War Thunder Thread

[Nefaro]

Just unlocked ze East German MiG-15bis. 

Now let's see how long it takes until I pancake into the ground while trying to shoot at someone from a dive.

[Nefaro]

I occasionally check the WT forums for some info, and there can be some pretty funny sig banners bitching about bad changes & issues.  Such as this:




;D

[jomni]

Wow a jet. You have gone so far already. I'm still at tier 3 japanese.

[Nefaro]

Wow a jet. You have gone so far already. I'm still at tier 3 japanese.

I had unlocked a lot of stuff up to Tier 3, in most nations' lines, before the game came out of open beta.  Back when the grind was less difficult. 

Actually, I think there was no wipe during the last week or two of closed beta because the devs said they wanted the initial open beta population spread out across the first couple tiers a bit more IIRC.  So I probably had a head start before general public release.  But only playing this in intermittent stretches means I only recently got through some Tier 4 stuff.

[Jack Nastyface]

So I got a few questions:
1) Does WT ever create "realistic" battles...say where both sides are flying historically accurate planes for that era / conflict (Supermarine Spit and Hurricanes vs BF109e for Battle of Britain, etc).  Or does it do the same thing as WoT where you can have Soviet, US, German, Japanese, etc tanks fighting side-by-side?
2)  Does tweaking f-a mix and prop pitch really make a big difference?  I sometimes think it might, but when I consider the many 100's of hours spent playing games like IL-2, I wager that MOST of my combat occurs below 5000 ft.  Anyone want to enlighten me?

[bobarossa]

So I got a few questions:
1) Does WT ever create "realistic" battles...say where both sides are flying historically accurate planes for that era / conflict (Supermarine Spit and Hurricanes vs BF109e for Battle of Britain, etc).  Or does it do the same thing as WoT where you can have Soviet, US, German, Japanese, etc tanks fighting side-by-side?
2)  Does tweaking f-a mix and prop pitch really make a big difference?  I sometimes think it might, but when I consider the many 100's of hours spent playing games like IL-2, I wager that MOST of my combat occurs below 5000 ft.  Anyone want to enlighten me?

There are events running periodically that pit one country's forces against another in the same era.  They do mix US and Soviet forces together (at least in the tank battles) due to lend lease (even thought some of the US tanks weren't in lend lease.  Before the last patch, Realistic Battles tended to be one country against another but I have noticed a lot of German and Soviet tanks on the same side lately (and that sucks). 

On a side note, I saw something today I had never seen before.  While in spectator mode (after all my tanks had died), I saw a tank get hit and the shovel that was attached to its hull go spinning away. 

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

So I got a few questions:
1) Does WT ever create "realistic" battles...say where both sides are flying historically accurate planes for that era / conflict (Supermarine Spit and Hurricanes vs BF109e for Battle of Britain, etc).  Or does it do the same thing as WoT where you can have Soviet, US, German, Japanese, etc tanks fighting side-by-side?
2)  Does tweaking f-a mix and prop pitch really make a big difference?  I sometimes think it might, but when I consider the many 100's of hours spent playing games like IL-2, I wager that MOST of my combat occurs below 5000 ft.  Anyone want to enlighten me?

Yes, there are historical battles.  If you click on the events tab, you will usually find two historical battles to choose from as long as you possess one or more of the planes/ground vehicles present in the battle.

Prop pitch and fuel only really come into play in the simulator battles.  Prop pitch will let you gain a slight advantage in climb/dive speed or acceleration.  Fuel mix rarely comes into it as the rounds aren't normally long enough for people to get up to nosebleed altitudes.

[Nefaro]

'Realistic Battles' used to always be strictly nation vs nation until a recent update when the devs put in "mixed battles" to make the queue times shorter.  It raised quite a shitstorm because people liked the historical match-ups.  There is still a long fiery thread on their official forum about the change.

Those historical match-ups still happen, just not all the time nowadays.  I see them pretty often during peak times, with the non-event battles.  I definitely prefer the historical setups but if I'm going to be waiting in the queue for more than 3 or 4 minutes I'd rather just get in any mixed game than continue staring at the clock ticking upward.

Unfortunately, there can be a downside to the historical match-ups.  The allied side often ends up getting more bombers and less fighters on their side, and the German/Japanese fighter advantage quickly basically starts with the numbers advantage regarding air superiority.  I grimace when I see a number of B-17/24/29s spawn in on our side which usually means that the bombers will be taken out quickly and then the rest of the allied team will be bounced by the German side, despite some of the higher tier allied prop planes being better all-rounders, due to simple difference in numbers.

This is all in regards to the air forces side of the game.  The historical tank matches are more balanced since they don't have the fighter/bomber disparity sometimes.

[jomni]

'Realistic Battles' used to always be strictly nation vs nation until a recent update when the devs put in "mixed battles" to make the queue times shorter.  It raised quite a shitstorm because people liked the historical match-ups.  There is still a long fiery thread on their official forum about the change.

Those historical match-ups still happen, just not all the time nowadays.  I see them pretty often during peak times, with the non-event battles.  I definitely prefer the historical setups but if I'm going to be waiting in the queue for more than 3 or 4 minutes I'd rather just get in any mixed game than continue staring at the clock ticking upward.

Unfortunately, there can be a downside to the historical match-ups.  The allied side often ends up getting more bombers and less fighters on their side, and the German/Japanese fighter advantage quickly basically starts with the numbers advantage regarding air superiority.  I grimace when I see a number of B-17/24/29s spawn in on our side which usually means that the bombers will be taken out quickly and then the rest of the allied team will be bounced by the German side, despite some of the higher tier allied prop planes being better all-rounders, due to simple difference in numbers.

This is all in regards to the air forces side of the game.  The historical tank matches are more balanced since they don't have the fighter/bomber disparity sometimes.

But bombers are effective in taking out objectives and distracting the fighters.

[Nefaro]

'Realistic Battles' used to always be strictly nation vs nation until a recent update when the devs put in "mixed battles" to make the queue times shorter.  It raised quite a shitstorm because people liked the historical match-ups.  There is still a long fiery thread on their official forum about the change.

Those historical match-ups still happen, just not all the time nowadays.  I see them pretty often during peak times, with the non-event battles.  I definitely prefer the historical setups but if I'm going to be waiting in the queue for more than 3 or 4 minutes I'd rather just get in any mixed game than continue staring at the clock ticking upward.

Unfortunately, there can be a downside to the historical match-ups.  The allied side often ends up getting more bombers and less fighters on their side, and the German/Japanese fighter advantage quickly basically starts with the numbers advantage regarding air superiority.  I grimace when I see a number of B-17/24/29s spawn in on our side which usually means that the bombers will be taken out quickly and then the rest of the allied team will be bounced by the German side, despite some of the higher tier allied prop planes being better all-rounders, due to simple difference in numbers.

This is all in regards to the air forces side of the game.  The historical tank matches are more balanced since they don't have the fighter/bomber disparity sometimes.

But bombers are effective in taking out objectives and distracting the fighters.

Approximately 97% of the matches end because one side's aircrafter were all shot down.  Not because the 'tickets' ran out from the bombers' blowing ground targets up.

I wish there were better & more meaningful mission objectives and integration for bombers in these matches but it just comes down to them rushing to try & score points by dropping their bomb load and inevitably dying to enemy fighters.  Then the rest of the team is killed piecemeal and when no planes are left the match is a loss for the team that lost all their planes.

[jomni]

'Realistic Battles' used to always be strictly nation vs nation until a recent update when the devs put in "mixed battles" to make the queue times shorter.  It raised quite a shitstorm because people liked the historical match-ups.  There is still a long fiery thread on their official forum about the change.

Those historical match-ups still happen, just not all the time nowadays.  I see them pretty often during peak times, with the non-event battles.  I definitely prefer the historical setups but if I'm going to be waiting in the queue for more than 3 or 4 minutes I'd rather just get in any mixed game than continue staring at the clock ticking upward.

Unfortunately, there can be a downside to the historical match-ups.  The allied side often ends up getting more bombers and less fighters on their side, and the German/Japanese fighter advantage quickly basically starts with the numbers advantage regarding air superiority.  I grimace when I see a number of B-17/24/29s spawn in on our side which usually means that the bombers will be taken out quickly and then the rest of the allied team will be bounced by the German side, despite some of the higher tier allied prop planes being better all-rounders, due to simple difference in numbers.

This is all in regards to the air forces side of the game.  The historical tank matches are more balanced since they don't have the fighter/bomber disparity sometimes.

But bombers are effective in taking out objectives and distracting the fighters.

Approximately 97% of the matches end because one side's aircrafter were all shot down.  Not because the 'tickets' ran out from the bombers' blowing ground targets up.

I forgot.  Because I only play arcade and there's enough action and respawns there to last the whole time allotted or achieve a victory.

[Nefaro]

I forgot.  Because I only play arcade and there's enough action and respawns there to last the whole time allotted or achieve a victory.

Arcade is enjoyable but quite nutty when it comes to flight models and the crazy suicidal behavior it promotes.  I'm glad to have finally pushed myself fully into RB even though it can be tough, especially if you get some idiots on your team.  But it's definitely more cerebral and a better representation of air combat since it promotes the use of tactics. 

I still do an Arcade match or two, notably on new aircraft, just to get some fast research points for unlocking the initial couple modules.  But the crazy flight modelling in AB is too over the top for me to stick around in it long anymore.  I played an AB match last night and my Typhoon 1b was doing 180 degree turns in 2 seconds and probably less.  It was just nuts.


The poor bombing implementation in WT matches is one of the reasons I'll be revisiting IL-2 BOS soon since custom multiplayer missions were enabled recently.  I expect the BOS Syndicate server, and probably others, to have some great custom-made multiplayer missions which integrate the bombing quite well, as they have done with their Rise Of Flight multiplayer custom server missions.  O0

[Slick Wilhelm]

WTH is going on with WT's ground combat? I tried the arcade version, and that was merely "okay"...not any better than World of Tanks. So I went to play a simulator game last night, and after waiting for over 5 minutes, I gave up. Apparently nobody is playing the more realistic modes?

[Dread Rlyeh]

WTH is going on with WT's ground combat? I tried the arcade version, and that was merely "okay"...not any better than World of Tanks. So I went to play a simulator game last night, and after waiting for over 5 minutes, I gave up. Apparently nobody is playing the more realistic modes?

not any better then WOT?  Hit points?  I routinely 1 shot in WT, in arcade, in tiers 3-5.  Obviously spalling isn't realistically implimented, but I think it is a reasonable compromise, though APCR clearly needs a boost.  Artillery is night and day between the two.   I'm curious as to how you think the two stack up.  I've been top tier in both games (sadly, time is a thief and whatnot) and don't consider them on the same level.   

[Nefaro]

WTH is going on with WT's ground combat? I tried the arcade version, and that was merely "okay"...not any better than World of Tanks. So I went to play a simulator game last night, and after waiting for over 5 minutes, I gave up. Apparently nobody is playing the more realistic modes?

not any better then WOT?  Hit points?  I routinely 1 shot in WT, in arcade, in tiers 3-5.  Obviously spalling isn't realistically implimented, but I think it is a reasonable compromise, though APCR clearly needs a boost.  Artillery is night and day between the two.   I'm curious as to how you think the two stack up.  I've been top tier in both games (sadly, time is a thief and whatnot) and don't consider them on the same level.   

Also... most people level out of Tier I tanks pretty quickly and/or in Arcade Mode.  You don't start seeing a large & steady population for Realistic and Simulation mode battles until at least Tier II stuff.