I love the idea in theory—it sounds awesome on paper. But after years of hoping for something like this, I’ve come to realize, especially from recent events like the WWI April Fools and even the old World War mode, that the biggest problem is player behavior. Most people just chase the meta and go for easy wins. I’m guilty of it too—I’ve been stomping with the A7V just like everyone else this event.
I think historical battles and multi-phase warfare like in Battlefield 1 or Battlefield V would be super cool. But when you start imagining how that would work in War Thunder, things get messy really fast. Take a 1943 Ostfront scenario, for example—Germany might have Panzer IVs, Tiger Es, maybe even early Panthers. The Soviets would be rolling in T-34s with the 76mm, KV-1s, and a few tank destroyers.
Now here’s the issue: balance. Sure, you could limit how many powerful tanks like Tiger Is are allowed in a match. But let’s be real—players would just leave and requeue until they get the vehicles they want. Everyone gravitates to the strongest stuff. That’s human nature, and it kills historical authenticity and fair gameplay.
Then there’s the whole problem of certain nations being hard to implement in historical settings. Sweden is a perfect example. Their vehicles don’t really fit cleanly into WW2 or early Cold War lineups. The Strv m/42 was in service from 1942 but wasn’t exactly top-tier even then. The Strv 74, which came later, wasn’t used until the 1970s. And the Strv m/40 with the 37mm gun only got APDS in the late '40s or early '50s—long after WW2 ended.
Same with France. The AMX-13 with the short 75mm would be completely outmatched in many WW2 battles, even though it looks the part.
Cold War Sweden, though? Whole different story. The J29, J32, and especially the J35 Draken would be terrifying in a historical setup. They were way ahead of their time in many ways.
And going back to the current April Fools event—have you seen how everyone queues for the German Empire? The A7V just flattens everything. It’s a perfect example of how players will always go where the power is. That kind of imbalance would show up constantly in historical matchmaking unless it was super tightly managed, and even then, it might not be enough.
So yeah—while I’d love to see Battlefield-style multi-stage battles and historical missions, in practice, it’s really hard to make them fair or fun without massive restrictions or AI to fill in the gaps. And War Thunder just isn’t built for infantry-focused scenarios, which most WW2 battles revolved around.
That said, I do like the idea of optional multi-role battles—letting people opt into air, ground, or sea based on preference. That kind of flexibility would help a lot and could work well with larger, dynamic objectives.
Also, something people often forget is how resource-intensive a system like this would be—not just for Gaijin, but for us players too. Imagine a massive map with air, sea, and ground components all happening at once, with persistent vehicle states between phases. That’s a lot of rendering, simulation, and networking. Say goodbye to your RAM and probably your FPS too, especially on mid-range rigs.
Even now, some ground maps tank performance when there’s too much going on. Add helicopters, planes, naval units, AI targets, and scripted objectives into the mix? You’d basically need a NASA PC to run it smoothly. And Gaijin would have to overhaul everything from matchmaking to map design to spawn logic—not to mention bug-test it all. A thing we know always goes to crap once it hits the live server…
So yeah, it’s a very cool vision. But the practical side of it, both in terms of player behavior and system requirements, makes it kind of a pipe dream unless it’s implemented in a much smaller, more controlled way.