Ahahah, no.
A. It takes the spot of domestic camos
B. You’re spending GE or GJN on a TT plane, real money on a non-premium plane.
C. Having it speak a language not spoken by the nation you want is a deal-breaker.
The only value here is someone’s ego.
And not representing historic vehicles isn’t one of them. This fact is basically in the ads for WT. So unless you’re willing to pay for Gaijin to remake its ads, tough luck. After all, Realistic includes all vehicles used by a nation’s TTs aren’t industry trees but the military. (It’s the USAF, USN, RAF, Luftwaffe etc., not any nation’s MIC)
“A nation can only get a vehicle if they were involved.” How about history tell you how bad of a take that is.
These “C&P” are often why a nation didn’t fall, but your ideal WT would let these nations fall just to be unique. You’re writing off the amour of a nation, but to you, a nation needs no military if it’s not unique, a goal that is costly(there is a reason why dead industries often stay dead).
On top of that, you’re saying it doesn’t matter how much history is behind a vehicle; it’s worthless. You are walking all over the men and women involved with it.
On top of that, plenty would like to buy a vehicle that a family member served in, with the proper operator nation. It’s one of WT’s charms. And it’s a truth that no nation only used domestic vehicles and had to use others for one reason or another.
So, you tell me? Wow do I make my LARP line-up when the foreign vehicles that served together(in the same units even), when both vehicles are in two different trees. Oh, wait, you can’t.
Let me tell you a secret: Operation Unthinkable. War with the USSR right after WW2. Guess what, the Soviets still have working Western allied vehicles and would be used against them, after spending years getting US, UK and even Canadian-built stuff and more. And with early MBTs production only starting with not even enough to do one nation(heck, many nations were still using WW2 stuff by the Korean War), WW2 stuff would still be used by both sides, heck, whatever is left from the Axis would likely be used by both sides.
Even alt-history has these issues, real-life issues in a game that wants to be realistic… who would have guessed.
I should clarify - when I say ‘dogfighter’ for the US, I’m using it interchangeably with ‘turnfighter’ in my own definitions. I am seeking a dedicated turnfighter for the US. Now, about that list you mentioned:
F4U-4 is an energy fighter/jack-of-all-trades, not a dedicated turnfighter. It excels at BnZ tactics.
Emphasis on one-circle turnfighter. It’s better if it gets into a 1v1 dogfight and finishes it ASAP; however, if it evolves into a furball without securing an exit plan, it becomes easy prey for the opposing lightweight turnfighters.
Another issue for the F6F-5N was extra weight from its cannons and radar (5.7t vs standard F6F-5’s 5.5t), which made it feel sluggish at its current BR 4.3. Until that gets adjusted, it’s not a capable independent fighter according to the current meta of the ARB with its 25-minute matches. At best, it behaves as a support fighter, which is the playstyle I despise to play as.
The standard F6F-5 is definitely better as a turnfighter at its lower BR, but it’s Rank II. If I want a more capable Rank II turnfighter, I’d pick the P-36G over it any day.
It’s a heavy fighter/interceptor with airspawn - great for BnZ. Indeed, it can turnfight briefly with flaps, but it relies heavily on altitude and teamwork. Smart enemies will just avoid a loner P-38 in its domain and wait for it to make a mistake and burn energy.
Indeed. Yet, it’s a dedicated energy “heavy” fighter with air spawn and a similar approach used on the P-38.
Like the XP-50, it’s a pure energy fighter through and through.
Mind you, these are my Air RB perspectives, as they may differ from yours in sim battles. I am aware those are the energy/BnZer fighters (except F6F-5N because it’s junk in RB at its BR, in my opinion) with excellent flight characteristics that permit it to turnfighting for a finite time. However, none of those are dedicated turnfighters that can float around and weave through chaotic furballs, which constantly happen in average ARB matches.
Other than zeros, I’m not sure anything fits your description (being able to sit in a furball and keep turning and never run out of potential). Yes, not even spitfires - they feel awful while slow and until the 5.0+ spits, their engines are too weak to maintain their ideal speeds if you get bogged down (which is why bf109s can counter them reliably by going into a spiral climb. My last match had this come up exactly - turning with unknown plane in G14, realize it’s a spitfire and start pitching up and then I ended up getting position behind it. my aim was horrible (I blame 160 ping), but it was still a victory. Lemme see if I can find it in the replay).
Edit:
This is what I mean by "Not even spitfires qualify." If forced into a climb, they lose all their speed and become sitting ducks. At 00:30 you can see the issues with spitfire at low speed (it couldn't keep turning with bf109 despite being behind me so had to disengage).
Germany by this requirement has no dedicated dogfighting planes.
Britain spits are somewhat close, but lack the endurance to qualify (you need 350km+ or so, you cannot get that back while also turnfighting without altitude).
Russian yaks maybe qualify? But they’re more about rolling and reversing than flat circle turns.
Zeros qualify with their low-speed turns and low-speed acceleration.
Edit cont:
I feel it’s quite prudent to include both “one-circle” fighters (bad/average sustained rate, very good instantaneous turn and very good roll) and energy fighters when discussing dedicated dogfight planes. Most planes fall in that category outside of early/interwar and japanese designs and even japanese props evolve towards more “energy fight” principles.) Especially given props are very fluid in their definitions depending on who they’re fighting.
I do concede that ARB meta kinda makes more complicated dogfights harder to execute due to way too many planes far too close, but that issue affects more than just america.
Did you accidentally use the wrong YouTube link? It takes me to a red panda video instead lol. That said, your Bf 109 G-14 gameplay against advanced Spitfires at 5.0 BR in ASB was taken to a different context about aircraft performance and opponents in different BR brackets.
I do get your point, though, and the tactics you demonstrated against Spitfires could absolutely apply to low-tier matches with early Bf 109s, too. Like I always say, every aircraft (especially BnZ and turnfighters) has strengths and weaknesses we need to exploit at the right moments.
True. However, this Spitfire Mk Vc/trop (almost identical to the Mk Vb/trop) at 3.7 BR in ARB possesses excellent knifefight ability with its tight radius turn, coupled with adequate top speed and fantastic climb rate (yay Merlin 45 ftw). I can outturn low-tier Yaks and outspeed A6M2 Zeros, so this turnfighter is acceptable to me as the requirement for the US.
And I feel it becomes more reliable at lower BRs (bf109F4 vs MkVb) since earlier spitfires have worse power to weight (gap is smaller with WEP, but both planes cook themselves pretty quickly with WEP) and similar handling.
I do concede that with mouse aim, spitfires aren’t as painful to fly at low speeds as with SB controls (in the video, I presume the person i fought lost control hence their crash). Mouse aim would’ve likely also prevented me from being able to react and reverse (I noticed the spit when it was like ~0.6 km behind me. In RB, you could easily land shots from that range).
And I feel XP-50 and american BF109F4 more than satisfy dedicated dogfighter requirements. While the XP-50 could be described as “heavy”, it has very good turn with flaps, roll and low-speed acceleration. Looking at ARB videos of it.
If the XP-50 and the Bf109F4 does not qualify, then germany has no “low tier dedicated dogfighter” either. Nor does Italy. Idk about china/italy/france. Russia has yak-3 at 4.3
(also shout-out to P-51C-10 and P-51 Ia. However, I won’t press the issue with those because IME mustangs fly very weird with mouse aim due to the rudder and are completely different without instructor.)
I found two recent YouTube videos (not mine) that show strengths in Spitfire Mk. Vb models.
Start with this first video, demonstrating a usual furball in an average ARB match:
This might not be the best example since there are plenty of mistakes and luck involved, but it’s the only video I could find demonstrating close-range knife-fighting against Yaks and other turnfighters in tight dogfights. Could an XP-50 or American Bf 109 pull this off? Maybe not in such tight furballs - it depends on pilot’s skill and the battle conditions, as smart enemies avoid furballs entirely. This is exactly where a Spitfire could shine for the US in low-altitude fights.
Here’s another (second) video demonstrating Mk. Vb dogfighting against the Bf 109 F-4 in ARB. Disclaimer: This shows the non-tropicalized Mk Vb (better performance but overheats faster than the Vb/trop with its larger coolant tank). This person demonstrates workable mouse-aim dogfighting against a 109 F-4.
This is under the assumption that the Mk Vb and the 109 F-4 are at an equal altitude. If the 109 has altitude advantage, then the Spitfire will be in a hairy situation unless the 109 pilot makes mistakes; you’d need solid defensive flying and exit strategies.
I feel we have gone into too much detail about the use of tactics in the air battles, so it boils down to the pilots and their decision-making that influenced the outcomes of the dogfights.
Overall, the Spitfire Mk Vb/trop can prove that it is a competitive low-tier turnfighter with the ability to pull off in close-combat knifefights at low to medium altitude, which US aircraft often avoid the low altitude to comfortably stay in their advantageous positions in order to win the air RB matches.
FYI, I saw your properly linked Bf 109 G14 vs Spitfire video now.
MesserSpit (while not yet in-game) immediately came to my mind. It stands out as one of the strongest potential German turnfighter candidates. I haven’t dug into its exact flight characteristics or specifications yet, but I’m confident this hybrid aircraft would absolutely qualify as a dedicated turnfighter.
Italian Spitfire Mk Vb/trop, Re.2001 CN, and C.202EC (subjectively, this one’s more debatable - while it’s typically flown as an energy fighter due to its better energy retention, its armament makes it comparable to low-tier Spitfires. It could qualify as a turnfighter despite its worse turn rate and questionable BR placement).
For China, it’s Chinese A6M2 and Ki-44-II hei - the Ki-44’s turn/roll rates and exceptional climb make it a formidable turnfighter.
For France, French Yak-9T, Yak-3, and P-39Q-25 (subjective) qualify. The P-39Q-25 is technically better as a BnZer, but its low-medium altitude dogfight capability and its turn rate nearly match a dedicated turnfighter, so it’s a 50/50 hybrid to me.
I could have qualified French F6F-5 as a fantastic turnfighter only if it is not stuck at Rank II. Ironically, the British F6F-5 (Rank III) is one of the best premium turnfighters at its BR.
The thing turns? Tho, I guess I do primarily use it as a CAS plane… I should take it with no loadout, to ARB to see. It’s been by my best friend in ground and naval since I got it.
Very few things would make me give up the Hellcat Mk II, as its journey with me through the grind of multiple modes has made it one of my favourite planes in-game.
Indeed, it’s a seriously competitive turnfighter, and you can exploit its turnfighting strength in knife-fight dogfights. Just be smart about picking your targets and watch your energy state. When you know what you’re doing, I can guarantee at least two kills per match if you play aggressively enough.
Mmm, it’s such a reliable and versatile fighter, and it works great in ground and naval battles, too. I’m especially a fan of its torpedo runs in naval matches.
After all the aircraft we lent to Britain, I believe it’s fair the US gets at least one reverse-lend-lease low-tier Spitfire of its own.
…You are aware you don’t have to use airspawn, right? If the only thing stopping you from using the XP-50 is that airspawn, you only need to click on the runway to spawn there. I’ve done that with heavy bombers multiple times for the memes, so I don’t see why you couldn’t with the XP-50.
Which isn’t an issue in air RB where you can only ever take one aircraft to the battle.
And that’s the issue. Premiums only exist to print RP and SL, and that’s the primary reason people buy them. It’s not something that can ONLY be filled in by copy paste. It would be better to replace it all with indigenous aircraft, and while prototypes can do that, so too, and more effectively, can minor modifications, aircraft based off of an ace’s aircraft, one’s based off of notable examples, or just reflective of the aircraft used in a general battle/front/offensive/etc. There are ways to implement indigenous premiums that don’t prevent prototypes from being implemented into the normal tech tree and take the same amount of effort as copy paste.
Yes, and such an aircraft being necessary is radically different from an American Spitfire. I’ve said, repeatedly, that copy paste aircraft which exist in order to fill in gaps are not comparable to copy paste that isn’t needed, such as an American Spitfire.
Thing is, alt history wouldn’t be a massive rework. It would just be adding additional… set ups? To the current system. Hardly a rework.
A. Unlikely. Most is that it would be opportunity cost, but I highly doubt Gaijin is going to care about limiting skins.
B. Like, 200 GE at most IIRC… which is a couple bucks. The only camos with price tags higher are the user made camos, which are all community made.
C. That is the only actual issue, though one that can be solved easily by having those skins change which voices they use. It can also be fixed by just changing the voice files. Not ideal, I know, but it can be done.
You massively over exaggerate the historicalness of War Thunder. While it is, even to a great degree, there are numerous instances where the game goes solidly a-historical. For example, the BR system is based solely off of capability, leading to WW2 rocket craft facing solidly post war jets, and Isreali aircraft fighting against WW2 aircraft -the Sakeen is solidly at 3.3-. RB doesn’t care all that much about historical accuracy either. You can, frequently, see a-historical teams, such as WW2 Japan fighting with WW2 US against WW2 Britain and Israel and so on.
Like, there are foreign vehicles in game that were only ever evaluated by the nation they are in, such as Sweden’s T-80, AHS, Mi-28, Japan’s F-16 and maybe one or two more that slip my mind. While I don’t agree with their implementation, and don’t like that they are in the game at all, those vehicles are incredibly a-historical.
Gaijin’s justification for them is for the purposes of gameplay, as, according to them, those nations don’t have anything else that would fit. While I would hotly disagree with Gaijin on their necessity, that does not change the fact that they will go a-historical if they feel that the game would suffer for it.
Good thing War Thunder isn’t real life and just a game then, isn’t it? America not getting a copy paste aircraft it doesn’t need isn’t going to retroactively alter the timeline of the second world war.
War Thunder also isn’t bound by real world limitations. We aren’t bound to how much factories can produce, or the complicated logistical chains that affect decisions of procurement, as well as the soft factors.
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how not wanting copy paste in the funni plane game somehow means that I am walking over the memory of those who served. I’m not saying that these vehicles are historically insignificant, or that those who flew em were somehow useless. What I am saying is that the historical significance of a vehicle to the nation, and the significance nation to that vehicle, should be beyond simply using it, otherwise you will have a situation where massive parts of tech trees will end up in the trees of other nations.
While I understand that, that applies to literally every single vehicle in the history of ever, and also applies to literally every game with real vehicles. It is in no way specific to War Thunder.
In the context of air rb? lineup doesn’t matter. You just play those vehicles when you want to, with the appropriate skins
Your point? I am well aware Operation Unthinkable, and there are conflicts where you can make the same point that are very much historical. This in no way solves the issues of copy paste or assuages any of it’s issues. It’s adding things simply because they can be added with no consideration made to what such implementations would have on the game as a whole.
Welp, thanks for your thoughts, it proves how misformed you are on about WT, and how much you think your ego is how WT should be.
Because according to “anti-C&Pers” WT has only two modes, air RB and air SIM that works like ARB. News flash, it doesn’t heck, neither of those are WT’s most popular modes. Air Arcade is a line-up mode. WT is and will always be a line-up-based game. You LARP with line-ups, and you can’t do that if a vehicle isn’t in the same tree.
“C&P Problem,” you mean a problem you guys made up. If something that has existed from day one of a game is a problem, then you’re clearly playing the wrong game. The only problem is that Gaijin likes to add them first before domestic equivalents, but with them there, the foreign vehicles add options for the line-ups at that point…
Also, here’s a tip: Every comment made on a suggestion is more likely to get it passed to the devs. So, thanks for your guys support.
Well, I change my +1, the US Spitfires still have my full support, with having history among them. Well, I’d like lend-lease and other stuff like it still, not as part of a trade anymore, I’d like the US to just straight up get all it’s Spitfires it used.
I am aware, and I strongly wish to remove the XP-50’s default airspawn and adjust its BR down. However, that’s my opinion, and I am not interested in continuing this off-topic.
I play other modes that include aircraft, too, not just Air RB.
I wish you good luck convincing Gaijin’s sales team and player base to go forward with that approach of getting rid of lend-lease and captured copy-pastes. While I am on board with bringing more indigenous production and prototype vehicles to every nation, my stance remains that premium lend-lease vehicles with significant historical value get to stay, especially the ones in the US, USSR, UK, China, and France.
Yeah, the term ‘massive’ is not the right word to describe it if it’s just a minor addition with only such a setup. Unless Gaijin explicitly has plans for Sim Battles that include this setup, I doubt it will come. They have been silent about this, apart from balance changes, still leaving Sim Battles insufficiently appealing for me. So, you can see where my skepticism comes from.
Sure buddy, I’m misinformed and have a huge ego here.
Most certainly not the one resorting to ad hominem attacks, no sire.
So, at best, your reasoning is ‘I don’t play this mode, so we can make the game objectively worse for 0 benefit’? And that’s being charitable.
People aren’t going to play through trees if it’s a bunch of slop they’ve played already. They are also less likely to grind out trees if they can simply pick up a premium version of a foreign aircraft they like in their main.
So just because Gaijin does a thing, that means said thing is correct and there is no possible way that such a thing could be wrong, a bad idea, or make the game worse in any regard?
Clearly, you are the next Plato. Perhaps even the next Einstein.
You and I both know that Gaijin doesn’t care.
First of all, let’s be honest. They don’t need a suggestion for copy paste. They are fully aware that the US deployed Spitfires. They already have copy paste reflecting that in game. If they wanted to copy paste another Spitfire into the US tree, they would have done so by now.
Secondly, I would genuinely take any metrics of ‘support’ for a vehicle with a grain of salt, and I’m sure Gaijin feels the same. There is a massive positivity bias in suggestions. The only time I would consider its data ‘valuable’ is if it’s about 50/50 or outright negative, as if the positivity bias was overcome? Such a suggestion should not be implemented, and would certainly bring controversy if it were.
Then you can do everything you want to do with this copy paste with the XP-50. If the airspawn displeases you that much, you don’t have to use it. Not the perfect solution with your issues with the balancing of the XP-50, but you can handicap yourself down to where you think it should be.
Well, I already got the playerbase on my side. Every update, and every BP, I see people complaining about the copy paste, so that’s a safe assumption. As for the sale’s team? They did do a culling of some of Britain’s low tier premiums not that long ago, and they’ve evidently been seeing success with basing premiums off of specific vehicles in top tier. See no reason why they wouldn’t bring that model to the lower tiers, and gain some good press by culling all the copy paste from the premium part of the tree.
