Responding to issues regarding dev server reports & an update on spall lining armor from the developers

I love it however an essay grade explanation wasn’t needed.

1 Like

Awesome GJ thanks for the good Communication ♥

I had about 50 open reports at once last year… they were either ignored for months, closed for no reason or tagged ‘info requested’ without specifying a reason.

Your bug reporting system is laughably broken.


We want to trust on you guys but these years gives the community the perspective of how Gaijin work. We know (some people) the work behind all of this. We want to trust about the spall liner issue (and other issues) being added/fixed to NATO tanks some weeks after the update (or even before) as well but these years demonstrate the lack of seriousliness about these type of additiong leaving the perspective of “We going to add it to Russia first” and who know maybe y a half year or more we´re going to add it to NATO tanks if the people complain and if not we leave it like that (when NATO tanks has it much earlier than Russian but that´s another history). The issue here is these last year´s, the community no more trust on you´r words and we know (I pray for being wrong) the Spall liner on NATO tanks are going to come when this “new mechanic” is nerfed, or like the PSO issue need to wait almost three years to be added to NATO… . Yeah yeah Im already waiting the tipical “yOu CaNt CoMpLaIn Is A fReE tO pLaY gAmE” from the tipical trolls but seriously I am the first who want to trust but these years are speaking hard toward you guys… (speaking about Gaijin itself not the moderators). Please be the developer we need the one who care about his community and have love of his game not the one who only want money of the community (remember the community give you this “position” today). Take care. My best regards!


I just say what i said on discord.
If only one vehicle can have it and on all other you need god who knows which doc,then there should be none.
Its like with the turret speed one tank got what can gunner pull and other got it what the turret engine can pull off.
Same rules to all vehicles,no double standards.


So tell us what Information you have on the Challenger 3 for it to be added… or the M1 KVT that doesnt even exist in a 105mm cannon variant… sorry but this reeks of selective bias, your only doing damage control because you caught adding something in for Russia first and community went ape realising how stupidly broken it currently is (even in dev server form) which I find ironic because what Dev looked at this in the dev server and said “thats ok for testing”

This needs to stop, sources have been shown TIME and TIME again, Abrams have spall liners as part of the final armour array with a Vulcanized rubber layer that acts as protection from wear and tear by the crew (hence you dont see it hanging) like other tanks yet we need to provide sources… typical… so where are the sources for the Chally 3 or the mathematically impossible UFP of Russian tanks

You wonder why the game got review bombed, you wonder why a moderator got doxxed, the community have straight had enough of this bias that a lot of mods are showing in report handling and how information for one tank that seemingly omits primary sources or sketchy secondary sources yet you expect primary sources for NATO tanks that classified…


Another option yea. Add the “new mechanic” when its present to all vehicles (the ones who have it) and then add it to the game

1 Like

With a flavour of strawman as well!

There’s a great reason to “pamper” Russia outside of politics. It’s very simple:

  • Russian tanks are not balanced with NATO tanks in real life.

  • Video games need to be balanced to be fun.

  • Thus, NATO vs Russia matches won’t be fun unless they either buff Russian tanks more than real life, or nerf NATO tanks more than real life, or both.

They can’t just let BR handle it (i.e. have old NATO tanks fight new Russian tanks), because then they’d run out of Russian tanks and have multiple updates of NATO stuff only, which is a huge revenue loss and a huge F-you to a big chunk of players who grinded just as much as US mains did and also signed onto a Big 3 nation with reasonable Big 3 content expectations, etc.

1 Like

This… “balance” you talk about… consists on keeping present-day Abrams variants with the same armor levels as the original 1979 model while constantly giving Russia tanks with twice as much (and even higher) levels of armor?

That’s some odd “balancing”.

Also: Gaijin Entertainment has stated several times through official channels that War Thunder is not and never will be balanced by artificially nerfing vehicle capabilities, so no, this shouldn’t be a thing.


So you do 1 of 2 things OR both, you either limit the ammo types so weaker tanks generally have better pen shells to compensate for being weaker in armour/mobility/crew OR you adjust armour values to make them more effective against munitions.

I’m in favour of balancing WT this way vs using “sources” because we are now at a point that most sources (even primary) omit important details, its classified OR it could fake primary sources based on propaganda leaks to fool the enemy (a very common tactic that many seem to overlook with these sources)

but giving the T90M a hull with 1300mm of KE protection when its LoS isnt anywhere near capable with the materials and known materials of the array but the Chally 2s and Abrams with substantially bigger LoS cheeks somehow have substantially worse KE protection by almost half… is bs and tbh its getting old

1 Like

When im reading all the stuff its always the same thing,they add something but only like for one nation or on one vehicle and then they do surprised pikachu face when people start to talk about it.
This way you then create “bias”.
So again if it should be on like two vehicles and all other need docs,then add it to none and wait till you have enough evidence to add it to all nation even if for one vehicle.


Yeah let me look at my CR2 very balanced


That´s what I said just before

1 Like

See thats funny because M1 KVT doesnt exist… Chally 3 doesnt exist “yet” and 2S38 is a napkin SPAA that functions as a glorified Otomatic in game and sits 1 entire BR lower than where it should. I know your being sarcastic but gaijin cannot hide behind this c**p statement any longer


Those are different matters.

Their comment was in regards to artificially decreasing or increasing values for the sake of balance.

They stated that they balance vehicles via BRs and munition choices, but never manipulating vehicle technical capabilities.

1 Like

The Chally 3 from what I can tell is the 2019 prototype demonstrator.
M1 KVT should be the M1A1

2S38 definitely should be at 11.0 in its current form


This… “balance” you talk about… consists on keeping present-day Abrams variants with the same armor levels as the original 1979 model while constantly giving Russia tanks with twice as much (and even higher) levels of armor?

If it balances out effectiveness in game, yes, quite possibly. Pretty much impossible to predict in a vacuum, you’d need in game data. It also depends on things like the team’s average skill, how many newbies are on the teams with available or not available squad vehicles, which maps favor certain vehicles, and all sorts of things we couldn’t fathom better than just measuring it.

If the entire game was just “measure whose armor is thicker and the team whose is gets a ‘YOU WIN!’ screen” then sure, you’d have a great point just from this.

Also: Gaijin Entertainment has stated several times through official channels that War Thunder is not and never will be balanced by artificially nerfing vehicle capabilities, so no, this shouldn’t be a thing.

  1. Link please?

  2. That would be a pretty good reason that can explain why to just close things with “Not a bug” with no explanation so as not to have to admit it, if so, not necessarily much else.

you either limit the ammo types

Why is nerfing ammo types one bit better or worse than nerfing armor? This is a totally arbitrary distinction on choosing one to nerf over the other. Same thing.

OR you [buff armor]

Again, totally arbitrary distinction to choose “buffing one guy” versus “nerfing another guy”, who cares? Same difference. Both/all methods are equally non-historical, if all of them at the end of the day cause an adjustment of 15% or 20% or whatever win rate or effectiveness to bring two desired vehicles in line.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with any of your suggestions, just that they aren’t better either. If they undid the ways they’ve done things so far, and did yours instead, some other guy could equally validly argue that yours are unacceptable to him and they should have done it [the old way] instead. And so on.

they are not different matters at all… gaijin claim they wont balance by artificially nerfing capabilities so why do M1 KVT/Chally 3 and 2S38 exist at all… M1 KVT is nerfed because its got a 105mm and not a 120mm based on its IRL information.

Chally 3 is a prototype and as such doesnt get ANY of the combat ERA packages because it never fielded it them, same story with the Black Night, and 2S38 literally is still in production and should have a radar system yet doesnt… so if your arguing these are different matters then tell me how all 3 of these vehicles exist in incomplete forms…

it would be worse if it did

1 Like