The A-10A late’s AGM-65Ds didn’t get IOC until 1986, that’s still barley 5 years difference if it’s the weaponry used to balance by date rather than the airframe.
Just how tight would these historical match ups have to be before considered either to wide or too limiting?
Better to balance by both of them - or make changes in naming, like A-10A(1974) and etc
No vehicle performance in game is based on hard data. Not the conspiratorial lunacy you’re sprouting.
They’ve stated before they won’t. The rest is why they use shells and loadouts as a balancing factor.
Recipe for confusion or disaster when some airframe and weapon dates vary considerably. You would just end up with artifical or arbitrary battle match ups in order to balance things…sounds familiar!
But seriously it wouldn’t help types like the A-10 as it simply wasn’t designed to take on first line fighters without a support package that doesn’t exist in the anti-team environment of WT. Each game mode would be extremely restricted as many of the ‘fun’ vehicles would be outclassed because they were born in the wrong year.
They need to add more CAS targets and remove part of bases.
And planes like A-10 will be usefull
But idk, that might not work in RB
The entire idea is problematic requiring so many changes and comprises to make it feasible without slash the number of viable vehicles at each ‘BR’.
It would certainly be a (yet another) nail in the coffin for Naval where it’s so heavily dominated by raw firepower/armour thickness balance in most cases that you currently have WW1 Battleships on a par with WW2 Battlecruisers, Kondor Class Bernau (1972 but transferred to Germany in 1990) at the same BR as USS Candid commissioned on 1942, and many other examples! Currently sensors and advanced weaponry barely make an impact but it would not take much to tip a flawed mode to a truly unplayable mess.
Simulator Battles in question.
You dont care about historical matchmaker, you just want to be OP.
Wow a genuine answer from a forum official.Nice to see ,well done Smin ,more of this
How can it be when much of that data is classified.Silly man.
I fully agree with this sentence as it is correct.
Imho you underestimate the power of a single comma.
If you would play more than 4 games a week / month and spend some time in forum participation you find countless examples of open or hidden nerfs of flight models - the majority of casual players is simply unable to notice them.
Best example is the abysmally bad flight model of Fw 190 Antons. According to primary sources like here:
Spits Mk Vs were clapped at will as their only advantage was a slightly better turn - but as shown above the early models could be outturned.
And now try to dogfight / turnfight a Mk V in a 190 A-1 in WT - no way. Besides crippeld elevator authority and a hidden nerf regarding nose authority the 190s received on top of that a hidden nerf regarding engine overheating.
All can be found in the forum - so imho you might consider doing some research before you spread fact-free opinions.
This looks like an honest self-assessment…
This would not be the solution, each vehicle meets different needs and cannot be compared with other vehicles of the same era.
For example : in this case the Swedish tree will become unplayable because the development of the majority of their tanks started after the second world war. And personally I would not like to face T’54 or M-60 in IKV-72
Similarly, most modern IFVs and light tank in the game (Puma, Namer, …) would find themselves facing vehicles of higher Br while some MBT would go down → The Leclerc was first introduce in service in the 1993 while the Sprut-D was introduce in 2006
I will never understand why people continue to advocate for SBMM when it has never been well-received in casual matches.
11.3 vs 18.0(?), cause they’re both 1990s’ :)
This duel would be epic. But now imagine the duel between the F-15 and the Strikemaster Mk88 and you will see perfection incarnate.
You said?
Imagine you are level 100, you have finished your tree and then an idea comes to you “What if I started a new tree” except that in this case, unfortunately you have a matchmaking based on the level and you find yourself having to wait 40 years to be able to join a game because very few high level players play at the bottom Br
As I write this, there are around 10k battles in progress. If we created matchmaking according to level by dividing it into 10 level increments (from 1 to 10, from 11 to 20, etc.) this would mean that each player could join a battle among the 1000 present at their level. Assuming that a minority of players participate in naval battle, this gives us (approximately) 450 games in air battles, 450 games in tank battles and around 100 in naval battles. However, there remain the ranks, the Brs and the game modes, the differences in servers which further reduce the number of reachable games.
What you’ve posted is not a primary source.
Not to mention that it doesn’t even actually say what is wrong with the Fw 190 Antons. Is it that the Fw 190 is underperforming… or is the Spitfire overperforming? There is no raw data here, so it can go both ways.
You might consider looking up the definition of a primary source. A pilot report is like a memoir always a primary source.
On top of that it doesn’t matter:
“Primary” and “secondary” should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.
Although i highly appreciate your overall input in this forum - in this case i agree to disagree.
That doesn’t matter too - the result within the game is decisive. I used this example to show the disparity of gaijin’s claims (=accuracy) and in-game implementation, that’s all.
Have a good one!