Jump to content

Dev Questions & Answers Compilation





Regularly, some of our development team interact with our community on the Official Forums. The players are invited to ask the team questions in regard to future development. Our Developers then answer the questions using as much information as they have available at that time. These answers are never a guarantee but at least indicate the direction that the game production is steering.

Here you will find all the past sessions and also the ongoing discussions that have been added. The current discussions will be compiled into a “best of” regularly and the latest one will be highlighted to our community.

Here is the latest Compilation.

Please remember, that everything the development team reply may change for various reasons. We hope this is helpful to you and we will continue to improve this type of focus as we progress.



  • BVV_d (ground Vehicle related information)
  • white_wolf (map related information)
  • V_S_N (FM related information)
  • Lassar (aircraft related information)

There have been rumours about the Italian aircraft tree in the works. How many aircraft can we expect in the tech tree; will we be able to see it soon?
Yes, we are working on a standalone Italian aircraft tree. It's still quite soon to be more specific, but in the end we plan for it to be somewhat comparable to the Japanese tree regarding the number of aircraft. It's an immense amount of work and still far from being complete, but we plan to announce it officially and share some more information with you in the coming months.
There were no new British aircraft in patch 1.47, why? Do you plan to rectify it in one of the next major updates?
Yes, definitely. We plan to add a whole new branch to the British tree - the naval Fleet Air Arm line. It will consist of roughly 10 additional aircraft distributed evenly through all Ranks, from naval biplanes to jets. We still can't confirm it, but we're working hard so it can be added in the 1.49 update.
What about the Sea Meteor, will it move to the newly added branch?
No, Sea Meteor will stay in its current place, FAA branch will have own jets.
What's the plans for the British after the naval line?
Updating early Spitfires, Hurricanes and also paying some attention to the bomber line.
Are you content with power and damage of small calibre aircraft machine guns? Certain aircraft Damage Models still feel somewhat wonky, are you working on it?
We feel that damage of small calibre machine guns should be improved and we're working on some changes. Damage Model improvement and weapons tuning is an ongoing process, which doesn't involve only DM team, but also game programmers and other people. We're trying to complete significant aircraft DM updates, which will be hopefully pushed into update 1.49.
You have commented that priority in 1.49 is in DM, machine gun tuning, gunner tuning. Could you be more specific?
Wait for devblog, we will share all relevant information prior to release there.
How about external jettisonable fuel tanks?
We plan to introduce this mechanic into game, but we still need to work out some issues, so there's no ETA on this feature at this moment.
Bf 109 K-4 had an option to mount 20 mm MG151 cannon through propeller instead of its 30mm cannon. Will we get that option ingame?
Yes, we are working on it.
Italian 12.7 mm Breda SAFAT machine guns (and also some Japanese MG's) were able to use High Explosive ammunition historically, but it's not ingame at this moment. Any plans to introduce it?
I checked it, and it's already modelled and working ingame. The issue seems to lie in text localization of tooltip information. We will fix it, so you'll be able to see it too.
There was a Floats! event last weekend. It's fun, but on the other hand it shows there aren't that many flying boats and floatplanes ingame at this moment. Will there be some new ones, will perhaps the Italians get some?
We plan to add flying boats to every nation and we're working on it. As for Italian aircraft, as stated before, we will give you some information at the end of spring.
When will we be able to see changes to the BR, which were proposed by the community in WTPC thread?
Quite soon. With upcoming BR recalculation.
When will be the DM of Wellingtons improved? They were very durable in real life, especially because of their geodetic airframe. The game doesn't do them justice at this moment.
There will be big update in patch 1.49.
Is it possible to make an official comparison tool between vehicles?
This feature is planned.
When can we expect N1K1 and N1K1-J?
Hard to say at this moment. We plan to add J2M and Ki-44 series to Japanese tree first.
Will we see some bomber cockpits in 1.49?
Most likely yes.
Russian 23mm cannons on IL-2 and I-301 are useless now, you can't destroy any kind of tanks anymore. Is it a bug or they got nerfed?
It will be fixed in update 1.49.
What are your priorities in introducing new ground vehicles?
We'd like to implement a line of American tank destroyers, British ground forces tree and armoured cars. In this particular order.
Do you plan to add spalling effect (creation of metal fragments torn from the inside armor of the tank even with shell not penetrating) to ground forces?
Yes, we'd like to have this mechanic ingame and we're actively working on it.
Can you, again, confirm the addition of T-62, Leopard 1, M48 and M60 in patch 1.49?

T-62 and M48 won't come in 1.49. With the exception of Leopard 1, which will likely be in the update, I can confirm the rest with absolute certainty.

How do you calculate how much horsepower should filter, engine and transmission increase?

It will be soon displayed in tooltip, similar to what you can see when installing aircraft modules.

My tank explodes sometimes only after very slight damage to its fuel tanks. It seems unreal to me, are you planning some changes in this matter?

Yes, we will review the current state and rework it. Fires will be more frequent and explosions less frequent.

For tanks with a pintle mounted machine gun, will we ever see a model for the machine gun operator, or will the gun continue to move on its own?
I can't answer that question at this moment. It requires lot of work and introduces many issues. I have to admit though, that current state doesn't look natural.

I've been wondering why I see ammo racks on tanks turn solid black, yet not exploding.

When ammo rack module changes its colour to black, it doesn't necessarily mean it will explode with 100% certainty, it means they're destroyed. It is possible that in the future in case of such event happening, it will proportionally decrease the amount of available shells for your tank.

When can we expect to see some refinements on hit box models, there are many tanks that have incorrectly aligned surfaces with bad angles, it affects curves surfaces the most.

We will try to fix this specific issue in patch 1.49.

You plan to add American Tank Destroyer branch to game in 1.49, will they be added from tier 1 to tier 5 in one update? Will the US receive more tanks than just TDs in 1.49?

It will be full branch with TDs on all Ranks. It is also probable that US will get more vehicles than just TD line.

Any plans to have damage to tank components that don't do much at the moment do something? Radiator damage could make the engine overheat and suspension damage could make tank tilt and harder to drive/aim.

Yes, that's exactly what we want to add.

What do you think about the inclusion of AI infantry into ground forces battles? Do you think it is possible?

Such addition would result in age rating increase (such as PEGI rating) for the whole game, so we most likely won't do it.

Will there be any Russian heavy tank after IS-4? Which one will it be?

It's going to be T-10.
Do you plan to add maps with new tilesets, like desert and snow maps? Do you have any ETA for that?
Yes, definitely. We're working on it, but can't give you any specific date at this moment. It's safe to say that desert maps won't be ingame sooner than British tank tech tree.
What is with the promised destructible building model you've presented some time ago? Are you still working on it?
It is very difficult to do it properly, but we're still working on it. You could perhaps see some elements of it in patch 1.49.


The War Thunder Team

  • Upvote 137

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Would it be possible to add a button to the Options Menu, so that we will be able to open the bomb bay manually? It would be historical and also certain planes - like B-57A with rotary bomb bay - would greatly benefit from it.

It won't be ready in 1.49, but yes, we want to implement such mechanic.

With the major DM changes incoming in 1.49, are you planning to finally overhaul certain Battle Rating values?

Yes, it's possible that it will be impemented even before 1.49.

I would like to know the status of the tree of French aircraft, any plans? Will they have their own tech tree?

It will not have its own tech tree with French aircraft. They will probably be part of International Tech Tree with aircraft from different countries. We also closely monitor Community Tech Tree project thread.

How many Japanese planes will be add in 1.49 if any? Are there any plans to add more unique (not captured) Tier IV Japanese Premium aircraft?

Not many, but there will be some added in 1.49 definitely. Yes, we have plans to implement unique Tier 4 Japanese aircraft.

Do you plan to add weather problem like storm = more difficult to fly, or wind affecting your plane?

We plan to add wind setting, yes. No plans for stormy though, it's nigh unflyable weather and wouldn't add much to gameplay.

Can we expect to have more accurate stat card for aircraft with real turn time and climb rate on every altitude?

Data you can see on statcards isn't implemented manually, it's done automatically with a compare tool. We plan to improve its algorithms so displayed data will provide more accurate information.

Also, when can we expect accurate aircraft gun/ammo belt information like velocity and penetration?

After the Damage Model update.

Anything to add about the Damage Model update? Anything that you haven't shared yet?

It should also allow correct belly landings without doing critical damage to your aircraft as it happens now in most cases.

Is there going to be the implementation of camouflage condition editor for planes too?

No, unfortunately that is ground forces only mechanic.

Is the aviation cutoff still set to 1953 (even though we have already few airplanes exceeding it)?

Yes, it is still 1953. We don't want to go over that date if we have any other option.

Could the implementation of viewable aircraft module damage be included? Such as the state of the engine once it's hit, that would be really useful!

Yes. I think it will be turned on in 1.49.

Are some improvements planned for gunners in 1.49?

I hope, yes. For sure there will be more accurate limits for gunners fire zones.

Will ships and ground targets made destroyable by ramming?

It's not an aim of 1.49 for me. And in any case, player tanks will stay unrammable.

After the next patch, what are the top priorities for gaps to fill for each nation?

First of all we are going to work with British bombers and continue working with Japanese fighters

Some planes in the game have multiple guns mounted in the wings. Currently we can set only one convergence for all guns. Will we have the option to set different gun convergences for different pairs of guns?

If it was possible in real life, then it could be possible in game. Report it in Technical subsection and we will fix it.

Will destruction radius of bomb be tweaked, or has it been finished?

I have some plans about checking/reworking their effectivity.

Any plans for tier 4 Japanese bombers in 1.51? Ki-67 and P1Y for example?

We are working on Ki-67 at this moment.

Is the extended JIP mode with dynamic objectives still in active development?

We're still testing it at the moment.

How many new maps will be in 1.49?

2-3, can't really say with certainty yet.

What are the time limits in the game for the water-methanol injection on jets that historically had it?

Jets have simplified WEP model at this stage; we will add limited water injection for these aircraft. Engine flameout is not an available effect right now. We also have plans to add negative-G fuel system failure for jets.

  • Upvote 120

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Will we see some work on night fighter mechanics like a working radar system?

We have some ideas about radar mechanics and night battles. We will find a way to implement them in the most interesting way.

What is the status of the Westland Whirlwind?

We haven't started working on this aircraft yet. Our priority for UK tech tree is now adding worthy bomber on 3rd Tier.

Is there any chance of seeing some more RAF bombers that aren't Wellingtons or Lancasters in the near future (meaning 1.51 at the latest), like the Whitley, Stirling, or Halifax, or even some Mosquito bomber variants?

Some of them are in work in progress stage.

Are there plans for any German Premium Tier IV bomber or Premium heavy fighter?

Yes, we are working on something.

Do you think the more detailed damage models include parts for aircraft like machine guns, their ammunition, bombs and rockets which will be actually destroyable?

We've implemented tuning tool in 1.70 and now we're gathering information on how it would affect the game.

Are the Damage Model improvements introduced in 1.70 final?

No, we're still working hard on it, in 1.70 we haven't been able to introduce all changes to aircraft DM we wanted.

A7M variants for Japanese were hinted earlier, any new info, ETA perhaps?

It's work in progress. First plane will be introduced in autumn at the latest.

You have mentioned that there are still plans for implementing new BR/Matchmaking system. Any new information?

We still need to improve interface a little more to make new MM more clear and understandable for you.

Why the ability to upgrade Spitfire guns is harder to implement than gunpods and engine cannons of Bf 109s and Fw 190s? What impact do these have on the Spitfire that doesn't affect the mentioned planes?

Changing motor cannons and adding gun-pods doesn't equal to changing armament mounted in wings.

You said the Ju-87D-5 would have its dive brakes fixed in 1.70, is it postponed?

It is delayed until next major patch where we'll focus among other things on fixing big amount of weaponry presets and bugs.

Will you tune the efficiency of AI gunners? If so, how much will they be improved?

We plan to look at them, but only after reworking bombers damage model.

In 1.70 we've received another IL-2M, my question is - will we also see the model with arrow wings?

We will update IL-2M with the arrow wings a bit later.

What about introducing a mechanic, that would allow bomber pilots after their death be replaced by other crew members - like gunner? So pilot death wouldn't necessarily mean loss of a plane?

It seems like a good idea for some aircraft since we have the same mechanics for tanks, but main problem with it is that not every gunner had the knowledge to control bomber.

When can we expect to see some more Hurricane variants?

In next updates, of course. We started from the earliest version and we will continue updating later versions.

Any chance on changing the BR for Typhoons?

Everything is possible. We plan to have next recalculation of BR for all planes by the end of May.

How´s the state of progress regarding drop tanks and RATO/JATO´s (Rocket Assist Take Off/Jet Assist Take Off)?

Unfortunately it's still work in progress.

Can we expect a "Hitcam" for planes with big guns (for example: Me 410 A-1/U-4, Hs 129, PBJ-1H)?

I don't think we will do a hitcam in airplane-airplane case. Airplane-tank hitcam is probably possible.

Can we expect smoke and spark effects on aircraft engine startup?

Short answer - yes.

Will bridges in ground forces maps be destroyable by planes in the foreseeable future?

We will see destructible bridges in future, just can't say when yet.

  • Upvote 122

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Will we see working grenade launchers on tanks in the future?

It's too soon to answer - the main complication for us is the smokescreen and subsequent limited visibility implementation.

When can we expect equal game conditions for all users across different graphic settings in Ground Battles?

I cannot say exactly when. Nevertheless, we're thinking about - and working on - certain solutions.
If not the E-series, can we expect to see KV-3, KV-4, IS-6, IS-7?

We don't have plans for these vehicles so far.

Are you working adding on historical gun sights? Not only the aiming reticle, but also the position of the sight on the mantlet etc.

Not right now, but much has been already done in this regard. Work on this has been postponed before, due to the more urgent matters.

Are there any plans to expand American heavy tank line, perhaps by adding M103A2?

Yes, we do have plans to expand this line. Not by adding M103A2 though.

Will we see any Bundeswehr/NVA vehicles in game later on?

Yes, we have some plans regarding these tanks.

Why Soviet 122mm gun performs better than the Soviet 100mm in game? It is known that the 100mm was a better anti-tank gun during WW2.

It all depends on ammo. While during WW2 100mm gun was perceived as a better gun, there were better shells developed afterwards for 122mm with much better performance.

When will we see a re-implementation of NORMAL tank simulator battles? Or at least multiple SB tank events, as was mentioned earlier?

If we'll start several SB tank events with different vehicle sets every day, it would lead to underpopulation of players in these events and subsequently to - in example - much longer queue times. Our numbers at this moment say that majority of former SB tank players switched to RB mode without markers.
Will we see Super Hellcat and Soviet heavy tank T-100 ingame?
We have plans for Super Hellcat, but not for T-100.

Can you explain what it takes to damage a track and at which point it becomes broken? I consistently see penetrations of roller wheels, but tracks stay on.

Destruction of roller wheels doesn't hinder the movement. Destruction of idler and drive wheels do. We do have plans to improve the simulation of suspension damage, with damage to the rollers, their separation, and the impact on the movement of the tank.

How will Armored Cars be ranked? Will they be ranked versus tanks, or will they have their own ranking system?

It depends on overall battle capability, not type of suspension. With that said, it seems now that their Rank won't be higher than 3rd.

When can we expect stereoscopic rangefinders to work? (in example on Panther F, M103 etc.)

Perhaps in 1.51.

When we will see good Matchmaking? When I drive Tiger II Henschel, I go against T32 and IS-3. That is not realistic and unhistorical.

Random battles MM is being driven by tank overall combat capability (by their Battle Rating), not their introduction into service. Maus is a good example of that - when we evaluated tanks efficiency and subsequently their BR last time, Maus was best tank in game by a huge margin (much better than IS-4).

About Armored Cars again - when can we see them roughly in game?

It's early to say, but perhaps in 1.53.

How well will Leopard 1 aim on the move in comparison to other current vehicles like T-54?

Cannot say. But the version of Leo 1 we want to introduce into game is without gun stabilizer.
On certain tanks, slope armor significantly distorts applied decals, do you plan to fix it?
Yes, it's a mistake and it will be corrected.

Currently, in battles where planes and ground forces are mixed, player controlled tanks only render for player controlled planes at under 1 km distance. This makes proper CAS extremely difficult. Any plans on rectifying that?

We plan to increase the range of rendering tanks for aircraft, plus we plan to make a separate mechanism of targeting in tank RB, in which ground vehicles be able to direct attacker aircraft on detected enemy tanks.

What bomber cockpits are currently work in progress? Could you also tell us if you're working on some new German bombers at the moment?

About bomber cockpits - I can name at least one cockpit that's in the works right now, and that's B-24 Liberator. As for the second part of the question - we're working on early German bombers at this moment.

Will you be adding any new versions of Fw-190, or are you fully content with the ones we already have?

We're not yet fully satisfied with the line. We still have some versions of 190s in mind, that should be implemented.

You mentioned folding wings mechanic earlier - most naval aircraft will have it, when can we expect it? Maybe around 1.51?

Unlikely - "Soon ©" is the most possible answer. Implementing mechanics is the first step. We will need to tune it for every aircraft afterwards anyway.

What about the option for 20mm Motorkanone on Bf 109 K4? We didn't get it in 1.49.

It requires changes in cockpit aswell. Plus, when we researched the subject more closely, we found out, that this modification was used probably on only one aircraft (with Production number 330112).

When do you expect to have the next P-38 variant in game? Also, what American fighters are expected to be added for 1.51?

Well, new version of P-38 will probably come in 1.51, so that also answers first part of the question :)

Will there be a preset feature for aircraft skins? So you could create a new preset, and apply the decals onto a blank skin. And be able to swap between the two - in hangar - as you wish.

Good idea, will write it down.

Gunners on bombers still have unlimited ammo and they can shoot through their own parts of aircraft, any comments on that matter?

Shooting through own parts of aircraft should be fixed in 1.51. As I said in one of the previous Q&A sessions, before limiting gunner's ammo, first we need to make sure the AI that controls them listens to players orders.

Why did the Canberra get a cockpit, but not its nearly identical sister plane, the B-57A?

We still need to finish our research to be sure that B-57A used the same cockpit as Canberra.

Do you think the requirements for a successful torpedo drop could be made easier for AB? Currently they have same speed and altitude requirements as in RB and SB. That is weird, as I'd say it doesn't fit well into Arcade ruleset.

Yes, it will be fixed. At first, we'd like to see no speed limit for torpedo drop in Arcade mode.

Will there be a possibility of manually controlled tail hooks?

For now - no. It's marginal function. There are some other things we need to focus on first.

  • Upvote 90

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

How is the progress of armoured cars coming along? How many armoured cars can we expect per nation?

So far there is nothing new about armoured cars to say. For the next few patches, we will focus mainly on tanks, including British ones.

How many tanks will be in the British tech tree after launch?

Roughly the same amount of vehicles as were in the US tank tree when we launched it.

Will we get tank sights for their correct position depending where the sight really is located on the vehicle? Currently it's like looking through the barrel.

No, the point where the sight is currently looking matches the place from which the projectile travels. This is done intentionally - to remove parallax effect and a couple of other related issues.

Will we see the IS4 (without "M") in game at some point?

We don't plan on implementing this version at the moment.

Will all tanks get working machine guns? Some tanks have them modelled, but they do not fire.

We are adding working MG's whenever we have the time and opportunity to spare. We'll add them all over time.

Will we have playable artillery vehicles in the game?

No, only assault guns and tank destroyers.

What are the plans for adding overmatch mechanics to the game?

This mechanic has been in game for a long time already. If the calibre of a projectile exceeds the thickness of the armour that it hits more than 7 times, it will automatically penetrate the armour.

What are the long term plans for tank matches? Will it always be a closed deathmatch arena type, or will we get some sort of persistent mode?

It is too soon to comment on that matter, I am sorry.

What about the PT-76 or ASU-57, any plans?

Yeah, maybe in 1.53. We'll see.

Which Waffenträger varriant is most likely considered to be added?

C88 Pak43 gun variant.

Will there be more TD's in the Czech line in the German Tree?

All variants that have been produced have a chance to become implemented.

When will historical accuracy for guns be implemented? Now, a 122mm or a 152mm have the same accuracy as an 88mm (more or less).

It is a common misconception that lower caliber guns must be more precise when compared to guns with higher calibre. The Soviet D25T had almost the same shell scatter parameter as German KwK43.

Is it planned to give armour values ​​to the transmission, engine, and radiator?

Maybe, yes.

What about armour degradation?

That feature is already being tested.

Do you plan on adding the Churchill NA75? And if so will it be a standard or premium tank?

Yes, it is possible, likely as a premium.

Would you release a list with all the tanks you plan on releasing?

We cannot always, with 100% certainty, be sure which planned vehicles will make it into a future patch. That's the reason why we do Devblog articles about them - when they appear, the vehicles they are about are confirmed for the next major patch.

Will the Chieftain Twin 30mm Sabre SPAAG be in the British Tech Tree?

Yes, it is very likely. Not sure when, but if we find more information on the Sabre, we will implement it.

With the British tank tree, will you introduce only British tanks, or we can expect the regular American vehicles that the British used? Or vice versa?

The initial batch of vehicles will consist of mostly original designs.

  • Upvote 91

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Dear Players!

We present to you a set of Questions & Answers gathered from the War Thunder community on the social media network and forums. Answers are provided by Game Designers Vyacheslav (BVV_d) Bulannikov and Konstantin (White_W0lf) Klimenko.

Happy reading!

1. Will you release a list of vehicles that are planned to be added in the game?

 Answer: "We cannot always be 100% sure that we can say about all the planned vehicles that’s why we make devblogs when we are certain that a vehicle will be introduced."

2. Do you plan to add “armour value” for such modules as transmission, engine, radiator? Do you plan armour fatigue effect?

 Answer: "Probably. And we are already testing the “fatigue” effect."

3. As for the British tree - will there be only original tanks or we will also see U.S. vehicles used by the British?

 Answer: "Most likely at the “starting” level of the tree there will be mostly original British designs."

4. When will radiator damage actually affect anything? It should because of engine overheating.

 Answer: "We have a plan for a more detailed engine model, once it is implemented for aircraft we will probably implement it for tanks as well and radiator damage will affect engine overheating."

5. When can we expect a winter location for the allies, perhaps Ardennes?

 Answer: "We already have an approved list of locations for the next 2-3 updates. Ardennes will most likely come the next year."

6. Will you make realistic craters for bombs and rockets?

 Answer: "Yes. The same way as current ground is terramorphing."

7. When can we expect that bomb craters will be switched off. People are scared by pits appearing under their tanks.

 Answer: "We will fix it in one of the future updates. Visually it will be displayed as a not so deep crater for tanks and for aircraft it will look deeper. It should look very nice."

8. The Berlin map has too much haze compared to the other locations, is this a bug?

 Answer: "No. In the Berlin location you see smoke from a burning city."

9. Do you plan soviet tanks after the T-54?

 Answer: "The Т-62 is possible, T-55 will be implemented for sure. Perhaps some other prototype from this era. there were some really interesting vehicles."

10. Do you plan to reflect explosives in the shell info card?

 Answer: "Yes, the amount and type of the explosives will be displayed on the info card and depending on this some corrections to the shell’s damage may be implemented if something is not fully correct at the moment. The explosive damage will also be calculated not manually but based on the formula depending on the type of explosives and its mass. This will decrease possible mistakes in the data and thus the whole system will be more fair and clear."

The War Thunder Team

  • Upvote 14

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Players!

We present to you a set of Questions & Answers gathered from the Russian War Thunder community on the vKontakte social media network and forums. Answers are provided by Game Designers Vyacheslav (BVV_d) Bulannikov and Konstantin (White_W0lf) Klimenko. Website article here.


Happy reading!

1. In the recent “Destructible environment” announcement you showed us an example with buildings on “Berlin” map. We know that when this feature arrives buildings only on this location will be destructible, but what can you tell us about your general plans on the feature - will all buildings be destructible or some of them will not in favour of gameplay?


 Answer: "Bunkers will not be destructible - they could not be destroyed effectively even by bombs. Also we think that in the future we will make buildings around spawn zones non-destructible for obvious reasons. But in the beginning they will be destructible as well.  Also remember that not every weapon is capable of destroying a building - a certain calibre and shell yield is required."


2. About destruction physics - the debris will remain on the map and on the server for me and other players or they will disappear?

 Answer: "Currently they disappear and probably they will do so in the future as well - for reasons of performance and internet traffic. Each piece of debris should not also be displayed but also all the changes of its position/integrity should be sent to all the players and that means additional server load and users’ channel load, sometimes it may be really significant."


3. Why does transmission set on fire? It’s only metal and oil that doesn’t set on fire when hit by a shell and there is not enough of it to burn the vehicle, why don’t you just reduce vehicle’s mobility when transmission is hit?

 Answer: "There is much more material in a tank that may cause fire and keep it alive (wiring, personal belongings, dirt mixed with oil and fuel that may accumulate within the tank). I posted pieces of report shooting test in Kubinka where Tiger 2 was hit by 122, HE shell. The first hit caused destruction of welds and the tank set on fire. Here you can see APCR shell hit on the old tank the possibility of transmission fire outbreak (on all tanks not only German) reflects these specifics on real vehicles."


4. Any news on historically accurate aiming reticles?


 Answer: "No info on this right now, but there will be some interesting features connected with aiming in RB and SB in the next update."


5. What are the plans on tank arcade? Some players don’t like aircraft in AB, because they kill even more often than tanks. What do you plan to do with the imbalance on certain BRs - like 3.3, 6.7, 8.0. Some vehicles are much better than the others.

 Answer: "We believe (and figures show the same)  that aircraft in AB make gameplay more varied change the scheme of battle and the overall idea with air events is good. More action, more interest.

1. According to statistics, the best bomber has 0.8 tank kills per sortie. The worst one has one kill per 10 sorties. So the average is 1 kill per 2-3 sorties.

2. As for imbalance we will change the BR of certain vehicles and add new ones. But since we endeavor to show realistic vehicles, certain imbalances will remain because tanks were different and some of them were better at certain battle tasks like fighting other tanks." 


6. Any further development of SPAA planned? Any top rank vehicles maybe?


 Answer: "Yes it’s planned. Currently top SPAA’s lack fire density and fire rate to fight jets. Most likely we will introduce “Shilka” for USSR, “Vulcan” for USA, “Falcon” for Britain and perhaps “Gepard” for Germany - but not certain about this one, it used complex systems."   


7. Any plans for modernized versions of tanks? Like IS-2M, ISU-152K, ISU-152M and so on? When will you raise max br to 9.0?

 Answer: "All these tank versions are not that much different from the war-time vehicles, actually these changes were made to adapt these tanks to peace-time standards. The only real difference is ammo but currently we don’t plan these, however it may make sense for 7.0-7.7 BR. Perhaps we will not raise BR for ground forces up to 9.0 at all because this will require even more vehicles and waiting time in queue may significantly increase."


8. Е-100?

 Answer: "We don’t have it in short-term plans. If we ever introduce it, it will be some kind of special limited tank. It should be really rare vehicle if it ever makes its way into the game."


9. Ammo rack turning “black” does not explode. Will you solve this problem?

 Answer: "Probably in the nearest future we will change the DM for ammo racks. Hitting an ammo rack will have a chance to cause ammo detonation but to destroy the module (so it turns “black”) you will need more hits - like 2 or 3 depending on the shell. And when the ammo rack turns black it will always explode. Thus the ammo rack DM should be more clear."


10. Should we expect tanks of Japan and any other nations?

 Answer: "Japan - some vehicles will definetly be introduced, perhaps as premiums for another nation, some are possible before the end of the year. Its own tree? - well, looks like it won’t be soon. As for other nations: Britain, well, it’s clear already. France - as premium vehicles that were used by Germans for example, perhaps its own tree but there are gaps due to obvious reasons so that’s unclear. Italian tanks will be implemented in some way and other European nations also have several interesting vehicles."


The War Thunder Team

  • Upvote 11

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Will you add tungsten core rounds for T-62, or only ones of steel construction?

 BVV_d​: "For T-62 (if it is ever added to the game) steel APCRs will be enough, and HEAT of course."

2. Will we see the Leopard-1 А1 (not A1A1) or Kanonenjagdpanzer in the nearest future? Currently Germany has only one Cold War era tank to compete on rank 5.​

 BVV_d​: "At least one of them will be added very soon, follow the Devblogs."

3. Will we ever see physical material barrels for RB and SB?

 BVV_d​: "Unlikely. The Collision Model will make more problems than good. You have to take into the account the power of the turret traverse drive, durability of the barrel and the obstacle, collision speed and direction of the hit. It is not that hard for the game but for the player, any unlucky move will cause barrel damage which is bad news already without having material barrels."

4. When will we have working range measuring systems?

 BVV_d​: "This function is WiP and perhaps will be implemented in 1.53. It will work on all the tanks - basically is just receiving information about the distance by pushing the button, but the tanks who did have the system will have less margin of error."

5. How much time does it take to introduce a new vehicle into the game?

 BVV_d​: "It really depends. Firstly it depends on the modeller and complexity of the model itself. The longest one took 7 months, quickest was around 2 months."

6. Perhaps increase the time of invulnerability after respawn (Spawn Protection)? It is really confusing when I respawn and have enemy tanks around me. What do you plan do with it?

 Whitie_W0lf:​ "Increasing invulnerability time won’t be very helpful, but we are thinking of the variants to improve the situation."

7. Will you add some Belorussian maps?

 Whitie_W0lf: "It is planned."

8. Will you add “Stalingrad” and “Defense of Moscow” maps?

 Whitie_W0lf: "Tank maps you mean? Yes, sure."

9. Will you add Korean War locations or USSR-Japan War in 1945?

 Whitie_W0lf: "As for Korean War - only after we finish with WW2 maps, same goes to USSR-Japan, but there hardly were many big tank battles."

10. Question regarding destructible environment. Will we be able to make our way through a building if the mass and engine are enough? E.g. Maus.

 Whitie_W0lf: "No, if a building would crash on the Maus it would most likely bury it. Tankers don’t drive through buildings - or they may get stuck"


The War Thunder Team

  • Upvote 17

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Dear Players!

We present to you a set of Questions & Answers gathered from recent Q&A with Kirill Yudintsev on our forums.

Happy reading!


1. Would there be any additional ground target/ground strike/base domination missions added in the near future with major targets for bombing and strafing like factories, airfields with aircraft, oil refineries, rocket launch sites, military installations, shipyards, submarine pens, railway and railway yards, military trains etc spread throughout the maps giving the players more targets/missions to do during the matches vs just capping bases?

Kirill Yudintsev: Our designers really want to have it ingame. However, most of our location artists are now working on maps for tanks. When we'll have 18-20 of them, we'll focus more on new mission features. We have 16 maps at the moment, so this is going to be rather soon (after 1.55 I guess).

2. It was reported the BR system is adjusted by game statistics, I assume K/D ratios.  Those (vehicles) with more kill success get modified upward while those who are killed more often are downgraded. Why not use a BR range based strictly on performance and weapons, and THEN have a modifier applied on statistical data?

Kirill Yudintsev: We (and me personally) have spent hundreds of hours trying to create something that can be based on performance only - and it has shown significantly poorer results. Unless you compare vehicles which are suppose to meet only vehicles of their kind (for example - high-altitude fighters, or bi-planes) you'll get nothing reasonable. What aircraft is better - P-40\P-63 or B-17? I-153P or Bf-109E-3? It REALLY depends on what they want to do, what is the goal and the whole picture.

So, that also contains response on how we calculate BRs - not only by K/D ratio, otherwise most of bombers (not B-17 - it's good in killing planes) and attackers would have very similar BR.

But regarding tanks, we do use their parameters as an input to BR. Because they have something very comparable - what 'amount' of shells of their supposed enemies they can handle before they will be destroyed (as well as how fast and easy they can destroy their opponent).

3. Will Gaijin consider making SB-air's fighter BR's historically based (with adjustments for broken FM's, and moving prototypes/paper planes higher)? Most other flight sim's use this system and it works splendidly there (e.g. all the IL2's, DCS, Aces High, etc.), but here we have match-ups where a good 1943 fighter like the F4U-1a has the same BR as a 1941 Spitfire Mk Vb, which is absolutely not 'equal' or balanced. There's many more examples, but this one highlights the issue.

Kirill Yudintsev: The problem is that there is no such thing as 'historically based BRs'. There were planes that were used for 10+ years without any modifications. Different planes of different countries were never made as equals, they were designed to be the best when performing their specific battle tasks. Sometimes it required for example 5 tons of more fuel than their opponents had (and that of course made them less effective).
German jets were for example in service from 1944 and they can easily beat ANY prop fighter that they can meet. They were made to fight hundreds of B-17 and\or to carry bombs. As a result,  they were much more expensive but they are not equals to their enemies. 'Other games' do not have random battles of 400+ planes.

They can:
a) Not care about MM at all
b) Pick only those planes that are generally close to each other (like Bf 109 F and La-5F or Bf 109 E and Spitfire II).

We do not have such options. We have random battles with random players, all planes must be able to enter battles and we have 400+ of them. But we are going to create special historical events with QMM (Quantitative Matchmaking) that will allow us to try recreate real battles.

4. Would it be at least possible to fill the brackets in Enduring Conflict with more or less historical plane sets instead of BR based ones?

Kirill Yudintsev: We'll see. Currently we are still working on the design and testing of EC itself.

5. What are your current thoughts on the amount of bombers that one team can bring into a sim battle?

Kirill Yudintsev: We still want to limit the amount of strategic bombers to 4 or less in one battle.

6. Will there be any future changes to the BR MM and QM system?

Kirill Yudintsev: Probably. We are currently analyzing data and tweaking it.

7. Will Enduring Confrontation get its own fixed MM tables for the different brackets? (Current player performance based BRs from the old modes simply do not reflect the special- or multi-role qualifications of the aircraft in a an enduring confrontation battle as opposed to the old modes aka team deathmatch.

Kirill Yudintsev: We are planning to replace current SB with EC mode. So all BR of SB mode will be in EC only.

8. There is a big technological leap between planes which are at 1.0-1.3 and those at 2.0-2.3. Facing P-40 or LaGG-3 in He-51 or Ki-10 might be considered a fun challenge for experienced players, but is strongly unfair and demotivating for newbies. Are there any plans to deal with this situation, (like moving reserve biplanes to BR 0.0-0.3) or do you consider this area working as intended?

Kirill Yudintsev: He-51 and Ki-10 are really some of the weakest planes. Probably we should do something with that someday. Regarding newbies - in fact, we have a zone for newbies. Newbies are not those who are playing on reserves, but those who are playing on reserves AND in the same time are real newcomers to the game. In the nearest future, we will make that grace period last a bit longer.

9. You've said that the recent changes show an obvious improvement in certain areas of matchmaking. What are these areas? Which group of players benefited from those changes?

Kirill Yudintsev: It affected number of sessions played by players, number of players played the game. Probably this is because of lower waiting times for battle.

10. What are your plans for the future? Could we possibly see another balance change and even an economy change in response to that? What's going to happen to the game in the long term?

Kirill Yudintsev: Regarding economy - we are going implement some (but rather small) changes in future. Sometimes gathering RP and Silver Lions are not balanced. In fact they are balanced for an average player, but differences between average and active and skilled players affects balance a bit too much.

Regarding future plans - EC for example is one part of it. We are still working on it. It is supposed to be the future development of SB random battles and also it is technical preparation for World War game mode (that we will working on start after official release). I'm not ready to talk about really long term now. We are finishing OBT and going to release, after release we will definitely bring ships to the game and start World War game mode, but that's all I can say for now.

11. Did Gaijin ever consider (or is considering) giving reward/score bonuses to a player when he is fighting against vehicles with higher BRs?

Kirill Yudintsev: Yep, it even was in the game during CBT. However, this is not something that players can work with - it depends mostly on MM, not on them. In the same time it can cause some changes in gameplay, ruining teamplay. However, psychologically it is important to get more feedback (or appreciation if you will) from the game after performing something hard, so we'll probably rethink it again.

12. The new MM system was a nice idea, but what moved you to downtier current Top Vehicles all across ? If they would have stayed where they were it would have done its job just fine too.

Kirill Yudintsev: We're checking data, playing the game and watching how the game is played. Currently most effects in Tank Battles are slightly positive, but it is too early to make final decisions. Also, when degradation of armour will appear in the game (hope it will be before 1.55) the top tiered vehicles will become less effective against AP shells and the difference will be even lower.

13. Would you consider to introduce a 6th tier to include only post WWII jet aircraft (starting from year 1945)?

Kirill Yudintsev: It would be good idea if we'd had enough planes for both 5th and 6th tiers, which is unlikely :(

14. To what degree do forum-sentiments, feedback (both positive and negative) about already implemented game mechanics, Battle Ratings and the Matchmaker and future changes, influence the decisions made by the development team?

Kirill Yudintsev: A lot. We understand that by default people want 100% equality of all vehicles, otherwise they do not think the battle is 100% fair. This is the opposite of how the whole game and metagame is working and was made for (read my first post). Otherwise people will always blame MM in their losses (and even with 100% equality like they do in games like LoL, but a magnitude less).

So we are probably going to receive negative feedback for MM forever, and that is sad :( Positive feedback, and things like increasing amounts of game sessions and time players spend in battles - helps to offset that. But we are working for players and we are humans, so feedback will always influence our decisions.

15. Why Russians planes have such low BR in Realistic Battles? For example Yak-1B, Yak-3, Yak-3P, Yak-9P and La-7.

Kirill Yudintsev: This is so called 'Russian bias' type of question. I have lots of opposite type of questions on Russian forums. We do not treat any nation differently. Everything is calculated very democratically - no one even tries to manually tweak anything, unless there is some specific bug found.

16. Currently the community opinion is: With the current BR system, the difference in between a Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 is the same as the difference between the Tiger 2 and the T-10M. That just isn't reasonable. Will the BRs be changed in any way? When we see tanks and planes from later time periods (if we do), will the BR be extended?

Kirill Yudintsev: The wrong assumption is to think about BRs differences as about differences between vehicles. They are not. BRs are just number by which Matchmaking acts. It is nothing without it. So you have to compare what enemies can you meet, not BR differences. If we'll see tanks and planes from later time period (which is not very likely to happen for planes, in fact) - then it probably means that BR will be extended. The reason why we have BRs and ranks and not only one number, is just to be able to tweak MM - as it is better for game and doesn't affect metagame of player progression. So we can have for example 120 of BR with step of 1.0 between them with 7.0 spread in battles - if it would help us to get more balanced battles. However as we want to create battles where you can meet more than 20 of different enemies, current numbers for current amount of vehicles seem to be ok.

17. Since the introduction of 1.37 that brought the BR system (abandoning the 20 tier system), the critical responses towards the game have increased in value and tone, does Gaijin acknowledge this and plan to act towards the playerbase instead of acting directly against them (squashed tiers, more compression etc etc)?

Kirill Yudintsev: We are not acting against players. That doesn't make any sense. Really new BR system is QMM. 1.37 only separated progression ranks and matchmaking values, which allowed us to tweak MM without breaking progression for everyone every time we do so.

  • Upvote 60

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Compilation from latest Q&A with Developers (May 2016)

1. Will we get Italy tech tree in this year in war thunder? Don't answer "soon" :P

Kirill Yudintsev:  "When it will be ready and tested". We are working on it..

2. Are you planning a new nationality in War Thunder?

Kirill Yudintsev: Yes. Italy and France are the most obvious expansion.

3. I have a simple question does Gaijin have plans for a Japanese Ground Forces Tech Tree or are they still sticking to a few scattered Premiums over different nations? PS. keep up the Great work improving Your Game.

Viacheslav Bulannikov: Yes, we have a plan about a separate Japanese ground vehicles research tree.

4. In tank tank games, the amount of ammo affects your probability of dying due to ammo rack explosion, so in planes, does the amount fuel affect the probability of dying due to fuel tank fire?

Kirill Yudintsev: Yes. The less fuel you have the more chance of explosion or fire when you get shot. In the same time - the more hits in fuel tank you already have the more chances of getting fire.

5. Why planes like meteors f.mk3 and vampires have to face mig-15 and mig-17?

Kirill Yudintsev: They also face piston-engine planes.

6. Are there going to be cockpits view added to bombers?

Kirill Yudintsev: We are still looking ways to make them. Unfortunately only very small amount of players prefer play bombers with cockpits against others. In fact most of players who want cockpits for bombers just want to reduce field of view for their targets (that of course is not something bad for the game, even while not 100% correct for multicrew vehicles). Bomber cockpits requires 2-5 time more work than creating a new plane even with single-seated cockpit. Adding 'stubs' for cockpits looks good solution on first glance, but when looking deeper - it is probably not good, cause newbies can be frustrated. May be the best way will be to add some 'stub' cockpits that are available only when cockpit view is required (SB) We'll think about it.

7. There are not a lot, nearly zero official information about Ships in War Thunder. Will there be Ships in War Thunder? If yes, when could they come?

Kirill Yudintsev: We are working on Naval forces. That is really the only thing I can answer now.


"...will there be soon an EC Mode just for RB?..."


8. Hello , will there be soon an EC Mode just for RB ? I think much RB Players enjoyed the RB EC Sessions and would love to have it available all the time.

Kirill Yudintsev: We are planning events for EC mode for RB.

9. Will you add working smoke grenades at tanks?

Kirill Yudintsev: We're creating internal prototypes. So 'may be.

10. Are you guys going to add the F9F-6 Cougar?

Kirill Yudintsev: Pobably, but not soon™

11. Will infantry be making a presence on the battlefield in the near future even only as a battlefield aesthetic? many trailers show infantry fighting next to tanks even thought no infantry are present at all, note I'm not asking if they will be playable, I'm asking if they will be present as map AI.

Kirill Yudintsev: We are thinking on that, but probably it will be unacceptable for game age-rating.

12. Will Gaijin developers introduce Sidewinder like anti-air missiles for jets?

Kirill Yudintsev: No

13. Are you planning to improve "Custom matches" For example: will be players able to create plane/vehicle restriction lists or set custom name for the match in the future ?

Kirill Yudintsev: Yes, there are such plans (for first part).

14. Will we be seeing ATGM platforms in WarThunder Ground Forces, such as the M50 Sheridan and the IT-1?

Viacheslav Bulannikov: Yes, we plan different ATGM platforms in one of the next updates.

15. Can we expect any FM's changes for Spitfire? The FM is quite ancient and in RB, with mouse aim this plane is basically helicopter.

Sergey Volkov: We will not have major changes in the near future.

16. Are the any plans to change the MM and BR? Many planes are heavily overtired like Zero while while many planes are undertired like J2M2.

Kirill Yudintsev: We are calculating BR in AB on regular basis each 2-3 months, using stats data. For RB and SB we also take in account players reviews and opinions and make extra tests and analysis. The difference in approach because of different MM for RB\SB and AB - in AB all planes can fight against each other or in one team, in SB and RB there are in a few different possible matches for one RB (lots of them, but not all), and stats for all matches (one country against all other possible countries) differs from stats in on country against another country.

17. Do you plan to add guided bombs like the Fritz X and the anzon in one of the upcoming updates?

Kirill Yudintsev: We are thinking about it. Not very likely, but possible.



"...Any word on Tier 5 tanks?..."


18. Any word on Tier 5 tanks? ex. Leopard 1A1, T-62A, Gepard, etc.

Viacheslav Bulannikov:  Yes, we will have new rank 5 vehicles. Including some modifications of Leopard-1.

19. First off hello, thanks for doing this but do you have any details about the M103 regarding its turret model being wrong and the ammo being AP when irl it was APBC. Lots of people have submitted bug reports and never heard anything back about them.

Viacheslav Bulannikov: M358 shell had a ballistic cap, but the projectile body had this form:  (picture) , instead of some Soviet design like (picture). For shells with a ballistic cap, the shell body shape under the ballistic cap is taken into account for the ricochet propreties, that's why it's listed as "AP" in game.

20. Is the me 262 HGII still confirmed for development or has that status changed? It is still listed under pending aircraft in on the future plans tech tree which is outdated.

Kirill Yudintsev: Not very likely, but still possible. Interesting aircraft, for sure - unfortunately not much data on it and in the same time it can be too powerful not only because it is should be but because of insufficient information. That will definitely cause lots of talks and negative feedback. Also, making it premium will make first 5th rank premium plane (which we prefer to avoid) and putting it in research line will make it very often guest in battles.

21. Do you plan to add PTAB and SD4HL bombs in one of the upcoming updates?

Kirill Yudintsev: No. PTAB can appear in the game, but they are not planned now.

22. Hello ! 1) Do you plan to add the FRENCH tech tree this year or 2017 ? 2) Do you plan to add the italian tehc tree this year or 2017 ? 3) Do you plan to add attack/defend game mod on random games to change from the "capture a circle in the middle of nowhere to win" ? 4) Do you plan to add the "destroy this objective" on random games ? 5) When the closed beta of the Naval Warfare is planned ? 2016 ? 6) do you plan to have a battlefield with Ships + Planes + tanks ( Iwojima style) in a game?

Kirill Yudintsev:

  1. when it's done 
  2. when it's done 
  3. no, but we are going to add a way to create user generated multiplayer missions, so it can come to WT 
  4. may be 
  5. yes, most likely 
  6. probably not, may be in some special events (for obvious reasons - very rare battles of such type in real life and it will look weird in most cases)

23. Could the options be changed to be more user friendly. Perhaps separate the options for planes and tanks, ie., do not share binds between the two modes?

Kirill Yudintsev: This is in plans in fact. Not top priority, but on the table.

24. Will there be a Hitbox for the Tanks Gun to other objects like houses and the Tanks from other players?

Kirill Yudintsev: No. That makes game really uncomfortable.


"...Japan will have it own ground tech tree or it will be in an international?..."


25. Japan will have it own ground tech tree or it will be in an international? (I'm NOT asking for an ETA)

Kirill Yudintsev: We are working on it. Let's say - 50\50 that it will.

26. Destroyed radiators don't really affect gameplay right now in tanks. Do you plan to add in the near future (1.59-1.61) thermodynamics to ground forces?

Kirill Yudintsev: Probably no. 1.59 and 1.61 are already scheduled. Some changes for DM on ground forces are planned, but not that.



"...Will the Ju 87 D-5 ever get its airbrake back?..."


27. Will the Ju 87 D-5 ever get its airbrake back?

Viacheslav Bulannikov: The airbrakes will return, but it will depend of the weapon selection – for example, if the gunpods are equipped, the plane will not have .

28. 2 questions: 1) Firstly can you please update the planned vehicle lists for each nation as some are quite out of date. as it would prevent people repeatedly posting recommendations for aircraft in the game that are already wip. 2) Secondly is the b10 bolo slated for development as it would make a good tier 1 us bomber. that saw quite a bit of use in the first year of the pacific war in Singapore and the dutch east indies. and would serve a similar niche to the sb Russian bombers.

Kirill Yudintsev: 

  1. In fact is question for web-site masters, but I'll ask them
  2. B-10 is in development.

29. Actually, it is a suggestion. For the WorldWar mode, would you add a Commander to each team; may Commander can control ai tanks/bombers? Can respawn points in this mode replaced by actually fuel points in history (EX:Heavy tank need more fuel points than other tanks and the total fuel points is limited at the beginning.)

Kirill Yudintsev: In WorldWar mode Commanders and fuel are planned, but in a bit different manner.

30. Are there any planes to rework matchmaking so it creates two sides of equal skill (based on their historical performance in battles - like K/D ratio etc) ? I have experienced so many soulcrushing defeats because my team was full of noobs, and the enemy team had average or better players. Is it so hard to put equal amounts of noobs in both teams ?

Stas Zvyagin: It is not obvious that player with high K/D ratio is good player. May be he is just reckless sniper who like to destroy enemies but not going to bring victory for own team. Your team mates skills are completely random at current matchmaking. That means you have equal chances to play with skilled players and noobs.

31. When can we expect to get slats modeled for 109's in RB? I believe the only one 109 with working slats is the G-14.

Kirill Yudintsev: Slats are physically modeled for 109's. 109G-14 has rear balance (hope correct term) and more maneuverable than others.

32. When can we expect Ki-83 DM and overheating fixed? It's overheating very quickly compared to other planes and can't cool off at 100% thr. DM is quite wonky and leads to situation, when we get hit by anything in fuel tanks, plane just explode asap.

Sergey Volkov: Engine overheating is configured correctly. Maximum continuous power lies at 85% of throttle. 100% is military power (intended for a maximum of 10 minutes), WEP is an emergency mode (about 5 minutes).


"...Are you going to add Italian Tech tree to War Thunder in near future?..."


33. Are you going to add Italian Tech tree to War Thunder in near future? If yes, what would you do with Italian planes from German Tech tree?

Kirill Yudintsev: We are planning it, yes. No details yet - they can be kept in German Tree but hidden for all those who haven't got them, or they can be converted with all their progress.

34. 3 years ago we were told that bomber cockpits were coming, can we expect them any time soon?

Kirill Yudintsev: We have implemented 2 of them. And we do not see any growth in their popularity. I was talking only about SB mode (but we also have statistics about usage of cockpits in RB mode).
I understand your feelings, but looks like that we are alone in this world :( Well, maybe there are hundreds of us, but most players even in SB do not care about cockpits for bombers.

35. Hi there, question is in regard to AB Ground Forces.

Currently most lightly armoured vehicles tend to struggle in AB when compared to heavily armoured ones. Tanks like the Jadgpanzer 4-5 and T92 are rarely seen likely because they die too easily with the super easy spotting in AB.

Is there any plans to introduce a "spotting" system or rework what we have to enable lightly armoured vehicles  to flank around/ "sneak" up on enemies without the worry of the instant spotting in AB?

Kirill Yudintsev: Well, that was implemented in 1,53 (afair) but gets very negative feedback. 
So, as for me, I'd like to see that in the game, but 'invisible tanks' are something that part of community fears and hates so much that it is not likely to appear :(

36. A lot of people think the last man standing mechanic should be in just arcade mode and not RB and SB. Have you considered changing this?
Kirill Yudintsev: This is PURE realistic mechanic. It is too hardcore for AB. May be we'll remove it from RB\SB also, if it is too hardcore for RB\SB players, but it is absolutely not good idea to add it to AB.

37. Why does Gaijin have such poor quality control when it comes to adding new content? Broken flight models, broken damage models and an unfair design of maps towards certain nations only work to undermine your game. What do you plan to do about it?

Kirill Yudintsev: This is incorrect question. In fact most (90-99%) of new content has no issues after quality control (including FMs, models and maps). The game is really huge and when we change some part it requires lots of work to test everything. So things happens, but really rare (compared to amount of new and changed content at least).

38. After the 64 player EC test, do you plan do implemented it in EC or in other game modes? It was very great!!

Kirill Yudintsev: In EC probably.

39. Will we see an overwork of the instructor in RB? German planes and also some american and Japanese planes suffer from a bad translation of the control input. Even turning off the instructor doesn´t help. May we get an option to shut it down totally and we can fly without the "helping wheels"?

Sergey Volkov: You can completely disable the instructor - go to full control.

40. Does the amount of fuel & bombs at the present time affect the plane performance in AB, RB & SB? I.E: a bomber plane threw away 2000kg bomb at the start of battle to increase it speed & climb rate OR carrying minimum fuel to maximize plane performance.

Sergey Volkov: Yes, and the influence is very large. You can easily compare the characteristics of the aircraft with full fuel tanks and bombs and aircraft without them. The difference is very significant.

41. Is this rumor of a second 229 being added with Hes-011 engines true?

Sergey Volkov: The second plane is not planned atm.

42. Will the BR of certain jets be lowered (for example MIG 9 and Meteor MK 3) so they don't face clearly superior aircraft such and the hunter and MIG 17. Or will there be a higher BR for top tier jets ?

Kirill Yudintsev: The problem with 5 tier planes is that there are also not much of them totally.
So changing whom they meet changes a lot. Again, this is natural part of tier based MM - to have some kind of balance you need at least several vehicles to meet, sometimes you are flying on better, sometimes you meet more powerful opponents, sometimes equal.
Ideal balance is 'MiG-17 against MiG-17) and it is usually boring (but allow pure skill base MM like in tournaments)

43. Hello, since you sayed that Japanese, French and Italian Tanks are planned, i wanted to ask in which order they get released, or if you allready working on one Nation in particular?
Thanks for your Time and your Answers. Keep the great work up!

Kirill Yudintsev: Japanese I think.

44. Do you plan to introduce a special mission/event for the historical event of nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If so is there a chance that it becomes a multiplayer and permanent?

Kirill Yudintsev: Of course not.


"...will we have smoke ammo?..."


45. I saw you said that there will be smoke grenade, but will we have smoke ammo so we can obstruct enemies vision for offensive purpose, not defensive ?

Kirill Yudintsev:  If if we'll have smoke grenades we'll definitely have smoke ammo (even earlier).

46. We saw, that you are adding IT-1 into war thunder. So it means, that War Thunder will have cold war tanks now?​

Kirill Yudintsev: It already had.
Leopard is cold war era tank and it is in the game.

47. Is T-55 or T-62 coming next 1.59?

Viacheslav Bulannikov: No, for 1.59 the T-55 or T-62 are not scheduled.

48. Is M103 rework planned (armor, reload time and AP shell changes).

Viacheslav Bulannikov: We will probably increase the level of detail of the turret armour's model. I've answered a question regarding shells in another comment.

49. Will there be infantry at some point in war thunder Groundforces?

Kirill Yudintsev: It will be out of our age rating.

50. Feedback regarding the Last Man Standing feature was very negative. Do you have any plans for the future on that?

Kirill Yudintsev: In fact it was mixed, not very negative. But looks like it is too hardcore for our players, so we'll think about removing it.

51. Will you ever add the ability to recrew ground vehicles at capture points?

Kirill Yudintsev: Well, it will be good (from my point of view) to add some recrew options.

52. Will general sounds of planes and tanks get reworked? (including the allowance of Sound Modifications, and National Crew Voices)

Kirill Yudintsev: We are making some research on improvements for sounds (especially planes) - testing new sound engine and so on. But can't provide any extra details now

53. Will we have possibility to choose  which fuel tank will contain fuel ? In some planes like P-38 J L K there are fuel tanks in wings and in main airframe . I think that 20 minutes of fuel that i can take should be stored in one tank .

Kirill Yudintsev: It is possible, but requires much work in UI (and lots of possible bugs) so we are planning this, but it is on low priority list.


"...Will we get battleships?..."


54. Will we get battleships in this year in war thunder?Ty for any answer:)​

Kirill Yudintsev: Can't answer now, sorry. It depends on lots of things.

55. Can you add visible holes (eg. I get shot in the turret and there is a hole) and if you could, make it so if you create a hole in a tank with AP rounds then fire a HE round into that hole and potentially kill the crew?

Kirill Yudintsev: We really want this. But it looks like it is not possible because of performance

56. Are you planning to allow SB pilots unlock camouflages for their planes in the future? (You removed the skin unlocking from EC and it is the only mode for SB pilots)

Kirill Yudintsev: Yes, we are thinking about it. We still want to have some more experiments with EC and better understand it' future first.

57. What do you plan to do about the gap in the US fighters between 5.0 and 6.0 (5.3 and 5.7) where there are no regular tree fighters, only bombers (B17E and E/L)? Because this is the main cause of what players name "The bomber spam" that is mostly pronounced on Hokkaido where the RAF planes can not cover.

Kirill Yudintsev: Well, it happens after several rebalances on these ranks. I guess we'll add some planes\modifiactions here, but do not know details.

58. Will the P51 line, (mainly D-5,D-30) receive a FM update, especially working around its higher altitude performance? Also, any chance of the XP81 being added in the future, fascinating aircraft.

Kirill Yudintsev: AFAIK P-51Ds have accurate FMs now.

59. Are there any plans to rebalance the AAA guns in Air Realistic Battles that cover the team airfields, which many players perceive to be extraordinarily and unrealistically powerful? Are there any plans to to implement spalling or any other mechanics that would bridge the perceived power gap between tanks with aphe vs pure AP?

Kirill Yudintsev: They were rebalanced on last week and probably can be changed again on 1.59.


"...Will you add more Air Battle maps?..." 


60. Will you add more Air Battle maps in the future updates, or Ground Battle maps are still being heavily focused?

Kirill Yudintsev: Yes we are planning to add 1-2 Air maps in ~1.61.

61. (CDK) I heard that CDK missions or maps are going to be playable in the format of Multiplayer soon. Is that true?
Thats all.

Kirill Yudintsev: In fact this feature already possible, with special permissions. We just want to test it more.
And we also wanted to add possibility to play also custom maps (not only missions), but that requires much more work.

62. Some jets, such as the He 162 and MiG-9,  are currently suffering from extreme overheating issues (such as unexplicably low overheat thresholds, e.g. throttle needing to be under 85% to prevent yellow temperatures, and this threshold decreasing over the course of the match, depending on throttle setting used). Is this a confirmed bug, and if so, can we expect a fix anytime soon?

Sergey Volkov:  It's not a bug, yellow temperature indicates a time limit of 15 min. It's planned to make the overheat model of BMW-003 and Jumo-004 more detailed and harder.

63. Can you please tell me which source you based the Ki-44-IIs speed from? Thanks.

Sergey Volkov: Different sources were used. Like the original guide and TAIC reports.

64. Will you guys reworked some flight model for planes like they should be in real life, especially for British planes?

Sergey Volkov: If you founded some errors or bugs, you need to report it. But so i can not understand your question, which British aircraft in your opinion flying not correct?

65. Do you plan to introduce historical kamikaze planes which made a big affect on the naval battles? If so (or not) what do you think about it's affects on the game and mission balances?

Kirill Yudintsev: No, we do not plan speical kamikaze planes.

66. Love the game, but I find it heavily Russian biased. In terms of planes and tanks they have the bigger guns in every tier, this should be addressed. Italy would be a good addition, but why France? They got steamrolled. Please add Canada. It needs more representation. With new dlc coming frequently will PS4 users ever see new trophies added?  Thanks for your time.

Kirill Yudintsev: There is no any Bias in our game. Of any nation. People always think that there is should be some 'simple' explanation of they think is imbalanced. But no one we'll make game to add any kind of bias. Forums and comments are much better place to add 'bias' - magnitudes times cheaper and easier and at least can have some sense.
Again, there is no bias in our game, of any kind. Except our bias in making interesting vehicles - that's why France is interesting (despite of results in WW2).


"...When can we expect to see ships in War Thunder?..."


67.When can we expect to see ships in War Thunder ?

Kirill Yudintsev: We plan for 2016. Not 100%.

68. Why not make a Post-War Tier for the Post-War Tanks and Planes

Kirill Yudintsev:  It is better to make new game for cold-war-era\modern vehicles. Too many differences in gameplay and everything.

69. Will be there new BR 8.0 German tanks added  to the game in the near future? If there will be, how many?

Viacheslav Bulannikov: Modifications of Leopard-1, AAA - Gepard.

70. When the ships in War Thunder come out?

Kirill Yudintsev: We are targeting 2016, but we'll see.

71. Now that a divide between WW2 and Post-WW2 vehicles has been rumored, how will this be done? On another note, will the rules for aviation additions be possibly changed to include further planes? Is the rule on AA missiles unchanged? What about SAM missiles and mobile launchers? Could the Su-9, 11 and 13 be included in the soviet tree? They are almost forgotten, and they might fill the 7.0 gap in the soviet tree. Also, the MiG-9 is over tiered in RB, and more deserves a 7.x BR to compete. Thanks

Kirill Yudintsev: This is just rumors now. Not an official information

72. A few of us have seen videos/images of update 1.59. One of the most notable things spotted was an IT-1 Tank which is basically a mobile ATGM. While this will add a whole new level to the game. Will the USSR be the only nation getting a guided missile ?

Kirill Yudintsev: No.

73. With news of a radio guided missile being added soon as well as a new top tier jet. Will the BR's be extended to 9 and 10 in the near future to help reduce post war fighting WW2 vehicles? fighting post war tanks and planes in the currently can be frustrating for some players, and missiles and new top tier tanks may make this worse if the BR is not extended.

Kirill Yudintsev: If it will be required.

74. Will you add Me-262 HG-III to the game?

Kirill Yudintsev: Probably no.

75. Are you going to add the B-36 peacemaker

Kirill Yudintsev: Not planned now.

76. The balance issue is troubling lots of new and mature War Thunder players. We've been asking for a change for quite a while now. I'm confident that the team is working on BR changes. Irrelevant of how soon these will be implemented, is there going to be a major change in the BR system ? Are we going to see a better system for calculating BR ? Thanks.

Kirill Yudintsev: The tier based games with random battles always have complaints on balance. The nature of tier based games can't provide 100% perfect balance for all. So it is not about BR system - this is about the idea that there random battles with random vehicles on random maps.

77. Are there any FM modifications in the works for the Ta 152 C and the P-51 ?

Sergey Volkov: We plan some changes for Ta-152C in the next major update (it will be easier to control the aircraft). About 51 - no major changes planned atm.


"...Will Xbox One players see War Thunder?..."


78. Will Xbox One players see War Thunder after Microsoft’s cross-platform announcement?

Kirill Yudintsev: There are chances now :)

79. Will be infantry added for game ?

Kirill Yudintsev: No, except how it is already.

80. Hello! When are you guys going to look at the A7Ms turning ability? As an aircraft that met the requirement of having the turn of the Zero, the current A7M is not anywhere near the true A7Ms turning capabilities.

Sergey Volkov: The aircraft has the maximum turn rate which it can have, according to its thrust-weight ratio and aerodynamics. And for aircraft of such size and weight it is outstanding!

81. Besides the thunder league that focuses on teams. War Thunder will have a unique competitive mode for clans? We can expect an interaction between squad battles in the game with a platform TBS (turn-based strategy) in web browser?

Kirill Yudintsev: Some kind of that will appear in World War mode.

82. There are a lot of graphical problems in the game (mainly it concerns the AMD graphics users). And it keeps for like 2 major updates. Will this be addressed and when? Thanks.​

Kirill Yudintsev: Sorry, but I only know about AMD issues on Mac and Linux and also have heard that new AMD drivers cause some issues. Please, post link on reports, I'll check.

83. (RB)Currently,  Most maps play out until one team kills another. One reason is that the airfields require a very large number of bombs that can only be delivered by late bombers such as the b-29.  Are there any plans to make the objectives more attainable so that players can be more strategic, rather than simply destroying the other team every game? (RB)The map Norway is disliked by many players. Could we see a rework of this map? maybe with less ships and deadly AAA in the middle of the map.

Kirill Yudintsev: This is done intentionally, cause of many complaints of 'bomber rush', when part of one team use bombers and easily win the battle. But I'll check it again. Norway map question I'll check too.

84. In October of last year, it was announced that *dozens* of new decals would be added in update 1.53. As of today, only a handful of them have been added,  primarily via the Warbond shop. Is this the Warbond shop the new norm for all decals, or will the ones that were promised almost seven months ago be added to the game and unlockable as usual? If so, when can we realistically expect to see them in-game?

Kirill Yudintsev: "soon™". 1.59 I guess.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Q: Regarding the audio of ground vehicle battles, the maps are small, but often you can’t hear tanks like you should. It can be very quiet when they shoot. Then on the other hand, the kugelblitz can be heard throughout the whole map as it shoots its 128 mm cannon. Will audio related things like this continue to be tweaked?

A: Yes, we are constantly working to improve the sound, including shots.




Q. Do you plan on adding the 7.92 mm German machine gun rounds that had a tungsten core (29mm penetration at 100m distance)? In real life, these were, at times, used by the armed forces for their vehicles.

A. I have not seen the information about such a munition. Can you provide some details? Such characteristics possessed PTR PzB 39 with a bullet with a hard core, but it was used with a much larger shell (7.92x94). It is doubtful that even carbide core for a conventional rifle shell could penetrate 30mm armor.




Q. Why do heavy bombers with relatively low wing damage go into an uncontrollable roll so easily, which inevitably leads to the destruction of the aircraft? At the same time, some aircraft  can not only fly without some wing pieces, but even maintain high levels of maneuverability. Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3

A. In this example, we can see that in the X-Ray view of the bomber, both cases show that one wing is badly damaged, and that the fighter has the same symmetrical damage on both endings.




Q. The commander's cupola (eg German) have historically been an important part for the crew’s ability to see out of the tank. Have you thought about how to implement and reflect their advantage in-game? At the moment, when there is no commander cupola on a tank, it simply places the player’s camera where the shells are fired from, which is very unpleasant. This  means we have a disadvantage without historical merit. These also provide a vulnerability for the tank.


A. It is difficult to completely display all the features of the tanks in-game. At the moment, the presence of the commander cupola often means that there is a dedicated tank commander, who may replace some of the retired crew members.




Q: Are there any plans to address the “kamikaze issue” in Arcade Ground Forces battles? Or are unguided rockets with bombs an integral part of the game?

A: Kamikaze tactics on bombers are now practically ineffective due to the 10 seconds delay of the assault fuse for bombs. For rockets however, such tactics makes some sense, but most likely we will do  similar mechanics for air launched rockets in Arcade Ground Forces battles.




Q: WIll it be possible to take less fuel (for less time) for aircraft than what the game already offers? If not, why?


A: No, we are not planning such a possibility, because the aircraft's flight characteristics in that situation may vary very widely depending on the amount selected.




Q: Regarding the top tier British medium tank. Are there any plans to introduce the Chieftain Mk 5 Shir, an Iranian modification of the Chieftain, which differs with better mine protection, the presence of more modern Fire Control System, new APFSDS rounds (already available on the T-62, but we would like to see these shells on the Chieftain as well) and an uprated 850 hp engine. The current Mk 3 is sorely lacking mobility in RB battles.

A: The Iranian Mk 5 Shir modification is not currently being considered, but there other variants of the British Chieftain. An earlier or later model  are possible.




Q: Recently, a survey was held that involved the mechanics how talismans works. At the same time members voiced the idea / proposal to provide additional researchable slots for decals for ground vehicles with talismans. Similarly to how premium vehicles have "Marks of Distinction", which allows you to research 4 slots for decals without a premium Account. Are you going to implement such a possibility for researchable vehicles?

A: No, this feature is reserved for premium vehicles.




Q: In the future, will we have the realistic rate of fire for ground vehicles? Does this depend on each specific vehicle or is it set at the top rate or minimum? Will this be as it was historically?

A: Indeed, in reality the fire rate depends on a multitude of parameters. Is the vehicle stationary whilst firing or on the move? Which direction is the turret facing? From which location will; the shell be taken from inside the stowage locations? . Thus, the implementation of all of these factors in the game will be very confusing and unclear for the average player, so we took the decision to abandon the implementation of this system in favor of a clear and simple displayed fixed-time reload.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q. When the loader is knocked out, reload progress is dropped to 0%. Will you change these mechanics, at least for the vehicles that use separate loading?


A. Probably, we will think about it



Q. Any news about the T-55?


A. We plan to introduce the vehicle, we are working on it.



Q. When will the mass of vehicles matter? Why can I not push a 46 ton vehicle whilst driving a 65 ton tank?


A. Mass of the vehicle is always taken into consideration, but engine power also matters.



Q, Can we expect Wfr.Gr.21 rockets for Bf.109G-10\G-14 and the Mg151 cannon for the Bf.109K-4


A. Yes, we will add the cannon, as for the rockets we are not sure, but if they were used in reality  then yes.



Q Do you plan to introduce Heinkel’s pure jet fighter - the He-280? Preferably with several engines and MG-151/20 cannons?


A. It is not planned in the nearest future, probably later.

  • Upvote 11

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Q. In the future, will there be new top piston engined heavy bombers for Germany, Britain and Japan? The United States and the Soviet Union only recently received a B-29 and Tu-4 and I would like the rest of the nations to receive anything comparable, if not with the B-29, then at least the B-24. Despite the fact that the Germans did not use strategic heavy bombers, there are quite a few attractive 4 engined prototypes. Plus there is the serial produced He-177. The British could have the Avro Lincoln and Shackleton with cannon defensive weaponry, plus Washington B Mk I (B-29, operated by the British). The Japanese did not have many strategic bombers, but perhaps new models of the G8N1 or G8N2 with more powerful engines are possible..

A.Yes, we are working on new heavy piston engine bombers, including for Britain and Germany. Some of which are machines mentioned above. We indeed have plans for the Lincoln.


Q. Regarding Tank Simulator Battles, have you considered the possibility of compulsory full tank controls for all users in the mode(similar to Aircraft Simulator Battles)?

A. We do not believe it is so important for gameplay in Ground Forces SB. Unlike aircraft, in a tank there is always a minimum of at least 3 crew members actively controlling different parts of the machine. So there has to be some compromise and simplifications simply to make the mode playable for Tanks. Over-complicating them to the point where a single player cannot control his vehicle is not what we intend to do.


Q. Question concerning unlockable modules. It is no secret that the vast majority of players would like the repair kit and FPE to be immediately available to tanks. This is logical and will benefit gameplay. The repair time could be 3 times longer for those without the module, however the complete absence of any repair ability outside of a cap zone makes some tanks very frustrating. This is especially noticeable at the 5th rank.


A. As for the stock repair kit, no we do not have any plans for this.. The presence or absence of a repair kit is an unknown factor to the enemy. It adds both a variety of game situations and intrigue on both parties as you cannot 100% know about every opponent, whether they can repair, or not. Even if you could repair 3 times longer, is not much help when you consider how long that will take to repair in battle. In general, the repair kit is now fits quite well into the logic of fair free to play game (no purchase benefits, but the time to achieve the goal results in a more comfortable experience), and also creates a significant psychological effect in battles.


Q. What plans are there for Soviet attack aircraft?


A Currently there are plans for Sukhoi machines, one of which was added to the game quite recently.


Q. One of the most popular suggestions and one of the most requested vehicles; When can we expect the IS-7? What about the other members of this series, such as the IS-5 and IS-6, because they were built too!


A.We are currently not planning to introduce the IS-7 as a researchable vehicle, the tank is possible as a promotion/event. What kind of event or promotion however is still in discussion.


Q. Why does the Japanese ground forces tree also have US machines within the available vehicles?


A. Some positions are indeed represented by American tanks that were indeed apart of the Japanese Self-Defence Forces. But there is currently a sizable amount of indigenously designed machines for Japan.


Q. The advantage of the T-62 was two-plane stabilization equipment that provides effective fire immediately whilst shooting on the move as well as the M60A1 that had Add-On Stabilization - (AOS) installation for the stabilizer which began in 1971. Why is there is no opportunity to shoot accurately on the move in game?


A. You have to understand that there were limitations of early stabilizers. The T-62 not allowed to fire at the maximum speed of the tank. The T-62 stabilizer ensures accurate fire if the tank did not exceed 25 km / h. A quote from the "Domestic armored vehicles"




The stabilizer of the M60A1 was generally intended for shooting with short stops, ie, to quickly restore the line pickup. The stabilizer for the Chieftain generally disconnected at a speed higher than 5 miles per hour. The game simulates the operation of the stabilizer at high speed with vertical guidance (using gyroscopes to retain a selected line of sight is already possible for mouse weapons). In addition, in arcade mode, we actually added ASC (automatic target tracking), which by pressing and holding the button itself brings the weapons to aim the selected target. The player need only select the time of the shooting however you need to adjust the pre-emption if the target is moving. However, we understand that this implementation is not entirely accurate and does not account for some of the limitations imposed by the stabilizer. So for example, the T-62  stabilizer provides a vertical guidance speed in a stabilized line of 4 m / sec, which is much less than current in game. Therefore, it is possible that this algorithm will be altered in the direction of greater realism.


Q. Are there plans to increase the number of crew for the Panzerwerfer 42 to 4 crew members as well as increase the ammunition for another 10 rounds?


A.Source document - Geheime Kommandosache. Datenblätter für Heeres-Waffen, Fahrzeuge, Gerät. Dokumentation W127, installation calculation is 3 crew. We are aware of the ammunition capacity situation. 


Q. A lot of players are asking the same question - Will we see the T-64?


A. We do not plan to add the T-64 separately and independently from the other nations. If we decide to add the T-64, it will be added along with other tanks similar to its performance for the other nations, which is pretty hard to do without going into tanks of the late 70 early 80's. We will however experiment with the additional armour protection kits.


Q. Do you plan to expand the range of ammunition available for the IS-3 and IS-4 (the introduction of sabot ammunition or HEAT)?


A. At the moment, we do not plan to introduce HEAT as it would result in a BR increase. Sabot however is possible according to statistics.


Q. Do you plan to improve the control of tanks when inertia exceeds the maximum speed of the tank? Roughly dunes around 30" lead to tanks rolling away. The Panther can develop clearly the speed of 3-4 km \ h, even if it is in neutral roll.


A. No such plans. We believe that little control over the tank when heavy initerta is involved remains in historical even with full control.


Q. Do you have any plans to install the anti-aircraft machine gun on the PT-76? The machine is somewhat vulnerable to aircraft and a machine gun at least is some sort of protection.


A. No, there are no such plans. As far as the design plans of the tank go it did not include the installation of an anti-aircraft machine gun. In the "Guide to the material part and the operation of the PT-76 and PT-76B tanks" no machine gun is specified and we have not seen any photographic evidence of a mounted machine gun.



Q. Will there be an icon for the teammates who are transferring or replenishing crew members, similar to repair?


A. Yes, it is possible.


Q. The Germans have quite an acute problem with ground attack combined battles (in the form of suicidal bomber rushes or a plane with Mk-103s). Why not introduce historical options for rocket launchers to the Me-410 family (as an option for the 262 and Bf 109 already exists).  Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3


A. We have plans to add more German rocket weaponry, first for Fw-190. It is possible that the 410 may also get these options, though, in reality, these rockets were used primarily to defeat bombers instead of ground targets.


Q. Germans have no tanks around 7.3 BR. Do you have any plans to introduce German tanks or tanks of East and West Germany with 7.3 BR to help balance the Germans?


A. Yes, it is possible that we will add the German M47 Patton in service with the Federal Republic of Germany.


Q. Are there any plans to input more ground targets such as trains, stations, as well as separate equipment and structures on bases and airfields?


A. In the next patch, there are no plans.


Q. Do you plan to at some stage include helicopters?

A. As player driven vehicles, not currently as it is a very specific kind of technology. As objects in a mission or a map, it is possible. line.png

Q. Will there be an added effect of explosions on enemy bases? It's a little boring to watch as the bomb explodes on the base of no effect of destruction is shown or anything like that.


A. We think about this proposal.


Q. If the Shilka radar does not work, why not alter the model to Afghan version without the radar antenna ? This would help to conceal the tank in various situations.


A. We have plans to alter the model of the ZSU-23-4 so you can simply fold the antenna back, like the Gepard. We will consider this option, however it is a pity to give up the rotation animation as the Gepard looks quite attractive :)


Q. Damage from 23mm guns seems rather low. Now to destroy a single-engine airplane it takes 20-50 high explosive 23mm shells. In reality, 3 high-explosive 23mm projectiles was comparable to one 37mm high explosive shell, which was enough to render most combat capable single-engine aircraft useless. Will you revise the damage for these shells?


A. I have separately checked the 23mm on different fighters using the rear hemisphere of attack in several experiments on the Bf-109F and F6F5. 23mm shells  downed the aircraft from 2 to 6 shells during testing.


Q. What's the current progress on Destructible Environments development?


A. Finalized in terms of performance, we are introducing the new maps where it it will be utilized.


Q. With the introduction of Japan, virtually all nations have howitzer tanks in their main branches, except the Germans. They have the KV-2 and Brummbar as premiums. Are there any plans for more vehicles like this in the main branch, for example the StuG 33B chassis or Hetzer-Bison on Hetzer chassis?


A. Yes, some are already in progress. Perhaps we have time to get them in 1.67. However we cannot say for sure.


Q. Will there be any visible cartridge cases for ground forces? At least for the heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft guns and tank cannons (only for those which of course actually released their spent cartridges out), similar to the sprites for aircraft. I think it would be very atmospheric for the game if added!


A. We agree with you and we do have machines that release spent shells like the T-62 and others that will make the game more interesting with such a system. But for ground forces, the current system that is present is not suited to match the same systems as aircraft and has its own characteristics. I can not promise that this will be 100%, but we are gradually expanding the possibilities of animation on tanks (launchers, rotating antenna/radar) and it is possible in the future.


  • Upvote 8

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q. Are there going to be Japanese aircraft with 30, 37, and 57 mm armor-piercing shells for destroying vehicles?

A. The Japanese aircraft armament present in the game that could possibly fire armor-piercing shells have already received them (the 37mm Type-94 on the Ki-45); Japan’s remaining high-caliber aircraft armament were intended to combat bombers and had no armor-piercing shells (but even if they were present, the ballistic qualities of these guns would not allow effective action against tanks).

Q. Will German aviation receive anti-tank missiles with a HEAT Panzerblitz III warhead capable of penetrating up to 130 mm of tank armor on a normal impact?

A. The pzb2 present in the game happens to be capable of penetrating 130 mm of armor on a normal impact.
Q. What about the ZSU-37-2 Yenisei? The Shilka in 8.0 is nowhere near as good; all its competitors surpass it. It’s an anti-air gun for BR 7.0.
A. Statistically, in tank arcade battles for example, the ZSU-23-4 is the most effective ground vehicle thanks to its high effectiveness as an anti-air gun. It’s also very effective in RB. And these SPAAGs were introduced not as anti-tank guns, but primarily as a means of combating jet-powered aircraft, a perfect role for them in our opinion. The Yenisei is a possibility, but not in the near future.

Q. Will radio commands have native speaker voice-overs, like crews?

A. No, we have no plans for that.
Q. With the addition of Japanese vehicles, the announcement spoke of a branch of heavy tanks, but there isn’t one. Will this branch be expandable or not? Or did it mean a heavy premium tank?
A. We are planning to include a premium heavy tank as a counterpart to the T-35 and other similar vehicles in other nations. Certain heavy tanks may appear in the standard branch as well. Those that were at least built to some extent.

Q. Is it possible we will see the Type 87 and Chieftain Sabre or Chieftain Marksman as the top SPAAGs for Japan and Britain to compare to the Gepard, ZSU-23-4 Shilka and M163 Vulcan?

A. We will likely add the Type-87 SPAA, in the case of the earlier versions, if we manage to find data on them we will add them.
Q. Will we see the T32E1 and M103A2 added or improvements to the current T32 heavy tank? Currently the in game T32 uses the early prototype hull rather than the improved T23E1 variant.
A. We plan to introduce Т32Е1. The М103А2 is also possible.
  • Upvote 8

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Is there a change or increase planned for the ‘assortment’ of aircraft for tank AB? Particularly for fighters and bombers.


Yes, we have plans for this. I don’t think you’ll have to wait very long.


Are you considering the possibility of adding a SPAAG based on the BTR-152 in the 5.0-7.3 BR range? (The USSR has a severe lack of anti-air vehicles there, especially rapid-firing ones capable of effectively shooting down agile fighters)


We have plans for a SPAAG based on the BTR-152, but I don’t think it will be at such a high BR.


Do you plan to divide the pilot’s hitbox (and possibly the tanker’s) into deadly and critical zones, so that when you hit them (for example in the head or torso) it would be a one-shot, but when hitting an arm or leg – it would reduce the states of the pilot\tanker? On top of that, right now killing someone by hitting them in the foot makes one think of the mythical Achilles and his heel.


We don’t have any such plans at the moment. It is to imitate this divide that tankers don’t die from any impact, but only from a threshold impact or several small ones that break the threshold together.


Why are many vehicles in the game ‘balanced’ based on whether they have APCR shells? You yourselves know that the presence of APCRs provides the vehicle a disservice: they provide a minimum advantage in terms of ammunition assortment, which becomes a reason for an unjust increase in BR.


That isn’t always the case. For many tanks, APCRs provide a significant increase in their ability to knock out targets that were previously invulnerable to them.


How soon will the Pz.Bfw.VI (P)’s battle rating be reduced in Realistic Battles? Many topics and suggestions have been created about this. Many reviewers that work with Gaijin have spoken NEGATIVELY about this vehicle, and with each new patch the situation for the Tiger only worsens, as the number of vehicles of other nations that end up in the 6.3-7.0 BR range is growing FAR more actively than the number for the 5.0-6.0 range. Porsche’s lead Tiger is poor and getting even worse – so why hasn’t its BR been changed?


It’s possible that this will be changed during the next BR change and economy recalculation.


There is a Type 60 SPRR. This SPG has two configurations – marching and battle. Will the marching configuration be implemented? It can still fire in this configuration, incidentally.


We don’t currently have plans for this.


Will there be any changes to the repair mechanics? It looks frankly absurd when damage dealt by a high-caliber 122 mm cannon is repaired more quickly than the cannon reloads. Especially in Simulator Battles.


We arrived at the current repair speeds, including for SB, based on the results of reviews in part from players themselves. Initially, the time was much longer. We have no plans to change this.


In recent naval tests, I noticed that the rangefinder in the scope doesn’t show a distance of more than 3,000, which means you can’t fire further than that either. It feels like the shells just won’t fly farther than that – is that an intentional limitation?


The shells do fly much farther of course, it’s just that the rangefinder doesn’t provide a ballistic solution for the angle of elevation at distances greater than 3 km. This is a temporary issue that wasn’t particularly problematic for boat skirmishes with automatic cannons, but has become important on large and open maps.


What do you think, does it make sense to limit the dive speed of aircraft in AB with flutter speed? It’s just that a Yak-3 diving at 800+ or a Cobra at around 1,000 km/h kind of sucks.


It already works how you described in AB, the aircraft’s speed in a dive is limited by its maximum indicated airspeed, at which in RB the aircraft is destroyed. For the Yak-3 this is around 720 km/h indicated, while the true speed might be closer to 900 km/h.


Dear developers. When will a turret be able to drop ONTO the ground after being blown off by a shell explosion? When it just falls through the texture, it sort of looks bad. Many patches ago now, you said you’d enable this feature when the game was released, but now there’s no sign of it. Are there problems with it?


There are certain difficulties with this, but we still plan to implement the feature.


Will we see more Chinese tanks as premium / event / reward vehicles for the Soviet tree in the future such as Type 58 and Type 59? Or will there be a separate Chinese nation tree in the future?


It is possible that we will add other tanks of the Chinese nation in the form of promotional or premium tanks.


Will the 7.7mm (303) Browning aircraft machine gun (British and American) sound be updated? It is currently the oldest aircraft gun sound still remaining and sounds somewhat out of place compared to the others.


Work on the sounds in game is ongoing. So it is possible.


Are there any plans for new top aircraft for Japan such as the J8M (Navy version of Ki-200), P-2J Neptune or the Mitsubishi F-86F-40 Sabre variant?


Not within the next patch. Later, it is possible that we may add some of these aircraft.


What possibility is there to see more novel but unique (such as opening cockpits that we already have) features for aircraft like Drop Tanks, Folding Wings (Naval Aircraft), RATO, Landing lights and working tail/nose wheels when taxying on the ground?


Yes there are several features we’d like to implement for aircraft. First of all - we will continue creating operating canopies, secondly we are working on animated chassis parts, thirdly - a more realistic bombsight, as for the visuals - we’d like to add exhaust stack flame.


Are there plans to continue supporting expanding the Japanese Ground Forces tree with new machines in the future after the CBT has concluded? Such as ST-A3 and ST-A4, Heavy tanks (O-I Family), Armoured cars, ATGMs, SPAAG and perhaps more Premiums?


Yes, we plan to expand the current tree for Japanese ground forces, primarily the addition of ATGM’s, which are missing in Japan, and of course, a top SPAAG.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

16th February 2017





Do you plan to add fighters of the 6.0-6.3 BRs for the USSR and Germany? At the moment, these nations experience certain difficulties against allied teams using Griffon 22/24s and Bearcats, since the above mentioned fighters at the BRs 6.0-6.3 are superior to the Soviet and German aircraft at the 5.7-6.0.

We recently changed the BRs for these mentioned aircraft, so the situation has changed. As for the new aircraft for the USSR - it is possible that we will add prototype jets based on German technology (Su-9). Germany has good aircraft at the mentioned BRs.


Do you plan to update the A6M series 3d model, as well as an MG belts animation whilst flying in cockpit view?

We do not plan to update the A6M series 3d model in the nearest future.


Will there be an option to rack the slide of jammed MGs where it was possible?

No, such an option is not planned. Jamming in game recreates a more complicated issue caused by overheating.


At the moment we only have 2 targets for bombers - bases and airfields, and they are the same from map to map, while many maps already have potential good targets such as ports, power plants, factories etc. That would bring more diversity to the game.

Bases and airfields are specially created objects that can be easily relocated without changing location itself. So, we think this simplification works fine. Besides that, there are ships. :)

Ground vehicles



Before adding the Tiger “E” back in update 1.47 it was said that you would probably add the famous Tiger of the first series from pzAbt 502 №100. It would fit greatly as a premium vehicle. Do you have such plans?

We do not have such plans for the nearest future.


Do you plan to add the Heuschrecke 10 SPG to the German line, at least as a premium vehicle?

It’s a very specific vehicle and at the moment we do not have plans to introduce it.


Where is the fix for the Leo A1A1 sights magnification switch?

It will be fixed in one of the nearest updates.


Where is the promised reload for the Panzerwefer 42 rockets?

We know of the issue and it’s planned to be fixed.


Will you implement armoured vehicles’ transmission differences in the aspect of turning mechanics? Because it really affects vehicle maneuverability in real life and will also affect gameplay and at the moment the only thing we have in game is neutral steering. In the first place it should affect such tanks as the Tigers 1 and 2, Shermans etc which lose much less speed while turning on the move.

Yes, we plan to implement alternate turning mechanics.


Why do the hit/penetration marks disappear after a while?

Because their amount is limited - it’s done for video memory optimization.


  • Upvote 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

3rd March 2017


Will the fire mechanics be reworked for jet-powered aircraft? After all, they caught fire at lower altitudes. For example, jets can burn below 5000 m, whereas they didn’t above 5000 m.

Of course, kerosene is difficult to set fire to, particularly at a height, but an engine fire is still fully possible for jet aircraft. Both the engine and the fuel tanks can catch fire on jet aircraft.


Will there be a way to choose which bombs to release? It’s awkward right now, with the smallest being dropped first.Usually, in RB it’s more helpful to first release a large-caliber bomb on the main target (bridge), then drop bombs on secondary targets (tanks).

The logic of bomb release in the game, when several mount points are present, works like this: first from the outer pylons, then from the central pylons. Often, it’s actually the larger-caliber bombs that are dropped first. There aren’t so many mounting options for different-caliber bombs in the game or opportunities to provide for a choice of bomb selection – so we have no plans for it in the near future.


Can we expect an aircraft DM 2.0 with more detailed destruction? For example, the horizontal and vertical fin planes tearing off, the wing tearing off where it attaches to the engine and the Tsviling map breaking in half? When aircraft take damage now, the given root zone just goes black without the wing coming off. Same with the fins.

We’re constantly working to improve the damage model both for tanks and aircraft. We may in the future make visual damage for the two fuselage structures. In the near future, to solve the problem of the central section, we’re going to somewhat improve the Damage Model for such aircraft, so that the destruction of this wing section also counts as a shootdown.


Are there plans to introduce the experimental Boeing XF8B-1 aircraft?

They aren’t in our near-future plans.


Will there ever be a revision of suspended armament on airplanes? When Lassar first took up his position, he promised to check the missile/bomb mounts on many aircraft and add the missing options. As of now, one of the most flagrant examples of missing weaponry is the F-82E, which had the ability to carry 25(!) HVARs. Now it has the ability to carry only 10.

Yes, we periodically update and expand the options to mount weaponry on various types of aircraft. Right now, for example, we’re working on expanding the available suspended armament for Japanese aircraft, to make them more fun in mixed battles. Specifically with regard to jet-powered shells. We also plan to add the Soviet 82 mm and 132 mm armor-piercing RBS-82/132 shells, which will allow the early-series ILs to take on armored vehicles.


Ground vehicles

Do you plan to introduce limitations on the controllability of ATGMs at ranges of 300-400 m from the carrier? The strange thing is that a missile that was only just fired can immediately change its trajectory. For RB and SB, it would be fully possible to do this. And ATGM-users would have their own niche in battles.


ATGM carriers already have their own niche in battles, with their own unique gameplay. Also, at a distance of 300 meters, it’s safe to say that most of them already have limited missile control. Because of the narrow field of view of the sight, and thanks to the missile’s flight speed, correcting its flight in under 1 second is extremely difficult. This means that unless you aimed right at the enemy’s silhouette, you probably won’t have the ability to turn the missile in time at that distance. I.e. at that distance, there’s no difference in whether the missile is guided or not.

Now that the Tiger Ausf E tank has received its fully deserved battle rating, can we hope for the release of a APCR round for such vehicles as the Tiger H1, the Panther D and the Panzer IV/70 (Vomag)? Historically these vehicles used this shell, and it’s also worth remembering that there’s already a vehicle with the PaK.42 gun at BR 5.0 (identical to the Panther and the Vomag SPG) that uses this exact shell – the Panzer IV/70 (Alkett).

It isn’t off the table.


Is there an SPG planned for the USSR with the ZU-23-2 gun? For example, based on the BTR-152, BTR 50, MTLB, BTR-D or BMP-1? Or other gun platforms.

No, we don’t currently have such a vehicle in our plans.



Hello. Could you please tell me whether sounds will be added for shells that fly past ground vehicles? Also, a ricochet only makes a hit noise, you can’t hear the whistle of the shell. I’ve been waiting for this change for a long time. It’s a small thing, but would be nice.

The game has noises for shells that fly past – both on airplanes and in tanks.


Hello! Do you plan to implement wave-based sound? I.e. if the M103 fires, and there’s a player tank 662 m from it, will this player hear the sound of the shot only after 2 seconds? (The speed of sound is 331 m/s)

No, we don’t plan to implement a terminal velocity of sound effect propagation. In a game in which the player constantly sees explosions and shots at a distance, for which a difference in the speed of sound effect propagation would be noticeable, this would cause a feeling of discomfort due to the difference between visual and auditory output and wouldn’t provide adequate feedback.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


The Westland Wyvern turboprop aircraft is already in the game, and we haven’t ruled out adding other vehicles with a similar powertrain.
This is valuable information. I agree that this is an issue. It should be added to the card.
We’re working on it. Keep an eye on our news.
This isn’t going to happen in the near future. But the B-45 is an interesting aircraft, and I won’t exclude the possibility of it appearing in the game, not least because it has a defensive turret, which the B-57 lacks.

Ground Forces

Tread durability in the game is based on 1 or maximum 2 hits by shells from a tank of the same tier. Could you provide an example of tracks surviving more hits than this without consequences?
We regularly add modifications for a single tank in the same era with similar BR when there isn’t a comparable vehicle of another model in terms of battle characteristics. In this case, there is no need for another modification of the T-62, but we do have the T-55 in the pipeline, which is equipped with a stabilizer. 
Yes, we plan to add anti-aircraft machine guns for these mounts, based on these same considerations.
We haven’t ruled it out. The problem with this type of armor is that it’s not entirely clear how distinct the modifiers would need to be for different countries and tanks, since this armor was used in various countries.


Aircraft carrier dimensions in the game are correct for the condition depicted (year of modernization). I checked the Akagi’s dimensions, and they are correct: 250m long and 31m wide.
Photos and Screenshots:






Victory marks are already present in the form of iron crosses, stars, etc. They are clear and versatile in terms of placement, so we have no plans to add barrel rings or “bars” to the game.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

19th April 2017


Which attackers are you planning for the USSR with a BR within the 3.7-8.0 range?

There’s an obvious shortage of assault aircraft with such Battle Ratings right now.

 Answer: We are not going to share all of our plans right now. Developer diaries will definitely be posted eventually. However, I can tell you that we’re planning to introduce some interesting attackers and something unusual-looking. Some of which is already in the works.


Will it ever be possible to increase the number of aircraft spawn points in arcade battles?

Adding a large number of respawn points could solve the problem of “spawn campers,” who shoot down aircraft a few seconds after they respawn without giving them a chance to react. Then aircraft could spawn somewhere else, and players would have the time to examine the situation on the battlefield

 Answer: To be honest, we don’t see a problem here. First of all, the diameter of the respawn area in Air AB is about a kilometer, so camping at a specific point where players will always respawn is not possible. Needless to say, you can still camp “approximately” above a point, but I doubt that this would guarantee you a large number of aircraft kills.


Is there a chance you might add some Japanese heavy fighters with high-caliber weaponry for co-op battles?

You said there were no armor-piercing rounds for them, but this isn’t actually true. The 75 mm Type 88 AA gun (there’s even data available about this gun’s ability to fire on Shermans that proves its effectiveness) installed on the Ki-109, as well the 57 mm Ho-401/402 and the 75 mm Ho-501 (based on the Type 88) installed on the Ki-93 all had armor-piercing rounds. Taking all this into account, I’d like to ask whether or not it’s possible to introduce at least a partial solution to the problem of Japanese assault aircraft?

Answer: Specifically we were talking about lower-caliber rounds. It’s true that there was a gun installed on the Ki-109 that could also fire armor-piercing AA rounds, and we’re planning to introduce this aircraft to the game.


Are you planning to ever go back to intermediate Battle Rating values for the era V aircraft in RB?

Right now all vehicles are spread out in accordance with rounded BR values, i.e. we only have 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0 (with rare exceptions), and players simply do not fly many aircraft (such as the MiG-15) because there are vehicles tied to the same BR value that are significantly more powerful (such as the MiG-15 BIS or the MiG-17). That is why such an approach to assigning Battle Ratings automatically implies dividing vehicles into “Holy cow, that’s so OP!” and “Why would anyone want to fly that thing?”, which isn’t ideal.

Answer: We decided on this kind of division because of the following factors: the need to match as many top-ranked aircraft as possible in a single battle on the one hand, and the significant differences in flight characteristics between early and late jets on the other. Incidentally, this division was very well received by players at the time, although certain aircraft with certain characteristics end up in the same battles over and over again. In other words, no, we’re not planning to go back at this time.


Ground Forces

Will you ever add at least some kind of visible/distinctive difference between auto-repairs (fixing tracks only) and manual repairs?

Sometimes you press the repair key, and it seems like the repairs have begun, but it isn’t the repairs activated by the player, but just the track.

Answer: It’s certainly possible. We will consider this suggestion.


There’s this popular expression: “fall on deaf ears.” So why is it that in Tanks AB, RB, and SB, tank drivers can hear the whizzing of bombs as they fall from a great height?

Most bombs dropped by aircraft make absolutely no noise, you know. The only sound a bomb can make before it explodes is the sound of it hitting the ground and other surfaces (assuming it has a delayed fuse).

Answer: What makes you think that most bombs dropped by aircraft are silent? If a bomb falls at a speed that is less than the speed of sound (usually when dropped from a height of up to 6,000 meters), the sound it generates will reach the ground before the bomb does.


Are you planning to rework the way HESH rounds work?

In the game, they generate a massive amount of shrapnel with a dispersal cone of nearly 180 degrees and enough penetrating power to pierce a breech, engine, and transmission, although in reality, this kind of shrapnel has low speed and no penetrating power and can only “disable” people.

Answer: We aren’t planning to do this in the immediate future. The parameters are selected in such a way that secondary shrapnel from armor, when a HESH round hits, can take out a tank’s crew, parts, and components without completely running them all through. The most powerful shrapnel has a dispersion cone of 50 degrees, and less powerful varieties that can only hit the crew have a cone of 140 degrees.


When are you going to introduce a mechanic for correctly calculating the sides of armor plating?

Right now a three-meter-long, 20mm-thick plate has a side of only 20 mm (i.e. its effective thickness along three meters is 20 mm rather than 3,000 mm). The result of this is that heavily armored vehicles have weak areas, where they can be penetrated by machine guns. Just one of the example would be the Ferdinand.

Answer: This kind of mechanic, i.e. one in which the thickness of the armour is calculated based on the distance the shell flies within a tridimensional armor component, certainly seems very attractive from the perspective of the options it could lead to, but it also demands substantial changes to the code, as well as painstaking checking, and reworking of the models, so for now I can’t say anything about how long it might take or how and when we might introduce it. For the examples described in the report, correcting the geometry and thickness of certain armor components would be enough to remove these bugs from the SPG. We’re definitely going to fix it.



Are you planning to add an expanded (perhaps ring-shaped for ease of use) tactical command menu to the game?

One with more advanced messages for the team. You could talk about your intentions, issue requests or orders, etc. Right now there is, tactically speaking, very little interaction among players. It’s frequently easier to just type a message to a teammate to let them know that I’m moving from this point to that one and ask them to do something. But I’m sure you can understand that you don’t really have time for typing in the heat of battle.

Answer: The current command menu is already ring-shaped. Which commands do you think are missing?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

4th May 2017



Why do HEI-T projectiles for aircraft have larger penetration values than the same calibre in ground forces?

Minengeschoß do not count. However the 50 mm German cannon found on the Pz III J1 penetrates 4 mm but on the Me 410 its 6-7 mm. 37 mm on aircraft have 5 mm penetration but on the Ostwind only 2 and 4 mm?

 Answer: This is partially down to the aviation Damage Model, however we are working to correct everything to have the same parameters.


Are there still plans for more variants of existing popular low - mid rank fighters? Such as the P-40, Bf 110, Hurricane, F4U, P-47 and P-51?

 Answer: Yes, several modifications of these machines are in production now.


When the Spitfire Mk V’s receive their reworked models, will you remove the tropical Vokes filter from the Mk Vb and keep it on the Vc so we can have a Tropical and Nontropical filtered Spitfire V? Or perhaps a premium clipped wing LF Vb without a filter? In addition, are there any plans for a premium US Spitfire Vb tropical?

Answer: Yes, we plan to add several more options for the Mk V, along with the remaking of current models, including one without a tropical filter.


Is it possible we will see premium variants of famous Spanish modifications of German aircraft such as the Merlin Engine powered Hispano Ha-112-M1L Buchon (Bf 109G) and CASA 2.111 (HE-111)?

Answer: Currently, there are no plans.


Ground Forces

Are there still plans for a Light Tank branch for Germany or have plans been abandoned?

Answer: Most likely it will not be a completely separate branch, but we will add the most interesting machines amongst other branches, something interesting is already planned in the next major patch.


Currently there are very uncomfortable camera positions on the top British tanks (Centurions, Chieftains) in Simulator Battles. The sight is much higher (with the lateral correction everyone is used to), it is insanely difficult to acquire the desired elevation angle. I understand, it seems to be historically accurate, but we do not have sight grids, which historically were on the vehicles. 

Is there any way to fix this (to shift, as an example, the grid to "clear" height)?

Answer: There are plans for Simulator Battles and in Realistic Battles to improve camera positions and aiming positions. Currently the axes of the gun and the sight are parallel, which is not entirely correct.


Why does the game need viewports and sighting devices? Why should they be modeled and given damageable modules?

Answer: Currently, these modules represent some protection against secondary armour fragments, especially if the sight or devices are of a large size. Usually, the more modern the tank, the larger the amount of protection these models can provide for the gunner.


Why are there no more new options for additional armour protection. 

You said that extra armour would  not only be tracks, but also sandbags and individual armoured plates, will this be revisited?

Answer: Currently we are somewhat focused on new vehicles and models, but the addition of different types of additional armour protection is in planning.


Are there plans for a Ground Forces Japanese tier IV premium?

Answer: Yes, there are such plans.


Are there any plans for German Waffenträger SPG/Tank Destroyers in the second German Tank Destroyer line?

Answer: Yes, there are plans for such a machines, but most likely we will not make a second line of tank destroyers. We will add the machines separately to different branches.


Now that the 183mm FV4005 is in game, is it possible we could get a new top tier British 183mm Heavy Gun Tank FV215? The tank was developed from the Conqueror and uses the same gun as FV4005, so it would be the perfect successor to the Conqueror Mk II. The tank was classified as both a Heavy Tank and SPG, but it would fit better after the Conqueror as a heavy tank.

Answer: Only a mockup model was built and we try not to introduce such machines without an emergency situation that calls for it. Britain already has the FV4005 with this cannon and there are heavy tanks on the top ranks. We plan to introduce other machines and modifications at the moment.


Do you have any plans for low Rank US premium multi-turreted tanks like the T-35, A1E1, Nb.Fz and Type 95?

Answer: So far we have not chosen a worthy candidate that compares well to these tanks.



Why not give players the opportunity to choose when to activate test drive rewards, just like with boosters or wagers? 

The fact is that not everyone has time to use the test drives after entering the game.

Answer: There are some technical limitations to this factor.


Recently, I have noticed a depressing tendency to cut the size of the maps, not only in RB, but also in SB. This particularly affects the top vehicles in which these maps are very tight. 

What is the reason for this?

Answer: Relatively recently, we have in fact increased the specific rotation “weighting” with "bigger" maps in SB, currently, they occupy about 70% of the total rotation, and for some maps Additional parameters have been added for the battle area in SB.


Why has the program that added user created content (camouflage) to the game ceased?

 If this is not the case, then what is the criteria for selecting the ones that enter the game and why in the last few years, no camouflage has been added to the game from War Thunder Live? Moreover, for the entire time of the game's existence, under the "Revenue Share" program, not a single user camouflage for ground vehicles has been added. Why is that?

Answer: "Over the past few years" - is a bit of an exaggeration. The reason no user camouflage for ground vehicles have been added into the game is purely technical in nature: there is no way to make a custom camo so that it worked together with a camouflage mask and was correctly processed when the tank was destroyed. In the future, we plan to revise the principle of adding custom camouflage to the game so that the creators and players themselves take a greater part in this, and to make it much easier. 


Is it possible to add small previews in the pre-match menu opposite the currently selected camouflage? 

This would help visualise the camo and help to choose the best camouflage for the situation. The current names are not always informative, especially ones such as "one-color" or "standard".

Answer: Unfortunately, downloading camouflage information will require downloading the model itself, which has not yet been loaded in the pre-match menu. Downloading the model will require loading all the vehicles on the fly, which would significantly increase the waiting time before a battle and would require considerable client resources.


Beyond Italy and France, are there any other major nations that may be considered?

Or will the remaining nations be united into a “International” tree of sorts? Sweden for example has many independant aircraft and ground forces and could support its own tree.

Answer: We do not exclude the possible introduction of machines of Swedish or Czech construction, as well as other European countries, but we cannot discuss the details yet.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...


1st June 2017

flag_italy.png REGIA AERONAUTICA



Will packs be added to Steam that provide access to the Italian closed beta?

SnailB.png Answer: All packs in the store can be bought through Steam, just click on the “Order” button on the vehicle of interest in the tech tree.


When will packs arrive on the PSN?

Snailb.png Answer: We estimate that by the time this article has been published, the packs will have become available.


Will a bonus crew slot be added (the one awarded for the “Invite Friend” program) to the Italian line and any new playable nations in general?

SnailW.png Answer: The "Invite a friend" bonus crew slot for Italy, the new nation in game, will be added in one of the nearest updates.


Will the achievements on Italian aircraft in the German tech tree be moved to the Italian tech tree?

SnailW.png Answer: Achievements always count toward the Nation that the vehicle represents in the tree.


Will Italy have ground vehicles?

SnailW.png Answer: Yes, we plan this. For the time being, we can’t say when the full ground vehicle tech tree will appear, but we are not ruling out a vehicle-by-vehicle addition. As happened with the British tree, for example. This will allow you to use Italian assault aircraft in mixed battles.


Why haven’t already researched aircraft moved across to the Italian research tree in the updates with existing progress saved?

SnailW.png Answer: Because these aircraft’s research was begun in the Germany tech tree and with the support of German aviation, this isn’t the same as researching them in another Nation’s tree. 


Will Italy have a navy?

SnailW.png Answer: We don’t rule out this possibility. Actually, we’d like to see every nation with every vehicle type eventually.


Will different skins be added for Italian aircraft? If yes, then when?

SnailW.png Answer: Of course they will. New skins will be added over time.


How many days can you miss while unlocking 12 “arrows” (to become an Italian tree researcher)?

SnailW.png Answer: Quite a few. The tests will certainly last longer than 20 days.


Why isn’t there an actual combat branch (aircraft that participated in real combat operations) for the Reggiane?

SnailW.png Answer: The release tree contains many real aircraft that were involved in battles. The Reggiane models will appear in the future. Work is currently being done on these aircraft.


Why were the S.M.79 Series 4 and S.M.79 bis/N not added to the Italian tech tree after previously being removed from the German tree?

SnailW.png Answer: These models require certain improvements and updates for their armament and appearance. They might be added later after the required changes have been made.

ticket2_2tanks_bc6c29bc762859bb11553868eGround Forces



When will ground vehicles from WW2 be separated from post-war ground vehicles?

SnailW.png Answer: We have never stated nor planned to separate vehicles or aircraft by year of production, or, set up the same matchmaking levels for vehicles or aircraft using the same year of production. BR, first and foremost, determines the combat capabilities of vehicles. Some vehicles designed and even built during World War II (the T-34-85, T-44, T-54, IS-3, M26/46, and even German vehicles that the Allied  countries obtained) continued to be used for a long time after the war and took part in post-war conflicts. Additional matchmaking stages, particularly at high ranks, make it harder to create a game session because a greater number of players are required – so we always take a careful approach to expanding the BR range. However, if a more powerful vehicle appears, the number of BR levels will be increased automatically.


When will Soviet tanks get an EESS (engine exhaust smoke system)?

SnailW.png Answer: Setting up a smoke screen with an EESS is different from other ways of doing so, and that’s why it requires a new mechanic. We’re working on this currently, but can’t talk about specific timeframes yet.


Why should I fire a smoke shell if it is better to use a normal one?

SnailW.png Answer: It’s handy if you need to reach a point through an area under enemy fire. Or if you’ve been hit and you need repairs, where your opponent is well hidden. Or if your ally is being attacked from a spot you can’t fire on and needs some cover. Or if you need to disorient clearly more powerful or even invulnerable opponents. Or if you want to distract your opponents. As you can see, there are lots of reasons.


Will signal shells be added?

SnailW.png Answer: Who and what are you planning on signaling? :) We have the ‘attention-to-the-point’ function – in war, this was a distant dream.


When will smoke ordinance be introduced for all the vehicles?

SnailW.png Answer: Smoke ordinance will be given to all vehicles that historically had them, we will add them over time. There are quite a few ground vehicles with similar equipment.

gunners.png Other



When will the Ultra Low cheater graphics settings be removed?

SnailW.png Answer: Are they really cheater settings? Switch them on and try to play. These settings haven’t given any significant advantages for a while: vegetation is rendered at a great distance and, in contrast to standard minimum settings, is not transparent. We’re not planning to get rid of Ultra Low. After all, many War Thunder players just like you use these settings.


When will a Ukrainian localization be added?

SnailW.png Answer: The Ukrainian localization is 95% ready thanks to a team of translators from among the players. We hope that the remaining tasks will soon be completed, and you’ll be able to see the Ukrainian language in one of the upcoming large updates.


Metal (for Mac OS) is a good thing. Will there be support for DX12 and Vulkan, and if so, when?

SnailW.png Answer: DX12 and Vulkan won’t provide any performance increases without a thorough reworking of the renderer. Such reworking would mean losing DX9 support, and the performance increase still wouldn’t be significant. At the same time, DX12 support provides no new effects that can’t be obtained on DX11.


Why is the new line Italy and not France?

SnailW.png Answer: Because we really wanted to give you one of the more interesting air forces from the Second World War. Also, Italy has a big advantage over France in terms of the number of interesting aircraft.


Will helicopters appear in the game?

SnailW.png Answer: As the 1st of April event showed, attack helicopters can easily have a place in mixed battles in our game, but this issue requires further development both in terms of balance (countermeasures and vehicles that could efficiently counter attack helicopters all need to be looked into) and in terms of other issues. If and when such a decision is made, we tell you about it separately.


  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

1st June 2017

Q&A related to World War Mode. 






Why will the CBT of “World War” mode only be available to squadrons?

SnailB.png Answer: Tasks for the initial CBT stages will be specifically testing of the strategic mode and this is more practical for organized communities and squadron leaders. So learn to command or join one of the existing squadrons.


How will CBT be done?

SnailB.png Answer:

  1. The technical test stage (searching and correcting critical errors which were overlooked during internal tests). We will select between 2 and 6 squadrons with more mutually agreed dates and time of the game, game nations and number of players.
  2. Balancing stage. 10-30 squadrons which will be chosen randomly from the total of all squadrons that passed the selection criteria.
  3. Stress-test stage. 30+ squadrons in the battle (here we will try to allow all squadrons that passed the selection criteria to participate).


Are there any features of the CBT?

SnailB.png Answer: For optimisation of the number of players in battles for the tests in each team will be less than is planned for start of the final “World War” mode. The exact amount of players will be determined by the results of the CBT, but we have planned for it to be higher than in random battles.


We have only pilots in the squadron and we don’t use ground vehicles. Will we be able to participate in the CBT?

SnailB.png Answer: You cannot win a war with only aircraft and the a commander without flexible tactics and a variety of forces will be a less successful commander. You need ground vehicles and aircraft, if not by all squadron members  then preferably, most of them. 
The war is looming. Work out your tactics, work on the unity of the team and research vehicles. 


“World War” game mode will only be available to squadrons after the CBT?

SnailB.png Answer: We plan to invite solo players to these battles, but of course the leadership of whole armies will be available only for squadron commanders.


How will solo players be able to participate?

SnailB.png Answer: Preparation for the battle will start and the initial sign up will be available for squadron members. After the battle begins, single players will be able to join if a squadron isn't able to fill available places with its warriors. Every player will also be able to monitor the progress of each operation in real time.


If I create a squadron with several friends will I be able to be a “World War” commander?

SnailB.png Answer: Participation of a squadron in the “World War” mode will probably require a specific minimum amount of players as without sufficient manpower the squadron will be less effective. The exact requirements will be established based on the results of the CBT but the requirements after the end of CBT will most likely be lower.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

12th June

Q&A related to Navy Tests




Will the aircraft and ground game mechanics concept remain the same for naval battles? Specifically, will the historical characteristics of the vehicles be more important than balance?

SnailB.pngHistorically accurate characteristics are an important part of the game but it doesn’t mean that we do not try to find balance for different types of vehicles. We do it through match-making,  choosing suitable opponents for specific vehicles or through mission tasks and conditions where different vehicle types can gain victory in a different way.



How is shooting at long distances implemented?

SnailB.pngAt the moment the main mechanics remain the same as in the first tests - a player takes aim himself, distance to the target is calculated automatically and guns change their elevation angle accordingly, the speed of a player’s vehicle and the speed of the target are not taken into account  - player should make corrections themselves. This system, especially with stabilizers, works fine at large distances but small miscalculation in aiming causes big mistakes in rangefinding thus making accurate fire very difficult. We plan to change the aiming mechanic so it will be comfortable at all distances, but keeping such things as range finding, adjustment of fire - can actually improve game play of the large distance shooting.




Will adjustment of fire mechanics be implemented?

SnailB.pngAt the moment we already have these mechanics and they are automatic, if you aim at a target that moves steadily and does not change range, hitting the same target is much easier than hitting a vessel that maneuvers and changes its speed. 




Do you plan to implement “varied weather” and will it affect shooting and visibility?

SnailB.pngIt is planned and we have already implemented various weather types and sea conditions, but while we are testing the core gameplay mechanics, we will be using calmer weather conditions. 




Will the vessel’s size affect the stability of fire when the sea is rough?

SnailB.pngYou could see it already during the previous  tests - currently the sea is relatively calm for Destroyers, but if you chose a lighter craft, such as a Torpedo boat you could feel the difference.



Will AP and HE round roles will be implemented in a historically accurate manner?

SnailB.pngWe have already described how AP and HE rounds work in our latest devblog. If you want to inflict constant damage, cause local fires, create big breaches above the waterline - use HE shells, If you need to destroy powerplants or destroy ammo storage and cause a fire in compartments inside the ship? Go for AP rounds but aim accurately.




How accurately will “armouring” be reproduced?

SnailB.pngAs accurate as is possible in the game - no worse than for ground vehicles or aircraft. And yes, we divide the armour and construction elements of the vessel. Here’s an example for the pr. 1124 armoured boat.




“Tanking” principles? Should we rely on maneuvers or “angle” the vessel?

SnailB.pngYou might rely on “angling” in case you have decent armour defense which will increase or decrease at specific angles. Craft that barely have any armour should not rely on this - it may prove deadly for your vessel, e.g. an AP round may penetrate several compartments damaging both crew and modules and even reach the powerplants, maneuvering in this case is much more preferable.




If there’s a duel between a destroyer and a torpedo-boat the latter has no chances. How can they fight on one map?

SnailB.pngIt’s simple. A destroyer will not be able to see a torpedo boat at distances further than 500m - I’m Joking :) Of course smaller boats have no chance on open waters that's why we plan to separate maps into several zones: there will be open waters for artillery duels at larger distances and zones with lots of cover and capture zones.




Will shallows be implemented? Meaning that will there be places where boats would be able to operate while destroyers will ground in the shallows?

SnailB.pngYes, we already have maps with different depth levels that are suitable for craft with a shallow draft, whilst DD’s find it impossible to traverse. We also plan to use underwater landscape in the gameplay. 



Boats and destroyers have depth charges that can be used in battle - does it mean that there will be specific targets for them?

SnailB.pngDepth charges for smaller craft can be used as “grenades” with fuse delay against enemy boats. It won’t work for DD’s that’s why we removed this weaponry for them at the moment. Probably we will have PvE missions with, for example,  submarines in the future. Then depth charges can be used for destroyers as well.




What do you think about dividing larger ships controls between several players - one is the commander, second one is responsible for the main calibre guns, third - for AA guns and secondary armament.

SnailB.pngOur tests have shown that dynamics of the larger ships battles are slower that is why dividing controls between several players might not be a good idea. The most exciting and interesting moments are when you have to decide what you should prioritise - fire from the main guns or take the controls of the AA guns to shoot down an incoming torpedo bomber. Dividing controls between players will divide the action as well which will make it boring for everyone, Moreover the cooperation problem between random players will still remain.



Which ship classes do you plan to introduce after the destroyers? Should we expect destroyer leaders and light cruisers?

SnailB.pngCooperation between boats, aircraft and destroyers already causes many problems/questions from the balance point of view as well as map design etc. Adding bigger ships that will have an armament advantage over destroyers similar to what advantage destroyers have over boats is a more complex task. It is too early to say right now, however we are not completely excluding the possibility of larger ship introduction.




Can a ship be destroyed by flooding?

SnailB.pngYes. Vessels can be destroyed both from a single powerful explosion (for example if hit by a torpedo) or several breaches beneath the waterline. During the test you should have noticed that if your ship had buoyancy of about 70%, its draft increased (more under the surface), consequently with a speed reduction  because your craft was heavier with a few tons of water.


Unrepaired breaches will cause flooding and sinking



Will another player be able to help me with repairs?

SnailB.pngWe are not excluding this possibility, but it’s too early to say - vessels have much more survivability than tanks and probably there will be no gameplay necessity for this feature. But as I have already mentioned - it is too early to say at the moment.




How will smoke screens be implemented?

SnailB.pngSmoke screens will be implemented similar to what we already have in ground vehicles and thus smoke will make things difficult for the enemy, hiding you, but it will also obscure your vision concealing your opponents.



Do you plan PvE-missions? Convoy defense, search and destroy submarines etc.?

SnailB.pngWe already have certain PvE elements in our PvP missions - we have already shown convoys and this time we had tasks to destroy cargo ships behind enemy lines. In the future, once we decide that PvP mode is more or less prepared and accepted by the players we are not excluding that PvE will become available - we have PvE for ground and air battles after all.



 What nations vessels do you plan to show us?

SnailB.pngI think that we will show some American and probably Japanese craft.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

13th July

ticket2_2tanks_bc6c29bc762859bb11553868eGround Forces


Do you plan to introduce ammo containers or other features that decrease the chances of ammo load explosions?

SnailB.pngWe already have this implemented - e.g. American tanks with “wet” ammo rack  (they have ‘W” in their name) have a decreased chance of ammunition detonation in case of fire. If any tanks had any form of constructive protection of ammo - it is also taken into account.




Italy is represented by its national vehicles, but will there be a mix of the “Lesser Axis” – Hungary and Romania? If we look at ground vehicles, then Hungary and Romania would complement the nation very well.

SnailB.pngFirst we want mostly Italian vehicles, but we don’t exclude the later addition of aircraft from the “Lesser Axis”.



    I want to ask whether it’s possible that a function will be added so the commander can rotate the turret with a knocked out gunner, on the condition that control is reduced, of course. 

SnailB.pngYes, it’s possible. I can’t say anything as to when yet, but this is an interesting and useful option.



Will there be more camouflages (on top of the standard ones) for AA guns that are based on trucks? In particular, the Soviet and Japanese AA guns only have the standard green camouflage for some reason. In battles we find ourselves on winter maps, tropical maps, desert maps (and the survivability of truck-based AA guns is already low, so they desperately need camo for these maps)

SnailB.pngWe’re going to add winter camo for those SPAAGs, and possibly other types over time as well.




Could you tell us whether kamikaze destruction will be implemented, i.e. light armour getting destroyed when it crashes into heavy armour? 

SnailB.pngWe currently have damage from collisions between light and heavy armour, which you can check in a test run, i.e. with a T-10 vs a Pz-2.




Is the size of the ST-A1 and ST-A2’s turrets correct? They look rather disproportional compared to historical photographs. Will this be changed?

SnailB.pngYes, we have plans to correct the turret model.



Will the USSR be given aircraft at rank 5 with assault capabilities? As far as I know, the MiG-15bis and the MiG-17 could be equipped with anti-tank missiles and even specific assault modifications.

SnailB.pngYes, our consultants recently finished some research on the subject of Soviet rocket and bomb armament, and we’re getting ready to tidy this issue up, to be included at rank 5.




Can you make a first-person view in the future for gunners in aircraft with one gunner? This would increase effectiveness when manually controlling the gunner. It’d look nice too.

SnailB.pngWe’re not ruling out that as a possibility, at least for aircraft with one gunner position.



Are there plans to give dive bombers specialized diving sights? A functional Stuvi for example?

SnailB.pngWe’re not ruling that out.




Nose and tail wheels for aircraft don't seem to function or move with the rudder when taxiing on the ground. Is this intentional or will this be changed in the future?

SnailB.png The majority of aircraft have self-orienting rear wheels with no connection to the rudder. All turns and taxi operations at low speeds must be done by brakes alone. Best-case scenario was to fix the wheel column to avoid rotating while taking off.

If the column is fixed, then the aircraft will go straight even under full control, it’ll be hard to cause a drift. It’s just when you’re taxiing with mouse aiming and controlling the rudders with your keyboard, the mouse aiming also works as the brakes – activating the left and right brake alternately. If you hold the cursor, then the wheel column in the direction of the rotation will brake. Aircraft have self-orienting wheels in the game if they had them in reality.

As for the visual display, it may also appear in the future.



Large 4 engined Heavy bombers don't really have many options in battles at the moment. There are only 3 area targets on most RB maps and then the airfield. Destroying them is the only option currently and they are not recorded in the player statistics card. Are there plans for more diverse mission objectives/modes for heavy bombers to do more in and show out more in combat?

SnailB.pngWe have plans to add to the statistics of players total mass of bombs dropped on ground targets to the service record.



Will aircraft that had built in Fire Prevention Equipment (such as the B-29) receive this function in game similar to ground forces?

SnailB.pngThis issue requires some further study, in terms of the number of aircraft and the operation of these systems. But we are not excluding the introduction of such functionality.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

27th July



How do developers see the reward system for victorious squadrons? What’s the motivation to play WW? Will there be no alteration to territories, just ratings and gold? Why couldn’t you split the global map into sectors and make the battles not so local as part of small operations? Why didn’t you implement a system for capturing territory with squadrons?

SnailB.pngSince these questions are very similar, I’ll answer them all at once.

One of the main potential problems that we were trying to avoid when we first started developing World War is balancing by country. If, for example, it turned out that 80% of players decided to play for the allies, then it would be bad for everyone: for the allies because they wouldn’t have enough opponents; for the Axis because they’d have almost no chance of winning. Capturing territories with squadrons requires a permanency in the game world, which means that if at the beginning there are issues with balance, then things will likely continue poorly; changing a country means losing territory, which few would be willing to do. Plus even if we carry out the war in seasons, resetting the progress every season, it’s entirely possible that we’ll get a situation in which the war has only just begun, but the result is already decided. In fact, considering the distribution of players by country in the game, it’s practically guaranteed.
To avoid problems like that, we need the in-game universe in which the World War takes place to be non-historical as a minimum – every country for itself, so that several countries can unite against one if necessary. The best option is a complete alternative war – every squadron for itself, so that it becomes absolutely impossible to create an absolute majority in one side of the conflict.
We wanted World War mode in our game to remain part of the historical game universe, allowing players to take part in historical events from the Second World War. So we took the decision to break World War up into operations. This doesn’t fully solve the problems of balancing by country, but it makes them local: if a squadron or player can’t find an operation for the country they want, then at any time they have a choice to play for another country without losing progress.
As for motivation to play, one of the key tasks we set before embarking on World War mode, was to bring new and fun gameplay to the game to make this mode fun to play even without extra rewards. Unique battle modes and game situations, more players in battle, the influence of each action in battle on something greater than the result of the battle for separate players and the ability to use tactical skills and smooth team play in large-scale operations that involve the entire military might of the squadron.
But of course there will be rewards – playing World War will result in unique prizes both for squadrons and individual players.




If, for example, 8 squadrons are playing the same operation and 6 of them want to choose Axis, how is this solved?

SnailB.pngAs in any game that includes multiple factions, this problem can never be fully solved. We’re examining several options for encouraging squadrons that play for unpopular in-game nations in order to minimize this problem.



    Players without WW vehicles in their hangar have been given them, but stock versions. Is this a temporary function? Will it be necessary to unlock the required vehicle before participating in the future?

SnailB.pngThe function will stay. To enter a battle, you have to have at least one type of vehicle from the list of participating vehicles. Missing vehicles will be given to players, but without modifications and with an untrained crew.




Will battles be 24/7 or will they be held at a special time like with squadron battles?

SnailB.pngSince the closed beta has only just begun, currently we can’t answer that question. For now we plan for World War to be available at a specially set time on specially set days, replacing Squadron Battles for that time. I.e. for example, Monday - Friday might be for Squadron Battles, Saturday and Sunday for World War.




Will the ordinary economy work in some sort of form in World War? Lions farming and so on?

SnailB.pngThe economy will work like it does in random battles, plus an additional reward in Lions when an operation ends. This additional reward will depend on the results of the operation and on how many Lions the player earns in the operation’s battles.




Since the operations are historical, this implies balance issues in battles. How are the developers going to regulate that? For example, will they set limits on the numbers of certain vehicles?

SnailB.pngOur task is to recreate historical operations, but at the same time give each side an equal chance for victory.

Balance will be regulated primarily by regulating the number of vehicles in the armies and the number of reinforcements. As for the position in the front lines and the numerical ratio of troops between the sides of the conflict when the operation starts, along with which vehicles exactly can participate in the operation, we’re trying to make those things as close to the historical events as possible.




Will there be any special NON-historical operations with a wider set of vehicles?

SnailB.pngWe’re considering things like that, but if they do come, it’ll be after the main historical operations of WWII have been added.



  • Upvote 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • GTAUSTRALIA changed the title to Dev Questions & Answers Compilation
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...