The Suffering Endured By German Tech Tree Players " SİMULATİON WARS "

Game Discussion Simulator Battle
,
63

All historical matchmaking would do is swap Germany with Britain within “the big three” major nations. Doesn’t fix any of the core issues with nation balance as the tech gap between them would ruin hopes of other nations being viable ever. the BR system is the best concept there is, even if gaijin still has it far too compressed

Germany only stands a chance from 1942-44 because of tiger, panther and tiger 2 and then 1985 in a vacuum from leopard 2a4 amidst an army of abrams and strike eagles. Germany wasnt at the bleeding edge from late ww2 until very recently as it was occupied by NATO and USSR so was a mixture of sloppy seconds and working with whatever the british and americans let them tinker with. German wundewaffe is stupendously overhyped in comparison to what other major powers actually had in the 1900s, a lot of Wehraboos/Bundes-Boys forget that because they watched far too many “nazis totally were superior guysss” documentaries on the history channel.

Rest of the time its going to be the British, Americans, and soviets having absolute dominance over significant portions of years due to each of them creating vehicles which were generational leaps of technology at respective times of the cold war.

1948-1965 for britain because of centurion and chieftain with the constant fear of the IS3 and beyond. 1965-1980 for russia because of T-64 until abrams arrives. america from 1985 as F-15, F-14 and soon the F/A-18 own the air until 2008 as leopard 2 comes into its own and Eurofighter repossesses the skies from the US

Hardly touched on air, i think its pretty obvious that the US would dominate everywhere post 1949 other than a couple innovative british empire and soviet designs here and there until Eurofighter and rafale awaken and end the absolute dominance.

Naval… well thats Britain until about 1943 and then the USA makes everyone elses navy look like the local sea scouts dingy fleet. there was never any contest there

64

Completely agree. Britain is one of my more played nations (second one I started behind Japan), and a lot of tank technology that was made/popularized by Britain usually gets thrown up to a br where it is paired with much later opponents with the same tech.
Of course this is unfortunately necessary for balance, as the only vehicles that would stand a chance against historical Cent III would be some T54s and maybe Pattons. (This is excluding ridiculous cases, which end up happening to anyone that isn’t US, RU, or DE)
German main historical matchmaking discussions are 99% “muh Tiger II, Jagdtiger, and Fernando”

2 Likes
65

completely fair for gameplay. could you imagine centurion mk3 running around when the strongest peer to it would be a m46 or something equally weak in comparison

leopard 1 would be facing the T-64 and sweden… lets not think of poor little sweden for this.

muh tiger when “inferior” british tanks look in their general direction in the real world
image

Hole_created_on_King_Tiger_hull_by_165mm_HESH_round_2

67

Sweden with historical BRs and ammo would actually be fine(ish)

the problem is that every vehicle with the 37 mm has ammo from ‘49

1 Like
68

Looking strictly at Swedish things (not Finland), half of rank 1 would be ok, with only the 2 SPGs and SPAA being reduced to worthlessness.
Rank 2 would be decent, losing the PVKV II, SAV '46, and PBV301.
Every single rank 3 would be useless except maybe the DT because it’s reload and mobility could allow it to flank, despite being a '45 design.
It is ok at that point on, but have fun getting there with only captured Finnish tanks and still below-average mediums

2 Likes
69

The problem is Gaijin has all the L-60s in a hypothetical 1949 modification equipped with APDS. So the entirety of rank 1 is worthless with a few exceptions. I am currently working on the big 3 tech tree’s WW2 vehicles with historical BRs…it’s taking a long time to get through. Anyways this is actually getting off topic so I’d take it to PM or something

2 Likes
74

Unironic “germany suffers” in 2026 is crazy

1 Like
76

Since they communicate using the latest generation of emojis—much like monkeys—they mistake long, written texts for the output of ChatGPT; it’s perfectly typical. I suppose we’ve just grown old.

Fragmented, short sentences, nonsensical replies—is there any way to report these people?

They don’t have a single coherent idea; all they’re after is provocation.

78

Does the “best” one always win? You’re lying through your teeth. Do you actually think they’ll meet head-on? Are you that out of touch with how the game works?

The EBR 1954 is supposedly “so bad” that it was added to the game as an event vehicle—oh, the tragedy! Besides, the Puma has plenty of counterparts among Russian, British, and American armored vehicles—the Boarhound, the AEC Mk II, and so on.

It’s painfully obvious that you don’t play simulation battles. That little EBR can zip around, undetected, and reach the edge of the enemy’s spawn point in no time; from there, it can easily ambush sluggish Tigers and even clunkier Panthers. The only thing that could potentially stand up to it is the Sd.Kfz. 234/4, but that lacks a turret and has paper-thin armor. Even if they were to meet face-to-face, the turrets on the Panther and Tiger aren’t exactly snappy, whereas the EBR’s turret traverse speed is incredibly fast—it can aim with ease. Plus, if they happen to run into each other near some small hills, the EBR can reposition itself in a heartbeat.

If it were up to your crowd, we’d still have the original, broken state of bombers—we’d basically be buzzing around like the Nebuchadnezzar in The Matrix.

And don’t get me started on the whole KV-1 debate; most Axis players simply don’t know how to play—they don’t even know where to aim! What actually matters is how these vehicles perform when they clash on the front lines.

Honestly, I see this as some sort of historical vendetta. If it were up to these people, they’d throw a T-54 against us, too—they just keep stubbornly adding vehicles with superior performance to the tech trees. I’m honestly baffled as to how they haven’t tried to claim that the IS-3—that absolute monster of a tank—is “equal” to the Tiger II. Back in the early days of the game, the Yak-3P and the Bf 109 G-2 had the same Battle Rating (BR)—they used to absolutely wreck us in Simulator Battles. I also remember times when the T-34-85 was present in matches, yet the Panther series—despite being available—was stubbornly left out.

There isn’t even a difference between the Tiger I and the E variant; I honestly don’t understand how you can even use that as an argument. In my country, we have a term for people like you: “cunning in a devious, petty way” (şark kurnazı).

It’s truly unbelievable. The level of shamelessness here is just staggering.

79

I wonder… what was in that message.

80

Elaborate?
USSR doesnt have anything but event ones to counter Pumas.

Puma is quite literally not much bigger than EBR. Only EBR smaller is 1951 and its garbage at such a high br its a joke.

3 Likes
81

there is a huge difference in if i can demolish it with my Jumbo or not. In many different scenarios the cupola makes HUGE difference.

back in the day it was. And it was cool. IS-3 aint that good anymore.

Open your eyes then and scan surroundings. Game shouldnt be about you being the best of the best because you have Tiger. Panther is MUCH more usable than EBR nowadays.

1 Like
83

It is the EBR’s job to avoid this. It is your job to force the EBR into the frontal engagement it wanted to avoid. Using heavies to perform counter-flanking tactics is a very old opening to a match and it is an essential part of securing map control.

The Tiger E is also ideally suited to this task because it has more than adequate mobility for a heavy.

If you spawn into a match, see France on the enemy team and maybe even recognise individual players from previous matches in that session, and you still don’t secure your flank, your issue is located in your skill.

Yes yes. Everyone’s a liar except you.

Learn to read. I said it would be bad if it played against its historical contemporaries. Which is correct. It is perfectly balanced in WT precisely because there is no historical matchmaking here.

Nah man, either you are for historical MM or you are against historical MM. None of this “rules for me and not for thee” stuff. If the EBR needs to move up to fight cold war tanks, then the Puma moves up to fight Pershings and the Pz 38t moves up to fight KV-1s. Either or. Tertium non datur.

It can do this and more, sure, if your team is not paying attention.

… Unlike the EBR, which has amazing armour, right?

Anything that gets to use APHE is automatically more lethal on a flank than the EBR due to the absurd ahistorical post penetration damage of APHE.

Yes. Perhaps we might even… Base our matchmaking around that concept!

But it is up to them, it’s their videogame.

T-54s were in advanced development before the war was even over, so under historical MM you would see them indeed. And you would see KV-1s in your Czech tanks. But Gaijin has helpfully put KVs out of the reach of such minnows, so what vendetta are we talking about?

Because they set BRs according to performance.

Better engine, no cupola weakspot, no mine launcher on the hull to screw up your gun depression while angled.

But I also have flaws! 😁

84

The BA-11, or perhaps that BT series, are actually quite good.

In my view, you’re missing the point—I wasn’t providing examples [in the way you seem to think]. I’m talking about things like the T-44 tank, the 3BM60 ammunition (which entered service in 2016), or the T-90A (which entered service in 2004) being pitted against a 1985-model Leopard A4 using 1989-era ammunition, and so on.

Frankly, you have no standing to even be part of this conversation.

85

If you want historical MM, put your money where your mouth is and go fight KV-1s in a Pz 38t. Show us that it’s viable.

That’s rich, coming from a guy that has trouble killing EBRs in a Tiger E.

2 Likes
86

at their own 1.3 BR lol. The only “good” BT is event one for many $ and yet Puma has some things better than it.

So… You`re talking about BASICALLY nothing? Because none of those problems make sense. T-44 is quite literally worse than ANY tank of Germany you can get around those BRs, as even Panthers easilly deal with its weak turret. 3BM60 is third WORST top tier munition, and the 90A is only better than T-72 “Arena”. Yet it has higher rating than 2a4 you said so much about.

2 Likes
87

So, what you’re saying is that the EBR 1954 can’t compete against its direct counterparts, but it can perform well against inferior models designed with different concepts in mind.

You’re living in a fantasy world. Look at what’s actually happening in the game—infantry and anti-ambush tactics don’t matter at all; in this game, anti-aircraft guns are blowing up tanks—wake up!

Because German players are destined to get crushed.

Let me give you a quick history lesson: when the Germans encountered the T-34, they put the long-barreled Panzer IV into production. When that wasn’t enough, the Panther series entered service, and in response, the Soviets introduced the T-44 series. In other words, armies modernize their vehicles based on the situation at the front.

Ultimately, my take is that vehicles with superior performance were added to the game—likely because good players often gravitate toward the Axis, or because the Axis tech tree is more popular—to ensure the opposing side doesn’t get completely steamrolled.

It’s the same reason why the Italian G.2, G.14/AS, and P-47 D-30 are at absurdly low Battle Ratings (BR), and why the French “autoloading monsters” are kept at such low BRs. These “perks” were handed out just to encourage people to play the Italian and French nations. Nobody bothers to ask the “idiot” German players what they think.

Your last sentence actually sums it all up. You clearly have no shame. It’s a good thing I’m aware of how things really are; otherwise, I might have actually believed what you were saying.

88

They didnt, they put StuGs to production to last first year, and only then thought “okay 50mm is all round garbage, lets make panzer 4 with same cannon as Stug”.

which never saw service. You need to learn history a bit more.

Which was made to tilt the weights to their own sake, in other words, make biased balance. And that is not how you make a balanced multiplayer game.

89

Correct!

Real warfare is much more complex than WT, and in WT we have a very narrow amount of tasks to carry out, compared to the ones needed on a real battlefield.

This is why we get MM based on performance instead of date.

Yes, War Thunder is a videogame, that’s the point.

Notwithstanding the fact that you are greatly oversimplifying the development history in question, the core unaddressed question remains, what does this have to do with the game?

Open statshark and check for yourself, the EBR is hardly taking over the meta in any game mode.

… Yes, there’s no infantry after all.

Hahahahahaha

1 Like
90

In other words, the T44 was designed for fantasy—to be worn with fantasy lingerie.

Thanks; I don’t want to keep writing to you—I think you’re right.