Late WW2 heavies

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
148

I do not understand your points that well. And to relate it to a vehicle that “does not exist” but clearly also exists as F-16s exist in game in multiple trees (I am not sure if the AJ is modeled in anyway differently) is not fully equivalent. Or should Japan not have anything to use when at least there is a acceptable link here in my mind (and to be replaced when suitable replacement is added, as was done in part to Maus), and the caveat of hiding once this is resolved?

It is funny as most players you view in the Maus have amazing stats in such a “poor” vehicle with issues (I only went so far as unlocking since there was far too much to do in game).

Era-differences mean nothing in a game based upon performance in the WT environment, and for the most part it works well, just skewed by the popularity of Russia/US/Germany and how this makes nation’s vehicles harder to compare.

The Maus does not suffer, it was removed because it is hard to balance such an odd vehicle (world moved on clearly), and that is was only ever added due to different situations back in early GF days and people wanting Germany to be competitive against the only other nation in game with GF, but the game moved on A LOT since then and they handled it well with “in game, not a normal acquirable, but still available to keep us happy”.

God you lot make me want to come back and pee about with vehicles again… but I remember the players so thank fk for the forum to scratch that itch xx

Edit:

I have never found the +1 BR MM unworkable, this appears to be just how people approach the game/grind with odd expectations. If you don;t like +1 then use vehicles built for +1 and remember most of the players on both sides are EXACTLY like you can can exchange with one another, not the 4 players per side in possibly better vehicles (but also might just as easily play like poor AI). But MM is a different subject.

Heavies in the past were ALWAYS generally: Good in Downtiers, Bad in Uptiers, with Germany having the guns that can hold it up like the Tigers, or USA having the Jumbo where the stability, and dumb way players use the map/vehicles, allows for the weaker gun but trolly armor from giving them some life in the +1. The situation with Heavies starts at 1.0 and not really something to worry about for the most part.

149

it isn’t acceptable since unlike the Maus for the predesessor of Germany, Japan never had even one F16. The F16 AJ was just a concepted proposal, that was decided against. Not even a prototype. And now with the F15 J, at basically the same br, you don’t have the excuse to fill a hole in capability, that also could be filled by teamwork. Like the US that have many bases in Japan, that would fill the lacking capability. But War Thunder doesn’t care about that…

no, the Maus was never added as a placeholder. It was like every other tank at that time, a normal tank. It was never added as a placeholder. Unlike the F 16 AJ, that was, and now, where it isn’t needed anymore, still isn’t removed.

what? it either dominates, or gets dominated. So it sufferes…
I think your defenition of suffering is weired here.

As I wrote (bc we balance everything through a 1 D-Matchmaker), but the MM has limitations.
And I wouldn’t say it works good, if you have to remove a tank of the first days bc of those limitations.
Yes the game changed, but for the worse, requireing such things to happen. Requireing the gameplay change of esp heavies, that now have to deal with decade newer AA or IFV’s etc that get balanced against tanks, bc of their modern munitions being against tanks way better, than agaisnt the AA-needs they were introduced for. Like R3’s…

it isn’t unworkable for sure, but do you want your only balancing system to be not unworkable, or do you want it to be actually good?

no vehicle is build for +1. Vehicles are build for the threats and tasks they had at the time they were designed. And those go completely ignored in this game, and that is a big issue imo, esp when those tasks aren’t even in game or get rewarded (like escorting heavy bombers over large distances, or using modern mbt’s over actual distances), which imo they should aim to include, not exclude for a Counterstrike-like 3 lane Map-design.

Edit:
Don’t get me wrong, for arcade having such simple and small maps is fine, but not for realistic or sim, that unlike the changes in air still rely on bigger versions of the often arcade or rb maps with now the same objectives.
I think we need EC for tanks and like the group that wants EC air for RB, I think there should also be a more EC like (esp since you can get out of the match before it ends and jip without much loss) ground battle, like they kind of tried out a bit with the april fools update.

150

Air AB maps > Air RB maps

Honestly a map issue, needs to be addressed.

Era-seperation does not, and will never work- which is fine. The current BR system has flaws, but is a lot better then an era-seperated system would be.

1 Like
151

Who made you the gatekeeper here?

1 Like
152

A strange woman living in a pond distributing swords, that’s who.

2 Likes
153

You got me there : )

1 Like
154

Would that be an issue? If the vehicle is in the same tier/br/match as its counterparts?

155

Yes
Yes it would
Its at 2.3 rn
It has a single 20mm

1600px-GarageImage_Pbv_301
1600px-GarageImage_Pbv_3011600×900 138 KB

156

So does the Wiesel. It also have a single 20mm. It does have thermals though.

157

The wiesel is also smaller, faster, has thermals, LRF, and NVD, has apds and hvap, higher firerate, more ammo, HAS THERMALS, and is at 7.3, not 8.0.

158

But is built close to the PBV301 production.
Wiesel 1979–1993
PBV301 1961–1971

So, the PBV301 should be around 7.0 while the wiesel at 8.0, if they bothered to do a tight decompress and had historical matchmaking.

159

excuse me what

are you insane my guy

160

The PBV301 is already nothing special at 2.3.

It would be horrible at 7.0.

BRs might be unbalanced but that is something that can be changed. Historical matchmaking is unbalanced from the way it inherently works.

5 Likes
161

You were the one to comment that the PBV 301 could be 8.0 in historical matchmaking, so idk.

There are ways to balance the historical matchmaking, like they did in the Normandy landing event, they limited the amount of players on the ‘stronger’ side, which I thought was very cool.

You can’t see any issues with WW2 vehicles getting donked on by 1960’s vehicles?

162

It isn’t an issue when those 1960s vehicles aren’t any better than WWII vehicles.

The 1954 EBR is 6.7 and balanced despite being 10 years newer than many of the tanks it faces.

163

This gif should hopefully help you visualize my feelings towards you and this thread
jpeg

6 Likes
164

but the m-51 penetrates his tiger 2 frontally :( (ignore everything else about it)

165

If they have cold war munitions, they are not balanced in a WW2 setting. There can’t be logic behind your reasoning.

166

It was a comment on how stupid historical matchmaking is, not a legitimate game suggestion ffs…

1 Like
167

Yeah, because having a compressed TT without having historical MM sure is the best solution, right?