All of these sound like fun matchups if the game mode wasn’t just TDM but league of legends. Especially if you leverage the fact that M4A1s more than capable of destroying KTs considering they would typically be armed with 76s by the time the KT was a threat, Leopard Is are more than capable of destroying T-64As and T-72s are… you already know this story. The real kicker is in most of these scenarios the bigger threat is typically less numerous, plagued with problems or in a dire situation already.
Panzer 38(t)s would more often than not fight T-26s and BTs than KV tanks. But I assume your entire scenario is the current game’s modes which are completely trash as far as game modes go.
Historical game modes can be fun, RB with historical line ups? not so much.
Or maybe Gaijin simply wanted to make APHE realistic, but knew everyone would cry upon hearing any kind of nerf to APHE.
They know buffs are always seen positively by people, so they made a vote on the nerf to see just how mad people will get and avoid review bombing.
Yeah suddenly after 10 years they wanted to make the shells perform realistically, as if.
1 Like
yeah… as it should be. pvp games without balance are incredibly one-sided. would you want to always be shoved into a much, much worse tank than your opponents? historical matchup accuracies should be reserve for a dedicated milsim pve game.
Sim is already the least populated mode, would be even worse if you split the player base unevenly by making matches so one side has an unfair advantage over the other. I’d throw out a wild guess and say most people don’t want to play at a distinct disadvantage most of the time just for the sake of muh realism.
Sim is already the least populated mode
I mean, to be fair the only reason it’s like that is because it’s both neglected and extremely casualized to the point there’s no reason to play it over realistic.
If it had actual support it could probably rival other modes but since it’s a forgotten relic it’s expected to be played as such.
2 Likes
It’s not a choice between balance or realism, you can have a little bit of both. You can have a fairly balanced game with fairly realistic matchups. There’s no reason so many tanks with modern high pen HEAT have to fight WW2 tanks. And by WW2 tanks I don’t mean a Maus, I mean a T-34-85 or an M4A3E8.
Right now the priority ratio is 100% balance 0% realism, why can’t it be 75% balance and 25% realism.
Getting off-topic again, but tbh kinda applies to the topic too.
1 Like
well at some point you just lose casuals with more and more authentic, but complicated controls. I doubt that it would rival arcade and realistic even with more support. Most people don’t come into this game expecting a milsim. and if you incorporate unfair matchmaking based on historical accuracy, it would probably look even less appealing to most players.
Nah, I don’t think they wanted this either. I think they just figured players wouldn’t ever vote for stronger APHE given a choice, so I would look like they were listening to players here at the end of the day, but didn’t count on some sheep-like behavior and some poorly informed CC’s.
1 Like
There’s nothing more fundamentally more complicated about sim’s controls. it’s just a different way of utilizing them.
On top of that if the game’s developer brags about accurate representation of the vehicles, what’s the issue with having a game mode that accurately represents their usage? I would be all for a historical match up game mode, it would be fun and a break from the dogshit that is sherman vs sherman vs sherman vs sherman or T-72 vs T-72 vs T-72.
You probably weren’t there yet, or if you were, you seem not to remember very well;
But we already had 100% historical simulator battles and they were a flop.
Queues were always 0-2 for the disadvantaged team, 50+ for the advantaged team- naturally, no one wanted to play in a terrible technical disadvantage. Queue times were 10+ minutes because of this, and sometimes finding a match was straight up impossible.
Bit off-topic, so we should probably discuss this in the topic Panter linked earlier hahah.
2 Likes
But we already had 100% historical simulator battles and they were a flop.
By who’s standards exactly? They tested realistic enduring confrontation (the most fun I’ve ever had in this game) and they said it too was a flop. They tested a battle royal game mode, also extremely fun, but it was deemed a flop. They claim things are flops all the time, you know? Just like top tier jets past 1956? Weird how that turned out.
Not to mention the world war mode that was not only a success but often played by thousands of players when it was actually enabled.
The main issue was when the test of historical simulator battles was ongoing it was both A: during a time in which the game had significantly less players but also B: poorly advertised.
But to add insult to injury, war thunder cannot fundamentally provide a simulator game mode. It lacks too many mechanics and QoL features for it to be more than an arcade game. Ultimately if you rub shit on the wall most people is going to say it stinks, but if you actually spend the time to adequately craft a game mode that’s not only fun but also rewarding you will find a playerbase and you will find that people enjoy something that is properly implemented.
1 Like
Of course arcade players won’t suddenly start playing sim. Not every change in the game has to be made to please arcade players. There are 3 different game modes to attract different people looking for different level of realism.
Currently War Thunder has grown too big to care about the sim niche. Sim players are often used at the start to get the game going and then thrown away once the game becomes popular.
1 Like
Yes, the thread is too important to pollute it.
It IS a choice between balance or realism. If you think it is not, give me an example how they could go more into realism without creating a matchmaker seperation that leaves a few tanks in limbo where matchmaking would take several minutes.
because irl wars aren’t fought on even terms and more realism usually tends towards an unbalanced state.
Or it ruins the fun as with the SACLOS missile changes that just ruined dozens of vehicles and made most hightier SPAA almost useless.
WT is still a game, not a full-on simulator. The priority should be on fun for the majority, and therefore balance for a PvP game.
1 Like
That’s just not true. WT simulates planes much more realistically than many other games, and it is one of a few games to simulate damage inside of tanks.
I agree. Balance should take priority over realism in all circumstances, but that doesn’t mean that realism should be shunned.
APHE is fine as it is, and I don’t see any need for it to change. Solid shot needs to be buffed to be made more usable.
That’s just not true. WT simulates planes much more realistically than many other games
This is only true if your comparisons are call of duty and battlefield.
But if you compare it to IL-2 or DCS you’ve definitely lost that argument tenfold.
and it is one of a few games to simulate damage inside of tanks.
Even in this regard the game falls rather short in comparison to other commercially available products (Steel beasts, Steel Armor).
I agree. Balance should take priority over realism in all circumstances
Balance should give the average person the opportunity to perform but it should never be the only thing that constitutes to gameplay. realism is the literal name of the game mode in some cases and it should be a significant factor when it’s called for.
2 Likes
Yes. AP’s spalling and the shell itself should get a little buff. Reducing the cases where you penetrated and then a dude catches the shell with his chest and only turns orange would be lovely already.
It isn’t.
All HEAT and other modern ammo slingers like M56, IKV 103, M41 (Both American and German), M-51 to 8.0, so they will never meet 6.7s. Preferably with decompression they could be moved even a little higher.
This sentence was talking about priorities when making BR changes.
Solid shot is very usable, it’s just obsolete when compared to APHE.
Buffs always sound cooler, but buffing other shells would be purely a balance decision. The purpose of changing APHE in the first place is improving realism.
On a side note maybe talking about approach to BRs is not that much off-topic, it’s a part of the argument of how important realism is in this game and in post-pen effects.
1 Like
they’re not the be-all-end-all of realism either, seeing how DCS is rolling dice to see if countermeasures work…
