I havent played ground rb in a while but the last time I played it I was using the Leopard 2A7 and got a long range tunisia map and it was German+US against some other nations inclduing USSR(i honestly cant remember) and we were dominating. They were stuck in spawn
Russian tanks sucked IRL. The T-34s aren’t modelled wrongly, volumetric exists. It is arguably worse in some German tanks too. How would you make it historically correct without ruining the games balance?
And a video game isn’t IRL. Reliability and other stuff isn’t modelled, and that’s a good thing. There is no Russian bias.
That just doesn’t exist outside of a small section of the game. Russian tanks are incredibly easy to kill at nearly all BRs, and if you can’t kill them, you need to aim better.
If that were the case, the USA wouldn’t have the best air tree by far. And that Russian tanks at most BRs are easy to kill. T-72s die easily, T-55s are only janky when using Heat, IS tanks are partly overtiered.
In air, the USA is unmatched, especially at higher BRs.
1 Like
Their is certainly Russian bias in this game. It is clearly prevalent, no other nation has missiles overperforming to comical levels like the R27ER. Their are tons of reports of incorrect and missing arms options from other nations. The Object 279 fiasco was a comedy show.
Can you name other nations littered with failed prototypes? Yak 141 but no F15 Active or F15 Tailless with omni thrust vectoring? how about 2014 aircraft introduced along side 1985 F15C II MSIP? " The first MSIP II aircraft was F-15C 84-001, first flown on June 20, 1985 . MSIP II was still underway at the time of the Persian Gulf war of 1991" Or how about 2023 tanks being introduced for only one nation in the 2S38 a year ago? Where is our Leopard 2A8?
These gatekeeping excuses that leads to these one sided additions need to be called out for what they are.
That isn’t true at all. It exists in large sections of the game.
Currently:
Russian Win Rate Top BR Ground RB = 68%
USA Win Rate Top BR Ground RB = 34%
For Air Top Tier BR in RB Win Rates =
Japan = 71%
Italy = 71%
China = 66%
Germany = 62%
Sweden = 59%
France = 59%
USA = 59%
Russia = 54%
Israel = 54%
USA is tied for 7th Place. Russia is tied with Israel right behind USA.
I wouldn’t call 7th place “dominating”
I see you’re claiming NATO is Russia again.
R-27ER is not overperforming.
Object 279 is over-BR’d currently with all of its equivalents at 8.7.
Unknown, cause this information is confidential.
All unknown, cause this information is confidential.
On top of that, what does team skill have to do with alleged bias?
Correct, Mig-29s in War Thunder only carry 2x R-27ERs. They’ve never carried more than 2.
Not sure why you’re begging for F-4 to carry AIM-120s… thus indirectly suggesting Mig-29s to carry 6x R-27ERs though… neither are possible.
1 Like
Other nations have got prototypes that fit the same standard the Yak-141 has.Yak-141 was not given special treatment - #6 by i_ivanof
The R2Y2s also never existed in their current state.
Introduction date means nothing in WT, because they balance off of player statistics. If it was, the 8.0 AMX-30 would be facing T-72s, and not early T-54s/55s.
Is that large section exclusively top tier ground?
Winrates are a measure of team skill, and lineup strength. They shouldn’t be used for balancing, and we don’t have access to the true winrates.
2 Likes
You can’t be serious right? The Chinese test reports on that missile show it was complete garbage, and none of the claims lined up. In game it has two engines and is modeled to get twice the boost it should have, launch angles the flight manual says it can’t be used at, and other problems.
Known, we have relatively decent info on this.
F4s are capable of carrying and launching Aim-120s, I provided photographic proof. And simply saying “it needs updated” isn’t hard to do. Software updates are something we do all the time. The rest of that is nonsense.
I see this quoted alllll the time… but its funny how it only seems to benefit russian tech trees. Why not let them fall behind and push the Uk and Sweden up?
No
The numbers line up with complaints that we see. So we know the numbers are close enough.
What happens when they run out of room to give the russian tech tree a 20 - 30 year advantage? Do they just stop adding things at that point? “Oh sorry guys we can’t balance the F18 because we ran out of fictional performance for the USSR tree, so we wont be adding it”.
So what is next the F18 (1978) gets introduced with the SU-47(1997) the Mig 35 (2016) along side the J20 (2017)? and the F22 is still “too good”?
Lets reverse roles. Let them introduce the F22A (1997) and the SU-30 (1989) and see how it feels.
1 Like
IRL Phoenix missiles are trash against modernish jets, but they’re fragging Tornado IDS’s in War Thunder when they’d fail 100% of the time in real life due to the countermeasure set.
Win rate data, AKA team skill data, is not known.
1 Like
I literally just said how it benefits France, are you dense? The AMX-13 also faces Tiger IIs (and the FL11 version is 4.3), when in reality it is from the '50s.
How is it bad that newer Russian equipment is as good as older non-Russian equipment? Should the game be deliberately imbalanced because you are personally biased against Russia?
Where else is it?
You ignored me saying “Winrates are a measure of team skill, and lineup strength.”
Either that or they buff Russian stuff, but NATO players would whine so much if they did that. The most likely scenario is that stuff just stops being added to Russia, while other natiosn keep getting higher BR vehicles.
Win rates are a measure of aircraft performance. This is very evident in real world data like when the Pakistan Air Force F16As obliterated the Indian Air Force Mig 29s with no losses. Mig 29 has the worst combat rating of any 4th gen fighter with a 1 - 3 negative KDR.
I am sure they will pull out some secret document prototype that never made it out a wind tunnel and add it. “we saw this in a 1990s comic once and thought USSR tech tree needed it”.
Unironically this makes sense. France kept an active unit of post war German tanks in service. They had 48 I think? Finland kept the Panzer IV and so did France in service into the 60s. So they were active during the Korean War. This is historical.
1 Like
well this was a fun thread before US mains arrived
3 Likes
And team skill. If a BR is full of premiums, those will have bad winrates, despite being good aircraft otherwise.
Prove that War Thunder matches are all one vehicle on one team.
F16 MLU’s AIM9M，AIM120 and basic everything F16AM has.
The main difference between them that I know are head tracking and engine only.
The J35XS’s RB27s/28s so it can have some SARH missiles.
2 Likes
ima be honest, this kinda makes me laugh when we’ve had full team’s of f14’s, su25’s, harrier’s, and a few other’s when they came out. Just putting my 2 cent’s for this time lol.
I mean if you really want to be pendatic with it and give another reason why historical match maker isnt a good idea there are more than a few western planes that wont fair much better in historical match makers
For example there were still a good number of F-4Es,F-104s,Mirage III/F-1s flying around in europe for pretty much all of the 80s (italy retired their 104s in 2004!) They may have not been frontline aircraft sure but they were still a massive chunk of airforces in europe right until the end of the cold war,especially phantoms
So like… have fun being the Mirage III or F-104G/S or a non PF F-4E fighting MiG-23MLA/MLD, MiG-29 29s and depending on which half of the 80s, Su-27s
Going away from fighters and attackers on both sides are going to suffer even more than they already do in air. A-6/7/10, Su-25, MiG-27 ect are all going to be in the same boat as things like the 104S, Mirage or MiG-21.
Overall historical match makers are not a fun situation for either side and should never be remotely considered.
When people bring up dates of introduction for things especially when trying to claim “le gaijin is le biased toward x”
I like to point out that the F-15J(M) in the japanese tree is a circa 2010 aircraft since it has JHMCS. And things like the F-15C and F-16C in the US tree are also post 2000 airframes due to having HMD.
So the whole “Su-27SM is from 2003 is le russian bias” means absolutely nothing.
6 Likes
Aircraft that In my opinion should recieve more of their historical armament are as follows
F-16ADF (Italy) : AIM-120 and AIM-9Li
F-16MLU (China): AIM-120 and AIM-9M+ its
missing air to ground ordinance
F-4E US: should receive its additional air to air and air to ground ordinance such as lgbs and tgp.(people need to stop asking for another variant, The whole late and early thing that gajin is doing is honestly dumb and needs to go)
F-14A: again They should remove the (early) bs from the game and just make it an F-14A and give it AIM-9L,54C,and AIM-7M
YaK-141: should receive its R-77 and R-73.
F-4F: AIM-9L
F-4C: this one might be slightly controversial but Remake the F-4C into the F-4D so it can have CMs and AIM-9J/AIM-7E
MiG-21S/SMT and MF : give them back their R-13M missile. (I dont see why they removed it anyways)
AMX attacker: AGM-65 mavericks and AS-30L(i could slightly be wrong on this one so if somebody knows more please correct me)
Of course all of these should come with br adjustments and there are a few more suggestions i could probably make but cant think of anything offhand and also typing on mobile is 💀
2 Likes