Sure. The game is asymmetric already to an extent with uptiers, some maps and such. It’s fun to get maps with good sniping spots, and when you’re on the opposing side trying to deny the enemy such spots. Focusing on perfect balance like an e-sports game can make it bland imo. And while full uptiers are too frequent, it adds some variety to the playstyle knowing whether you have a strong or weak tank.
Sry, but i would not like to go with a Ha-Go against Pershings, Panzer II against KV-1, nor H-39 against T-55.
There is a reason why these modes fail.
Both, yes
New Warthunder survival horror mode
1 Like
Pretty sure World War Mode had done something similar to this but the execution of the mode was executed poorly every time it was released.
Digital Combat Simulator, Red Orchestra/Rising Storm, Red Orchestra Osfront 1944-1945, Post Scriptum, Hell Let Loose.
In terms of RTS that simulate realism from a satellite POV Company Of Heroes 1, Company Of Heroes Far East(Fan mod that adds Japan, China and stuff), Company Of Heroes 2, Etc.
Well, technically just a horror mode. There would be no “survival” part for any tank that is not the strongest on the winning side.
the US against Japan could literally win by only using their .50 cals
The idea is not masochism…is getting a time and place where certain vehicles met and create a playable EVEN IF ASYMMETRIC scenario there…
I KNOW this is not realistic…you would need lots of things, including Infantry and AT guns for full realism…
THIS^^…the idea is a SIMPLER scenario like the ones used on world war mode…but much shorter and easier to play. World war mode was too complex, and every “bug” compounded…
AGAIN…choose an historical location, select a few vechicles from both sides that make for an interesting scenario…and play them…
SOME BALANCE is required…you cant try for Barbarrossa situations where the only solution was to use weapons that dont exist in game (towed 88s). But there are LOT of places where you can create a good and balanced scenanrio…
BUT…would players play them?..not optimistic from the answers here…
Then it is not realistic.
Something is either realistic or not. This game is not realistic, nor can it be ever realistic where it is even remotely playable.
I don’t know about any game that come close to being a realistic game, and that is for a good reason.
Later i will make a onger comment explaining why this is a horrible idea and just a wet dreem of mostly germany mains watching History Channel telling them that the Tiger was never frontaly penetrated and that it can take a modern MBT in an 1v1 and win most of the time (yes, sadly i personally know people who think this).
As simple example…
El Alamein Map - Meeting engagement
Around 2/4 PzIVF2 and 12/14 ligher tanks (PzIIIs)
2/4 Sherman IIIs and 12/14 Crusader II/IIs
OR
6/8 Grants and 8/10 Crusaders
(Can also put Valentines into the mix)
Choose random variants where air is balanced or allied only. If allied only, reduce allied ground power.
Players would randomly be given a tank. Start positions would also change a bit. One spawn only…once you die you will restart on next game.
Idea is to feel “possible”…of course it is not real to be in El Alamein without infantry, guns, mines…but i am thinking it would be fun…AT LEAST DIFFERENT.
BTW…idea is AN EVENT…not full mode of course. It would require GOOD REWARDS (mainly for lighter tanks) to work…
Already tested, didn’t work.
Oh boy, and leave as soon as they don’t get what they want.
1 Like
Mate, calm down. The only realistic war experience is real, live combat then. Stop trying to nitpick words, it’s neither an effective argument nor constructive input.
1 Like
I am calm.
No. Realistic game by definition is not equal to real combat.
I am exactly not doing it.
You mean what you now tried to say?
Realism is not going to ever happen, because it would be unplayable.
Nobody wants to charge a bunch of Shermnas with Ha-Gos and early Chi-Has. They have no realistic chance of winning, and neither did they in real life.
Nobody wants to get kicked in the balls repetedly.
In what way is it inappropriate?
Oh boy, better to just flag the comments you don’t like, right?
The issue is the randomness. As other people have said, far more players would like to use the more capable vehicles. If balancing was done by simply making one team bigger (as many events have done in the past) the queue for that team would simply grow too large. If balancing is done by randomly assigning vehicles, people would leave if they don’t get what they want, similar to how players often leave uptiers.
I think the best implementation is to have EC spawn costs. Then, both teams can have roughly equally capable vehicles, and there shouldn’t be as much of an unequal queue. More capable vehicles would also be earned rather than randomly given. Assuming equally capable players and relatively balanced maps and teams, both teams will have roughly equal amount of players being successful and getting enough kills etc to spawn in more capable tanks. That way, the teams are balanced, but each individual engagement may not be, depending on how you’ve performed so far and how the enemy you’re facing has.
TLDR:
SP can easily be used to ensure
- Teams are balanced
- All players have a chance to get the strong vehicles if they play well
- Historical lineups/teams are still entirely feasible
- Vehicle composition is naturally skewed towards the more common, less advanced vehicles
I’d play asymmetric scenarios, such as attacking/defending (similar to the Advance event a couple years ago), but not asymmetric battles, like shermans vs tigers.
I don’t think it’s possible to make good asymmetric battles with how war thunder works, and how people want to play.
1 Like
Yeah you could easily make a issiondesign where one team attacks and the other defends. It would gontwonrounds and the team that defeats the defenders the fastest wins.
Chivalry had those, they were fun.