So what is your point here? Are you agreeing the game itself is nowhere as good as it could be? Are you justifying a bad game by telling me how bad it is ? I mean what are you actually saying here.
We are discussing the game,its limitations, Gaijin inability to make the game work and you come in with what seems like an argument but one that reinforces everything I have said.
BR is supposedly to bring balance between two sets of opposing vehicles irrespective of what they are and and any era .Its pixels vs pixels,that’s all it is.
You do realise that Pershing’s fought at the same time as Sherman’s and Tigers at the same time as Stugs? You also realise we have had nearly half a century of historical wargames right ?
What is this impossibility of any form of historical gaming you are peddling here? Is this a new 21st century thing that we could do before but cant do now?
What an earth do you think most tank and plane players actually came to this game for upon seeing historical modeled vehicles fighting each other in the adverts?
I mean how did we end up with WT players gleefully defending the games biggest fault which is failing to deliver a realistic, enjoyable game doing what so many expect it to do?
I would think it pretty obvious I am saying historical MM system for WT would be terrible for gameplay and players.
The gameplay is as realistic as they can get without causing serious imbalance issues. Just because you do not like the point I am making doesnt mean I didnt make a point.
And, okay, yes, the pershing fought at the same time as the shermans and tigers… at the very end of the war, it doesnt mean you will have them on your team of Churchill Mk II/IIIs vs tigers does it? Given the Churchill Mk III was out of service when the Pershing was tried out. For a historically correct desert war campaign you would have potential A13s, crusaders, Valentines, Matildas and Churchill Mk IIIs fighting Tiger tanks in the later stages. Is that fun? Nooooooo.
edit: I remember when gaijin had a far more “historical mm” system a decade ago, it was not fun.
I wish they followed Israel’s model for more nations.
China at WW2 props gives almost nothing unique. It’s all american, soviet and maybe some british and japanese things and like… 1-2 rank 1 truly unique, domestic designs.
What china props give is turn air sim EC into “Is that P-51 mustang in silver camo a friend or foe?” “Is that P-38 friend or foe?” “Is that P-47 friend or foe?” and the same for soviet things but I don’t really play on USSR’s side enough for it to be as clearly annoying.
China at WW2 could’ve worked if they split taiwan and CCP so that bluefor planes (taiwan) stayed bluefor, redfor planes (CCP).
For sweden - just make it Finland/hungary at WW2 that turns into kalmar union at cold war. . Both were axis nations that fought USSR so putting them on the right side in sim matchups becomes easy. Hungary has no reason to exist post WW2 given how we’ve basically just used soviet technology and nowadays buy gripens from sweden and tanks from germany.
You are doing it again 🤣 Telling us why a war game that celebrates history so much cant do a historical war game
Gaijin goes out of its way to make its vehicles as historically perfect as they can so why on earth should using them historically be be “terrible for gameplay and players” ? What ever went so badly wrong that that should be the case.
It took five tears of historical fighting to resolve WW2 and you are saying Gaijin cant let us do it for five minutes? Why cant a 6BR Russian tank face a 6BR German tank in a historical setting yet is expected to do just that in a every other game?
What is so amazingly difficult about putting 16 Spitfires against 16 BF109s?
Don’t overthink it. We all have to endure the BR system for balance but a s soon as Gaijn pre selects a few vehicles that system goes out of the window?
No you wouldn’t ,you would have the balanced line up Gaiin give you ffs
Put it another way ,you get two 4.7 BR tanks to face one at 6BR or one side has IL2s and one has SPAA or no CAS.
It all boils down to one thing as far as I can see. Gaijin can’t be bothered and there are easier ways of squeezing cash out of the stupid.The game could be about maximum fun or could be about an average plodding old game and repackaged every now and then in update form like the heavily polished turd it is.
So,should there be historical battle? Yes of course there should be. Can Gaijin do it?
Er…apparently not.
Historical battles = battles that happened, not battles that might have happened or might happen. So, what you suggest is not historical but hypothetical, which defeats the purpose of a “historical matchmaking” or “historical game mode”.
Considering the amount of tiger 1s i come across that face their hulls directly at me, i dont think it is a vehicle issue.
Historical mm is something that will always be limited to small groups of people who care more about the historical part than the fun/balance factor.
Even with those who make threads saying they want historical mm are not immune. Notice how all of them are “we need historical mm so my tank can fight less strong tanks” and you never see “we need historical mm so my tank can fight stronger tanks”.
It would be historical for the komet to burst into flames because “reasons”. We dont add that because it would be terrible for gameplay.
It is basically a tankery-style game. Teams make historical tanks and pit them against each other in modern times.
Then what you are asking for is not historical. You are asking for era-based restrictions. That is different.
True…but then i can make a post on this…
I would play 75mm M4s or 76mm T34s trying to kill a tiger tank…
I think i would do it for fun (for a while at least)…but give me good rewards and a “reasonable” chance (i.e. numbers advantage and players that stick) and i think i would play it a lot. TBH…fun would be playing both sides…and even the side of some support PzIVs.
Actually…sometimes i prefer the lower responsibility…the Tiger player would have to make no mistakes…the M4s are expected to fail…
I dont see this as black and white…historical in wargames had a lot of “modifications” in the name of fun and balance. Usually means vehicles that fought each other on the terrain where it happened, but with sides adjusted.
If you look hard enough, there are some “balanced” battles IRL…but war is usually unbalanced…the weaker side will either win against the odds (which in game will not happen a lot) or lose as expected (with variable kills).
Not sure it it happened or where…but a few Tiger/Panther with PzIV (or similar) support vs M4s or T34s is what springs to my mind as “historical” and “fun”…but LOTS of options exist.
I played “Steel Panthers” long ago…was a wargame but had LOTS of different “historical”, “what if” and “adjusted” scenarios…albeit usually with infantry in the mix.
Yeahhh but only in terms of country fighting country and reasonably close eras fighting ( no king tiger fighting 70s tank etc but obviously not King Tiger Vs Coughing Baby)
Then I guess we are all stuck when we face a full uptier because that is what we do when that happens.it’s Cobra King vs Tiger 2 and we are asked to endure that all day every day.
Like I said nothing balanced about the tier system or an unmodded tank facing one somebody unlocked years ago.Nothing fair about getting bombed by a Pe 8 from 5000 ft or hit by a plane when you have no roof MG.
What is this balance you speak of of? Where can we see it in the game? The maps are unfair when played from one side so ???
I’ll take a historical challenge over balanced repetition and monotony right now.
Fr, it’s as simple as hiking up the spawn costs for the better vehicles so they’re less populous but still attainable for any player should they perform well enough
Plus most of the significant and famous conflicts featured relatively balanced opponents- otherwise that conflict wouldn’t have lasted very long and it wouldn’t be much remembered. I mean look at the Soviets vs Germans and compare it to the Soviets vs Japanese. One is well remembered as a clash between peers and the other is forgotten as one better equipped nation steamrolled the other.
Seeing this thread as a whole and after reading all posts it looks like that this is a rather repetitive discussion as the question of historical battles was discussed may times, especially in the old forum.
Things might be worth to think about:
What i see is often the request for more immersion (which is a major downside of wt) but the majority does not consider that the setup of wt prevents any kind of “real” historical battles.
I don’t talk about asymmetric numbers of vehicles or defense / offense scenarios which can be created - i talk about the fact that the implementation of vehicle mechanics in itself and game functions like repairs, mini-maps and communication within the team are major immersion killers.
Even without trying to simulate stuff like mechanical defects or lack of mobility due to fuel shortages - or my personal favorite: wrong heat treatment of armor plates -historical matches would be killed by the way how wt actually works.
Some examples:
Imagine trying to setup a scenario of the Battle of France 1940. You have to use Pz II & IIIs trying to kill the 2 French heavy tanks with your 3.7 cm guns. Irl almost impossible - in wt you can precisely hit their barrels and immobilize them. The French tanks were defeated as they could not communicate with each other and ran out of fuel - not because they were overwhelmed.
Barbarossa: Try to kill KV-1s with Pz 38 (t)s - same story. Spawn in a T-34 without ammo for your main weapon. Try to hit German tanks with inferior optics…but with rookie crew skills…
North Africa (early): Matildas vs Pz III and IV with short 75 mm…
You might got my point:
Beyond the more obvious things like BR settings the game mechanics in itself like target acquisition, reload rates, 3rd person view and mainly crew skill played the decisive role in tank battles.
So any attempt to reenact such battles is based on the illusion that wt could offer some kind of authenticity which is impossible to the way how wt works.
Imho you describe here the wet dream of some hardcore fans:
Irl we saw the T-34s killed like flies and the newer research shows a 40:1 K/D ratio for the German tanks (~200 kills vs 5 losses) - based on missing communication and wrong tactics of the USSR tanks - in wt we might see this picture completely reversed - like in my examples.
Don’t get me wrong:
I support any attempts to bring some immersion into wt - i simply see that the expectation levels of players in case gaijin would offer them way too high. It would be a start, yes, i agree, but at at the end of the days it would be mode for a few - and as pointed out in many posts in this thread - as soon as players find themselves on the losing team they will leave…
Seeing the number of threads complaining about these, i think people dont like it.
It is more balanced than historical mm. Now, regardless of what some may believe, you are not always in an uptier or on a bad map.
Ask players “do you want to play an 11.0-12.0 arb match but 2 players on the other team have the f15e and 2 on yours have the mig29” then ask “in this match do you want to play the mig23?”
How many do you think will actually choose to play the match in a mig23 if they could choose the mig29 instead.
The quality and playability of any game is in Gaijin’s hands.
What people are saying is that War Thunder is incapable of making a good ,fun game with a historical context. That is pretty sad.
My point is that we all have to endure the up-tier and in balance general so we cant rest upon a notion of perfect balance in War Thunder.
We also have to define historical.A few tanks of the same era on a related map.Is that so impossible to do? Is that not what players set up anyway for themselves?
I mean its a very general and vague OP to be fair.I’m not ignorant to where you are coming from, I’ve been on the old forum before this and I know of the previous attempts at doing historical games. just think Gaijin made a mess of it all as they so often do but I’m given Gaijin the benefit of the doubt and thinking they could do it right.
This is where you confuse people. A better why to label this is era restricted. Historical is usually thought of as having tanks that fought each other irl fight each other. This would include very unbalanced match ups.
Era restricted mm would be much better but only as an event. They could do weekly events. One week is interwar, then early-mid ww2, late ww2, ect.