No, I’m not. I run my own business and do not advertise incorrectly. If you claim you are historically accurate, there is no such thing as balance. Gaijin needs to either become historically accurate or never claim to be so.
Good luck detecting, locking, and hitting high-altitude KH-38s, AGM-65s, or PGM-500/3s with any SPAA.
Launching ANY at low-altitude is begging for interception.
War Thunder is already historically accurate, and no amount of personal definitions will change that fact.
I’ve never once since I started in 2013 seen Gaijin claim to be historically accurate other than VEHICLE MODELS, not ammo types or battles or anything like that.
And if they were 100% accurate, the Abrams wouldn’t be in the game until there was something to counter it. You really think they’re gonna just let the Abrams steam roll every other nation? Sounds like a fuckin terrible game to me if they did.
Frankly, no offence, it’s a stupid question to even ask.
1 Like
“Over 2,500 highly detailed aircraft, helicopters, ground vehicles, warships and other combat vehicles crafted carefully from historical documents and surviving sources.”
Except fuck the documents in certain cases?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
@polikachika Please do not derail the topic with false accusations against strangers.
In this case you’re accusing Beldum of doing things I’ve seen zero people do on this forum.
The only “gaslighting” that occurs on this forum is people accusing others of being delusional.
Listening to others and discussing civilly is not a bad thing.
As other’s have said, it’s simply a matter of balance.
Pretty much all top RU/CN MBT’s rely on ERA for the bulk of their KE protection.
If you give the western tanks their truly modern darts, which were specifically built to defeat that ERA, you significantly reduce the viability of those two nations.
Meanwhile, Russia is getting it’s most modern darts, because even those are worse than most old ‘western’ darts.
It’s no different than how some planes are not allowed missiles that they could carry. To give you an example from ‘the other side’, when Mig29 was first added, it had it’s R-73’s removed so that it was balanced against the F-16’s which were limited to Aim-9L’s.
2 Likes
If it’s a balancing mechanic, then I have no problem with that. Then that leads me to question why does documentation matter when it comes to fixing certain tanks? Gaijin is very wishy washy when it comes to these things. Either they are accurate or they are not. For example, I made a suggested hotfix bug report for the Abrams faulty turret ring but was adamantly denied by bug manager #1 since I did not have supported documentation. Does that mean Gaijin just cherry picks what gets balanced and is historically inaccurate or not? You see where I’m coming from?
Highly detailed vehicles crafted from historical documents. Not historically accurate vehicles.
I think you are comparing processes that aren’t entirely comparable. Shell / missile balance is handled completely separately to bug reports about vehicle accuracy.
What i mean by that is, Gaijin states they have a deliberate intention to model vehicles accurately (even if they often fall short), If you’re able to prove that vehicle ‘x’ should have ‘y’, and can back it up, they should, in theory, address that.
What they have never stated however, is an intention to give vehicles all of their historical munitions. This has always been subject to balance. And this is applied to everyone, including Russia. Every country in Warthunder has had vehicles which are ‘held back’, because the next shell / missile their stuff could get would be too overpowered.
3 Likes
Russian. Bias.
It literally isn’t though.
3 Likes
I don’t think detailed is used only to describe aesthetics. Then again that can be perceived differently from person to person
Ammunition isn’t armor, and adding ammo options isn’t the same as changing armor that can lead to injunctions by NATO countries if they suspect the company used classified materials.
EU and USA are the most dangerous jurisdictions to get into legal trouble with, and Gaijin knows this by simply looking into what happened with one of their competitors: DCS.
because of russian bias
2 Likes
USSR has worse ammo than NATO.
The posts from you and richt: “Russian bias…” that Soviet ammo is worse than NATO ammo [the subject of this topic].
I hope your two posts aren’t serious.
its because of russian bias
2 Likes
That makes sense. I guess I’ll just chalk it up as game mechanics and balancing. With that said, I’d be curious to play a version with 100% accuracy.
imo as long as the vehicle its self is accurate (armour, fire rate, top speed, etc) then it’s accurate. Limiting ammo types for game balance is more or less a requirement. Hence the removal of the Grom-1 from the SU-34
I mean Groms are gps guided, not really useful anyway. The fire rate of the HSTVL is 1.5 instead of 1 but they already said that was for balancing too.