Unfair Tank Sim Battles

Game Discussion Simulator Battle
,
1

Hello, Today I will share my thoughts about another problem. Since I will approach the events from my own perspective, you can make corrections.

As you know, in the Axis Allied wars, tanks produced between 1950-55 are used in battles where the Tiger 2 tank is present (let’s state that it was designed according to the conditions of the period). Some of them are tanks designed with the Korean War in mind, with a loading speed of 4 seconds (!). As a result, our heavy vehicle tanks are crushed in every sense against these models. I am not even mentioning the Panther tank.

In another game range, in the battles I entered with the Leopard 2a4 produced between 1985-92, we encountered the T90A model, which entered service in 2004. And it must be God’s wisdom that sabots bounce off every shot even at close ranges. I am not even mentioning the Object monster. At least it was designed in 1991-92. The equivalent of the t90a is the a5 or if we push it a bit, the a6.

Look, this is literally called immorality. Stop treating us like idiots. There are tanks produced in those times that balance these famous felines. Don’t make fun of our intelligence.

My advice to friends who think like me is not to participate in tank battles at this level with a tank. Participate with a plane or helicopter and sabotage the game.

google translate

4 Likes
2

You do realise every other nation suffers the same yeah? The IS2 faces Cold War tanks as well for example. Its not an issue exclusive to Germany. If this game were historically accurate, the M22 Locust would face Tigers.

If you can’t kill a T90A, then get better. Its LFP is easily penned by the 2a4 so idk how you’re struggling…

3

Let’s not dilute the topic.

Also, our only problem is not the T90. We have a 1950-2 monster that fires every 4 seconds.

It seems the players are doomed.

4

But everyone knows the M22 could totally take the tiger ll. Unlike all the other vehicles the M22 is a low br to nerf it by putting it against other fast mobile doom pew pews so it can’t abuse the higher br targets due to it’s mobility xD

5 Likes
5

Are you going to say what it is or just keep saying this to make it sound much worse than it most likely is?

3 Likes
6

Year of production means absolutely nothing.

Tiger II was hugely over engineered (which was a major problem for the Germans) but iirc, it took something like 5 Shermans to take out 1 Tiger II. There is a reason why the Tiger II is the BR it is and in the GSB line-up it is (vs post-ww2 / korean war era) tanks, is because that is how balance works. Otherwise you’d have 16x Tiger IIs just steam roll 16x Shermans and that would just be boring and unfair for the Shermans.

Again… but this time, even more prudent. Soviet tech is like 20 years behind western tech, It would be a total massacre if it was actually era based.

7

In response to our friend who is unaware of the tanks in the game, I ask him to look at the Loriene 40t and Char 25 tanks.

I can also recommend the T26 equivalents to our Sherman lover friend. The T26 itself is also very useful.

And what I don’t understand is that some of them are really new to the game.

Friends, you probably don’t understand. Tiger 2 has tank models that were designed in that period or in the technology trees in the game and can stand against it.

But in the French tree, tanks designed or produced between the years 1950 are stubbornly included.

If I have to summarize for some friends who have trouble understanding, think of the T54 1949 50 51 models playing against Tiger 2s.

You can adapt the same practice to the Leopard 2A4 and T90A models.

This is an obvious disgrace. I hope these mistakes are corrected soon.

8

If you think the Germans get it bad try playing for Britain. Observe as your slow lumbering Tortoise gets murdered by Axis time travelling tanks lobbing HEAT-FS against your WW2 tank. Or try the Caernarvon which not only has that to deal with but also APDS rounds that will literally shatter on the rear of a Jagdtiger at point blank range.

At least you have OPHE you can cheese your way to victory with. The poor British tankers actually have to aim and pray to god our rounds don’t randomly shatter.

Long story short remove HEAT-FS and HESH lobbers from WW2 tiers, also I know it’ll never happen but nerf APHE.

1 Like
9

cromwell good :=)

10

Not really.

It fights PZ IV(H)'s that reliably kill it in one hit no matter the angle whilst the Cromwell at times struggles to even penetrate the Panzer. It wouldn’t be a problem if the maps allowed the Cromwell to actually flank but instead they’re almost always forced to fight head on against cannons that nuke them.

It’d be a more even playing field if APHE performed anywhere close to reality but it doesn’t.

11

Do not try to find realism in this game. It is a very big mistake to look for such aspect. Just let it go and play GHPC or join the army. I see the Leo on the range every day and I can tell for certain that top tier tank gameplay is not in the slightest touch with reality in WT.

20241113_075106
20241113_0751061920×909 114 KB

3 Likes
12

Game was better in these aspects years ago.

Less “future” unbalanced tanks.
No minor full of clones nations.
Bigger maps, where armor meant something.

It was mobility vs caliber vs armor as it was IRL.

Now they made the game a one-shot counterstrike action in narrow streets.
Artillery shooting at point-blank range and ATGMs vs 1943 tanks is a joke. Not funny joke.
Same with 1990s SPAAs vs 50s aircraft with dumb bombs.

Game digs itself deeper and deeper.

So many types of vehicles and weapons just couldn’t be balanced in such restricted gameplay on a tiny map with silly objective such as capture 2 or 3 circles.

7 Likes
13

High tier GSB (Tiers V and above) should be an EC fight on the full sized air maps, with voluntary selection for the lower tiers.

  • Ground vehicles can spawn on any friendly base, but all aircraft must spawn at the airfields/carrier.

  • The grids with one big city or several small villages are permanent ground capture points, while the EC generated ground battles and air caps also push the match closer to completion.

  • Spawns are now separated by considerable distances and always objectively changing (Excluding Airfields which will have substantial ground and air defenses), so even a dedicated group of spawn campers wouldn’t have the ability to lock down a team.

Everything gets a function and actual options in how to play, can maneuver in ways that actually mean something, and would grow the capability of high-tier players entirely by either active learning how to do well.

14

If I may offer a slight correction, it’s not accurate to suggest that 5 sherman’s were required to defeat a Tiger II. To paraphrase Nicholas Moran, American tank platoons consisted of 5 tanks, therefor it took 5 shermans to do anything, because you don’t break up a platoon of tanks into smaller units, they work together or not at all so to speak. It’s not that the combined strength of 5 shermans was required to defeat a Tiger II.

15

It’s naive of you to think we ‘don’t understand’, people have been complaining about the Tiger II having to fight cold war vehicles since before the M46 received Heat FS in November 2015.

There’s absolutely no reason why the Tiger II should face vehicles from a specific time period. Look at it’s armour and firepower, it far exceeds the requirements for facing anything produced by the Allies and fielded in the War. It clearly wasn’t designed to face existing WW2 vehicles it was designed to make allied WW2 vehicles obsolete. I think it’s perfectly equipped to face anything in it’s current BR spread.

1 Like
16

I can turn enemy tanks into colanders with the French monster that shoots every 4 seconds (maybe shorter in the gold star crew?) even if I have an E 100 tank in front of me.

As you know, these guys usually cluster in an area, and imagine catching these bulky tanks from the flank. And the guys who play well put on a great show.

These King Tiger tanks in question currently have no chance against the French monsters on the tank simulation line, which is at aircraft level 5 - 6.3.

Fast vehicles are much more successful against these bulky vehicles and they put on a show in professional hands.

Guys, I say 4 seconds (!), I mean against late WW2 tanks. Get your minds straight.

And I don’t understand why the developers added these vehicles to the game.

Then, the guy called wtf auf e100 should also be added to the game. :)

As far as I can see, the axis class generally struggles against better vehicles that come after it.

and allied tanks in the 10.7 band also have to struggle against soviet t90s.

Also, the producers seem to be focusing on modern vehicles, they should work on the balance and map styles in the saturation of this vehicle.

Yes, the game is loved and played. However, some situations can be annoying.

I do not play tank battles in the leopard a4 and 5 - 6.3 aircraft entry band. I only get the ju 288 in the 6.3 band and burst out laughing. If you have an imbalance, protest it this way.

I also have something else to add

A vehicle like the T90 is still put as a rival in simulation wars where the Leopard A4 is present.

It’s a joke.

Let me state it clearly to some friends who are disabled in understanding.

Friends, the T90A entered service in 2004, but for some reason we are trying to cope with this monster with a tank produced between 1985-92.

While this tank can easily penetrate armor without any aiming care, we have to shoot from the bottom even with the A6.

The equivalent of the T90A is the A5. or intermediate models.

This is called immorality.

Also, what really upsets me are the friends who take this situation for granted, who I think are well-intentioned, but whose brain development is not complete. In fact, they can even call me a waste of time.

In other words, whatever War Thunder does to these friends who are not fully developed is appropriate.

Do not play, do not let them play.

17

Simulator battles need a complete rework. I primarily play simulator battles (Cold War mostly) and the pool of vehicles that we can choose from is very questionable for all the brackets and I’ve tried my best to find a logic to justify it but I just can’t find a logical explanation.

It’s not based on timeline.

  • If it was, T-90A, Leopard 2A4 and AMX-32 and Z-19 wouldn’t be in the same bracket (Currently they’re all in the 10_2 bracket and France simply doesn’t stand a chance as they’ve barely got anything to compete with Russian tanks in that bracket other than Leopard 2A4)

It’s not based on capablitity.

  • If it was, you wouldn’t have things like MARS 15 or VBC with LRF and darts AND scout drones in the 8_2_2 bracket, or CLOVIS in both 8_2_2 and 8_2 bracket, where nothing other than the Clovis itself has LRF.
  • In 8_2_2 You have SIDAM which has IRST lock and can wipe out everyone in the sky with the lead indicator.
  • The damned PT-76-57 with stablizer AND LRF wouldn’t be in the 8_2 bracket where NOTHING has neither stablizer or LRF (other than CLOVIS that has LRF)
  • Somehow you can use BO 105 CB-2 and HKP9A (which have better optics) in the 9_2 bracket, but you’re not allowed to use HKP9A (FC) and the German BOs with HOT missiles and you have to use them in the 10_2 brackets and go against Tunguskas and 2S38s.
  • And lots more inconsistencies.

It’s not based on battleratings.

  • It doesn’t need an explanation. You face tanks at 2 or sometimes 3 BRs higher than you, just look at the simulator battleratings (which don’t mean anything anyway as the vehicles you can use are predetermined)
  • There are some other instances like the Swedish CV9035 being in the 9_2 bracket, yet somehow the French one is in the 10_2 bracket, which keeps me wondering why, considering they’re the same vehicle in the same battle rating.

It’s not based on rank.

  • Rank 6 MBTs such as Chieftain Mk 10, AMX-32, T-72A, MBT-70, XM1, ZTZ96, CM11, OF-40 MTCA, etc. face late rank 7 vehicles in the 10_2 bracket.
  • Yet, you don’t get OTOMATIC, T-80U, T-72B3, M1A1 (normal one), IPM1, TKX (P), Type 90 and Type 90B in the same bracket, and they have to face rank 8 vehicles.

It’s all over the place. I don’t understand the logic behind all of this. To me it looks like they just made a mess and keep adding things on top of this mess and just make it worse. Unfortunately I can’t speak for WW2 brackets as I haven’t played them much, but I remember in 1_1 you get to use Puma as Germans, and in one match I managed to troll the entire enemy team and get 10 kills with it, so there are problems with WW2 brackets as well.

I should also address the elephant in the room called “First spawn CAS”. Right now playing top tier or high tier ground simulator is more like playing air simulator but on a much smaller scale, and teams simply get wiped with the AGM spam in the first few minutes of the game. I’ve legit played games in which out of 10 players, only me and another player were on the ground, everyone else either jumped in a plane or helicopter.
In other words, playing ground in those two brackets is simply optional. Exhibit A:

Screenshot_2025-01-02_203729
Screenshot_2025-01-02_2037291917×373 351 KB

What needs to be done:

  • What we need is a complete rework of ground simulator. If we’re staying with the same system, we need at least 1 (or ideally 2) more cold war brackets, to fix the issue of some vehicles facing vehicles 2 BRs higher (like AMX-32 facing T-90A or MBT-2000).

OR

  • A complete rework, where we would have actual battle ratings for ground vehicles and everyday the BR moves down by 0.3 or 1.0 BR, similar to air simulator, but at shorter intervals.

  • First spawn CAS, doesn’t matter if it’s helicopter or plane, needs to be removed. Make it the same system as EC naval, as in, you need to gather a specific amount of “aircraft spawn points” to be able to spawn aircraft. This way ground vehicles simply won’t get wiped before they can even get to capture points or a safe position.

  • Helicopters should start with their engines off, similar to planes.

These are the most urgent problem to fix this great game mode. Ground simulator is amazing, but it’s plagued with issues.