Splitting tree into ww2 and post ww2 would create new top tier and new low tier. Where one can only be downteired and other only uptiered as they cant face each other.
Lets say that WW2 will end on exactly 6.0.
6.0 will only face 5.0-6.0.
6.3 will only face 6.3-7.3
This will make transition from ww2 into cold war even worse than it is now. Not to mention some players will stop progressing at 6.0 and just keep clubbing those downtiers.
This would also move some vehicle into cold war BR where they will be highly ineffective. Most of them from SPAA group.
Or you can just learn how to pen tanks you can face (which is ±1BR) in hangar armor inspection.
But it would be the same, the steel bullet would cause damage due to the armor fragments and some large pieces of the bullet itself, since the steel does not break as much, although if it is an APHE it would cause a little more spalling. But the tungsten bullet would Despite being smaller, it fragments into more small pieces that travel at high speed, which is why I say that the damage from an APHE and an APCR would be practically equivalent.
What you say could really be proven, what happens is that the tanks of around 1948 were not very different from those of WW2. As they said above, the M46 is an update of the M26, and although it can face tanks like the first T-54, it would not have much of a chance against more modern things, so it would need to be somewhere between WW2 and Postwar. At the end of the day, the M46 faced the T-34-85 in the Korean War. and almost to the IS-2.
Yea, having no uptiers is great for the people who play that br. But you don’t care about the vehicles that will become almost unplayable because of this change. Whatever br would be the new bottom br bracket for early cold war would see nothing but uptiers and be a struggle all the time. And a break in the progression would be bad for the game because of the two new barriers of playing. That would be the new uncounterable heavy tanks, and then the nigh useless early war tanks.
APCR may cause alot of damage in a small cone, but it isn’t going to cause as wide a damage arc as full caliber shells (AP/APHE). You have to look at the amount of material being contacted and displaced by a full caliber shell in conparison the the APCR. The AP shell will displace much more metal and cause more spalling to occur. This will cause a much wider cone of spalling, thus damaging more components and injuring more crewmembers. The APCR shell doesn’t displace as much material, but if the penetrator does experience some shattering it would keep the forward momentum and not spread out much. That would cause more damage in a narrower cone. That is the advantage/disadvantage of having the sub-caliber penetrator, it can pierce think armor, but won’t deal as widespread of damage as the full caliber shell.
Since German 6.7 is my favourite lineup in the game, I would be quite cross if I had to stop playing it because the BR bracket starts replicating the issues of top tier.
I don’t know why Gaijin won’t fix the 6.0-6.7 BR like they did with 5.3-5.7.
5.3-5.7 is mainly just 1942-1944 WW2 tanks and everyone is on equal playing ground.
6.0-7.3 is a jumbled mess of 1943-1945 WW2/early post war tanks (including prototypes and tanks like the T-44 which were built, but never saw combat), 1950s tanks, and 1970s howitzers.
So many nations go from having amazing line-ups to just being outright mediocre because of all the heatfs rounds and now 8-9kg derp howitzers making armor useless.
It’s also impossible to make a 6.3 and 6.7 line-up with almost every nation except the USA as well. You might get 1 tank at 6.7, 1 tank at 7.0, and the rest are 6.3 or 6.0. That’s what I dislike about this BR the most.
This is the issue ,BR and Era not really fitting together in the game itself but it is two things.
1 Not something it seems Gaijin are even capable of fixing even if they considered it a problem
2 Not even something Gaijin consider a problem and even if they did it would take more work than they are ever prepared to throw at it. Simply no money in doing so.
They are happy with the realism contradiction that War Thunder is . If you or I don’t like it the answer is to walk away. Sure there is no harm in chatting about it on here and even putting forward possible solutions but make no mistake that is all we are doing ,chatting. Nothing will ever come of it.
I have suggested the only real place I think the game could be cut in two, to create two divisions and that is Tier IV but not for one minute do I ever imagine they ever would.
Does the game need two divisions? Not in order to survive no.
Would it be nice? Yes sure but only for those of us that care. A tank is a tank to many on here. Remember you are talking about a player base of kids who also think that running around with a frying pan on your head is fun (Fortnite) ,this is what you share a game and a forum with mentality wise and that sadly is the future not older WW2 enthusiasts hoping the game could be something that it is isn’t and never will be.
The game to most is just a sport ,rack up the kills and don’t even look at what you just shot at, dont even think about it. Was it a 50s tank ? 80s Who cares? Its one for the tally.
You can only do what I do and that is enjoy WW2 vs WW2 at 1 -4 BR and hope that more post war vehicles are not jammed in to fill gaps and make a mockery of WW2 vehicles.
It is possible that once you went past that WW2/ Cold war Oil and water type mix and get to 8-9 BR the game becomes somewhat normal gain I dont know.
This whole discussion actually makes me realise what a poor and really faulted game War Thunder actually is if you study it. Best not to .Just jump on play a few games and take it for what it is ,a lazy shooter and a bit of fun.
Yes so you are pretty much admitting what we all know. Top tier does not and can never work and that is why its hated and a crashing disappointment for anybody who eventually grinds their way to it. You are pinpointing the fact that War Thunder cannot function without a tier above.
You seem to forget that we all play the uptier at least half the time ,that is 5.7 vs 6.7 or whatever and we manage. I suspect that is why CAS is important to GRB, simply to make it all work and balance in the uptier .
The OP identifies a fault in the game but by discussing it we have underlined a couple of others as well. The big reveal for War Thunder is that behind the veneer it’s a pretty poor game with no real depth at all. Smoke and mirrors. Talk of realism but the realism is nowhere to be found once you get on that map.
Top tier happens because there is a ranking to the vehicles. It is an inevitability when making games with a ranking system. As soon as you add anything it becomes top tier until you add something above it, then the new thing becomes top tier. It’s a pretty simple cycle.
I don’t understand how you manage to miscontrue everything that is said. Top tier wasn’t designed by Gaijin, or thought up in any way. It happens with ranking systems. If you don’t understand that whatever is the highest ranked vehicle automatically becomes top tier until something is added after it then I don’t know what to tell you.
I am very aware of how the matchmaker works, and you get uptiers more often than downtiers. Also, uptier/downtier frequency are dependant on battle rating. If you play 9.3 for example, youll get uptiered constantly because 10.0 and 10.3 are more popular than 8.7 and 9.0. CAS exists because Warthunder was a plane game before anything else.
There is no “fault” when it comes to this split the battle ratings or era matchmaking. Heavy tank players don’t like it because then they aren’t invincible all the time. This is an instance of “the smallest minority is the loydest”. The heavy tank players yell about how unfair it is and that the heavy tanks shouldn’t play early cold war because it isn’t fair that slow armored tanks get kill by heat rounds. That isn’t how the majority of the playerbase feels, and Gaijin knows that. If it wasn’t the case, then it would have happened already. It isn’t a good idea to create any gap in the battle ratings.
I really hate this idea of “only dumb kids enjoy stuff that isnt historical”. I would take the historical mm crowd more seriously if they didnt have this mindset.
Do you think I just make this up for fun? I read it on this forum. Many don’t care what they share a map with, they are in the game for scores not any kind of immersion.
Are a child bro ? Nobody is making a pathetic statement like that, that is your pathetic statement :)
Grow up bro you can see what the OP is saying nothing about hEavY taNk players ,German mains or any other cliche you can throw in its simply asking for some form of era separation ,same argument in ARB as well.
Whats with the BR rating history lesson? Off topic
So here you are defending top tier as it is currently while telling us a new top tier would never and could never work . …fine effort lol
What he’s saying is that a top tier is inevitable. There’s always going to be a top and bottom tier in a tier system, there’s no possible way to design around it. What we’re arguing here is that we shouldn’t be creating more top and bottom tiers.
It’s also very funny that on the one hand, you’re arguing that the most players have comtempt for history and thus have no interest in historical matchmaking because they’re
And on the other you’re loudly complaining about a similar sweeping generalization that all people who like historical matchmaking are heavy mains who want to be invincible. The irony is palpable.
I dont see how top tier being inevitable is relevant. Obviously it inevitable, changes nothing. If top tier works, then it works anywhere in the game or it does not work so which is it? Top tier in Div 2 is no different from current top tier that is the whole point, there is no tier above top tier so suck that up.
If you are saying top tier does not work then you are saying War Thunder does not work. You cant just bring that point up only when a two-division system is mentioned.
There is no argument, we have a forum full of comments made by players who have stated that ,there is no mystery there.
You are the one making irrelevant sweeping generalization I am the one agreeing with the OP that a two division system and some form of era separation for game play reasons is a good idea.
I have no intention of descending into a petty pissing contest, this is not the house of representatives or parliament. Yes we have kids who just want rack up score and we have ex-servicemen/women and history buffs on the same game, get over that ,I have had to.