The first armored vehicle with thermal imaging on the US side was the M60A3 Tank I think all armored vehicles that have thermal imaging in this game should be on the same battle level but in this game, they’re not and that’s crazy and it’s also unfair to the players that don’t have thermal imaging, especially on night missions so War Thunder should bump all the armored vehicles that have thermal imaging up to 9.0 battle rating seems fair to me how about you guys?
1: Balancing off of only if a vehicle has thermals is dumb. A vehicle should be balanced off of it’s performance, not just “It has this one thing, so we will put it at this br”, or vice versa. The M60A3 TTS is 9.0 because it is an improvement over the M60A1 RISE (P), with a better round and sight, not solely because it has thermals.
2: Gaijin gave a lot of vehicles stock NVD, so the night battles part is less of an issue
18 Likes
Thermals aren’t exactly a massive advantage. The Mk.1 eyeball still gets the job done. Gen 1 thermals don’t exactly change the experience or capability of a tank that much.
Also BRs are not historical based, they’re capability based, as they should be and always will be.
8 Likes
First of all,the Bradley is the first Armored Vehicle which has Thermals equipped (1st gen only for the gunner),and it’s at 8.3
Second of all,with this line of thinking behind,things like the T-72B (1989) (which currently stands at 10.3) would sit at 9.0…and i don’t want to fight something like the T-72B (1989) with a M60 Patton
4 Likes
Thermals are pretty azz ngl even on tanks they have gen 2/3 equipped I find they are not super reliable cause I’ve literally been cross mapped by an invisible guy I was directly looking at with them.
1 Like
I see that War Thunder has changed that on Bradley 8.3 it didn’t used to be in the sighting system but it is still unfair for tanks or armored vehicles that don’t have thermal imaging on night missions that can’t see in the dark.
why activate night battles if you find yourself at a disadvantage?
So should vehicles without thermals such as the T-72B be moved to 8.7 as well?
7 Likes
Thermals aren’t the advantage that first appear to be. I remember years ago feeling at a massive disadvantage in my T-64A/B knowing that the XM-1 and Leo1 L44 had thermals and I didn’t but eventually you adapt to the environment (or in some cases you don’t).
I can understand why you feel the way you do but I can’t sympathise. Trying to effect BR changes around a single feature or characteristic is always a bad Idea because it ignores the nuances of vehicles and what truly makes then dangerous.
Stop using night battles as a reason. They are optional and like I said before, a ton of vehicles got stock night vision this update.
Yes I know this but that’s what’s messed up about the battle ratings why put outdated tanks up against more modern tanks playing World War 2 up against Vietnam tanks and even more modern tanks than that? It just doesn’t make any sense you know ones that have thermal sighting systems up against the ones that don’t have thermal sighting systems it’s Nuts.
As I again, said before, War Thunder is based off of vehicle performance, not if a vehicle has x modification or was made in x year. It makes perfect sense as to why this is done, as some nations would be horrible at certain areas of the game, and some vehicles would be unusable. The PT-76, for example, was adopted for service in 1951. That puts it at about 7.7. And separating vehicles by wars wouldn’t do much either. Vehicles are supposed to struggle in an up tier, and preform well in a down tier. That is how the game works. And separating wars like this utterly messes up the balance. Some early Cold War vehicles would not have a real area to preform well in a down tier, and late WW2 vehicles could absolutely and unfairly dominate because they can only fight an equal or a significantly worse vehicle. The IS-3, for example (Yes, it is a world war 2 vehicle if we consider a world war 2 as being made during 1939-1945. It started production the same month that the war in Europe ended) would be near unstoppable. Almost every other vehicle made in the time period can’t do anything to it from the front, and it could kill most things pretty easily. And, again, back to thermals, we can’t consider a vehicle’s br placement just by it having one thing. That is dumb. A vehicle could have a thermal sight, lack behind in so many aspects, and still go up in br just because of that, even if it preforms terribly. War Thunder has never, and should never, be balanced off of date of introduction, dates of service, start of development, wars fought in, and small differences such as a thermal sight (especially a first generation thermal sight), but instead based off of vehicle performance and overall capability when used to it’s fullest.
Thermals are neat, but aren’t that useful usually.
The issues with thermals, it allows us to see better but at the same time our vehicle is also exposed to the enemies, commander with binocular still a better spotter for maps that isn’t flat.
First Generation Thermals don’t particularly let you see better, and they often have some major drawbacks that early.
You don’t get the Mk.2 eyeballs yet? Rip
1 Like
I just looked up Mark 2 eyeball for the goofs and a lot of stuff came up. I am laughing so hard right now. I just thought it would be someone with 2 rifle scopes taped on their eyes, but it’s a real product.
wait fr? let me check this out
damn, wacky
Night missions are an option you can choose to have and is only available in 10.0+ (or 10.3+)
At that BR,every vehicle has Thermal Imaging equipped