Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Mobius on May 24, 2014, 05:40:33 am

Title: War Thunder
Post by: Mobius on May 24, 2014, 05:40:33 am
There are many posts about WT here and there but we don't have a specific thread for it. This game just attracted my attention mostly because of its graphics, whose quality is very high. How is it compared to other games such as CFS and IL-2?

The game is free, but do I have to pay anything later on?
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: -Joshua- on May 24, 2014, 09:07:09 am
War Thunder is built upon the engine which powered IL2: Wings of Prey (or Birds of Prey depending on your platform of choice). In simulator mode, it's actually decently realistic.

However, the meat of the action seems to be based around the arcade mode, at which point it really doesn't compare to CFS or IL-2.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 26, 2014, 01:57:44 am
The War Thunder devs are pretty much cretinous vermin unable to balance a game for arcade mode, and it's main saving grace was that World of Warplanes was an unplayable mess when War Thunder dropped.

Ground forces has not impressed me so far, especially in the fact you can have KV-1 in the same match as starter tanks in arcade. The simulator mode is where the game ought to be played, but only with certain vehicles unless you want to be hugely frustrated, because again, balance. (Though in simulator mode it's at least forgivable.)
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Unknown Target on May 28, 2014, 04:32:48 pm
Never got into the game myself. Their lack of proper joystick support, and ****ty setup for the simulator servers, drove me away.

Unlike IL-2, you could not have realistic flight modes and unlimited respawns; either you went with unlimited respawns and arcade flying, or you went for a counter-strike esque single death with realistic physics gameplay mode with the simulator type. The lack of a middle ground left me feeling unfulfilled.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: StarSlayer on May 29, 2014, 09:43:17 am
(http://i.imgur.com/WptrFis.gif)
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Hades on May 29, 2014, 10:22:19 am
NG forgot to mention the wonderfully broken damage model (both planes and tanks), ****y repair mechanics (mostly tanks, you can have an entire crew and it take severa minutes to repair one thing), and tanks driving as if they're on an icerink or something (totally talking about planes here). This, on top of VERY questionable balance decisions (such as the IS-4 and T-54 versus the Panther 2 and King Tiger, lol), their awful crew skills system, and the weird upgrades system.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: General Battuta on May 29, 2014, 10:36:04 am
(http://i.imgur.com/WptrFis.gif)

My Hattori Hanzo wings
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Dragon on May 29, 2014, 04:04:36 pm
You know, if that plane was an IL-2, that would actually be realistic. :) There were planes in WWII that could do just that, cut an enemy's wing off with their own wings. Still, I'm pretty sure that one couldn't.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Spoon on May 29, 2014, 05:50:01 pm
Clearly you are oblivious to the power of japanese folded steel. You disgusting gaijin baka.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Scotty on May 29, 2014, 06:16:41 pm
A6M were made of wood. :P
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Spoon on May 29, 2014, 07:18:29 pm
Japanese folded wood trumps all
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: crizza on June 01, 2014, 06:56:47 am
THeir support is the worst.
I bought a starter kit several month ago, had the money, liked the game, so hey, here we go.
From that point on, the game crashed after logging in, over and over again.
I asked in the Gaijin boards support area for clues, no one had an idea what could cause the crash.
Recently, I deactivated the starter kit et voila...the game runs smoothly...
But I guess, my money is long gone...
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: StarSlayer on June 05, 2014, 12:56:45 pm
A6M were made of wood. :P

Every source I've seen indicates they were predominantly made out of extremely light weight 7075 aluminium alloy, except for the control surfaces which were fabric covered.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Sandwich on April 03, 2015, 06:29:11 am
I'd like to resurrect this thread since I've been bitten by the War Thunder bug really, really bad in the last month...

I don't fly much planes, but I've had a blast with the tanks. I'm not that familiar with the historical accuracy (or lack thereof) of the various tanks' effectiveness vs each other, but I love the modeled armor & hit angle damage system they have going on. It reminds me of when I first played Far Cry (yes, the first one) - the ability to lay prone and snipe, hide among bushes, etc, all gave me a sense that I was able to implement the kind of infantry combat tactics I learned as a soldier.

War Thunder's kind of the same, except instead of calling on my military experience (I wasn't a tank guy so everything I know about tanks is incidental), it calls on your basic knowledge of physics with regards to orientation vs the enemy, hull angling, ballistic trajectories, and of course, shooting at the location of vulnerable internals - ammo racks & fuel tanks. That thin 38mm side armor is effectively over 100mm if you're angled just so, after all.

I've progressed to the point in the tech tree where my main tank is a Sherman M4A2 (76) W. This tank is fun - nice and powerful - but it can't reliably penetrate the front or side armor of a PzKpfw VI worth a damn. In a recent match, while protecting a cap point, I found myself staring down the barrel of a VI. Knowing I was unlikely to penetrate my opponent's armor, I did the next best thing - shot him in the barrel. This hobbled his main gun enough for me to get in a few more shots at possible weak spots. Nothing penetrated, and in the end, he destroyed my tank, but the point is that those FreeSpace-esque "Disable subsystem XYZ" tactics actually WORK in War Thunder, and that makes it super-fun for me.

So.... anyone else play? Wanna form a team?  ;7
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 03, 2015, 04:27:15 pm
The War Thunder devs are pretty much cretinous vermin

I'd like to reiterate this point with the notation that Gaijin is bat**** insane and was banning people for quoting Girls und Panzer ingame, and their forums are by far the worst cesspool I've ever seen despite the fact they're also hilariously overmoderated; the moderators are all running personal grudges against various types of content (there's one guy who's apparently terrified of Kantai Collection for example, to the point people will terroristically post KanColle stuff in a thread and then use an alt to report it so they can get the thread closed; another guy who's on a campaign against a particular clan ever posting...) rather than attempting to accomplish anything good for the forum as a whole.

Hell, War Thunder's CEO got up in front of the Duma and complained about World of Tanks as "encouraging people to play fascist tanks and aircraft by giving them historical stats" a few months back, or words to that effect. Ever wanted to know why your LaG-3 is broke? It's historical revisionism by the developers to "correct" World War 2 away from a world where Germany had competent aircraft. The devs have also been openly hostile to Italian planes and vehicles a few times.

These are terrible people. These are worse people than the MechWarrior Online devs ever were. Do not play their game. I cannot stress this enough.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Sandwich on April 03, 2015, 09:04:25 pm
:rolleyes: Whatever. If such things prevent you from enjoying the game as it is, nobody's forcing you to play it (and if somebody is forcing you to play it, do you want us to call the cops for you??). Personally, I enjoy the game, historical accuracy be damned - after all, tanks were typically supposed to fill infantry support rules in the early years of WW2, but I don't see anybody complaining about the lack of infantry anywhere...
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Scotty on April 03, 2015, 09:06:55 pm
That was rather rude, Sandwich.  It's fine if you don't share his concerns but you don't need to grind them into the dirt with your boot.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 03, 2015, 09:21:14 pm
:rolleyes: Whatever.

Hey, if you really want to support people who are eager to whitewash history, go ahead. However, given your heritage I would have thought an accurate accounting of the history of World War 2 would be something you'd care about.

Obviously, I was wrong.

It's not even so much that they're not historical; it's that they are made deliberately unbalanced in an online competitive multiplayer environment over the personal issues of the development team. Gaijin doesn't merely not give certain vehicles historical stats, but instead measures them against each other and makes sure that the ones on the "right" side are better than those on the "wrong" side, deliberately penalizing hundreds or thousands of players.

To say nothing of the personal issues of the development team being terrified of anything Japanese younger than 1950 despite their decision to call themselves...well, Gaijin. The personal issues of the fanbase are rather amazing as well; the reason flags were made pay-only was that they had severe issues with nationalistic trolling between Russian and Ukrainian/Balkan players.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Aesaar on April 03, 2015, 09:46:22 pm
I'm personally more amused by the idea that World of Tanks gives tanks historical stats.

How many hitpoints did a Panther ausf. G have, historically?
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: AtomicClucker on April 03, 2015, 10:02:26 pm
I'm personally more amused by the idea that World of Tanks gives tanks historical stats.

How many hitpoints did a Panther ausf. G have, historically?

The Germans lucked out when 42 was an insufficient number.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: deathfun on April 03, 2015, 11:13:18 pm
Meanwhile, I was under the impression from the friends I have who play the game who said "Balancing be damned, the tanks feel like they're the badass or weakass counterpart"

Essentially, German Tiger means your doom unless you score a lucky mobility kill or ammo hit
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: SpardaSon21 on April 03, 2015, 11:16:38 pm
Lets not forget Gaijin are the guys 100% fine with a clan named "NKVD" in their game, since they were apparently brilliant war heroes of the Soviet Union and never a domestic terror force.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Sandwich on April 04, 2015, 05:11:26 am
:rolleyes: Whatever.

Hey, if you really want to support people who are eager to whitewash history, go ahead. However, given your heritage I would have thought an accurate accounting of the history of World War 2 would be something you'd care about.

Obviously, I was wrong.

You may or may not be aware that last night was Passover. Therefore, we had some people over for the Seder meal. During the pre-meal conversation, the recent movie Exodus: Gods and Kings came up. One person who had seen it was commenting on various inaccuracies that were seen as typical of Hollywood when it tries to make a movie based on the Bible. My response was that I don't look to Hollywood to teach me theology - I just want to be entertained.

Similarly, I don't play historical event-based computer games when I want to learn history - I play to have fun.

That doesn't mean that the concerns and issues you have with the game's inaccuracies are invalid in any way, just that they're irrelevant to the simple fact that I'm having fun playing the game as it is, and am looking to see if there are any like-minded folk I kinda sorta know who I could team up with.

I'd love to learn more about the game's inaccuracies and the issues people have with the devs, but honestly - you've had how long to start threads - or continue this one! - about Gaijin's fallacies, and yet now you bring things up, side-swiping my necro-threaddage? Nien kool, mein unterforumitekamphwaggen... ;)
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Spoon on April 04, 2015, 09:42:00 am
I don't feel like wasting my time ranting and getting angry about a free to play game that ive spend 300 something hours in, but I just gotta echo that NGTM-1R is 99% right on this and I agree 100% with him.
I just rest easy in the fact, that in all my play time, I haven't given Gaijin a single cent of real money.

Also I'm a ****ing god in arcade airbattles, meaning my opinion trumps any of yours, any time of the day. Don't bother disagreeing with me.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Sandwich on April 05, 2015, 08:55:12 am
I just wanted to add that the unbalanced aspect of the game's tanks is kinda what I like about it... you can't just barrel through, shooting at anything that moves and expecting you'll have an effect. It's more like a crafted single-player level in that you have a whole swath of enemies, ranging from those that are mere annoyances, to those that you have to maneuver behind and hit just right to be able to do anything to them. It's not just an "everyone's different-but-equal" thing - you have to think things through.

In a recent map I played, our team capped all the points and was doing a pretty good job at holding them up to about mid-game. Then a very clever (enemy) player took a Tiger around the edge of the map into a flanking position on our spawn, and began taking out our tanks as the respawned. Typical spawn-camping, I know, but the fact that he had a Tiger meant that most of our team couldn't really damage him in the slightest, and the ones that could had to flank him in turn to do so.

So what ended up happening to virtually our entire team was something like this: They'd be taken out while defending a point, would respawn and almost immediately get taken out by the Tiger. The killshot cam would reveal to them the existence of and direction to the Tiger, so on their 3rd and final respawn, they'd head towards the Tiger and start trying to damage it.

One by one this happened with almost the entire team, until there was virtually nobody left defending the cap points. Towards the end I think we had like 7-10 tanks fighting that one lone Tiger, trying to penetrate its armor. Eventually they managed to flank it and take it down, but by then of course the enemy team capped all the points and won the match.

it's things like that that I love about War Thunder. Perhaps it's just because it's the first multiplayer game I've played since C&C Renegade 13 years ago, and what I'm experiencing are the usual kinds of thing you get when you finally play against real people instead of the AI, but regardless, I'm finding it quite fun.

So, anyone want to join up?
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Herra Tohtori on April 05, 2015, 11:58:14 am
I do play the game, with a deep conviction to never hand out any real monies to the developers due to their many outlandishly ridiculous characteristics. It's a shame because the developers actually do a pretty solid job, it's just the management and PR that fails hard in many ways. Still, it's free and convenient to play, so I do.

I play almost exclusively SB, though. Both standard air SB, and the new mixed battles with no minimap or icons.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Scourge of Ages on April 05, 2015, 02:08:17 pm
I played the tanks for a little while, but the respawn mechanic felt strange to me. Probably at least partially because I'm accustomed to World of Tanks, but I feel that if your team pulls off a good flanking maneuver, it should stay flanked. When the other guys get a chance to respawn in random places behind you, it kind of negates scouting, hiding, and positioning.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Herra Tohtori on April 05, 2015, 04:11:21 pm
Personally I feel the bigger issue is that to win the game you need to sit in a magic circle clearly marked on the map, inviting everyone to attack you. In fact I don't particularly like the ticket mechanism in general - it would work better if it was dependent on doing actual tasks, like destroying artillery or other targets, rather than occupying an arbitrary circle on the map. Some kind of fuzzy recognition of tactical presence at important locations could also work, but the locations should be unmarked and information of your location should not be displayed to enemy team by other means than enemy team actually spotting you and relaying that information by text or voice comms.

But yes, having just one vehicle would work better, especially in SB mode.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Patriot on April 06, 2015, 05:12:38 am
In case you haven't played in the last two weeks Herra, the map spotting has been ousted in both RB and SB mode for the Tank battles.
In SB mode you still get the respawn if you're driving anything considered a light or medium tank(including tank destroyers) and you can use 1 aircraft in the Tank Sim Battles alongside your tank choice.

In RB mode it's still the Spawn Point system, which seems to randomly change values with each match. And in RB you don't see enemy names over tanks and airplanes anymore, which is an improvement. Haven't actually played with Aircraft exclusively to say much about it, but those are the major changes to the tank battles in RB and SB.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Herra Tohtori on April 06, 2015, 09:25:15 am
Yeah, I know about the changes, been playing ASB events from when they were first introduced.

I don't play RB Ground, primarily because of the spawn point system and secondly because of the unusable third person camera that can't be disabled. I also prefer no icons for enemies OR friendlies, since it makes it necessary to identify targets before engaging. And I don't play RB Air because of third person view mode and mouse control with instructor, which makes it much less of a flight simulator and puts you at a distinct disadvantage if you prefer to fly from cockpit view with joystick, as I very much do.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: SpardaSon21 on June 24, 2015, 12:13:03 am
So, in recent news, the 76mm Jumbo is for some bizarre reason now 6.0 in realistic battles.  Due to the latest round of penetration buffs, there is no spot on that tank that is unpennable by anything it will face at 6.0 save the Tiger E, which will have issues with its turret mantlet.  Anything else however, will go through the mantlet like a knife through butter.  This leaves its speed and firepower as its sole defenses, neither of which it possesses, with an overloaded transmission and engine for its 37.8 tons, and a gun inferior to that possessed by the BR 3.3 Pz IV Ausf. F2.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Patriot on June 25, 2015, 12:08:49 pm
Oh, and in other news, the Soviets get their IS-8(named the T-10 as opposed in WoT) and we get the M60 and Leo 1 to play with. I haven't touched this game in nearly 2 months, save for updating.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Col.Hornet on June 25, 2015, 01:08:45 pm
Leo 1 is the reason why I play the ground forces sometimes. Time to grind the remaining panthers ;)
 But still I prefer to fly my F-86 Sabres.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Aesaar on June 25, 2015, 03:17:56 pm
So, in recent news, the 76mm Jumbo is for some bizarre reason now 6.0 in realistic battles.  Due to the latest round of penetration buffs, there is no spot on that tank that is unpennable by anything it will face at 6.0 save the Tiger E, which will have issues with its turret mantlet.  Anything else however, will go through the mantlet like a knife through butter.  This leaves its speed and firepower as its sole defenses, neither of which it possesses, with an overloaded transmission and engine for its 37.8 tons, and a gun inferior to that possessed by the BR 3.3 Pz IV Ausf. F2.
Wut?  1. the 76mm Jumbo has been BR 6.0 for months.  2. The American 76mm M1 cannon is much better than the KwK 40 L/43.  It's also better than the L/48.  It's comparable to the KwK 42 on the Panthers.  Yeah, the 76mm M62 APCBC suck, but the APCR is very good.  Still, I don't think the Americans get a genuinely good cannon until the 90mm M3 and the 76mm M32 (on the Walker Bulldog).  Both are on BR 6.3 vehicles.

Also, penetrable by everything on its BR is also true of the Panther.  Folds like wet paper when shot at by IS-2s and American 90mm guns, and the Panther D/A mantlet is just 100mm thick, which makes it vulnerable to pretty much every gun above BR 5.0.  Actually, the Jumbo is much better armored than the Panthers are.  Thicker hull everywhere, and the turret has Tiger 2 levels of armor.

In any case, the Jumbo was a horrible anti-tank tank.  It was meant primary for infantry support work, where its armor would be more than good enough to deal with handheld anti-tank weapons, common towed anti tank guns, and stuff like StuGs.  The standard Shermans with the 76mm are much better AT vehicles, just because they're faster.  So are the US tank destroyers.  I find the BR 5.0 M18 Hellcat is a much more dangerous foe than the BR 6.0 Jumbo.  So's the M4A3E8 at BR 5.7.  Because they can move.

In short, the game is not kind to Jumbos because this is in no way the combat environment the Jumbo was designed for.  Same is true for the 105mm Sherman and the StuH 42, and it'll be true for the Churchill when British tanks come around in a couple months.

Still, at least the T32 is really good.  Consolation prize.


BTW (not addressed to you Sparda),"Russian Bias" is the War Thunder version of "omg lag".  It's an excuse used by people who don't want to admit they made a mistake or played badly.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: SpardaSon21 on June 25, 2015, 08:11:08 pm
The APCR is indeed very good, but like any other APCR round it suffers horribly against angled surfaces, which is about every tank it faces.  There are very few things you can reliably pen with APCR you can't with APBC, that being the turret faces of KT's.   Generally everything else is either too angled to pen with APCR or just plain thin enough to pen with APBC.  And the main issue with the Jumbo is that its armor is indeed very good, but its good enough to slow it down without adding any sort of substantial survival bonus at its BR.  Yes, the Panther is wet tissue paper, but so is the Jumbo's armor at 6.0, and unlike the Panther it has far inferior mobility and a much weaker APBC round.  Literally the only thing it has going for it at its BR is APCR that can pen really thick flat surfaces.

And that's a hell of a consolation prize for me to strive for at 270k RP, which is currently more than the first two KT's combined.  I see a lot of pain and minimal gain for me if I keep trying to go up the U.S. line, so like Patriot said, all I do is update.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Aesaar on June 25, 2015, 11:25:56 pm
Just play something that isn't the Jumbo.  The M4A3E8 is pretty decent (and the very good Pershing is right after it), you see M18 Hellcats everywhere in 4.7-5.7 (because the speed mean you can get flank shots very easily, just beware of SPAAGs), and the M36 Jackson is also quite popular.  Mainly because the US 90mm is amazing.  The M41 Walker Bulldog is basically just a punchier M18, being very fast with a gun that has insanely good penetration characteristics.  Nothing is forcing you to use the Jumbo.  This isn't World of Tanks, you can research the T32 with any T3 or T4 vehicle.

Apart from the T32, US heavy tanks just aren't very good.  And I think that, in general, heavy tanks tend to teach people some really bad habits.  Which is why you see some German players who say the Tiger H1 sucks when it's probably the best tank in the game for its tier.

I've been playing pretty solidly for the last two months or so.  Nearly fully researched the Jagdtiger, which now sits at a usable BR of 7.0.  310k out of 380k research points.
Title: Re: War Thunder
Post by: Sandwich on July 06, 2015, 11:19:23 am
I'm still playing every night. I've unlocked all the US 7.0 BR vehicles, and am half-way through upgrading their modifications and unlocking 7.7 and 8.0 vehicles. In other words, the horrendous grind when you face Mauses and IS-3 & IS-4Ms regularly. :eek:

Still open to squadding up with HLP peeps if anyone's interested. I mainly play AB (Ground, duh), but wouldn't mind RB or even SB if I was with squadmates. :)