War thunder will never be completely historical
Nobody tell him about sweden
3 Likes
ah yes my amazing 5.3 skink in my 6.3 and 6.7 line up, ah my bad dawg I should had known better
Personally I never wanted a 1980’s SPAA at 4.0, but that’s Gaijin for you.
1 Like
Yeah its a little controversial and absolutely annoying at times, but you got to think about the time period after the World War. Every nation had surplus amounts of armor that they decided to utilize some how until they could develop better equipment in a quickly changing technological advancement in history.
I think Gaijin is doing a relatively decent attempt at placing vehicles in their appropriate brackets, per-say a few…
Also need to consider that a lot of countries’ designs may have been produced decades later but functionally are from WW2. STA-1, STA-2, M46, and multiple Swedish designs are examples in-game of such. Often, or not a lot of the 60’s designs were likely concepts, ideas floating around, not on paper, that were not completed or never done in WW2 simply because it was not needed.
…With the caveat that the real improvements were in firepower - with new HEAT-FS shells allowing extremely high penetration at any range - while they became more developed in other factors. The M26’s drivetrain was quite poor and replacing it was one of the biggest points of the M46; the M47 replaced the turret and introduced an improved cannon, but overall both are tanks that wouldn’t be out of place in WW2 if not for the HEAT-FS ammo.
The Type 61 was really a “M47, Japan”. The M47 is great and all but it’s 46 tons and many bridges couldn’t support it. Type 61 is ‘just’ 34 tons and likewise if not for HEAT-FS it would be at home in a WW2 setting - less armor than a Panther and about the same penetration.
1 Like
How many times does the TIME PERIOD OF SERVICE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BR have to be said for the slow boy’s to get it
Tech and year has nothing to do with a vehicle’s combat capability. A Tiger II can fight an R3 T20 just fine even though they’re many years apart.
1 Like
Skill issue
Nah. Game is literally built on the concept of constant expansion and drip feed content.
the immersion of fighting in the middle of Sun City with a Tiger E, shoulder to shoulder with a brave allied IS-2, against the evil invading Swedish Charioteer. Alright.
Nah. That’d be bad for them and they have no reason to learn that. You on the other hand have every reason to learn positioning so that you don’t get caught out in the open by a terrible ATGM that by the way approaches you much slower than the conventional rounds you’re facing, and which can be destroyed in flight by your machine guns, and is being fired by a shitbox that dies if you look at it wrong.
I agree tha the Thai Albatros needs to be rebalanced, but until it does, you can take countermeasures. When I see Japan on the enemy team at the right BR, I naturally assume their second spawn is gonna be the Albatros, so even if they haven’t spawned yet, I’ll spawn a Bf 109 K-4 when I die.
Mind you, a stock Bf 109 K-4 since I haven’t reached 5.7 in air yet, and that is more than enough to very easily kill the Albatros. If your timing is right you can get him before he’s gotten a single kill, negating the guy a massive amount of spawn points.
It is of course a problem that Kugelblitz etc are no good against it as they get hopelessly outranged.
Sending the plane up in BR would kill it, my preferred solution would be to increase the SP cost of Zunis and/or decrease their amount and/or remove them altogether.
I reckon it’d be at 6.3 like the Czech Albatros in the Soviet tree.
Yep, good idea.
WT is not set in WW2.
It’s not. While there is a strong correlation between BR and date of introduction, it’s not a universal correlation and it certainly isn’t causal. You can see this even with WW2 vehicles. The Puma fights stuff from mid-early war despite being a late war vehicle, why do you think that is?
The 9T even more so.
I still encounter them tbh. Not very often, but that’s common for a mid tier premium that’s not very meta.
Keeping the CCIP on this one to differentiate it is fine, esp. because Japan has a CAS gap that needs filling, it just needs a bit of balancing.
We have multi vehicle mechanics at top tier. No reason not to use them at the mid tiers where CAS is very competitive and AAs are rather tricky to use outside of a few outliers. Some nations don’t even get good SPAAs period.
You’re actually underselling how terrible the Ratel is: I’ve killed Ratel gunners with the MG34 of my Tiger II multiple times, if they’re close enough. Even frontally. Just pathetic.
This is one of my major gripes. They introduced the mechanic but then there was basically no follow up.
Judging by his stats in the plane, I think he’s doing fine tbh.
I am okay with this proposal if and only if you agree to become a Swedish main as soon as the change happens. Go have fun fighting T-54s with those shitboxes.
Historical matchmaker bros when they find out a Renault Clio from 2003 would not outperform a Tiger II in GRB:
3 Likes
…or when they realize the Aufklärungspanzer 38(t) (now 2.0) would share the 6.7 BR with the King Tiger…
5 Likes
Actually the flak panzer 38 could still be usable at 6.7, because it’s an auto cannon fighting hellcats and prop planes. It’s not gonna be fun but it’s something you can pull off.
Now the Italian P40, that would be at 6.7 and be utterly helpless, and be classed as a heavy so it’s gonna cost more spawn points.
I haven’t seen a single L-39 in ages except for the Thai one.
My suggestion is still to limit Zuni CCIP range to ~1.5km, and change nothing else. This would force it to get well within effective gun SPAA range.
Radar AAs maybe. Manual AAs general effective range is around 300-1000 m depending on player skill level.
Even hand-aimed AAs like ZSU-23-4M2 are perfectly capable out to 1.5km. They’re not hard to aim. Also, the L-39 still gets closer than 1.5km even with this change since they’ll still have to aim, fire and turn around.
I mean, why do nations need lineups at every BR? Even just one or two per rank is fine. No need for every nation to get a Sherman or a Chaffee simply because they had them post-war or trialed them.
Balance should obviously be based around capability, however, vehicles should only be implemented within reasonable time frames of each other. Otherwise we’d have HUMVEE’s, Bushmasters, Hawkei, etc with .50’s at 1.0 which is absolutely not acceptable.
V2 Maus is like mid-1944 from memory, so would drop to around 6.7 as well. Rank I & II Germany gets screwed, but those players who came to play the Tigers and Maus would rejoice. I’d just avoid those brackets entirely and play my 1.0 Matilda II. Lol.
Obviously true historical BR’s are a bad idea.
It is guaranteed to happen.
Depends what you count also. The first mobility test of the hull was Dec 1943, which would give you hysterical BRs if you adopted it as a criterion for historical MM. What an asinine concept lol.
The KV-1s would also have an amazing field day.
Until you get to a situation where the whole bracket is just KV-1s fighting each other.
I would assume date of completed prototype, from memory those mobility tests were with the turret weights and not the turret itself.
Here’s the funny thing though. War Thunder includes vehicles that were never finished even as a prototype, because the criterion for additions/suggestions is at least one major unique component was finished. Thus if you wanted to do historical MM “seriously” (an oxymoron I know, but for the sake of the argument), the only universal criterion you could apply to every single vehicle in the game is date of completed first unique major component and for the Maus that means it gets to be in December 1943.
Absolutely hysterical.
1 Like