I think that we need historically inspired gameplay. It doesnt have to be historically accurate, it just needs to be inspired by real life meta.
Weapon designers created the weapons based on the reality of the time.
In WW2 you needed a BIG gun to have a lot of penetration, armor worked.
In 1950s/60s MBTs were kings, not time traveling tin cans from 20 years in future.
By breaking these rules we create inconsistent, and IMO unfun gameplay. I dont think its good gameplay to try to make everything competitive at its own BR.
I don’t see many instances where these rules are actually broken in a meaningful way.
Ww2 eras still have armor that works. There are plently of strong heavy tanks with good armor (KV-1E, KV-1 ZiS-5, Tiger 1 and 2, Jumbo Sherman). And heavy gun vehicles serve their purpose of destroying the former rather easily.
In cold war eras, MBTs are still the most popular choice by far. Most games will only have a few players 1st spawn AA.
Crazy, maybe it’s because 7.3 isn’t considered part of WW2 anymore. WW2 ends around 5.7->6.0.
After that, you get into Mid to late-Cold War stuff, with a few WW2 vehicles there simply because if they were placed any lower would dominate, and trust me, they would now.
A semi-historical gameplay would require maps to be altered and extended, and communication would require translators in-game proximity voice chat, two things we’ve been wanting but get ignored. But also need to consider that.
Sadly, as much as it would be an interesting idea. The issue is most aren’t going to play the game mode as it was developed for if all of the necessary tools are never added, and even then, destructible buildings would be a must to really work at all.
Why would it require changes to maps or communication? Im talking about the matchmaker here. Im saying that the matchmaker should be inspired by real life but balanced. That means that there should be some consistency in tech level on any given battle rating.
It does have a LRF. And its at lower BR than Leo 1.
Doesnt mean PZH2000 is over powered. But its just not contributing to fun and consistent gameplay.
Whats next? They gonna add Toyota pickup truck with ATGM and place it at 3.3 because it has no armor?
The reason is that a lot of maps are designed to be extremely open spaces. However, we know that a lot of places historically were not purely open plains. Most had a lot of cover and tight corners.
Etc.
In terms of communication, it’s so you can coordinate with someone who might have a gun that can punch and kill a tank.
If you wanted an "Inspired by real life but balanced"game mode.
Then, by this logic, we would still see Shermans with 75mm cannons doing nothing to the front armor plating of a Tiger I.
Look at any other game that has tanks involved, and one key thing you notice is people are communicating and allowing folks to sort of know where what is, when, and how.
Currently, War Thunder functions based on how fast you can rush to the enemy spawn.
You also cannot truly do a historically inspired matchmaking. Since M26s would be fighting vehicles as like a Panzer III. Which is historical, as both existed within the same time frame.
Welp, I guess Sinai, Poland, Kuban, White Rock Fortress, The Fulda Gap, Vietnam, Karelia, Jungle, and many more maps that are about 3 quarters open space, 1 quarter Tight Quarters. Don’t exist and are all replaced by City maps. 🤦
Also, but you stated in your description:
By this logic, then we would still see 75mm Shermans fighting Tiger I’s. Or 105s fighting a Tiger I cause that’s a big gun.
Which is not correct; they were excellent vehicles, but by no means can you blindly call them “Kings”.
I’ve seen this argument you wrote since 2017; some have seen it since 2012. Almost as if they knew where it was going.
But the “Historically inspired” matchmaking you clearly want is a Panzer IV vs. a Sherman M4 with a 75mm.
The reason heavier armored vehicles exist is to create a spearhead and break a defensive line. In multiple spots for other vehicles, personnel, etc to break through.
What would happen with your idea creates a ton of stalemates where both sides cannot effectively break the other’s defense.
I cant lie. for all the overtiered trash (Vampire family) and undertiered swines (XM800T) they arent the majority of the vehicles.
Most vehicles (bar sweden) face comparable vehicles of their time, the only major outliers to this that arent experimentals are the centurions and chieftains almost exclusively being the same BR as peers from at least a decade later, which is for the most part (excluding leopard a1a1 or any SPG and AFV) do make a lot of sense at the same BR due to their capabilities being about the same.
Do you even know what the word logic means?
The point is you needed to have big long barreled gun to have good pen, while with HEAT-FS you can have whatever gun and it will still pen everything. If you think that the 75mm is “big gun” then the 76mm sherman also has a big gun but its actually balanced against tigers.
Well enlighten us, what was the king in 1950/60s? Atgm vehicles? There was hardly anything other than MBTs back then.
Yes, at lower BRs, a bit higher we could have Tiger vs long 76 sherman or IS 1. The point is that the HEAT-FS and other modern rounds break that meta. Why take a tank with a big gun when you can have some scout tank with enough pen to kill a Maus?
These tanks already face each other in game and its not a stalemate. But HEAT-FS vehicles dont even need to aim for weakspots or flank.
So you enjoy playing a heavy tank and getting one shot by something like Ontos?
Thats the entire point. MBTs from 1950/60s should face other MBTs from the period with comparable ability. Not some wheeled tank from 1980s with thermals and modern rounds.
ill allow it. Ive played the ontos and been victim to it a couple times.
Its on you being victim to it pretty much every single time.
the german wheeled vehicles with leo 1a3 or TAM turrets are blatantly OP yes. I hate them too. those arent the majority of vehicles you face, especially with how spammed T72 and mbt 80 is around those BRs and thankfully German players suck with them (like they do with a majority of vehicles, leo 1a5 would have gone down if france mains didnt show that its actually very good for the BR)
As i said like 20 times already: Its not about whether its balanced. Its about if its FUN. Do you have fun playing ww2 stuff against HEAT-FS?
Do you enjoy playing against stuff that has better gun handling and better sights and better mobility when ur in 1960s MBT like T-55 or M60?
I would have no problem going against wheeled tank from 1960s in that scenario. But some call of duty gun handling stuff from 1980/90s is just bad gameplay no matter if its balanced.
yes. the PT76 is great but its getting dumpstered by a tiger 1 every single time the tiger isnt a moron.
honestly yea. 7.7-8.0 is my fave BR because i can cross universe snipe using the a L7 105mm in a M60 or cent mk10 and the sheridan is a forgotten gem of a light tank.
move radkampf and r400 up. problem solved.
rooikats will still be an issue as its a fast flanker but that things gun is so bad its fine for its BRs
