Paper Vehicles: Should they be added, or forgotten?

Would love if it came back in a event

1 Like

I’ve been seeing this thing called “Prestige Tokens” making its rounds recently. Basically, when you reach level 100, you can “reset” your level.

When you do, it will grant you a token, which will allow you to research a single removed vehicle. As you level up more, you’ll be granted more Prestige tokens for different vehicles that have since been removed.

As someone who wants more to the game than just 100 levels, I think it could be interesting.


Good concept the question is if they will add it

Paper vehicles are fine - I have scissors.

1 Like

I don’t think Mockups should really matter to be honest. It’s more of the actual idea and possibility of production. No fabricated parts.

Gaijin has echoed this statement officially in the past, however, to my knowledge, it has not gone anywhere.

When it comes to the E-50 and E-75, I don’t really care if they do or don’t get added. The designs were just simplified and standardized versions of the Panther and Tiger II. Maybe that’s an oversimplification, but this game isn’t the historical tank game people tend to believe.

This is a game in the end, so why not relax and just have fun with it?

Well, I don’t know who made the idea or who posted it, so I can’t support them. If I did, I likely would.

I won’t post about it myself because I didn’t make the idea.

Personally I think there are some fairly easy categories equipment can be put into and some features that WT could use for those categories:
1/ Standard production - lots made, in WT exactly as tech tree stuff is now
2/ Limited production - made for regular use but in small numbers - eg British Matilda 1 tank or Soviet T34/57. Probably have something like +10% on repair costs viz regular equipment
3/ Pre-production/prototype: Vehicles that might have made production but never did for various reasons - like limited production but not allowed to use backups eg I-180, Dicker Max,… I’m sure you can think of others
4/ Experimental - never meant to become production, but did exist - large % increase in repair costs, higher training costs, no backups
5/ Paper/mockup/incomplete/partial only - as experimental but even larger penalties on costs and also repair times Eg TOG, MAUS,

Premium: no different from the “normal” version (whichever of hte above that may be) except for nice paint job and fully spaded - Pay to avoid grind

1 Like

I think “paper” vehicles should be allowed in the narrowest conditions possible. Only added when a specific type of vehicle is required for a specific BR and there is no possible replacement available from vehicles which were actually produced or prototyped. If the vehicle fulfills that needed role/BR requirement and is implemented, it needs to be on the tech tree or otherwise accessible to all players due to it being “essential” in that role.

This is a horrible idea.


They should be add? yes but with event reward

We don’t need more repair costs or penalties of any kind, please don’t make suggestions like this - the snail is listening

The EAP for Britain is one example I can think of

It was never put into production, but a demonstrator without weapons (AFAIK) existed

1 Like

But you want some form of sensible rationale for including or not including “paper” veicles… well make up your bloody mind then!

god forbid that there should be any kind of “real world” considerations for fielding rare and exotic equipment…

I agree there should be rationale and reasons, but I don’t see what that has to do with economic factors like RP/SL.

I’m concerned with how a vehicles performance stats as chosen (guesswork? Sources?), not a modifier.

“The EAP was designed to research technologies to be used for a future European combat aircraft.”

It was solely a Testing Platform, just to gather informations and for research purposes of future technologies and materials wich may may or not could be used in the future.

It was never a demonstrator, additionally, it was never intended to wire its weapon stations.

It was a experimental research prototype, not an actual prototype of an actual fighter aircraft.
Theres a reason why it needed founding.

So as long as the players wants an unarmed Jet for Air in Warthunder, I’m in.

Otherwise that’s a no on my part.

1 Like

Couldn’t a devil’s advocate make the same argument about Yak-141?


Because it’s development was finished - nor was it a Testing Platform.

No - because hte Yak-141 WAS intended to be a combat aircraft, with actual armament - even tho’ it never was.

The EAP was not.

To add right there -
It never was in service, because of the lack of founding due to the USSR was broken down.
But the Yak got its clear defined role, finished its development and was ready to build for service.

Edit because of autocorrect…

1 Like

It never was because due to the collapse of the Soviet Union they had to cut many projects; Yakovlev for instance entered in a partnerships with Lockheed-Martin to help fund the program.

as @HoFFI02 also replied

1 Like