Yeah, the transition zone where now vehicles from the 1940s face vehicles from the 2020s. xD
Nah, arguing for nothing to prove nothing
I dont think any of the post ww2 155mm vehicles would suffer all that much being ejected into the 8.0 area. Especially stuff like the PzH-2000, 2S19 and PLZ-05. They really dont need to be seeing 6.x br vehicles at all.
3 Likes
When I’m operating a Douglas or any other missile-capable ship, my primary targets are small, fast-moving vessels up to frigate size, as well as aircraft such as planes and bombers.
These are relatively easy kills due to their lighter defenses and speed being no match for wire-guided missile.
Against larger ships, like destroyers or heavier classes, my approach changes. I’ll still engage them, but the damage is less decisive, typically reducing their crew by only 20–30%. In those cases, my strategy is to aim specifically for the ammunition stores or other critical systems, maximizing the chance of crippling the vessel.
Exactly. They are one-hit kill, fast reload, autoloaded HE slingers equipped with laser rangefinders.
There’s no reason AT ALL why they should be rendering heavy WW2 vehicles useless instead of facing, at least, Cold War vehicles.
Like, I’m not even asking to put them at Top Tier. But at least 8.3-8.7…
Precisely. You have the control to aim for specific weakspots to maximise damage, with an FnF ASM like EXOCET, you wouldnt have any of that control, It would just impact one of the usually three points and so the damage would essentially be RnG. Annoying sure, with enough volume could probably sink something larger, but typically? Probably not going to be a major threat to anything larger than an early light cruiser.
To be fair, in reality battleships and dreadnoughts took an incredibly long time to sink. These were massive, heavily armored vessels designed to withstand punishment, and it often required sustained, coordinated firepower to bring them down.
I understand this is a game, but they really ought to feel tougher and more resilient than they currently do. Of course, I don’t envy the Gaijin developers, balancing such a complex ecosystem of planes, tanks, and ships is no easy task.
Still, naval gameplay would feel far more authentic and rewarding if battleships reflected their historical durability.
Right now, it sometimes feels like they’re treated more like oversized cruisers than the floating fortresses they truly were.
1 Like
I’ve noticed that most fire‑and‑forget missiles in War Thunder tend to lock onto and strike center mass. While this is often effective, it isn’t always ideal, hitting center mass doesn’t necessarily guarantee a kill
Spg are just no armored so it doesn’t matter where is it, just like the m18
2 Likes
Exactly.
They die the same to a Tiger II and to a T-72: while they kill the same a Tiger II and a Leopard 1.
Therefore, why the hell are they facing Tiger IIs instead of Leopard 1s?
For naval I can see why a seperation would be helpful, the gameplay somewhat supports a seperation, but that’s not the case for ground battles (or air battles)
Ultimately BRs are based on performance and specs, not on introduction dates and that’s how it has to be done to keep the BRs balanced
Just because something works against higher BR’d vehicles doesn’t mean it has to have a higher BR, otherwise we’d end up with super early SPGs/SPHs at extremely high BRs for absolutely no reason
When it comes to the LRF SPHs, I do agree, those should have higher BRs, but the other 155mms don’t need higher BRs at all
2 Likes
They do vs ground vehicles, but they fixed that about a year ago? I cant recall, so that against naval targets instead they impact 1 of 3 points along the hull, randomly picking which they go for. Works for both ASMs and FNF AGMs. Not totally ideal, but WAAAAAY better than it was before
AGMs after the changes
AGMs before the changes
Agreed! My problem comes not with the dates, but with the technological advancements that generally come with them.
I don’t care about M44s being in WW2 tier, for example, because they DO feel and perform like WW2 vehicles.
However, when I see a PzH-2000, with its 5 second autoloader and LRF facing WW2 6.7s… I’m like… wtf is this doing down here…?
I think all of the LRF SPHs should be up-BR’d by AT LEAST 0.3-0.7.
See, I can agree with that, but I just cannot agree with the sentiment that we need historical matchmaking or some kind of barrier between WW2 and Cold War.
The VIDAR has been problematic ever since it was released and the PzH and PLZ05 actually made it worse. These definitely need higher BRs.
The 2S19s are (at least in my opinion) fine where they are, they don’t have LRFs or thermals.
Other than that, BR decompression would be nice to see, but that still wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) get rid of all Cold War vehicles within the WW2 BR area.
2 Likes
Low BR sweden in shambles. PVKV IV going straight to 8.0 lol
2 Likes
When we talk about the electronic warfare side of sea power, this is where things get really interesting.
War Thunder already has plenty of systems that could be brought into play, and if they’re implemented properly, missile‑armed ships won’t just turn into one‑hit kill machines
Electronic warfare gameplay would add depth and survivability:
- ECM can jam or deceive radar, cutting down missile accuracy.
- ESM lets ships pick up and classify enemy signals, giving you a heads‑up before the missiles are even fired.
- Decoys and countermeasures like chaff, flares, or active drones can mislead incoming missiles.
- Layered defense means EW works alongside CIWS, SAMs, and naval guns, so missile duels become tactical rather than instant.
On top of that, this kind of implementation would naturally bring more interest into naval strike aircraft and helicopters, since EW and countermeasure mechanics tie directly into their roles.
That opens the door for unique gameplay systems, things like Squad coordinated jamming runs, anti‑ship missile suppression, or helicopter‑deployed decoys, which would make the air, sea interaction far richer than it is now.
Bottom line: EW isn’t just a side mechanic, it’s a core part of modern naval combat. If Gaijin models it right, naval battles will feel far more authentic and balanced, instead of single‑exchange destruction.
2 Likes
Yeah, no. My argument was never about eras or dates; but about technological gap and advancements. Naturally, these come together most of the times, but not always, which is why I prefer not to generalise.
All in all, I believe most if not all of the Ground balance issues would be solved if each BR step was separated by a factor of a step from each other. That’s literally ALL it would take for a huge improvement in balance.
This is how it would look;
1.0
1.3 (new BR)
1.7 (former 1.3)
2.0 (new BR)
2.3 (former 1.7)
2.7 (new BR)
3.0 (former 2.0)
3.3 (new BR)
3.7 (former 2.3)
4.0 (new BR)
4.3 (former 2.7)
4.7 (new BR)
5.0 (former 3.0)
And so on, and so on.
The practical effect would be that, for example, 7.7s would no longer face neither 6.7s, nor 8.7s.
2 Likes
Sweden and naval stuff would be so good, basically all of us nords focus on naval operations would be cool to see our stuff actually come to the game for a coastal lineup.
Snail pls add danish ships to TT, im gonna cry if i have to buy them…
2 Likes
Naval will first see major paper ships, then we might get some missile destroyers.
And for naval after 8.x , aircraft should be a major game asset. Which contradicts with the current state where automatic AA are laser sniping aircraft from 5 kms away from ships that have 0 electronic components to make it possible.
1 Like
This is what i was typing up, after seeing your response i deleted it.
1 Like