That doesn’t make any sense… how else is Gaijin supposed to make their money?
1 Like
That’s not very valid when the KH-38MT exists in game.
2 Likes
I’ve been playing War Thunder for years, and recently I’ve started feeling something that’s becoming harder and harder to ignore: the game is slowly losing one of the things that originally made it special — the feeling that every nation had its own identity.
I understand the historical argument. Modern militaries often operate the same vehicles. That part makes sense.
But War Thunder is not just a military encyclopedia — it’s a game.
Right now top tier increasingly feels like a loop of the same machines spread across different trees. Another Abrams here. Another F-16 there. More Leopard variants everywhere.
At some point you stop feeling like you’re fighting different armies and start feeling like everyone queued with different skins of the same equipment.
One of the biggest reasons to grind multiple nations used to be variety. Different strengths, different weaknesses, different battlefield philosophies.
That distinction is disappearing.
And the problem becomes even more visible because the actual structure of battles has barely evolved.
I’m talking about the ABC capture point format itself.
Three circles. Rush positions. Hold. Trade. Repeat.
For years this has been the backbone of too many matches regardless of BR, nation, or map. The result is that battles increasingly blend together.
We need more evolution in objectives and mission design.
Not every battle should revolve around identical cap zones placed in slightly different locations.
Introduce convoy interceptions. Dynamic frontlines. Breakthrough scenarios. Defend-and-withdraw objectives. Logistics. Recon missions. Multi-stage battles. Variable objectives depending on vehicle class and map.
Right now too often the objective isn’t to fight a war — it’s to memorize where A, B and C are and drive there faster.
And that leads into another issue:
map design has become increasingly stale.
Too many maps feel restrictive, repetitive, and overly standardized.
Different textures, same flow.
The same forced corridors. The same sightlines. The same spawn exits. The same engagement ranges. Entire locations start feeling interchangeable after a few matches.
Large maps become long drives into predetermined firing lanes.
Small maps become instant close-range brawls.
Instead of creating battlefields with personality, maps increasingly feel optimized around predictability.
And finally, something that worries me the most:
There’s a growing feeling across the industry that procedural workflows and AI-generated content are becoming shortcuts for production.
If that direction influences map creation, event design, missions, or content pipelines — that is not real efficiency.
It’s a temporary saving that risks creating content that feels repetitive, soulless, and disconnected from what players actually enjoy.
Players notice when content feels assembled instead of designed.
You don’t build long-term trust by generating more content faster.
You build trust by creating memorable experiences.
And on another note — the Polish community has been waiting for years for meaningful representation.
You only need to search for “Polish” on the forum to see how consistently people discuss and request Polish content.
Poland has enough history, enough domestic concepts, enough Cold War and modern equipment to justify something more ambitious than occasional additions.
Giving players a new identity to learn does.
16 Likes
You buy premium vehicles to grind the tree faster and to complete a lineup. It shouldn’t matter if it’s a unique vehicle or not.
1 Like
Ngl, there’s 0 reason why we don’t have other game modes. We have player creating ground battles on AIR MAPS on WT LIVE (if anybody remembers that exists). Naval needs an overhaul for the short games, Naval EC needs more coastal objectives or even river missions for small crafts to do. Combined Ground/Air EC would be lovely and actually give things like artillery/MLRS vehicles a great support use and same with light tanks being able to go recon and adjust fire, etc. There’s so much that can be done but just requires work.
2 Likes
Yeah, but what incentives people who have grinded past it to go and buy it? Why would I want to buy a copy paste M4 for Germany when I’m on the Leopard 2A5? Not that I agree, but we’re arguing with a company. Their priority is income.
1 Like
At the very least i hope the devs try to add CCV as it would be a good high br light vehicle tank with 40mm and very high RoF
2 Likes
First of all - nobody asked for M44/M55 for germans. They had uniqe stug42 on this BR. There were no reasons to Implement them there. Second - Sometimes you buff some vehicles and somtimes you nerf vehicles to balnce gameplay. And it’s completely okay. So why did you add as the best tank and the best heli Abrams and Apache to the biggest american enemy - China? Why you just didn’t buff their MBTs? I have to ask when T-90M for USA? This is what killing this Game. Delete this.
9 Likes
So true!
2 Likes
The most annoying part of the M44 M55 copy paste for Germany was you took away unique rank 3 TDs and put them in rank 2, making battle pass challenges obsolete for them and I’d now have to use copy paste American vehicles at that BR. Copy paste is fine but not for replacing existing rank 3 uniques
2 Likes
Ironically the SL chests are the perfect solution to this pollen. It gives players who have ground out what they want a use and incentive to grind SL. A great way to do that (and to complete BP/event grinds at the same time) is to have premium line ups of vehicles you enjoy.
I’ve seen lots of people using things like the hell pack or the two fronts pack for grinding. Adding in premium versions of domestic TT vehicles gives an improved way to farm SL for those who haven’t got a need for grinding RP
i just wanna see yugoslavia as its own tree, man
there’s SO MUCH unique content you could get from adding yugoslavia, for air and ground, some duplicates, but a lot of unique vehicles all the way up to top tier!!
2 Likes
“try and avoid placing entirely unique or historically important vehicles exclusively as premiums as much as possible.”
F-14D.
1 Like
"This is because our current approach with the higher ranks is to try and avoid placing entirely unique or historically important vehicles exclusively as premiums as much as possible. "
So, why are the best variants or unique vehicles locked behind a paywall? For example: the Phantom (better radar), the FR-1 Firebolt (unique), the XA-38 (unique), the P-59 (unique and unbalanced/broken), the A-4E Early (unique armament configuration for North America), the F-14D and the IRIAF (better than the tech tree variants), and the A-6E TRAM. And this is JUST in the North American aircraft tech tree.
I have no issue with premium vehicles, but they shouldn’t be better than the tech tree variants—EVER—because the game is heading toward a Pay-to-Win model. And when I say “pay,” I mean paying a LOT, because the prices are VERY high. o7
2 Likes
I have a question , might be offtopic . But a lot of players need an answer.
Do you have plans for simulator game mode ? And please who we should contact to make necessary changes . We have a lot of passion for that mode and we don’t ask for much .
I have one thing to say. I have no problem with copy-paste premiums, and also if the tech tree need somthing to get srtonger in some BRs sure add them (like the low tier of Italy), but there are many that wasn’t needed on my opinion like the leo 2a4-5-6 into the french TT. The exat thing that i want to say is if we dont have the old system where NATO were fighting againts RU and CN though it is pretty anoying to fight againts the same tank that im siting in, in every single match (especially in air [for air at least to nations pls separate them like every one of them are only on 1 side]). {and 1 last thing the low level players in toptier (not because of leaving after 1 death but because they dont have any experience, i think it should be a limit that “you have to reach like lvl 50 to buy the M1A1 Click Bait” won’t be done because this would cut a lot of money}
2 Likes
I agree with you in many things except this, Every TT has like what? 200 vehicles ? Having 10 common vehicles doesn’t make it the same TT with different skins
1 Like
The game wasn’t just about nations, but the battles too. Now diluted, there used to be some sense of historical authenticity. Especially with the air battles.
Also mandatory PL mention out of context and oddly contradictory to the post, check.
I feel like just because a nation exist, doesn’t mean they need to be a tree in WT. Poland and Eastern Europe TT aren’t the worst contenders out there to get added tho, but then you have things like…
Unified Korea. People hypocritically massively upvote for this and then ask why does the game feel like everything blends together when there’s no identity.
did you mean (agile eagle slats)
1 Like