This will always occur due to gaps in production/requirement over the years, coupled with how vehicles work out in the War Thunder environment/current metas used (aka face smack, small maps, no thought, one cap over and over, yolo, D point spam, most boring “tactics” every seen in this game).
1 Like
Yeah, there will always be some voids but i would like to try to avoid making more/expanding current ones.
Despite i appreciate your forum input in general - imho you missed the whole point of this discussion, like almost all guys here.
Key facts:
- All guys playing war thunder have arranged themselves with the BR setting process based on combat capabilities. But this does not necessarily mean that the offered game play is satisfactory to fulfil higher demands regarding realism.
- If guys are happy with nonsense time lines and fictional enemies, fine. But they speak not for all. So questioning existing situations is a rather good idea to improve - otherwise we would have a stagnation instead of progress.
But in order to think through complex issues based on assumptions you have to think abstract. All i see is that there is simply a huge gap between guys able to think abstract and people who can’t. A few examples:
-
Actually just a few guys tried to discuss this - the majority of responses were similar to verbal exchanges when one party is working on an answer without actually listening to the other party, just showing that they react like Pavlov dogs when they hear a bell…
-
If i look at recent posts claiming that “a decent amount of vehicles will be removed from the game” - nobody said this. Same as endless repetitions of nonsense claims like “historical MM” or “balancing”. These claims are simply made up in the imagination of the guys posting this - assuming that they are able to come to the right conclusions without having the full picture or are able to think for others.
-
Not a single “anti-separation” guy has asked how a this could happen without making already existing cold war vehicles useless - they simply assumed that they would vanish.
-
A small hint: Just by adding a system flag like “WW 2 only” or “Cold War only” all vehicles can be used - totally independent from the BR. So if there would be common understanding that WW 2 ends for different vehicles at different BRs it could be very easy to implement a toggle (like currently added for night battles) to select “WW2 only” or “Cold War only” to satisfy more “realism-focussed” players - and all others could enjoy the mode how it is. Quite simple.
But the discussion did not make it that far.
It is rather sad that people are not able or willing to understand deviating opinions and the underlying thought processes. Reading some responses it looks more than the lack of ability than the willingness, but the outcome is the same.
Have a good one!
2 Likes
I just meant the OP, personally not picking a “side” as it were. I was just highlighting that the OP put this topic forward then the rest is purely others taking the thread wherever.
Each to their own but still it is funny to see, as if they were not as personally invested in the issue/solution (not judging since I do not know why it turns out this way).
If we erect a hard line between WW2 vehicles and Cold War vehicles, what happens to all the minor nations which absolutely rely on “Cold War” era vehicles of poor performance at WW2 era battle ratings?
What happens to the AMX-13s? The ARL-44 ACL? The EBR 1951/1954? The Lorraine, ELC and AMX M4?
The STAs, the Type 60s, all of the 6.7/7.0 artillery pieces, the Italian ~6.7 light tanks, the Ratels, the Charioteers, The FV 4005s?
What about the entire Swedish line? The last WW2 era vehicle they have is the Strv m/42 at 3.0. Every single tank after that (And some before it) are technically Cold War era. That’s all the Pvkvs, the later Savs, the Delat Torn, the Strv 74, and the Ikv 103.
Even the majors aren’t immune. You’d gut what remains of the Soviet 6.3 lineup by removing the SU-100P, the ASU-85 and the two artilleries. Germany loses the only mobile, high pen tanks it has with the Bulldog and 4-5. America loses every single fast vehicle it has.
What happens to all these vehicles? If they’re shoved up into higher tiers, they’re going to be worthless. Have fun fighting an IS-3 in an AMX-13 FL11. If we move high tiers up to make room, you’re simply spreading out lineups and stranding most of these vehicles in tiers where no-one else will play. What would matchmaking be like for someone trying to grind through Sweden, when no-one else has Cold War era vehicles at 2.7?
Meanwhile, the other half of the question, what happens at the top of WW2 tier? Because if we’re going strictly with WW2 cannot under any circumstances fight Cold War vehicles, I’m playing the Maus every game, have fun countering that with a Super Pershing, an IS-3, or an Centurion. And those are the good options. Every game you try and take a Pershing out, you’re going to be facing hordes of IS-3s, T95s and Mauses. And there’s not a single tank in your lineup that can counter them.
Ultimately, making an arbitrary limit between WW2 and Cold War, regardless of how the vehicles actually perform, is going to nothing but completely throw what little balance we have out the window, ruin lineups across every nation and render many minors borderline unplayable, create a huge number of dead BRs where only one nation has lineups, all in the service of making it so that heavy tanks strictly cannot be frontally penetrarted if played well.
2 Likes
Basically. There would be 3 options if there was a hard cut off.
1:Push all the low rank cold war stuff up to fight the higher rank tanks.
2:Keep them in their current positions and have maybe 5 vehicles total that will face each other. Giving very stagnant games and possibly long queue times.
3:Remove all the cold war tanks that are below a certain br.
Had a similar discussion with another “funny” individual and when it comes to Pbv 301, IKV-03, SAV, and Pvkvs were essentially just WW2-era technology having their life extended since they had nothing at the time. As Sweden was severely behind.
M48s and Tiger 2s were within 3 years of each other. 1.0 BR difference. So it’s already fine as is for medium/heavy tanks.
Light tanks are an issue but they’re also semi-useless as it stands, with low rewards for their support role duties.
1 Like
Thank you for your detailed response, i appreciate that.
There is no “arbitrary limit” as a selection by a determined date is the opposite of it.
You might want to take a look at:
It is logical that we are talking about options.
The main purpose of options is to allow players a choice - the more choices you have, the higher is the commitment.
You examples with cold war stuff of minor nations is actually proving the OP indirectly as (no offense) countries like Sweden or France were either not involved in WW 2 or had rather short appearances in WW2 / limited contribution from a technogical pov.
Your example with heavy and super heavy tanks is actually much more convincing. But imho that is exactly the point of having options - you are not forced to take them. Limiting numbers of certain vehicles like 4 bombers in Air RB might help to avoid lobbies full of those.
If you try to take a step back and see wt more or less as a FPS shooter with vehicles - there is always a challenge of meeting “boss level” enemies, and like irl there are ways to defeat them, but you are usually forced to play around their strengths.
WT as a whole decided that their growth is connected to a steady stream of “fresh” vehicles, but at a certain point of time the expansion is limited. Giving players options and open niches for more committed long term players is not unusual - sooner or later these options will be implemented, imho we will have in 5 years those options behind a paywall.
In any case - thx for your reply!
1 Like
That would split the queue into 3, and not even ones. Gaijin’s constant excuse as to why they won’t implement 0.7 BR spread MM is the extension of queue times, and all that’s doing is slightly restricting the queue, not splitting it into three (even if only for ground RB).
Again, what would those matches be like? If you wanted to play low tier Cold War Swedish vehicles in a “historical” matchmaker, could you? You’d basically be playing against two French vehilcles over and over again, if you could even find enough of both nations to put together a game.
And I would point you to how that rule is going in ARB around 6.0. Where every game is 6v6, with 4 on one team being JU-288s. Except in this system, 4 on both sides will be super heavies. Sure, these super heavies may not have the premium bonuses, but since they are guaranteed to be top tier, why would you ever pick anything else? If historically accurate matches are what you’re interested in, I cannot think of anything more anachronistic than a “historical” WW2 matchmaker completely dominated by prototypes and rare variants.
1 Like
Thx for a constructive reply!
It boils down to 3 parts:
- Queue times
This looks reasonable on a stand alone basis - but it implies that gaijin would actually tell the truth, and not what might be be suited to fit a certain narrative. As long as they add 16 vs 16 matches as “standard” team size, their reluctance to lower the spread to 0.7 looks more like an excuse than an actual reason.
As this is highly speculative as there are no reliable data available, arguing with queue times might be valid or not. From a holistic view the full up- and downtier game play is just part of a delicate “fun & challenge/frustration scheme” designed to lure players to spend real money and to keep them attached.
- Low BR Cold War vehicles of minor Nations
Imho you mix here 2 things:
- Cold War vehicles of insignificant (historically seen) Nations and
- “Historical” MM vs “More realistic” MM
Your assumption is ultimately based on the hypothesis that tank enthusiasts would choose a side - so WW 2 or Cold War only - and the game play as of today would be just played by a minority. This would prove that there is a demand for a separation.
Following this logical path that low combat effectiveness of Cold War vehicles (as reflected by their BR) would lead to low demand for playing them (as their combat power is on par with WW2 vehicles) just proves that they are technologically insignificant and their sole purpose is to create fantasy gameplay. The purpose of this thread is the opposite.
As stated earlier “historical” is not a desired goal as the sole purpose and set up of wt is not able and willing to provide this - mainly as combat power is measured with the BR system in order to flatten technological differences to level the playing field.
- Small lobby example and reference to Air RB
Your Ju 288 example is actually one of the best examples you could have selected to shoe essential flaws within the MM and why Air RB and Ground RB can not be compared.
You got the main flaw of 6.0 Air RB - small lobbies like 6-8 vs 6-8 fell automatically in old “semi-historical MM” rule - leading to axis vs allies like valid for all lobbies until some years ago. You have depending on server and daytime the same “semi-historical MM” around BR 3.7/4.0 leading to JP vs US/UK matches above the 4 Pacific maps (Iwo Jima, Saipan, Gualdalcanal, New Guinea).
The main difference between your example 4 super heavies vs 4 super heavies in Ground RB and 6 vs 6 in Air RB is that the “weaker” Ju 288s are top tier and are sucking the 2 German / Italian 5.0 fighters in infinite full uptier loops. Being a German / Italian 5.0 fighter outnumbered fighting mostly 2 vs 5-6 US/UK fighters - and outclassed vs 5.7/6.0 US/UK fighters - leads to the situation that you have to be really good to fly there - or you simply try to spade your 5.0 fighter and get out there.
The Ground RB guys benefit from the fact that their BRs are much more decisive as their game play is not that dynamic and fast paced like A2A combat. Even if basic rules are the same (positioning, controlling the fight) the challenge to bring guns on target is more demanding in a 3-dimensional fight. Your earlier example of the inability to pen enemies from the front is actually part of having more realism. Otherwise there is no need for maps - just spawn with both teams in a line and play last man standing.
So being top tier is much more a desired goal in Ground RB than in prop BRs in Air RB. Therefore your assumption that everybody would be playing WW 2 top tier looks reasonable - but the WW 2 BR range is somewhere around 3.0 - 7.0, so the options to play WW 2 only is not limited to 7.0.
“Anachronism” and domination of prototypes and rare variants. Agreed and valid point. But if you look at the game as a whole you have this everywhere - i am currently researching a fictional Japanese F-16…
Have a good one!
2 Likes
Ranks 1-3: WW2.
Ranks 4-5: Cold War.*
Ranks 6-8: End of Cold War to Modern day.**
*Cold War: Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War.
**Modern day: Afghanistan War, Iraq War to modern day.
1 Like
Also, M26 Pershing would be in the last rank lol plus Maus vs Sherman. M-51 vs Leopards, T-55 AMD. Look at this chart of COld War tanks
2 Likes
Dies in sweden
1 Like
My experience with planes in IL2 played with a joystick. They did do the standard paper physics to game, but then called in pilots and veterans that had experience in those planes. Hurricanes felt very much like the more stable gun platform that batBrit talked about compared to the spit. That has to do with the way the speed of the control device responding at a ratio to other vehicles. The way old school racecars may have the same turning speed and grip, but one may feel more secure based on steering wheel size. It is hard to model every physical variable but adjusting feel based on accurat reliable hands on experience does work (even though some folks would still be pissed).
1 Like