The major problem War Thunder has is the constant tug-of-war between “powerful” and “reliable.” Vehicles that are consistently powerful in-game end up being paper tanks. They don’t suffer from the same mass production simplifications or reliability concerns that real-world counterparts had.
Take the Tiger II 10.5cm, for example — completely fictional. If it were copied 1-to-1 into real life, it would literally explode because of the internal part clipping. Not even joking.
To my second point: the USSR tech tree is a perfect example of how good vehicles get nerfed into oblivion over time. Take the Tu-4 — it started at 6.7 BR and now it’s sitting at 8.0, where it gets sent to the oil king party every match thanks to constant up-tiers.
It’s only 0.3 BR higher, and it can one-shot most vehicles. I’m not even going to start on how it can spam missiles like it’s a CoD killstreak.
When it comes to balance, Gaijin either ignores it, overcorrects, or protects certain vehicles from balance entirely — from the SAV to the entire T-80 family.
LMAO, they literally forgot to raise the BR of the T-80UM2. Like, do you see what I’m saying? This is a giant mess.
Back to the Garford — it’s ruined the entire event. They gave it over 100 extra HP, made it mobile, and now it’s not even being dragged down by what used to be its main flaw.
To start off, I agree with this post heavily, but I’d like to mention that what you have set as paper is decently incorrect, the Maus: sure, it was never assembled until post war, but the Tiger II was very real and so was the Panther (to such an extent US tanks in Germany had to have large signs identifying them as friendlies) the only fictional tanks from those two categories are the Tiger II 10.5 and the Panther II, which got a little buff despite being a napkin drawing (I forgot which of the two that was)
That being said: I don’t think the Garford is really too OP, seeing as it takes a considerable skill to hit the overpressure spots, especially at range, but also that it can be easily killed/disabled if caught quick enough.
Now, as to stuff like the SAV or T-80s, I think that depending on the T-80 it can be OP, take the Swedish T-80U vs the Chinese event T-80U
Swede: Best round is 3BM42, slightly more armour, 11.3
Chinese: Best round is 3BM42, slightly less armour, 10.7
However, that being mentioned: the T-80s (except BVM, that one feels like it’s overperforming at least a bit) aren’t that great, they’re more versatile compaired to the T-72/90 but the T-72 series does better in a few regards.
Alternatively, the SAV 20.12.46, is a little OP in terms of BR, round, and autoloader
However, it has a 4 round ready rack, is an open top, is only able to fire frontally, and has a lesser HE round compared to other tanks (like the M44)
My point is that vehicles extent reliability for performance the panther and Tiger series is on the end of being powerful
The T-80 were mentioned becuase of Gaijins 0.3 br rule (A modification of a vehicle which iscrase survivabilty or gun performance raises the tanks br by 0.3 example? Tiger II, IS-2, KV-1,T-34,Shermans about everything follows that
Don’t know about the engine
but having a worse reverse speed at those speeds isn’t worth a br diffirence also it has a Active protection system so by gaijin rules it should be 12.0
Talking about the China T-80UD/DU1, doesn’t have an APS. And -4 kph reverse speed is a massive disadvantage.
The T-80UM2 has the APS. It doesn’t have thermals, so a worse version of the T-80U meaning a slightly lower BR.
APS’s don’t automatically mean 12.0, 12.0 tanks mean 12.0. An APS doesn’t make the T-55AMD a 12.0 tank.
Its a very basic APS system that can’t even defend against most of the ATGM’s it sees because they attack from above, outside its narrow vertical angles.
Rules? . . . what rules? . . . where are the “rules” for establishing and/or changing BR’s?
You might want to consider . . . it’s a video game . . . for entertainment . . … nothing more. Putting your expectations on the game in no way compels Gaijin to do anything. It is their game, they can do what they want . . our approval is not required. Our participation is appreciated as it keeps the game alive.
May be take a step back, look at the entire game, not just this one small portion that you want to play and have a certain way.
We get to play the game that they give us. As a “gamer” that is what I choose to do. Military “enthusiasts” might look at it differently, more closely and even pick all the nits they can find. But in the end . . . it is still an online video game . . try to enjoy that part. Just my opinion . . .
it’s a thing called balance you may have heard of it i don’t care if you have your not you damm well know you i am goddamm right, Gaijin has established a Balance un-writen rule as BT-7M not being 12.0 is, Yeah it can compete but that doesn’t mean it’s balanced.
(i am gonna threat 0.3 and 0.4 br changes as 0.3 )
Better gun br incease of 0.3
Better armor br incease of 0.3
MORE
Radar br incease of 0.3
Better armor Br incease of 0.3
(I am referiing to the Tiger 10.5cm) Better gun br incease of 0.3
Better turret rotation rate br incease of 0.3
MORE POER br incease of 0.3
Better armor br incease of 0.3
Better gun br incease of 0.3
some specifics may be “wrong” but your correct about paper/prototype tanks being extremely powerful in game, like the TURMS III is the most played tank according to gaijin’s 2024 data
My point is with slight modifications yeah there is one with the IS-2 and IS-1 jumping from 5.7 to 6.3 but my point get across gaijin has proven and basicly said any Slight improvements to a vehicle move it by 0.3 br
You’re just spouting nonsense. Vehicles are balanced relative to other vehicles at the BR. They are not balanced relative to other variants of the vehicle, and there is certainly no “rule” like you think there is. In fact, most of your topic here is unproductive and u evidenced ranting.
