I want to start by saying that I have been a member of the War Thunder community and actively playing the game since 2013. Over that time, I have played at top tier across several nations, including the United States, USSR, Great Britain, China, and France. I have experienced a considerable amount of the game’s evolution, and I have seen many of the same discussions and complaints come up repeatedly over the years.
I understand that not everyone is going to agree with everything in this post, and that’s perfectly fine. The purpose of this discussion is to bring attention to issues that I have personally experienced, observed, or heard discussed throughout the community over the years. I welcome disagreement and constructive criticism, but I ask that people explain why they disagree rather than resorting to insults or personal attacks.
Ultimately, I would like to see meaningful improvements to the game that reflect what the community has been asking for.
I would also encourage anyone discussing these issues on other platforms to bring those discussions to the official forums. If we want our opinions and feedback to be heard, we should make an effort to bring those conversations to the platform where the developers can see them and where the community can participate together.
1. Nuclear Escalation: SAM and SPAA Effectiveness
My biggest concerns with Nuclear Escalation are the effectiveness and overall density of SAM and SPAA systems.
I personally don’t have an issue with the number of SAM systems in the game by itself. I understand that this is supposed to be a large-scale conflict involving heavily defended ground positions, and I actually enjoy the concept of having to work around and destroy enemy air defenses.
My problem is how difficult these systems can be to engage and eliminate.
One particularly frustrating mechanic is the ability of AI-controlled SAM and SPAA systems to intercept incoming air-to-ground munitions at an extremely high rate. When a substantial percentage of the weapons you launch are intercepted before reaching their intended target, destroying even a single air defense system can become unnecessarily difficult.
This creates a situation where aircraft with limited hardpoints or fewer available guided weapons are at a significant disadvantage. Instead of being able to conduct meaningful SEAD operations and gradually eliminate enemy defenses, players can find themselves spending the majority of their available ordnance simply attempting to destroy one target.
Another major frustration is the ability of these systems to engage and intercept air-to-air missiles, even when those missiles pose no direct threat to the SAM or SPAA system itself.
I think this is particularly problematic when considering how these systems operate in the real world. SAM and SPAA systems have a finite supply of ready-to-fire missiles and cannot simply replenish their ammunition immediately. Reloading requires time and logistical support, meaning that every missile expended is a limited resource that needs to be used judiciously.
Expending these limited interceptors on air-to-air missiles that pose no threat to the air defense system itself seems like an unnecessary waste of ammunition. These systems should be capable of prioritizing threats based on whether they actually pose a danger to the system or the assets it is assigned to protect, rather than engaging every missile that enters its engagement envelope.
I would like to see improvements to the AI’s threat assessment and target prioritization so that these systems behave more realistically and reserve their ammunition for threats that actually warrant an engagement.
In my experience, I frequently find that I am being destroyed by SAMs and SPAA more often than by other players. I understand that air defenses should be dangerous, but there needs to be a better balance between their effectiveness and the ability of aircraft to counter them.
I’m not advocating for the removal of SAMs or SPAA. I would much rather see improvements to their engagement logic, interception behavior, accuracy, and overall balance. Players should be able to conduct effective SEAD operations without having to exhaust nearly their entire loadout just to remove a single air defense position.
There are already community discussions addressing these exact concerns, and I agree with much of the feedback being presented.
Related discussions:
-
[Fix SPAA in Top Tier]
(! NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED ! Fix SPAA in Top Tier) -
[Nuclear Escalation: ItO-90M SPAA concerns]
(Issue regarding ItO-90M SPAA for Nuclear Escalation Top Tier BR)
2. Nuclear Escalation: Map Design, Size, and Variety
Regarding the maps, I personally find Southeastern City to be a considerably less enjoyable experience than Tropical Coast.
There is a substantial difference between the two maps in terms of scale. Tropical Coast is 256 × 256 km, while Southeastern City is 128 × 128 km. I believe that difference in scale has a considerable effect on the overall experience.
The smaller playable area, increased density of ground vehicles and air defenses, and faster-paced engagements make Southeastern City substantially less enjoyable for me.
One of the biggest reasons I enjoy Nuclear Escalation is the scale of the battles. I enjoy having room to maneuver, plan an attack, conduct multi-role operations, and engage targets without immediately being overwhelmed by multiple air defense systems.
This is something that I believe separates Nuclear Escalation from traditional Air RB, Bullet Hell, and Tactical Skies.
I absolutely love the concept of Nuclear Escalation, especially:
- The longer match duration.
- The large map design of Tropical Coast.
- The ability to use multiple aircraft throughout a match.
- The opportunity to fly dedicated multirole aircraft.
- The ability to participate in a larger battle with meaningful ground and air objectives.
I would love to see more maps designed around this experience, and I would personally welcome additional large-scale environments comparable to Tropical Coast.
I understand that smaller maps can provide a faster-paced experience and may be more appropriate for certain aircraft and BR brackets. However, I don’t believe that should come at the expense of the larger-scale experience that makes this game mode enjoyable in the first place.
More variety in map design, additional strategic points of interest, and objectives that require multiple coordinated strikes to eliminate would be excellent additions.
I would also like to see more map variety rather than relying on smaller maps with increasingly concentrated combat.
To be clear, my complaint isn’t that Southeastern City exists. It’s that I don’t believe smaller maps should replace the larger-scale experience offered by Tropical Coast. I would rather see both styles coexist, with more emphasis on providing the large-scale experience that makes Nuclear Escalation different from other game modes.
3. Nuclear Escalation: Late Joining and Rewards
Another issue that I believe needs to be addressed is late joining.
I regularly encounter situations where someone joins a match that is already nearing its conclusion. I’ve seen players join, realize the match is only a few minutes from ending, and express frustration that they have effectively wasted a booster or lost progress on a wager.
I have personally experienced this more often than I would like.
One of the reasons I play Nuclear Escalation so frequently is that, in my experience, its RP per hour can be considerably better than other Air RB experiences. Because of this, I regularly use boosters when playing the mode.
However, boosters and wagers are limited-use resources. Losing a wager stage because you entered a match that ended less than five minutes later, sometimes less than two minutes after joining, is incredibly frustrating.
I would like to see late joining disabled once a match reaches a certain point, or some alternative protection introduced for players who enter matches that are already close to completion.
At a minimum, players should not be placed into matches where there is virtually no opportunity to contribute meaningfully or earn the rewards they entered the game expecting.
4. Air-to-Ground Effectiveness and Team Balance
Moving away from Nuclear Escalation, I also want to address what I perceive to be an imbalance in air-to-ground effectiveness between different nations.
When flying aircraft from nations such as the USSR, Japan, China, and Italy, I have found that certain lineups can struggle to contribute ground damage at the same rate as aircraft with more effective ground-strike loadouts.
I don’t necessarily believe this is because these nations lack capable ground-strike weapons. Rather, I believe there are several contributing factors:
- Differences in the number of available weapon hardpoints.
- Differences in the amount and variety of compatible ground-strike ordnance.
- The ability of AI-controlled SAM and SPAA systems to intercept incoming munitions.
- Differences in how efficiently individual aircraft can destroy ground objectives.
These factors can create an imbalance where one side can destroy ground targets considerably faster than the other, even when players are making comparable efforts.
This becomes especially frustrating when you are working with your teammates to destroy ground targets, but the opposing team is consistently able to accomplish the same objectives faster.
I also believe the reward structure needs another look.
The reward bonuses for achieving four or more air-to-air kills are appreciated, but they can also create an incentive for players to prioritize air kills over completing ground objectives.
In a game mode where ground objectives are such an important part of determining the outcome, I think players should have a stronger incentive to participate in ground-strike operations.
Destroying ground targets, eliminating air defenses, and completing strategic objectives should feel just as worthwhile as hunting down other aircraft.
The RP rewards for air-to-air kills are excellent, but the current structure can result in a player with multiple air kills receiving considerably more RP regardless of whether their team ultimately wins or loses.
I believe the reward system should better reflect the different ways players contribute to a match, particularly when those contributions directly affect the outcome.
5. Top-Tier Aircraft and Missile Implementation
This is one of the areas where I believe the game needs considerably more attention.
At the highest BR brackets, particularly at and above the recently reworked 14.3 BR, I feel that several nations are missing important air-to-air capabilities that would make their aircraft more competitive.
AIM-9X and other high-off-boresight missiles
I find the lack of AIM-9X access for compatible NATO aircraft particularly frustrating.
The AIM-9X already exists in War Thunder as part of the NASAMS 3 ground-based air defense system. I understand that implementing an aircraft-launched version and balancing its performance may require additional work, but the missile itself is already represented in the game.
There are numerous aircraft that could potentially benefit from additional high-off-boresight missile options, including:
- F/A-18C Late and other F/A-18 variants.
- F-15 variants.
- F-16 variants.
- F/A-18E.
- Gripen variants.
- AV-8B Harrier II.
- Future additions such as the F-15EX.
There are already numerous aircraft in the game that could potentially benefit from these weapons.
I am not suggesting that every aircraft should receive the AIM-9X regardless of its historical compatibility or BR. I am asking that compatible aircraft receive the weapons they should have access to, with appropriate BR adjustments where necessary.
I personally don’t believe the introduction of AIM-9X or comparable missiles would automatically make NATO aircraft overpowered compared to existing high-off-boresight weapons such as the R-73, AAM-3, or PL-8B.
If Gaijin is concerned that these weapons would negatively affect balance, then I would strongly encourage testing them on the dev server and collecting feedback from the community.
That is exactly what the dev server should be used for.
Missing missiles across multiple nations
The AIM-9X isn’t my only concern.
There are several other missiles that I believe should be considered for implementation, including:
- MICA IR.
- Meteor.
- Python 4.
The addition of the AIM-120D was a welcome improvement for the aircraft that received it. However, I don’t believe it completely addresses the differences in available air-to-air weaponry between nations.
I understand that new missile implementations require development time, testing, and balancing. However, simply classifying certain weapons as too advanced should not be the end of the discussion.
If the concern is balance, test them.
If the concern is implementation, prioritize them.
If the concern is historical compatibility, evaluate each aircraft individually.
I would rather see Gaijin explore these possibilities and make adjustments based on actual gameplay than leave entire weapon systems unimplemented because of assumptions about how they might perform.
There is already an extensive community discussion documenting missing air-to-air weaponry across multiple tech trees. I agree with many of the suggestions being made in that discussion.
Two-way datalink implementation
Another important area is datalink functionality.
I believe the implementation of missile datalink capabilities needs additional attention, particularly regarding missiles and aircraft that support two-way datalink systems.
The AIM-120D is one of the most relevant examples. Its two-way datalink capabilities are an important part of its real-world guidance system.
To my understanding, the AIM-120D is the clearest example currently relevant to the game where this capability should be properly represented.
There is already discussion within the community about which aspects of two-way datalink are currently represented in War Thunder and which capabilities are still missing.
I would like to see Gaijin provide more clarity on this subject and properly differentiate missiles that have different datalink capabilities.
The ability for a launching aircraft to continue exchanging targeting information with a missile after launch could have meaningful implications for high-altitude and beyond-visual-range engagements.
In particular, I believe the interaction between the launching aircraft’s radar tracking and missile guidance deserves further attention. Maintaining an appropriate single-target track or TWS track could potentially provide additional targeting updates and make certain defensive maneuvers, such as notching, less effective against a missile that supports these capabilities.
I understand that implementing this accurately would require careful consideration of how the real-world systems function, but I believe it is an important capability that should not be overlooked.
This would make the differences between missile variants more meaningful and provide another opportunity to improve the competitive balance between nations.
6. Battle Rating Compression and Matchmaking
Lastly, I want to discuss BR compression and matchmaking.
I know we recently received another round of BR adjustments, but I still believe there is considerable room for improvement across practically every BR range.
Dating back to the 2017 community poll regarding reducing the matchmaking BR spread from 1.0 to 0.7, I still find it frustrating that this discussion has continued for years without the community receiving the matchmaking changes many players have requested.
I remember the arguments made against this change, particularly the concerns about longer queue times and reduced vehicle diversity. These were also discussed in subsequent community discussions.
Those concerns deserve consideration, but I don’t believe they should automatically outweigh the quality of the matches themselves.
I also remember a period when playing certain nations, particularly Britain and the United States, could mean repeatedly encountering the same alternate-history maps and mission configurations, such as Preparation for Landing on Hokkaido.
The lack of variety and lengthy queue times during certain peak periods made for a very repetitive experience.
However, I believe the game has evolved considerably since then.
There are more vehicles, more nations, more aircraft variants, and considerably more possibilities for matchmaking than there were in 2017.
I would argue that the matchmaking concerns used to oppose a smaller BR spread deserve to be revisited using the current player population and vehicle selection.
Personally, I would rather wait a little longer for a substantially better match than immediately enter a match where I am fighting aircraft or ground vehicles that significantly outperform my own.
I also believe Ground RB could benefit from these changes.
There are situations where a vehicle at the bottom of a full uptier has practically no reasonable way of engaging certain opponents from the front without targeting extremely specific weak points.
While experienced players may know these weak points, newer and less experienced players often do not. This can create an extremely frustrating experience for someone who simply cannot understand why their ammunition is ineffective against an opponent they are expected to fight.
A smaller BR spread would not solve every balance issue, but I believe it would help considerably.
I understand that there are legitimate concerns about matchmaking times, population distribution, and the balance implications of changing the spread. I am not suggesting those concerns should be ignored. I am suggesting that better match quality deserves to be weighed alongside them.
At the very least, I would like Gaijin to seriously reconsider the 0.7 spread or offer it as an alternative matchmaking option.
Aircraft BR examples
I could spend considerably more time listing individual aircraft that I believe deserve another look, but a few examples stand out to me.
British Spitfires
I don’t believe the Spitfire Mk.22 and Mk.24 should be overlooked when discussing propeller aircraft compression.
Having these aircraft at 6.7 while regularly encountering early jets in full uptiers creates some very frustrating matchups.
I also believe their Hispano Mk V armament and ammunition options deserve another review, particularly the HEF-SAPI ammunition situation.
There is already a community discussion specifically questioning the Spitfire Mk.22’s BR placement:
German Bf 109 variants
I also believe several Bf 109 variants deserve another look, particularly the G-6, G-10, G-14, and K-4.
In my experience, some of these aircraft can be exceptionally competitive at their current BRs, especially when compared with other nations’ aircraft that struggle in similar matchmaking conditions.
I believe their current BR placements deserve another evaluation, particularly when considering how they perform against comparable aircraft from other nations.
F8F Bearcats
The F8F-1 at 4.7 and the F8F-1B at 6.3 are another example of what I believe to be questionable BR placement.
What makes this comparison particularly interesting is that these aircraft have identical flight models and flight performance. Their stat cards reflect the same performance characteristics, and their available secondary ordnance options are identical as well.
The only meaningful difference between these two aircraft is their primary gun armament. The F8F-1 is equipped with .50 caliber machine guns, while the F8F-1B uses 20 mm cannons.
Despite having otherwise identical flight performance and available secondary ordnance, there is a 1.6 BR difference between them.
I understand that cannon armament can provide a considerable advantage in air-to-air engagements, but I find it difficult to justify such a substantial BR separation when the aircraft themselves perform identically in practically every other respect.
I believe this is another example that deserves a closer look when evaluating aircraft BR placement and how heavily armament alone should influence matchmaking.
Soviet and Chinese La-9
The La-9 at 6.0 is another aircraft that I believe deserves consideration.
In my experience, it can struggle considerably in its current matchmaking environment, particularly against aircraft that have substantial advantages in climb rate, overall performance, and engagement flexibility.
This is something I have experienced with both the Soviet and Chinese versions.
These are only a few examples. I could continue listing aircraft across multiple nations, but I would inevitably overlook some.
Ultimately, I believe these examples demonstrate a larger issue: there are too many aircraft across the BR spectrum that are forced into engagements where their performance characteristics put them at a significant disadvantage.
I would love to see the maximum BR ceiling increased, potentially toward 20.0, with additional intermediate BR steps introduced to provide more room for aircraft to be properly separated.
This would give Gaijin considerably more flexibility when balancing vehicles instead of continually compressing aircraft from substantially different performance generations into the same matchmaking environment.
I believe this would be one of the most meaningful quality-of-life improvements for Air RB players.
Closing Thoughts
Thank you to everyone who took the time to read this lengthy post.
I recognize that some of these issues have been discussed repeatedly, and I am not claiming that I am the first person to bring them up. In fact, I agree with many of the complaints and suggestions that other members of the community have already made.
That is part of the reason I wanted to put this discussion together.
I would much rather see the community participate in constructive conversations about the game’s shortcomings than have these discussions scattered across different platforms where they are less likely to receive meaningful attention.
I genuinely enjoy War Thunder. I have been playing for over a decade, and I wouldn’t spend the time writing something this lengthy if I didn’t care about the future of the game.
I don’t expect every suggestion in this post to be implemented, nor do I expect everyone to agree with every point.
What I do hope is that these discussions receive meaningful attention, that the community continues to provide constructive feedback, and that Gaijin considers some of the improvements being requested.
I would encourage anyone who shares these concerns to contribute their own experiences, suggestions, and constructive criticism.
We all want to see War Thunder become a better game.