Formal Letter to the War Thunder Development Team

Game Discussion General Discussion
1

A Formal Inquiry Regarding Commitments Made to the Chinese Tech Tree

Dear War Thunder Development Team,

I am writing this letter after carefully reviewing your official statement released in September,

in which you emphasized your commitment to listening to player feedback, improving balance, and treating all tech trees equally. These statements set clear expectations for transparency and fairness.

However, when these commitments are compared with the current state of the Chinese tech tree, a noticeable and persistent gap between words and actions has become impossible to ignore.

⸻

  1. On the Commitment to Improving Balance and Gameplay Experience

According to your statement, player suggestions that improve balance and gameplay experience should be implemented. Yet, at top tier, Chinese aircraft still rely almost exclusively on the KH-29TD as their primary air-to-ground guided weapon. Even more concerning, the aircraft with the most effective KH-29TD loadout is a premium vehicle.

This raises several serious questions:
• Is the C704KG truly more disruptive to game balance than the widely deployed KH-38MT/MTE series across other nations?
• Why has the Issue report concerning the C704 remained unaddressed for nearly a year, despite substantial supporting evidence?

Such inaction appears inconsistent with the stated goal of improving gameplay enjoyment.

⸻

  1. On the Commitment to Promptly Fix Technical Issues

In your anniversary preview, you acknowledged that the Z-10ME was missing the BA-11 missile due to an oversight, and the community appreciated the eventual correction. However, the BA-11 currently lacks INS and GNSS guidance — capabilities publicly known since at least 2020 — resulting in severely reduced effectiveness.

This leads to further concerns:
• Does adding INS/GNSS to the BA-11 truly threaten balance, while weapons such as the 305 missile retain extreme top-attack behavior and high explosive yield?
• Does the recurring pattern of delayed acknowledgment followed by functional weakening align with your commitment to promptly fixing issues?

⸻

  1. On Equal Treatment and the Effectiveness of the Issue System

You stated that feedback from all player communities would be carefully analyzed. Yet for Chinese tech tree players, the experience has been the opposite:
• Numerous Issues submitted over a year ago remain unanswered.
• Recently approved Issues have not been implemented.
• As a result, neither old nor new reports appear to produce meaningful outcomes.

This raises a fundamental question: does the Issue system still function as intended for Chinese tech tree content? If not, how does this reflect equal treatment?

⸻

Conclusion

We are not asking for preferential treatment. We are asking for consistency between your public commitments and your actual development practices.

We respectfully request that you:
1. Conduct a comprehensive review of long-standing Chinese tech tree Issues and implement evidence-based corrections.
2. Improve transparency by providing status updates on unresolved Issues.
3. Ensure that “equal treatment” is reflected in tangible development effort and response time.

Chinese tech tree players remain a vital part of the War Thunder community. While patience is wearing thin, our willingness to engage constructively remains. We sincerely hope future responses will be demonstrated through action rather than words.

Respectfully,
A concerned Chinese tech tree player

13 Likes
2

Umm, so this is happening with every nation in some way.

16 Likes
3

We call on the development team to treat the Chinese tech tree fairly. When Chinese tech tree players spend considerable time and effort collecting evidence to demonstrate that vehicles like the J-10C should perform at the level they deserve, the development team often dismisses it with claims of “not enough info.” Yet, when it comes to feedback suggesting a reduction in the J-10C’s top speed—feedback that consists of merely three sentences and lacks any substantiation—the development team quickly accepts. This kind of discriminatory treatment is profoundly unfair to players of the Chinese tech tree.

6 Likes
4

Imho you refer here to a point which affects basically all nations - not just the CHN TT players. I summarized this some time ago:

…and it looks like gaijin prioritizes bug reports like described here:

It looks more that gajin devs are stuck between a rock and a hard place:

They spend their resources in adding new content which generates income from newer players in order to keep the game attractive whilst they are unable to fix the known bugs or weaknesses in order to satisfy more experienced players.

As soon as you have played a few thousand matches you are forced to find workarounds in order to play around these weaknesses & and to find your personal sweet spot - otherwise you will get insane.

Have a good one!

1 Like
6

I swear chinese players dont realise this crap happens to everyone

8 Likes
7

Sweden main shall point out the fact it’s gotten three vehicles in the last two updates, counting line of contact as a “last update” :)

4 Likes
8

Israeli top MBTs have suffered from major issues with almost all vehicles suffering from at least one major issue since their introduction, with many vehicles having completely fake characteristics (prime example is the new M113 HVMS).

The chinese tree has recieved many major fixes for multiple of their vehicles (ZTZ-99A Remodel, SAP-HE shells, etc) and most vehicles have been introduced without any major issues.

Israel is left with a completely unuseable SAM at top tier, having an artificially nerfed 9.7 AA and a useless 9.3 AA, both of its top tier light tanks are useless and completely lacks any high tier light tanks.

Merkavas have unrealistically low armor, their internals are completely unrealistic and their engine provides almost no protection against KE shells, with Trophy APS having been bugged for over 2 years and still is unreliable to this day.

Israel has only a single line of top tier MBTs, having a massive line that is just M60/M48s which are abyssmal to play.

Stop complaining about “unequality”, you are already above other trees in Gaijin’s priority list and are just asking for preferrential treatment at this point.

3 Likes
9

it was 7 years between warrior and fox for a domestic light tank for britain. And weve had the same 5.3-8.3 spaa gap for must be over 4 years by now.

its one day off of TEN YEARS since the crusaders and tortoise were added and they still miss up to 60% of their armour in places.

Chinas had it real good, especially with getting an Abrams that has SEP V3 parts before the americans have a SEP v3, and a top tier Sukhoi jet.

Need i mention Israel at all?

7 Likes
10

This is all true.

Chinese TT players are angry that they are getting an Abrams with known modeling flaws like the turret ring, turret basket which isn’t part of the turret drive and other protections missing.

How dare gaijin give China a half baked Abrams!
Join hands with your Chinese TT brothers and fight these injustices!

2 Likes
11

Honestly the chinese playerbase seems to be the only one they listen to rn so not a bad idea

6 Likes
12

You are getting equal treatment.

4 Likes
13

Someone just sent a report to need J-10C without a reliable source, they just accepted it

IMG_8200
IMG_82001179×2556 372 KB

14

The problem lies in the way the company deals with Chinese vehicles in general. Strangely, all vehicles, whether tanks or aircraft, are in the top ranks of the game, and all their information is classified. However, for some dubious reason, we see strange treatment of China. For example, when the Chinese JH-7A aircraft was first added, there were numerous complaints that it could carry at least four Kh-29s. However, all these complaints were dismissed due to a lack of information. But when the premium version of this aircraft was added, the four missiles were included without complaints or evidence. The same thing happened with the Russian 38 missiles; six of them were added to Russian aircraft without any explanation, even though the missile is real. So how can a Sukhoi aircraft carry six of these missiles? This is the point: the company adds and removes without any standard or stable system. This creates the feeling that they are deliberately marginalizing the Chinese market because, to this day, China does not possess an effective close air support aircraft like the US, Russia, or Israel. Even its tanks have many easily solvable problems that remain unresolved. The worst air defense system is the one with the upcoming upgrade, but it shares this characteristic with Israel. However, the difference is that Israel’s problem is the shortage of vehicles. China, on the other hand, possesses air defense systems, for example, the HQ-16, which is similar to the Buk system currently in Russia’s arsenal, but it hasn’t been added for no apparent reason. Sorry for the length and any errors; I’m using a translation program.

4 Likes
15

If it’s brochure from manufacturer it’d be considered a primary source.

1 Like
16

that was as reliable of a source as available without a leak. just because youre mad that its a slight correction/nerf doesnt make it fake

I use brochures from manufacturers for MOST of my own bug reports as they are second best to only a manual or blueprint itself

17

Unless it’s a Russian vehicle that isn’t a Mig-29 or Rafale related, bug reports seem to be denied no matter what. Even if they aren’t denied, they are often ignored entirely/never fixed (see spall liners for Chinese top tier tanks, many things relating to the Typhoon/Aim-120).

See if that brochure mentions something about the WS-10B being installed and use it to make a report about the new engine.

2 Likes
18

IMG_8202
IMG_82021179×2556 572 KB

So the primary source cannot be shown?

1 Like
19

You think ground and air is bad for inaccuracies, hoo boy, wait til you see Naval.

1 Like
20

All sources posted in bug reports are hidden because someone might post classified stuff and they dont want that to be spread on their website.

21

So what course is it? CCTV? AVIC Chengdu?