Jump to content

Dev Questions & Answers Compilation


25th August



Our plans

  • We plan to add a new rank to the ground forces research trees - rank 6. We will begin with the vehicles that represent the second generation of MBTs such as the Soviet T-64 and the American experimental  MBT-70 etc.
  • We will gradually from one update to another add interesting post-war machines (not only MBTs) for all available nations.
  • The game economy was initially not intended for rank 6 that’s why in future, the rules for researching will be slightly different. There will be no drastic increase in  RP and Silver Lions requirements compared to the difference between ranks 4 and 5 for example. These requirements will not be much different from what we have at rank 5 currently. Moreover, once we have enough vehicles at rank 6 we plan to reduce the requirements for researching and purchasing vehicles of rank 5 and probably even lower ranks as well so that the time our players spend reaching the top ranks remains the same as it was before the introduction of the new rank. 

Questions and answers

Will there be the Abrams/T-90/Leo 2 etc?

polosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   SnailB.pngWe are not excluding any modern tanks at some point provided that we can recreate them with a sufficient level of detail and depending on their combat capabilities.

Will there be thermal sights/night vision devices?

polosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   SnailB.pngWe will decide after we create some prototypes and test night battles with these devices.

Do you plan to add helicopters? Like it was in the April Fool’s event earlier this year?

SnailB.pngpolosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   Yes, it is possible that rank 6 aviation will be represented by helicopters that have interesting gameplay in combined battles. There is no final answer or list with strike aircraft at the moment, we haven’t run all the necessary internal tests yet. 

Do you plan to introduce modern military planes?

polosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   SnailB.pngUnlike tanks, modern air combat became more hardcore, less spectacular and doesn’t reveal a pilot’s skill as much as earlier air combat. It became clear even with the Korean war jet aviation that has been in War Thunder since the very beginning. But one thing influences combat tactics especially strongly - homing missiles, these do not require control after launch and though such combat may be interesting outside the range of vision in terms of gameplay, it depends 100% on working with the instrument panel and is very hardcore (requires specific knowledge and means lots of gameplay “in one’s imagination” without any feedback).  That’s why making modern air combat interesting, comprehensible and realistic at the same time is extremely difficult (if possible at all). This will mean that the air and ground parts of War Thunder will have great differences in terms of the time period of the vehicles in the game.
However we first plan to run internal tests of the jet aircraft from the Vietnam era where the first homing missiles were used. They had many limitations for missile launch (maximal and minimal distance, angle etc.) and their maneuvering performance was not as high as more modern missiles. This is why with a certain degree of caution, we might say that this stage of aircraft development will probably find its way to War Thunder some day.  

Do you plan to change BR’s after the introduction of the rank 6?

SnailB.pngpolosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   Yes, most likely some of rank 5 armoured vehicles e.g. ATGM tanks will receive new BRs and probably some of the existing tanks will move to rank 6. It will not happen on the first day of 1.71 update release, but after some time, enough to gather statistical data. 

Should we expect some features (such as reactive armour) to be implemented on the existing vehicles?

SnailB.pngpolosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   Implementing such protection - both passive (T-62M) and reactive armour increases tank efficiency and of course affects balance, this is why introducing such modifications will be done from a balance perspective and an according increase of BR.

Can we expect rank 5 premium vehicles, since it’s not the top rank anymore? What will happen to the rank 4 premium vehicles research efficiency, how will it affect rank 6 research progress?

SnailB.pngpolosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   Rank 5 premium vehicles are possible. Research progress for rank 4 vehicles whilst researching rank 6 will work using the same rules we have at the moment for other premium vehicles - there will be a penalty for researching vehicles 2 ranks higher.

How will these “New ERA” vehicles be introduced? Will they be given the usual CBT treatment?

polosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   SnailB.pngNo, the new ERA vehicles will be introduced normally and available to all players using progression.

Will you add 6th rank tanks for the other nations?  

polosochka_81c0fa7d084cc69f26dca6f485834   SnailB.pngWe plan, over time, to add rank 6 ground vehicles for all nations, sometimes these will be new vehicles, sometimes they will be vehicles moved from rank 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

17th August



SnailB.pngGround Forces



You have chosen not to implement dynamic weather change. So here’s the question: will we be able to see rain in ground (combined) battles? I recall having rain in ground battles 1 or 2 times in all the time I’ve been playing WT. In air battles one may see rain quite often but in tank battles all we see is snow - not enough weather diversity.

SnailB.pngThe chance of rainy weather in tank battle is very low since the visibility is really bad and it’s uncomfortable for players. It also makes aircraft almost useless in such battles.



SB question: do you plan to change line-ups in order to make them more historically accurate?

SnailB.pngSB line-ups are kind of controversial -  we want to use the maximum number of vehicles, maintain balance, and, if possible use vehicles that could actually meet each other in real life. This is how current line-ups are formed.



Currently destroyed tank tracks bring a moving vehicle to a halt as if braking, however track wheels have no brakes and a vehicle should keep moving a little further and turn a bit. Since wheels have no brakes a tank should still be able to move around the destroyed tracks in a circular fashion. Will you implement anything like that?

SnailB.pngTank movement with destroyed tracks depends on several factors - especially on the terrain parameters and suspension wheel diameter, transmission type is also important. A combination of these factors may lead to various results. E.g. smaller suspension wheels and soft ground will lead to a turn around the damaged track. Wide suspension wheels and rough terrain will lead to a movement within a small radius. Also we should remember that tracks could be completely jammed after they had been shot at - this is what we have in game and that’s how it would look - immediate braking and turning round the damaged track. We will think about a more detailed implementation of track damage and tank movement, but there is no ETA at the moment.




Will you improve rangefinder performance? At the moment it works only with fairly short distances?

SnailB.pngCurrently rangefinder works at a distance of 2000 m. And yes, we plan to increase it.



Since you added ammo with radio fuses for destroyers, can we expect something like that for the ground AA? K-29, 8.8 cm for example?

SnailB.pngYes, we plan to introduce distance fuses for ground based AA as well.




Will you add 1800 kg bombs to German aircraft that were equipped to carry them?

SnailB.pngIt depends on how it will affect its flight characteristics - e.g. will it be able to take-off from airfields that we have in game.



Do you plan to introduce new aircraft from 1936-1939, especially bombers?  I really enjoy the Hampden and it would be nice to see the Ju-52, Fairey Battle, Armstrong Whitley or Whitworth etc.

SnailB.pngYes we plan to add some late 30’s aircraft.



Will you add strategic bomber prototypes for the German tree? Ju-89, D0-19, Me-264, Ju-390 etc.?

SnailB.pngWe have similar aircraft in our general plan.



Do you plan to implement wind generated movement for the “lighter” objects? What about movement of shadows from clouds?

SnailB.pngTrees already move and cloud shadows move if the clouds move.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

30th August

Tank.png Ground Forces



Do crew skills affect reloading speed with an automatic loader?

SnailB.pngNo, they don’t.




Will the durability of tank destroyer rockets be corrected from super-durable to ordinary levels, with real-world values? Maybe they won’t blow up, but they could be knocked out and have to be reloaded when shot with machine guns, for example.

SnailB.pngYes, we plan to change the parameters for launchers and rockets, and add other components (the ATGM sight) to the DM, so that hitting them can knock the rocket system out and block the ability to launch.




Will there be a division between types of APCR shells such as solid homogenous APCR and soft-alloy core APCR? I’m referring to the APCR for the Leopard, М60, М60А1, Vickers, Centurion Mk 10, Chieftain, and T-10M.

SnailB.pngYes, we plan to introduce more types of APCR with differentiation based on DM mechanics (penetration depending on angle, post-penetration effect etc.).




Will armoured APCR and HESH shells be fixed? Right now it is a sometimes strange picture – a HESH shell creates a big shrapnel vector in the post-penetration space, dealing critical damage to internal modules, while an APCR can deal precise, non-penetrative damage through modules that is specific to the fragmenting action of HESH shells in particular. The APCR had significantly more shrapnel, with a temperature of 700-1000 degrees. Its penetrative ability allowed the high-speed shrapnel to pierce crew members’ bodies and compartments, setting the ammo rack and fuel tanks alight. The HESH shell had incommensurately less shrapnel, a speed of up to 600 m/s, a temperature no higher than 200 degrees. I.e. it couldn’t set alight a fragment of the tank’s armour or pierce crew members’ bodies, while saving energy for a subsequent hit on a module and crew in the post-penetration space.

SnailB.pngWe plan to rework the hit action of HESH shells, in particular we plan to fix their ability to set alight the engine or fuel tank. For APCRs, we have plans to move them gradually to a new system of secondary fragmentation.




Will the new experimental APCR for the 12.8 cm Pak 44 be added? The one you spoke about back in the tank closed beta test. Since a great many MBTs have been added, and it can be difficult to hit them with old German cannons (88-105-128). Also, is modern ammunition for the 88 cannon possible?

SnailB.pngNo, we have nothing like that planned.




Can we expect a reduction in BR for the Maus and IS-4 in RB? (The tanks have completely died out in battles after the introduction of ATGMs and powerful MBT shotguns)

SnailB.pngWe have taken a look at the popularity statistics over the last 10 days, and in terms of number of battles in rank 5 ground vehicles (AB/RB/SB combined), the Maus and IS-4 occupy positions 23 and 24 out of 50 in the table. The difference in number between uses vs tanks is in the top 5, not 10 or 100, is 4-5 times, a difference of 2 times vs 10th place for example. For example, these tanks are used more often than their ‘killers’ the M60A2 or the Chieftain Mk 5. i.e. it’ i incorrect to say that these tanks have died out. They aren't the most popular vehicles, but they are played. As for changing their BR, or the BR of tanks that cause them to ‘suffer’, yes, redistributing top rank tanks by BR is possible, but it’s worth remembering that in any case, there’ll be a certain split by rank, and these tanks will still encounter some more modern vehicles.



Why is there so much smoke in the flight trajectory of an ATGM? In reality, this smoke would prevent tracking the tracer and the aiming system would lose control over it. There was a bug report for this, but no response.

SnailB.pngThe smoke problem existed in reality. Consider that the aimer observes the entire volume of the smoke with the entire trajectory. For example, you can read about this problem in Vehicles and Armaments No. 2010-01 “The Dragon That Scourges Tanks – the IT-1”, pages 10-11.




Please tell us, do you have any plans for the T-62? Installing DShK, spaced armour on the sides of the tank, or possibly some other modification of the tank?

SnailB.pngWe’re aware of the multitude of modifications and additions for this tank, as with the T-55, which significantly increase its effectiveness, but as we answered before in our Q&A dedicated to the introduction of era 6, these modifications might appear if necessary as a balance correction, with a simultaneous change in the vehicle’s BR.




Do you have any plans to replace tanker models in German and Soviet vehicles with open cabins for models that look like tankers, instead of soldiers?

SnailB.pngCurrently no, and in addition, not all crews of these vehicles were necessarily tankers specifically, or artillerymen/AA crews.




Plans previously included the addition of a historical magnifying sight for all eras. How do matters stand on this now?

SnailB.pngYes, we plan to add historical magnification for all eras. But with the condition that if the real magnification was lower than x3, then in the game it will be set at x3, for player comfort.



Can we expect new maps for aerial RB? New maps for aerial RB haven’t been released in 3 years. The current ones are really boring now (Sicily - Norway)

SnailB.pngWe still have more aircraft maps in the game than tank maps, but that doesn’t mean we don’t plan to add more. Yes, we have plans to both add new maps and change matchmaking settings in such a way as to let players play on a wider variety of maps.



Why does the crew get 3 times less skill experience in RB than in AB, and when the pilot dies – 3 times less again? I agree that virtual life must be preserved, but 9 times less experience is excessive. Could you bring RB in line with AB, but leave the penalty when the pilot dies? Then in the worst case, the crew would get 3 times less XP.

SnailB.pngIn aerial RB, pilot death doesn’t influence the reduction in crew XP. The difference in the amount of experience in comparison with aerial AB is linked to the fact that in RB fewer crew members are required on average. And the difference isn’t 3 times, it’s roughly 2.6.

gunners_e522ec5e943d9b6d51513858d55424bb Other 



Will there be Vulcan АPI and TXAA antialiasing, or will 6x FXAA at least be returned?

SnailB.pngVulcan is very interesting to us and we support its development (link). We hope that it might replace OpenGL in the Linux and Windows versions in the near future, and possibly Direct X 9.0. That depends on whether graphics card manufacturers support it.

The launcher did have a x6 MSAA setting. But since almost no graphics cards (old and new) support it, we removed that antialiasing variant from the settings. MSAA is actually pretty poorly compatible with modern lighting technology, so manufacturers don’t bother to support it. Various types of temporal antialiasing are more suitable for modern lighting. Unfortunately, they have their own limitations and price. But we are not ruling out the possibility of using temporal anti aliasing in the future at some point.


YouTube.png Questions translated from recent Russian stream



Potentially, rank V Soviet ATM’s have many similar vehicles that require researching due to the introduction of rank 6, do you plan to combine some of them in one “folder” so that it won’t be necessary to research all of them to progress

SnailB.pngYes we plan to do this with several vehicles, and not only in the Soviet tree.




USSR has an awesome attacker - the SU-6 with rocket armament. However they have no jet attackers unlike other nations. Are you planning anything?

SnailB.pngYes. At the moment we are working on S-5 containers and high-calibre rockets for the MiG-17. There is no ETA right now though



Since you are introducing the BMP-1, do you have any plans for the BMD?

SnailB.pngThat’s possible, however we cannot discuss when.




We now have destroyers in Naval Battles, should we expect glide bombs?

SnailB.pngWe are discussing this. There are several difficulties. From the historical point of view after such bombs appeared all vessels received jamming transmitters and these bombs became useless. The second thing is that bombs were controlled by a joystick aiming system using a bomb tracer. So the control is similar to that of 1st gen ATGMs only in an aircraft. Thus accuracy would be pretty low even if a player does everything right. Thus we haven’t decided yet whether we will implement this feature or not. 



The Su-6 and Thunderbolt are very deadly attackers when using rocket loadout in combined battles, do you plan to change their BR or spawn point requirements?

SnailB.pngAt the moment not all armament uses the new system (recalculation to a TNT equivalent). Thus currently rockets are a bit more powerful than they were IRL, once we apply changes to all rockets they will become less deadly, however they will still be efficient if you manage to shoot against the top surfaces of the enemy vehicle. 




What about armour fatigue?

SnailB.pngThese are complex mechanics, we have completed only part of the work and are still working on it.



Besides the new vehicles what else should we expect in 1.71? Any changes in game mechanics? DM? Other features?

SnailB.pngWe plan a lot minor changes in different spheres. We will not announce them yet, probably some of them will not be finished by 1.71 release, but yes, there are changes in DM and ammo.



What about automatic fire extinguishers?

SnailB.pngThat’s an interesting question, but implementing this system will be bad for gameplay - for both sides, it will also decrease the importance of player skill. This is why most likely we will not introduce such a system.




Do you plan to increase the IS-6 BR?

SnailB.pngAll BR changes should be made after the release of the update. The introduction of rank 6 will most likely lead to BR changes in many vehicles, not only top-rank ones. Let’s wait and see.



Will the KPz-70 be placed after the Maus?

SnailB.pngThese are our plans at the moment, yes.




As far as I understand, the current top ground vehicles in rank 5 will be moved to early rank 6, will they receive new ammo?

SnailB.pngIt depends on the balance in the game. If it will be required, then yes they will.



Are there any plans in further development of the tank destroyers without armour? Like open-top vehicles with ATGMs?

SnailB.pngThat’s possible. Especially when “Ontos” is actually close to this idea. No promises however so far.




Have you stopped the development of aircraft?

SnailB.pngOf course not. We have just introduced a whole new nation in the previous update! As well as many other aircraft. All the game aspects are being developed in parallel. There will be lots of interesting stuff in the aviation part of the game later this year.




What about the visibility system? Disappearing tanks are frustrating.

SnailB.pngWe are constantly working on it. We never planned to introduce vehicles that fire whilst being invisible, all such bugs are being fixed.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

29th September

Tank.png Ground Forces



Why does the blast effect of bombs, rockets and HE shells not take into account the armor plate’s angle? The shockwave is a thick air front. Just like any other wave, it flows over streamlined objects or objects set at a high angle with a minimum of resistance. Because of this error, bombs and rockets destroy tanks through the bottom when they hit 10 metres away from them, which is completely impossible since the shockwave should simply skirt around the bottom of the tank.

SnailB.pngIt’s quite a difficult computing challenge to fully simulate the logic of explosive force while accounting for all its characteristics, so we use a simplified calculation. In 1.71, the destructive action of rockets is now calculated using the same rules that are also relevant for bombs. It is calculated more accurately with consideration for the explosive mass and the entire mass of the warhead, so the destructive action of rockets has been significantly reduced. As for bombs, to knock a tank out with a bomb from 10 metres away requires a rather heavier bomb of 500 kg and above.



With aircraft in ground AB, right now, you get the ability to take off in an attacker in exchange for two frags. But when you press the button, you can get a dive bomber, a fighter bomber, or even a night fighter with a huge cannon instead of the attacker. Why has it been done this way? It’s preferable to get an attacker when choosing an attacker, since there are special features for fighters and bombers.  If fighters and attackers with anti-tank guns do well in tank RB, it doesn’t mean that they’ll do just as well in tank AB. After destroying two enemy tanks, it’s somehow annoying to get a night fighter with a giant cannon instead of an attacker, because a night fighter’s cannon can destroy no ground vehicles.

SnailB.pngFor a greater variety of tactics. Considering that, from patch 1.71, rockets match their real counterparts in terms of destructive force, high-calibre aircraft cannons give skilled players more opportunities because they’re more precise and have higher penetration.



Will Japan have premium tanks like the M46 Tiger – for example, the ST-A2B, ST-A3 or ST-A4?

SnailB.pngThere is a chance that it will.



Hello! Many ground vehicles have a system installed in which gun rotation and aiming take place in 2 modes, fast and slow. This is most relevant when choosing a vertical lead at firing over long ranges. Will a function like this be implemented in the game?

SnailB.pngIt has already been implemented. Mouse aiming in the game is much simpler than it is in real life, where it was done using the tank’s real control equipment.



Previously, with the introduction of thermodynamics for aircraft, there were similar plans for ground vehicles too. Do you still plan to introduce the ability of overheating tank engines, modelling their ‘problems’ when damaged and so on? It would be good to somehow use the existing ability of damaging a radiator in battle. Maybe you already have some details about this?

SnailB.pngWe don’t have any details at the moment, but we haven’t discarded those plans.



Will the D-series Mustangs with 10 rockets have a HVAR?

SnailB.pngIt’s possible. The documents usually show 6 hanger positions for these rockets on the earlier variants, but 10 is possible on the later versions.



Will there be Hawker Fury models with Sabre and Griffon engines? They weren’t put into series production, but they’d be perfect as premium vehicles.

SnailB.pngWe have no plans for these aircraft, but there’s another vehicle in production that is interesting and in a similar vein.



The top Japanese bomber is currently the G8N Renzan, capable of carrying 2.4 tons of bombs. Apart from the Keiun Kai, Japan doesn’t have any rank 5 bombers, and the Keiun Kai can only carry one 800 kg bomb, which deprives them of maneuverability. So my question is: could you introduce an aircraft like the G10N1 Fugaku, a truly capable plane that can stand up for itself and compete with its foreign counterparts?

SnailB.pngThis aircraft was never built and didn’t fly, as is the case with many Japanese prototype designs, it would be hard to model it accurately in the game. So no, we have no plans for that.



Do you plan to remove from airstrips indestructible tents and other structures, and also objects that make takeoff/landing more difficult, especially for a damaged and poorly maneuverable aircraft?

SnailB.pngWe’re going to try expanding airstrips where possible.



Is there a chance that Bf 109 models from other countries will be introduced, for example the Spanish HA-1109 and HA-1112? Or the Czechoslovakian Bf 109 model, the Avia S-199, which was also in service with Israel?

SnailB.pngWe don’t have any plans for these aircraft yet. They’re inferior to the original 109s in all respects and they make sense only as rare collectibles or event vehicles.



Do you have any plans for ships larger than destroyers?

SnailB.pngWe regularly make announcements like that on the website with detailed explanations. So keep an eye on the site – I think there’s going to be more news on that subject this year.

We are always looking for your questions! Feel free to submit them in comment section, or on our Official Forum!

The War Thunder Team

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


12th October


Tank.png Ground Forces


Recently, there were spawn point tests for SB. Are there any changes planned in tank SB in terms of increasing the number of respawns or introducing spawn points?

SnailB.pngImpressions from players were mixed, so we’re still analysing the results. There may be a few more tests, after which we’ll make our decision.



Do you plan to remove rocket flight trajectory distribution for fully leveled-up modules and aced crews?

SnailB.pngRight now, rocket clustering is high when playing with a fully leveled-up crew, even somewhat higher than in real life. So it all depends on the player and their firing skills.



Do you plan to add a more modern shell for the T-64A and alter its rate of fire?

SnailB.pngAs of now, the newer T-64A shell isn’t necessary, because apart from the T-64A itself, there’s only one opponent in the game whose turret it won’t penetrate – the Chieftain Mk.10. If other branches get armour with a higher protection level, we’ll reconsider this. As for the rate of fire, it’s already as high as possible: the T-64 only had such a loading rate when firing shells of a certain type, placed consecutive in the autoloader. Data on the reload time of 6 seconds was mistakenly migrated from the technical specification for Object 432 (the T-64 with a 115 mm cannon) – the sequence diagrams of the loaders’ operation for the 115 mm and 125 mm are identical, but the reload time for the 115 mm loader is lower and happened to be 6 seconds. And, before you ask about Object 432 – yes, it may be added to the game sometime.



Is it possible that Object 292 will be added to the game in the future as a top Soviet MBT? The cannon successfully completed testing, the tank was incarnated in metal.

SnailB.pngIt’s too early to talk about this. When we get closer to those times, then we’ll make a decision. But generally, we’re not ruling it out.



Do you plan to introduce a variable reload speed for the MBT/KPz-70? I.e. when loading rockets, four-five seconds are added to the reload time and it becomes roughly 10-12 sec or even longer. After all, you can’t replace such a long rocket in such a small turret capsule quickly. And the same system for changing shells in the T-64A, only with lower values, since its AL is much faster.

SnailB.pngAccording to the documentation we have, the rocket was housed in the automatic loader (AL) in a niche in the turret, so there was no difference in its loading time.



Give us the exact answer regarding the PZGR TS shells (APCR HE) for the 105 and 128 mm cannons of Germany. Are you going to add them to the game? These shells were used in 1944-45. Other nations have received experimental shells. We need these shells to increase lethality against enemies with thick frontal armour at BR 7.0.

SnailB.pngWe don’t plan to add these shells, particularly as there’s no need for them.



In tank Simulator Battles on some maps there are so-called ‘aerial exits’, that allow you to quickly respawn on an airplane. In some cases, this saves 1-2 minutes and it contradicts the ideology of Simulator Battles.

SnailB.pngSuch ‘exits’ were designed for special World War missions, and in SB (or any other modes apart from WW), they shouldn’t be there. As of now, these issues should be fixed already.



Do you plan to add seaplanes and hydro boats to the regular branches of nations like the USSR, Germany and, of course, Italy? Also, is it possible that you’ll add a separate branch for seaplanes for all nations?

SnailB.pngA separate branch for seaplanes is unlikely... As for adding other models – we’re not ruling it out.



Are bomber cockpits going to be developed further? I’m interested in the visualisation of steering controls. Fighters and assault airplanes have this, but bombers don’t. It seems a shame to be looking at a wooden yoke in SB that doesn’t move as the airplane does.

SnailB.pngFor dimensional prototypes of cabins – no, we have no plans for that. Only for separate cockpits, as is the case now.



What improvements do you have planned in the Confrontation aircraft mode, and what are your plans for this mode in general?

SnailB.pngVery soon, there will be changes detailed in patch notes. Keep an eye on our news.



‘Cockpit gunners’ have been introduced for bombers. Right now, the third-person view for the gunners in SB looks very odd.

SnailB.pngThe view from the gunners for airplanes with a single defensive point were introduced to increase firing effectiveness due to decreased parallax, not with the aim of somehow making bombers or attack aircraft worse. So, until we find an elegant and simple solution to implement firing point selection in the gunner view on airplanes with multiple defensive turrets, it isn’t worth talking about the strange third-person view.




Will the graphical effects be developed further? If you fire from a 14 mm or 12 mm machine gun into water towers, wagons or fences right now, then for some reason a huge cloud of dust forms where you hit. The same happens when you run into a wooden fence half a meter to a meter high.




The question of the difference between metric horsepower and UK/US horsepower is an interesting one:

  • 1 English hp = 0.746 kW
  • 1 metric hp = 0.735 kW

Take 2 engines with 500 hp, but one is metric and the other is English. The horsepower is identical, but the English engine should be more powerful. How is this question dealt with in the game?

SnailB.pngWhen necessary, we translate from one system into the other.

itemType_orders.pngFrom the answers of Anton Yudintsev at DMMGAMES 2017, Tokyo


What will the final version of the project look like?

SnailB.pngIn general terms, online games develop throughout their lifespan – since the game continues to attract new players and its audience grows as long as the game is developed. If the game stopped developing and stood still, it would be dead. So for us, we don’t have a specific “final version” in mind, our project is alive and it should change constantly. But we do have specific plans for the next half a year to a year, and we’ve already announced most of them. For example, we plan to introduce naval warfare and World War mode. Very recently, we announced the addition of modern tanks and over the coming six months, we’re going to be actively developing this. As for naval warfare, we recently announced the introduction of destroyers, and soon we plan closed internal testing of light cruisers and possibly even heavier ships. 



How is work on World War going?

SnailB.pngWorld War is high-level content for our game, right now it’s in the very earliest stages of testing. Not so long ago, we launched the closed beta test for World War mode for several squadrons and we plan to gradually increase the number of communities participating in the test. Later, most likely this year, players without a squadron will be able to participate in the testing. The end of this phase will determine the start of the mass launch of World War.



How do you record audio for vehicles that didn’t survive to now?

SnailB.pngIf the vehicle itself is lost, but the engine installed on it remains, we record the engine’s sound. If the engine is lost too, we find the closest comparisons that we can (with the same number of cylinders, same design, etc.) and record the sound from that instead. Then, with the help of additional processing and synthesising, we bring the sound as close as possible to what we think is the real sound of the engine from that model. Nonetheless, if there’s at least one example of the vehicle we need somewhere in the world, anywhere, in a museum or wherever, we do everything we can to record the original sound from it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...


9th November

Another round of questions and answers, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov!


KPz/MBT 70 ROF has been reduced recently, why?

SnailB.png Answer: There were 2 planned loading mechanisms for these tanks - one German and one American.The German one was not completed for this project and the American design had a 6 shot per minute ROF - as it is in the game now. Since the German loading mechanism was later implemented on other tanks, we will probably introduce them in the future.



What’s about Navy, any news?

SnailB.png Answer: We are working hard on the Naval part of the game. The basic gameplay is completed, but we are polishing and adjusting it atm. We’re working on the research tree and crew skill by adding more content and vessels. As far as new maps - one will be shown in the nearest future, and we plan to make at least one other before the end of the year.



Researchable upgrades like the one on BMP-1P: will we see more such vehicles in the future? Is it possible that such modules will affect BR?  

SnailB.png Answer: It is possible in the future. E.g. if we add reactive armor for T-64A it will become T-64AB. Dynamic BR - unlikely, as it’s a very complex task technically and will only make mechanics more complicated. 



What’s the top priority - Italian ground vehicles or French ones?

SnailB.png Answer: I will not answer that now, but there will be an announcement soon... follow the news!



Feedback about rank 6 - what’s the players reaction and your personal opinion?

SnailB.png Answer: We like rank 6 a lot and we received a lot of positive feedback on it. There will definitely be more vehicles, we want more diversity in vehicles. We will probably add more advanced machines later, no ETA though.



Did you think about adding APS (active protection systems) as a feature for the USSR tanks? Specifically the T-55AD.

SnailB.png Answer: Yes, we thought about it but cannot tell whether we will implement it or not. Because gameplay-wise this feature does not involve players actions. However as a historical and technical feature it is, of course, very interesting.



Are custom sights playable in War Thunder?

SnailB.png Answer: Yes, since our mechanics use realistic ballistics, and if you make sights correctly, whatever you make will be maximally close to the real one. We recently added more options for sights - like sights with radial scales such as e.g. German.



Are you happy with French aircraft balance?

SnailB.png Answer: It’s pretty hard to make accurate BRs for the whole research tree and all its aircraft. However, we follow the statistics closely and I would like to thank our testers (the players who play French aircraft at the moment and leave their feedback). I have only started flying French aircraft myself and I am on rank 1 atm. I personally enjoy D.501 and those 4-engined monster sized bombers.



French jet bomber  S.O.4050 Vautour IIA is very hard to take off even with rocket load - this is how its supposed to be?

SnailB.png Answer: Yes, it’s a very heavy aircraft and requires long takeoff runway - that’s a real historically accurate problem. That is why it has the option of an air spawn on many maps. Also, we had to reduce its landing distance artificially. Otherwise it would always skid off the runway or we would have to rework all the airfields in the game.



  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

28th November




—  Do you plan on introducing the Fw 191 bomber to the German tech tree? It was an all-metal aircraft!

 Not in our upcoming plans (the next 2-3 major releases).


Will there be more “flying wing” style aircraft?

A quick look at our upcoming plans shows nothing. Perhaps there will be something, but it isn’t coming to mind right now.


Armoured Vehicles


A question about AI in tank locations. Is there a need for them right now? I see the downside of AI as they unmask sometimes when trying to fire through a hill. Also, AI increases the load on a processor and the computer as a whole. AI are included in battle stats. AI can deal damage to lightly armoured vehicles. Destroying AI is just a wasted use of ammo and it reveals your position.

Yes, we’re considering the question of removing AI in random missions (i.e. additional “plotline” tanks).


In tank battles, almost all battles take place in clear weather, night and day. Why isn’t there a greater variety of weather conditions and times (for example, the different conditions that can be set in a test drive)? Clouds don’t just hide a robust sun, they also make maps look different due to the altered lighting. On winter maps, clouds are essential for protection against the blinding snow. But most of all, weather conditions would add variety, but instead of that, the weather is always the same. There’s also rain and snow to think about.

Because this is the most pleasant weather for appreciating the game, and the weighting of various weather conditions appearing are configured accordingly.


Is it planned or possible to remove the targeting reticle of guns in SB in commander view, while maintaining the ability to fire only when aiming through optics? Gun targeting reticles and the ability to fire from the commander view in transit is at the very least unnatural for SB and ruins the serious and hardcore nature of the mode.

We don’t want to make controlling the tank in the game harder than it is in real life. In reality, most tanks are manned by crews of two to five people. In the game, all this responsibility lies with a single player. The current implementation of the aspect of tank control mentioned does not reduce the hardcore nature of the game, but makes it more similar to real life – after all, the commander, with a wide field of view, can tell the gunner where exactly to turn the turret.


Is it possible to show the tank gun’s bore evacuator operating in the shot animation (white smoke issuing from the barrel immediately after a shot)? It’s nothing, but it would be nice.

Not for now. Maybe in the future.


Will crew training affect ammunition restocking speed on a capture point? This would be logical considering that an experienced crew would obviously be quicker than newer crews to load up the tank with all the necessities.

It is possible.


Japanese ground vehicles were added to the game quite a while ago, but nonetheless, it’s missing semi-armour piercing shells and other types of AP shells for 70-120 mm calibre guns. Although it seems they were declared as planned. Did you decide not to introduce them?

For vehicles in the 70-120 mm calibre range, we’ve added all the shells we have enough information for.


The introduction of rank 6 mean that there will be more wheeled vehicles. Do you plan to redesign the movement physics for them soon? Not to the level of Spintires, of course, but at least add more classical features for wheeled vehicles: wheelspin, driving axle skid, the difference in feeling between forward and rear wheel drive vehicles etc. And also add detail to the DM for damaged wheels (maybe movement physics without one wheel or with a damaged/stuck wheel).

Yes, as a minimum we plan to upgrade the DM with wheeled vehicles for damage to suspension and wheels.


Right now, if the enemy launches an ATGM and is then killed, the out-of-control ATGM flies directly ahead. However, it should behave like an ordinary fin-stabilized shell, and its trajectory should be very steep due to its low speed. Such an ATGM should not fly to its final aiming point, it should sharply descend toward the ground like an ordinary shell with the same speed – since without control, it has no vertical adjustment. Will this be implemented?

The behavior of ATGMs after control loss greatly depends on the method of aiming the rocket. In some cases, the rocket immediately departs from the aiming line, in others – it can fly a certain distance. Currently the rocket “remembers” the last control input from the shooter, and in this situation the rudders are fixed. So if the rocket was in the process of correcting its flight, it will continue to complete the last command and will leave the target line. If the rocket was already on the trajectory and it got no correction commands just before the connection was lost, then it will fly straight. In our opinion, this is perfectly correct behavior.


Have you thought about adding a prototype based on the Leopard 1 tank with the Rh120 gun?

We’re considering it.


Will material properties be given to tank track shoulders and armoured vehicles’ fenders? These parts don’t seem to exist in the armour diagram right now, although in some vehicles there are elements made of structural steel. I’d like their thickness to also influence the action of HE and HEAT rounds, and, as a side bonus, I’d like it to be possible to put decorative stuff on them – guns, for example.

The game currently has over 300 ground vehicle models, and redesigning or doing further work on each of them to add new parts is very labour-intensive, and in some cases completely impossible, since there are limitations on the total number of parts in the Damage Model in a single tank. So we can’t promise that all the fine-walled external parts on all tanks will be part of the DM. However, we’re gradually adding them to tanks where it makes sense to do so – i.e., if the tank meets threats that these parts can help against.


Will it be possible to customize the command scope or build a rangefinder grid into it?

We don’t have any such plans at the moment.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

10th January 2018


Q. Do you have any plans to split the Ki-200 into the Army and Navy versions to expand the Japanese 8.0 Lineup? The Ki-200 currently has skins for both the J8M and Ki-200. All that is needed is the aircraft's cannons to be changed. The model is correct for both. The Army Ki-200 has Type 5 30mm cannons whilst the Navy J8M has Ho-105 30mm cannons. This would really help grow the Japanese rank 5 with little work needed.

  • We have doubts about the need for such an extension of the  Japanese aircraft tree for the 5th rank. In update 1.75 we added the more interesting Saber F40 version and we find it more interesting.


Q. What will happen to the DB.7 and D.521 premiums in the British tree? Will we see them in the French tree soon? What of the Hawk 75 (French P-36) that was found within the CDK?

  • A. DB-7 is not an exception. About Hawks - in the update 1.75 we have added two variants Hawk 75-H-75A-1 and H-75A-4.


Q. Has there been any changes to the decision regarding the Sturmtiger? Larger calibre SPGs are really popular and fun!  Perhaps a Rank V premium,or event gift? 

  • A. Probably only as a collector’s vehicle, like it was with BM-13, which means that there won’t be any guarantees of effectiveness in battles. There are no specific plans, but it will probably appear for some future event.


Q. Italians are currently lacking premium aircraft right now, are there any in the works?

  •     A. Yes, there are several models in preparation, but we can not say which will be first.


Q. Do you have any intention to include the missing early Seafire variants? There is a gap in between the Sea Hurricanes and Firefly/Firebrand where the Merlin powered Seafire Mk I, Mk II and MkIII could easily fit. Also the Griffon powered Seafire XV. Perhaps these could be included in the French tree later with the Aéronavale line or premiums?

  • A. Yes, we have such plans (regarding early Seafires).


Q. Most nations now have very capable SPAAG’s at 8.0 now. Britain still has the Falcon, which does not compare greatly to the Type 87, Gepard, Shilka and M163. Now that we have Rank VI and more expansion in Rank V, are the Chieftain Sabre or Chieftain Marksman SPAAGs possible now?

  • A. Yes, it is not excluded. These SPAAGs are being considered to be added to the game.


Q. Do you have any options to expand the aircraft ranges for the top rank? Currently ground forces pushes into the 1960s and 1970s, however aircraft still remain in the 1950s. Is it possible we could see unguided missile later aircraft like the Gloster Javelin, A-4 Skyhawk, Later MiG-17s, FIAT G.91 R/3 or G.91Y, F-86H, Hunter F.6? This could also open up the possibility to include new bombers like the Tu-95, Vulcan, Victor, Valiant and B-52?

  • Yes, we believe that there are such opportunities, even if it is not about aircraft with missile weapons, so we can make attacker aircraft.


Q. Now that we have the SM.81, is it possible we can now see the bomber modification of the German Ju-52 Tante Ju as a 1.3 aircraft or premium/gift? It could carry up to 500kg (1100lb) of bombs as well as having defensive armament. The aircraft is very similar in characteristics to the SM.81 and would be a very popular event/gift/premium machine. 

  • A. Unlike the specialized SM.81, which can carry up to 2 tons of bombs, the Yu-52 is primarily a transport aircraft with weak flight characteristics and we don’t consider it necessary to add it to the research tree, it may be possible as a collector's vehicle.


Q. Now that the B-24 has received a new model, is it possible we will see additional variants? In addition, is a British Fleet Air Arm premium Corsair modification possible now they also have new models?

  • A. In update 1.75 we added the British Corsair Mk.2. Regarding the B-24 - we don’t have any plans for any other modifications of it at the moment.


Q. Can you give us any hints as to which aircraft will receive new models/variants in the future? Perhaps the Spitfire Mk V series, Bf 110, P-40, Blenheim or Mosquito? All of these aircraft have many different modifications available and could do with reworked existing models. 

  • A. Spitfire V is now in the process of creating an updated model, and we have plans for the P-40 and 110 series.


Q. Will the factory modifications of U5 and U6 be added for Bf 109 G6-G14? I would especially like to try the MK-103 on the 109th. And will there be a modification of the Il-28Sh and MiG-9 with a 57mm gun in the game?

  • A. As far as I know, there is something in the plans and I recently received documentation from historians on this topic.


Q. Is it possible for an aircraft such as the Ki-91 to appear in the game as a response to the top heavy bombers of other countries? It was existing, but did not have time to fly.

  • A. As far as we know, in reality this aircraft did not exist, the aerodynamic models were wind tunnel only, so there are no plans for this aircraft.


Q. Is it possible, including on the eve of the fleet, to introduce late Japanese torpedoes, namely the versions of the Type 91 torpedo with a larger mass of the warhead? In the current reality, Japanese torpedoes are the weakest in the game, and there are no alternatives in the form of bombs, in view of the small load, unlike to the bombers of other countries.

  • A. Yes, we are thinking of the Type-4 oxygen torpedoes for B7A2 and P1Y.


Q. Is it planned to implement the T-64A with a gas turbine engine? For example, as premium on the 6th rank. The tank existed in reality and even passed testing phase. Actually, this is a prototype of the T-80.

  • A. As with the vehicles of the 30s and 50s, first of all we introduce more mass and well-known machines, and after that different prototypes and objects. Primarily, we would like to add mass produced versions of the T-72 and T-80 families, and only then their rarer versions.




Q. Which new sound effects are in the plans?

  • A. Now we have begun to deal with reworking the sounds of weapons, in particular, machine guns, then we will turn to cannons. Processing is primarily for the purpose of atmospheric sounding at different distances. There will also be a change in the sound of tank engines depending on the position of the camera (as now it happens with the sounds of aircraft engines for example). We can not say anything about ETA at the moment. The work is voluminous, most likely, it will all come out in a parts, from patch to patch.


Q. What about the sounds of French tanks, have you managed to copy from real vehicles?

  • A. Yes, those tanks that survived and with authentic engines, we have recorded. This applies to the rest of the tanks in the game. By recording the tanks, large-scale work was done. Despite the fact that there are not so many vehicles with authentic running engines - we and our team managed to record a large number of aircraft and tanks. Some of them are in a individual.


Q. Are there any third-party sound libraries used for sound in ground vehicles?

  • A. No, if we are talking about the sound of engines, we have a very rich own database of "live" recordings. If it is needed to synthesize a sound, we use it. But the more difficult to get sounds, for example, hits, some shots (some, because we have also written some of the tools available from reality). Then yes, we can use other libraries.


Q. Will there be new soundtracks?

  • A. Yes, recently we recorded some new music, after the new year they should appear.


Q. Will the work continue in the direction of the national voice, meaning the general commands, for example "attack point A".

  • A. Yes, with regard to voice acting, some work is under way in this direction. The national voice-over is of course needed and we will definitely develop it.
  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

25th January 2018




Q: Now that aircraft such as the S-81 and F-222 have been added to the game, rank one bombers have been given a new lease of life. Will other nations receive similar machines with 1.3–1.0 BR?

A: We haven’t ruled it out.

Q: I've got a question about German aviation's jet-powered era. The long-standing leaders here are only the CL-13A and the MiG-15bis. Why don't you add an aircraft that was the first military aircraft put into full-scale production in Germany after WWII, namely the modification of the Italian G.91R3?

A: Right now, we're thinking hard about what the future progress of aviation is going to look like in our game. It's possible that this aircraft will find a spot in the German tech tree, but it's also possible that completely different vehicles will end up there instead.

Q: Why are all aircraft in tank Arcade Battles equipped with standard ammunition? For most aircraft, this doesn't matter, but in aerial events you get the IL-2-37, the Ju 87G-2, and the Ме 410В-2, where half of the standard belt consists of fragmentation rounds. This halves their effectiveness when it comes to attacking ground targets, and this is their entire objective.

A: We've checked, and all these aircraft get specialized ammunition.

Q: What determines the earning power of premium vehicles? If you take the Soviet P-40E and P-39K, the difference is huge, and you can also include the I-16 type 28 and the I-153P. The BR of these aircraft is virtually identical, but the returns vary considerably.

A: The economic level and effectiveness of the specific vehicle. There is an error in the economic level of the I-16 and the I-153, we'll fix it. I-16's reward will be a little smaller, but on the other hand its cost of repair and crew training will be lower as well, while the situation with the I-153 is the opposite. Thank you for pointing it out! Do not hesitate to submit such errors on our forum in bug report section!

Q: Is the aircraft damage model going to be tweaked and improved in terms of graphics, visual aspect, and in terms of making the physics more realistic? Maybe you already have something in the works?

A: We do. We can't go into details now, but we'll definitely talk about it when it's ready.

Ground Vehicle

Q: Are you going to bring the German Nahverteidigungswaffe grenade launcher into line with its real-world technical characteristics? I'm specifically interest in the 360-degree rotation. This is especially relevant for SPGs, where they need to rotate the entire hull to set up smoke screens to the side.

A: Yes.

Q: Why can you call in artillery support only on light/medium tanks and SPAAGs? Shouldn't this ability be available to all vehicles equipped with a radio set? Do you plan to review this mechanic?

A: We answered this question a long time ago, before tanks were added to the game. This mechanic is simply an expedient way to slightly increase the combat value of medium and light tanks. Right now, we have no plans to introduce calling in artillery support for all vehicles.

Q: Will the amount of ammunition for ground vehicle machine guns be shown in the future? This could be considered an important thing to have for anti-air guns on tanks and AAA.

A: We don’t currently have any plans for to introduce this.

Q: Are you planning to add Sergeant Don "Wardaddy" Collier's tank, the M4A3E8 Fury, to the game (with various interesting and atmospheric decorators) as a premium tank similar to the IS-2 "Revenge for the Hero Brother"?

A: We don’t have any such plans at the moment, but it's a good idea.

Q: How far-off are tank defense modules like sandbags and other similar devices? Nothing like this has been added in a while.

A: Yes, you're right. The introduction of these modifications has slowed since the first large batch was added. We are working to find more interesting modifications that could be used on vehicles in the game.


Q: Interface question – will there be an indicator showing weapons selection for multi-turret vehicles?

A: We'll have a think about this. It might be worth creating a mechanic similar to the one used on ships, where the selected weapons group in highlighted in the damage model indicator.

Q: Are you planning to somehow solve the problem with the "atomic sun" in tank battles? After all the talk about how "favorable conditions" are used in battles, time after time, every battle ends up on the morning preset, where the sun shines straight into your eyes – it's like a dirty trick.

A: This problem is most noticeable when the time of day (morning or evening) is combined with the cloudy preset. We have already removed this combo from the production server – all other weather presets except for cloudy will be used for morning and evening.

Q: Are you planning to add visualization for the track hanging? Currently the game only shows the movement of the suspension of the rollers, while the caterpillar tracks are static and have only a standard scrolling animation, which doesn't look overly realistic when braking, accelerating, jumping or hitting any bumps.

A: This is what you might call a "physically authentic" track – but this is quite challenging to implement both in terms of the code and in terms of reworking existing resources. This is on the back burner for now.

Q: You said you would fix the hull roof breach from HEAT and HESH shells. But it looks like nothing has been done. So what's the plan for this effect?

A: It's in the pipeline, we haven't forgotten about it.

Q: What criteria do you use to allocate maps? Lots of tank maps are identical in gameplay, size, and urban structures, but they are available to different ranks.

A: The idea behind it was simple: flatter and smaller maps for earlier vehicles, and larger maps for high ranks..


Q: Do you plan to focus on VR mode? Currently, VR headset owners can't use the "zoom in" and "check your 6" functions. I don't know why they're set up for VR users, when in this situation you can't tell the difference between "own/other" contact and the game experience just isn't equal.

A: This is standard practice in VR games. Zooming in is usually performed by changing FOV (Field Of View), and significantly changing the FOV translates poorly to the headset: viewing modes like this are usually linked to use of an optical device (sight or binoculars). In the game, we have implemented it in the same way: when you use an optical sight, the FOV changes.

Q: Is there any chance that you'll bring back the SINGLE slider for setting engine volume (for aviation and ground vehicles) for your own engine and other players' engines, instead of the current separate sliders (yours at 20% and others at 100%)? This setting is spoiling the gameplay and reducing the number of possible tactical maneuvers in the game, e.g. surprise boom and zoom attacks or coming from a blind spot.

A: Given the number of sound modifications that let you (among other things) set varying sound levels for your engine and other players' engines, we decided to offer this feature to all players and not just to the small group of mod users.

Q: Will the vehicle card show whether it has a loading machine or a gun stabilizer – just like it shows the design version — as well as whether it has controlled suspension and "Schräge Musik"? Right now, if you want to get this information you have to trawl through devblogs and third-party resources.

A: Yes, we plan to add this data to the game, but we think the vehicle card already has a lot of information on it. Maybe the better option would be to add this to the vehicle x-ray mode in the hangar.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

8th February



Q: Any news on naval warfare? Maybe something interesting regarding the latest testing releases?

A: Right now we’re actively gathering statistics to adjust the economy. There are also going to be a few further developments and corrections of a cosmetic nature. For example, we’re bringing back scope zoom for large ships. All this will likely require 2-3 test sessions. After these technical aspects, we can show the new maps and possibly the new ships. Keep an eye on our announcements.

Q: Can you tell us anything about tank shells, is there a revision planned?

A: Yes, we have plans for that. First of all, for APDSs. Both standard and finned and in particular, their ballistic characteristics and post-penetration effect. Right now (due to a lack of data) these characteristics are calculated based on the overall weight of the shell, which is not entirely correct. We plan to make this calculation based on the weight of the active part, with consideration for whether it’s an arrow or a core. As a result, the ballistics change somewhat (mostly becoming stronger). In addition, ammunition that has checked data will have its own settings created for its action parameters against sloped armor. For example, the Chieftain’s penetration at an angle will slightly increase.

Q: About replays. Will there be an option to rewind during a replay?

A: We might add fixed time points – for example, rewinding by one minute. But as for when (and if) we’ll do this, we don’t yet know, since this option isn’t widely demanded. This isn’t as technically easy to achieve as it might seem.

Q: Will the Maginot Line map be improved? If yes, then how?

A: There will be visual improvements. Right now the map is a little empty – lots of fields, a big town you can easily get lost in. So its appearance will change somewhat. As for low-rank vehicle battles on this map – we’ll see. Either we’ll make a smaller version for lower ranks, or we’ll review the vehicles that can fight on this map. This is to make sure the large distances won’t be a problem for players.

Q: Will there be small maps for high-ranked ground vehicles, like Karelia?

A: Right now we’re trying to provide spacious maps for top ranks – so that high-ranking vehicles can make use of their technical characteristics. But there’s only a small number of those maps, so we can’t rule out adding other maps to the rotation.

Q: Can we expect working radars for SPAAGs?

A: Yes, and it’s possible that they’ll arrive in one of the large updates soon™. There’ll be an optional lead compensation marker that switches on at a certain ranges.

Q: (Question from streamer) We’ve heard about a new mechanic for restocking mechanized ammunition racks. In that if a certain time passes without any firing, the crew will fill up the rack gradually – for example for the drums on French tanks.

A: (* Not quite sure I understand, afraid of getting it wrong =))  Yes, we’ve improved the reloading system for tanks equipped with automated loading, and for tanks with a separate first-stage loading rack. Now if no firing is performed, these ammunition racks can be reloaded automatically with shells from a non-mechanized rack – so you won’t need to fully expend the ammo in the rack to get a full drum again. In addition, in the case of French tanks, this means that now there can be shells of different types in the same drum (previously shells in the drum could only be of the same type, which was far from convenient from a tactical point of view). The time to reload an entire drum will be comparable with the current full reload time, or even a little longer. But at the same time, you can start firing without waiting for the automated loading to fully complete.

Q: When is the World War?

A: We are still working on this, there has  already been some news about it this week.

Q: When can Britain expect high-level premium vehicles?

A: Work on this is already underway.

Q: Will there be a killcam for aircraft?

A: Aircraft don’t need this. A tank is a closed metal box full of modules, and the killcam lets you see what exactly was damaged and/or knocked out of action. Damage on aircraft is always visible.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • GTAUSTRALIA changed the title to Dev Questions & Answers Compilation
  • 2 months later...




Another round of questions and answers, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov!

Q. What is the progress of the work around helicopters?

We still continue with the tests. Moreover we have found a minimum of 2 suitable vehicles for each nation (in some cases up to 4 vehicles) including Italy and France which can fit into our project.

Q. What about the IS-7?

Perhaps it will appear and if it does it could happen this year.

Q. Is it true that there are some plans to remove the panther 2 and king tiger with the 105 cannon?

Such plans have been considered for a long time, but there are no final decisions made about them. The fact is that these vehicles were included in the early stages of the game and it was necessary during this time. But there are a lot of complaints about the “realistic” components. And now we have some other vehicles to replace them. In any case if we do decide to remove them they will simply be hidden on the research tree but will remain for players who already own them.

Q.What changes will be done on Abrams and how will we deal with it in the Т-64?

There will be a finalization of the "spall liner" (inside the vehicle). For example if it will be penetrated by a shot, this will not help and save the crew from a fire. Also it will not be possible to extinguish ammunition until it burns itself out so the entire stored area of ammunition will be destroyed so any usable ammunition will come from the hull. At the time of the ammunition fire, the turret needs to be rotated away from the engine (as in reality) to preserve the powerplant and transmission until the ammunition fire has completely gone out. In addition the T-64B will receive a researchable modification to the T-64BV.

Q. What was your impression regarding the April Fools' submarines?

In general everything was fine, although after a while i think some moments could be improved. But considering that this event made in the shortest time it was a success. And statistics show that it was played by more players than last years event.

Q. Can you tell us something about the nearest plans?

We are working on the new major update which hopefully should be completed in May. I can tell you that a new modification of the T-62 is planned.

Q. Any new information about fleet? Someone mentioned anti ship missiles.

I don’t want to say anything new at the moment - the tests continue. We hope that it will be possible to make fleet testing on regular basis with additional research. It is to early for now to speak about anti-ship missiles, there are many difficulties like minimum range, the features of shooting beyond the horizon and ways to counter them.

Q. Recently, the "Thunderbolts" received a higher BR, but the reason of their excessive efficiency, "imbalance" to their closest rivals, seems to be in the "Browning" and on occasion, air respawns.

It’s hard to answer right now, we need to look further at the statistics and check everything.   We will prioritize this.

Q. Regarding the BRs of the T-55 and Leopard 1A1. The Т-55 doesn’t have any special advantages but the BR is significantly different.

There is no solution for this vehicle at the moment. According to statistics the tank has average performance. In addition there will always be some difference in capabilities and vehicle BR because different vehicles are made for different tasks and situations.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Q. Why do some light tanks have various new features while others don’t ? For example, the T-50 doesn’t have them, although in reality, for example, it was engaged in reconnaissance on the Leningrad front. The same applies to wheeled vehicles.

Some light tanks at their BR and rank actually have the capabilities of a medium tank, and that’s why these new functionalities were not added for them. The T-50 is one of those tanks.

Q. Why does the T92 have 12mm of armour yet doesn’t get a complete "hull destruction" when the ATGM "Konkurs" hits it? Under what criteria does a vehicle have to fall for the mechanics of hull destruction to apply?

Since March of this year, the Damage Model of this tank includes the mechanic of "hull destruction" for high explosive and HEAT. As for the criteria - a small mass, and armour less than 30 mm.

Q. Tanks in-game are moving forward in the sense that more and more new models are emerging with more sophisticated systems. Will there, in the future, be discussion as to the addition of night sights with thermal imaging?

Yes, it is something we will look at, but there may be some obstacles that may prove  insurmountable for ULQ (the "compatibility with older graphic cards" mode). For example, it is very difficult, or even impossible, to realise the operation of IR or TPV sights on ULQ.

Q.How soon will players see new Japanese ground vehicles? For example, heavy tanks are a necessity.

There will be something in update 1.79, but there are no heavy Japanese tanks at the moment because the tanks themselves are very controversial - in fact, they were generally projects.

Q. Are there plans for any Japanese ATGMs with second-generation rockets?

By themselves, the Japanese do have ATGMs with second-generation rockets; the question as to which vehicles will sport them, - that is a determination that will have to be made. At the moment, I can not say with certainty which one it will be - we’re still deciding that.

Q. Should we expect improvements to the mechanics of tank destruction, namely the destruction of the chassis and suspension/wheel from hits of 75-152 mm shells? In reality, most of the tanks were knocked out of action by the destruction of the chassis.

It’s one of those ideas that was considered at the beginning of work on ground vehicles. In principle, we haven’t abandoned this idea and it’s still on the table.

Q. The game already has several aircraft (about 15 if not more) that have external or  additional fuel tanks. Will it be possible to unequip them, or perhaps leave them empty and rely only on the internal fuel tanks? At the moment you can take enough fuel for 9 minutes or 30 minutes but these tanks will remain on the aircraft. Also, how do they affect the Damage Model?

To fill or not to fill - it is now possible to solve this crisis by one’s choice regarding quantity of fuel before departure. Those external tanks are filled last. If the tanks are consequently empty, then they will not affect the DM, and empty tanks will not ignite.

Q. Will the range of ammunitions available for turrets be expanded? For example, a set of rounds like "Incendiary", "Tracer" and "Armour piercing".

Only if necessary. At the moment we have a good setup for rounds which include almost all types of shells, except perhaps some options that are really not needed for turrets.

Q. In Britain, the Mustang Mk.IA and the Spitfire series had suspended rockets. Also on the P-47 and P-51A, there was a possibility of installing a "bazooka" and external Hispano cannons. Are there any options for such external additional weaponry?

The expansion of options for suspended armaments are in our plans and will be coming to fruition - not only for the aircraft listed above.

Q. Will there be an opportunity to see the Junkers EF-131 (140) in game? Roughly speaking, the same Ju 287V2/V3, which the Germans never finished during WWII, but completed after its end, came under the control of the USSR. It was quite an exotic vehicle with swept wings, 6 Jumo engines and 4 tons of load at speeds over 800 km/h. The aircraft even passed initial tests, though not without some faults.

There are no plans for the Junkers EF-131 (140) in any upcoming updates.

Q. Are there any plans for AG-2 - air grenades for aircraft defense?

At the moment there are no plans, but there are other interesting plans for pilots :)

Q. Will Breda-SAFAT bullets, with pentrites, be implemented?

They are already included as IAI rounds.


  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Q. Do you plan to add a variety of goals to PvE tank battles? For example: instead of capturing points, destroying pillboxes, bunkers etc. (or repairing them, as an option).

A. We believe that goals and tasks like these are more suited for asymmetric battle types, for example this is possible in World War missions.

Q. Will those that have bought the Leoncello P40 get access to testing Italian ground vehicles when they’re released?

A: Yes.

Q. Why do some vehicles’ ATGMs explode when they’re hit, for example the AMX13 SS11, while for others they don’t, for example the IT-1 and RakJpz2?

A. The missile explosion is currently fatal for those vehicles whose armour cannot protect against the HE-fragmentation action of detonated missiles.

Q. In tank AB, when there is one crew member left, he gets in the driver’s seat expecting a replenishment and continues to do nothing. Can you include a settings option to make this tanker sit in the gunner’s seat?

A. We’ll consider this option, thanks.

Q. Could you make it so that on capture points, tank anti-air gun ammunition is restocked?

A. This may be possible.

Q. After one update, the German branch had a whole three Focke-Wulf 190А-5s. Which differ in pretty small ways, making them less unique. Is there a possibility (through remodeling the Focke for example), to “assemble” the 3 Fw190A5 modifications into one (providing the ability to remove machine guns / attach modules), and replace the other 2 aircraft with the А-3/6/7/9 models, for example?

A. We have no such plans. If new versions of the A-5 are added, they might be combined into one package.

Q. The Bf 109k could historically be fitted with a bomb mounting for a 500 kg bomb. The Kurfürst could also carry two MK 108s inside the wings, and the MG 131 was replaced with the MG 151/15. Are such variations of the aircraft or modifications for the K4 possible?

Eg : link

A. We’re constantly adding new suspended weaponry and various modifications for offensive armament, the Bf 109 is no exception. The existence of the modifications you described on  these aircraft requires checking and verification, since in some cases (we’ve encountered this before) suggestions about introducing Bf 109 modifications were based on unverified and non authentic sources.

Q. Do you plan to add the Polikarpov TIS (MA) aircraft?

A.Not in the near future, but the USSR had many interesting aircraft that we may well add at some point. One of those unusual aircraft is the new Tandem MAI.

Q. Which technical characteristics are balance values for aircraft, tanks and vessels? For tanks, everyone knows: it’s reloading. Are there other balance parameters for vehicles?

A. These are mostly economic parameters that determine the cost of repairs and ammunition, along with the presence or absence of specific types of ammunition in the ammo racks and their allowed amount.

Q. A question about modules. From time to time, new modules are added to or removed from some vehicles. These then have to be researched or bought again. In addition, the vehicle loses its “peak.” Do you plan to add some sort of recalculation of RP for modules? The question is relevant for example for the M 24 “spaded” tanks, which have been reset 5 times already.

A. “Spaded” actually provides no benefit in gameplay terms, so we don’t count it as a significant loss. Especially considering that adding new modules tends to make the vehicle stronger. As for replacing a module, we try to either replace it automatically or provide another means to unlock it as quickly as possible.

Q. Do you plan to add the ability to utilise user-made content (live camouflages, sights) on the PlayStation? I’m particularly interested in tank sights. For some vehicles, they provide an advantage in SB (experience is good, but this “quality of life” change wouldn’t hurt).

A. Unfortunately, we have no plans for this.

Q. In patch 1.77, you added various weather conditions, but it’s always daytime in battle, very rarely dawn or dusk! Where are the rains and mists? Like in the last version, night maps happen very rarely! The only way to check out the weather conditions is with a test drive.

A. They’re in the game with the probability of happening that we consider sufficient. After 1.77, we increased the probability of various types of weather occurring in random battles.

Q. Will you add a function for enabling/disabling different types of weaponry? In particular: offensive armament on aircraft, multi-turret tanks or tanks with 2 guns, and vessels. I’ll use aircraft as an example: I’d like to have the ability to disable the high caliber and just use the machine guns, and vice versa – disable the machine guns and work with only one large-caliber gun, but at the same time the firing itself should be on the same old button (for example: left click).

A. Not at the moment, no.


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

30th June



Q. Will electric transmissions in the game be tuned? Right now they behave incorrectly in many ways, and these tanks need their correct gearboxes.

A. Yes, we plan to do this.

Q. Do you plan to add a branch for British light tanks?

A: We don’t have plans for it as a branch exactly, but we do plan to add various light vehicles, including wheeled ones.

Q. Will you add destructibility to old maps like Poland or Eastern Europe and how is the reworking progressing in this regard? After adding such a large mechanic into the game, it looks like there isn't much attention being paid to it.

A. We have no immediate plans right now, it needs to be developed further as a gameplay element.

Q. We see NERA filling in NATO tank armour. How do you plan to implement expendability for these blocks? The principle of their action is comparable to reactive armour blocks.

A. In principle any armour, even ordinary steel armour loses its durability in a certain area from a penetration or a hit, including NERA, although it isn’t comparable with the area size in which reactive armour block is hit when it activates. Possibly if we implement a filler using ceramics it will be made using the same method as reactive armour and will be fully destructible in in the area around the penetration point. Technically this could be implemented.

Q. On the StuG III and StuH 42 there are mounting points for machine guns, but they’re not used even though vehicles like these need them for defense. Can we expect them to be added?

A. From what I remember, they had a very narrow band of fire, but considering that these vehicles have no paired machine gun, yes, it is possible that we will add these items.

Q. How are things currently with the mechanics for armour-piercing bombs? In reality they could sink battleships, in the game they do low damage to destroyers.

A. Currently they have no special armour-piercing action like that of armour-piercing rockets for example, all the damage is done by the explosive material in the bomb. We plan to work on this aspect further to make it reflect reality more accurately.

Q. There are currently only 2 nations in the naval closed beta test. We have seen many vehicles from other countries. Roughly how long will we have to wait to see them in battle?

A.Not all nations currently have a range of vehicles that is sufficient for a full-fledged tech tree, although we’re working on this. We plan to add at least one other nation to the closed beta test in the summer.

Q. When will new game modes be added, are any planned at all?

A.We’d like to implement more new naval modes and we’ll most likely do that. In our view, aerial and tank battles have the most balanced and playable team modes, and as for non-team modes, we regularly hold various events.

Q. Why do some nations never fight each other in mixed tank battles? Why is the “USSR against everyone” setup disabled, although many players use USSR?

A. In mixed battles, country setups are configured with consideration for the best balance and time for assembling sessions, which means practically any combination of countries is allowed. The main combinations are the Axis against the Allies and the West against the East. As for combinations like one country against many, we try not to do those since they usually have the worst balance.

Q. With the start of the navy closed beta test, the question of expanding the vehicle set has become pressing. Can we expect more vehicles to be added soon or after the navy closed beta ends?

A. It’s a possibility, but after naval warfare becomes available to all players.

Q. You changed the research tree layout in naval warfare. The result is interesting. Can we expect something similar for aircraft and tanks in the future? I.e. a similar tree which allows players flexibility in their progress, rather than maxing out all the branches in full.

A. We don’t currently have such plans. Apart from that, there are several factors that restrict the naval tech tree that we’ve written about in a devblog entry dedicated to this subject. This has less relevancy for tanks and aircraft.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...


Hello everyone!

My name is Kirill Yudintsev and I am the creative director of Gaijin Entertainment. As we have now 200,000 subscribers on our Russian channel so we decided to create a short Q&A related to this. It will be, on this occasion, a Q&A from Russian comments, but i can promise you that we will do the same when we reach 400,000 subscribers on our English language channel, so feel free to subscribe to reach this milestone faster!


But back to the Q&A. In this compilation we will answer some of the more interesting questions from the RU community




Dear developers, please make a filter for locations. It is annoying to play on the same location again and again. Old locations are chosen very rarely, maybe twice a year.


Unfortunately this is not so simple because the locations  are available depending on the vehicles that are encountered in battle. This list isn’t static (general for everything) but dynamic. So if you are playing in different vehicles you will have the opportunity to play on different locations (because not all locations are available for all vehicles at once). Perhaps in your case the reason is that you changed the vehicle, maybe faster aircraft, or a more modern tank and standard locations began to occur less often or were not met at all.


For the same reason, making a list with a  location filter, even in terms of the interface is not quite a trivial task because it is determined by who will meet whom in battle and that’s why it is not so simple to realize that. And here we will not even count the standard problems with the fact that there are a lot of locations and the probability is very high that the players waiting for the battle will choose different locations for themselves and it will not be possible to match others even if there are many players in the queue.


Will it be possible to destroy bridges in tank battles when using aircraft bombs?


We already have some bridges in locations which can be destroyed by using bombs, but we also have such that will not be destroyed (and we have more of such bridges). In very early alpha, it was so that all the bridges were destructible. It can make the gameplay unplayable and uninteresting - simply sitting in one place and sniping the enemy on the other shore. We also don’t want to replace bridges that look like they can be destroyed by a single or a few bombs along with some other buildings for aesthetic reasons. This is why it will remain as it already is: we have destroyable and non destroyable bridges. Maybe we'll change the way it looks but the principle will remain unchanged for reasons of gameplay. We have tried it in a different way, so maybe we will change it someday, but not right now.


First question: when will you fix the behavior of vehicle collision with fences or other obstacles? They either push them aside or just slow the vehicles down a lot . Second: when will you improve the graphics of environments and the physics of destruction?


Some time ago we had a bug in the game where hitting the lead road wheel on an obstacle led to incorrect interaction. The bug has been fixed and the patch already released, but if you still have some problems with it, it is most probably up to individual settings of the obstacle or even a specific object on a particular location. So make a bug report, take a screenshots/replay/video/description of the exact object in the exact location.


Regarding the improving of graphics for an environment and the physics of destruction - it will be improved with every major update. In a last 6 month the game has changed quite a lot: we had an update where we switched to the new engine, with significant visual improvements in regard to various particulars like the calculation of reflections, lighting and other aspects. Also, in every new update we improve graphics. The destruction physics are a very difficult thing to improve. There is the physics of destruction of small objects, large objects, the physics of interaction over the network, interaction with other players and synchronization. In general, we have been implementing improvements for many years and will not change it in the near future since there are many subtleties involved. What we have now is a compromise between the capabilities of the network, the performance of players computers and the synchronization with the server. In general here we have a relatively balanced solution and in the near future, the physics of destruction will not be changed significantly.


Hello, there are many bugs in the game which youtubers have showed many time in their videos. When you will fix them?


We continuously fix bugs that youtubers show, these bugs we receive via bug reports and which we ourselves discover. The game is continuously evolving, changing, new types of vehicles are being constantly added, graphics are being redone, new types of weapons, armour, physics, interaction, control are added. All this brings in turn new bugs or opens old ones - we fixing them and so on whilst the game is actively developing. Therefore, bugs should be treated not as something bad but as a sign that we are consistently working on and developing the game. But we do try particularly quickly to correct significant bugs and will continue to do so.


Good day! I would like to know in what direction the game will develop further - new aircraft or tanks? Or will you add new nations? Can you plan to gradually introduce battleships with aircraft carriers into the fleet? In general, I would like to know your plans for the coming year.


So, new aircraft - yes. We are currently working on helicopters.  We are conducting experiments on supersonic aircraft. We will introduce new tanks for sure, maybe also new nations, but i can not say the exact timeframe, we are working on these options.


Battleships with aircraft? We do not plan aircraft carriers for sure! There is nothing more boring than playing an aircraft carrier except that it is used in the game, as an airfield. Battleships are extremely unlikely. Because the battleship might not be that mega-boring, nor that it is much more boring than a cruiser (perhaps it is!) but because of problems with balance - they are expensive but they can be destroyed quite quickly. There were not many of them in different fleets that were equal in capabilities. In general ... it's a thankless task so even if we will introduce battleships they will not be like regular ships in the research trees. So far there are no concrete plans for battleships. We have checked the gameplay with battleships, something involving this may be possible, but this is far from a massive, simple and interesting play in naval battles. Therefore, in planning currently, neither battleships nor aircraft carriers are envisaged other than for very inspired players.


When will the naval fleet will go to the OBT? And, will helicopters be added to the game?


Yes, we will add helicopters to the game! OBT of the naval fleet will start after CBT ends ;).

On locations with night time conditions, nothing is visible but there are headlights on tanks and aircraft.. it would be fun if they could be used )


The headlights were installed on many tanks including infrared lights, night vision devices and this is would create excellent and interesting gameplay at night with night vision devices but this will greatly increase system requirements. We make an online game for a wide audience. Already, in the past, system requirements have been changed not only once, but multiple times, but not all players that have been long with us are upgrading their hardware regularly. Suddenly, an increase in system requirements to introduce new gameplay is not what they want us to do. It will be unfair to players. Unfortunately without this, it is not possible to make locations with night time really. We thought about it seriously and how to implement it, because it is interesting and creates original gameplay. A lot of vehicles will receive new gameplay and will be played in new way. But while it is not clear how to do it, it cannot be done.


Will it be done that we can sell more than one identical items (like stacks) on the market?


Nice suggestion, we will try to realise that. It was already in the plans ;).




Are you planning on doing additional work on or perhaps even changing the current DM? I am talking about sinking conditions, blowing up magazines, etc. And the crew in particular. Ships get destroyed because of the missing crew 90% of the time, but in real life they sunk, burnt, blew up, etc. There has never been an actual case of a ship staying afloat when all the crew members were dead.


Ships sink, burn, and blow up in the game. The crew just offers one of the means of neutralizing a ship. Usually, ships getting destroyed because of their dead crew members means that most of the ship compartments have taken too much damage. So, it doesn’t necessarily imply that all the crew members have been killed – it just means that the number of the crew members has dropped below the minimum required for the ship to sustain her combat readiness


Will the devs abandon the idea of using frames for target-capturing in RB? At the moment, it provides a good practical means of scanning the area, including that beyond the islands.


Only if the target remains detected. We do not plan on discarding this mechanic as it showcases that the target is visible to your ship crew and that they can shoot at it. We will, however, very likely make adjustments to the conditions under which the capture takes place.


Will you implement factual destruction of captain quarters/main turrets/auxiliary turrets/anti-air armaments with the damage being irreversible during combat?


There are no plans for this at the moment.


Will you add a feature where players will be able to customize their own ARMAMENT GROUPINGS? For example, the first grouping will consist of the primary armament and auxiliary turrets being controlled by the player and the anti-air armaments, by bots; while selecting the second grouping will enable all armaments firing at the target for heavy barrage, etc. Currently, a boat with one 20mm gun and one 37mm gun cannot fire both at the same target, so players are forced to switch between their primary and anti-air armaments. This feels extremely ineffective and clumsy. Players should have an option to fire from all armaments at a selected target.


We are not excluding the possibility, but it’s not part of our current plans. The system will be rather complex and will require rigorous testing.


Will you get rid of stabilizing systems where they didn’t actually exist? No boats were fitted with a stabilizing system for their deck anti-air armaments in real life. The only exception is the 3.7 cm SKC/30, but even there the stabilizer was unable to fully compensate for the jerking of the ship. In the game, however, the manually controlled Brownings fire in a way as if they’ve got a tank stabilizer attached to them.


There is partial compensation for ship motion on machine guns and machine gun installations. It is mainly present in the places where the shooter could somehow compensate for the ship’s movement by holding the gun breech. But even that doesn’t fully compensate for the wave-induced motion and maneuvers of the ship.


Will the naval SB ever happen?


There are no plans for this as of now. The current RB mode is pretty hardcore as it is, and it’s already close to SB.


Right now the Germans have the Albatross, which is fitted with anti-ship missiles, and the other nations might get something similar eventually. So I have a couple of questions about that How will the mechanics for controlling anti-ship rockets work? And will there be a way to counter anti-ship rockets?


It’s too early to talk about this. The Albatross only uses her artillery armament. As we’ve mentioned before, anti-ship missiles have a lot of limitations and specifics to them, making them difficult to merge with the current gameplay mechanics. However, should we decide to introduce them, we will definitely do so alongside a means to counter them.


At the moment, I get the impression that instead of floatability and hydrodynamic mechanics being implemented, the ships just had their motion code based solely on the weather, without taking into account the surrounding waves. Will you work to fix this?


The water in the game is coded using discrete Fourier transform based on Beaufort scale analysis (used by the World Meteorological Organization to evaluate the speed of wind and its effects on the waves in the open sea). This means that the geometry of the water grid can be easily defined by wind conditions ranging from zero wind, when the water surface is perfectly level, to a storm with waves over 10 m tall.

In order to allow ship hulls of all shapes and sizes to exist and properly function on water given any wave behavior in the game, static and hydrodynamic pressure is exerted on every point of the ships. These forces are not just defined by their size and vector but by their water depth too. Each ship has her own inertness stats that depend on her mass and the smoothness of her hull contours. Even a parameter such as the draft is defined not by us adding a desired value in the required field but rather just by the mass of the ship. This incidentally allows us to check how accurate the model of a ship’s hull is in comparison to her historical prototype.


Do you plan on creating modes with asymmetric victory conditions (including those that use bots)? For example, one of the teams must defend a convoy from submarines or an island from enemy landing troops, while the other team must do the opposite and assist the bots in sinking the convoy or capturing the island.


We are skeptical towards the use of asymmetric modes in random battles. Such modes, however, can be used in different kinds of events. We are also happy to hear player feedback regarding the repetitiveness of the current ship modes. We are working to make naval battle more diverse than they are now.


Which nations will get more ships/boats by the end of the year?


We don’t to reveal all the information just yet. All updates of this nature will be definitely posted on our website. We do, however, believe that at least one more nation will get its own fleet this year.


Do you plan on adding capsize as one of the game mechanics in the future? Or is implementing this mechanic not a priority for the time being? At the moment, there are instances when a ship/boat

that almost has her side floating on the water can return to her original position by using her pumps (assuming the crew makes it in time).


Capsize is already present in the game. Ships/boats get tipped over when a certain roll angle is reached.


There are no binoculars in the fleet right now, unless you count the sights you use for targeting. However, scanning the area through sights is impossible without rotating the turrets. Will you bring back the binoculars that will allow players to just scan the area?


As a separate feature – unlikely. It is possible to add a command that will block turret rotation when monitoring the area though.

The War thunder Team

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...



Air Force


Q. The French also famously completed and operated the He 177 A-3 under the SNCASE company. Will we see these variants as a French Premium or event machine? Perhaps the He 274 that was also completed by France as a premium?

A, The He 274 was not used as a bomber, so the chance is slim. Giving the He 177 to France will mean we should give it to US and UK as well, as they were operated and tested by those countries too. Right now we do not have such plans. Let Germany alone have their long-awaited 177 bomber fun for now.


Q. Rank 6 has lead to lots more modern vehicles, but the game is still missing many important WW2 machines such as the B-26 Marauder, P-51B/C variants, Avro Manchester, Fairy Battle, Westland Lysander, Boulton Paul Defiant and other variants such as the Mosquito bomber variants and early Blenheim fighter variants. Are there still plans for such machines?

A. The Listed machines are possible. Nothing is off the table.


Q. Is the Fiat G.59 possible for italy? It had cannon armament and a Rolls Royce Merlin Engine. Perhaps a nice premium?

A. According to our research, only a mock-up cannon version was built for Syria. We do not have definite proof that the cannon version existed. Some Syrian photos show machine guns. The aircraft was mostly used as a trainer and armed with two Breda machine guns. Weak for the rank. Other interesting premiums are planned for this rank.


Q. The German P-47 model does not seem to be correct. The P-47s captured by Germany were of the “Razerback” kind, not the bubble canopy. Do you have plans to fix this model?

A. The model will be updated with P-47 overhaul which will come eventually. Players and developers alike want the iconic "Razorback" version in game.


Ground Forces:

Q. Will we see more mid rank SPAAGs like the AMX-13 DCA (twin 30mm) and Type 61 SPAAG? Japan and France could definitely do with more SPAAG love.

A. Unfortunately there were some difficulties with the research for information about the SPAAG’s, but we do not rule out their appearance in the game. A Japanese prototype with a 76mm universal cannon can be interesting.


Q. Are there any more planned US heavy tanks? (perhaps premiums?) There is still the T26E5 and 155mm T30 to be explored as well as others.

A. Yes, there are plans for American heavy tanks, at least two. Which two we do not yet want to say :).


Q. Japanese ground forces on Rank V and VI lack a lot of options that could be implemented due to historical reasons, but there are still many variants of the STB-2/3/4/5 and 6 prototypes as well as the Type 74 B to F models and Type 74 G/Kai variants that could be split from the current STB-1 and Type 74 tanks in game. Do you have plans to introduce more variants of these machines? Perhaps an STB variant as a Japanese tier V premium?

A. Unfortunately there is simply too little information on these machines, including details of the specific models appearance, while they are very similar in form and characteristics. So far, we have not considered adding more variants due to this reason.



These are questions specifically from the Hungarian Community:


Q. Is there any chance that we will see Hungarian vehicles in the game? If yes, which tech tree would they be a part of?

A. There is a chance, more likely as individual samples, perhaps as premiums in other nations.


Q. Do you plan to introduce ATGM deflection systems?

A. There are some ideas being considered.


Q. Are there any technical difficulties that prevents the implementation of afterburners?

A. As far as we are aware, no.


Q. Can we expect the rewind function in replays anytime soon?

A."Soon" - unlikely


Q. Do you plan to introduce the so called "rank 0" that would consist of vehicles from WW1 and/or between the two world wars.

A. There are no such plans for the moment.


Q. Is the ballistics of both aircraft and tank ammunition fully modeled?

A. Sufficiently detailed for our purposes, taking into account the requirements for speed (in one battle there may be several thousand bullets and shells at a time) that requires some optimization.


Q. Exactly how is battle activity calculated? That is a huge mystery amongst the players.

A. We use a rather complicated formula, but we can simplistically say that the activity in combat is directly proportional to the points earned in battle and inversely proportional to the time of the whole battle.



You can ask your question to the developers on our official forum in the "Questions to the Team" section.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...


Q. Do you Plan to rework the damage model of helicopters?

A. This is quite complicated as far as possible for helicopters we have already divided the damage model into small modules and zones. Right now the animation for tail destruction simply simulates the destruction of the main fuselage, but we plan to develop this further in the future.


Q. Can we expect to see more modern Helicopters implemented in the future?

A. We already have Helicopters that represent modern counterparts in game already, so further modern helicopters are indeed possible in the future.


Ground Forces:

Q. Will the main feature of the Italian ground forces tree be wheeled vehicles? Will we see Italy soon?

A. They will have a significant number of wheeled vehicles by comparison to other nations. As for when you will see Italy, most players who have been with us for many years will have a rough idea of when Italian Ground Forces may join the battle.


Q. Is it possible we will see the T-72 implemented in the future?

A. As one of the most famous tanks in the world, this tank is highly likely some time in the future for sure.


Q. What will be the main differences between the T-64 and T-72 in-game?

A.  By comparison, the T-72 will have the better armour protection.


Q. Do you have any plans regarding spawn point locations? Perhaps a dynamic spawn system?

A. We are considering several options on this matter, but we don't consider dynamic spawning to be a good choice from a balance or technical perspective.


Q. What about fire-control systems?

A. We already have functioning fire control systems in Naval Forces. Whilst it is possible for some ground forces situations, from a gameplay point of view that's another matter.


Q. Why is the implementation of Thermal Imaging being withheld?

A. We are still experimenting and testing with this as the primary limitation is the need to support older graphics cards, that would not be able to provide a stable experience or reasonable performance due to technical limitations.


Q. Why do some tanks have their best possible shells whilst others don't? Like the Type 90 which has DM33 yet the Leopard 2A4 only has DM23?

A. When including shells, we have to consider what shell choices are available to a machine as many tanks of this era used similar ammunition. In general, ammunition is much more powerful, so in general, in order to preserve tactical gameplay, we try to introduce the ammunition with the minimum penetration possible at top ranks so there is still a need to target weaker zones and modules. In the case of the Type 90 specifically, it was simply the lowest shell possible.


Q. Will we see the "Afghan" Shilka modification without radar but with increased ammo capacity?

A. Yes, this is indeed possible.


Q. Is there any chance we may see the "Merkava" Israeli tank maybe as a premium?

A. Yes, this tank is possible.


Q. Why is the T-80B not called the T-80BV with the ERA pack add on?

A. Because it's not actually the T-80BV. Its simply the T-80B with a Kontakt-1 package. Such a machine existed in real life, whereas the T-80BV is a separate machine entirely.



Q. What can you tell us about larger ship classes?

A. At the moment, the maximum rank in Naval Forces concludes with the 4th rank. As you progress through the ranks,the general rule is the tonnage and size of ship class increases too. Whilst we already have been working through larger classes (Destroyers and Light Cruisers), we still do not believe Battleships are right for the game. Not even taking into account the numerous previously discussed gameplay, balancing and economic factors, you also have to take into account that not every nation had an equal number or indeed a 1:1 equivalent to each other. Nation by nation, each was different in many ways. As such, it can't really be fairly balanced for all nations.   



Q. Is there any news on top tier aviation? Can you tell us how the internal testing is going?

A. We continue to test and experiment internally. The biggest limitation is supersonic aircraft from a balancing perspective as well as a gameplay one. Without giving away any spoilers, stay tuned to the news.


Q. What about more modern CAS/Attack aircraft like the Su-25 or A-10?

A. The primary issues with such aircraft is the payloads and suspension options.

  • Like 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Aviation (aircraft)


Q. Can you tell us about your progress on the Italian Reggiane line? It's been quite sometime since we had the Re.2000 and Re.2000 G, are the other aircraft of this line still in the works?
Yes, we are working on other Reggiane aircraft and hopefully we will make Italian aircraft fans happy in the nearest future  


Q. Do you plan more guided munitions like the Hs 293 anti-ship missile or allied AZON bomb? 
We do not exclude an opportunity that we will introduce more guided bombs, as well as the ones mentioned above 


Ground vehicles


Q. Can you tell us what the defined magnification for gun sights is in ground forces? Are all vehicles set to their historical magnification?  
We follow one rule: if the real sights had over 3x magnification - we use the historically accurate value, if it had less - then we use standard in-game one


Q. Will Italian Ground Forces also include minor axis nations (Like Hungarian machines) in a similar way to its aviation tree?
It’s too early to tell at the moment. 



Q. Should we expect helicopter events for SB? At the moment we have them for AB and RB while SB players have no opportunity to research secondary armament (like rockets, bombs and missiles)?   
It is possible as a separate irregular event. At the moment you can upgrade your helicopters whilst playing combined SB ground battles.  


Q. What do you think about this type of vehicle type gameplay wise? Could you tell about your plans for the helicopter development in War Thunder?  
We believe that helicopters have their own interesting and entertaining gameplay which can be truly seen in combined battles. As for our plans, we have already said, that we plan to develop it in scope and depth, meaning adding helis for other nations and introducing new systems and, perhaps, new modes for the helicopter battles


Q. Is it possible that helicopters will receive air-to-air missiles in the future?  
Yes, we think it may be possible and we are testing the functionality at the moment.


Q. Will helicopters take part in naval battles?
Considering current BR limitations for aircraft in naval battles - it’s too early to tell at the moment. Besides that, logically helicopters will participate in high-rank battles where the vessels are pretty huge and fighting them without guided torpedoes or anti-ship missiles will be hardly possible. This brings many complications to the gameplay and requires further work on guided munitions.

Q. Do you have plans for more Cobra variants and upgrade packages? For example the AH-1Q modification for the AH-1G or perhaps the AH-1W “Super Cobra” to go before the AH-1Z?
Yes, we do have plans to add more AH-1 modifications.


Q. Germany quite extensively used the Mi-24D and Mi-8, can we expect to see these in the future for the German tree?
Mi-8 is unlikely, since it was a multipurpose machine at the time, but we’ll think about the Mi-24D. 


Q. Do you plan to add light helicopters?   MH-6 Little Bird?
Probably, at some point.


Q. Do you plan to add tutorial missions for helicopters? 

Yes, we do.



Q. With update 1.83, we saw the addition of the British Royal Navy to Naval Forces. Is there anything you can tell us about what may come next for Naval Forces? Japan or Italy?
It’s too early to tell at the moment - We have already answered that we develop several nations at a time. But I can say that the next nation to be added will be one of these two.  


Q. Are there any plans to improve the wake effect for ships? Currently they are a little lackluster compared to vessels in real life.
Yes, we are working on it and preliminary results look very promising, we hope to add this feature in the nearest future. 


Q. Is it possible to switch on “axis vs. allies” matchmaking in naval battles? 
At the moment we analyze efficiency of specific vessels and their BR spread. Unlike ground vehicles or aircraft, the vessels of the various nations can be really different. Thus, there are some unique vessel types such as Soviet armoured boats or British corvettes. So battles “nation vs. nation”  or “allies vs. axis” may be imbalanced. We will make a decision about including such matchmaking options after we analyze efficiency statistical data, we are also thinking about adding various events with national teams or even specific line-ups and scenarios. 
Q. Do you plan to introduce naval battles for Sb mode? and if yes - what missions?   
No such plans at the moment


Q. Do you plan to bring more diversity to the mission types? Like bring the “convoy” mode back or add something new? 
We are working on it - both on making new scenarios and improving current ones.  


Q. Will you implement aircraft torpedo Motobomba FFF? 
That might be interesting, we’ll see about that 


Q. Do you have any ideas how depth charges should be used in the game? At the moment they are barely effective
At the moment they work as planned - this is the munition for the fast boats and close quarters.


Q. Will you reduce torpedo visibility in RB and visibility depending on the torpedo type. 
That’s possible. Visibility parameters of torpedoes and their trail is one of the few balancing options we have in Realistic naval battles 


Q. Do you plan to increase survivability of destroyers and all other larger ships? IRL there were situations when such vessels survived heavy damage and stayed afloat, even after the bow was completely ripped off. 
In real life such damage as the bow being ripped off usually leads to a situation where a ship is no longer able to take part in a battle and significantly reduces its speed. As for the game - it is possible that a destroyer may survive a torpedo or a bomb unless the magazine detonates. 

Q. Do you plan to add tutorial missions for naval vessels?
Yes, we are working on them at the moment and we hope to introduce them in the nearest future.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...


Dear players,


Another round of questions and answers, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov!


Ground vehicles


Q. Will the range finder (laser) work on air targets, OR at least on helicopters?

A. As an installed modification, the laser range finder is working on air targets: on both aircraft and helicopters.


Q. Are there any plans for vehicles like “Object 781”, “Object 782”, “Object 787”?

A. It is too early to talk about it, but the vehicles which, to a certain extent, have any anti-tank or anti-aircraft capabilities, may potentially appear in the game.


Q. Are there any plans to abandon artillery strike warning in RB mode? This would enhance the realistic atmosphere of the game mode.

A. No, there are no such plans. It is also not clear how the artillery, in its present form, is reducing the realism and atmosphere of the game mode.


Q. Is it possible to add a module repair indicator with a separate timer? For example, full repair time is 60 seconds, but there could also be one additional indicator where you can see the engine will be repaired in 10 seconds, in 20 seconds the barrel, etc. If not as a separate tool, then can there at least be some place where it will be possible to see these repair indicators?

A. We will think about this proposal.


Q. Do you plan to recalculate the power of all tanks, depending on the type of transmission, additional modules, etc, which take away some of the power from the engine? For example, Leopard 2 uses a hydrodynamic transmission, which diminishes horsepower by up to 250-300 (this does not take into account the generator, hydraulics and other units) and with the T-64 these losses don’t exceed 50-60 hp, as such, these tanks in some conditions must have almost equal power density on the drive wheel.

A. Such changes have not been considered and are not currently planned.


Q. Is it possible to replace the default tank sight of all tanks with one action, with an immediate effect, rather than changing sights for each separate tank? Doing it for each tank individually could take a really long time.

A. Given the fact that for each tank there may be several sights, and usually the sight is still used for a particular vehicle, we don’t plan on changing the current algorithm.


Q. The helicopters have shown their high effectiveness against ground vehicles. Are there any plans in the nearest feature to effectively counter them?

A. Yes, there are such plans and we are already working on some vehicles and game systems. In addition, ATGM carriers (vehicles with ATGMs) now have good opportunities to fight with helicopters.


Q. We will have Italian ground vehicles in update 1.85. Is it also possible to see the premium self-propelled gun “Elephant”? The 653rd battalion was fighting in Italy and this vehicle would fit perfectly into the tree.

A. The self-propelled gun “Elephant” was in italy as a part of the 653rd heavy tank destroyer fighter battalion of the German forces. It has nothing to do with the armed forces of Italy and did not fight as part of their composition. We do not plan to have the “Elephant” in the Italian research tree.




Q. Are self-guided torpedoes implemented now? If not, how will it look in the future?

A. Yes, you already saw the mechanics in the 1st of April event. This kind weapon can work from any carrier. However, at the moment we are not planning to use it because of the difficulty of countering such weapons - especially for older ships. Perhaps in the future there will be a solution and this weapon will have its place in the game.


Q. Will there be various decorations associated with fleets: avatars, titles, numbers/decals?

A. Yes, there will be. They are already there, but only in small quantities at the moment.


Q. Is it planned to have, in naval battles, a game mode like “Enduring Confrontation” for aircraft, with big locations, long game sessions and random tasks for different ship classes and aircraft?

A. It is too early to talk about this. We have a development plan, and to begin with, we will try to diversify the current game modes in other ways that will require less time to implement. But we won’t exclude that for the fleet - there will be something similar to the “Enduring Confrontation” mode.




Q. Can you please make the BR of players visible before battle when playing in a squad?

A. We are considering this as a possibility.


Q. Are there any plans for the near future to focus more attention on VR mode? There are some shortcomings that players on the .com forum constantly remind others of: for example, the lack of a mouse cursor in the map view of a battle.

A. We are commonly working on fixing bugs in VR-mode, just as we do for other subsystems of the game.


Q. Will there be more detailed information in articles on the official War Thunder Wiki page dedicated to the common, basic game mechanics, like rewards from battles, etc? Previously, there were specific formulas and numbers, and now, it is short and in general terms. This is why many players constantly have questions.

A. Yes. At least vehicle cards on the WIki page will be more informative than in the game. But this can’t happen overnight. We are gradually expanding the Wiki’s content.

The War Thunder Team

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

24 December 2018





Q. 2018 saw quite a focus on the USA, USSR and Germany, each receiving their own Naval and Helicopter lines before the other nations. Do you plan to focus more on other nations in 2019?

A. It not quite correct to say that we focused only on these nations, as we also released the Italian branch of ground forces and naval forces for 4 nations; the USSR, USA, Germany and the UK. We are also simultaneously developing various vehicles for several nations at the same time, as soon as they become ready we introduce them into the game in accordance to our plans. Unfortunately you always have to make a decision who exactly will get the new toys first. On the topic of the original question, we have plans to add Naval Forces and other branches of equipment to other nations too.


Q Do you have any plans for any new nations?

A. This question is still under discussion; we cannot answer anything concrete yet.


Q Have you planned to improve or create new game mods for planes or tanks? We got the same for quite some time. More AI maybe?

A. We plan to work on AI for its possible use in missions, but we also think you should wait for World War mode as we plan to launch it next year. Given the presence of the strategic part, it often generates very interesting battles, including asymmetrical ones.


Q In WW2 air combat footages, we see a lot of smoke rising from destroyed things on the ground. Have you planned to add it? Maps feel too “clean” from the air.

A. We are already introducing similar effects, which can be seen in the new naval maps. Perhaps something similar will appear on aviation




Q. What can you tell us about Rank VI aviation for Italy, Germany, Japan and France?

A. We plan to add Rank VI aviation for other nations in 2019.


Q. Will German Rank VI jets also be East & West like their current top jets?

A. Probably, yes.


Q. Are there still Rank V aircraft in development too? Like the Swift and MD.454 Mystère IVA?

A. At the moment we are more focused on adding Rank VI aircraft and new systems for them. However, from time to time we will introduce aircraft to other ranks.


Q. Now we have the Italian ground tree, do you have more CAS planned for Italy?

A. Unfortunately, there are not as many viable options as we would like, but yes, something else will be added to the Italian branch of strike aircraft.


Q. What tweaks have you planned for the missile warnings? In simulator battles, planes without detection system are still able to detect missiles and it’s not very realistic.

A. As we wrote in our dev blog, this warning simulates the visual detection of a missile launch by a pilot or his allies and a message about this is sent to the pilot who is under attack. Therefore, it has its limitations - depending on the crew skill, speed, the delay between the launch of the missile and the appearance of a message is from 1.5 to 3 seconds, so you have the opportunity to start at a lethal distance, meaning the main task is to deploy it correctly. Also, given our plans to expand the capabilities of Air-to-Air missiles, and adding more advanced modifications, it is possible that without the warning, the missiles would become too serious a threat. Keep in mind that current missiles are designed for hitting targets with 2G overload, but already the AIM-9E for example can hit targets maneuvering with overload up to 6-7G, as well as an increased capture range. But we are also considering the possibility of splitting a launch warning according to complexity modes.


Q. Have you planned to rework the G system? Pilots never really black out, they grey out and can still control their planes. It’s making high tier jet battles dull.

A. No, we are satisfied with the current system for implementing overloads, and is indeed a certain compromise between playability and realism.




Q. Do you have any plans regarding Helicopters for the UK, France, Japan and Italy?

A. Yes, we have similar plans.Helicopters of these nations are already in development.


Q. Will we see new additions to the existing trees (USA, USSR and Germany) next year?

A. Yes.


Q. Can you make Helicopter only Arcade and Realistic Permanent modes?

A. Yes, we have plans to change the current helicopter battles. We will be able to go into more detail when we are closer to implementation.




Q. What can you tell us about the Japanese and Italian Navies in 2019?

A. We can say that the ships of both of these nations are in development. You have already seen some of them during the CBT, but a full branch requires many more ships of various ranks and types, therefore as soon as we are ready we will present the fleets of these countries. We plan to introduce the first of the new nations in Naval Battles in the first half of 2019.


Q. Is there any more news as to if France will get a Naval line?

A. So far we can not provide any details about the French fleet, but we hope that we can find enough ships of the types that we need to implement a full line.


Q. The April Fools event was the last time we saw or heard about Submarines. Will we ever see them in Naval Forces?

A. It's hard to say right now. We do not have plans in the near future to introduce submarines in the game. We have already expressed at the issues of implementing submarines of the WWII era; too slow for realistic battles, and requiring additional an means of detection and destruction. Perhaps more interesting gameplay could come from the submarines that we tested during the April 1st event, but also their implementation in the same game with ships and aircraft will pose many new questions. Therefore, until we focus on this type of technology, we don't have any plans to share.


Ground Forces


Q. France could really use some more Rank VI machines with gun stabilization. Are the AMX-32 or AMX-30V possible? What about on of the Leclerc Preseries or prototypes?

A. Yes, we are considering some modifications of the AMX-30 (for example, Super AMX-30) to enter the game, and later tanks are also possible.


Q. Are more armoured cars and light scouts planned? The Italians have some great machines added, but France and Britain have many more low and high rank options like the Panhard EBR,  FV721 Fox, Skorpion, Sabre or Scimitar.

A. Yes, we will see more wheeled armored vehicles. Right now, we can't provide details as to which ones.


Q. Has the Canadian 20mm Skink Anti-Aircraft ever been considered as premium SPAAG for the British? They don’t have a lot of SPAAG options in general and it would be a nice counter to the Wirbelwind.

A. Since this vehicle is Canadian, then adding it to the premium line in Britain or the United States is logical, but a SPAAG with rather low armor penetration as a premium vehicle looks controversial, so maybe we might consider implementing it as an event machine.


Q. Do you have any plans to split BR for aircraft between Ground Battles and Aircraft only battles (so CAS aircraft BR in Ground Battles can be adjusted separately)?

A. No, there are no such plans. Adding another BR, as we believe, will unnecessarily complicate the game and confuse the players.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

30 January 2019


Ground vehicles


Q. Is it possible to include a mechanic where the airborne aim-assist goes off for top-tier AA guns only in aiming view?

A. We're planning to change the current mechanic for how radar works for top-tier SPAAs in order to provide a more detailed simulation of how awareness and targeting works.


Q. Should we expect an increase in the reward that light tanks get for marking an enemy who is then killed by allies? It's a great feature, but the game doesn't reward you as much as it should.

A. We think that the reward is appropriate to the effort expended.


Q. Will there be more top-tier SPAAs with radar or self-propelled AA guns?

A. Yes, we're planning more SPAAs, self-propelled AA guns, and AA artillery guns are certainly possible.


Q. Are new PvE modes planned for ground vehicles? It'd be interesting to overcome defensive lines with cannons, pillboxes, etc.

A. We're not planning anything like that in the immediate future.


Q. Is there any chance you might add the AMX-30 AUF1's 155mm SPG put into service in 1977?

A. It's not outside the realm of possibility. High-ballistic howitzers on a fully rotating turret could offer unique gameplay opportunities.


Q. Some of the vehicles that are already in the game had laser beam exposure notification systems. Do you think you might introduce this mechanic in the near future?

A. There are currently very few of these vehicles in the game. But we agree that it could be an interesting mechanic, and we'll examine the prospect of adding it if it becomes necessary.




Q. How soon can we expect you to reevaluate weapon loadouts and rebalance top-tier subsonic aircraft? Many of the vehicles that are already in the game could carry more modern types of weapons. For example, the FJ-4B (VMF) could be armed with six Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.

A. We're planning for this to happen in update 1.87.


Q. Which requirements will there be for aircraft to get into rank 6: supersonic speed, guided missiles, or creation date? For example, are the G.91Y or G.91YS (which is capable of carrying Sidewinders) worthy candidates for rank 6? What about post-war light subsonic assault aircraft such as the AMX International?

A. At least one of the factors that are noted above. For fighters, it's flight characteristics and guided weapons, for assault aircraft, it's an arsenal that includes air-to-surface weapons and the capacity for self-defense using air-to-air missiles.


Q. Will the sight on the MiG-15bis ISh be upgraded? It doesn't currently correspond to its designation as an attack aircraft.

A. The MiG-15 ISh used a regular sight for aiming at ground targets that was upgraded to allow the pilot to make corrections based on flight altitude. We're aren't currently planning to add manual targeting indicators for aircraft, but we are considering the possibility of implementing this option in the HUD as a modification of the rocket or bomb sights. Another option would be to change the actual pylon models — the construction of rotating pylons made it possible to deploy the first pylons in the direction of flight.


Q. For some reason all the maps in aviation RB are flat as pancakes, while in Arcade mode there are maps with hills and canyons. Do you have any plans to introduce multi-level maps with hills and canyons in aviation RB?

A. This is one of the main distinctions between aviation Arcade and RB. We use the maps of real theaters of war for RB, but for Arcade we use all sorts of highly varied landscapes, including some that are invented.


Q. In connection with the introduction of naval battles and the future introduction of the Japanese navy, I'd like to ask you a question. Can I expect any vehicles such as the Yokosuka B4Y (a torpedo bomber) or the Aichi D1A2 (a dive bomber) to be added to the game for rank 1? I really enjoy destroying high-ranking enemy vehicles in light biplanes.

A. We're not planning to introduce any of these aircraft in the near future.




Q. Will the KA-50 and Mi-28 be added? It's just that the Mi-35 from 2004 is already in the game, but they aren't.

A. Keep an eye on the announcements. Right now all we can say is that we're planning to introduce more helicopters to the USSR/Russia branch.


Q. What do you think about further developing helicopter battles? Are you getting ready to add new objectives for helicopters?

A. We're planning to expand helicopter Confrontation as a general purpose mode for helicopter battles. A large number of changes and improvements are planned that we're going to gradually introduce to the game servers. The first thing we want to do is shift the emphasis in battles to objectives that are more appropriate for helicopters, as well as make the process of destroying ground targets more interesting. In addition, we're planning to add new Confrontation mechanics especially for helicopters. Aircraft Confrontation is also getting improvements and changes this year. Both Confrontation modes will get both general changes and new features, including some that are unique to only one version of the mode.




Q. I'd like to get a more exact time frame for when the Japanese navy is going to be added to the game and find out which premium ships you're planning to add to their branch.

A. We're not quite ready to reveal the list of premium ships yet. As for a time frame for when they're going to be introduced, right now all we can say is that you should expect them in the first half of 2019. Yes, we do have concrete plans with very exact time frames, but sometimes they get moved. So we try not to give out exact time frames in order to avoid disappointing the players.




Q. Should we expect a Confrontation mode in which all the different types of vehicles available to the player will be available? For example, it could be on an island map where the islands are connected by bridges for moving ground vehicles around.

A. We're not planning anything like that. We are planning other improvements and enhancements for the aircraft and helicopter versions of Confrontation.


Q. Are you planning to improve the graphics in 2019? For example, are you planning to introduce raytracing, DLSS antialiasing, or realistic new graphical effects?

A. We're constantly working to improve the appearance of the game and keep up with new technologies and our own capabilities.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...


Dear Players


Today, we wanted to share some more insight and answers on the recent penetration mechanic changes to explain our plans, goals and some more on your specific questions.

When planning the move to a new method of penetration calculation we set ourselves following goals:


  • To make the penetration calculation system open and understandable, in which the method is known and the data for the calculations are known clearly to all. In the old calculation system each shell received its penetration data manually from a variety of sources, ranging from authoritative monographs to documents on firing tests. At the same time, in many of these sources the penetration data was also calculated according to different methods and different standards of states, different targets and with different hardness of armour and shells used. Therefore, uniformity and standardization were out of the question and accordingly it was not the best option in terms of openness and ease of understanding.
  • To get rid of the discrepancies that arise from the use of many different sources. When considering data from sources, inconsistencies arise due to different standards and criteria. The problem immediately arises in the reference source - which document is the correct document? However, the sources in question are documentary and credible. The situation is - all are equal, but some of them are more equal. Again, as you can see, this was not the best option.
  • Focus the attention when setting up armour-piercing on their input parameters - mass, speed and speed drop tables. If you have a shooting table for the shell, you can more accurately model its behavior and, first of all, its penetration. We will not stop working with documented sources. We collect information scattered over hundreds of conflicting sources and concentrate it on firing tables and ammunition ballistics settings.
  • To streamline the armour-piercing system in the game. Manual entry of penetration data, from sources, in some cases created situations where the data in the shell cards were from documents in which the penetration data were based on very different criteria. Which is not the norm. With the increase in the number of vehicles in the game, and therefore the number of ammunition, the sources of information regarding the penetration values are beginning to exceed reasonable limits, and some documents are not publicly available and could no longer be open and easy to understand.


We definitely have not stopped working with documented sources. The specified method of calculation is to work with documents first of all, and more purposefully and effectively, allowing us to specify not only the penetration data, but also ballistics of shells, thus allowing us to standardize all this information in game.


Now, lets move on to the Q & A:

Q.Will primary source material if it contradicts the calculated performance, still be taken into any consideration for the newly calculated APFSDS rounds? For example, Swedish tests show vertical performance of DM33 and it is substantially higher than calculated values.


A. In the calculation we used the density of tungsten cores equal to 17500 kg/m^3 (indicated in the published table sheet with changes). This corresponds to the 2nd class of tungsten alloy from the specification. The choice of this density value has been made due to the fact that the exact density values at the moment are unknown for us. In this case if reliable and unambiguous (based on documents, shooting reports, etc.) information about the density of cores is provided, we are ready to clarify it for the appropriate ammunition. Until such data is available we are fully satisfied with the current data scores for the ammunition.


Q. If there are armour values on tanks that are based on what rounds can and cannot penetrate them (both by design specification and performance in combat), will we see armour changes where appropriate?.


A. No, such changes would contradict the goals we set when developing this method. There are no plans to introduce an additional indicator of the quality of the armour, except for what is already in the game.


Q. Will the Demarre equation that is being used be fixed?  A fair amount of apcbc rounds would be over performing (much higher than historic data) if we used the current calculation from the wiki.


A. By choosing the method we knew that there would be some discrepancies, both in the smaller and in the larger direction. And after the evaluation of possible negatives and positives we decided that the general level of changes in values is comfortable for us by not exceeding the level of conditionality that had already been before. It makes many more improvements and last but not least it reveals the method of penetration calculation for everyone and makes it clear. Therefore, there are no plans to make any corrections to the calculation aimed at "fitting" the data to various sources.


Q. The Slope modifier equations from World War 2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, were designed to work with the vertical penetration values from the book.  Changing these values while also changing the vertical penetration of many projectiles, many lower, and some higher, will cause issues. How is this going to be handled?


A. We do not want and will not allow situations that violate the integrity of the selected calculation method. Using the calculated values of slopes together with the old method of choosing armour-piercing will be just such a situation.


Q. The DeMarre formula relies on an empirically derived constant. This constant differs based on armour-projectile combination. How do you plan to determine this constant given the vast array of armour and projectile types in the game?


A. Earlier in the game as previously indicated the penetration values were given for armour of low hardness. The constant for the calculation has been chosen so as to also correspond to this armour. This value is 1900 and corresponds to the homogeneous armour of low hardness.  


Q. Does standardizing penetration performance of ammunition also allow for standardizing secondary fragmentation for ammunition? Right now all rounds that utilize the 'long_rod' shatter preset create less fragmentation than rounds with less weight, thickness and velocity. This is also noticable on APDS, where an APDS round with a comparable penetrator diameter to an AP round creates much less fragments.


A. The applied calculation method of armour-piercing data acquisition is not connected with secondary fragments configuration. This problem is known and will be corrected.


Q. Will ricochet angles for long rod penetrators receive a change? Pre change they are a fixed angle across many different shells with different velocities and tip designs, the target material is also not taken into account when in reality this has a big effect and can change the ricochet angle by a great deal.


A. Revision of ricochet values for APFSDS shells was not planned in the near future. If and when the reliable information will be provided to improve and refine the ricochet parameters (if necessary) for these shells, it will be considered in the usual order.



  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...



Armored Vehicles

Q. Would it be possible for the well known Bob Semple Tank to be added into the game on a tech tree, or perhaps as an event vehicle?  It is a vehicle that many members of the community would be very happy to see added to the game in some form.

A.    At the moment we have no plans for this tank.

Q. It's been some time since we heard any news on further Japanese Heavy tanks. Are there still plans to add more? Is there a lack of info? What about the O-I being added as a rare event machine?

A.    Yes, we still do not have enough information on these machines, and as far as is possible to judge, it is impossible to find the missing info. There will be too much room for guesswork and paper design, which we would like to avoid.

Q. You mentioned plans for the C1 preserie for Italy, does this mean a prototype/early series of the Leclerc is also possible soon for France? As they will really fall behind.

A.    We have already said that we have more sophisticated and modern French tanks than the AMX-40 in development. When? Look forward to the publication of future development blogs.

Q. Some time ago, you said that the Panther II and Tiger II 105mm were going to be removed and replaced. Is this still the case?

A.    Plans are in motion; just in order to get the equipment out of the game, we need several replacement machines ready, and until they are all ready, we cannot just remove these.

Q. The B1 Centauro has further variants yet to be explored. Are the 120mm gun and SPAAG Draco variants possible? The Draco has a similar weapon system to the OTOMATIC.

A.    We do not exclude the possibility of these machines.

Q. Since Japan is rather limited for choice, do you have any possible vehicles in mind for a Rank V/VI SPG? Perhaps the Type 75 155mm Howitzer or Type 16 Tank Destroyer?

A.    Yes, almost all Japanese post-war armoured vehicles, and there are not so many of them, are considered for introduction. We are already working on some.

Q. The game already has several Israeli tank modifications and they’re all premium and belong to different nations. Why squander such potential when it’s possible to create a full nation with a unique tech tree, including armoured vehicles from both the Western and Soviet schools, hybrid designs and, of course, its own Merkava line?

A. A. The branch requirements for a separate nation are rather specific and, unfortunately, the Israeli arsenal does not meet these requirements. It’s impossible to make a full research tree of ground forces (or aircraft) for this nation. So, we’ve chosen the current method, which we don’t consider to be a waste of potential. Quite the opposite, as players of different nations can try the Israeli tanks.

Q. Currently, when launching the Tunguska 2S6 anti-aircraft weapon, the player has to guess at the lead when firing at aircraft. In reality, 2S6 operators hold the target on the centre mark and the missile itself flies at the target. Is this a specific in-game feature or a balancing requirement? Will this mechanic be improved?

A. This is a realistic implementation. To calculate the target impact point, you need both the distance to the target (measured with the target tracking system) and the distance to your missile. Tunguska missiles aren’t transponders, and the target tracking system doesn’t measure distance to the missile. Therefore, we use a three-point guidance algorithm.


Q. "Avenger" and "Blind Hunt" order are often used in Air RB to spot the last enemy aircraft (both orders mark the target even 20km away from any enemy). Do you have plans to change it? Or is it a feature, and not a bug?

A.    This is not a bug.

Q. Can aircraft with Mixed Propulsion be added? Is the game engine able to support and calculate the power and thrust of two different engines in one aircraft? For example: Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 (sometimes called Samolet N); Consolidated Vultee XP-81 (sometimes marked as ZXF-81);Curtiss XF15C; Ryan FR Fireball.

A. Yes, some of these aircraft can be added, the question of creating a mixed power plant is not unsolvable for the game.

Q. Japanese 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine gun ammo. Several bug reports have already been submitted, but it differs from history. AP-T / AP-T / Fuzed HE-I is the default according to IJAAF's 1942 instruction. Is the ammo belt based on history, or has it been determined for game balance? Do the developers know about Japanese fuzeless HE-I called Special Incendiary?

A.    Not all belts are historical, especially with respect to “default” belts. Yes, in the sets of advanced belts, some of the fillings really repeat the ones actually used at one time or another, but not all. And yes, we know about Japanese 12.7mm explosive bullets without a fuse, but in such a calibre all high-explosive ammunition will have a similar striking effect, especially when we speak of lighter 12.7mm Breda machine guns. Therefore, we did not make a separate Japanese specific bullet. Within the game settings, the difference will be invisible to the player.

Q. Germany had their own unique versions of the FIAT G.91 like the G.91R/3 with 30mm cannons. Now that Rank V premiums are being added, is this aircraft under consideration to be added in the future? It would be great to see.

A.    Yes, we have plans for this German aircraft.

Q. Many of the air-to-air missiles added in update 1.85 were intended to be used against bombers. They are not as effective or useful in fights against fighter aircraft, so aircraft like the Javelin (That were dedicated all weather bomber interceptors) can't really be used like they were supposed to be. You previously talked about plans for more advanced CAS aircraft, however has there been any further consideration or plans for Rank VI bombers like the Vulcan, Victor, Valiant, Tu-16 and early B-52 / Tu-95s? These would be really interesting machines to see in War Thunder.

A.  When we talked about more advanced attack aircraft, we did not mean heavy / strategic bombers, but subsonic attack planes or fighter bombers. Aircraft such as the B-52 are still very special purpose.

Q. I’ve the feeling that the gunners on the bombers seem to have got worse. They almost don’t notice approaching aircraft. Don’t you think appearance of new aircraft and missiles, the gunners should get upgraded Keen Vision?

A. There haven’t been any specific changes to the gunners.


Q. The MI-4V is a really unpopular helicopter. It's not much fun to use even when upgraded. Are you planning any additional starter helicopters to help alleviate this?

A.   Mi-4 is a reserve helicopter. It performs the role of the initial helicopter and is fully consistent with its task. It is not planned to change the reserve helicopter in the helicopter tree of the USSR.

Q. Helicopter Battles could really benefit from more AI. Do you have plans for escort missions where you perhaps have to aid cargo and troop transports like the CH-47 Chinook or Mi-26?

A.    Maybe in the future.

Q. Do you foresee helicopters of nations not currently in game ever being added to major nations as premiums? Such as the Denel Rooivalk (South Africa) or T129 ATAK (Turkey)?

A.    Yes, such options are possible. 


Q. Is there any news on minelaying vehicles? We were shown the VS-8 during a test event, but nothing since then.

A.    Yes, we have not forgotten or canceled mine weapons. Just adding it to ships and vessels that could carry them takes some time. Our current plans are to make mines one of the types of exchangeable weapons (instead of depth charges, for example) for those ships that could use mines.

Q. German S-boats are very nice, but are there plans to add more variants? Such as the S-7, S-10 or S-13 class?

A.    Yes, we do not exclude the possibility of these vessels. But these will all be low-level boats, because the armament there is rather weak for a large (for a boat) displacement.

Q. In the case of France, if a full Naval tree is not possible soon after Japan and Italy, is it possible we may see a few premium ships soon like what happened with Italian Ground Forces? (P40 and M26 were added a year before the tree to give players something to use)

A.    It's too early to talk about it.


Q. The hit camera is very nice, but it breaks your smoke mechanics, showing the enemy behind the smoke with the help of machine gun fire. Will you be working on this?

A. We’ve discussed this issue with our team several times, but did not find a solution that satisfied us more than the current one. It has its pros and cons.

Q. Do you want to add premium boats to the War Bonds store?

A. They are already there! Check out War Bonds for May.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...


Armored Vehicles

Q. Do you plan to add any upgrade packages (modifications) for the M1A1 and Challenger 2 such as the M1A1 HA or the Challenger 2 “Theatre entry standard” kits or maybe even the “MEGATRON” modification? Perhaps as separate machines entirely?

A.    We are not excluding additional modifications for British and American tanks, including protection modules, however later versions of the Challenger 2 such as Megatron, if they are added, will most likely be introduced as separate vehicles.

Q. Is there a SAM Anti-Air planned for Italy and Japan?

A.    Yes, we have plans for Italian and Japanese air defense systems.

Q. You have already implemented the mechanics of changing vehicle construction (raising armour shields). Do you plan to develop it further for example by connecting Ka-Mi floating rafts?

A.    May be. But not in any nearest plans.



Q. The T-2 is a very powerful aircraft  in game right now and every other nation can't really match it. Do you have plans for better counterparts? Like the British/French Jaguar which is a very similar aircraft?

A.    We plan to introduce contemporaries and more modern aircraft for other nations in the game.

Q. Do you have further plans for any more Hawker Hunter variants?

A. We do not have any more current plans regarding this aircraft.

Q. Do you still have plans to continue updating older aircraft models like you have previously done with the Ju 87, He 111, F4U, Hurricane and Spitfire series as some examples?

A.    We have no immediate plans in the very near future, but we periodically update models and don't exclude the possibility of any further models being updated.

Q. Why is there a laser designator on the MI35/24B and FJ4B? ATGMs fly pretty correctly without it.

A.    The presence of laser designators on these vehicles is an error and it will be fixed in an upcoming future update.



Q. How do you plan to develop helicopter Enduring Confrontation or is the current implementation final?

A.   We always try to develop game modes, so helicopter Enduring Confrontation is not an exception, but it is too early to speak about such changes, so just follow the news.

Q. Do you still plan to add full helicopter lines for Italy and Japan? Or just premiums?

A.    We plan to add separate helicopter branches for each nation in the game.

Q. Can you tell us anything about British Helicopters?

A.    As previously stated, we have plans for more helicopters, including British examples. We will talk about them more specifically in future dev blogs, so be sure to follow the news.


Q. Do you plan to adjust the RP cost requirements for Rank I-II vessels? Some have very high requirements that go as high as 220,000-270,000 RP which is more than some destroyers and cruisers!

A.    It is the feature of the naval research model. The efficient vehicles, even ones of rank II-III, i.e. the one located on the right side of the research tree requires a large amount of RP to research it. Treat this as the top of its own class of ships.

Q. Can you tell us anything about new game modes, objectives or events for Naval Battles? Perhaps the return of the Convoy mode?

A. We are developing a couple of new modes for naval gameplay. As soon as they are ready to be released at the right quality level we will talk about these modes or implement them in form of test events on the production server.

Q. How do you rate the number of aircraft in naval battles? In some cases players prefer heavier fleet, for example destroyers, and get to the point of battle when there is already a lot of enemy aircraft in the sky. In such conditions, the life of the ship is pretty short. Is this the way it should be or is it worth paying attention to the situation?

A.  We are constantly analyzing statistics including statistics from naval battles. Aircraft efficiency is at the moment at an acceptable level.

Q. Should we wait for “monitor” class of ships (eg USS Monitor) this year or basically wait for them in the game?

A.   Basically, you can wait for it :)

Q. The Japanese cruisers (especially the top ones) are not credible. What kind of new vehicles can we expect? Is it possible we may see a cruiser like the "Mogami" and its variants in light and heavy execution?

A.   At the time of the question, the efficiency of heavy cruisers with 8-inch artillery is slightly lower than we expected, including due to some specificity of the ship’s Damage Model and some issues (specifically fuses of armor-piercing shells and internal structure of ships in the game). Now these changes have already been released on the main server and we analyze the statistics and general gameplay changes. However, we are also working on better Japanese ships and more powerful ones.


Q. USSR, USA, Britain and Germany have possible setups with 3 vehicles at each rank for the same Battle Rating. At the same time, France, Italy and Japan (only in ground vehicles) have big gaps in the middle of the research trees or just one vehicle or even no vehicles at the particular BR. Will attention be paid to this problem?

A. Historically, gaps were present in reality which is reflected in the game, but we always strive to fill these gaps practically.

Q. In combined SB it isn’t possible to see German trophy vehicles like Yak-1. LA-5FN etc. Will you take a look at this concern?

A. We try to add as few as possible trophy vehicles to the game modes without markers because this leads to accidental team kills.

Q. Sweden had a lot of interesting vehicles, especially ground vehicles. Should we wait for this nation to be added to the game?

A. We see Sweden as one of the candidates to be added as a new game nation.


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Armoured Vehicles

Q. Regarding American tank shells, can you tell us anything about current reports and issues? For example the T33 performance and muzzle velocity? Will you also consider adding the missing T50E1 round for the T32 / T32E1 as it has been suggested for quite some time.

A. We are looking at such questions but with the proviso that we don’t want and don’t plan to implement into the game the parameters of shell durability at least for regular composite shells. And about known bug reports we can say the following:

  • Implementation of the T50E1 shell - even though the ballistics are generally close to or similar to the ballistics of the T41 shell, this particular shell will use another, more durable alloy. As mentioned above, we don't want to implement shells parameters which is related to durability characteristics.
  • T33 shell — the fixes for this shell are planned and will be done. We will revisit its initial speed as well as the slope-effect parameters for AP shells.

Q. Does anti-spall liner effect work for those tanks which had it in real life?

A. Yes it works, at the moment all vehicles in the game that used a spall liner of some sort have them or will be added in the future as more data becomes available. Post war Soviet tanks have radiation liners, that works similar to anti-spall, but only for the tiniest shards. Radiation liner in the game stops the weakest shards from the fragmentation cone, therefore in effect decreasing after-penetration effect.

Q. Are you planning to make the automatic loader a damageable module? It is quite extensive and fragile. Let's make it that its damage will decrease the reload time.

A. It is not planned for now but we are not ruling out implementation by analogy with ship elevators. It just needs some time.

Q. Should we expect a change in the view mode for the ground vehicles? Especially by taking into account of the implementation of new more modern vehicles?

A. Not planned for now.

Q. One of the biggest requests for Ground Forces for some time has been the implementation of regenerative steering. This affects many tanks as the game treats all of them as clutch based, so lots of tanks (mostly postwar and higher tier) suffer huge losses of speed whilst turning. Can you tell us if you have plans to address this or need more information? 

A. Yes we're looking at it.

Q. Are there any plans for more obvious differences between tank RB and SB? For now the only major difference is the location of the camera on the tank. 

A. If you analyse it closely, you will see that the differences between two game mods are more significant. The absence of allied markers changes the gameplay in ground SB. So far we don’t have any plans to change the mechanics of these game modes.

Q. Several updates ago, you tested drastic improvements to APCR and APDS on the dev server, however these changes did not make it to the live server and have not been tested since. Can you tell us if you have to revisit these plans or improve the post-penetration effects of these rounds if not?

A. Yes, the conversation of the APCR/HVAP penetration based on the formula is planned, but earlier iterations contained a number of inaccuracies. After they are fixed and the calculated values are close to the reference values this mechanics will be tested again. APDS shells are also planned to be reworked but will most likely be revised after APCR/HVAP.


Q. There are a lot of questions to implement soviet giant-aircraft K-7. Is it in the plans?

A. It's a very specific vehicle. Its appearance in the research tree is not planned not only because of its dubious efficiency, but also because of the very mediocre flight characteristics.


Q. You have done very cool radar station mechanics, but there is no one to shoot down at the top ranks. There is no aircraft entering the attacker zone in the range of anti-aircraft (except 2C6). Maybe you need to lower the requirements for aviation at the highest ranks?

A. We will analyze the statistics on the use of aviation at the higher ranks and will make a decision based on the results. In addition we are reworking and improving the radar warning system to make it more convenient to use.

Q. Jet Aviation is developing more and more, however a consistent problem jets have always faced in game is lack of fuel in certain situations. Is there any new plans for the addition of external / droppable fuel tanks for aircraft that had them? 

A. Not planned for now but we do not exclude the implementation of such a system.


Q. Are radio warfare systems for aircraft and helicopters in development? How close are they to be added to the game?

A. At the moment we’re refining the radar warning systems to make them more convenient and informative. In particular, different warnings for radar and homing lock, more precise positioning of the radiation source, etc. In future, we will probably consider radio warfare, or even anti radar missiles.

Q. The aircraft have new construction parts which can be shot off. How is it with such things in helicopters? Sure they have less construction parts but is it also possible to expand the range of damage: vibrations, incorrect operation of the propeller pitch, damages on the ATGM guidance system, etc.?

A. At the moment helicopters have a damage system which is similar to the system on aircraft but taking into account the design features of the former, such as propeller shafts and transmissions. For now we are satisfied with this detailing of the Damage Model. In general the logic of the realisation for any system in the DM is quite simple: it should give new and interesting gameplay - either for the shooter (in this case you need to be able to hit any specific part separately) or for those on whom are fired upon.

Q. Are there any plans to add to the helicopter vehicle card such important parameter as the range of the ATGM?

A. Yes, this information should be added to the vehicle card. In addition, we have some ideas on how to refine the helicopters HUD - there is room for displaying the permitted launching range.

Q. The Americans and British also had the H-34 (Westland Wessex to the British) which were both capable of a range of armament presents. Is it possible we will see these variants in their respective trees as well as the current French H-34?

A. There is a chance.

Q. Are there any chances for lightly armed scout helicopters with a scouting mechanic that could work like light tanks? Certain current ones such as the Gazelle could also be considered for this. 

A. We have some doubts about that. Unlike light tanks the helicopter can overview the whole location from one point which will made such scouting too easy for them. For sure the presence of anti-aircraft missile systems complicates it a little, but still you can stay out of the range of anti-aircraft missile system and observe the entire map. That’s why to award such scouting on the same way as light tanks is not right.


Q. Its been some time since the VS-8 appeared during the minefield test event, can you tell us any news about mines and this vessel in particular?

A. The last patch in terms of the fleet was very large and we simply didn’t have time to implement mines on different platforms but we do have plans for such a type of weapon.

Q. Is there any news regarding any progress for Submarines? Is it something being internally tested or has it been ruled out for now? Whilst they are slow, there are many slower vessels in game (Siebel Ferries, LCS, Flower Class) and we have plenty of Anti-Submarine vessels at lower ranks. 

A. Not yet.

Q. Lots of the newer larger vessels have beautifully modeled aircraft on them that we don't yet have in game yet. Is there any chance these aircraft will be introduced?

A. There are chances that this aircraft has some combat value in the game. But it is also required to understand that aircraft models for ships are created a little easier than full-fledged models for players, so it will be needed to create such models from scratch.

Q. Are there plans to develop the fleet for any other nations besides Japan?

A. Yes, there are some plans. And even more - we are already working on this.


Q. Are there any works in progress regarding totally/full destructibility?

A. Destructibility has already been working within acceptable limits for a long time. Large houses fall apart, taking damage from shells of sufficient power. But we need to take care about performance values on the client side as well as about gameplay in which buildings often play an important role - and total destructibility can harm the balance.

Q. How do the developers assess the last launch of the World War? Should we wait for radical changes in the mechanics of it (for example possibility of fleet participation or the awarding the commanders with the points)?

A. In our opinion yes it was very good! In the first season of the World War several thousand squadrons took part and helped us to improve this game mode. In the future we don’t exclude the appearance of the fleet in battles and additional motivation for the squadron commanders.

The War Thunder Team


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...