Next Major Update - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion

[MokaMoki]

At the risk of getting in trouble once again…

I feel like there is a hiccup on the meaning of transparency here. At least with the most recent CM Disclosure. It’s not really being “transparent” if the content matter is overtly obvious.

We, as players, are well aware that the new profile card/display/whatever is broken, buggy, missing things and isn’t super liked right now.

We are well aware that helicopters and CAS aircraft are dominating ground battles and that (hopefully) Gaijin is aware of this and is cooking up fixes. And we know more advance SPAA options come with certain complexity that takes time to balance.

We know Gaijin has plans for new nations because the financial livelihood of the game kinda depends on it and we know they will be announced when they are. I hate to say it but we know what nations are at least somewhere on the books given the person who leaked them was dead on for the last two leak lists.

We know Gaijin has some sort of a plan for newer naval vessels and more modern ships because BVVD (I believe it was him) at down and did an interview with some Chinese gaming news publication and was asked that question already.

The only real “reveal” from this CM post was that the Devs AND the CMs were behind the KV-7 event. Thats kinda cool, I guess. It wasnt obvious you lot had a hand in it.

In the case of “transparency” and War Thunder, these CM Disclosures would be far more…accurate? Worthwhile? Viable? If they were follow ups on to issues that Gaijin once covered but left open-ended.

Like the Abrams armor and M829A3 post. Its been what, almost a year since that devblog and you guys said you would keep an eye on the performance? If being transparent, what have you guys learned since then? Has the reload buff improved its efficiency? Does it still need more data? Is there any reasons to not give it the A3 dart? Since we don’t have access to vehicle data like you guys do.

What about the strike aircraft with all-aspect missiles? Considering the fact that the devblog said they would get forward spawns in conjuction with moving up, and they still havent; can Gaijin be transparent on why that hasn’t happened yet?

I personally, and with all due respect, think stating obvious things doesnt fit the definition of transparency.

[Smin1080p_WT]

@MokaMoki

In the case of “transparency” and War Thunder, these CM Disclosures would be far more…accurate? Worthwhile? Viable? If they were follow ups on to issues that Gaijin once covered but left open-ended.

Where we can follow up on a subject, we always will. This will depend on if there is new news to bring on whatever subject in question for us to talk about. It there isn’t, then sadly we can’t.

It’s a bit dismissive to ignore everything that has been shown in all the CM disclosures and say we dont have any transparency. That’s quite incorrect. You may not personally have found the subjects in this particular one to be, and that’s ok, feedback is always welcome in the comments about what subjects people would like to hear about in the next one. We will always try to keep up with that and what the majority are asking for. Which is exacly where the questions from CM disclosure 4 came from. The community.

@MokaMoki

What about the strike aircraft with all-aspect missiles? Considering the fact that the devblog said they would get forward spawns in conjuction with moving up, and they still havent; cam Gaijin be transparent on why that hasn’t happened yet?

I remember already answering you on this late last year.

When we announced the BR changes for all-aspect attackers like the A-10 and Su-25 we said that the forward spawn idea would be looked at depending on how they perform at their new BRs. The majority of people wanted these aircraft to go up in BR in air battles so we listened. The forward spawn concept was a contingency should their effectiveness drastically drop in game. However thus far it has not.

The subject is always possible to revisit if it does drop, but there has not been the drastically negative type of effect that would warrant giving them forward air spawns currently.

[MokaMoki]

@Smin1080p_WT

It’s a bit dismissive to ignore everything that has been shown in all the CM disclosures and say we dont have any transparency. That’s quite incorrect.

I think its more of a “subjectivity” matter. And I am sure we could both argue the concepts of “transparency” versus “validation” but I understand this isnt the place for it as this particular forum has a purpose that I am deviating us on. I appreciate the response and wish you the best of day.

[Rowiek]

Yamato!!!
Musashi!!!
Project 323 for the Netherlands!!!

[Rowiek]

Hi Smin,

How was your vacation?
And happy new year!

[Smin1080p_WT]

Happy New Year to all too.

It was good thanks. But good to be slowly getting back Into things.

[Rowiek]

@Smin1080p_WT

I love the CM disclosures.
Yet there is something i cannot get my head around.

Some questions that the team has chosen to answer are very obvious.

Like…:

Spoiler

@magazine2

Q: Abandoned Factory has recently received beautiful new visuals. Are there any plans to give older maps visual updates in the future?
A: Yes, we’re planning to update other locations as well. Not in the December update though, as it’s too soon, but in the first or second update of next year, several updated locations are planned at once.

@magazine2

Q: To be specific about improvements coming, with more graphics and effects being updated in Firebirds, and more planned, specifically what will be updated in this regard?
A: We have several areas in which we’re working on graphics. Firstly, these are improvements to RT and the implementation of RT on all platforms available for this technology next year. Secondly, everything that concerns the effects of interaction with water — explosions, movement in water as well as the water itself. We also have plans for further visual improvements to the effect of a fatal explosion of ground vehicle ammunition. But this is only part of the planned improvements and refinements.

Q: APCR is generally seen as a weak round, making it almost always redundant when another round is available. Do you have plans to make this shell more functional to give it a stronger place in the game, either with more reliable damage or angled performance? The round often doesn’t feel fun to use.
A: We increased the damage of APCR shells several years ago, practically equalizing it with identical APDS shells in energy. The poor performance of APCR against sloped and spaced armor is their design flaw due to the lack of a jacket and armor-piercing damper in the hard-alloy core. APCR overall is more of a specialized shell for defeating heavily armored tanks without sloped armor in situations where it’s more difficult to use a more versatile shell.

@magazine2

Q: The Roadmap is an excellent way to see what is planned to come. Are there any plans for a 2025 Roadmap?
A: We used to gather previous Roadmaps when the general plan for changing the game dedicated to one goal was very long and consisted of many steps, and we wanted everyone to see the general goal and progress towards it. And now, there are many changes in the works aimed at improving the game in different directions, on different fronts, both improving stability, and first of all, updating the game graphics, and of course work on improving the game based on your reports and feedback. We plan to regularly cover the progress of development and report on our plans for implementing certain features and adding vehicles, and in the future we may return to the previous Roadmap format.

As for the current Roadmap, we plan to complete most of the remaining parts before the second major update in 2025.

I get that not every question can be answered - dont get me wrong, but some very old questions still have not been answered yet - like:

• When can we expect WWII SPH’s like the Hummel, Wespe and Priest?
• Are there any plans on revamping bombers and how they work to make them more enjoyable and easier to play?
• Are there any plans on adding bigger bombers like the B-36 etc…
• Are there any plans on adding AI controlled enemies in naval battles to destroy?
• When will we get bigger ground maps, like ground-EC? For higher br vehicles, instead of fighting in close combat zones like Sweden, American Dessert, Alaska, etc…
• Most nations still lack surtain BR ranges and are thus always uptiered to the meta br, despite not having them.
• Are there any plans on adding more WWII, Cold war and modern SPAA’s in the near future for nations that have still a big gap or lack of SPAA despite having multiple viable options - which have been there for years - like Japan, USA, France, Israel, Italy and GB?
• Will there be more MLRS systems introduced for all nations?
• Will there be more different types of battle modes come in the near future?

Just to name a few.

[Rowiek]

No movran, No EAP question

I smell you typing it

[Morvran]

@Smin1080p_WT

Where we can follow up on a subject, we always will.

Any chance of the base-bomber re-balance post that was said to be coming? Still unfair the tornados are at different BRs for “reasons”

@Stona_WT

Therefore in the summer, we’re planning to give more clarification and bring this issue up for discussion — whether or not we should reduce the rewards for bases in order to reduce the Battle Rating of aircraft that mainly bomb bases, or leave everything as it is now. Please follow the news for more details on this.

Or any further news on Challenger 2 improvements. Several items said to be coming in the Dev post for the overhaul have yet to arrive like ammo stowage changes and the list of outstanding bug reports keeps getting longer and the CR2 keeps getting weaker.

And do I even need to mention the state of the Harriers?

[Otrabrok]

@Rowiek

When can we expect WWII SPH’s like the Hummel, Wespe and Priest?

A new update “Kings of Battle 2: Electric boogaloo”

[joshje100]

Personally the questions I’d like to know are;

• Will we see more armed trainer aircraft/modern bombers in the future?

• Could we more single player missions/expanded campaign?

• Could we see some utility aircraft added in the future maybe with some added objectives? (Such as C-47/A-400M/C-130 aircraft or V-22/UH-1Y Venom to deliver AI to capture points) Would be fun in Sim.

• Is there the possibility of adding playable helicopters to Air Sim? (Again, drop AI off to capture points or just for attacking ground units. (But first atleast dial down the SPAA aimbot.))

• Could we see a base bombing rework? (More bases/faster respawning bases/infinite health but bigger bases with rewards for bomb tons dropped)

• Will there be improvements to AI bots? (Fix for supersonic subsonics, custom battle minimum BR doesn’t affect bots, give bots secondary weapons instead of fuel tanks)

• Will any improvements to VR be made in the future with the release of Aces of Thunder? (Maybe interactable cockpits, walkaround hangar, general VR improvements)

• Will we see functional MFD displays for Sim? (Slew controls, proper rendering, better displays for the various TGP MFD’s)

• Could we see some general cockpit/HUD improvements/fixes? ( I recently made a topic here listing many issues I have found with bug reports that should be fixed however many issues have been reported for years and haven’t been fixed or even looked at.)

• Could we see convertible RP finally get a purpose other than being a cashgrab? (Perhaps let us use it to skip mods or maybe let us use it for free but at a 50% penalty compared to using with GE?)

[ExecutivOutcomes]

Is it possible for other forms off transparency from the devs such as releasing game data (like lichess does ik they are open source but it would be nice) or the sources devs have used to model vehicles

[BearHasLanded]

@ExecutivOutcomes

or the sources devs have used to model vehicles

this would be a nice one to have, given that those sources have to be publicly available, and too many times do Gaijin turn down reports because they prefer their own secret sources over the ones presented by the community

[_Lord_Vader]

@joshje100

in 2025 we plan to focus on the logical completion of Bluewater fleet trees by adding the most famous and powerful battleship

Finally I will see Yamato 1945 and Nagato 1944/45 :)

But before these battleships, I would like to get the heavy cruiser Takao 1944 and Maya 1944 into the research branch.

[oom1992]

@BearHasLanded

so stripping the F-16C and/or D of it’s radar missiles and giving it Python 4s could end up being quite fun

@BearHasLanded

just Python 4s

Let’s say F-16C & F-16D Block 40 Barak II lose all medium-range Air-to-Air Missile and AIM-9M replace with Python 4

F-16C & F-16D Block 40 Barak II battle rating up to 14.0 or stay 13.7 ?

@BearHasLanded

and with how the Python 4 seeker is in game right now, it would be far from OP.

I don’t mind F-5T SCU Tigris move to early rank 8 and battle rating higher 11.3

Spoiler

Spoiler

But Python 3 stock instead AIM-9L x2 and received Python 4

[Morvran]

Now you mention it, EAP skin for the FGR4?

[Morvran]

Fingers crossed for G3 for Britain.

[joshje100]

WT Live // Camouflage by ExecutivOutcomes

Already done

[Morvran]

I know, but not officially in-game as a purchasable skin. Smin can’t show off his favourite aircraft to everyone else in the match without it otherwise 🤣

[joshje100]

Honestly I don’t think the AMRAAM/Derby should be removed in favour of Python 4. IR only aircraft at higher BR’s are just tragic to play. The US F-16A and the Belgian F-16A at 12.7 and 13.0 respectively are awful to play. Granted Python 4 will be far better than AIM-9L and AIM-9M but lacking medium-long range missiles heavily restricts how you can play. I just don’t think it would be fun.