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.
Low BR sweden in shambles. PVKV IV going straight to 8.0 lol
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:
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.
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.
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…
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.
This is what i was typing up, after seeing your response i deleted it.
How much of that is because of close range maps? Most battleships were designed to have immunity zones usually in excess of 20k yards. Often firing at each other over the horizon.
Over time, all Naval maps will inevitably be expanded in size, much like what we saw in Air Battles, where maps had to grow to accommodate the transition from early jets to modern aircraft. It simply makes sense to give battleships (BBs) larger, more open environments that allow them to operate as intended, while also refining and improving gunner mechanics to make engagements feel more skill-based and rewarding.
Of course, I understand the developers need to balance realism with gameplay, keeping matches fast-paced, fun, and interactive. But right now, there’s nothing more frustrating than spending 20 to 30 minutes sailing across the map only to be blindsided by a torpedo or instantly deleted in a single salvo.
Larger maps would not only reduce these “all-or-nothing” encounters but also create space for more tactical play, longer engagements, and meaningful positioning.
In short, expanding Naval maps and improving gunnery systems would preserve the excitement of quick, interactive matches while also respecting the scale and role of capital ships.
It would be a natural evolution of the mode, just as Air Battles matured with bigger maps and more nuanced mechanics.
You need to realize this game is constantly being improved, updated, and worked on. At this point, it might as well be considered a perpetual beta with no clear intention of ever reaching full release, essentially Star Citizen 2.0.
These paper ships are so boring in my opinion. Especially the paper loadout for the Gneisenau like give us an option to change to the historic one.
Or that they keep adding these WW1 Dreadnoughts that have a single guy with a bolt action rifle as anti air defense which on top are the same ship for the 100th time which only has like a different smokestack or something.
I really hope that we get submarines or missile ships or aircraft carriers or something soon.
Sweden has such cool ships and also naval aviation.
I have to agree with your statement somewhat.
Yet another World War I-era dreadnought as the 16th ‘new’ ship just doesn’t cut it anymore. At this point, it feels less like meaningful progression and more like padding the tech trees to artificially prolong the grind before players reach the truly exciting content.
Even if an announcement comes, that King George V is finally on the horizon, (Fingers crossed) I can’t help but feel it’s going to be dead on arrival. The perfect window to introduce her has long since passed, and instead of feeling like a flagship moment, it risks coming across as a stale afterthought.
Depends on what ranges you consider BVR in war thunder
But even then It doesn’t matter
Also matters very Little
If the M10 Booker is added, will you still consider these vehicles paper vehicles?
Or will you change your mind?
It had its production cancelled.
A ship of a battleship’s scale is the equivalent of producing 153 M10 Bookers.
They are slowly adding missile ships but not every nation are getting them unfortunately.
For battleships, each BR bracket results in improvements that can reliably smash any down-BR ship, unlike destroyers or cruisers. Therefore they have to add any possible design to fill gaps, which I am not feeling right now for the German TT.
I also don’t think CVs and submarines will make in the difference in the core gameplay. WW2 submarines are too slow in underwater and any aircraft CVs launch will be obliterated by bots unless all AA get nerfed half their accuracy.
40 to 25 km range.
Rafale stays the best up until 25-30km, at which point It Is useless to launch missiles further (25 Is already stretching It)
Which doesnt change for other ARH missiles.
Even though at 30k ft and Mach 1.5+ with C5s I can in theory hit something out to 60km. I wont fire until 20-25km most of the time
Coastal battleships would be very cool also