Where? In 8_2_2 for blue team?
9_2 for the blue team
You answered on your question by yourself. In these lineups, nato vehicles are much stronger, so not many people want to play soviets.
In balanced lineups like 4_1 battles are finding much faster.
Congratulations, you have successfully killed any chance of finding a match for the early Cold War vehicles. The rotation is NECESSARY. Without it you will never find enough players for certain brackets. Even now, there are only enough players to have 1-2 matches running at once in the early cold war brackets, and that’s when you have to play them or not play ground at all. Everyone will play either premium bracket or top tier in the Cold War matchmaker.
1 Like
Actually all tanks and most non-ground vehicles has interiors modeled but it’s just not visible to the players but it’s so low in quality but still, it’s something, but it’s something that developers aren’t going to add in a near future.
Radio and Optic modules are just existing and would be a nice start for a new SB updates which could affect the detection (crew skills) and communication in a certain distance and how messed the message arrives to the player,
Again, SB needs huge improvements but I doubt they will do it in a single update or in a constant changes within major updates.
1 Like
Obviously,
You rather play a T-55 or a CV90105? To be honest the answer is clear,
I would support adding a better counterpart to those vehicles, like T-64B or T-80B.
About the T-80B I can justify, obviously no one who plays NATO would like to face something like a T-80, but, historically speaking, it’s kinda fine, even if it’s just breaks the balance, which in SB couldn’t exist which in a short period could be balanced with certain vehicles number by match, like 3 T-80B, 6 BMP-2s and etc. Same for NATO side like 3 Abrams, 6 or 7 M3 Bradleys (which is surely worse than BMP-2).
About this it’s kinda hard to speak and find a good spot for both sides. But again, you shouldn’t balance SB which kills the idea behind a real realistic battle.
1 Like
To add: WT developers could import some mechanics from Enlisted which have a more dedicated tank mechanic.
1 Like
Aka, like they do for Air Sim.
I’d love for every BR to have matches available but I do also fully understand why they dont do that. Though at the same time. Hopefully if they ever remember that SB exists (for either air or ground) it will become a more popular gamemode and more people will play it, eliminating that problem
1 Like
what nonsense. the rotation is not necessary but the reason why Ground SB is not successful.
the people who drive modern tanks in SB play modern tanks in RB on the early cold war rotation days.
without rotation the sim player base will increase after some time because of the permanent availability of tanks.
SB is less successful because :
- There is less players who wants to tryhard, learn whole tech tree, and buy hardware to fly.
- This is a free-to-play PEGI12 game.
- It is a Console compatible game.
You take this melting pot above, you put it in any angle, and you get this result. Sim is less successful as any sim has always been in the gaming world, a niche. But saying Sim mode is not successful is a lie, it does ok, on a simulator game scale.
And BTW removing rotation to replace it with what ? BR system ? getting the exact same dowtier/uptier broken mechanic ? Or some vehicules will get doomed just because, too bad somebody decided it will stay at the bottom of its food chain because rotation were removed ?
2 Likes
should the tanks fly? I’m referring to Ground SB.
what strange questions are you asking me. of course the lineups - available - side by side. 1_1, 2_1, 3_1 … WTLineup a logical consequence to make Ground Sim more attractive and make the tanks more available.
3 Likes
There’s no overhaul necessary.
I also don’t get what you and @Calerid are claiming is broken.
You get the commander position opened. You get their CITV, gunners optics, and driver’s optics.
Could be free DLC like with UHQ textures.
@Lieutenant_Camel
1- All that needs top happen is a damage model of a head appears when you’re looking out of the tank.
2- Eh no, you’d have to make it BR based like normal matchmaker to be honest.
3- This isn’t necessary. We’re playing war games not replaying history.
4- Refer to point 3.
Also, commanders should get thermal and/or NVD monocular scopes depending on their vehicle.
Of course there is. There are no proper controls. So the entire gameplay has to be redone.
How is the current implementation salvagable in your eyes?
I have proper controls currently.
And gameplay is realistic.
So I now have to ask: Where are there issues?
If it’s visual/perspective, that’s not gameplay, that’s where the camera is.
Picture-in-picture not being a feature in the game engine can be added without overhaul.
And controls… nothing is incorrect here.
I’ve played tanks with my HOTAS before even with full functionality, no issues.
Of course I choose mouse aim cause it’s easier and just as realistic as any other input method of staring at a screen.
Explain
Not what i am talking about.
And you see no problem with that? in SB? A control method that doesn’t represent real tank controls and is easier? (technically the word should be intuitive)
It is obviously not as realistic, since mouse aim relies on the projection on your screen with perfect information, something that is impossible in real life. Callning this realistic is a joke
2 Likes
No, we’re gods controlling tanks via electrons vibrating a rock into thinking.
We’re at a desk.
You can at any time make a tank pit, where you have a HOTAS for your tank controls; WT currently allows this.
Both are equally realistic though. We’re not the driver, we’re at most the commander, and more in reality we’re the omniscient hive-mind of a well-oiled tank crew that knows exactly what to do: AKA they’re trained to USA tankers school levels of good and we’re just experiencing their skill as controllers.
If you want to drive a tank? Tough cause no game simulates the tank drive experience, I should know having been allowed to drive a Stryker IRL then being shown how bad the Steel Beasts physics code is for vehicle movement. GT5’s GT4 ported cars are realistically modeled in physics by the way.
So yeah, War Thunder does a pretty good job despite no other game in the world doing a better job at simulating how tanks move.
Real-life driving is easy, and controlling a vehicle in a video game should be just as easy. AKA no clunky controls. WT does that well and realistically transfers how easy it is to drive IRL to a software level.
You don’t really know what a simulation is do you?
It’s the emulation of one system (in this case a tank) by another (a computer program). Since we have a operator in both cases, the operation needs to be emulated as well. Mouse aim does not emulate real tank controls.
Not a complicated concept.
Suere, what’s your point? i am advocating for the removal of mouse aim. It’s not about what you can do but what you are required to do. There is a reason mouse aim is disabled for aircraft controls.
arguable true, there are enough that come closer though. And the fact that others don’t do it does not make WT SB GF a ground force simulation… it still doesn’t meet the definition.
sure, but in a simulation, it should be more than just as easy, it needs to be a psychomoter equivalent of the real driving. And it isn’t.
Simulator is a seperate definition from video game. most simulaions aren’t games. So i do not know why you bring video games into this. Since we are talking about having GF SB as a ground combat vehicle simulation.
All you got were tangents, if you cannot adress the points then why anser at all?
1 Like
Here’s the deal. Of all the software in the world that made driving realistic there are exactly 3 companies that had success: Polyphony Digital, Turn 10, and Kunos. All racing game developers.
And all allow controller input that’s as realistic as using a wheel and pedals.
Now to swing this back to War Thunder as to avoid a racing sim discussion: War Thunder only needs to simulate how the vehicle moves.
No one cares if button selector on the Abrams automatic transmission is simulated [yes it uses buttons], nor should they.
We’re here to simulate war games, not driving procedures. It’s also why no [standard computer usable] military vehicle simulator on the planet simulates driving of vehicles to any degree of success.
That also extends to the gunner’s position: We’re not here to simulate the gunner’s position.
Air sim uses virtual joystick which is superior to mouse aim in cockpit, it’s literally easier than mouse aim. However in aircraft, “mouse aim” also forces instructor, which isn’t a thing on tanks.
Tank mouse-aim is already realistic, there’s no instructor. We tell where the gunner should aim, and the gunner uses their simulated gun laying speeds to bring the gun on target.
Also you still haven’t clarified what gameplay features are allegedly bad.
I’ve addressed your other point of “proper controls” with this line of discussion directly.
1 Like
yeah youare either delusional, or trolling.
Thoe are the three? are you sure about that?
What about the developers of the simulator of the Mercedes F1 Teams simulator?
You really think they didn’t get it right?
You are a fool to look at game devs for simulations.
not in AB/RB is agree. But the handling of something basic as the gun and driving, yes the sim players should care. Otherwise what are the doing in sim?
Mouse aim is synonymous with the instructor. Hell the WT wiki even states that Tanks always have the instructor enabled. you are lying (to yourself)
"So what about ground vehicles, you ask? Yes, in ground warfare, the Instructor directly controls the ground vehicle itself. "
A direct quote from the article about the instructor oin the ground SB section. You are wrong.
The controls… the only gameplay feature that exists, since gameplay is defined asthe interaction the player has with the games enviroment, and all interaction is done through a vehicle, so only the interaction with said vehicle are directly gameplay. Sionce all directions are done through the controls, this makes gameplay almost excelusively focussed on the controls of the vehicle.
so yes i am going on about this for several posts…
No you didn’t you stated the current ones are realistic, as a statement but didn’t argue anythin. you didn’t provide any reason why this is suposed to be the case. instead you went on tangents.
1 Like
Then yeah, there’s zero issue with ground SB gameplay in my eyes if your primary and allegedly only issue is the controls.
War Thunder using “instructor” when talking about tank crews is weird and inaccurate on their part. If that’s how they see their crew system… that’s not great, but the wiki team aren’t the devs so IDK.
I did give reasons why this system is realistic. Maybe it wasn’t easy to understand, which is partially my fault partially the fault of this complicated subject matter.
Translating vocal thoughts into text is hard sometimes.
The existing system accurately simulates the movement of the tank itself.
The system has a gunner whose gun laying speeds are accurately simulated [with inaccuracies in stabilizer speed for now].
In-gunner’s view and CITV view, the gun laying is directly managed by you and is correctly limited.
And optics are simulated to the best of their ability while lacking a picture-in-picture system for optics.
So yeah, I see no issues with controls currently.