Warthunder needs a hard divide between rank 5 and 6 (potential suggestion)

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
22

two top tiers and bottom tiers would be really crap.

move the weirdly modern things out of their respective BRs (gepard and similar from 8.3, Ratel from 6.7, most SPG artillery) significantly higher so they cant abuse ww2 tanks having no armour to a 155 HE, HEAT or handle radar lead indicating spamcanons

1 Like
23

Obviously, in Korea, a lot of props and some jets met.

Which is obviously not what history says, no matter “vets in Berlin” or not.

24

All it would really mean is vehicles like the Maus would never get uptiered, and vehicles like the M60A1 (AOS) would never get downtiered.

That would suck for stock grinding, but I think the benefits of this change would outway the negatives causes by the stock grind.

Although if it was my choice, the whole modification system would be removed from WT, and used only for things like dozerblades.

I can’t think of a way to move the Gepard/Gepard clones and LRF artillery high enough that it doesn’t ruin WW2 BRs, without being so high that the vehicles themselves suck.

With my hard divide idea, the Gepard/Gepard clones would be at 9.0 or 9.3, which means they would be facing 9.0/3 aircraft which who they should be facing anyways imo.

25

Fair

26

That can be solved by decompression.

In air, you jump instantly from meteors/vampires/J29s/F-84s right to Mig-15s/Sabres/G.91s with nothing in between. It’s like if ground went right from Tiger II Hs to Cent mk3s and comparable tanks with nothing else in between.

1 Like
27

Yeah i get why you think so

28

It will suck for everyone. Whatever BR is one lower than top, will almost always be uptiered to the top BR. And whatever is at the bottom BR will always be uptiered too. It’s just a bad idea, especially since it can be solved entirely by BR decompression.

I agree.

29

The best we could realisticslly hope for is no more parts and fpe and the ability to reasearch what we what want first ie removal of tiers.

30

With rank 5 expanded to 8.7, uptiers will be far less punishing. Even then, I would rather be uptiered in a T26E5 or Super pershing, than be uptiered in a T95 or . . . really any 7.0+ heavy tank.

Just decompressing BRs can’t fully solve this though. As long as cold-war HEAT and sabots are facing WW2 tanks, and as long as Gepard/Gepard clones are facing planes lower than 9.0, we’re going to have issues.

We can’t just shove early coldwar tanks up to 9.0 and Gepard/Gepard clones up to 10.0 cause they will get completely demolished in uptiers. The only real solution I can think of

͏
͏
Once we separate rank 5 and 6, we will be able to start decompressing BRs properly.

32

There is not BR compression in ground at this level anymore.
Time is not capability, technology is. And technology is the common sense while time is not.

The BR system is superior to this.

33

That’s not true, and there are much better arguments against their suggestion than that.

34

Because you somehow don’t already understand this, when som1 speaks of a time period, more often than not, they don’t mean the vehicles made during that time, they mean the vehicles made using the technology of that time.

35

In reality we had F4U-4(and 4+) fighting in the korean war against Mig-15s.

Nobody in their right mind, outside of customs for re-enactment and lols, wants to fly F4U-4 against Mig-15. I can unfortunately see some Mig-15 players who’d be down for it for the free kills in a similar vein to the usual ground wehraboo demanding the king-tiger to roflstomp puny shermans.

Why was it done IRL? Because launching jets from carriers with the anemic engines we had during the korean war was a whole damn hassle and there were a lot of corsairs and propeller planes are quite well-suited for STOL.

Just because a match-up existed IRL does not make it justified in a competetive video game.

In a competitive video game, the questions should be:

  1. Given proper tactics, sufficient skill (but not an extreme skill difference), can vehicle A and vehicle B threaten each other with legitimacy, provided they’re both vehicles designed for direct confrontation (i.e.air superiority fighters)
  2. Are the tactics required for legitimate threat engaging and fun for both parties? Theoretically, P51D going on strafing runs when the Me-262 runs out of fuel is a legitimate threat that was used in real life, but it’s neither fun or engaging for either party (this is why Ju-288 sucks by the way. The only legitimate way to threaten them at 5.0-6.0 in SB outside of sth like the F4U-4B is to camp their airfields and kill them on take off/landing.)
  3. After the above two criteria are met, are thematics/vibes as one would expect (ergo - sure, XY modern jet is so anemic and bad that it makes sense that first/second gen jets face it… but it’s jarring and takes you out of it. This is the F117. Seeing F117 when I rarely take out my F86A5 or potentially the horten is not fun even though it’s harmless.)
1 Like
36

But we don’t have to worry about it since the F4U-4 will not encounter any Mig-15 in the game. That “hard divide” is long in place.

37

Therefore it has precedent and your argument that “it happened irl, therefore we shouldn’t introduce further empty BRs to separate leaps of capabilities” is moot.

1 Like
38

Personally I subscribe to separation by technology.

WW2/Korean War planes vs WW2/Korean War planes
Afterburning jets versus Afterburning jets
All aspects versus All aspect missiles
Fox Three Spam versus Fox Three Spam

39

Would down if we can bring back 2017 top tier jet games, which was one of most balanced ever in the game.

40

Sure but this is enough to yeet out the history argument, since anyway WarThunder is not historical. The game should be balanced based on fun, and no it’s not fun to fight a jet that can just dive on you to kill you and just climb back up anytime you have a chance to put your guns on them

41

Actually no, in game and in real life, the decision to have the F4U meet migs was made deliberately by the owner of the F4U. So the divide was not as hard, that is why I have placed it in parenthesis.

But the discussion is about ground really. In air arcade, a hard divide would be a substantial income nerf, which I would not support either.

42

But you have noticed that the perception of fun, even in this thread here varies widely among the participants. You don’t have a united player base on this.