Unless you are really into the historical recreation stuff, you wont find it fun to fight stronger tanks.
History is not balanced and that would be reflected in a mm designed to be historical.
Not sure why making the plane more historical would be silly. Thought you would of liked it at least.
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)
My opinion would be to put Sweden on the side of the Allies in pre-NATO matches, and with NATO in post-WWII matches
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:
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…
YES! It should be!
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.
I imagine it all boils down to money and profit.
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.
No that is just your assumption.Historical battle is a very broad term.
What is unbalanced about 3.7 German meeting 3.7 USA or 3.7 Russia?
we have had 13 years of that have we not?
I don’t think anybody wants to get too deep into terminology when so many use a translator to communicate.
Yeah this is exactly what I mean.I cant speak for the OP but its quite simple and I am sure Gaijin could squeeze money from it.All we are doing is making Gaijin walk the talk when it comes to history. They talk history at every opportunity so lets see some in the game.
I think historical battles/BRs might make for a good April fool’s day joke.
It is the assumption of most people. If you asked a random person what they imagine a historical tank match up would be for US vs German, they would say sherman vs tiger.
I said that while talking about historical mm of “tanks that faced each other will face other other”. This is different that the era restriction that you are talking about.
One issue is that many people are already low on time due to constsnt grind events. Maybe they could give larger breaks between them
Simple. Have decals/camo be unlockable in it.
It honestly would.
I would play this for a start. Some eras would actually work. You could also “lock” maps and nations. Selecting only SOME vehicles, i think you can do France40, Barbarossa41, Desert41 and 42, Normandy44 etc…
Issue would be having to remove some vehicles that were actually there (not to mention the many prototypes and imports)…
As an example…i am guessing that in France40 you could not have Char B1, Matildas and HEAT shells on PzIVs…OR you would have to make a scenario where allied heavies would be countered by numbers or Stukas…as fixed 88s are too far out :)
This would happen on any “scenario” where one side had a very strong tank (T34s in Barbarossa, Tigers in 42, etc…)…but i guess we “easily” make scenarios without these “outliers”…and add them with some modifications…
However…doubt is still making players play it…perhaps with better rewards for “heroes”…
100% that would be so cool.
I see very little reason for that. Its not like they are the only two tanks in the game and I purposely mentioned other BRs where the Tiger does not exist.
The Tiger at 6BR would face an enemy at 6 as it does in any battle.That is a none argument .
I dont see any reason why there cant be historical battles run in this game .
There is a fairly large community that has done this for nearly 6 years now