1. Introduction
Greetings.
There are many gamemodes in War Thunder, each focusing on specific types of vehicles and offering a different level of complexity. One of them is Ground Simulator Battles. This mode has existed in the game for a very long time and was originally conceived as a “hardcore” version of mixed battles, featuring an authentic lineup of vehicles.
When it was first introduced to players, the game included only five nations, and the available vehicle trees barely covered the period of the Korean War. The division of countries into Allies and Axis (or Warsaw Pact and NATO teams), combined with the relatively small number of vehicles, made it possible to achieve a fairly historically authentic battle balance through predefined matchmaking lineups. The main gameplay difference from other modes lay in the simulator-style settings for both ground vehicles and aircraft, which have seen only minor changes over the years.
More than ten years have passed since then. The game’s roster of aircraft and ground vehicles has significantly grown, and the time span has expanded to cover more than half a century—from the beginning of World War II to the modern era. A vast number of combat vehicles have been added that never actually saw combat, including prototypes, captured vehicles, or machines that, for historical reasons, were never involved in real conflicts. The number of nations has doubled, even without counting sub-trees, which at the time existed only as rare exceptions (such as Italian starter aircraft in the German tree).
At the same time, ground sim battles have not been neglected. Newly introduced vehicles have continuously been added to its lineups. Any player can access and use the full range of vehicles in ground sim in the same way as in Realistic Ground (mixed) Battles, which in theory removes any need to switch to another mode.
However, the fixed line-ups system creates the problem of players wanting to play a specific vehicle, which is not in the current line-up rotation, which keeps them from playing Ground Simulator Battles.
- Our suggestion
We suggest switching the Ground Simulator Battles mode to a matchmaking system based on rotating BR brackets, similar to the current Air Simulator Battles format.
This means players will have access to 10 different BR brackets (tiers) listed in the Events tab, just as they do now, but instead of choosing between only two available setups, they’ll be able to pick from all ten active brackets at once.
Team flags will remain unchanged from the current system: BR 1.0–6.7: Allied nations vs. Axis nations
Starting at BR 7.0: NATO nations vs. Warsaw Pact nations.
Using the same BR step as in Air Simulator Battles (i.e., *.0, *.3, *.7, *1.0) and a four-step range per bracket, with the current maximum tank BR capped at 12.7, this system will generate a total of 38 distinct matchups. These matchups will rotate daily — just like the current Ground sim rotation (unlike ASB, which rotates every two days). At any given time, 10 consecutive BR brackets will be available for play, cycling through the full set over four days. Consequently, every vehicle will be guaranteed not to be underperformed for exactly one full day every four-day cycle.
The list of brackets:
- Problems of the matchmaking
1) Balancing
Unlike other game modes, ground sim lineups are assembled manually. Numerous balance discussions on the forums, Discord, Reddit, and other platforms make it clear that there is no single person whose understanding of balance would satisfy everyone. More often than not, any opinion on balance is subject to bias, which further distorts assessments of vehicle effectiveness beyond reasonable limits.
Statistical balancing, on the other hand, when applied to large data sets, makes it possible to roughly rank vehicles by their actual combat effectiveness. This allows balance to be fine-tuned toward an optimal state through relatively minor adjustments.
This approach is used in virtually every game mode, except Ground Simulator Battles. At the same time, the mode itself is unpopular due to its increased complexity and the drawbacks of the lineup system, and therefore sits low on the developer’s priority list. With major updates, new vehicles are often simply forgotten and not added to ground sim lineups at all, or, if they are added, it is done with vehicles’ performance in Ground Realistic Battles in mind, despite the fact that players (and therefore vehicles) have a different performance in Ground Simulator Battles.
As for fixing such issues, even when they are actively discussed on the “official feedback platforms,” nothing happens for years. As a result, vehicles can spend years either dominating their lineup or, conversely, being left to gather dust due to their underperformance in that mode.
2) Compression
There are only 11 predefined lineups in tank sim. As a result, some lineups inevitably end up cramming vehicles ranging from BR 1.0 to 3.3, or from 11.3 to 12.7. This is not the kind of compression that Realistic Battles players usually complain about — it is significantly worse. Moreover, this is not a temporary measure but a permanent feature of the mode. Under such conditions, it hardly makes sense to talk about gameplay quality for entire layers of vehicles that are permanently stuck at the bottom of these overcompressed BR ranges and are effectively unattractive to the playerbase.
3) Making easier for players to choose what vehicle to play
Within the lineup system, players often do not understand why one tank of a certain BR can be taken, while another tank with a very similar BR cannot. Choosing vehicles for a lineup is accompanied by the need to cross-check an unstructured list of 100–200 vehicles in the battle entry menu. Many players when they enter the Ground Simulator Battle event screen find out that the vehicle they were interested in wasn’t added in the lineup due to game mode balancing reasons. A large number of newcomers, out of confusion or frustration, simply leave and forget about the “Ground Simulator Battles” tab altogether.
4) Player population
Out of the entire range of vehicles available along the tech tree, only about one fifth is accessible for play in tank sim on any given day. Given the nature of the project — an action MMO with progression — the primary interest of most of the playerbase lies in grinding and researching new vehicles. One could delve into matters of taste or the contrived dogmas of “hardcore” mode enthusiasts, but the fact remains: the majority of players are constantly engaged in progression. There are no statistical surveys to cite, but this is evident from virtually any discussion in comment sections across social platforms.
The game also features mechanics that make playing a single specific vehicle the optimal strategy for progression, given that there are RP bonuses for unlocking a vehicle by using the one immediately before it, or, using premium vehicles
A mode in which a specific vehicle is only playable once every five days clearly contradicts this optimal progression strategy and the core motivation of most of the player base.
Arguably, the second major motivation for players is the desire to play a vehicle which is overperforming at specific brackets/lineups.There are many such, but they are spread across different ranks and different tech trees. The five-day rotation window once again severely limits the ability of players to use the vehicles they actually want.
Likewise, a specific vehicle may always be uncompetitive in a specific lineup/bracket and essentially not be chosen by players, simply because there are no alternative lineups available for it (such as the case with T-64 or M1 Abrams in 10_2).
Somewhat paradoxically, the majority of ground sim active players population consists of Ground Realistic Battles due to the above reasons. Ground sim does not exist in a vacuum — it competes for players with other modes, using the same vehicles and broadly similar core tank gameplay. When a comparable alternative exists (AB, RB) that does not contradict player motivation in regards to the problems described above with SB (fixed lineups and balance issues), the player chooses to play the other modes.
De facto, this means that a significant portion of the ground sim player base is fundamentally rooted in the ground realistic mode.
- What this change solves
1) Automatic balancing
The rolling BR brackets are predefined in advance, like in Air Simulator Battles, and vehicles move within them according to their battle rating, just like in other modes. The BRs themselves are assigned based on vehicle effectiveness in this specific mode, rather than being copied over from another one.
2) All vehicles are always available
You can play whenever you want and on whatever you want, just like in AB and RB.
3) Every vehicle gets a chance to be “top of the bracket”
Because the BR bracket rolls, unlike the current system with 11 fixed lineups, there is no overlap in battle ratings. In the current system, most vehicles are simply doomed to remain at the “bottom of the bracket”.
With a rolling BR bracket system, a huge number of vehicles that were never considered “meta” would finally see real play.
4) Confusion in the vehicle selection system
A BR bracket system is transparent and does not cause confusion or frustration, as it follows the same logic for lineup selection as in other modes. All a player needs to do is choose vehicles within the desired BR range, which is clearly and concisely explained.
5) Increased player population
Clear vehicle selection rules, battles available at any time, and balance parity between your opponents and your own vehicles. With rolling BR bracket-based matchmaking, the SB Ground mode — whose primary vehicle type is tanks, traditionally the most popular in the game — would inevitably see an increase in player population.
4.1 What this change does not solve
1) Historical accuracy of vehicles and nations, battle authenticity
Unlike rolling BR brackets, the fixed lineup system allows teams to be formed in a more historical manner by excluding clones, captured vehicles, or nations that did not participate in the same coalition, thus enabling a more authentic experience. The proposed rolling BR bracket system does not contribute to this in any way.
The inability to address this point is usually cited as an argument against introducing such a system, contrasted with the theoretical capabilities of fixed lineups. However, when people speak of these capabilities, they often confuse possibility with reality — which, in practice, does not reflect the theory.
As mentioned earlier, meaningful work on the historical aspect of the lineup system effectively ended just a couple of years after additional nations were introduced into the game. Vehicles from these nations were added to lineups anyway, many of which did not match the theater of operations, specific weaponry, never participated in combat, or were clones, captured vehicles, or prototypes. The map pool expanded in the same way, and these maps were — and still are — included in ground sim lineup rotations. The mode retained its complexity, but it did not ignore new content, continuing to exist within lineups that lost their original purpose almost a decade ago.
For a long time now, under the monument to Sergei in a Su-25 in Seversk-13, among Soviet apartment blocks, King Tigers have been fighting under the cover of SPAAs equipped with thermal sights and Japanese carrier-based fighters, opposed by Swedish–Chinese armored formations supported by French post-war tanks. And this is not some recent oddity: urban maps with skyscrapers, wheeled tanks, and other things nowhere to be found in military history appeared in ground sim within the fixed lineup system a very long time ago.
This does not diminish the importance of historical matchups, but it also does not imply that playing a higher-complexity mode using the full range of available in-game content is somehow less valuable. After all, even those who argue this point continue to play the mode year after year. In terms of historical accuracy and authenticity, a transition to rolling BR brackets would change very little for them, if one evaluates the current state of ground sim realistically.
2) Instant balancing of everything
The current lineup compositions were created over many years and tailored specifically to this mode and its realities. The BR system is based on statistics from its own modes. In tank sim, BRs have either not been adjusted at all or have been copied over, which does not reflect actual combat effectiveness and therefore creates imbalance — sometimes very severe.
On the one hand, it is true that there are no BRs properly tuned for Simulator Battles. The specifics of the mode make certain factors far more impactful — for example, the presence of thermal sights, the amount of gun parallax on a tank, or even the availability of a machine gun (which can be used to identify friend or foe). And this is just for ground vehicles, whose gameplay is still relatively close to GroundRealistic in terms of balanced interaction. For aircraft, air-to-ground and air-to-air imbalances would be far more pronounced. However, if one evaluates balance empirically by actually participating in ground sim battles, it becomes clear that there are imbalances in every single lineup. Not only are they severe, but they have also existed in this form for many years. The reason for this has already been stated above: a mode with manually curated lineups and a lack of player-driven momentum toward large-scale changes.
The answer to the next question is obvious: which system is preferable — one where balance changes happen once every five years, if at all, or one where balance is adjusted regularly, as in other modes, based on actual combat effectiveness?
In a rolling BR bracket-based system, if something is blatantly overperforming, it gets moved up in BR; if something performs poorly, it gets moved down. There are exceptions, but in the former case they are extremely rare, and in the latter they are usually barely noticeable to other players.
In the fixed lineup system, a 6.0 BR tank can face a 4.7 BR tank, and a turboprop aircraft that outclasses and destroys any piston fighter has been fighting exclusively against piston aircraft since the moment it was introduced. Third-generation jets fight against 4th-gen ones. This is not an occasional “bottom of the list” scenario like in Air RB — it is a constant state (such as MiG-23 and late F-4 Phantoms having to face F-15s and Su-30SMs respectively).
There are plenty of ground sim lineups where sides are clearly unbalanced. Switching to a rolling BR bracket system would still result in some vehicles being stronger than others. The difference is that, in the latter case, adjustments would be made using a workflow that is familiar and commonplace for the developers. And even if, in some opinions, this approach is not ideal, it is still better than the current situation .
This proposal is not the personal initiative of a single player; it is a collective idea expressed in a single post. The concept itself has been discussed for several years on the forums and Discord servers. During these discussions, various arguments for and against were presented, and despite the apparent absurdity of some of them, many resurface with notable frequency.
It has also been observed that people are extremely reluctant to engage with large blocks of text when those texts contradict their existing opinions. To avoid wasting time repeating points that were debated long before this proposal was published, a Q&A section is provided below.
5. Q&A
- “BR tests went badly, BRs don’t work in tank sim, there won’t be enough players.”
This refers to the BR tests whose results were voted on back on the old forum, with well-known content creators participating as testers and reviewers.
How the test was conducted:
The lineups were switched to the Realistic Battles matchmaking system, while keeping country presets and gameplay aspects intact. In other words: the full BR range, any vehicle of choice, all available on the same day.
The main complaint was that many ranks resulted in underfilled battles, that there were not enough players, and that matches were supplemented with bots with poor pathfinding and combat effectiveness…
This is essentially the entire basis for claims about poor ground sim population and the idea that only restricting the mode to two lineups can fully populate battles. However, there is a small but critical detail that everyone overlooked when evaluating the test.
During the test, not only was realistic battles matchmaking used, but their matchmaking queue times were also kept. That is, unlike tank sim’s usual 2–8 minute queues for two lineups, battles were found in about 20 seconds — with the full range of vehicles available. This was a catastrophic oversight that severely skewed the results: only popular ranks stayed alive, while unpopular ones were filled with bots, solely to maintain short queue times. Despite this, opinion leaders still voiced their conclusions and influenced public perception, and people accepted this simplified narrative: no players means BRs are bad.
Yes, this applies specifically to RB-style matchmaking. But we are talking about air-sim-style rolling BR brackets. For many people, however, even the mere mention of “BR” is enough to trigger this argument about the failed BR tests.
- “The vote went badly.”
Point (1) above explains why it went “badly.”
- “Fixed lineups are historical. Look at RB examples.”
Fixed lineups are a tool for creating historical sets — one that has not actually been used for this purpose for almost a decade. Claiming otherwise is like saying a book is a hammer just because someone once used it to tap in small nails. This is indeed how historical events should be created — events which, incidentally, have been absent from the game for a very long time.
- “Lineups are better than BRs for balance.”
Lineups require manual adjustment by default, and the only scenario where they truly work well is a non-balance-driven historical setup. For a regular mode that can be played any day, at any time, on any vehicle, balance is still required.
It is highly unlikely that the developer has a consortium dedicated to constantly reshuffling 2,000 fighters, attackers, interceptors, bombers, helicopters, tanks, SPAAs, and SAM systems so that players in a mode with a population hundreds of times smaller than the most popular mode feel comfortable. This entire proposal exists precisely because both players and developers are uncomfortable with the current situation.
Nor is it realistic to assume that players of a low-population mode like ground sim know how to distribute 2,000 vehicles properly. Anyone can verify this by taking vehicles without BR numbers and trying to place them into 11 lineups sequentially. Doing so without relying on existing results would be extremely difficult.
The existing results — and at least a rough form of balance — are provided by the BR system. There is a working system with its drawbacks, and there is a system that requires a Messiah. And that Messiah does not exist — and will not.
- “Fixed lineups are Ground Simulator Battles as is.”
This is a substitution of concepts, yet it is still used as an argument. In reality, the idea comes from comparing different modes and comparing them to each other — it exists there, but not here. However, the very name of the mode already indicates its primary difference from others, which becomes obvious the moment you take off in an aircraft or try firing at a nearby tank using the gun sight.
Simulator Battles are, first and foremost, a more complex (or less simplified) mode. The lineup system is merely a matchmaking tool. The same tool could exist in Ground or Air Realistic Battles, and that alone would not turn them into Simulator Battles — which should be obvious, though not to everyone.
- “Aircraft/helicopters/SPAAs/tanks will be overpowered. Here are examples.”
The authors could provide an enormous list of imbalance examples from the current lineup system, but they are simply tired of doing so every time.
That said, a general picture can be outlined:
6.1) In World War II lineups, aircraft often have BRs that are 1.0–1.3 lower than tanks. In some cases, SPAAs have higher BRs than the aircraft they face — and we are talking about their RB BRs being treated as valid. In RB, however, hitting an SPAA, evading fire, or conducting ground attacks is several times easier for aircraft due to mouse-aim, third person camera, markers, and weather. As a result, SPAA combat effectiveness in Ground Sim is inflated by several times compared to Ground Realistic.
6.2) At top tier, with the introduction of new SAMs, helicopters, and aircraft, an entire layer of vehicles has effectively died: aircraft in the 11.3–14.3 range and virtually all helicopters without long-range fire-and-forget ATGMs are seldom used. Even without this, there are vehicles whose only available lineup is exclusive, yet they lack proper targeting systems and function as pure bombers.
Notably, the Tu-4 and B-29 are not present in any lineup at all. In lineup 8_2_2, early jet aircraft face SPAAs equipped with proximity-fuze shells.
Early–late helicopters in 10_2 with a BR of 9.3 fight against vehicles and SAM systems at 11.0–11.3.
Warsaw Pact helicopters are ineffective in 10_2 due to the large number of Spike-LR II carriers.
6.3) In early World War II lineups, the BR spread already ranges from 1.0 to 3.3 in the very first setup. In subsequent lineups, two or three vehicles stand out by a full BR step above the rest.
And many other issues as well. As mentioned earlier, imbalances will exist — but they will be addressed by increasing or decreasing vehicle BRs. That is the core idea.
- “Fixed lineups improve player population.”
See point (1) in this Q&A section and point (4) “Player population” in the “Problems addressed” section above.
- “Fixed lineups allow for better tactical planning.”
Any information allows for tactical planning. In the alternative BR bracket matchmaking system, this information would also be present — and in a format which is easier to understand.
- “BRs are arcade, fixed lineups are SB.”
See point (5) in this Q&A section.
- “Certain BRs won’t have enough players in brackets.”
They don’t have enough players right now either — more precisely, certain lineups don’t. Even when forced into two lineups on a given day, they are aware that they still have an alternative in the form of Ground RB. Experienced players should already be familiar with the population and queue times of lineups 8_2 and 8_2_2.
- “There will still be overpowered vehicles in BR brackets, just like in fixed lineups.”
Yes, that is true. The same applies in Air Simulator Battles. The difference is that there, an “OP” aircraft usually means a BR difference of 0.3 — not 1.0-1.3, as is the case for ground vehicles here. In rare cases, 0.7 is considered a catastrophe.
- “This is all a conspiracy to play OP vehicles (examples).”
First, this can already be done right now.
Second, interestingly enough, people who use this argument almost always have favorite vehicles — and those vehicles just happen to be very strong in their current lineups. Without unnecessary hypocrisy, it can be said plainly: everyone enjoys playing strong vehicles. The good news for them is that there will be more “OP” choices, because there will be more top positions within BR brackets.
And when everyone is rich, no one is rich.
- “Real SB players are against this.”
And real gamers are in favor. And real detectives. And real cats. Who exactly qualifies as a “real SB player” is usually known only to those who give themselves that title.
This is known as the “no true scottsman” fallacy.
If someone wants things to be better rather than worse, it hardly matters what they choose to call themselves.
- “Just make balanced lineups and everything will be fine.”
This is a very common claim — and not a single person making it has ever followed through. Even simple questions about adjusting something within a lineup have historically triggered a flood of questions from other participants in such discussions. This statement resurfaces every year, yet no one ever provides an actual list — or even a methodology.
As long as we acknowledge that balance is a subjective concept, the most objective approach remains collecting statistics and letting the developer process them — no matter how critical we may be of that process. Everyone has an opinion on balance and what is wrong with it.
Statistical balance is a starting point. The closer that starting point is to the desired outcome, the fewer disputes there will be when refining it toward an ideal state. If a single person were to define that starting point for everything, they would have to be someone who has played everything, in every possible way, in this mode, under current conditions; someone with a full understanding of the game and its mechanics, perfectly objective, unbiased, unmotivated by personal interests — and, most likely, with a halo above their head.
- “It would be better to just add a third lineup to the rotation.”
One could add a fourth, a fifth — or simply enable all of them. And if variants (_2) were created so that they shifted in turn, the result would be BR bracket rotation.
This proposal is precisely an evolution of that idea.
- “There’s no population because the mode is complex, not because of anything else.”
When saying the mode is complex, one must understand that this is a relative comparison to other modes.
The mode itself is easy to pick up, as it differs only minimally from Ground Realistic Battles in core tank gameplay. This is clearly visible in player profile statistics: a good RB tank player will also perform well in ground sim battles. The same often applies to helicopters, albeit with larger discrepancies. As for SPAAs, the point hardly needs elaboration.
- “You’ll make it like air sim, and air sim has markers — ground sim doesn’t need that.”
The proposal concerns only matchmaking via BR brackets and does not affect any other aspects of the mode.
- “You’ll make it like air sim, with mixed nations, unhistorical —ground sim doesn’t need that.”
Team flags would remain exactly as they are now: from BR 1.0 to 6.7 — Allies versus Axis; starting from BR 7.0 — NATO versus Warsaw Pact.
- “You’ll make it like air sim EC, with custom rooms and room-hopping.”
The proposal describes BR-based matchmaking within brackets for random battles, not player-created rooms.
- Yes
- No