Grounded blueprint vehicles poll

Machinery of War Discussion
,
1

ground vehicle blueprint poll - please read before voting.
I’m making this poll to get a general idea where most stand on the idea of blueprint vehicles in War Thunder, specifically those blueprints based in reality and not made up and were real drawn up schematics.
Such additions would bring different flavors to every tree and reduce the need for sub trees especially for the smaller trees.

examples of blueprint vehicles that DO apply

  • T110E5
  • T110E3
  • T25 AT
  • Object 705
  • IS-M
  • T-100 - also known as VNII-100 or famously T-100 LT
  • E-25
  • E-50 Ausf. M
  • VK 72.01 (K)
  • Jagdpanther II - also known as Panzerjäger Panther mit 12,8 cm L/55 (Pak 80)
  • Sturmgeschuetz E-100 - Famously known as Jagdpanzer E-100 also known as “Blueprint BZ 3364”
  • E-100
  • O-I - Japanese super heavy tank
  • Type 4/5 Heavy - debatable but gives japan other options

There are many other examples, it would take days to possibly list them all off but you get the idea

blueprint vehicles that DO NOT apply.

  • Waffentrager auf E-100 - completely made up by wargaming
  • O-Ni
  • O-I Experimental

again there are too many to list, just a example.

Where do you stand with the idea of grounded blueprint vehicles
  • Add them
  • Don’t add them
  • Maybe
  • Other (list your idea)
0 voters
2 Likes
2

imagine balancing and bug reporting literal paperwaffe

4 Likes
3

Untitled25_20251103065739

crtwsz1s9kh71

Based on schematics, plans and proposal? I’d like to see paperwaffe that made sense and can be balanced on the game’s environment, e.g., Bob Semple’s tank with the proposed 37 mm cannon. Although I’m stretching too much using this as example, it’s the best I can give to build the argument. But hell yeah, ignore all the cool things that previously listed vehicles can offer to the game, take another Leopard 2A4.

2 Likes
4

There’s already more than enough potential content for years that I don’t think War Thunder needs to start going down the route of blueprints any time soon

Likely to run into bloating storage file size problems before WT runs out of vehicles to add

2 Likes
5

so if the plans and schematics propose something crazy, like, say, a 105mm cannon which literally doesn’t fit the turret, should we listen to that?

there are a lot of real (made in metal) vehicles that could be added instead of the usual copyslop, but this is gaijin we are talking about…

point is, they do this whole copypaste thing on purpose - why make a new model and bother modelling a new vehicle if we can just rename it and add for another cool 400k rp (and a copypaste premium on top!)

btw we already have quite a lot of paperwaffe in game - bet you didn’t know that PL-5B’s stats are basically guesswork based on a Jane’s article (which is really funny considering how gaijin doesn’t accept such articles for bug reports)

6

That’s where we, or better saying, Gaijin should draw the line. If there was a proposal for a larger caliber cannon in a platform with a smaller one built, if it’s realistic and so is everything or majority of the things required for said weapon to fit and work, with enough data to balance, I have no problems with it. It should be added if it have data not something made out of thin air like the recent additions in World of Tanks.

I can affirm with confidence that there are a few dozen suggestion post accepted (reads moderated and published) containing half finished vehicles however with parts built whereas mentioned before with the Object 299, the cannon, 2A83 existed, as it’s mentioned in the suggestion post, so the platform, although the platform itself wasn’t adapted to the plans, it’s kinda in a greyzone between acceptable vehicle and fictitious content.

7

Pretty sure this falls under unfinished prototype as it did tests with the hull and mockup turrets

Anyhow as long as all nations receive some I wouldn’t mind but I do understand the reasons against.

3 Likes
8

I’d say in a year or two Gaijin will have to look at paper’esque vehicles yet again because right now you can almost see the bottom of truly unique vehicles’ stocks of some nations (e.g. Japan and Sweden).

Obviously people will still say that this SPG has a different optic for commander or this light tank has a seat placed 0.02 mm to the left and thus is to be concerned a unique separate vehicle, but even then, with such approach, there are definitely nations that will run out of original content sooner than the others.

One may say sub-trees solve this issue (JP housing Thai, Indo and soon Malaysian vehicles; SWE housing Nordic countries), but at the end of the day Gaijin would treat them as filler nations for C&P in research tree and truly unique vehicles as premiums/events.

Spoiler

But hey, it is still unique addition, right? Just like you asked. Wdym you didn’t want it premium? Or limited time event? You just cried for unique vehicles entering the game, here they are! The format? Whatever! That’s different subject, and, you know, it costs billions to model new stuff, and C&P is almost free, thus it has to pay off somehow, you dum dum!

Regarding blueprint vehicles, I’d say I am more against it than for it.

I am for it if a) it’s not game-breaking and a complete non-sense, like Ratte P.1000 b) it has some of its components actually existing and be capable of being operated in proposed composition, like Swedish Kranwagn c) it was actually considered for production or was supposed to undergo prototype phase, or even started going through prototype phase, but was halted due to reasons (e.g. Japanese/Italian planes/tanks that were about to enter prototype phase, but the end of the war deemed them unnecessary and impossible to be continued).

I am against it because we ain’t playing WoT that has all tanks of a kind and is rather a realism slop 2x than just realism slop we have right now.

I’d say that such [grounded blueprint] vehicles should always be concerned as limited time event premium so that their nature of one-of experiment is preserved in a more proper way. And something that was actually in steel, like T58, be squadron or researchable (I’d say wooden mockups can also be treated in the same way as steel ones, but that’s actually a different subject).

1 Like
9

Tbh if gajin would actually try to use folders to their fullest potential, then they could go on for quite a lot longer, especially with ww2 stuff. Naval seems to be the most untapped and even then there’s not much left in stronger ships until gajin can safely implement proper missile ships and/or subs (or carriers but that’s highly unlikely) and I doubt gajin would be comfortable in giving up adding the “new top tier toy” in favour of adding extra vehicles in the brs below that don’t fill gaps.

Iirc, the new event plane actually breaks one of the prior rules set about aircraft as unless it fills a needed br, it has to have flown.

My guess is that after 5th gens,any other new MBT family and maybe the remaining laid down capital ships and ww1 stuff gajin would lower the requirements to mockups and accepted for construction then finally feasible paper vehicles.

1 Like
10

Screenshot 2025-11-03 153918
Screenshot 2025-11-03 1539181912×778 585 KB

5 Likes
11

exactly

1 Like
12

Glad that we’re on the same page! I always thought making exceptions for naval was a mistake, and I don’t want to see the same happen to ground

1 Like
13

legit blueprint vehicles ESPECIALLY those with mockups should be added cuz why deprive ourselves of interesting designs

1 Like
14

There are already problems with “classified” vehicles. Do you want to add more with vehicles that have never been built?

1 Like
15

You can find all these vehicles in WoT. That’s your place to go.

16

That’s not the point of the post, it’s to see where everyone stands with such possibilities, at some point Gaijin will need to take this direction anyway.

17

E-50 M isn’t just straight up a wargaming created tank, based on the E-50?