Minor Nations Stay “Minor” Because of Player Frustration
Minor nations often remain unpopular, not because they lack potential, but because they’re neglected in terms of tech tree depth and variety. A common complaint among players is the repetitive grind—being forced to play the same limited set of vehicles over and over again, especially when many of those aren’t even domestic designs. This lack of variety and national identity discourages long-term engagement and drives players back to the more fleshed-out major nations. These are just a few of the key issues I’ve tried to highlight, along with some ideas on how to improve them. I’d love to hear your thoughts as well—feel free to share your input and suggestions in the comments!
Focus on Indigenous Designs First – Less Copy-Paste Sub-Tech Trees
It would greatly improve the game if we saw fewer copy-paste sub-tech trees and more emphasis on unique, indigenous vehicles that are truly representative of each nation. Instead of relying heavily on imported or exported vehicles to fill gaps, Gaijin should prioritize adding original designs that were actually developed and used by the nation in question. This approach would not only enhance national identity within each tech tree but also make the progression more authentic and interesting for players who enjoy historical accuracy and variety.
- Yes
- No
- Other (leave in comments)
WWII Content Disparity Between Major and Minor Nations
While the U.S., Germany, the USSR, and Britain still have a considerable number of WWII vehicles missing from the game, the situation is even more severe for the other nations. Most minor nations currently lack a significant portion of their WWII-era vehicles—many of which are historically viable and could easily be added to the game. When you compare their lineups to those of the main four, it becomes clear that they often have only a third or even a quarter of the vehicle variety. This imbalance is especially frustrating given that there are plenty of unique and interesting designs available from these nations that have yet to be explored or implemented.
- Yes
- No
- Other (leave in comments)
Top-Tier Focus is Leaving WWII Vehicles—and Minor Nations—Behind
War Thunder’s current development focus has clearly shifted toward top-tier, modern-era vehicles. While that’s understandable given the growing interest in contemporary military technology, it comes at a cost—especially for nations that historically had little to no domestic production in the post-WWII or Cold War eras. As a result, many of these nations are receiving very few additions, if any, to their tech trees at top tier. Meanwhile, a wealth of WWII-era vehicles—many of them well-documented and viable for gameplay—remain unadded. This is particularly true for minor nations, which are being neglected simply because they can’t keep up in the top-tier arms race. The consequence is an increasingly unbalanced and incomplete experience for players who enjoy mid-tier and historically rich lineups.
- Yes
- No
- Other (leave in comments)
France: A Prime Example of Neglected Domestic Options
Take France, for example. From Rank II to Rank V in the air tech tree, there’s a noticeable lack of domestically-produced aircraft. Instead, the tree is filled with borrowed or re-used designs that don’t reflect the rich aviation history France actually has. What’s frustrating is that there are already numerous viable French aircraft suggested on the official suggestion forums—many with solid documentation and gameplay potential. And that’s not even considering the planes that haven’t been formally suggested yet. There’s clearly no shortage of options; it’s just a matter of giving France the attention it deserves in terms of tech tree development. Prioritizing these domestic aircraft would go a long way in making the French air tree more authentic and competitive.
- Yes
- No
- Other (leave in comments)
The Grind Needs to Be Addressed—Not Just the Content
Everyone knows the grind in War Thunder is long—and it’s only getting longer. While adding more domestic designs to the tech trees of minor nations would certainly help engagement, it won’t solve the core issue on its own. The economic side of the game also needs serious attention. Right now, due to the combination of a long grind and a reward cap per battle, many players are incentivized to leave after just one death. Why stay in a match that’s going downhill when it’s actually more efficient to quit and start another?
The reward system needs to change. First and foremost, the reward cap per battle should be removed. On top of that, the system should shift toward rewarding players based on time spent actively contributing to the match, not just kills. The longer a player stays in and contributes, the more they should earn—with escalating returns the longer they last. As it stands, grinding multiple top-tier vehicles that each cost 400,000 RP or more takes an enormous amount of time, especially when the average player only earns 4,000–6,000 RP per match.
Raising that average to 10,000–15,000 RP per match—through better time-based rewards—would give players a real reason to stick around and keep playing. It would improve the pacing, reduce burnout, and help minor nations grow by making it less punishing to invest in their underdeveloped trees.
- Yes
- No
- Other (leave in comments)
Game Modes and Map Design Need a Serious Overhaul
One of the most stagnant aspects of War Thunder is its game modes. For years, they’ve essentially remained unchanged—always some version of “capture and hold” with 1 to 3 zones. Meanwhile, map design has increasingly moved in the wrong direction. With every update, maps seem to get smaller, tighter, and more restrictive. Entire flanking routes have been removed or blocked off, funneling players into narrow kill zones and forcing close-quarters combat.
This heavily disadvantages nations whose ground forces were historically built around mobility, scouting, and long-range tactics. Some nations lack heavily armored tanks or brawlers altogether and instead rely on speed and maneuverability—features that simply don’t shine on the current lineup of small, corridor-style maps.
Worse yet, this design trend benefits only one style of play—head-on brawling—while killing off any room for strategy or variety, especially at higher tiers where flanking and positioning should matter more. On top of that, the small size of these maps amplifies the effectiveness of CAS (close air support). Right now, aircraft can simply look toward the spawn and spot enemy SPAA with ease. That’s not just frustrating—it’s unbalanced.
A solution would be twofold: first, increase the overall size of maps and restore flanking routes. Second, implement dynamic “spawn zones” across a wide area of the team’s starting side of the map, rather than limiting players to two predictable spawn points. This would make it harder for CAS to farm spawns and would give ground vehicles more room to maneuver, making gameplay feel more tactical and less like a meat grinder.
- Yes
- No
- Other (leave in comments)
