War Thunder is no longer a realistic game

Game Discussion General Discussion
93

Well that may be due to the fact that realism is sort of the only requirement for a simulator.

There is sort of a difference. Realism is a property of media and art. While a simulation is a tool that emulates a system. Simulators/Simulations don’t have to be games, they don’t have to be computer programs, they don’t even have to be physical as there are simulations that are simple mathematical formulas.
So realism is a property of a representation and a simulation is an object itself.

Of course to emulate a system that emulation needs to be realistic. But they are very different things, you can never call a painting a simulation but you can call it realistic.

Realistic comes from realism which is an art/media category that the representation is physically correct… Nothing more nothing less. It doesn’t have to be accurate or historical in any way. One of the most famous examples of realism is a painting of jesus in front of a medieval french castle. Since every tree building and person in the picture are painted physically correct it is realistic, while it is utter nonsense at the same time.

Realism and simulators are clearly defined.

A Simulation is a system that emulates another system faithfully, to a degree that you can train someone on that system or make experiments with that emulation which results hold true for the object that is being emulated (think of digital crash tests).

Realism is an art category where every media falls under where the portrayed objects are physically correct… But again they can be completely inaccurate. So something like a car that is controlled by a joystick is realistic as long as the mechanism hiw thus Control works is physically viable.

All you need to do is apply these Definitions. Does WT GF RB fall under the art/media category Realism? No since mouse aim isn’t physically possible in the real world at least nit the way it works in WT.

Does WT RB GF emulate a tank to a degree you could train a tank crew? No.

The thing is a simulator is even stricter tjan expecting realism. Since our joystick car example would be realistic but not a simulation of a car, since it won’t help anyone to learn how to drive.

Since simulators are always emulation if system you always have to say what they are a simulation of.
DCS isn’t a driving sim but a flight sim. The system emulated is flight.
Just saying dcs is a sim is meaningless, because without a system that is emulated simulations do not exist.

The correct response to “X is a simulation” is always “a simulation of what?”

There are no general simulations, there are only simulations of X. With X being any imaginable system.

Otherwise everything and nothing is a simulation. Since there is a timer im RB GF that works, it is a simulation of a timer… Of course that is useless as a game but it makes it a sim of some sort.
That’s why the concept of a simulation without saying what is simulated meaningless and stupid.

94

I think many people are getting immersive and realistic confused.
I also think when some people suggest realism other people misinterpret that for a complete replication which generally, they don’t. It is either a genuine mistake or kneejerk sarcasm which prevails on this forum unfortunately.

The OP is vague but l here is my take for what it’s worth (very little lol)
Before my time but let’s presume the game was at one point in its history ,WW2 only and two sides. Russia and Germany and say below 4BR or maybe even 3.

At that point in time, you have realism in many ways and equality for the most part. Two sides in a real war using real vehicles of the time that actually did face each other in reality and mostly designed their vehicles in relation to the enemy in question also mostly across the board have balance both in terms of Air and Land.

Around 2 to 3 BR you have all WW2 vehicles and despite uptier struggles you have a similar canon or meta or whatever you want to call it.

Its all WW2 so still you have realism.
So you have realistic and sensible, logical War Thunder and hopefully all on WW2 era maps as well. Great, a dream for many. Maps back then before the great balance wars of 2023 may have favoured one side more than the other but that is life and that is realism.

Many players are saying that was the pinnacle of War Thunder in terms of realism (I wasn’t there but it sounds good). If you think about it, it’s not so much realism as immersion.

There are no infantry present for a start, no static guns or bazooka firing infantry or anti-tank rifles. No breakdowns or mines, no shortage of fuel, you cant catch your tank barrel on a telephone pole etc etc , it is actually a million miles away from literal realism, yet people are happy with the "Realism " the game is showing at this point in its history.

I think this move back to the system WT allegedly had in the early days is what those asking for realism mean not a sim scenario, those were mostly for single vehicles and incredibly detailed even years ago.

Look at the game now.

Multiple nations on one map. An unrelated map at that. Nations that have never even fought a war with vehicles that have never seen service. You have as much as forty years between vehicles when every month of development during WW2 was crucial. This is called an arms race.

Most so called modern weapons or even cold war vehicles have never faced each other either but so many armchair Generals talk on this forum like they did and a straight shootout between them is a foregone conclusion when it’s mostly a fantasy scenario.

So you can see what WT was and what it is now. Only way to gain the realism and immersion to return to the good old days, assuming they were.
Only custom matches will give you that. Maybe more should be made of those.

I dont think when forum members call for realism they mean sim,they are just looking for a gameplay that does not make an adult feel like they are playing in a child’s game with children.
The War Thunder game with mixed up era vehicles on a total unrelated map is like an odd dream or kids playing with WW2 solders in a Wild West fort with no concept of history.

I fail to see why so many players leap to the defence of the way WT is today, why they get so defensive and facetious when everybody should be campaigning for the very same thing and demanding Gaijin deliver it.

I don’t see why early and late era tanks on fitting maps with two sides or even sensible sides is that much of a big ask. If it is a big ask and undoable then Gaijin should come out and tell us so. Stop the speculation and repeated forum posts.

Maybe Gaijin should conduct more survey’s and polls to actually understand what the player base do want but it is the player base themselves that seem the most confused about what they want. Realism is being taken out by a helicopter hiding behind a hill that you will never see and can never fire back at or the M1 vs the T62 or old T72, like Iraq. Nobody wants that.

2 Likes
95

In na see what you mean.

But the entire “they used the ww2 Equipment on both sides” is nit realism. Not even realism in many ways.

It’s simply not what the term means.

The term for that is (historical) accuracy.

And as long as people do not understand what realism is, they will always whine for no reason.

Gaijin only advertises realism not accuracy.
And what people are doing is calling accuracy realism and then demand for it. But their demand is for accuracy not realism… Something gaijin never promised.

This is the problem with these threads.

96

It is . It is about the meaning of realism in people’s minds. Some of then talk about realism but dont even now what realistic would be.

For example, Somebody on another thread was complaining about how Gaijin gave the M1 Abrams a 5 second reload time presumably because it has not got DU armour or something. The fact is the crew of an M1 do reload in 5 seconds and under sometimes, it’s an expectation for them to be able to do that.

Point is people think they are experts when they are talking rubbish and Gaijin listen to them and change the game for them.

97

Sure in that case it is realism vs perceived realism.

But stuff like a tank having the wrong armor thickness, ww2 vehicles fighting cold war tanks.
That has nothing to do with realism and all to do with accuracy.

Still people wan changes on these things on the basis pf realism instead of accuracy.

I mean this thread itself is such an instance. There is nothing about perceived realism here, it’s all about accuracy and has nothing to do with realism.
OP thinking it is about realism just makes him wrong. There is no “his realism” that can apply here since it is so far removed from what realism is.

1 Like
98

In fact, War Thunder has become a tank war with 3 nations

99

I think there are other nations now if WT modeled them correctly. China and Sweden have some good modern tanks, maybe others do I just think it was a mistake letting them enter the game at such early BR. It is not something they did with Israel although Israel is a mess at 6BR.

100

The thing is tho… “focused on game balancing” is that not what the community has been asking for ?

“realistic”

^ Something like that, Gaijin has marketed the game in the past as something like… Battles with Realistic looking Planes, Tanks, and Ships

War Thunder has never been a Real Life simulator, War Thunder is a Game with Realistic components

It never has…

Gaijin will have better access to Russian Documents, so maybe more machines will have better documentation compared to other nations, but the balance of the game is not based off / or around one single nation

As I mentioned, Gaijin will have better access to Russian Documents, so maybe more machines will have better documentation compared to other nations

That does not mean that anything is biased whatsoever, Gaijin takes in Documents from people all over the world, some people have gone to extreme lengths to gain documents and at times at great personal expense

Some members of the community have lived and died doing what they love to help add content, such as the Italian Tech Tree, or the Japanese Ground Forces and many other things

So, Gaijin is not biased, Gaijin does have an open mind and is very player friendly, they have adopted many player made projects as their own to help improve the War Thunder experience

On another note… It is great to see a good Civilized discussion going on, so, Thanks Guys!

3 Likes
101

Much better author than I am.

1 Like
102

Bias balance

T80BVM
T90M
2S38
Pantsir-S1

Yet - some of the things in other nations that is in the same era as the above mentioned is not there. Something basic as the M289A3 round for USA & UK.

UK Air - SAAF Mirage F1 AZ/BZ/CZ, Mirage 3, Atlas Cheetah (all decommissioned, all public info).
UK Boxer IFV

Quick things from the top of my head while I am sitting on a call and reading some replies.

1 Like
103

The main goal is to have a fun game to play

If it was a realistic game at 100%, the term “balancing” would useless

Fully realistic game : player complain about many vehicle are weak
Fully balacing game : player complain about how vehicle are not accurate to reality

Its always a matter of compromise

1 Like
104

Always nice seeing people being civil however generally it’s clear the WT community will always go on and beyond to get what is needed. Even for a very obscure vehicle. Thumbs up

105

Yes, but the standards of which russian sourses and western sources in particullar are used, differ. Also systematic errors, like assuming, that US missile guidance works exactly the same as UdSSR guidance.
And therefore declining equally valid souces.

Yes, I ment the “practices of implementing […] are biased” which includes more than access to sources.
Aslo the selection which vehicles and munitions get implemented. And this includes things like the R27 ER from the early 1990’s, as an “equal” opponent to the AIM 7 M, from 1982. Even though only minor better variants of the AIM 7 exist, that would be more on par, in performance and intoductory date. Also not caring about indroduction, and trying to see everything balanced in a 1 dimensional matchmaker has its biases, like strike jets or bombers being useless in the tdm-like matches we have near top tier.

Which is not the point.

Gaijin is biased (and mentioned above, more esplanation later, if required), but I don’t say, that they don’t introduce player made projects. Also there is selection bias here. There are loads of player projects/ideas and other developer/community communications, that were declined and often for no reason (like the Teamspeak Event between YouTubers and Devs, where everyone, including the translators showed up, but the Devs, years ago). Like ideas how to fix bomber gameplay, which aren’t even commented on.
Importantly, I want to restate, that I don’t think that this bias has a purpose in making anything stronger than something else. But especially with the newest explanations regarding MANPADS, they show that their process of selecting sources and finding out the most objectively true sources/dats, has flaws, and these flaws lead to systematic errors, which results in a bias for some party.
Be it the autoloaders, where the loader basically doesn’t matter, but no autoloader damage is implemented, or the mentioned better access to russian sources.
This is a bias, but don’t mix up bias, and purposly making something better, over something else.

1 Like
106

Forgot about the J39 nerf and F15 nerf?

SAAF J39 having the wrong missiles?

What about the Fox 1 & Fox 2 comparison for NATO VS USSR war birds?

I mean, do you really want us to go into deep detail on how Gaijin holds the USSR tech tree by the hand to just be able to make them compete cause they under perform in game even by paper (manual) design?

1 Like
107

The Moment they made a small russian WWII truck with a AA gun on the open back able to withstand Tank shells AND MG Fire and even being able to kill the German Tank then… that was the moment i said goodbye to the idea of realism. And that was long ago.
I had fun with the little ZIS 12 Truck before, even ( or because ) if i knew i would be dead the moment a tank gets me… that was realistic, added to the suspense of not getting hit at all and being covered… you know, adrenaline. Now… meh. So boring, did not touch that for years. Who drives a ZiS-12 today also hits little kids on the street to feel great.

All other “balance achievements”… during the years, removing the large maps, sniping spots etc…
led to a game that is now neither balanced NOR realistic… i stopped playing, uninstalled the game then a few months ago because i needed more space on the HD and i still keep checking in the forum from time to time if they maybe changed it back… but they dont seem to.

realism, in everything, also gear and Maps, once was the big Plus that set War thunder apart from the rest of similar Games. That is gone now. Whoever likes that… have fun spending meaningless maximum 10 Minutes grinding away in knife fights.

108

Lol did anyone notice until now that the game isn’t realistic lol go to real life and wake up this game will never be real cuz it’s a wtf game lul omg sus

109

Not what i said. Realism even in art isn’t just about how things look. That’s only true for purely visual media.

Realism means that it is represented according to the laws of physics. As long as it is physically possible to be the way it is represented in game, it is to be considered realistic. But it doesn’t mean it’s just looks.

As an example tank guns phasing through objects like buildings breaks physics and is not realistic. A t-34 fighting a leopard 2 does not break the laws of physics and is realistic (although historically nonsense). Since you actually can take a t-34 from a museum and shoot it with a leopard 2.

But it isn’t just looks… Not in an interactive medium. Then the interactions also need to follow physics.

But this is due to the fact that a “real life Simulator” is almost a ridiculous request. That would mean you need to model digestion, Evolution, well pretty much everything.

A simulation is always a simulation of something.

A flight simulator simulates flight (obviously) without saying what is being simulated the word simulator makes no sense. A real life simulation is way to broad a term and seems like a cop out.

Air SB IS(!) A flight simulator. Sadly ground SB isn’t a tank operating simulator.

But lineups shouldn’t habe any bearing on whether something is a tank simulation or not.

110

I’ve honestly never looked at this game as being realistic. A quick googling of almost any tank lets you find a lot of details left out by Gaijin in the name of balance.

1 Like
111

War Thunder was never that realistic and the game probably won’t be 1:1 to real-life mechanics. It’s just a game based on realism but it will never be the same as real life.

113

7-8k banned. 40k accounts were reported. Some research before hand, maybe?