4.0 France, italy, japan, ussr, China vs Sweden, germany, USA, Israel, china.
This is what my most common matches has been, and it makes me wanna slam my head into the desk
1 Like
There should be at least option to play stuff like
Allies vs “bad ones” (USA+GB+France vs GER+USSR+ITA)
US vs JAP
CHRL vs JAP
GER vs RU
Nato vs bad ones (USA+GER+GB+ITA+SWE+France vs USSR/RU + CHRL)
etc
Yes…but past experience shows that the issue is “convincing” players to play them.
Historical usually means “Asymetrical”…in the sense some side has advantage in numbers, quality, air support…and unfortunately players will focus on the “bad” and leave without taking advantage of the “good”…
As an example…Tiger/Panther will usually be outnumbered by lesser vehicles on historical scenarios…but the players with those lesser vehicles will often leave the game instead of trying…
4 Likes
be good as a separate game mode for people who like to fight historically matched aircraft and tanks
3 Likes
I came to WT GRB to play WW2 thinking that a game in the 2020s would be able to facilitate era based matchmaking. For the first few tiers its kind of is or rather was.They started throwing much more modern vehicles in and ruined it and they really didn’t need to.South African stuff in the UK line up then the terrible M44 artillery which was the death blow to a WW2 area.
I know WT can’t cover every war and overlaps in vehicles usage like Korea is hard to make work but WW2 is so vast and so much part of military history that it was worth looking after to a degree. Real opportunity squandered.
The other odd thing is making Historically accurate vehicles for no reason.If balance in game is what you seek then why bother recreating perfectly exact models only to throw them against much later tanks and with nations like Sweden which never featured in a war? Makes no sense.
2 Likes
No, historical battles were and are unfun, unbalanced, and irrelevant to realism.
I have many legendary battles every day ;)
Obviously Historical battles are fun that is why so many want them.It is also why so many play the first six BRs so much. Unbalanced ,no not at all if they are balanced.
Irrelevant to realism? What does that even mean? Gaijin just scrapped Japanese fighters giving an historical reason for it.The lost the Panther 2 because of it.
They model all their vehicles according to historical data.We have had data protection act breeches due to Warthunders fanatical following of historical data .
It’s baffling how you and others like you come on and denounce that War Thunder has any historical relevance when it clearly has.
With Props vs Jets , tanks with NV vs tank with none ,vehicles with Laser range finders vs none,tanks with Heat FS vs tanks firing potatoes etc etc its obvious to even a monkey that there is a huge historical problem with this game.
Not to Alvis thoguh …oh no ,he is on another planet as usual : )
3 Likes
I wouldn’t
Who ever imagined Sweden fought in WW2 …Oh Gaijin that’s who.
They no more fought in WW2 than the UK had APHE during WW2 so why stick to one bit of fiction then go for fact for the other.That is War Thunders problem.It can’t tell the line between fact and fiction and needs to decide whether it wants to be factual or loose and fun.Maybe then all this historical expectation will stop.
2 Likes
No, people want them because they think they’ll be fun, despite having never played them and realizing how bad they were.
If you balance “historical battles” they’re no longer historical battles.
It’s weird that as a counter to “realism” you change the subject to history for no reason, a red herring fallacy; history is not realism and realism is not history. They’ve never been tied.
It’s very telling that your post calls planet Earth a different planet to your own.
You can set up and enjoy your own historical battle Alvis its not hard so why cant Gaijin throw a few in? This game is a magnet for tank and plane buffs of all eras ,its so much about history like many games are about Horror or Sci fi .
I did ~20 of the historical ground battles before switching purely to arcade battles cause that was just a better experience than losing to Germany every match.
And I did ~30 of the historical air battles before giving up because arcade was just a better experience than losing to USA every single match.
When you balance on history, you cause the win rates to skew.
Historical battles ARE the reason why German ground is the most populace in War Thunder cause it was OP.
If you wanted to have fun you played arcade. If you wanted to lose or play Germany you played the trash game modes.
But Germany are a terrible team Alvis and the Allies actually won WW2
1 Like
The allies did win WW2 IRL, not because of the power of the individual tanks.
If you have historical battles either the German side of tanks win, or you make it realistic battles instead.
German teams having alleged skill issues today is irrelevant, the meme of them having alleged skill issues started when historical battles were destroyed by the devs and suddenly the OP German tanks weren’t OP anymore and people had to learn how to angle and use tactics.
Its a combined arms game.
Germany at WW2 levels is notoriously poor in this game ,stats back that.
I understand your point ,it all boils down to Gaijin always doing things badly and making a huge cash cow out of everything they do.I guess maybe they have to to survive.
1 Like
ww2 - AXIS and then Allies from Cold War.
Gaijin used to have historical events but they stopped because most people didnt like them.
The mm queue times were awful.
Reading through the various responses there looks to be a mix of the two types of historical match ups. One is the old “Allies vs Axis” regardless of BR (i.e. random battles), the other is when there were the occasional Historical Events which only had eligible vehicles from the battle itself. Which are quite different scenarios.
1 Like
Why not?
I actually NEVER played a “realistic” battle. The closes i played were some events where the battle had vehicles form the same era…BUT (and this is a big “but”) the NUMBER of vehicles were not adjusted for balance and the game conditions also were not adjusted. Matches were usually 16vs16 and the better tanks would win…even worse due to the fact that the lesser tanks often would have players quit in the first minutes.
A realistic match would need to have asymmetrical teams (i.e the weaker tanks be superior in numbers), different objectives (a team having a defensive advantage) or different air support. And more important…the lesser vehicles would need to provide MUCH BIGGER rewards.
I honestly think that EVEN IF MADE CORRECTLY (historical, balanced), realistic battles would not work as lots of players said in past discussions that they “demand” their “right” to play the better tanks and will leave battle if forced to play lesser vehicles…
BUT…i would love to see it properly implemented to check if it has a chance to work…not optimistic…but would be glad to see and play it…