Your point is valid, however, this idea of historical or era MM will never work, it simply cant for a game of this caliber, there are cold ear vehicles at to low of a br for some nations, there are planes for other nations that the country didn’t receive until post war. You could fit them in with ww2, but the problem of cold war prop still stands. Take the Firecrest for example, a 2.7 plane (if i remember correctly) just wouldn’t work if it had to face other cold war era aircraft. While the general idea could work, war thunder is to far into development to implement.
1 Like
I agree, letting M24 face Tiger 2s is ridiculous. Chaffee is clearly a cold war light tank never intended to face WW2 tanks. ;)
Fine for me - like the rest of your reply.
And from my pov nobody wants to have a “real” historical MM - just imagine flying alone in a 262 vs 30 B-17s and 30 escort fighters, of trying to stop 30 Shermans with 4 Jagd Tigers…
As an interesting 3rd party reader most of the debate boils down on penetration values of late war shells vs cold war shells as cold war ammo is able to nullify tank design advantages based on protection levels,.
So i fully understand those guys driving 70 ton tanks designed to withstand conventional WW 2 shells (and sacrificing mobility) that they are not happy if they got sniped across the map by a “cheap” cold war light/medium tank due his shell type…
If you would take the Cold War USSR tank development approach as a reference point - they focused on tanks ~ 40 tons with strong firepower, mobility and mass usage, whilst sacrificing protection as the ammo was capable to kill 120 ton tanks, so i might be worth to think about cuts based on pen values…
Have a good one!
1 Like
Did you know, thats actually the opposite for France air in most cases from cold war era.
Another fun fact, I was looking at gifs on google and “hide the pain harold” is actually hungarian, like gaijin.
If Gaijin decided to go off design date though, i would uninstall.
2 Likes
Scenario 1 in wt - you would die. Also find me 30 gamers that will allow to get themselves slaughtered for each 4 guys that are having fun. Such mode was available in wot and guess what, nobody wanted to play worse tank, even with number advantage.
They are welcome to not traverse open fields especially in uptiers. I was playing a lot of T32 lately and this tank does wonders if played correctly while being placed in very much cold war surroundings.
Games can be simulators, but there is nothing simulator about Warthunder.
4 Likes
Sim mode would like to speak to you lel
Physics, weapon systems, mechanics & capabilities.
Idk about physics, those ones are questionable
It’s a dismissive argument that refuses to actually consider the option and just throws away the entire idea because it doesn’t work at face value, you can make great strides in separating the obvious vehicles that rely on armor plates and AP shells opposed to cold war and beyond that clearly moved beyond that point and rely on Heatfs/Hesh/ATGMs/APFSDS and different types of armor.
Of course it’s not as obvious as looking at year of development and there are also going to be vehicles that are middle of the road on that, that doesn’t mean that’s the end of the discussion and nothing can be done at all to improve the situation.
1 Like
The problem is that there are cold war tanks with none of these.
Physics? 50ton tanks that cannot carry momentum when driving over picket fences? Tanks that cannot handle inclines? Tanks that defy gravity sliding sideways and even upwards on slopes? What physics?
Weapon systems aren’t simulator level either, it’s point and click using a sight someone made in paint 10 years ago, and the only real world mechanic here is shell drop, which is entirely trivialized at higher BRs with the laser rangefinder.
Mechanics like what, repairing an entire vehicle, replacing engines, barrels, tracks in 40 seconds?
Capabilities, what does that even mean in this context?
4 Likes
Right, which is what I said with the overlap.
That’s not a problem outright, just something to consider.
The entire problem with doing era based / historical mm, is balance and what you consider WW2, for instance, take the IS-7, development started in world war 2, would that be ww2? or for instance, the F80, while we dont have the variant that was introduced in ww2 is not in game, will the ones in game be considered ww2 due to the base model? just my take
1 Like
WT had superior atmospheric density to DCS for a few years, so I consider it good if it matches DCS today, and the inability to supercruise was good enough for DCS so clearly their simulation was fine even if it was a bit dated.
@Miragen
Grass is mud in DCS, so… simulators having inaccuracies in “minor” areas is commonplace.
Yeah but this whole argument is a waste of time and I’m so tired of it, it’s the same nonsense with CAS in ground… we won’t ever get a mode without CAS so stop whining about it, but the current situation is also complete ass, but people see everything as black and white and if we can’t have this thing than we can have nothing at all, rather than finding a middle road and figuring out how things could work.
Historical MM is stupid and pointless, era based is too subjective and vague with different nations making the step at different times, so you quickly end up with just performance and capabilities based as the only thing that makes sense, and I think most people would agree that APFSDS stabilized vehicles have little business fighting WW2 heavy armor tanks, no stabs with APCBC.
3 Likes
How are those things minor?
War thunder is both a sim and not a sim. Imo it’s best described as a simcade, which has more realistic simulation than arcade games, but arcade mechanics and controls.
The air physics in war thunder are decent, and pretty good for a free game. The tank and ground physics however are not good.
1 Like
How are ground physics bad?