Kings of Battle - Rumor Round-Up and Discussion (Part 1)

Aircraft simulation means nothing when the gamemode simulation is poor. I think this is the bigger issue. SB has immense potential to blow DCS out of the water by being both immersive and user friendly. But its been so badly neglected that its a joke to even compare them.

So many features are not modeled yet, so many things have bene missed. Even basic things like UI configuration is extremely lack luster in WT and in SB, most of the cockpit HUDs are an after thought.

CCRP for example semi-works if you hack it by taking a mix of Guided and unguided weapons. But take Guided only, no CCRP interface at all.

WT has great potential but they seem to focus only on the third-person arcade aspect to the game. Which is no good for those who play the immersive cockpit only gamemodes like SB

Still, Israel makes their own tanks while Ukraine uses post soviet tanks as a base for their MBTs. Same with IFV/APC/LTs.

1 Like

I know but it does make a heck of a good line up though.

But I think they will pick the K2PL and the Twardy tank

Definitely Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Poland, Yugoslavia.
Arguably Benelux, Spain, the Koreas and Turkey.

Not a tank geek myself, but I’d take the Twardy tank just for the name

1 Like

Switzerland is not even close to good tech tree material

Plus Smin said the Hunter was a one off

1 Like

Id still not entirely discount something from the south Americas. It is an area of the world not well represented outside of 1 or 2 vehicles in other trees. Not likely but prehaps worthy of the list

3 Likes

I take it you have not explored their air tree (which is alright, has some stuff) and ground tree (which is absolutely excellent)

Yeah, but that would involve more than just a handful of nations to make into a functioning tree, so it’s a bit iffy.
Still, you are right.

Behavior, or in this case, the relationship of pilot behavior & war game behavior, is always realistic.
Why? Cause doctrine isn’t the same around the world, and is changed simply by a commanding officer disagreeing with the doctrine they’ve been taught.

That’s what I love about War Thunder. It’s realistic, peak realism, but no milsim is to be seen.
I’m extremely anti-milsim because they’re doctrine junkies instead of allowing unique thoughts & strategy.

And most video game players hate doctrine junky mentality.

Did switzerland build their own warplanes at any point?

Yea for some it’s full of cheesy aircraft :)

Joke Pun GIF - Joke Pun Drum - Discover & Share GIFs

1 Like

That confirms my suspicions…
They built an entire prop attacker family, had some jet prototypes and had modifications of French aircraft that barely even resembled the original airframe.

2 Likes

Weren’t you the one that informed me of the Swiss air tree? Or was it someone else?

Such a beautiful family totally forgotten about they are so underrated

Very possible. I am quite a staunch advocate for an independent Swiss tree.

2 Likes

That was a genuine question, not meant to sound condescending btw

The lists that I have seen so far were only trainers and recons built in switzerland, with the rest being imports

No, the sheer lack of Sim content and its extremely buggy state with an almost untenable economy system.

Im not saying SB should become a hyper realistic Milsim, only that the gameplay we’ve got is a poor attempt to continue to copy and paste content made for SB years and years ago with no updates. If anything, their constant “adjustments” have just broken the gamemode even further to the point where I genuinely think they need to start again.

But again, things like CCRP not working for guided bombs, despite the fact they do with a work-around, or missing Cockpit HUD features like lack of radar symbology. Or the poor implementation of CCRP target selection and available ripples (which have been suggested a dozen times) have yet to be addressed.

Im not saying they need to turn WT into a milsim. But there is so much they can do to improve things, but there focus is only on ARB (which in itself has barely seen any imrpovements or changes since we were fighting in sptifires vs 109s)

Multiple times, like the first time, for example, did you not use ‘if’, and rather stated it as a fact.