavy)
Of course, outside of the Tank, Light Mk X line, most of what I can find listed as light tanks are the lend-lease vehicles.
5 Likes
oh yeah, i do agree with that, but this a different topic, the thing i’m comparing, is that, in War Thunder, the Covenanter and the Crusader Mk. I, would perfectly fulfill the job the stuarts are doing. and it’s something unique to the British and not copy-pasted.
1 Like
Stop adding slop and fix whats already in game but broken.
Leaving the TURMS shooting ghost shells for months, F2 with a broken radar the same… it isnt making me want to spend.
You already lost over £100 just on me alone. About to be another £50 as I want the XM but theres no way Il spend another penny whilst the greed > everything else.
2 Likes
meanwhile F16V xD
and you get M1A2 in china.
Neither of those are vehicles I mentioned.
@tokerstar
If you think War Thunder is “greedy” I need only mention its 4+ direct competitors, & dozens of indirect competitors, & hundreds of live-service games as a whole.
$40 a year for membership is the lowest in the industry. $80 off-sale, but sales are so telegraphed it might as well be $40, or $80 if you didn’t plan.
1 Like
Well, they have 16C Block 70 as well, which is more of sidegrade if it will be in game. 16C Blk 70 is heavier because of reinforced structure and is capable to handle CFTs while their 16V can hold only “bags” .
They have slightly different EW suit as well, because 16C Blk 70 has new EW suit built in , while 16V has a modified legacy one , they didn’t rewire the planes as well with fiber optics -maybe that’s why-, also because of that Blk 70 has better processing speeds in its electronics and is able to handle future software upgrades better and easier.
Well, in game if it comes those might not play role, that’s why i say it’s more of a sidegrade and maybe worse because it will be heavier.
Blk 70 has F110-GE-129 engines as well, instead of the PW ones… but they have more thrust, so they may have different envelope given the differences in weight and engine. They won’t fly “the same”.
But it’s not that they can’t have a version of 16C.
Any of the other companies selling defective products too?
1 Like
Well, it depends on which part of ‘Defective’
But well, I don’t think other companies keep ‘broken bugs’ on their things for months.
IIRC, Wargaming don’t make French M51 (Somewhat kinda of named with M4A1 Ravioli) unable to shoot gun for months
They just let them powercrept forever from another new Tier 8 mediums
I’m unsure which TURMS you’re using, but T-72AV’s 3BM42 ammo functioned fine last I used it, and TURM 3 ammo functioned fine each time I test drove it within the last month.
If you are “ghost shelling”, what is likely happening instead is server-client communication disruptions, not actually related to specific vehicles.
On stuff I deal with across all tech trees…
A radar being annoying but still usable is something we’ve been dealing with since the first radar missiles.
If you asked me to recall each time the F-2A’s TWS missed a target, I couldn’t tell you, cause that is such a normal thing for me among all ten tech trees I didn’t think of it as a potential bug; I thought it was just the enemy doing something weird.
Never lost lock though except when enemies actively defeated the lock.
I can understand the frustration of radars not seeing a target.
I can understand the frustration of IFF not working on patch day forcing me to turn off friendlies from my radar scope.
I can either work around those issues & enjoy what I can do with the vehicles while bug fixers find & fix bugs, or I can play different vehicles.
Me complaining on the forum will not make the bug fixing team find the bug in the code faster, and they are at least as stressed as I am about these bugs.
As for the “ghost shells”… I can understand the frustration of server-client errors, I get them too. My tactics already account for bad shots, so a server-client communication error is just treated as a bad shot for me. While I didn’t screw up the shot, the results are identical, and the tactics are identical.
I can either complain about something that’s only fixed by increasing data tolerances, or I can keep treating it like I screwed up the shot & try again.
Is it perfect? No.
I’d probably see more of those errors if I played on a wireless connection though.
1 Like
Whether you wanted it or not, You’ve stepped into a logical trap with false equivalence at your take. /j
Even if we consider every other competitor acting greedier than Gaijin, for argument’s sake, it doesn’t make Gaijin ‘not greedy at all’.
it is his right to think War Thunder is greedy game, and you have no rights to gatekeep his thinking.
And well, it seems discussing Gaijin is greedy or not itself is quite an off-topic-ish discussion when the original topic of this discussion was “Gaijin’s excuses about why they are adding duplicate vehicles”
3 Likes
Since it got the stab update it shoots ghost shells.
Gaijin knows and still doesnt fix it , yet keeps selling it= greed.
Same with the F2 radar, months of broken radar- still for sale.
Theres no excuse for premium vics to be left unusable for months
1 Like