The "Historical" Hypocrisy: Stop Hiding Behind "Realism" When It Suits Gaijin

Game Discussion General Discussion
1

I’ve spent some times compiling technical data and submitting Bug Reports to know exactly how this system works. And frankly, the logic used to accept or reject weapon loadouts has become completely dumb.

We need to address the elephant in the room, War Thunder is no longer a strict simulator or realistic games. Let’s be honest with ourselves. At this point, it’s a high-fidelity arcade game. Yet, the developers keep clinging to “Historical Accuracy” only when it serves as a convenient excuse to nerf or neglect specific vehicles.

In the below 9.3 bracket, including props, I see export or captured/leased vehicles constantly denied historically viable weapons and systems because “Nation X didn’t technically procure that specific stock". You reject our reports citing lack of procurement documents. Fine.

But then, look at higher BR

Suddenly, that strict adherence to procurement history vanishes. We have high tier vehicles running around with advanced missiles and system capabilities that their operator nations never touched, purely because the airframe is capable of it. Why? Because if you didn’t give them those “theoretical” buffs, they would get slaughtered in the current meta, just like American F-5C that never had additional CM launchers entire the service.

This double standard exposes the core problem, Extreme BR Compression.

You are forced to invent non-historical loadouts for high tier vehicles because the Matchmaking spread is so compressed that these planes cannot function without them. You are balancing via “What If” scenarios because you refuse to decompress the BR ceiling.

As someone who understands how game balance loops work, this is just lazy design. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim “Historical Accuracy” to deny QoL updates to lower-tier games while simultaneously turning high into a fantasy free-for-all just to keep the queue times low.

If this game is going to lean into its Arcade nature, which it clearly is, then Decompress the BRs. So that aircraft can actually be balanced based on their performance, rather than arbitrarily handing out or denying weapons based on a rulebook you only read when you feel like it.

Stop cherry-picking history to patch up a broken matchmaker. Decompress the game, or at least be consistent with your own rules.

19 Likes
2

historical adherence should be strived for when possible, unfortunately it often isnt possible at higher BRs for a number of reasons

also I believe it just works differently for tanks and planes
planes can get anything that was technically possible, tanks just dont get that

2 Likes
3

What’s even worse is that they’re not even consistent with everything.

You have British and German phantoms not using the Aim-9Ls that they used in service, or the Mig-29s lacking their R-73s. Then there’s also stuff like the F-5C which you mentioned, but also the Malaysian Su-30 which never used KH-38s of any sort.
Or take the whole Su-30SM2 and J-10C situation where one gets engines it may not have ever mounted, and the other is forced to use an older and weaker engine model despite photographic proof of a more powerful engine being installed.

Gaijin needs to either:

  1. Create weapon loadouts based on technical capability only, and not change them unless it’s stated they are incompatible.

  2. Go purely based off of what the vehicle used in service.

However both of those should be within reason, and I think it’s fair to limit some A2A loadouts for the sake of balance/enjoyment. There’s also the option of adding foldered later variants that can use upgraded missiles and such.

6 Likes
4

Some cases are understandable because it may be nightmare for balancing but, most things are not.

Taking Switzerland’s F/A-18 as an example, it carries the AIM-9M in the game, but this is simply incorrect. In the real life, the P-4/P-5 variants were available instead of the Lima and Mike variants.

2 Likes
5

Of the many things that could be wrong about the Su-30SM2, the one thing that isn’t in doubt at all is the fact that it received stronger engines.

6

Never was tbh

1 Like
7

will always maintain that the battle stations pacfic and IL2 sturvimok are more closer to sims than this game and DCS is better to honestly F14 is the goat there

8

When players want buffs based on historical loadout, Gaijin refuse “cuz balance”; and when they want buffs for balance, Gaijin refuse “cuz realism”. Boy is it that hard to get a consistent standard.

10

My favourite one is still the F-89D Scorpion, which has access to M439D airburst rockets from 1979 (only ever cleared for use on helicopters and the OV-10 Bronco) when the actual aircraft itself retired in 1969.

1 Like
11

Hell I dog fought a F-89D yesterday, turns better than my MiG-9 Late and had seemingly infinite rockets to shoot at us.

We eventually outnumbered him, I was mad at how the F-89D has more than twice of engine power than MiG-9 at first, and then realized that thing didn’t have guns…

12

This isn’t really a issue of how something’s modeled but the absolute lack of consistency when it comes to adding Anti-Ship missiles, it’s just a personal peeve since I like Air launched AShMs despite the fact they’re basically useless in conventional gameplay.

US: Nothing (Should get Harpoon A/Ds)
DE: AS.34s (Literally only on one event vic despite being on other things iirc)
SU: Nothing (Kh-31A and it’s subvariants, Kh-35, Kh-41 (for those who know shhh it’s just silly)
GB: Sea Eagles on a respectable amount of platforms (some still missing them…)
JP: ASM-1/2s on F-2s and have yet to be seen on anything else
CN: YJ-81Ks… on JH-7… and not on the other two for literally zero reason? (F-16A MLU Harpoons when?)
IT: Nothing (Although from what little I know, I don’t think they really had much for air launched AShMs in service)
FR: Nothing (Where Exocet? We’re getting the marinized Rafale and still no Exocet? bleh…)
SE: Nothing (RBS-15 where? Where are my silly weird looking doohickies for the A32?)
IL: Nothing (Gabriel, but I’ll admit I know jack on israeli stuff so not entirely sure

13

War Thunder is a simulator. Pretending it’s not is fine for you to do, but when your pretending impacts others’, it’s not kind.
Just because War Thunder has an arcade game mode doesn’t make the game itself arcade.
I can make an arcade game mode in DCS, that game is still a simulator despite that ability.

Your entire post provides a total of 0 double standards, and 0 instances of hypocrisy.

1- War Thunder has no rule of procurement, and never has.
War Thunder’s only rule with weapon suggestions is compatibility.

2- There are no non-historical loadouts on any aircraft.
For it to be non-historical, the loadout would have to not be in any manual, or never photographed, or other lack of evidence. Having any evidence makes it a historical loadout for that aircraft. This isn’t my take either, it’s never been “my take”.
My only take on this matter is for people to use words as well as possible to portray their feelings in an accurate manner.

If you’re going to criticize a game, at least be accurate.
Using words that mean different things than how they’re used in your post doesn’t help you or anyone.

14

I don’t wanna start a long debate on what makes a game a “simulator” or not, but I feel like if they were gonna call it that, they’d mention it in the registration slideshow… instead of just “Comprehensive Vehicular Combat Game”

You’d think if it was a simulator, they’d outright say it, instead of just calling it a game…

(one more edit because why not)

Hell if it’s a simulator like you say, you’d expect the word be mentioned at least once in the “About the game” section on WT’s official website.

15

Well, as evidenced in the post, the word “simulation” has misinterpretations. Most game devs that make realistic games don’t claim to be simulators, even though it’d be an accurate description.
I feel like people need to watch MGS2’s AI Colonel 4th wall breaking rant.
“This is a kind of role playing game.”

Either way, I would’ve dropped the words “hypocrisy”, “double standard”, and “simulator” in this topic myself.

Talking about how Gaijin’s consistency to compatibility makes him feel like his favorite vehicles don’t get confirmed compatible weapons he wants that aren’t currently available, and that’s upsetting to him would be far more powerful of a statement.

It’d be on top of all else… accurate.

Cause do not get me wrong: I am not here to dismiss anything. All I want is for @VF21_Freelancers to accurately represent his feelings, and support his ability to voice his concerns.

I just don’t like when posts have misused words… I especially don’t like it when I make those mistakes myself. XD

16

The actual game data and loadout configurations prove that statement is factually incorrect.

If “Compatibility” was the only rule, then there is no explanation for the Soviet P-47D.

Mechanically, that aircraft is perfectly compatible with US-made bombs. It uses standard US pylons. Yet, in-game, it is restricted to Soviet FAB bombs. Why? Because of Procurement and Logistics. The devs modeled it based on what the Soviets actually had on hand, not just what the pylon could theoretically latch onto.

Look at the Soviet P-39 and P-63.

They have dedicated ammunition belts that differ from their US counterparts. These are specifically tailored to reflect Soviet usage doctrine and available supplies. Again, Historical Usage trumped “Compatibility.”

And look at the Taiwanese F-104G.

The F-104G did not have dedicated wiring for countermeasures from the factory. It required a specific, post-production retrofit to install the dispensers. For years, this was denied because the devs demanded proof of that specific retrofit procurement. They didn’t just say “Well, the airframe can be modified to accept it.” They demanded the receipt.

So, when it comes to Mid-Tier and later, “Procurement” and “Actual Usage” clearly matter.

But then, look at how High Tier vehicles are treated, specifically the Japanese F-15J.

The F-15J in-game carries the AIM-9M.

But here is the reality: The JASDF never procured or operated the AIM-9M. They transitioned from the AIM-9L directly to the domestic AAM-3.

Mechanically, yes, the F-15J can fire the 9M. But historically, it never did because Japan didn’t buy it.

If the rules applied to the Soviet P-47 were applied here, the F-15J should be stuck with the AIM-9L until it unlocks the AAM-3. But it isn’t. It gets a missile it never used, purely to fill a progression gap or balance the aircraft before it gets the AAM-3.

Do you see the contradiction?

• Mid-Tier and later: “You didn’t buy the ammo, so you don’t get it (Soviet P-47, ROC F-104G).” → Rule: Historical Procurement.

• High Tier: “You didn’t buy the ammo, but you get it anyway because the plane can fire it (F-15J AIM-9M).” → Rule: Theoretical Compatibility.

The logic currently in the game isn’t consistent. It changes based on the Battle Rating.

Strict historical restrictions are applied to older aircraft while High Tier turns into a “What-If” playground to patch up the mess caused by BR Compression. If the game was properly decompressed, we wouldn’t see this double standard in how loadouts are assigned.

17

I mean I get it for some vehicles, since they may just suck and be a nightmare to balance, but most vehicles are no doubt treated differently. I do get for modern vehicles things are harder to come by but still there should be a more consistent way of aligning the weaponry and stats of vehicles at specific BRs. Although the only issue is the bar is still afloat between nations since for example Chinese vehicles’ evidence will be far harder to find and this almost exclusively neglects them from having good performances. That is the serious issue Gaijin needs to address, but I do get it is a hard one to do so.

1 Like
18

BR Compression is a very big problem.

Though the way I see it the game had a spike and then dipped back down again. Now there is a desperate attempt at giving everyone everything to make everyone happy, including more anime things.

In the end it will backfire and the game will either a. Go back to its roots or b. collapse and lose its following. Not like we have not seen it happen in many other major titles at all…

1 Like
19

Tbh Current F-14s aren’t that good because ED and Heatblur nerfed AIM-54s.

Personally, I mainly fly the F-14 in DCS and accept nerfs, but on PvP servers like GS servers or Contention Modern servers, the F/A-18C and F-16C are far better if you want good times.

Also, I hate Jester AI because of ejecting :/