That will bring even more in jets of 70s
MiG-23M without flares, only R-60(non M) and R-23 against F-14
5 Likes
F-4E against MiG-17 lmao
3 Likes
Basicly yes, but not blocks like in game, earlier, without agile eagle and ALR-46.
An idea that can only be absurd in War Thunder.
7 Likes
Or, y’know, the other game
Which has M-41D upgrade from 1990s and AMX-13-105 from 80s fighting against Maus and E-100 from the 1940s
7th of August 2024 at 2pm
The one which is as laughable as this one for the same reason.
Only stupid if it’s WoT not WT right?
It’s not stupid for either. Both are games, neither are full sim. You want an unbalanced, “historical” mess? Play another game.
I mean war thunder is a game. If you wat to do something historical find friends which want to do that with you (or make it by your own) But this in a game no. That will ruin war thunder because ppl going to play only one vehicel and will never get into a match.
2 Likes
You seem to be an advocate for bad elements in popular games.Are you going to lecture me about how Fallout 4 crashing all the time is a good thing as well ?
Have you never played a good balanced historical game? What are you a child ? What low vantage point do you try to attack me from here?
1 Like
It is a game that could be better.One of the ways it could be better would be to have historical match making instead of pure fantasy.War Thunder just chooses to group it’s vehicles another way.It chose not to do historical matchmaking which is a shame.Should have, could have maybe but didn’t ,now it is too late.
1 Like
“Balanced” is a heavy word, because most “balanced” historical games flub vehicle statistics and behavior hard.
Complaining about the way the game’s been since release in that respect will get you absolutely nowhere, and it’s tiring to see constantly.
2 Likes
Because it will be more like M4A (76) vs Pz IVH/J/Stug IIIG, P-51D vs Bf 109G-10/K-4/Fw 190D-9 with only a sprinkling of Tiger I & Me 262
Great. Now you have to wait 5 hours to queue. How do you actually think this is gonna be balanced at all?
No.
Would be a huge step backward into an unfun unbalanced trash heap.
I quit milsimmers cause they just wanted to LARP as existing groups instead of having imagination.
We already have realism.
Year is arbitrary and nothing to do with realism.
6 Likes
War Thunder does technical realism, not doctrine/usage/historical realism. This is the ideal, as the latter is inherently unbalanced, usually wildly so.
4 Likes
There’s no such thing as doctrine nor historical realism.
History has a word: Authentic.
And doctrine is no different than fiction, it’s invented things.
And the great thing about focusing on realism is people will discover what works best for them.
And if people really want to reenact history, that’s what custom battles are easily used for.
OP could tell you how to shot down a F-22A with J-8B? It’s 100% historicial matchmaking ;)
1 Like
*There are threads for this specific thing that already exists, why do you people keep insisting that this should be “added”? Knowing it never will.
I rather not have my Ha-Go fight an IS-2.
I also would rather not have any Japanese aircraft fighting an F-86. Their service remained used till early 1949 however knowing history that isn’t always documented it was still being used till the '50s
Imho you just ask for a BR adjustment based on production years / service years in order to provide a certain portion of realism.
A real historical MM would need to consider numerical and logistical advantages (=potential asymmetric warfare) besides the necessity to create certain “friend or foe” brackets like Nato vs WP.
A semi-historical MM would create these “friend or foe” brackets for certain eras like WW 2 / Cold War I / Cold War II but would keep the setup of equally sized teams.
A few examples based on WW 2:
Historical MM: 16 P-51 D-5/10/20 (BR 4.0 & 4.3) vs 2 Me 262s (BR 7.0).
Semi-historical MM: 16 F6F-3s (BR 3.3) vs 16 A6M5s (BR 5.0).
I would be great if you would be more precise what you actually want…
2 Likes
Just additiomal aspect of realism.