@FlyingDoctor you’re gonna enjoy this discussion as much as I do. Cause you got these numbnuts arguing on one of the dumbest ideas due to many vehicles in the game being built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s using WW2-era technology.
I find it good fun to destroy Panthers in My M22 sometimes.How many times have you been hit by a Puma at 5.3 or more?
Your point has nothing to do with Era separation and moving WW2 tanks away from modern.
Remember that top tier has no tier above it.The best tank at top tier will only be destroyed by tanks in its tier or the tier below.The Tiger 2 is also downtierd on a regular basis(except when I play it lol) and faces all sorts of opposition including tanks from the tier below it and if somebody can’t make a full tier of the tier below the tiger they will resort to using the tier below the tier below.
Then you have CAS.
in my experience tiger 2 gets 7.3 %90 of the time, so it is uptiered. if it is 120 SP it means it is 7.3 match
1 Like
A skill issue thread. Well too bad you cant just roam around in your end of the war heavy tank and bounce off shots with no effort. Get good.
2 Likes
In my experience it just gets smashed after a couple of minutes lol
Never seen such a bullet magnet,nice to be the centre of attention…
Sadly 75% of maps prevent/punish flanking.
Separating vehicles by date produced will just mess up everything, and make everything worse for any nation that isnt USA, USSR, or Germany.
What plane were you using, and what plane was the jet?
2 Likes
Then the maps need improving as so many post suggest
Not if it is done well .Should we not expect things done well from War Thunder or sit with same ol same ol.If we do that then why have a forum? Everything is a mess already
Even if it is done well you will still have balance issues with post war vehicles having WWII tech.
2 Likes
We have had issues for eleven years.
İS-7 at 7.0 yes please
1 Like
Bad mobility, unreliable post pen, bouncy cannon and no armor. If you are dying in a 6.0+ heavy tank to m51 it is only your skill issue.
2 Likes
Yes when he is in a bush firing heat at 1km it is a skill issue, lmao
Huge issue in the game. But frankly, vehicles DON’T linearly improve with time. Yes, generally, a vehicle made 10 years from now will be better than one made now. But that’s not guaranteed! A bad vehicle may be produced to fill a niche role (low low cost SPAA, looking at you Leopard). This puts games like WarThunder in a bind. Do they order vehicles chronologically and have cheaply produced modern vehicles fight expensive modern vehicles (a potential slaughterhouse), or do they rank vehicles based on how well they preform (leading to weird chronological issues).
WarThunder has is split both ways. Arcade and RB have more balanced gameplay and SIM is chronological (mostly).
The way Gaijin determines BR is stupid and slow, but THAT is the crux of the issue, not Cold war vehicles fighting WW2 vehicles. If the Cold War vehicles are really that much better, in theory, they should move up in BR. But introductions of new technology (like HEATFS) are a “quantum” or “binary” transition (you cannot gradually invent a new technology, it either works or doesn’t), and they disrupt the balancing act. You can’t introduce new vehicles between WW2 and Cold war because there really AREN’T any. The Cold war starts right after WW2. And the capability of the vehicles after WW2 have distinct leaps in power, it’s not a gradual transition. It’s frankly really hard to balance this correctly.
So what can Gaijin do? Not much, unfortunately. There are band aid solutions like SIM (split the tree into chronological eras where tanks cannot move between them) or introducing paper tanks, but they don’t really allow for a continuous increase in capability as you traverse along the tech tree. I feel like a good solution is to give players the CHOICE to play the way they want (maybe by introducing a semi SIM in between SIM and RB where it’s basically RB but with SIM matchmaking). But Gaijin won’t do that, not enough money to be made there.
1 Like
they already did lol
2 Likes
Not really tbh. Not anymore.
While I agree with most of your points, especially about performance, this is actually not relevant from a tank development history POV, and the game fails to reflect that fact, much to the detriment of its balance.
The “lessons” of WW2 informed tank development up until the end of the Korean War. It’s only after that that the quantum leap happens. That’s why you have French postwar tanks that are suspiciously inspired by Panthers and King Tigers. That’s why you have so many Soviet and American heavies that look like “super WW2” designs.
The problem is, you can’t really have a rough equivalent of a Korean War BR to ease the transition between WW2 and the HEAT-FS era. Because most countries in the game simply would not be able to field a lineup to support that.
Even Germany, one of the big three, needed the fictional Panther II and Tiger II 105, as well as the half-removed Maus and unobtainable E-100, to fill that gap, and the first two on that list are now gone. Imagine how bad it would be to try and find equivalents for Italy, for example.
The inability to implement the “WW2+” era of tank development as a full fledged section of the tech trees, is part of the reason why the era breaking BRs between WW2 and the Cold War are such a complete mess.
2 Likes
Half the player base have skill issues ,it’s called learning the game.
Not everybody is a level 100 vet with maxed crew’s and ten years in.
1 Like
Cool, but they are allowed? Like Im fine with people having skill issues, the problem starts when they blame a tank instead of learning.
4 Likes
For sure but we have real issues on this game and skill issues together.
After six months I thought I knew a bit about this game then a year later I realised I knew nothing with six months experience.3 years in and I’m still 8 years behind some on here.
My main point is that I like any newbie,I complained about everything.
Now three years on the only thing that really irritates me is being taken out by some futuristic monstrosity that shouldn’t even be in the game when I am in a WW2 vehicle.Maybe I am OCD or maybe I can only suspend disbelief so much.
I am one of those people who finds fault in historical films ,to a degree, I find it lazy filmmaking not to bother getting something right and I feel WT is lazy game making in the same way.
I can take facing a Tiger 2 in a 5.7 vehicle (just) but being hit by some 80s prototype just makes me realize what a stupid waste of time Warthunder actually is and that I really should be doing something more grown up and constructive.It’s like a nagging wife :)
8 Likes
The difference being war thunder does not intend to emulate a historically accurate combat scenario. It is a vehicle simulator, balancing vehicles by stats, not year of production, if you came here to simulate historical events, it is just not right game for you.
I mean for you? I really don’t get your point here. If you feeling like you are wasting time, goodbye and I hope you find sth suitable for you, but for lot of people this particular thing is a pro not a con. Like I don’t give a single damn about whether my vehicle is 20 or 30 or 40 years older, but I surely wouldnt like to fight a kv1 in Pz.II, an IS-2 in chaffe or F-14 in Gepard which would happen if historical accuracy was a thing in this game. I also doubt this game would make much succes outside of small niche of players but I digress here.
1 Like
Strongly disagree. The year of production of vehicles doesn’t necessarily make better performance. Look at the 1950s AMX-13, ARL-44, or PT-76. The arbitrary division of “WWII vs Cold War” is far less significant than actual vehicle performance when balancing.
3 Likes