Having systems and mechanics that are actually simulating the real thing is probably more important for a simulator than just physics.
Warthunder has very little sim stuff going on, just some unnecessarily complex characteristics of the air based on temperature and whatnot.
3 Likes
Then you really haven’t looked much into War Thunder.
I have played more than enough of the game to know it’s not a sim of any kind
And I can tell you I play F-16 in DCS & WT identically.
Same did Taiwan, hell many South American countries have a Cold War era iteration of the WW2 era tanks and if necessary Chilie could bring their 60mm M-60 and M24-60 tanks back into service since they would still be able to perform well.
I guess the OP writes about everything that is wrong with War Thunder currently (They left CAS out).
I find it interesting that so many rush to the defence of War Thunder in response to the OP.
Surely the only people who would not be at least mildly perplexed by operating a WW2 Vehicle on a modern map against Cold war era opposition, much of it from the 70s and 80s are young children who know no better. Zero concept of history, zero interest in immersion and zero realization that the odds are stacked against them as they face more advanced weaponry. They probably haven’t even developed much interest in Planes or Armour.
What kind of adult let’s all that go? It’s like accepting slavery, you get so ground down by it that you give up complaining, accept your lot and roll over. Those who do complain get beaten down by the mob telling them there is nothing to see here.
With respect to the opposition, you have to see where they are coming from. The game is heavily faulted and has driven itself into a Cul-de-sac from which there is no escape and with every update drives itself further and further away from the original good idea that it once was. Few can even remember what that good idea was. They are correct when they say Gajin have no intention of changing anything.
The only way back is to go to a restore point and start again but as the many forum users state that is extremely unlikely to happen. War Thunder is likely to remain an eleven-year-old game like a shabby old Casino with tired carpet that still pulls enough punters in to turn a profit with enough ignorant people who think they are winning when they are only losing. As long as the cash is rolling in to hell with it all.
Like everybody else on here I really have no answers but to keep coming in and playing
and ignoring the large cracks in the ceiling. The crappy zone capture game layout is a suitable excuse to shoot things and keep myself entertained for a while. The game can be fun, no doubt.
Gajin’s baffling attention to detail regarding the vehicles is at least educational.
The only thing the OP can do is what I do. Stay with a certain BR and pray that Gaijin don’t inflict to much modern-day rubbish upon you. Keep turning the increasingly overburdened blind eye and not take it all too seriously.
Nothing about the game is worth the kind of heated arguments the forum users have over it. That is for sure.
3 Likes
So are you going to try and justify an Abrams in Normandy or a Panzer 2 in Sun City as well? How many other WW2 games have you played featuring 80s tanks ?
So would you advocate giving the UK and french tanks Explosive AP to make it fair at lower BR? Or be against it?
War Thunder hasn’t been a pure WW2 game for literal years.
Get over it.
1 Like
Some might argue that if the player is in a WW2 vehicle, they should be playing a WW2 game on a WW2 Map as they would expect to in nearly another game. Is that really too much to ask? The game matches the vehicles in detail. Consistency across the board?
That is the OPs issue.WW2 Vs Non-WW2 or even remotely WW2. You are stating the obvious doesn’t help the OP. The only thing any of us can do for the OP is agree with them. Like somebody complaining they can’t play tennis in the rain and you stating that it rains occasionally.
If the whole community were outraged about era separation as they were against costs and repair at high level, do you imagine Gaijin would act over it?
The game will never advance as long there is a legion of people defending its bad points.
Sadly, that is all I can add to the proceedings, I wish I had the answer.
2 Likes
This is interesting. Why the overbearing realism in some areas and a complete abandonment of it in others? If that is what you mean.
I think the fact that I have to state the obvious is sad in itself.
People who wish to play pure WW2 games have legion to choose from, War Thunder is simply not one of those games.
The way I see people who ask for such divide is just people who wish to push their expectations of what the game should be over it’s actual identity.
You can’t blame a game for not being what it doesn’t even intend to be.
Besides, asking for division between periods is asking for further divide within the community as if that is something that we need.
I can name exactly 0 upsides to dividing vehicles by period rather than dividing them by the BR system other than immersion.
Can’t wait to engage a King Tiger in my T-50, my immersion will definitely make up for the abismal experience…
1 Like
What makes you think the BR system would stop and you would have to face a tiger 2 in a T50? The game was WW2 and topped out at BR that was not 12 but much less.If it worked like that before it will again.The modern filler rubbish was much later.The OP makes a valid piont and your jibber jabba does nothing but reinforce what he is saying and try and sell us rubbish.
Even assuming there would remain a BR system it would still be the most unbalanced way to go about things.
You’ll have things like PBV-301 having nothing practically nothing to face at it’s BR while IS-7 would also sit alone at this “WW2 top tier”.
Nations such as China, Japan, Israel, Italy and even France to a degree would get shafted because of the divide.
Ok so now WW2 vehicles don’t have to face early CW vehicles that faced said WW2 tanks anyways.
Great, now you’re left off with an even worse balanced game xd.
No matter how you look at it, it would be a negative development for the game. So no, it’s not “jibber jabba”, it is simply not a functional nor sustainable model for War Thunder.
And what about further splits?
Are 60’s vehicles meant to face things made in the 80’s or later? Are we going to need a further divide between time periods? Vehicles from the 60’s and 80’s differ more from one another than vehicles from the 40s to the 60s do.
Great job, now the community is further fractured while leaving the game is a waaay worse balance state xd.
Ridiculous.
I doubt that - taking your T 32 example as a reference:
A correct flown 262 A-1 is untouchable vs P-51 Ds an Ks - at least in wt.
Long version
The top speed difference is even greater than a P-51 vs a Zero, you might agree that even if if the P-51 gets up to 11 km in order to gain speed in a dive: the much lower critical mach number prevents you from catching a diving 262 and the lower tactical mach number prevents you from bringing guns on targets.
Even if you would use the P-51 H-5: The result would be the same, it simply takes longer to kill their initial energy / altitude advantage.
And historical means also merging at high alt with a speed disadvantage of the escort fighters. And that the 262 is most likely an ace, whilst 80-90% of escort fighters would be rookies.
Considering that almost all 262 combat losses were a result of attacks during landing, the “highly realistic” possibility to perform high speed belly/sliding on engine landings of wt prevents even this possibility - thanks to the af aaa bubble.
I used this example to show that you had to fly 1 vs 60 to reflect real number correlations (March 45) - leading in wt to 29 fighters with a score of 0 points even if some guy would manage to kill the 262…very tempting for a grind focused player base. Unrealistic as nobody would play it.
Seeing you have a similar assumption regarding the 4 vs 30 tank example i think we are on the same page regarding the overall view in this topic.
Have a good one!
1 Like
Despite your points look comprehensible from your point of view - a short extract for warthunder.com :
In War Thunder, aircraft, attack helicopters, ground forces and naval vessels collaborate in realistic competitive battles.
There is simply no competitiveness in fighting a 1980s tank with an iconic WW 2 tank - so imho you tried to amplify your view on things by assuming there is something like an identity of wt or you would know what wt tries to be.
Your points regarding minor nations are actually not relevant for WW 2, so shifting the goalposts further away from WW 2 later in your post makes your pov weaker.
2 Likes
And why wouldn’t there be competitiveness?
Each vehicle has their own advantages and disadvantages that have to be either utilized or minimized in their effect in order to make a vehicle work well. For these purposes it doesn’t matter what period a vehicle comes from, it matters where the vehicle is placed in the game.
And I didn’t say what War Thunder’s identity is, I stated what it isn’t. If one tries to argue that it is meant to be an immersive WW2 game, then that is simply incorrect. If War Thunder intended to be this then we wouldn’t continually see post WW2 era vehicles being added at these predominantly WW2 tiers.
And explain to me how this isn’t relevant?
A divide between WW2 and Cold War would very much affect nation’s potential depending on the timeframe. So tell me how this is irrelevant? Tell me how Sweden is meant to compete at WW2 BRs without it’s Cold War vehicles. I’d be glad to hear.
And no, it wouldn’t be an option to gatekeep these nations out of conflicts they weren’t involved in (regarding Sweden and Israel) because it is ridiculous to gatekeep nations that clearly have vehicles in WW2 BRs from playing on said field.
You are experienced enough to distinguish between design philosophies at certain eras to answer the question by yourself. I already mentioned the shell types / penetration issues earlier, no need to repeat myself.
Semantic.
I am not here to educate you, you are experienced enough. The implementation of Finnland would have made sense in a WW 2 scenario, the rest is simply irrelevant as it doesn’t matter if they used WW 2 designs.
Just see this nation / TT / sub-tree of anything outside WW 2 just as an additional income source - with all it’s logical flaws and rules applied or changed by gaijin on a case by case decision - mainly used to sell premiums or create the need to grind them.
2 Likes
This still has nothing to do with competitiveness. Even in current times there are wildly differing philosophies, that doesn’t mean that only one has to be competitive.
Perhaps you meant to say something else?
I genuinely haven’t the slightest what you mean by this. Can you give further clarification?
UK and the French did not use APHE due to its unreliability.