didnt even know this was a thing for NE
It would really reduce the clutter for the NATO markers if they used the formation grouping used on larger NATO maps when zoomed out and have them split into individual markers when zoomed in, though it would only be useful in NE
Gaijin,
It would be nice to get a 25% booster or something for completing all these surveys in game.
Cute, but these aren’t the actual markings used for individual vehicles in NATO symbology. They’re the MIL-STD-2525/APP-6 symbols for units, which is a little different. It’s pure rule of cool stuff, no basis in reality.
Also I’m assuming for the Soviet symbols you’re ignoring that in the Soviet symbology system friendly symbols were red, and enemy blue, the reverse of War Thunder colors, because it would be too confusing.
1 Like
how do i even switch
My opinion is that I see zero reason for them to be an option. But I STRONGLY recommend that it remains an option and we MUST be able to switch them back to the standard War Thunder markers.
I would be highly unlikely to use them myself as from just looking at those screenshots they look like they are too big, especially on the ground map and take too much space up on the minimap and over target markers. But making them smaller would probably make them harder to identify especially on the NATO side.
Also having to learn two different types of markers for NATO/USSR sounds like a pain
While I like the idea in general, the bigest issue here I see is how the vehicles in WT are actually classified - but that issue exists since the beginning:
The vehicle classification is very arbitrary, and in many cases does not represent the vehicles very well. Especially with vehicles with several roles this is extremely simplified in WT, often leads to confusion and even. “But the stat card says this vehicle is a XY” is a commonly seen trope here in the forum.
An example which if often discussed is e.g. the Milan, a dedicated strike aircraft, in WT labelled a fighter, and thus always complained about how poorly it does in the fighter role.
Or take the ADATS, as the name says a system especially designed for anti air and anti tank. Now it is classified as anti air in WT (and thus e.g. tank kills with it don’t count in TD related tasks), but when it was added it was classed as tank destroyer (and then inversely air kills with it didn’t count towards SPAA related tasks).
Wiesel 1A4 and AMX-10P are classed as anti air, but IRL are actually a scout tank and an APC, which in WT are combined into the class Light tank.
Some few vehicles are also classed one way, but have perks of other classes. But this is quite rare and not as consistently done as one might wish. One example is the Sd.Kfz.234/4, classed as TD, but having scouting and artillery like a LT as well.
As to the icons, absolutely for it, even though I see their limitations and I believe they don’t fix the underlying issue I’ve rambled on about above.
One thing though: The new symbols are I think more intended for types of units, not types of vehicles. So a unit like say a tank company as military structure may encompass vehicles of all ground classes we have in game…
3 Likes
i don’t mind as long as there’s a proper tutorial for newer players so that they can both read and understand it properly
Scouting yes, arty no. They removed that a while ago
1 Like
The whole classifications of vehicle types, are also very different depending on nations and when.
The best example of different vehicle classifications would be the British cruiser and infantry tanks, which have in game been classified differently on individual basis. Example of that would be the Crusader and Cromwell, both cruiser tanks, but one is a medium tank the other is a light tank.
Vehicles also change classifications on when the vehicle was used, with the M26 Pershing seen more as a heavy tank during WW2, but during Korean war, it was seen as a medium tank.
It is also worth asking, should the vehicles have their correct classifications and the features it would have ingame? Currently the M18 tank destroyer is seen as a light tank, but it was only used as a tank destroyer by the US.
1 Like
…so even more inconsistent (which is fine by me - but should be more consistently inconsistent over all vehicles, for me at least, haha!)
1 Like
Yes, it’s a mess, I think. When the Hellcat came out, it was actually a TD in WT, only later got changed to LT.
I really would love to see that WT would change the whole system from the “vehicle class” system to a system based on capabilities/features and roles the real vehicles had/have. If it’s called a light, medium or heavy tank or whatever should just be a “tag”, but not really serve a function. More tags could be introduced, that would make more sense.
TD’s and HT’s can’t arty - but why?
LT’s can scout, but AA can’t, even if technically some of them are APC’s and thus LT’s according to WT. But some AA can scout. And some LT’s can’t scout because of Tier - even if the real vehicles main role was actually reconnaissance! It’s complex and inconsistent.
Take the Pbv 302 (BILL), literally an APC with ATGM capability - just like the Bradley M2. Yet a TD so no arty and no scouting, that the Bradley LT’s with exactly the same real roles and comparable tech have.
(Note: Intentionally leaving out BR placement and tiers out of it here - balancing is on a totally different level)
2 Likes
End of the day we come back to the usual matter - the developers want to maintain a free hand for understandable reasons.
The M18 being a light tank technically gets a buff in the context of the US tree (air strike modification) but it also gets a nerf (higher SP cost, most notably in downtiers). In other words this classification is a balancing tool. Same thing with vehicles they want to keep as TDs or SPAAs (ASU-57, PAK Puma, Wiesel) while still giving them access to scouting. And the ad hoc classification of everything else mostly ends up being about how it plays in game. You don’t play the Pershing like a heavy in WT, so medium tank it is.
It’s all well and good for us autists who play the game to demand perfectly intelligible and consistently applied rules, but it’s important to understand why Gaijin wants to avoid that. The requirement to adhere at least somewhat to the realistic specs of a vehicle means that they don’t have many balancing tools. They have SP cost, BR placement, access to mechanics, and reload speed. That’s pretty much it.
something i think they could to is call the M18 a Light/Tank destroyer, in otherwards, weight/class with some tanks that are lesser in their rolls, like the M6, its a heavy but it has the armor of a medium, so it would be a medium/heavy and stuff like that, but would show up as a heavy on the map
More Accurately a Medium Tank and not MBT
“Tanque Argentino Mediano”
“Argentine Medium Tank”
Yeah, such locally differing terms don’t make it easier. Same with the Italian P40, where the P stands for “pesante” (heavy), but it’s weight makes it a medium tank in WT terms.
I mean, it’s a nice little option and I’m sure someone will enjoy the historical NATO/USSR markers.
But… is this really something that needed a survey? It feels extremely marginal compared with the many gameplay topics that could actually benefit from community feedback.
BR compression, vehicle balance, separate aircraft BRs in Ground RB, maps, stock grind, CAS, minor nations and tech-tree gaps… there’s quite a long list.
Historical markers are fine. I’m just not sure they were very high on anyone’s priority list.
3 Likes
No idea honestly
But the only thing i can find is this
Tbh as someone who is not into this stuff this much, it tells me basically nothing…
Looks cool, but I have no clue what the symbols mean, so if this gets added, I hope to see a legend for them on the map so we can learn them
How do I change to NATO symbols?