Ground SB has to be more immersive

I agree with OP that maps are serious bottleneck, particularly for TT SIM battles. Constant pitchfork battles in urban environment where tanks would be deployed only as fire support for the infantry is not good for SIM.

Anyhow I think there are other immersion killers:

  • Hit Cam - something what allows to find enemy in smoke or vegetation, adjust long range fire and asses inflicted internal damage should not be in SIM
  • Barrel collision model - something what would change combat on urban maps entirely. Collision between barrels and environment would be more then enough. Barrels should be damage able by environment.
  • Lack of adverse weather - Wind/rain/fog etc with heir effect like decreased weapons accuracy, mud, low visibility should be more involved in SIM.
  • Weapons are to accurate - Partially do to lack of atmosphere and partially due to fact GJ is using guns accuracy data not vehicle accuracy data and partially to fact that stabilizers are working to well.
  • Missiles lack minimal ranges - this IRL limitation basically can’t be implemented due to small maps.
  • Lack of optics damage model - something what IRL gives IFV fighting chance against tanks on a gun ranges.

I don’t think that there is something wrong with current control scheme, however I think that crews are handling guns to well, efficiently giving all vehicles horizontal plane stabilizer.
Could be fixed by giving more “lag” or reaction time to mouse aiming controls and give player direct control (GHPC style whatever) option for instant reaction.

1 Like

so are the air battle players, sim still works.

by that logic air sim would already be irrelevant. Also i am not against using the mouse amd keyboard, but against mouse aim… that’s not the same.

Lol… are you still salty? That’s not eve close to any of my suggestions, like at all. Nothing i propose is extreme, they are basics. And we have two examples of games working perfectly fine that way. GHPC and Steelbeasts.

I didn’t say anything like that… you might want to stop smoking what you are smoking

1 Like

You’re not against mouse and keyboard but against mouse aim. Are you ok? cause last i recall Mouse aim is connected to the mouse, so you want us to play with our fingers and a keyboard?

Also, Sim wouldn’t. Sim is already a relatively small community what you will do is gatekeep cause you don’t like Mouse and keyboard simple as is. Don’t try to reword something so it seems more nice that is the reality. You do not like seeing mouse and keyboard players in Sim which is why you don’t bother making suggestion posts.

I could say the same for the person who made this original post but at this point the original intentions of this topic is irrelevant.

Dude WT has a system called mouse-joystick since the beginning… yes you can do more with a mouse that mouse aim. Mouse joystic, the system used to fly with a mouse in sim? ever heard of it?

No since as allready said, SB has asubstitute good for tanks within WT, that’s RB. Sim enthusiasts are not playing SB, so the audience will chance. Steelbeasts and GHPC have an audience large enough, so obviously proper controls aren’t enough to keep people away (BTW those use the mouse too wirhout having mouse aim)

1 Like

You’re comparing a gamemode to two games designed around that mindset.
Sim is comparable to IL2 and Company Of Heroes(in terms of movement and how things function).
Not GHPC and Steel Beasts.

@Uncle_J_Wick I’ll let you have some fun trying to figure out what pseudo-English dictionary language he’s speaking.

I mean - i read the whole post, but i was actually not sure what this is all about and i had not really fun.

Imho the fellow player is correct with most things especially with his points regarding mouse aim.

  • And as i play for several years wt i fully agree that everything related to mouse aim should be arcade only. The audience attracted by MnK combined with mouse aim is imho exactly what he describes: Plain shooter players.

  • If you ever tried to play the same game with PC and a console you see the difference and the severe advantage of mouse/mouse aim vs controllers. There is a reason why cheaters use MnK in console lobbies.

Side step to Air RB to show the difference:

  • I do agree that Air RB (my only mode) is actually a joke regarding realism (in the narrow and the broader sense) as the player base there has usually not the slightest idea how much support they have with mouse aim and instructor.

  • I play Air RB just due to convenience reasons (markers and game play set-up) - and i play it with HOTAS, simplified flight controls and instructor off. The HOTAS allows you to outturn similar experienced players in the same or even better (on paper) turning planes as you don’t have the artificial limitations of the instructor and you can turn tighter.

  • That’s why these duel guys use Sim settings for their fights. Every few dozen matches you meet a guy in Air RB using HOTAS - these are the most serious threats if you start on equal terms.

  • The artificially increased stabilization and accuracy of mouse aim forces me to avoid head-ons at any cost and to reduce energy advantages upfront engagements as i can’t use my turn advantage if my energy is way lower.

Back to topic immersion in Ground RB:

  • Despite being neutral here - imho mouse aim has no place within a game mode called “Simulator battles” - the evidence of the advantages were presented properly earlier in this thread.

I agree that it was not easy to follow certain aspects, but but imho he is right with most of his views regarding controls and English is actually not very easy if it is not your first language.


A more immersive perspective/view point would be a nice addition also.

Honestly the best solution is for @DerGrafVonZahl to run custom sim matches where players are forced to use control sticks.

A solution to his problem, and an equal player count as those that want this to begin with.

Stabilizers are currently underperforming in War Thunder as they’re limited by gunner speed in WT rather than their actual speeds.
War Thunder already simulates atmosphere and has for years.
All missiles have their minimum ranges to my knowledge.

The rest I concur with.

I was getting a headache trying to discuss it with him. He wanted to keep pushing his opinion and didn’t enjoy a counter argument however I agree. As a custom option yes, as an actual thing in matches no.

It’s not an opinion but the application of a Definition. Tanks in SB gf do not simulate tanks. Simple as that

I don’t know why you care since you do not play sim and obviously have no interest incombat simulators.

RB can stay the shooter it is.

But tanks in sb should be playing by the same rules planes in SB do.

1 Like

It is subjective, not objective. That is your own opinion, no one else feels nor shares this same level of execrable thought process. The more you speak the more you make my point. So with that, my conclusions are welcome to the list. Di’kutla. 0/

It really isn’t subjective. There are criteria that need to be met.
If every word was subjective, communication would become an issue. You cannot call a motorbike a plane and if someone points out why you are wrong say “it’s subjective” it isn’t.

3a applies here, you simulate the functioning of one system (the tank) by another (war thunder).
Since mouse aim doesn’t simulate the how tank controls function, the criteria isn’t met.

Mouse aim functions in another way than real tank controls, so it doesn’t simulate them.
That’s the entire point.

And before you willfully misrepresent, i am not talking about the general usage of a mouse. You can fly with a mouse in sim, since the mosue then simulates a joystick. I am talking about the control method “mouse aim” as defined in the WT wiki

This is why general mouse usage and mouse ai, since the mouse can simulate real controls like a joystick, but it doesn’t do it with the “mouse aim” control method.

Ehm… Noone?

Those seems to be agreeing with me.

This is correct.

No offense mate, but you tend to “over-engineer” some of your replies, meaning that you lose your audience before you get to the point. This a clear sign of intelligence - but really smart people try to make complicated stuff easy to understand, and use simple examples.

So despite i share your view on mouse aim - reading this whole thread was actually a pain as people were trying to convince others that they were right or wrong. Imho all you can do is to offer alternative views, which might be suited to change their own view on things.

Trying to convince random strangers in a public forum that they are wrong is a recipe for disaster.

I mean this forum is not a meeting place for anonymous Nobel Prize winners. But being polite is always a good advice. So being more humble and friendly would make your life way easier - and would allow you to get more positive feedback.


Sure but some things are obvious

And i rather be precise and have evidence rather than base things on subjective opinions, especially since there are objective answers.

Sure that is pedantic and long winded, but when someone says “it feels realistic” just answering “but it isn’t” doesn’t clear anything up. I rather go "this is why it isn’t realistic and give realistic examples.

My hope is by trying to explain everything in detail people can get a better understanding of what i mean.

But large parts are ignored, like how my statement about not allowing mouse aim was misinterpreted as not allowing mouse usage at all, even though u gave examples onnhiw to use the mouse without mouse aim.

If these things happen, then yes i do get condescending. Because i literally stated examples on how the mosue can be used and it is willfully ignored.

Stabilizers is not just speed, but also reaction times, angular errors, resolution etc.
Particularly older stabilizers with mechanical gyroscopes overperforms significantly.

WT might simulate some aspects of the atmosphere, like shell slowing down but i don’t think that is a real simulation which would account altitude etc in calculation.
But most impacting atmospheric effect (wind) is not present at all.

Maybe some, but ATGMs definitely don’t have arming distance in WT.

This seems on point.

Here’s the really simple version:

  • Air has Realistic/Full-Real Controls, Mouse Joystick, and Pointer Aim.

  • Air AB/RB can use any, while Air SB is locked to Full-Real Controls.

  • Tanks have… only Pointer Aim, with literally no option for Realistic/Full-Real Controls or Mouse Joystick.

  • As a result, Ground SB uses… Pointer Aim. Which is silly.

  • This also means those of us (notably controller players) who want to use Realistic Controls (read: direct control) cannot do so.


Yes, it is so true.

Sherman Jumbo with 76mm wouldn’t be at 6.3 if it wasn’t perfectly stabilized up to 24kph. Even if you move faster, when you stop, your gun snaps to your cursor as soon as you hit that 24kph. That’s why all Shermans in RB are so meta.


They shouldn’t just have the option for full real controls, it should be the only option.

It’s sim “full real” is the only thing making sense.

It’s also a fairness issue. It isn’t fair for someone that has to deal with full real controls in a plane, being killed by an spaa, where the player just had to lazily point and click. Even though that spaa was handcranked irl.

It’s just a joke. People defending this as a proper Simulation of the ground vehicles and calling it realistic are just delusional.

1 Like

For Ground SB I agree, but I split this into its own bullet point as it was about the game overall. As a controller user, I would very much prefer to have Realistic/Full-Real controls as an option for AB/RB.

1 Like

Hey Folks!

Sooo. This post was often really funny to read but at the same time really frustrated.
At the original post from @Panter2005 he complained about GSB is feeling almost the same as GRB. He mentioned some aspects like:
Br Balance/Tank/Plane Balance(which include heat/heatfs against ww2 Tanks, stabilized tanks against unstabilized, etc)

Map layout(which include size, layout of the map)

Mission(only Cap points, no other real “objectives”, and the problem with that “empty lobbies”, “long waiting que”)

CAS(feels to powerful bc of first spawn and good ASB Pilots, unfair Planestypes “in some rotation there are some of them”)

And you guys (@DerGrafVonZahl , @AlvisWisla , @Lieutenant_Camel , @Calerid ) I dont shoot against you guys, but you didnt even get close to the original topic. You just throw (except of @AlvisWisla ) your own opinion in there and what you guys are complaining about and started a big discussion. There the problem begun.

There were a few guys where I started smiling bc these read threw the topic and understood the original post and related to it. (@dannaryan , also @AlvisWisla in some cases, @Morvran )

@DerGrafVonZahl I assume to your name related you are german, but that isnt now the point. You wish to feel the “SIMULATION” more in GSB, but if you want to “feel” tanks more, then there is no space in WT for it, not even in GSB imo. If you want to enjoy such, you have to play games that you mentioned or fight in a Real war like one´s going on rn.
@Lieutenant_Camel You mentioned you want that the commanders view should be change like in red orchestra etc. WT is a vehicle Combat game and not a Milsim shooter where you operate a actual Commander with its tank crew. There are games out there like: Squad, Hell let loose, Project reality, Squad44/Post Scriptum. I understand that Squad hasnt the best dmg model and Squad44/Post Scriptum hasnt modern/cold war era tanks, but those are the game you should choose if you want to play as a commander with tank crew/or driver/gunner etc.

@Calerid You wish Tank interios ? My suggestion to you is the same as to Camel, go play Squad, etc. There are Tank interior. Kinda i guess. Or even Tank mechanic simulator.

So I will answer the original post now and what I think would be a good solution to bring back GSB and seperate some.

Ive the same understanding as @Panter2005 The Maps are to small for GSB in almost every rotation. The current maps are not even designed for bigger/faster tanks. They are designed for this reserve/1.0-4.0 Tanks. Maps like sun City, Mosdok, kursk, fulda, american desert, rheine, breslau, north holland, etc are designed for 4.7-7.3 at max.
There are no point of driving my Leopard 1 on American desert or habor etc. But on the other hand I dont want to drive my Pz4 on red desert and get nuked by a pe8 or p47 bc the next Spaa is in our spawn IF we have even a Spaa.
The Maps must be waaaaay bigger then we see it now.

My Solution for this would be 1.0-3.0 1 Square at least 100meters, 3.3-4.7 180-200meters, 5.0-6.7 250-350meters, 7.0-8.0 400-480meters even 500 meters would be ok, 8.3-9.3 650-800 meters and at last 9.7-above at least minimum 1000meters.
Related to the average speed/acceleration, hard hiting guns. A T72 or T80BVM, Type10, Leopard2 every single tank from 9.7 and above are driving time for 1000meters as a 1.0 for 100meters or 120meters.
But not only the size must be changed, the environment has to be changed aswell. A good example would be a mix of north holland, Wolokolamsk, and red desert. Why not creating a Map where we get open fields, woods, cities and villages, rivers connected with bridges, little lakes, mountains, etc why we cant get those kind of maps ? So for every tank class is something there.

To the Mission part:
Currently its Call of Dutys Domination mixed with Team Deathmatch in every single Groundmode.

An EC Mode for GSB would be nasty. Almost the same as ASB. Multiple Convoys, caps, clearing ground targets in certain areas so the allied convoys can conquer the area, rushing down airfield/helipads and destroy them so the enemy has to give up that base and they get annother one, there are tons of opportunitys to add content in such a gamemode. And what I read in this thread and what I know from large number of people, they would go crazy if such thing would be implemented.
And of course not everybody would like it and thats totally fine, there are two other current gamemodes so they can enjoy those.
The duration of a battle would be significantly longer like ASB or even more, but the joy of GSB Players would be higher. Especially Armor would be improved without changing any models.

The Problem with CAS isnt only the problem of the Rotation and which vehicles are listed in. Its related also to the Maps/layouts and the Objectives.
In Low Tier GSB there are the american/british fighters who can carry a lot of bombs/rockets and a skilled pilot will kill that Tank driver. And Spaa IS superior to a plane in low tier the most cases but there are still not enough players so people start at the beginnig with spaa.

My matches always look like this(currently grindig out the brits in 9_2) 6vs6 My Team everybody in Lights/Mediums/TDs vs enemy 3 helis, 1 spaa, 2 tanks. Even if one of our mates would decide to first spawn a Spaa, he would get killed bc Russia can spawn Mi24A,Mi8, Mi24D and the falanga got 4km range where the gepard, amx30 dca, etc doesnt have that “effective range”. Then the one death leavers. So its pretty unbalanced where I came to the last part.

Balance of Vehicles

This is not a secret, We all know there are quite a lot balancing issues with tanks, helis, vehicles in general.
On bigger maps with different environment you wouldnt encounter those problem that often bc the CAS (plane/helis) have to find you at first and bc of the distance what they have to fly it would take a moment.
higher tiers are chaos rn and you guys know it. In 10_2 you are driving ur leo2a4 with DM23 against a T90A and 2S25M with 3BM60 or the good ol 2S38, 2S6, Krizantema, or the cool chinese Z19E, ZTZ 99II, ZTZ99III, ZBD04A, ZLT11 just a few examples of wrong balance. And in 9_2 there are a ton of cool vehicles but the only tanks you see are BMP2, 3, BMD4, Object 775, 279, 685. 2S25, PTL02, WMA301, AFT09(rare). So how should I compete in my Ariete (P) against T90A ? Or in my chieftain mk3/mk5 against a BMP3 with gen 2 thermals, 70km/h fast, fully stabilized, better turret rotation, tandem ATGMs and a surviability nowhere near to understandable. So Balance is quite a difficult system in WT and it must be changed but it has to be changed wisely.

And the fact that I cant grind my nation properly bc of List rotation.
Thats why the people imho play GRB over GSB even if you get more SL/RP in GSB.

At the end of the day they should not delete GSB, bc I and much other players would delete the game i guess. The only way to improve GSB is to take note and do a rework on the whole mode.

And for understanding rename GRB in Combined Arms Hard Mode. GAB in Combined Arms Soft Mode and Simulator in Realistic Mode.

Cheers your XBOX Player

JxnKzJunioR from Austria

1 Like