The USSR BR V fighter is going to BR IV and La-7 is better then Ki-100…and Japan tanks at BR IV are BR III USSR tanks and BR III Japanese tanks are BR II Soviet tanks and lets not start with ground attackers.
Recently I read the latest SITREP, the success of the first one would’ve warranted and benefitted by having had the second SITREP follow sooner, not strung out 7~ months later. Especially during the times where there was quite the lack of content and despite players asking for some sign of life they were stonewalled, not even a soon:tm: with some players leaving and some enlisted communities disbanding.
Your love of reading our experiences might be great, however some of the feedback that the player gives should be more valued and weighed with better responses given other than “I’ve passed this onto the devs” I understand that sometimes that is the appropriate response, however other times i feel there could’ve been more back and forth and hashing out why that was the feedback given, more expanding on the ideas and what not.
Strap in - this post will be longer than a copy paste war thunder premium cash grab run.
Disclaimer:
I’ve played for years, done metas, done disliked metas, played with and against players from all stages in the game, I’ve gained perspective from seeing the game from multiple player angles, from players starting off to players with completed tech tree with millions of silver and min maxed squads. I also gave this post some time to resonate with me instead of an instant kneejerk reaction.
To state the “devs are fully committed to the last roadmap very seriously” after it still being uncompleted nearly 18months later is a joke, do they not understand deadlines and timeframes? On its initial release, one side was “almost completed” with the other side stating “in development” for it to still be taking 18 months on things that sound to be implied of nearly done is terrible and conveys a very slow and bleak future for the game.
The game went from a new campaign every year to-heres a new map and a handful of items with copy pasta events. The ability to invite friends to ongoing battles wasnt just released internally as it was available to all and showed lack of testing and poor implementation, to then strip it away and cancel it is poor management descisions with dev time wasted, things such as this could’ve benefitted from either codetweaks else where in the game ie matchmaking and/or players perspectives and then been reimplemented better at a later date.
Also lacking keyboard and mouse support for consoles who arguably make up a decent percentage of your playerbase after all this time is poor, especially after 18 months of it being “in development”.
Furthermore publishing a roadmap for 2026 (as good as that would be) would yield in overwhelmingly negative feedback, especially since the playerbase would base the negative feedback on the current roadmaps time of completiom, showing the lack of trust that the playerbase has in your team, which should serve as a wake up call.
I’d love to critque the new frontline however that would be made up from assumptions, so i’ll wait until it drops for that.
I look forward to explore the “contracts” that players can complete to earn roundels and icons for historical decals. I feel the poll wasn’t needed since its documented of captured tanks still displaying decals especially since theres no friendly fire and that the game likes to try stay roughly historically accurate in some areas.
“You’ve told us that some actions feel undervalued” - we’ve told you more than just that with some of it going back years…
Increasing the users score for playing point may have been long needed but due to poor match making with sbmm really missing, sometimes you as the player have to be out and away from the point thawting the enemies effort in getting reinforcements to the point, your efforts are now undervalued and you may aswell change your game play so that the bottom feeders on your team that hide in a point and get a handful of kills (if that) get equal points to you putting in the effort and actually taking the battle to the enemy. in your attempts to say, get snipers to abandoned there 10 kill game spots and get on point, you’ve taking away from active players, maybe ask why players are sitting out the back playing classes such as sniper, you could change in engineer instead of sniper as a starting class and buff engineer built structure points to entice players being more active and co-opertive in random made teams - ya know, things that are clearly undervalued and asked for continously after all these years. You’ve also implied that score will be increased for both point kills and point assists, this now buffs tanks that are greyzoning and gives more incentive to just greyzone a tank, if not a tank, a plane dropping bombs or even soldiers on an AT gun etc etc.
The rush to continously get players to max their tech trees and have everything researched and min maxed is diabolical with how little the game receives in content and growth, if your worried about tech trees growing and being overwhelming, its ok, they already are - whats a little more.
Good work on adding score for setting/defusing bombs, it was needed, however lets hope no one exploits this since the ticket payout of wining those points on those games tend to give more tickets, the train mode would’ve benefitted from this change too but lets not bring that back.
More profile stats have been long asked for, especially since it was known to collect a lot more than what was shown and will be a welcome addition to add to the argument/bragging of w/l ratios with desertions now being able to be factored in.
Rating indicators sound like a prequel and a stepping stone to SBMM, however i dont understand the scale of it being 0 - 1000 when either of those numbers cannot be achieved since specified min max numbers were 190/900.
My thoughts and feelings are still annoyed with the battlepass overhaul, of which most weapons and skins are now unobtainable after the fact. Where before GO’s were a great reward and something that was actually rewarding. Current login bonuses/battlepass daily completion are lackluster for anyone thats played the game for some time with boosters and silver no longer needed. current battlepass rewards might be obtainable from the gamba box but the chances of getting those and not name change order etc are a complete joke, whereas having the option to select the reward i would like with a GO prior was nicer overall.
Weapon balancing needs to stop, overall the most updates this game has gotten in the last year has been consistant tweaks to weapons and br changes, id prefer the time and effort put into this be spent elsewhere, yes some balancing is needed, but not every other week/month.
Meteors… while i put this in the category of things the game didnt need (jets) the nerf was needed, but not to that extent, it should’ve (in mine and others feedback) just had one bomb removed and maneuverability nerfed, Jets need counteractive measures, like refill points being further away and soldiers having greater AA, the current turn time and damage output of a AA is no match for a jet, the current road map introduced better engineer built AT structures for high BR, the playerbase would definitely benefit from this stretching to high BR engineer built AA aswell, which had this been added with jets would’ve alleviated some of the complaints, since players would then have been able to shoot them down more easily.
Proper customization years back has been a missed monetization strategy that im still surprised that the game has side stepped to this day.
Excited to see what the new drops will be aslong as both platforms do not get exclusive rewards to each other.
I’m more than happy to expand where needed.
Cheers
1 Like
What do you mean? He has revealed a little bit about the next BP.
Good to know that the previous promise of transparency was pointless then if it was only done because of high demand and not to follow through with your promises made in part one.
I know this might sound a bit petty but it still is telling how much you value those promises when the only thing keeping the series from beeing canned was the demand for more and not a genuine desire to do better…
1 Like
This is a “tank” lol
It just needed a turn speed reduction with no changes to bombs. Me262 gets 4 mark 108s with their bomb. How is this so hard for people to grasp?!
That is a tank destroyer. But still a tank
It doesn’t say here that this is a tank.
Lol “type of armored fighting vehicle” what do you think a tank is.
It’s not important i get what you were conveying now. Thought you might of meant an AT gun
All tanks are AFVs, but not all AFVs are tanks.
A tank must be tracked, have a rotating turret and fulfill the doctrinal use of a tank (ie battlefield support, tank vs tank, leading break throughs ect…)
Self propelled guns are NOT meant to lead break throughs, they are to fire on the enemy from behind friendly lines or at the very least from a concealed location.
4 Likes
Not true.
Definition - a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.
Oxford definition
bruh, we are talking about military terms here.
Oxford dictionary is a half meme thing, they have definitions for words like Jedi.
Dont even get me started on how incorrect this definition is.
2 Likes
So were the WW 1 mark 4 and the german A7V no tanks then? both only had limited travers on their gun and no turret.
Definitions on tanks are wierd and like none of them can be definitive correct as everone has its own understanding of what a tank is supposed to be?
Given how the ww 1 mark series of tanks coined the word tank it would be hard to argue that those arent tanks and having tank destroyers predate the tank itself just doesnt make sence aswell.
They had turrets, that’s what those things on the side are on British tanks, or on the front for the German one, are (they’re even refered to as ‘naval-style turrets’).
What you’re thinking of is a top mounted turret (able to turn 360 degrees), that’s not nessesary for a tank to be a tank, it just needs any style of turret.
3 Likes
Correct, the first tanks were conceived as literal landships.
Vehicle classification makes the most sense based on tactical use rather than trying to base it on design elements.
3 Likes
Where?
On the RU side of the forum, one of the devs had fun with screenshots , but they couldn’t figure it out
Maybe you can?
Comment section after said image
1 Like
Manchuria💯