I like museums and history books… :(
WTF do you put up with WT for if you don’t care about the history? There are a metric ton of better games…
6 Likes
It’s a fun game. I’m not aware of more fun ones of this type. One of the big reasons it’s fun is precisely due to the balancing algorithms that make matchups reasonably winnable in almost all situations. (unlike Daimlers vs Tigers)
lol. Okay, but… lol. You need to get out more. lol
A more convincing argument would probably be like… saying what game you’re talking about. At which point I could probably easily explain why I find WT more fun. But whatevs
Sounds like fun, I think I’d enjoy it more than ground RB.
Of course not everyone agrees, and that’s why this should be an optional game mode. If participation is voluntary, then why complain about it?
I already use light tanks (like Stuart and Puma) in intentional 3 to 4 BR uptiers anyways, and it isn’t as hopeless as you’d think. Mobility carries these vehicles, as well as spotting for your team.
2 Likes
If participation is voluntary, then why complain about it?
Because there’s limited development/design resources, and other modes are much more desperately needed and of interest to a huge swath of people rather than a niche group. Like Ground-only modes being asked for every 2 hours here for years, for example.
I already use light tanks (like Stuart) in intentional 3 to 4 BR uptiers anyways, and it isn’t as hopeless as you’d think. Mobility carries these vehicles, as well as spotting for your team.
But as you just said… you already do it. Notice that you did not require a new mode to do that, you are able to right now just fine. So…? The difference is instead that this one would force you to do it with other vehicles that DON’T uptier well that you never would have opted into normally because you know they won’t be fun. Like, an M3 gun carrier, when a Sherman has the exact same gun and is better in every possible way, etc.
Ok, it’s not for you. Noted. I’m not really looking to see if/why people are against the idea. I’m more looking to see if there are enough people in support of the idea for it to be implemented alongside current modes. And any new input on how to improve the idea.
I for one quite like the extra challenge of using historical vehicles at higher BRs. I’d enjoy a mode where that doesn’t mean leaving the team without backup or putting my lineup at a distinct disadvantage over everyone else. Because assuming about average skill, the amount of times you get killed by a higher tank is equal to the amount of times you kill a lower tank.
So, historical lineups where tanks of all capabilities of the same front and era fight each other. Every player has equal opportunity to get SP through good play and equal access to more capable tanks of the historical battle.
2 Likes
I’m not convinced that the appeal of game modes like this is as niche as you suggest. Either way, having this thread is one way to find out. I think the game needs new game modes for both air and ground regardless.
There’s also a difference between self-imposed handicaps (like taking low BR vehicle to intentional uptier), and that being an integral gameplay mechanic which creates interesting asymmetrical scenarios for all players.
Maybe you get killed more often in cheap vehicles, but guess what? They’re cheap. You can just grab another 75mm sherman and try again. If you kill just one Tiger every 3 deaths or so, then you’re doing just fine. The Tiger player however wouldn’t be able to get a replacement as easily…
In a regular ground RB battle however, the Sherman 75mm you brought takes up the same amount of crew slots and roughly the same SP as the enemy’s Panther. So clearly the mode isn’t designed for this approach, and actively discourages the player to do this.
As for vehicle selection, you’re right that some would be less viable than others. The Churchill GC is a good example, but it was never deployed, so it wouldn’t be in an event like this anyway. I can’t think of another vehicle deployed in Normandy (for example) that bad.
3 Likes
This here is a good argument for an actual reason to perhaps not add the mode. I strongly disagree, as I explained here
but the allocation of development resources is definitely a consideration worth discussing at a later date… unlike “eye poke” analogy lol
I was hoodwinked into War Thunder believing it to be realistic in its gameplay and not just having factual vehicles, so I am up for it. It was only as I got to about 4 BR that the game became WoT which is a shame.
I don’t seek nor have I ever expected perfect balance and I do get a little bit tired with the self-appointed dictators …er … dictating. Shouting down anybody who dares to suggest some form of change seems to be a habit on this forum lately and we should rebel against it, it’s tiresome.
To me personally I can see no reason why anybody would go so far out of their way to recreate vehicles in such detail to throw them into a random runaround.
Let’s have more era specific challenges with limited vehicles. It may encourage people to stop “maining” single nations and get into other Nations. Doing the same not just for WW2 but for Cold War or Modern eras may also encourage the WW2 posse to press on and go beyond their safe place.
Gaijin can help by offering better incentives for joining in.
Yep, sounds good.
1 Like
I’m not sure if this is what you mean but I’d want this proposed mode to be across all BRs and eras, including alt history stuff (for Cold War/Modern stuff, because otherwise the teams would be more limited or unbalanced than WWII). Ardennes is just the December conflict with which I am most familiar with so that’s the one I chose as an example.
Problem with Ground EC would be the same as in Helicopter EC back in the day. One team steam rolling other one and camping in their spawns for 1 hour…
I was thinking there could be a system where if your spawn is overrun, then it is moved a couple kilometers back. The enemy team’s spawn also moves forward the corresponding distance.
This affords the retreating team an opportunity to attempt a counterattack, this time with some breathing room so they can get organized again.
The map should be very long in depth, so advances and retreats are possible over several hours.
Sure but this will require very big maps and tanks arent as fast as helicopters/airplanes. Naval EC can be boring sometimes where you are moving from spawn to somewhere where action is…
Gaijin should do some test event with ground EC to see how it would work with real players
1 Like
It’d be a challenge to get working, sure, but if it works then the payoff would be great!
I’d gladly take part in any such test.
As for increasing travel time between locations, I think it largely depends on BR. Modern tanks are generally very fast, but earlier ones tend to be slower.
I also think spending more time on the road increases immersion, and provides interesting opportunities for ambushes and strategic obstacles like rivers and bridges.
Of course, rewards should be higher to compensate for longer downtime between actions. I’m against anything that slows player progression more than it is now.
Sure they can shoot very far thanks to darts and go fast but imagine spawning in WW2 heavy tank on such map. Might be ok for some mil sim game…
I think it would get dominated by fast/wheeled vehicles with good balistics.
Briges with different durability. Weak bridge will break under weight of jagtiger or pershing, but pz3 and m18 can trepass
1 Like
I think I agree. That’s why the parameters of the map (like distance from spawn to objective) should change according to BR.
As for wheeled vehicles, you might have a point. They can use their mobility better on large maps like this.
On the other hand, using WW2 as an example, light tanks and wheeled vehicles tend to be heavily limited in weaponry and protection. Think Puma or M8 Greyhound. The idea is to have a era appropriate selection of vehicles at different SP costs. There shouldn’t be any cold war era recoilless rifle cars in WW2 EC games.
In other words, against Tiger 2 for example, the only asset of M8 Greyhound/M5 Stuart/M18 Hellcat is it’s mobility. That is a balancing factor that could make certain low BR vehicles relevant in this mode, since they fought tougher opponents historically.
Yes! That’s another overlooked factor in vehicle design and military planning.
That’s also yet another counter-argument against the idea that heavy tanks would be OP in an asymmetrical matchup.
Yeah, maybe your Tiger or Pershing is superior to Sherman or Pz IV, but the lighter tanks can reach places you can’t!
These bridges could also be destructible by bombing or demolition, and repairable (By engineer vehicles?)
Amphibious vehicles would also serve their intended purpose in this mode. Crossing rivers in current ground battles is largely irrelevant.
2 Likes
That’s a really cool idea for larger, more dynamic maps!
I think it’s beyond the scope of this proposal (I’m mainly looking for sim battles based on historical/near historical events with EC style SP costs for balancing) but it’s certainly interesting as a future expansion of the idea.
1 Like