The Su-30MK2 should have the N001VE or N001VEP
1 Like
Are US getting SLAM missile since Russia gets KH-59?
the AGM-130 is already better than the Kh-59
it might have a theoretical range of 120km but you cant use it further than ~30km away due to the TV seeker
2 Likes
A feature planned for soviet vehicles only, where the rest of the vehicles in other nations would get it eventually. Colour me surprised when most of the other vehicles havent had it added yet…
can we start making reports for vehicles that have or had such liners irl?
yeah bro 2 agm-130’s vs 6 kh-59’s
Isn’t there only 1 vehicle in the US tree with spall liners and it has absolutely laughable coverage?
From late 2024 until now, War Thunder’s naval mode has received several updates that, in my opinion, haven’t improved the mode; they’ve actually destroyed it.
Before the compartment system, we had a localized, destructible armor system.
In my view, that system was much better: ships were more durable and gameplay felt more balanced.
Then came the compartment system. At first, a single flooded compartment was enough to sink an entire ship. Later, they decided it would take three compartments to make a ship sink.
The system is completely unbalanced because ships don’t all have the same number of compartments. Some, like the Iowa are advantaged, while others like the Soyuz have nearly indestructible ones. Meanwhile, ships like the Yamato are absurdly fragile, a few shells can wipe out a compartment.
This mechanic is just bad; it shortens player survivability and makes battles less enjoyable.
Then came the increase in Gaijin bots (let’s call them that, since they’re not player-account-controlled).
This change is both good and bad. Why?
Because those bots have been made too accurate, turning gameplay into a nightmare.
Coastal AI ships can obliterate players in seconds.
Take the PR-206 bot for example, it can kill anyone effortlessly, with no real counterplay.
They’re meant to make battles feel alive, but players aren’t stupid, this just makes the experience frustrating, especially when these bots shoot down planes from over 10 km away.
The higher bot count has also ruined battleship matches.
They can snipe your turrets from kilometers away, and if you spawn first, you’re immediately targeted and doomed.
Bots destroy compartments as if they were made of paper. You sink, you rage — frustrating experience.
On top of that, kill-stealing by bots has made naval even worse.
It’s not a bug — the kill always goes to whoever hits last.
It’s extremely frustrating when you sink an enemy ship by yourself and a bot fires a single shot just to steal the kill.
Less score means fewer research points — another frustrating loop.
Sure, bots reward the same RP as players, but is it really worth it? I don’t think so.
Then there’s the introduction of anti-air missile ships.
Not exactly new, but the more of them there are, the worse the experience becomes.
Those missiles are anti-aircraft, not anti-ship, yet players abuse them constantly.
There’s no reliable counter except having your own missile ship.
It’s incredibly frustrating to get one-shotted by someone who fires, disappears, and racks up easy kills.
In Enduring Confrontation, it’s even worse, players spam missile ships, fire, quit, and rejoin. Two minutes, four kills, six deaths, and an Iowa spawns.
The arrival of AA missile ships has completely ruined naval gameplay.
(https://youtu.be/qaSbtWQ9g3k)
The removal of the towing cable, a historical and useful mechanic, was another mistake.
Instead of fixing it, you just removed it.
And when players report it as a bug, you claim it’s not reproducible. But it is; spawn in a regular match, run aground, and there it is. You just need to actually play your own game.
And now, the upcoming update feels like the final straw.
In naval battles, repairing is already secondary. The real priorities are fires and flooding.
If you lose one of four main turrets, you don’t need to repair it.
Same for your AA guns.
Forcing crew members to reoccupy repaired modules only to have them destroyed again leads to faster crew loss and earlier death.
This change is clearly meant to make players die faster.
Maybe new players coming from ground battles will like it at first, but once they realize it just makes them die quicker, they’ll hate it too.
Unfortunately, this past year has effectively killed the naval mode by making it more frustrating and less rewarding.
Developers, it’s time to play your own mode before making changes.
Listen to your community, test mechanics properly, and reconsider the aiming system. A suggestion have been asking for that since the new targeting mode was introduced.
This year has truly marked the death of naval mode.
Unwanted mechanics added, good ones removed, you’ve succeeded in driving players away from your own game.
What’s the next surprise you’ll add, the one that finally kills the mode?
3 Likes
it can only carry 4 first of all
second of all the Kh-59 is still TV guided so you will be limited to <20km of track range
1 Like
You need to remember that AGM-130’s sustainer rocket has not enough power to generate lift, that mean that ordinance is loosing altitude with constant rate. As result range is heavy release altitude dependent which mean that to achieve similar range as KH-59 u need to climb way higher while KH only needs to have visual line of sight of target( it should be able fly just with GPS coordinates) and missile is following ground. On other hand AGM-84E can sustain itself on the air but also lack KH-59 ground following ability so it needs to fly on altitude above all obstacles.
thing is that those thing will not really help you in an actual ground match
the Kh-29 will still be the better option over the Kh-59 by a long shot
sure terrain following and all that might be nice but in the end it wont do much for it gameplay wise
you can still loft the AGM-84 a bit which helps
the Kh-59 wont change anything major for GRB imo, it is just a gimick to sell a premium
1 Like
we gonna be able to test out the XF5U-1 in the dev?
1 Like
exocet has been used in a few trailers now, it’s an endless tease.
please… give me… exocet…
Yeap, i was supposed to write UK but it changed it for US for some reason, challengers got some liners, not much but they have them unlike Leclercs or Abramses
1 Like
Gaijin putting liners behind the (literally impenetrable) turret cheeks but not where the actual weakspots are meanwhile leopards and t90s get full UFP+side+roof coverage
so we are not getting the bomber mosquito this patch then and why hasn’t the tornado f3 early been moved down a rating, feels like it does not deserve to be rank 8 it should be rank7 especially being 12.0
Because Gaijin seems to be giving up on trying to “balance” bombers. I guess they don’t know how.
Their arguments about queue times being a potential factor do unfortunately have some legitimacy. I’ve been re-spading low-tier Japanese props this morning, and in Realistic the queues range from 3-7 minutes. As I’m nearly 30, I don’t mind times like this, but an impatient teenager would. A lot.
Now, there is an unconventional solution here that has not been explored beyond “gib EC nao!”
Remove not only the airbase destruction ticket bleed, but also remove the auto-win ticket bleed when the enemy team has lost all its players.
Why would this work? We already have the ticket system, and most bombers can in fact participate in it decently well. They just lack the time in the average match to do so, mainly due to the fighter win condition being rather smothering.
Ideally, ticket values for all objectives should be adjusted to where each can only bleed up to 50% of the ticket bar. Then if nothing else, nonfighters guaranteed have the time and space to matter in every single Air RB match.
Right now, with the mere ability to automatically end rounds regardless of their contributions, both bombers and also ground attackers are functionally irrelevant unless they get lucky and pop an enemy plane (via abusing an airspawn or turret guns makes no difference).
1 Like
Alternatively: Just make the bases better defended, introduce midfield heavy AA batteries at low BRs (E.g. Flak 88 and KS-1) coupled with longer match times.
That’s not going to change much. Unless all plane classes are required to win every match, then people will meta-cluster around whatever is “easiest.”
Your idea need not be an “alternative” either - with attacker and bomber contributions no longer rendered irrelevant by the enemy team faceplanting or headoning like fools, now there would actually be incentive to upgrade the objectives nonfighters have. Such as adding in interesting AAs like this.
But any ideas to improve bomber gameplay will fall short so long as players are able to continue automatically ending matches solely by team deathmatch.
That’s not how this organisation thinks. It’s very short sighted of you to pretend that removing any relevance of bombers will open up anything other than the furtherance of the game becoming a quake-like but with planes. Bombers should be made more relevant, as through their relevance, you create another objective for fighters other than just “Rush the furball and die or take one with you”.