Go play WoT if you want nonsensical designs and wehraboo wet dreams
Or Warthunder if you want Stalin’s wet dream I guess.
4 Likes
The Maus Agrees lol :)
Sign me up for this though, wehraboo wet dreams are superior to Stalin’s… measly Kronshtadt is a toy boat next to this.
Wrong call there bud I’m not a USSR main
Maus agrees yes because it exists.
I mean you were wrong to begin with, not like it matters.
how am I wrong? You want to open the gates to vehicles like this
and I draw the line with unfinished prototypes.
It never existed in WW2 as a fighting vehicle any more than any other prototype.
It makes no deference if it existed on paper or a factory floor if it never exited as a fighting vehicle and played no part in any war than its one and the same.
You put the Maus into a fighting situation it was never in then you are in the world of fantasy and anything goes then.
The Maus is too heavy to do the things it does in the game such as cross bridges and not sink into soft ground
Warthunder needs to decide if its doing reality or not ,not skip among the two as and when it feels like.
If it doing fantasy then lets get all the gaps filled in all the nations and lest give roof mounted guns to the British in WW2.
Roof mounted 50 cals existed but never saw action on a Comet either apparently just like the Maus never saw action. Whats the difference?
No, just tiring argument of ‘‘mains’’ where you try to dismiss people because you decided they play a certain nation, I rarely play Germany these days and I didn’t call you a Russian main either as I was referring to the Kronshtadt.
Again, tiring argument.
T95 didn’t do what it does in game either but was given a magical ability to rotate like a bat out of hell despite it definitely not being able to do so.
1 Like
And so here we are in the realms of imagination …or are we? that is the question.
I say many of the vehicles use in the game put us there long ago so what does a paper vehicle even mean in that context?
As I hear so many times ,Warthunder does not do realism, that being the case paper vehicles make no difference and should be included.
1 Like
Left gaps that vehicles cannot fill which saw service and combat?
The problems adding blueprint tanks will create are things like where will Gaijin draw the line between a blueprint tank thats viable for the tech tree and what isn’t, does there need to be a specific amount of accurate information on a given vehicle before it can be considered for implementation? Because im sure if there’s such stringent criteria for implementation that a lot of the vehicles people are asking for won’t get added due to a lack of information. Then you have an unhappy playerbase not getting what they want. But then if there is no criteria a paper vehicle needs to meet, then why not add utterly ridiculous vehicles into PvP battles like the P.1000 Ratte.
Gaijin chose a very particular principle to base their in-game content, and they should stick to it. I mean, it’s so far worked for them for like, i don’t know… 12 years now!
1 Like
Very particular principle until they came up with an entirely different one for naval.
I’d much rather see some blueprints brought to live than have more amazing additions like the Hungarian airforce, with the Mig, Mig, Mig and Mig.
1 Like
Yeah because naval is struggling to stay afloat with so many players jumping ship bu-dum tiss lol
Jokes aside, ground and air have always been healthy and therefore haven’t needed such drastic changes to stay appealing to players. And i don’t see many people making such statements that they’ll quit playing ground or air battles because Gaijin won’t add some blueprint vehicle.
I mean you haven’t exactly addressed what i pointed out as to how Gaijin determines where to draw the line before a paper vehicle is too outrageous to add to the game, otherwise we would likely see some incredibly stupid vehicles getting added because thats what the playerbase wanted most. 0bj.279 is one example of an outrageous tank but that was actually built, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I see a lot of people asking for paper vehicles who just point at what they want and expect Gaijin to magic up something to make them happy. But i don’t see anyone making proper valid arguments as to how and why adding paper vehicles is beneficial to the game, and the how part is very important. All i see is “because Panther II exists in-game” and “because there are gaps in the tech tree”.
1 Like
It’s not for me to decide just randomly where the line should be, but there needs to be a need for the vehicle at least, rather than just adding whatever random meme vehicle, it needs to add some value to the game and enough information that you can realistically build the vehicle without making up most of it.
I’m not doing any mains arguments. I’m literally saying that paper vehicles have no place in game. I couldn’t care less about the mains. I don’t main any nation in this game. I play every tech tree and think that the practice of maining a nation is dumb.
I already posited my three conditions for paper vehicle candidates in another thread with the same topic, but I’ll post them again here.
- Was it a real project, and do we know enough about it to make a faithful representation of the vehicle?
This ensures no napkin designs make it in, nor WG style fantasies, nor vehicles that would end up with completely bonkers statistics because the project was absurdly overambitious but the design hadn’t matured enough for all the obvious issues to shake out.
- Was it feasible for the nation in question to produce?
Furthers the last point above (No absurd, impractical designs that break the game), and also helps keep the vehicles more grounded in reality. No Ratte, for instance.
- Are there any produced or prototype designs that fill that niche, and would the vehicle in question fit the game?
This is probably the most important one, especially given your arguments. While I advocate for paper vehicles, that doesn’t mean I want every single vehicle that was ever put to paper added to the game. For nations with the luxury of vast numbers of production and prototype vehicles, there’s little need to start speculating about paper vehicles.
But for minor nations, paper vehicles are all but required. Japan is almost out of production/prototype ground vehicles to add. Sweden too. Italy lacks any vehicles with usuable armor until end tier. Even for the majors, there are gaps that no real vehicle can fill. Germany 6.7 still requires a flexible, versitile medium tank. The only other
Gaijin’s monetization scheme means that there needs to be a constant stream of new vehicles to grind out, and there needs to be attractive reasons to grind multiple trees. Without paper vehicles, they’re forced to rely on copy paste, which no only hurts gameplay variety, but also fails to attract new players to lines. Israel is probably one of the rarest nations in game for this reason.
If we add paper vehicles sensibly, sanely, and only where needed, there’s no reason this needs to descend into WG style lunacy.
1 Like
Naval is treated differently because no one actually plays it. It’s dead. The progression system is dumb, maps are bland and the enjoyment is clearly not there. You would need a lot more than paper vehicles to revive Naval and even then it would still fall into obscurity.
1 Like
For Japan the answer is rather easy. Just add sub trees or add more tested vehicles. They still lack some of the howitzers they had and I’m sure there were some unfinished prototypes they still had