Is War Thunder Losing Its Realism?

Game Discussion World War Mode
1

In my opinion, War Thunder is becoming increasingly arcade-like, including in Realistic and Simulator Battles. Many players were attracted to this game because of its realism and the complexity of its vehicles, but some mechanics are gradually taking away from that experience.

In high-tier air battles, for example, I believe the way radars, missiles, notch, and datalink systems work needs to be reviewed. In certain situations, simply deploying chaff and performing a notch is enough to evade a missile, even when the launching aircraft’s radar is still tracking the target. There are also situations where aircraft and even missiles appear marked at considerable distances, reducing the importance of detection, situational awareness, and understanding the systems involved.

Another issue is the inconsistency in missile fragmentation and explosions near the ground. These situations should be reviewed to ensure that damage is more consistent with the behavior of the weapons represented in the game.

Matchmaking and overall match balance could also be improved. One possible solution would be to introduce a ranked mode or a skill-based matchmaking system. This could encourage players to learn the game mechanics and improve their skills without taking away the accessibility of casual game modes.

Players in regions with high ping should also be considered. Many Brazilian players, for example, do not have local servers available and face disadvantages in combat because of network latency.

I understand that the game needs to remain accessible and commercially sustainable, but this should not come at the expense of its identity. I believe Gaijin should prioritize consistent game mechanics, review combat systems, and provide more incentives for players to develop their skills.

War Thunder does not need to be impossible for casual players, but it should not sacrifice the realism that made it so popular in the first place.

1 Like
2

Many players are attracted to War Thunder because the health bars are hidden unlike World of Warplanes so they feel like the game is realistic but at the same time not over-realistic at a point of games like Nuclear Option and Digital Combat Simulator with fully interactive cockpits. What makes War Thunder attractive is this “balance” between realism and accessibility for a fast-paced gameplay without overcomplicated mechanics.

1 Like
3

I understand the importance of balancing realism and accessibility, and I agree that War Thunder does not need to be as complex as a full simulator. However, in my opinion, the game is becoming far too arcade-like, even in Realistic and Simulator Battles.

The main point is that I am not the one presenting War Thunder as a realistic game. Gaijin itself promotes the game by emphasizing its realism and the authenticity of its vehicles and combat. Therefore, it is fair to expect the game mechanics to reflect that promise.

The problem is not making the game accessible to casual players, but simplifying combat systems to the point where radar behavior, missile guidance, target detection, and damage mechanics become inconsistent with the realism the game claims to offer. When these mechanics do not behave consistently, it is reasonable to question the realism advertised by the company itself.

It is possible to keep the game accessible without sacrificing its depth. Players who invest time in studying vehicles, understanding their systems, and developing their skills deserve to have that knowledge and effort rewarded as well.

I am not asking for the game to become impossible for casual players. I am asking for consistency between the realism Gaijin promotes in its marketing and the way the game actually works. War Thunder can remain accessible without losing the realism, depth, and skill that made it so appealing in the first place.

4

That’s not a solution, it will only make things worse

4 Likes
5

I understand your point, but why do you think it would make things worse? The idea would not be to force everyone to play ranked matches, but to create an option for those who want to compete against players at a similar skill level. Casual game modes would remain unchanged.

Right now, many matches are decided by a few experienced players against teams that do not have the same level of knowledge or skill. A well-implemented ranked system could encourage players to improve and make matches more competitive. Of course, it would depend on how well the system is implemented, but I think it is worth discussing the idea before dismissing it.

6

sounds pretty realistic

7

Honestly, this would only affect players who don’t want to improve their skills, and that’s a different matter. It wouldn’t affect casual players because the existing Realistic, Simulator, and Arcade modes would still be available. The idea is simply to introduce a new game mode: Ranked Battles. Anyone who doesn’t want to play ranked matches would be completely free to keep playing the game as they do now. No one would be forced to participate.

8

there is a reason I don’t play DCS (excluding that I’m on console) the game doesn’t need to be instant death when a fox3 is on you

1 Like
9

warthunders fine its never been a sim in the first place its semi realistic game the only problems we have are balancing realism doesnt make a game better like how gabe puts it should we add in a grocery list to game to make it more realistic ? that doesnt make it more fun

skill based MM never works you eithe curb stomp or get curbed stomped no in-between

warthunder does a perfect balance between realistic and fun id rather not ruin that

1 Like
10

It may look realistic in some situations, but that doesn’t mean it always behaves realistically. My point is that missile fragmentation and proximity fuzes should produce consistent results. There are situations where a missile detonates very close to an aircraft, yet causes little or no damage. I’m not asking for missiles to be more powerful than they should be, but for their damage mechanics to behave consistently with the weapons being modeled in the game.

11

no they shouldnt planes still this year have survived a missile to the face like f35 in iran recently was able to land while f15s are unable to RTB so fragments and proxy is unreliable

1 Like
12

you can thank our volumetric system for that and the Absolutely ancient models the tank armor on every tank needs to be remade with whatever they did to the tiger 1s manlet making it less volumetric

13

War Thunder has only ever gained realism.

Radar in War Thunder is simulated more accurately than in DCS as an example.
You even admit it when saying some missiles you need to just notch, which is accurate.

1 Like
14

Saying that War Thunder has never been a full simulator does not refute my argument, because I never claimed it should be one. The issue is that Gaijin itself promotes the game based on its realism, yet several mechanics are becoming increasingly simplified. There is a clear difference between being semi-realistic and turning Realistic and Simulator Battles into experiences that feel increasingly like Arcade mode.

As for matchmaking, claiming that it never works does not prove that a ranked mode would fail. We are talking about a separate game mode that could be tested without changing the existing ones. Players who do not want to play ranked would simply continue playing as usual. So what exactly would be the problem with testing an alternative before dismissing it?

And the argument that realism does not make a game better is purely subjective. For many players, realism is precisely the main reason they play War Thunder, not just its graphics or variety of vehicles.

The point is simple: nobody is demanding a perfect simulator. We are asking for consistency between the realism Gaijin advertises and the mechanics it actually delivers. You cannot use realism as a marketing tool and then, when players point out inconsistencies, respond by saying that the game was never a simulator. If matchmaking and balance are the main problems, then let’s discuss concrete solutions instead of using that argument to shut down every criticism.

15

Missile fragmentation has nothing to do with weaker volumetric armor on tanks, & volumetric rounds.
Also the Tiger 1’s mantlet was made more volumetric, not less.

More volumetric armor = the less protected it is due to no overlapping plates.

1 Like
16

Surviving a missile attack in real life does not prove that the in-game mechanics are accurate. An aircraft may survive depending on the detonation point, the trajectory of the fragments, the distance, and the damage sustained. I am not claiming that every missile detonating near an aircraft should guarantee an instant kill. I am saying that fragmentation and proximity fuzes need to behave consistently with the characteristics of each weapon.

Using an isolated case of an aircraft that managed to land does not explain every possible situation, nor does it justify inconsistencies within the game. The point is not to make missiles infallible, but to ensure that their effects are calculated consistently rather than producing results that seem contradictory to the game’s own mechanics.

17

If any experienced player somehow falls to lower rank or creates a new account then that player can easily seal club the entire lobby. Another issue is that you can’t really learn much by playing alongside bad players/players of your skill level, dying to good players is much better than winning against bad players.
Also ranked matches will only increase toxicity among the playerbase, we don’t need FPS games like lobbies.

18

Proximity fuzes are modelled pretty well in WT, some sims like DCS have completely unrealistic proximity fuzes.

19

A f16 evaded 6 missiles IRL too we have many cases of jets surviving being shot at what are you trying to make this game for example f15s in Iran got destoryed while f35s was able to RTB that’s unreliable

20

no it wasnt it was made weaker you can pen parts of it now which you could not before