Jump to content

Dev Questions & Answers Compilation




Armoured Vehicles

Q. Currently, the community has an active discussion regarding the Maus. Many players are upset that this tank will disappear from the regular research tree. A lot of questions about the possibility of obtaining it after the release of 1.91 because the information which we published in the devblog was that the vehicles which will be withdrawn and will become “event” vehicles. Can you tell us a bit more about it?


A. We are closely following this discussion, and we can clarify our position in detail. First is the fate of the "paper" or "project" vehicles. Such vehicles and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (Tiger 105, Panther II, Flakpanzer 341) will be hidden from the regular research tree and will remain on the accounts of any players who already have it. Also, players who have already started the research of these vehicles will be able to research it to the end and then purchase in the regular way with Silver Lions. 


We don’t plan to return these vehicles to the game in any form, as it contradicts the very reason for their withdrawal from the game. So you do have a last chance to get these in the conventional way - just begin researching the vehicles before the next major update (1.91) which is planned to be released at the beginning of the Autumn. 


In addition to the tanks that have already been announced, in order to replace the ones that are being withdrawn, in the future, others will be added to fill the gaps in the BR at this range. 


Secondly, the Maus. The reason for the withdrawal from the main research tree is a bit different. The tank was added to the game as the required “top ranked” tank under the conditions where we limited the historical period of vehicles for the 1950’s. In this situation, we considered the introduction of the Maus justified because it made the German ground vehicles research tree competitive. However, with the expansion of the research tree and the addition of postwar main battle tanks, the German research tree received tanks comparable to the top ranked vehicles from other nations and perhaps even better in some aspects. On the other hand, the Maus has remained in a borderline condition and its balancing is complicated by the presence of almost all-round powerful cannon proof armouring, in terms of protection against calibre armour-piercing shells and on the other hand by low mobility. 


Lowering the BR  below its current level, as required by its statistics, is quite difficult, as a large number of its new enemies will not be able to penetrate it, while leaving it at the current BR means regular encounters with tanks with high mobility and shells that can penetrate its protection from any distance. 


The Maus will be hidden and moved from the main research tree to the event and premium vehicle area, so the number of such vehicles in battles will be reduced which will probably allow us to balance it in the future more freely. We also plan to open it for research for a limited time in the future under the same conditions as we hid it. This will not happen often, but we do expect it to happen regularly, at least once a year. We don’t plan for Maus to appear on the War Thunder market; so the tank will remain researchable but under limited conditions.


Q. Do you have any plans to plug the significant gap in the Italian Ground tree between Br 4.3/7 and 6.0? There are quite a few examples of vehicles that could be used here.


A. Yes, we have plans to add some vehicles to this BR range.

Q. Some months after the introduction of Rank VII now, compression at BR 10.0 is extremely high to the point where many are becoming extremely frustrated with the situation. Whilst some tanks at 9.0-9.7 are ok, others suffer significantly. Is there any reason why even a BR 10.3 or 10.7 cannot be created?


A. The main reason for this is that we don’t consider "decompression" (increase in the spread of vehicles by rank) to be a positive phenomenon. One of the main features of the ground vehicles at the 6th and 7th ranks which allows us to easily implement it was the armour construction which is pretty similar for all such vehicles - narrow frontal protection with vulnerable areas and weakened sides and rear which can be penetrated even by cannons from the end of the 40's. It was this that allowed the admission of the vehicles of different production years in one battle.


The same feature is improving the conditions for matchmaking at high ranks: less players will be matched and the waiting time for the battle will be reduced. 


A slight expansion of the BRs up to 10.7 would first reduce the number of unique vehicles in battles at the top ranks by times two(!), make the battles less diverse and create a situation in which the value of the armour would be minimized, because basically there would be vehicles with shells that will cope even with the opponent's frontal armour. At the same time, for tanks that are 1-2 generations post-war, nothing much will change because it isn’t possible to significantly expand the BR range (due to the limitations on the game session matchmaking time) and pre-top vehicles, like the Leopard 2A4 or the T-64, would still have no problems defeating tanks from previous generations.


We would like to remind you once again. BR isn’t a characteristics by which you can compare the effectiveness of the vehicle, because ground vehicles and aircraft with the same BR aren't necessarily equal to each other, but it simply means that they can meet each other in the same battle and will have a chance to win.


In general, the current BR ranges are suitable for effective balancing and addition of the new stages can only occur in an emergency, which of course means we don’t rule out such a situation occurring.


Q. Have there been any tests or experiments with a Ground Forces enduring confrontation game mode? Lots of players would like to see larger maps and a battle like Kursk for example would provide significant space to expand and operate a truly large scale ground war.


A. We are currently working on naval game modes, some of which include those similar to “Enduring Confrontation” because we believe that such game modes are more suitable for combined naval-aircraft battles. Perhaps in the future we will try something similar to this for ground vehicles.


Q. Does the game have complete shell destruction mechanics? As it is known the APCR/APDS shells crumbling into pieces when hitting the target and piercing it and hitting various elements and modules. In our game APCRs are not destructing and don’t lose speed that contributes to the penetration from front to rear, whilst at the same time still destroying 1-2 tanks if they were in the trajectory of the shell.


A. Yes, there is. APCR/APDS shells will be destroyed by impact with a certain thickness and at a certain impact speed so that even thin-walled screens can become insurmountable for such shells. For calibre AP shells and APDSFS, the reduction of armour penetration and damage is already working for each passed obstacle. However for now in the game the internal modules like breech, engine and transmission will be emulated quite simply. 


Actually there are just two parameters: the thickness of the covering to deal damage to the module itself and the "size" of the module which is equal to the thickness protecting from penetration. 


We plan to improve these mechanics, we want to use the mechanics of “volumetric” armour also for internal modules so that their equivalent size will depend on the trajectory of the shell. This solution will reduce the number of punch through holes of the entire tank in some situations and shift the point at which secondary fragments fly out to the exit point which will also make the model more realistic. For example if the shell now has enough energy to penetrate through the breech, the secondary fragments will form from the point of impact, so the shrapnel cone will cover almost the entire crew compartment, but in the new system the secondary fragments will be on the other side of the breech ring of the gun and all of them will hit the rear wall of the turret, leaving the crew unharmed.


Q. You are constantly adding modern vehicles to the game, but the gameplay is not very different from the vehicles of the late 40's. Is it planned to implement modern tank mechanics like thermal imaging or a system of laser designation, etc?


A. First of all, we can not fully agree with this statement. The gameplay difference is noticeable: battles at high speeds and at distant ranges, shooting on the move, the features of protection of modern main battle tanks, helicopters, ATGMs and SAMs. Also we shouldn’t forget the smoke screen systems which are actually part of a dynamic protection system. So the game has already quite a lot of mechanics of modern tanks but we additionally do plan to add more new equipment. Watch out for our official news, announcements and devblogs!


Q. Is it possible to add more armoured vehicles and armoured trucks to the higher ranks? Like Humvees, buggies, UAZs, Toyotas, etc., which historically carried weapons capable of hitting armoured vehicles?


A. Yes, and we already have some vehicles of this type in development.


Q. Why did you refuse to develop additional tank armour (sandbags, tracks, etc.)? This is an excellent customization, historical aspect and additional protection. Is the development of such features even planned (in the form of a modification which gives additional protection, for example)?


A. We never refused. We regularly add the vehicles into the game where you can install additional protection, and there will be more.


Q. Why are repair costs for strategic heavy bombers like the B-29 and Tu-4 so high? The B-29 now has a repair cost of over 60,000 Silver Lions once upgraded, it's impossible to fly these aircraft without huge economic losses as they are easy targets.


A. This situation appears because of the special gameplay involved in heavy bombers and the application of general economy rules to them in the game. It means that players who understand how to use these vehicles and use them for their intended purpose can receive significant amounts of silver lions for one successful fly out. The algorithm of distribution of economy indicators regulates the situation in general by compensating for the possible greater earnings in silver lions by increasing the price of repair. So the average heavy bombers still remain positive (on balance) but this is achieved by a significant amount of repair for those who are unlucky enough and also lose the vehicle. We understand the complexity of this situation and are working on changing of the algorithm for calculation in economy indicators for these aircraft. We plan to reduce the repair cost of bombers at the same time as the reduction of earnings in silver lions for some actions in battle.


Q. Recent tests in Aviation Realistic Battles Enduring Confrontation have proved significantly popular with pilots. It's fair to say this mode and the changes made, solve many of the issues people faced with the current “random battles” for Air RB such as lack of targets, dynamic objectives and variety in scenarios. Will you consider making Air RB EC a permanent mode rather than just a monthly test event?


A. No, we will not. It should be clear that it would mean dividing the overall online player count in aircraft in the RB game mode into two parts which would worsen the situation for matching.


Q. Are there any plans to remove jet exhaust flames? They are unhistorical for all jets without an afterburner but have been present on all jets since the very beginning. Now we have afterburner equipped jets, will you consider correcting this?


A. Yes, we have plans to rework the visual effect of the exhaust for turbojet engines.


Q. Will you consider implementing the Su-25 and the A-10 to the game? What are the chances of seeing these aircraft?


A. We have already answered this question earlier. Yes, we don’t exclude their appearance. The chances are good, although perhaps not with the entire arsenal of suspended weaponry.


Q. The “G” suits preventing pilots from losing consciousness when overloaded appeared in the late 40’s. Why can you not add such apparel as a researchable

modification? Because almost every extreme change of direction causes the pilot to lose consciousness.


A. We already have such modifications in the game. If you have information about the usage of such equipment on the aircraft that already exists in the game, you can report it with the application of sources of information in a relevant topic on the forum and we will consider these suggestions and it is also possible that we will add them.


Q. Will there be any changes in the gameplay in aircraft RB? For example new targets for bombers and attackers: destroying a city or train. At the moment gameplay in bombers and attackers is monotonous, we need more different targets.


A. You need to understand that in aircraft RB (only aircraft and nothing else) the target will always will be AI, so the principal gameplay is unlikely to change much even if we will add a new types of targets. True diversity can be achieved when the attack target can pose a real danger to the attacking aircraft, or even better if it is controlled by another player. Try to use aircraft in combined battles: ground or naval. There you will find real gameplay variety of defeat of different targets, which makes it necessary to use different weapons depending on the situation.



Q. Will we ever see helicopters in naval battles? If yes, from which rank of the ships?


A. Helicopters in marine aviation play a very specific role, mainly it is anti-submarine warfare, scouting and target designation. For sure modern helicopters of marine aviation are able to carry anti-ship weapons like missiles but such weaponry require a separate research and we have not yet worked out this aspect of the battles at sea. In addition, the difference in the current ballistic missiles of ships and helicopters is too great, perhaps if War Thunder incorporates modern ships and helicopters, but so far there is no place for them in sea battles.


Q. Is it possible to reproduce the “shaking” when shooting from helicopters which historically did not have a stabilization system?


A. It should be taken into account that in most helicopter there was a separate gunner that did the gunnery and in the game everything should be done by a single man, that’s why we have to facilitate his work by simplifying some routine operations


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. Most Naval Battle maps progress into a situation where one team is spawn trapped by the other. Currently most maps have no barriers or protection for this. Do you have plans to introduce countermeasures? For example like how Airfields have AAA, naval spawns could have fortresses, artillery or floating gun barges with cannons.


A. his situation requires much deeper analysis. For example, my personal experience (BVV_d) differs from that described above, but perhaps this problem is peculiar to individual BR ranges or to individual locations (maps). Perhaps we can look at naval mines in addition to the AA cover on airfields and spawn protection we use in other modes.


Q. Is there any chance we will see day/night and weather differences that we saw during early CBT tests? For example heavy storm waves and dark battles too? It would help to break up gameplay particularly at higher tiers where the waves won't be too damaging for ships.


A. In fact, almost all the day times except absolute night will be used in naval battles. For recent events in aircraft locations we have used a stronger wave states of up to 4-5 points. Maybe we will expand these settings for random battles from a specific BR. However it should be taken into account that even at higher ranks it will be possible to use low-tonnage ships and boats and such conditions are not welcomed by all.


Q. Will we have historical events for Naval battles? Just to not play on the ship from WWII against ships from 60’s or even later?


A. Taking into account that the most powerful ships in the game are at the moment the mid WWII ships it isn’t looking like they are a problem for WWII ships. It means that the post-war ships, that we already have in the game, have medium-calibre rapid-fire artillery and can pose a threat to destroyers from WWII in specific conditions. But yes, we think that some scenarios from WWII can be presented in events from time to time.


Q. How does the presence or absence of torpedoes/bombs on board affect the dynamics of boats/destroyers/cruisers?


A. There is no effect at all. For larger vessels, this is too small a proportion of their weight.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...




  • Could the IPM1 be folded with the M1 Abrams so you don't have to unlock a marginally different tank to get to the M1A1?
    • Maybe in the future.


  • Can you tell us if you are close to a Japanese SAM? Right now they remain the only nation without one which puts them at a disadvantage. 
    • Yes, we are working on such vehicles.


  • Are there any plans to customize camos: wooden logs, camo nets, camouflage barrels maybe?
    • Sounds interesting, but petty hard to implement since we don’t have a system that would suit us in terms of quality and effort needed. We might have such a system in future though.


  • Good day! Is it possible in RB to keep burned tanks on the battlefield?
    • In a multi-respawn game, destroyed carcasses might cause different problems, for example driving through. At the moment, we keep burned carcasses of tanks for player unable to respawn in the match.


  • With aircraft providing an increasingly more active role in Naval Forces (particularly Naval EC), is it possible we will see some more floatplanes? Some nations are without any in their standard tree and there are many famous examples of Italian and German aircraft like the Ar 196 that could be added.
    • Yes, we agree that in naval battles seaplanes have their niche. We plan to add similar vehicles in the future too.


  • It was mentioned that the implementation of modern aviation in the game is limited by the secrecy of their flight, performance characteristics and systems. Where is the “border” for it? 3rd generation, 4th or 4th+? We would like to know what the limitation is.
    • It is difficult to say because time goes on, documents that were closed are declassified and more information gets into free access so the limitation is gradually shifting. Simply we can say that the aviation of 3rd and partially 4th generation may well be added to the game, perhaps even newer vehicles.


  • Is it possible we could see a PvE mode for helicopters? A co-operative, objective based mode with reasonable rewards may be a good solution for the low rank helicopters who can’t counter higher rank ones in Helicopter EC. It would also provide an opportunity to explore more interesting and specific gameplay for helicopters, such as naval targets. 
    • Recently we have added the ability to use helicopters in the tank assault mission so it is possible to research them there as well.


  • Would there be any possibility of adding more lower tier helicopters that do not have access to missile or rocket armaments like the AH-1G?. Instead they would be armed with guns and/or bombs, providing support from the air.
    • Such vehicles will have low battle efficiency. And because of this, expansion of the helicopter research trees in this way isn’t planned yet.


  • HMS Hawkings is outclassed by all of the other same rank heavy cruisers. She is a WW1 ship fighting mostly modernised WW2 heavy cruisers. Why was Hawkins selected?
    • Actually this ship is like the founder of the class of heavy cruisers and we couldn’t avoid it and of course we are already working on more advanced British ships of this type.


  • Is it planned to rework the “all-seeing” ship Captain’s binoculars? Or would it be even better to remove the selection using the “X” button at all? It is too simple just to press “X” several times and the ship’s captain will detect the enemy through all the bushes, trees and smoke.
    • There are only such targets available that are in direct visibility or that are visible to your ally. So when it seems to you that the target is not visible for you, most likely the top of its masts are above obstacles. Additionally in update 1.93 there was a bug of visibility calculation where for ships at distance beyond a threshold (more than 10 km) were not being checked for obstacles on the view line (ships that appeared at a respawn and had a visual barrier between themselves and the enemy actually have been marked as detected - a translucent marker appeared in AB - and it was possible to shoot at such targets) has been fixed. Perhaps for a purpose that isn’t fully open to view (not fully visible) we will introduce additional penalties for range detection and shooting.


  • Is it planned to do anything about the current sinking system? Ships don’t sink convincingly much of the time. Do you consider decreasing bilge pump efficiency?
    • Yes, we have some plans in this direction but so far without any details. In general, our desire coincides with yours to make the look of majestically sinking ships appear more often for the eyes of our players. 


  • In an interview with mmorpg.com, Kirill Yudintsev announced a Saetta-class gunboat which was armed with anti-ship missiles “Nettuno” (or sea killer mk.1) on the screenshot. Can these rockets be first anti-ship missiles? 
    • Such anti-ship missiles are possible but for its usage you will need additional control and countermeasures systems. So we can say the final word only after internal tests.


  • Is it possible to make sure that on a ship from the destroyer class and above it would be possible to take control over a group of the required for target main calibre turrets (for example on one side of the ship) and all other turrets remained in their original positions?
    • Recently we changed the aiming algorithm of the turrets from one side to another and now all the turrets attempt to hold the maximum possible number of barrels in the direction of the sight. It looks to us that this is a rather convenient implementation of multi-turret vehicle control. It is quite difficult to point out those turrets that “will not take part in the battle” because the ship usually maneuvers and turrets that can not be pointed at the target will be able to shoot at it after a small turn in the hull - such situations happen constantly.


  • Will there be a similar rework to bombs which was given to rockets in recent years? Specifically, as an example. AP bombs, such as the Japanese ones are not really useful and a rework may give them more of a purpose in the game.
    • Yes, we have such plans as well as the implementation of the mechanics of kinetic penetration of armour-piercing bombs which becomes relevant with the implementation of larger ships in the game.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...



The planned Swedish aviation tree list was missing the J 34 (Swedish Hunter modification). This aircraft was quite significant for Swedish jet aviation before the arrival of later domestic designs (Draken and Viggen), is it planned for the tree at some point? There is also a unique Swedish prototype J 34 Hunter with an afterburner.

  • In the release tree scheme we usually cover aircraft in the update in which this tree comes out and other vehicles in the nearest updates. About the other aircraft - we plan a lot of additions to the Swedish aircraft tree so the Hunter may appear after some time.

Are you already working on the implementation of the air-to-air missiles for medium ranges?

  • We are developing a missile battle system beyond visual range since the technical implementation of the missiles themselves and the control systems require minor improvements to already existing missiles. But what kind of game assumptions it will require to let players use these missiles comfortably and counteract them - this is a difficult question. From one side we don’t want to make these missiles a weapon of inevitable and sudden death in the case where the target doesn’t even understand that it has been fired on and on the other side there is no point to make them completely useless.

Do you have any plans to add countermeasures for aircraft that had them? According to “Phantom FGR Mk 2 Aircrew Manual - Weapon System Second Edition” the FGR.2 had a Chaff/Flare system introduced with Mod. 855. MiG-21SMT could also have a retrofitted countermeasure system too.

  • Yes, we plan to add defense systems for aircraft - such as flares and radar warning systems - which were equipped with them in real life.

Do you plan to improve the performance of aircraft sights by bringing their functionality closer to realistic ones?

  • It isn’t clear what is exactly meant, so it is difficult to answer this question. We can say that gyro sights with radio rangefinders already work more realistically than before. The sights take into account the distance to the target and flight parameters and displays the firing solution by taking into account the limitation of the platform.

Why in combined RB battles can you take a helicopter with ATGM’s equipped at the start of the battle and for aircraft with unguided aircraft rockets you need to get more respawn score? Are there any plans to change it?

  • There are several reasons for that. One of the main ones is that technically the helicopter is able to capture an enemy point so even in case of strong imbalance in the teams the victory is still possible by kills and by captured points. This isn’t the case for aircraft. The original idea of the respawn score was to limit the possibility of creating a highly unbalanced vehicle preset of the type “one team is in aircraft and second one in tanks”.

Ground Forces

Some tanks are still missing functional hull mounted MGs. In addition, some low-mid tier Japanese and German tanks don't have their AA MGs mounted on the roof, whilst most American and Soviet vehicles do. Are you still working on making MGs functional for all vehicles? Do you plan to bring Japan and German tank mounted Anti-Aircraft MGs more into line with the Allied ones?

  • When adding machine guns, or rather when “reviving” them - we first of all included the most necessary and useful ones: coaxial with a cannon and anti-aircraft guns. Offensive machine guns also had very low efficiency in real life due to poor visibility and small sectors of fire and in the game they appeared as an exception on the vehicles that don’t have any other machine guns. The latter refers to German SPG’s or Japanese tanks which had a rather strange design without a coaxial machine gun. As for anti-aircraft machine guns of rifle calibre - their efficiency in the game is quite low as well as against aircraft as against ground targets. Therefore the priority of adding them to the game is quite low and we often have higher priority tasks but we will continue to add them when possible.

After “Shilka” we are waiting for ZSU “Yenisei”. Almost all other nations already have such vehicles. Is it still planned to implement this vehicle?

  • Yes it is still planned.

The Chinese Ground Forces tree could really use some more attention for its low tier SPAAG’s and also its top tier in general. Are there more unique vehicles planned for this tree in the coming year?

  • Yes, the Chinese ground forces research tree suffers from the lack of decent anti-aircraft guns, at low ranks as well as at high ranks. We understand this and several models of the Chinese SPAA are already in the development and will be added during this year.

Are you working on a laser warning system for ground vehicles which is very necessary for protection against helicopters in the current environment of the game?

  • Technically it is easy to implement such a system. The problem is that there are still very few vehicles in the game that carried such a warning system.

Why did you not activate kinetic piercing of HE shells which have a delayed fuse for such a lengthy time?

  • As before the kinetic penetration of armour-piercing shells has been taken from different sources so we temporarily transferred all the HE shells for instant action in the fuse. In other words, the armour will be penetrated only by the explosive action of the explosion. In the future it is planned to select the coefficient for the HE shells for the formula of the penetration of the kinetic action and return the fuse with slight delay. In general this setting doesn’t change much for HE shells.


With the announcement of Swedish Ground Forces, can we expect a Swedish Helicopter tree too? At least a premium helicopter in the meantime for support?

  • Yes, most likely there will be Swedish helicopters in the game in the future.

Some helicopters could be fitted with Electronic Warfare packages and weapons. This could be a unique way to counter both advanced aircraft and Radar SPAAGs/SAMs. Would this be considered for helicopters perhaps in the future?

  • Electronic warfare is very complicated but can be interesting. For helicopters we haven’t worked in this area in detail so far but we may do it in the future.

With the advent of the Rooikat being introduced to the UK tree, does this mean we could possibly see unique South African Helicopters? Such as the Mi-24 Superhind and Denel Rooivalk?

  • We don’t exclude that possibility.


Naval trees have expanded exponentially in the last year. We still have cases where Rank II ships cost 270,000 RP, yet even Admiral Hipper, Mogami, Broklyn and Capayev only cost 220,000 RP . There is no incentive to research the lower vessels any more as Destroyers and Cruisers are more interesting, attractive and often faster to research. Can you please review the Naval Economy in an upcoming update and make lower tiers more viable to research?

  • Player’s progress in the fleet is designed on principles different from aircraft and ground vehicles. The research process goes from left to right and from top to bottom so that within each rank is the last ship in the horizontal will be top vehicle. That’s why their price is comparable and sometimes is even higher than the price for ships of larger classes. And for some players who don’t like battles in larger ships these ships are the main purpose of progress.

With update 1.95, we saw the arrival of the Swedish air tree and the start of a Ground Forces tree, but do you have any long term ideas about any form of Swedish/Finnish/Scandinavian Naval tree?

  • At the moment another nation’s fleet is in the development and it is too early to talk about the Swedish naval tree.

Torpedo warning seems to be very inconsistent even with upgraded crew skills. Are there any plans to improve this system more? Perhaps friendly aircraft could play a role in the spotting mechanics?

  • We have a different point of view on this. The warning system regarding enemy torpedoes is quite transparent, in RB it is true to say that the range of automatic detection is much much less than in AB due to its lower speed. The foam trace in the water can be detected at greater distances. If we are talking about detection assistance from aircraft then it is possible but not in a mode with automatic detection of the torpedo marker but with a mechanism similar to scouting mechanics in ground battles. This though is a nice idea and perhaps we will implement such functionality in the future.

Will the “inside view” of naval vessels be refined? Can we anticipate bulkheads and separation of compartments?

  • Currently the bulkheads and decks are quite detailed. They just don’t show up in X-Ray view, but they are there. You can see them in the hangar when you are using the “protection analyse” feature. This is how the damage model of the ship’s modules  look in 3ds Max:


Why is the choice between shells in the fleet limited by two types? After all the buttons 3 and 4 are free as opposed to multi-turret tanks etc?

  • Buttons 3 and 4 are currently not free. They are responsible for choosing the type of auxiliary calibre shells - this is a technical limitation and perhaps in the future we will be able to remove it. But for that will require specific changes to the game code.


Do you have plans to introduce new Squadron vehicles? Most people have most of them by now.

  • Yes, we have plans to add squadron vehicles on a regular basis.

The War Thunder Team

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...





Q. Do you have plans to include Germany’s F-4F model? We already have the F-4E that it was based on and F-4EJ. It would also be nice to see the F-4J and F-4J(UK) at some point perhaps in tabs with the F-4C and FGR.2 respectively. 


It’s too early to say, but it is possible. 

Q. Can you tell us what's the progress with the decision on J35D’s RB24J missiles? Right now it's really subpar compared to the F-4E/EJ and MiG-21s that not only have better performance, but better missiles too. RB24J is equivalent to the AIM-9J on F-4E.


We have already answered this question. Initially, the J35D was estimated as a rather capable jet fighter even without advanced guided missiles. If statistics shows us that they are required, such missiles could be added in future.

Q. Almost all NATO top jets (F-4s, T-2, G.91s, Lightning, Super Mystere etc) always receive multiple unique and interesting skins. However so far, MiG-19 and MiG-21 for both the USSR and Germany have only bare metal skins. There are numerous camouflages and more interesting liveries used by both the Soviet air force and East German air forces for these aircraft, can we expect to see them?


Unfortunately, almost all MiGs historically served unpainted. We are eagerly trying to find more spectacular variants. 

Q. Are there any analogues of the “manual input of the sight range” in the plans for aviation? Not like the settings before the battle, but directly in the battle for the vehicles where it was possible.


If you are talking about the guns convergence, then no.

Q. Would you like to add to the multifunctional menu such as settings like: propeller pitch control, fuel mixture, blower (supercharger) and other functions of the full engine control?


In such a menu it isn’t very convenient to use functions that require gradual change, rather than switching between modes and because of that there the current composition of controls will be used . 

Q. In the recent update you added a ballistic calculator. It works now on some helicopters and aircraft. Is it planned to add the bomb and rocket sight HUD for MiG-15bis (ISh)?


Yes, in one of the future updates we will add the mechanic of the ballistic calculator, which simulates the refinement of the standard sighting system with a differential circuit.

Q. Is it planned to add large aircraft carriers where “Phantom” and its analogues can land? 


Yes, it is planned.

Ground Forces

Q. France is now the only main nation without a backup top MBT. Do you plan to introduce another Leclerc soon to resolve this?


Well, it is not that bad, you still have AMX-40 that may be used in BR 10.3, but a new Leclerc is planned as well. We do understand that some nations still lack top tier MBTs, and we will try to fill these gaps as soon as we can. 

Q. Can you tell us if Japan and China's missile SPAAGs are close? They are the only 2 nations that remain without one.


New missile SPAAGs are delayed indeed, and we will work hard to add missile SPAAGS for these nations too, if the vehicles existed and can be properly implemented into the game.

Q. With the recent low rank lend-lease tank additions to France, will you consider the possibility of bolstering Italy's lower ranks with German equipment that they historically used such as Panzer III, IV and StuG? 


Yes, we’re considering such variants, as well as filling gaps in other nations too.

Q. Are there any plans to rework ground vehicle transmission and to update the behavior of the wheelbase?


Yes, there are such plans.

Q. For ground SB you have implemented the mechanics of the “Request location of allies” which helps to identify captured vehicles in battle. Should we expect the return of this mechanic on a permanent basis?


We have conducted mass testing of the feature and received some feedback and results. We plan to return the mechanics with some improvements with it which you will learn about in game update news.

Q. Is it planned to implement premium vehicles with thermal imaging cameras in the Chinese, Soviet or Italian research trees? 


Yes, we have such plans.


Q. Can you tell us the status of the Japanese Helicopter tree? Is it possible to create a preliminary branch with the existing AH-1S model and AH-64DJP (Same as the AH-64D model) that are already in game until more helicopters can be made?


We’re discussing this issue at the moment. We understand that the Japanese Self-Defence Forces utilized a very few types of the strike helicopters, and we consider the possibility that the Japanese helicopter tree will only have 2-3 vehicles.

Q. Will the AH-64 Apaches receive a full cockpit? Currently they have only a placeholder. 


Most of the helicopters in the game have cockpit prototypes, and at the moment we are working on cockpits for some helicopters. Probably, some of them will appear in the upcoming major update.  We plan to introduce more cockpits in future, in order to equip all or majority of helis with proper cockpits. As for the AH-64 series cockpits, they are planned as well, but we can’t say when exactly they are going to appear. 

Naval Forces

Q. Do you have plans to improve the quality of Naval tracers? It's not very clear or easy to follow your own tracers and improve your aim with larger ships because the tracers are extremely hard to see, particularly when fighting at long range. 


We consider current tracers to be of a decent quality. If you are suggesting making them more visible, it may ruin their appearance at regular distances - short and medium. Main calibre gun tracers are already a compromise between historical accuracy and gameplay. In most cases, such shells didn’t have tracers in reality, since they are not visible at large distances. Aim spotting is achieved with water splashes and instruments. In AB mode we additionally indicate the shell drop point, in RB we have salvo drop timers, which were actually used in war ships.

Q. Will you please consider improving the “Not enough crew to repair” mechanic? Although it's more of a historical feature, it makes gameplay complicated as you cannot repair your ship after a certain point.


By introducing this feature, we aimed to visually diversify ship destruction, forcing them to sink more often. Please consider that the crew state, when you can’t repair your ship anymore, meant the ship’s destruction previously. So we just made a ship’s death more vivid and interactive.

Q. Regarding Naval EC, can you tell us a little more about its progress? Do you plan to fully move Naval RB over to the EC format (like what was done with Simulator air battles) or just keep it as a separate event based mode?


We are unlikely to change RB to EC completely, since our statistics shows that EC affects RB random battles insignificantly. This means that these two modes don’t share the same audience. But we will try to run EC more often.

Q. Are there any chances of seeing ironclad warships of the second half of the XIX - beginning of the XXth centuries?


This is a rather vague concept that covers the period of 70-75 years. But if here it means pre-dreadnought battleships so such ships should be in our opinion in a separate game or game mode. Using them as a part of the current War Thunder game is extremely difficult.


Q. Can you please tell us when we can expect new squadron vehicles to come? It's been over 6 months since the last one was introduced. 


Yes, we plan to introduce new squadron vehicles. We can’t say when exactly though, but hopefully some to come before the summer.

Q. What about the rough sea? Storms? Do you plan to add any such weather effects?


Current implementation allows us to turn on storm weather but we are not using them because fighting under such conditions is problematic, especially for ships of small displacement which can also participate in battles even at high BR. Now we use the maximum possible excitement of 4.5 points in the weather settings.

The War Thunder Team


  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...



Q. Around a year ago, you introduced “temporary” measures for aircraft matchmaking above 7.7 which made mixed battles and allies vs allies / axis vs axis more common. Now a lot of time has passed and there are more vehicles and players at those ranks, do you have plans to return to normal axis vs allies matchmaking? 


First of all we would like to say that the concept “normal matchmaking with allied-axis” sounds rather strange in relation to aircraft BR above 7.7. Basically there are aircraft from times when the meaning of axis or allies didn’t apply for existing alliances. The question then becomes: for which alliance should we count Germany in such a setup? However some time ago (couple of months) we added to the top ranked aircraft battles (BR above 10.0) the possibility of creating matches not only “all against all” but also “nation preset against nation preset”, which means USSR + China + Germany against all others because at that time top ranked German aircraft were represented by aircraft from GDR. This option proved to be well balanced so we plan to add a similar option in addition to the current “random” also to the BR range between 7.7 and 10.0.

Q. The current aviation maps are increasingly too small for Mach 2 capable aircraft, when can we expect new larger air maps better suited to Rank VI jet gameplay?


The size of the locations themselves is ok, it is usually 64x64 km and some locations have a size of 128x128 km. In the missions the size of the battle zone and the distance between airfields can be really short for top ranked jets this is why we are reworking all aircraft missions at the moment so that the size of the battle zone better matches the flight characteristics of the aircraft. Some of the missions have already been redesigned and are in the production server (both Smolensk locations, Guadalcanal, Berlin).

Ground Forces

Q. The Stormer HMV is extremely inconsistent in terms of hitting a target and doing damage. Most of the time it appears to phase through or just miss entirely, making it very unreliable for anti-aircraft operation. Do you plan to do anything to improve this vehicle to make it more usable? In reality it should have automatic target tracking lock on much like Helicopters have for ATGM’s rather than having to manually lead targets. This sort of system could greatly help the missing targets issue if implemented. Or perhaps introduce a new top rank British SPAAG such as the Warrior ADATS prototype, Tracked Rapier or Canadian ADATS? 


According to our statistics it isn’t as described. The efficiency of the Stormer HMV is comparable to the efficiency of  2S6 or ADATS at the 7th rank in RB it is in 3rd place among all SAM’s. So there is no great need to implement a new SAM right now. However this doesn’t mean that any of the proposed vehicles will not appear in the game in the future.

Q. Can you tell us why USSR ground forces have been without T-90 and later T-72 models for quite some time now? Is it due to technical limitations? The USA already has the M1A2 Abrams and Germany the Leopard 2A5 for example. Can we expect T-90 and other more advanced Soviet MBT’s to come soon?


One of the most perfect if not the most perfect serial soviet main battle tank, the T-80U is already implemented in the game. It isn’t significantly different from the M1A2 or Leo2A5 with its “build time”. The regular T-90 and even the T-90A are inferior in mobility to the T-80U and do not differ much from it in protection or firepower. What about plans to add it? Yes, we are already working on the T-72 and several modifications of it and one of them might have already been released in the last major update, but for objective reasons it wasn’t possible due to time deficit, so we plan to implement it in the next major update.

Q. It's been sometime since you last gave an update on the M60 turret and gunshield situation. Recently we have seen a lot of new volumetric amour schemes being implemented, can you tell us when we can expect the corrected M60 gunshield and turret with the values that were reported? 


Yes, we are working on the task regarding converting the M60 gun mantlet armour to volumetric armour technology.

Q. Is it possible to implement the ability of air-to-air missiles to hit ground targets? For example, for Type 93, which lacks other types of munitions, or Sidam Mistral?


No. First, it is not realistic to launch an air-to-air missile from a ground carrier to ground target. Yes, we do know about test launches of the IR-guided air-to-air missiles on ground targets, but these vehicles will not benefit from this, since the missiles are too weak to destroy any ground vehicle, except unarmoured/lightly armoured ones. However, we plan to give these vehicles abilities, similar to light tanks (repair help, scouting, etc.) to make these vehicles useful even when there’s no threats from above.

Naval Forces

Q. The Admiral Graf Spee and the Prinz Eugen/Admiral Hipper class have remained a dominant power in Naval Forces since they were first introduced. Most nations still don't really have balanced counterparts to them which can make gameplay very one sided against them. Do you have any plans you can share with us to address this matter and prevent such a situation from occurring in future? 


Their combat efficiency is no different from similar ships nevertheless. Most of the gaming nations have 8’’ guns, similar to the Hipper - sometimes slightly better, or slightly worse. Graf Spee is outstanding here, but its high calibre is compensated with a higher reload time. So we can’t agree with this observation.


Q. Both Naval Forces and Ground Forces maps suffer common issues with people having direct line of sight into spawns from reasonably early on from even distant parts of the map. Do you have any general plans to better balance and improve maps by putting more physical / terrain barriers in front of spawns to stop people from simply abusing map design?


We have such plans. And each update we make changes on many maps including those that were designed to solve the problems described above.

Q. Do you have plans to review the HUD to give more info about hits and rewards? Maybe it is worth moving this data somewhere on another part of the screen?


We will consider this suggestion.



  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...




Q. When the “Starfighters” update was released, the Mach 2 F-104A/C models regularly faced non-supersonic aircraft as they were BR 9.7. In the most recent BR update, you fixed this by moving them to 10.0, but at the same time lowered the equally powerful Lightning F.6 down to 9.7 so it now is able to face exclusively 8.7-9.7 aircraft and outclass them with ease. What was the reason for this change? Could you please reconsider this and move it back to 10.0 so that all Mach 2 supersonics are above the 9.7 cutoff?


The reason is in both cases the same - the statistics and efficiency of the aircraft in game. In the case of F-104, it was over the maximum and in case of Lightning it was depressingly low. The ability to reach Mach 2 (which is usually at high altitudes and isn’t useful in the battles in War Thunder) will not guarantee a certain level of BR. It is just one of many characteristics of the aircraft.

Q. Ground Forces were recently extended to 10.7 BR, can you tell us when we can expect to see this for aircraft too? As it would help to spread out many of the jets with countermeasures from those that don't as well as early supersonics from later ones.


In short: when it becomes necessary and possible. More detailed: we have said many times that we are always very cautious about expanding the BR range and it will be made based on the statistics because in addition, an unobvious “benefit” in terms of balance there are many risks in the form of less interesting battles due to more homogeneous compositions and increased waiting times for obvious reasons.

Q. Air defense on airfields in the top ranks. It was a good suggestion to add 1-2 points with surface to air missiles. At the moment, a supersonic jet approaching at kph 800+, is able to vulture aircraft on the airfield and escape, taking minimal damage. It won’t be good to increase airfield AA’s damage and accuracy, so AA missiles look decisive, making enemy aircraft maneuver and dodge, thus granting some chance of survival for landed aircraft.


This is a difficult question. AI has a rather specific game task in the game: in the first place, not to shoot down (especially with a one-shot), but to warn about entering the restricted area. Only after an enemy aircraft stays in this area for some time, will the AA inflict critical damage and shoot them down as a result. In some aspects, missiles do have advantages over artillery in this task, but they also have disadvantages. However, I suppose that over time, the growth of the capabilities of jet aircraft in the game will force the introduction of missile weapons for the AI, so we will discuss this issue, but so far without terms and guarantees.

Ground Forces

Q. Is the position of ammunition unlocks being reconsidered? Examples of unequal distribution would be the Leclerc and Type 90. These tanks have to unlock their more powerful APFSDS ammunition, which is placed in tier 4, using the recently adjusted DM12 shell. Comparable tanks unlock their APFSDS ammunition in lower tiers or are provided with APFSDS ammunition in stock configuration.


Yes, it is possible and planned for it to happen for vehicles of rank VI-VII which has the default HEAT shell.

Q. Are there any considerations underway for M833 ammo for the M1/IPM1 and L26 for Challenger 1 Mk 3 / L27 for Challenger 2 respectively?


We plan to add the M833 shell for IPM1. The British Challenger 1 Mk.3 and Challenger 2 don’t need a new shell yet as the statistics show.

Ground SB

Q. Can you tell us if you plan to improve the quality of composition of Ground Battle lineups in Simulator to remove the issue of the same vehicles facing each other?


Technically it is impossible to make the ground vehicles of one nation fighting on two teams at once. Currently there is a mechanic that allows you to query the location of an ally and so allows you to determine if you have an ally or enemy in front of you. In addition the vehicles of different nations have different camouflages and in the case of Italian tanks also additional identification marks which also helps to determine the ownership of the vehicle. We don’t plan to remove similar vehicles from the setups because players who are researching specific game nation trees will simply lose the opportunity to play in SB mode.

Q. When will old SB mode be back and when will the RP test be over?


New RP system works fine. This mode has become more popular, and we’ll keep it. The test is over indeed, but we are still working on the win rate adjustments for every vehicle setup.

Q. Why was the RP mode implemented for SB mixed battles? - having vehicle setups obviously unbalanced


The balance of setups is constantly a work in progress and can only be completed if the addition of new vehicles and new weapons for old vehicles stops. Each major update introduces new tanks and aircraft that have an impact on the win rate. The system of RP respawns is aimed at improving the "balance" not only from the statistical point of view, but also for gameplay, because after the loss of a certain type of vehicle, it allows you to take another, more suitable for the situation. At the same time, by changing the cost of the respawn, you can reduce the influence on the victory rate of some vehicles.

Q. Why is the test going on for all SB setups?


The RP system has been implemented for all setups in order to receive win rate change data as soon as possible, and allowing us to react on these changes quickly. Besides, by simultaneously enabling the RP system for all setups we have an opportunity to get precise data for analysis of changes between old and new SB modes.

Q. Why did you implement the new system without any changes from the last testing session, and without taking into consideration previous feedback? 


When developing the current system, not only the feedback from the previous player testing was used, but also the statistics and online data, which showed the audience's interest in this format. The number of battles are now slightly higher than under the old respawn system.

In previous tests, the mode was based not only on the respawns for the RP, but also on the allied markers on the minimap. This innovation drew the most criticism from the players, who perceived it as a way to deal with team killers, and not as a team interaction. At the same time, we believe that this is one of the weak points of the mode, because when re-spawning, the player can no longer understand where the battle is taking place, what tactics need to be applied and in what areas he will be more useful. Adding markers to the minimap does not make it easier and faster to identify enemy vehicles, but it allows you to be more useful for your team.

Q. Why in some top-tier setups, the heavy tank costs are designated medium, and some SPGs (like Ferdinand) as heavies?


In top setups, the cost of heavy tanks respawns was equated to medium tanks and MBT, because they no longer provide the same protection against any type of shell as at medium tiers. This is true for 8_2_2 and 9_2 setups. For the 8_2 setup, we returned the respawn cost to 450 HP to improve the winrate.

At the same time, some vehicles might have an increased cost of respawn, for example, Ferdinand is equated to heavy tanks, because despite the lack of a turret, it has good armor and is protected from most tanks at its rank, as well as Jumbo, which had the highest efficiency in his setup and brought an imbalance in battles.

Q. Why can’t you change mounted weapons on an aircraft or helicopter on an airfield without losing the RP?


Changing the type of mounted weapon without losing RP would allow a player to respawn infinitely, ruining gameplay for others. Leaving the vehicle is now equal to losing it. Now every player has an equal amount of RP before the battle starts, allowing players to estimate and plan how many times they will be able to face the enemy. 


Q. Can you tell us the status of the Longbow Hellfires on the Apache aircraft? These would appear to be a good counter to other more advanced helicopter weaponry already in game such as PARS 3 which already features "fire and forget", so such a system is not impossible to replicate. 


At the moment we are not working on Longbow Hellfire missiles for the AH-64D. In comparison to the statistical inequality of the Tiger UHT, which required reworking of the PARS3, existing statistics of the AH-64D looks fine. Also, we’re always cautious to add ‘fire-and-forget’ equipment designed to destroy ground units. It has to be considered, that unlike PARS3, which use a thermal seeker from which you can hide the tank with special multispectral smoke, the AGM114L will be able to see the target through such smoke, plus it has a slightly longer launch range, and the helicopter itself can carry up to 16 ATGMs, unlike the Tiger UHT.  All this seems to us to make such missiles too unbalanced to add at this stage.

Q. Can you share your thoughts on the proposed Swedish Helicopter tree from the community? Do you think it's viable to create a whole tree based on these examples of armed helicopters and it's something you would consider?


The author of the topic has done a good job but so far we can not comment on the implementation and even more about the timing of the Swedish helicopter tree. However as we have repeatedly said in terms of content we strive to give all game nations complete vehicle setups.

Q. In simulator ground battles, you can spawn into a helicopter twice with ATGMs right from the start of the battle. Could you please review this and change the system to something more appropriate like what was done with RB Ground Forces limiting Helicopters from overpowering ground battles with ATGMs at the start? 


At the moment the statistics of the efficiency of the helicopters in SB is at an acceptable level, so we don’t plan to limit the respawns yet. It should be remembered that conditions in SB are different from those in RB: control type which will be used where the aircraft can respawn directly in the air.


Q. With the arrival of the Italian Fleet, we saw the first guided missile boat in the form of the Saetta P-494. Can we expect to see comparable ships for other nations soon?


At the moment we are investigating this issue. This type of the anti-ship missile with relatively short range and beam guide is quite rare and hasn’t been widely used, so there may be problems with adding it for all nations.

Q. Lots of maps with smaller ships seem to have very shallow areas around the spawns that hydrofoil ships such as PG.02, PGH-2 and now the Sparviero can get stuck on or beach themselves. Do you plan to add their historical functionality to allow them to fold up the hydrofoils for shallow waters? Or perhaps adjust the maps?


Yes, we have some plans for this issue. As they will be in a high degree of readiness, we will talk about them in more detail.


Q. Update “Regia Marina” included a lot of bug fixes and improvements with a smaller focus on content. It was great to see lots of attention being given solely to improvements and fixes! Can we expect to see more of such updates in between the larger content focused major updates?


Yes. In general it is our standard to release “minor” updates (when the third digit inside the version is changed) with a significant number of bug fixes between big content patches.

Q. The “Quarantine Maneuvers” event was very popular as it allowed people to try out vehicles in battles they wouldn't normally have and enjoy new gameplay experiences. Have you considered such an option perhaps to promote Helicopters EC and Naval Forces EC? For example perhaps a test event where anyone with Rank V unlocked can join special battles with Helicopter Lineups or Larger capital ship Lineups?


Yes, we are not excluding it.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...



Q. With the introduction of medium range missiles as well as increasingly fast top tier aircraft now and in the future, maps in top tier air realistic battles are becoming increasingly cramped. Are there any plans to mitigate this going forward?

  • Yes, we have already increased the battle area in the high ranks and if necessary we will do it again in the future.

Q. Both the Jaguar GR.1 and the Jaguar A were capable of mounting flares. In game, currently neither variant has them, yet they are ranked with the high end jets that have them. Do you have plans to introduce them for these aircraft to better assist them?

  • We are working on the adding of flares for aircraft that had them, including the Jaguar A and the Jaguar GR.1 and additional suspended containers with flares. We always try to realize the maximum potential of the vehicles in the game but some details require additional research.

Q. Is it possible to load the IL-28Sh at the same time with bombs and with missiles or use other variants of mixed load? Some of such combinations will fit perfectly into the load carrying capacity (less than 3000kg). Example: 1.5t missiles + 1.5t bombs will make 3t load. The maximum isn’t exceeded, the weapon control elements are different, so why not?

  • We are trying to add a large number of suspended weaponry combinations where it was technically possible. We will consider this option and don’t exclude its addition in one of the next updates. Follow the news and leave your suggestions on the forum in the appropriate sections.

Ground Forces

Q. Are there any reasons why there is not a permanent “Tank Only” mode?

  • One of the main features of War Thunder is the ability to combine in one single battle different vehicle types and we find this mode more interesting than just single ground battles. Additionally the game also has a lot of modes so adding another type of ground battle on a permanent basis makes no sense from our point of view.

Q.Sometime players are entered into night matches without having NVD unlocked. These players cannot compete with players that already possess thermal vision or IR devices. Are there any plans to limit night battles for players with vehicles that do not have NVD unlocked?

  • There are no such plans but we reconfigured the weather conditions and day times so that night battles were always in good weather conditions and with moonlight. In addition we don’t exclude the future implementation of lighting shells and mines.

Q. Swedish top MBT’s and top tier vehicles in general have a really high repair cost, significantly higher than any other nation. This puts people off of researching and playing these vehicles as even with a 4+ kill game, a single death will outweigh the cost of your rewards. Do you have any plans to review these costs and better balance them so thank vehicles don't receive repair costs in excess of 25k Silver Lions?

  • There are no artificial restrictions on the repair price - it depends on the vehicle efficiency. Repair costs will be constantly updated on the basis of statistics but we also plan to make some changes in the algorithm for calculation the repair costs which will lead to a price decrease for some vehicles, for example STRV 122.

Q. In top tier battles, it's quite common to see a lot of the small variants of some maps very often. Is it possible you can distinguish and separate these maps out, so that low tier vehicles can see the smaller variants, whilst modern top tier vehicles have the larger more spacious maps? Top tier gameplay it not well suited to these maps.

  • Statistics of the bans and dislikes shows that it isn’t the case. At the top rank players like both - big and also compact maps and compact maps even more.

Q. In the past top ranked MBTs were balanced around shooting weak spots. With the introduction of volumetric projectiles shooting weak spots has become more inconsistent. This benefits certain vehicles more than others. Are any additional algorithms to the volumetric calculations planned to make the system more predictable?

  • As we know, in the top rank the main type of shell is the APFSDS the core calibre of such shells is usually much smaller than that of the cannon and is 20-40mm. In this case the implementation of the “shell size” mechanics for calculation of the penetration has had an effect on reducing the number of vulnerable zones much less than for tanks in other ranks. In addition, in a recent server update we fixed some issues with armour penetration at large angles which was relevant for the top kinetic shells. We also have plans and are working on the fixing and improving of these mechanics.


Q. Mines are a really interesting addition, but they don't last very long and this limits their tactical use. Do you have plans to review mine active times in the future? 

  • Yes, we do have such plans.

Q. Can you tell us the status of Mac and Linux development for the game? More recently there has been more and more bugs and less overall fixes for these platforms. Can you tell us anything about Vulkan and if support will be introduced for War Thunder?

  • This isn’t true. The number of bugs on these platforms hasn’t increased, we fairly quickly release client fixes. Also Metal has recently become available for MAC users for which we have more positive feedback. Yes, there are some bugs there but we are fixing it and in this case it is possible to use Open GL parallel. The Linux platform is complex itself because of different distributions, builds and drivers but we are also doing our best here.

The War Thunder Team

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...




Q. Will Germany be getting its own Phantom variant soon or the MiG-21Bis DDR?

  • We plan to add a german F-4 this year, more precisely about how “soon” we can not say.

Q. Can we expect to see the Sea Harriers (FRS.1 and FA.2) for the Royal Navy aircraft branch in the future? Perhaps also the Indian Navy FRS.51 with Matra Magics?

  • So far we can only say that Sea Harriers are in our plans.

Q. Will we see “swing-wing” aircraft in War Thunder soon?

  • Yes.

Q. Currently, post war British jets are still using WW2 era bombs. Are there plans to revamp these loadouts for post war bombs?

  • We have quite a few reports about various historical inaccuracies. We are aware of this flaw and will definitely fix it on a first-come, first-served basis.

Q. Do you plan to add vapour clouds for modern aircraft when pulling high G loads?

  • If you mean the Prandtl-Loeart effect, it is already implemented in the game when approaching the sound barrier, but we plan to improve it visually and add this effect also when maneuvering under certain conditions.

Ground Forces

Q. Are there any plans for more Multi-Purpose ammunition, like PELE/FAPDS for example?

  • There are no concrete plans. The question requires some study but we think such ammunition can be useful in the game.

Q. Can we expect to see the modern MBT for Japan in the coming updates to make Japan more competitive?

  • The Japanese Type-90 tanks are quite effective at their BR. The recent BR changes may affect them and efficiency may decrease, but here we have an opportunity to raise the rate of fire (according to some sources it may be higher than now). As for brand new tanks, we don’t have many options for “modern MBTs” for Japan, in fact only the Type-10 remains, which is even more of a mystery compared to other MBTs. Although we think with time it will appear in the game, although its defense characteristics will most likely be assumed.

Q. Currently the commander view on modern tanks still reflects the “binocular view” of WW2 era tanks. Is it possible we will have more realistic CITV in future for modern tanks with Commander cameras?

  • We are working in this direction. The results will be reported separately in the devblogs.

Naval Forces

Q. With the split between Blue-Water Fleet and Coastal Forces, is it possible we could see some nations receive an example of one tree but not the other? For example where examples of smaller boats are harder to find or the opposite where one navy does not have lots of examples of larger warships?

  • We think it is possible, but first we will try to add to the game fleets of those nations which have both fleet research trees.

Q. Is it possible we could see a Naval / Ship Arcade Assault mode similar to tanks and aircraft? This mode is particularly useful for stock vehicles and helpful for obtaining early modules.

  • We haven't made any such plans yet, but we will think about it.


Q. Are there any plans to implement “Buddy Lasering” to Helicopters with laser guidance? Where a teammate can designate and lock a target for a compatible teammate vehicle?

  • There are such thoughts, especially since technically it is quite simple to implement, but we need to think about the implementation and the meta.

Q. Do you plan to add any helicopters for Squadron vehicles?

  • Not in the coming updates of the squadron vehicles.

Q. Some helicopters like the Lynx, Huey family and Scout could have a door gunner on either side of the helicopter with a high calibre machine gun or gatling gun. Is it possible we could ever see this configuration in game with player controlled and AI gunners the same way bombers have them?

  • Not excluded, especially since there were variants with guns in such units, for example the French used up to MG15120.


Q. Will it be possible to re-order crews? As in drag or slide existing crews left or right in a lineup for better rearrangement?

  • There are a lot of technical features that prevent from doing it quickly and easily, so probably not. 

Q. Will it be possible to select a specific shell in each belt in the aircraft protection analysis system? Right now you can simply fire the highest shell of any belt and not pick specific examples. 

  • Yes, such functionality for armour analysis is in the plans, as well as adding aviation threats to the armour analysis of ground vehicles. 

Q. Do you plan to continue remodeling obsolete aircraft models? For example A6M series which clearly show polygons on the hood for example. In addition such work will allow you to add new models. A6M8 “Model 54” and Zero A6M7.

  • Yes, it is planned

Q. Although aviation has a guided missile tag display will we see warning systems similar to the top helicopter ones. There are vehicles in the game which were equipped with such: F-4 Phantom II with AN/(APR-26 warning system for example?

  • Top helicopter systems detecting missile launches in the optical spectrum by the flare of the starting engine. AN/APR-26 is a station for detecting the fact of the SAM launch are quite specific samples. For countering aviation missiles such stations may be useless but those radar stations that can give information to pilots about the change of operation mode of the enemy fighter's onboard radar and distinguish between search, track and for example illumination modes will certainly appear in the game.

Q. It's been a long time since there was any news about World War mode. Are there any works being done on it and when we should expect the start of the new season? 

  • The work is ongoing. The mode will regularly receive new seasons with new features and content, so keep your eyes out for announcements.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...




Q. Do you have any plans for the USN Naval variants of Phantoms in the Naval aircraft branch? F-4B, F-4J and F-4S? So far we have only seen the addition of the USAF variants.

  • Yes, we have such plans.

Q. With the expansion of Rank VI aviation, missiles are an ever increasing key element to combat. Given some aircraft now have a progressive choice of 2-3 missile options, is it possible we could see some basic form of “stock missiles” such as AIM-9B and R-3S?

  • We do consider some options for high-rank missile combat jets.

Q. Some nations in game, such as Germany, Japan, Great Britain and the USA could support almost an entire line of floatplane aircraft with many examples not yet featured in game. Since they are increasingly more relevant in naval battles for quickly capturing zones, will we see more floatplanes and flying boats in future updates?

  • You hopefully will.

Q. Will we see an expansion into Rank VII for aviation this year?

  • Stay tuned to our official news.

Q. Do you plan to add a voice warning system (‘Bitching Betty’) in aviation?

  • Yes, this might be an interesting addition to high rank combat audio.

Q. Are you planning to add the IL-40 and its modifications?

  • Yes, there are such plans.

Q. Is it possible to implement in bombers (and other aircraft with unused crew) the crew mechanics of the tank/naval types, with the replacement of each other? It is known that for medium/heavy bombers, the crew did not only get along with the first/second pilot and gunners. A bombardier, navigator, radio operator, flight engineer, etc. could still be on board. If the pilot/gunner was incapacitated, these crewmen could replace them, keeping the aircraft's combat effectiveness. Sometimes it is a great pity when a four-engine jumbo is deprived of its pilot with a single well-aimed shot, and it is immediately counted as a frag, or the gunner is knocked out, and the upper hemisphere immediately remains defenseless.

  • The game already partially uses this mechanic, in planes with dual control: to shoot it down by knocking out the pilot, you need to hit both pilots, if only one of them is knocked, the aircraft continues to fly. As for the turrets, consider that the gunner's knock-out also reproduces the possible destruction, or malfunction, of the weapon or the turret equipment, so that further use of this gun point becomes impossible.

Ground Forces

Q. With the addition of the South African subtree, does this mean we might still see a British light tank line with vehicles such as the Scorpion, Scimitar, FV721 Fox, Alvin Saladin and Ferret.

  • Yes, new light combat units from Great Britain are planned.

Q. Certain tanks have destructible elements of their visual model, such as side skirts. Historically, vehicles like the Tiger II, Jagdtiger and others often went into battle with certain parts removed. Has it been considered to allow customization of such elements in the hanger to allow individual tanks to differ more in battle since their removal is already present in the model?

  • Such customization options are not being considered at the moment. We believe current customization variants to be various and sufficient, including “combat” customization, where tanks receive different hit marks from enemy shots.

Q. Why don’t wrecked tanks cool down during a game? Long after a tank is destroyed, it remains “hot” as if it's still active, and becomes confusing when using thermals.

  • Most tanks are destroyed by fire, so over the course of an in-game battle, they do not have time to cool down. Also, metal structures are heated up considerably by the sun, without any fire. As for the thermal radiation of the engine or hot exhaust gases, they disappear after the destruction of a tank.

Q. Do you plan on implementing the VCC 80 Dardo for Italy? If yes, is it possible to also implement the Spike LR ATGM as this vehicle used such weaponry (as a replacement variant for the TOW)?

  • Yes, there are such plans for it. As far as guided weapons - an ATGM like the Spike will be a very unpleasant and unbalanced weapon if it has all of its actual combat capabilities. Players could already see this in the 1st April event when a technical issue with the TOW missile on the Swedish vehicle caused it to have (for a short time) similar capabilities as the Spike (over-the-horizon firing, trajectory lock and redirection on the flight). In this form, without the mass use of active protection on tanks, the weapon would be way too powerful. Therefore, as an option, we are considering the implementation of a “reduced” functionality on these missiles; for example, with only target lock before launch and no correction and redirection during its flight.

Q. Did all vehicles in the game receive voluminous armour? Can the interaction of voluminous projectiles with vehicles without this mechanic cause any problems now?

  • No, not all vehicles have it yet, but we are working on it and with each major update we will release new vehicles with voluminous armour. You can define voluminous armour if the tooltip indicates “armor dimensions at point”.

Q. Are you continuing to develop the functionality of suspended armour?

  • Yes, we regularly introduce vehicles with different options for additional protection.

Q. In the British tech tree, we currently only see the Challenger 2 as the top-tier vehicle. As you are aware, they had no other tanks. Will there be an option to add tanks from the Commonwealth?

  • Not all Challenger 2 variants are available for use in game, and as we continue to see new variants and prototypes with different turrets, the Challenger will continue to serve in that capacity.

Q. Why is there no 3BM60 top APFSDS for the T-90A and T-72B3? After all, there is the Leopard 2A6 with DM53, as well as the M1A2 Abrams with the M829A1. Are there any restrictions that prevented the introduction of this projectile?

  • We are rather cautious about the introduction of more powerful ammunition in top-tier battles, each such projectile is a precedent and the devaluation of armour in general. However, the current efficiency of the top Soviet vehicles (except for the T-80U) is still noticeably inferior to the western ones, so the reduction of the BR and the new mechanics of the high-explosive damage somewhat improved the situation, but not enough. Therefore we consider the introduction of the ЗBM-48 “Svinets” APFSDS projectile as one of the measures, in tungsten variant to start from.

Naval Forces

Q. Currently torpedo tubes can be detonated and almost instantly kill a ship. This specifically hurts Japanese destroyers the most and makes them much harder to play as they feature an easy external ammo rack of sorts now. Do you have any plans for this part of the damage model in terms of refining how it works to make Destroyers with torpedoes less likely to explode?

  • This issue is going to be fixed and the explosion chance will be significantly reduced.

Q. War Thunder Warfare 2077 showed an interesting controllable UAV for the Hydra, is it possible this mechanic could also work for ships with catapult aircraft modeled could be tested?

  • It is very interesting mechanics for us and we consider various applications both in naval and ground battles.

Q. Do you plan to introduce Naval Enduring Confrontation (RB) in a permanent mode, like helicopter confrontation (AB) or air confrontation (SB)? I would like to see this mode more often, the last test showed its best sides.

  • No, we plan to continue the events as intermittently held.

Q. Will there be projects for series H battleships for Germany in the game? They were laid, but were soon dismantled. The battleship Bismarck will not be able to withstand Yamato and Iowa on equal terms. We would like to see the H-39 project.

  • We consider as possible the addition of similar ships, those that were laid down, but were not completed in reality.


Q. Are more helicopters planned to expand the Italian Helicopter tree?

  • Yes.


Q. With the new hanger, is it possible to consider an “instant test drive” that launches you immediately onto the map at the base? The location seems to be really interesting and nice for exploration.

  • We have plans to change the tank test drive, but this is unlikely to be a seamless implementation, it has its drawbacks. The current hangar as a map for a test drive has them too.
  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...



Q. In Realistic Air battles, the introduction of SAM SPAAGs on airfields at top tier has helped protect those wishing to repair on the airfield. However, as with before, there is the possibility that some may choose to simply wait out a battle on the airfield and let the SAMs do all the work to win the game. Do you have any plans involving preventing this style of play and preventing the exploitation of airfield protection?

  • Yes, we have such plans.

Q. Is there any possibility we may see a line of Finnish aircraft in the Swedish tree like we did with South African vehicles in the British ground forces tree? This could offer some interesting additions to the Swedish tree such as the Westland Lysander, Saab 35XS, Follant Gnat F.1, Hawk 51 and MiG-21 MGBT as well as more supporting aircraft to fill out gaps within the Swedish tree.

  • At the moment, we don’t plan to separate the Finnish line, like we did recently with SA vehicles in the British tech tree. Although, we will add more Finnish aircraft in the Swedish tech tree for sure.

Q. In previous major updates, we saw the introduction of the MiG-21Bis, Su-17 and most recently the MiG-23M to the USSR air tree. Are there any plans to also introduce the MiG-21Bis, Su-22 and MiG-23MF/ML to the East German line after the MiG-21MF in the future?

  • We plan some of the above listed aircraft in the German tech tree.

Q. Do you have any plans to introduce the remaining aircraft from the Century Series of American jet aircraft? Still left are the F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger, F-105 Thunderchief and F-106 Delta Dart.

  • Yes, we do.

Q. Is there any possibility we may see bigger aviation maps for Rank VII jets?

  • We consider the existing “big” maps (128x128 km) as quite suitable for high tier battles. Since speeds are high there, opposing teams approach each other quickly, and there is no need for a lengthy flight to the target. The size of a location allows attack from flanks whilst safely retreating to the airfields. Larger locations are potentially possible, though they require significantly more work from the team, while decreasing the battle dynamics. So, at the moment we don’t have plans to create locations bigger than 128x128 km.

Q. Are there any immediate plans to improve and expand the UK's top assault measures in terms of expanding sets of armaments or adding new vehicles with them? Having only bombs or rockets on both Phantoms, while neighboring nations have fire-and-forget air-to-surface missiles, as well as a radio command and laser guidance missiles, obviously, is not the best deal.

  • AGM-12 missiles with radio command guidance are already in the British arsenal on Buccaneer, as for more advanced missiles, their carriers must first be introduced into the game.

Ground Forces

Q. Red Desert was a quite different ground forces location to many previously featured in game due to its size and open scale plan. Do you have plans for more maps of this style with larger open plain terrains?

  • As our bans-dislikes-likes statistics show, players like different maps, mostly compact ones with rich and dynamic gameplay. At the top ranks, larger maps are also desirable though. Therefore, we will be adding different maps with different styles of terrain and different sizes.

Q. With the Falcon SPAAG recently moving up in Battle Rating, it has widened the gap of British anti-aircraft guns from the 4.0 Crusader AA to the 8.0 Falcon. Do you have any plans to introduce new vehicles to address this gap, such as the Canadian Skink SPAAG or Centaur AA MK I?

  • Such gaps exist in other nations too. Sometimes, it is impossible to fill them. When we have variants, we try to use them.

Q. With the ST-A3 variant being added fairly recently that helps improve lineup composition from the 6.3-6.7 ranks, is there any possibility that you will consider the introduction of more variants of the STB-1 family to help the Japanese 7.7 lineup? Several examples of the family family exist today in museums or testing grounds and with the STB-2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 providing multiple options,

  • Filling BRs 7.7 - 8.3 in the Japanese tech tree is complicated. There are few appropriate candidates, but we’re working on earlier versions of Type 74 - B and C - to add them in the upcoming updates.

Q. Both of the Leclercs currently in game historically did not have commanders' thermal sites, but later modifications (such as the XXI) did. Do you plan to introduce new variants of this tank or perhaps a modification to the existing variants that could upgrade the sites? For example the UAE upgrade packages that gave commanders thermals.

  • Other modifications of the Leclerc MBT will surely appear in the game.

Q. Is it possible for the BTR-90 and vehicles based on it to appear in the game?

  • Yes, quite, and we do not exclude that even in several versions.

Q. In the British MBT branch, Challengers 2 and 2F are uncompetitive in relation to new tops for other nations (as an example Leo 2A6, Swedish Leopards, new T-80BVM from the Soviets). Do you consider the Black Night technology demonstrator from BAE Systems with the Iron Fist APS, as well as the Rheinmetall Challenger 2 LEP with a new weapon, as possible new vehicles to update the top MBTs of this gaming nation?

  • We do. The first option is a little more favorable than the others. But yes, there are not so many options for new MBTs for Britain.

Q. Are any balancing of the SPAAG/SAM system planned? For example, an increase in their value in RP. Now they are very accessible and extremely effective; aviation has little chance of countering.

  • The efficiency of top-end helicopters is somewhat superior to that of top-end air defense systems, but both are somewhat more efficient than other ground vehicles. So the availability of air defense systems in the RP is a deliberate decision. We believe that at any stage of the battle, ground forces should have cover from air attacks, and an aircraft or helicopter should always take into account the risk of being under air defense fire, which limits its capabilities and requires a more skillful game. It should be borne in mind that an airborne salvo of a top-end helicopter, in theory, can destroy a significant part of the enemy team without any risk from tank fire, and aviation will receive more and more powerful and long-range weapons. So air defense systems should be on the battlefield in top battles always or almost always.

Naval Forces

Q. Several Naval Forces maps, such as the Jungle map for example, do not currently have any runway, aircraft carrier or area for repairing aircraft in battle. This means after expending your armaments in realistic battles, you cannot repair or re-arm your aircraft. Do you have any plans to introduce land bases for these maps or perhaps aerial repair/rearm points?

  • Yes, we’re on it already.

Q. Some of the larger open ocean naval maps suited to the larger blue-water fleet ships are not really suitable for Patrol boats and other Coastal class ships. Are there any plans to add areas of these maps with terrain more suitable for Coastal ships? Or perhaps an option in the map filter to exclude “Open Sea” maps?

  • There are no such plans. Since large maps with one large central capture zone are made specifically to be as open as possible, where you do not need to constantly go around rocks or islands and be distracted from firing. Small fleet, except for the more top boats, don’t match on these maps in terms of BR, while top boats may well contribute to the success of their team being on the capture point and implementing long-range torpedoes. It is quite difficult to hit a boat from the main battery of a cruiser or destroyer further than 5 km, so they can be present in the zone for quite a long time and increase the outflow of tickets from the enemy team.

Q. From Rank V and above in Ground Forces, Parts and FPE come at a reduced RP cost by comparison to their equal tier modules. Do you have any plans to introduce a similar system by which the Tool Kit and Fire Protection System in Naval Forces also have a reduced RP cost than equal tier modules?

  • Probably yes, though the so-called “stock syndrome” isn’t critical for naval vehicles. There are a few weapon stations on almost every ship or boat, and fire does not destroy naval vehicles as quickly as ground vehicles; most of the stock boats are destroyed by enemy fire.

Q. Is there any work in progress on Naval Enduring Confrontation, because existing short battles simply do not allow them to employ the full potential of their ships for their intended purpose? Also, could you run this mode for a slightly longer period than 3 days?

  • Yes, we’re working on it.


Q. Can you tell us anything more about the development of Helicopter PvE Enduring confrontation?

  • Few details can be announced now, but we’re working on it, in particular on adding new types of objects, like different SAM units.

Q. In RB and SB, helicopters such as the Ka-50, Ka-52 and Mi-28 spawning instantly at the start of the battle with very powerful unguided rocket weapons can have a considerable impact on the battle and take out many enemies right at the start. Do you have any plans to review the Spawn point cost of these helicopters with such weaponry?

  • Yes, there are such plans. We have already replaced the missile with a ‘not entirely correct’ high-explosive action S-13DF with a more correct high-explosive fragmentation S-13, but perhaps we will also edit the number of RP required for respawn on a helicopter with heavy unguided missiles, especially since there is also a national imbalance in the presence of such missiles only in one playable nation.

Q. Will there be rebalancing of helicopters at the top ranks? The Soviet Ka-s and Mi-28, together with the Tiger, have rather imbalanced weapons systems that make it possible to effectively deal with both ground and aircraft. The latter is completely knocked out of random battles due to very low efficiency: SAM SPG and armament of helicopters (Vikhr that effectively destroy both ground and aircraft, or PARS, which in automatic mode can destroy a large number of enemy vehicles in a short period of time, while helicopters can carry air-to-air missiles and have onboard calculators for air cannons).

  • According to statistics, the best helicopter at the moment is the British AH Mk.1, and the French Tiger HAD is in the top 4 with quite “ordinary” AGM-114. You need to understand that we are not inventing weapons systems out of nothing. If in reality there are options for improving a particular vehicle or aircraft, we can use it, or we can implement in the game certain limitations that exist in reality and have a noticeable effect on the combat effectiveness of the weapon system. If there are no such options, then only balance possibilities remain - an increase in BR or a change in the cost of an RP, however, for top-tier vehicles, they may not be effective


Q. Over the past year, the US Server seemed to have quite a few issues with it in terms of ping, lag and load times in general. Can you tell us a little bit about what you are doing to resolve this situation?

  • The number of game servers was increased, which reduced the load on separate servers and improved the situation.

Q. Regarding the Battle pass, so far we have seen a Tank as the top reward for the first 3 seasons, can you tell us if there are plans to have an Aircraft or Ship as the top prize in a future season? Will we ever see a Helicopter battle pass reward vehicle? Do you have any other plans to expand the battle pass rewards, such as unique/historical skins for existing vehicles?

  • We have plans for an aircraft as the main prize in the Battle Pass, but not in the upcoming seasons.

The War Thunder Team

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...




Q. Has there been any more work or news on a drop tank feature for aircraft? This would really help a lot of aircraft with limited fuel in battles and allow for more tactical choice and longer engagements.

  • Yes, for top ranked battles It's already under consideration. I think we will start to work on it next year.

Q. Previously you announced that you would remove non-historical and incomplete vehicles from the German Ground tree that were never fully completed and introduce replacements. Could you tell us if you have any long term plans to remove and replace the R2Y2 series of aircraft in the Japanese Aircraft tree? Both the Kawasaki T-1 (capable of mounting bombs and sidewinders) as well the Kawasaki P-2J (bombs and torpedoes) are in line with the positions that the R2Y2s already occupy. There is also the more advanced Kawasaki T-4 that can also supposedly carry bombs and gunpods. All of these would be more grounded replacement options than the 3 R2Y2s.

  • We can talk about their withdrawal from the game when there is a replacement ready for these aircraft. It’s all already in our plans.

Q. Could you clarify if it's possible we will see South African Aircraft in the British tree too now that they have ground forces within their tree? Currently there is only the Rhodesian Hunter as a premium aircraft.

  • The British aircraft research tree is already quite representative (five lines as opposed to four in ground vehicles tree before South Africa was introduced). South African aircraft may be added in another capacity - as a premium or event and squadron vehicles.

Q. Has there been any more developments regarding working on removing air-to-air missile spool up / shut off timers? With more and more modern jets these can sometimes adversely impact battle situations due to the reaction times of these timers. Perhaps a compromise situation where some elements of actual known characteristic spool ups / shut offs of each missile could be implemented rather than a singular timer like how it currently is?

  • While we are at the stage of gathering information on our collection of Air-To-Air missiles, you can't find such information for all missiles unfortunately. The mechanic change itself is simple - a change in the value in the missile configuration file. We think within 1-2 major updates the decision will be made and changes will be also made.

Q. Is the appearance of the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) in the game possible? In what form? A separate vehicle type or as a modification for ground vehicles?

  • It is possible. It is very early to say how this will be exactly, but one of the variants is how it was implemented on the last April fools event.

Q. In most of the missions in aircraft RB, destroying bases with bombing has no effect on the victory points of the enemy team. It means that bombing bases in such missions is completely pointless and bombers are more or less like ballast for the team. Do you plan to do something with that?.

  • What you are describing looks like a bug. Bases should affect mission points. If this happens in any of the missions please report it by using our special reporting system or leave a comment.

Q. Will there be an interface update in air battles for top ranked fighters (like it is already implemented for helicopters)?

  • Yes, we have such plans

Q. Will there be bombers with the ability to carry any winged missiles like the Tu-22 is doing?

  • For now there are no targets in the game for such aircraft and weaponry systems. Perhaps in the future when these targets will appear in the game such aircraft may be implemented.

Ground Forces

Q. The Swedish top tier Strv 122s have gone quite some time without receiving new shells, despite many new tanks and shells for other nations since their introduction and the penetration of their current shells now falls quite significantly behind most nations. Has there been any more consideration into giving these tanks new shells? In particular Slpprj m/95. Given Sweden is also lacking a 3rd Rank VII MBT, has there also been any consideration into an Strv 121 “late” or the Strv 121 “Barracuda'' that could be given m/95 as a good inbetween tank between the current Strv 121 and 122s.

  • The Swedish 122 has high efficiency statistics in addition to its own features - compared to all the Leopard 2s in the game it has the best armour protection. However we are considering the option of a new shell for the next modification of the Strv 122.

Q. Will we see the Double Feed system in vehicles that had it? Currently changing the belt to HE in the VCC 80/30 requires a full reload where in real life you have 2 separate cartridges and loading belts that allow you to select the next round.

  • Such a system is needed and is already in our plans.

Q. Will there be any camo netting customisation options in the future? Expansions to tank camouflage could prove a good feature to people to make use of.

  • Not planned as a researchable modification in upcoming updates.

Q. Do you plan more artillery / howitzer platforms for the game, particularly for those nations that don't have them yet? There are many iconic examples such as the M109, PzH 2000, AS90, FV433 Abbot, PLZ05 and AMX-30 AuF1 that could be considered. Also mortar gun carrier vehicles with capability to direct fire like 2S9 Nona-S would be very interesting.

  • Yes and one of them, G6 Rhino is planned in the nearest Major Update!

Q. Do you have plan to give light vehicles more capabilities, like set anti-tank mines, Goliath bombs (Sdk.fz series), deploy recon-drones (modern combat vehicles) and help teammates guidance for missiles?

  • Some of the mentioned above are possible, yes.

Q. China is currently lacking a long range anti-aircraft system for top tier. Are we considering some options to fill this gap? For example “Tor” System used by China could be a good addition.

  • Yes, we have this in our plans; a SAM for “long” (in the game terms) ranges for the Chinese tree.

Q. Are there any plans for a normal implementation and visualisation of modern tank sights and fire control systems in particular? Many modern vehicles (CV 90120 etc) have for example automatic target tracker which can capture air targets and get appropriate calculations for shooting and can display many indicators of gunner’s and commander’s screens, also providing some opportunities to adjust all this, we don't have something like this in the game.

  • There are such plans and even some developments.

Q. Are there any plans for a new visualisation of the blast wave impact to the tank from the close bomb explosion, like detonation of the ammo rack, with the turret torn off and only chassis remained, etc.? At the moment the tank hull just turns black and burns, no matter what happened to it (ammunition cell explosion or crew died from armour shrapnell).

  • There are such thoughts and plans, but require more detailed elaboration.

Q. Are there any plans to add the Object 287, Object 787 and similar vehicles?

  • We do not exclude this.

Naval Forces

Q. Will the efficiency of large calibre guns be increased in the game? Often for now, medium calibre guns are preferable to “big bang” because of their rapidity. Maybe some mechanics like “overpressure” will be added, but only for kinetics so there won’t be a situation where a 155 mm shell doesn't do any damage at all.

  • This is also true for reality, the rate of fire with sufficient ammunition power is a very important parameter of weaponry.

Q. Are there any plans to introduce Naval Enduring Confrontation which is the most adequate and realistic naval mode at the moment on a permanent basis?

  • Naval EC has its audience and it’s quite noticeable but it is still considerably inferior to regular random battles, so for now we plan to make EC available during weekends.


Q. It was mentioned that Chinese helicopters were within plans for the coming updates for some time now, is that still the case now? Are there any details you can share with us about what we can expect?

  • Yes, our plans to introduce the Chinese helicopter tech tree were somewhat optimistic and took more time but hopefully in the near future we will be able to introduce some Chinese helicopters.

Q. The Premium Apache has been removed from the US tech tree, so when will we finally see a premium Comanche? A legendary helicopter, even if it was never used in combat. When will the Mi-24 Super Hind be introduced?

  • In the future most likely :)


Q. Will multithreading be implemented? Currently 100% load of 1 thread when all the other are by 15-20% because of that wildly loses FPS and we get micro freezes.

  • Multithreading is already implemented in the game. But you have to understand that it doesn’t always make sense in the game and not always there is something to occupy a large number of cores.

Q. Are there plans for a complete update of the game interface? Now absolutely all UI, all the fonts, icons in the game are outdated. We would like to see the interface in the style of the snail store (Gaijin Store) which has been updated about a year ago and looks very neat and concise.

  • Yes, we have such plans

Q. Will trees and other bushes be subjected to more physical impact? At the moment the artillery strike doesn’t destroy trees. Some bushes can be destroyed by machine guns, some only by ground vehicle tracks. Some trees can not be destroyed even by nuclear strike. Can we expect some single universal formula? Clearing thickets by artillery would be for example very useful.

  • Trees will be damaged and destroyed by artillery fire and a nuclear strike destroys every object on the map. The universal formula - the bigger the tree, the more hits it can hold or that more powerful weapon you need to take it down.

Q. With "Wind of Change" Update, we received a new map Sun City, in which players could fight around terrain features like overpasses. In the future could we see more viaduct and tunnel terrain that could improve the stereoscopic feeling of the scene?

  • It is possible.



  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...


Dear players,

We have another round of questions and answers for you, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov!

Ground Forces

Q. Are there any plans for a subtree for the Italian ground forces line to bolster their lineups much in the same way South Africa and Finnish vehicles provided their respective trees?

  • Yes, we have such plans.

Q. With the recent rework of domestic crew voices for naval forces, is it possible we will see something similar for Ground Forces? Including the sub-tee nations of South Africa and Finland as well as separated crew voices for British ground vehicles that currently still use American crews.

  • Yes, we are already working on it.

Q. Some years ago, it was mentioned that more British light tanks were under consideration. Are there any plans for many of their most famous, such as the Saladin, Skorpion, FV721 Fox, FV432/30, Ferret and several Warrior variants that currently have not found their way to the game? Is there potential for a whole light tank based line? As there are domestic examples available to add from almost all ranks.

  • Yes, the vehicles are in planning.

Q. With the new directional damage indicators in Ground Forces, are there any plans or considerations for allowing an option to switch between the new / old effects, or turning them off for greater customization?

  • The work is in progress right now, and we probably will implement it in the first major update of 2023.

Q. When will the rank of a vehicle and, accordingly, its profitability be changed in accordance with the Battle Rating of a vehicle that has had its BR changed multiple times? For example, the E.B.R. (1954), which initially had a BR of 4.7 and rank III, but now after BR rise it is 6.3, and the rank is still III and, accordingly, the profitability, which is at the level of AMX-13-M24, which has a BR of 3.7, and the rank is actually II.

  • The SL multiplier does not reflect profitability. If a vehicle has a small SL multiplier, it means that it earns too much, and not that it has such profitability. For example, E.B.R. (1954) does 5,000 SL/min in battles, but should get 4,000 SL/min - so its SL multiplier is 0.8; and the AMX-13-M24 earns 2,000 SL/min, and should get 2,500 SL/min - and its multiplier will be 1.25. And despite the fact that the AMX-13-M24 will have a multiplier of 1.25 versus 0.8 for the E.B.R. (1954), AMX will receive 2,500 SL/min and E.B.R. 4,000 SL/min.



Q. Now that we have modern 4th Generation aircraft, is it planned to introduce ejection seats for the animations of higher rank aircraft when the aircraft is destroyed? Right now, all of these vehicles still use the standard pilot bailing out with a parachute (carried over from WW2 vehicles) rather than the more realistic ejection seat these aircraft would feature.

  • Yes, we have such plans and hope to introduce the feature this year.

Q. With more complex countermeasure systems that contained multiple differing types of countermeasures at once, such as the BOZ pod being introduced on Tornado, will we soon see a rework to the countermeasure system that allows the pod to carry and fire both flare and chaff of different types at the same time? Additionally, other aircraft like the Mirage 2000 and Harrier GR.7 have MAWS functionality in reality, which is currently available in game on helicopters, but not fixed wing aircraft. Will this also be introduced for aviation?

  • Since most countermeasure systems have the same caliber for both flares and chaff, and can be interchanged, we have implemented a system for choosing the required ratio of different types of countermeasures for the player to choose from. However, for systems such as BOZ, where the number of countermeasure types is very different and cannot be interchanged, such a system is not suitable and requires a complex solution. And systems such as MAWS are not universal - they use infrared sensors mainly to detect SAM launches, in contrast to ultraviolet sensors used, for example, in modern helicopters. The implementation of this system is in the plans, but it is too early to talk about the release dates now.

Q. Japan is one of the nations that lacks top-tier SAM and close support aircraft. Any plans to fill these gaps with domestic vehicles, or by adding any kind of a subtree, say, South Korean?

  • In fact, Japan doesn't possess modern ground strike jets, but this year we plan to add multi-purpose aviation, capable of dealing with ground targets.

Q. Do you plan to return the lead marker for aircraft which were able to calculate it in reality?

  • We are considering implementing instrumental lead indicators, first of all, as part of the cockpit HUD view, but probably in the third-person view as well.

Q. Any plans of transferring all BR 11.3+ aviation in the ARB mode to the EC-size maps of 128x128km+ ? Playing the 3rd-4th generation jets on the maps designed for piston-engined aircraft is not very interesting.

  • No, we don’t want to transfer the top-tiers completely on the biggest maps, but their quantity will be increased for sure. We are working on it right now and preparing to introduce some large missions for the top-tier aircraft.

Q. Do you plan a more functional environment for airfields, apart for AA guns? Destructible radars, jamming stations, drone control centers, ballistic and SAM missiles that, when destroyed, affect the enemy AA efficiency? Any plans for destructible runways, if there are more than one in the mission?

  • Probably yes.

Q. Do you plan to introduce anti-radar missiles for aircraft that have them? In 11.0+ mixed battles SAM SPAAGs dominate aircraft, anti-radar missiles might help.

  • Yes, we’re considering this type of missile. Unfortunately, there are lots of problems and actual data of their efficiency is controversial. Anyway, such missiles require a lot of effort in collecting data, and possibly specific simplification in their in game mechanics. For example, we know that none of the massively used ARM produced in the 1960s -1980s were not capable of properly detecting and effectively hitting the SAM SPAAG often used in War Thunder. Their targets were mainly such systems as S-75/S-300/Hawk/Patriot, with uncertain efficiency though. Nonetheless, we do consider ARM as a possible balancing media of close-support aircraft against missile SPAAGs.

Q. More physics for aircraft bombs? Such as weight to armor penetration ratio?

  • Yes, kinetic damage is planned for aircraft bombs.


Q. Is it under consideration to include the AGM-114L for helicopters that used it, given the advancement of weaponry added to the game since the introduction of the previous variants of Hellfire?

  • This missile is not considered at the moment, since it is capable of completely ignoring smoke screens, which is far off balance.


Q. Is there any news or developments you can tell us about the development of the French Coastal and Bluewater fleets?

  • Stay tuned for news.

Q. The previous update brought some variety of camo options for destroyers in all nations. Is it possible we will see customization for small Coastal Vessels and the return of many of the skins from back during the closed testing of Naval Forces?

  • Yes, such customization options both for ships and boats are planned for the upcoming updates.

Q. At the moment, naval gaming modes look “suspended”. On the one hand, we have AB/RB sessions, which are too arcade; on the other hand naval EC, with massive battles. dynamic tasks and progressive spawn, but with basic arcade mechanics which feel obsolete here. Where will naval battles go? Will it be more arcade, or realistic? Do you plan to introduce some kind of simulator battles based on the EC?

  • We plan to develop both modes. Simulator battles are not planned.

Q. Do you plan to introduce a circuit flight mode for scout planes in naval battles?

  • Yes, we plan to improve this mode and add it to the game in the upcoming updates.

Q. Do you plan to revisit the damage from fragments, which reportedly calculate only explosive weight of a shell? At the moment, the damage to the crew compartments of ships deal only with external explosion with no damage to the compartment from explosions inside.

  • We have just checked the damage mechanics of the fragments inside compartments - all works as intended, right as before. At the moment we see no reason to revisit the fragment damage to the crew compartments.


Q. Is there any consideration into splitting Battle Ratings for Aircraft and Ground battles? Many aircraft can perform strongly or poorly in one mode over the other (particularly attackers) but due to the influence of one or the other, some vehicles find themselves in tough spots based on their ground loadouts or capabilities. For those that prefer to use the aircraft in Air RB, is there any possibility of separate battle rating calculations for both modes?

  • This might sound weird, but every time we discuss this idea inside the team and see statistics, it turns out that aircraft which are expected to “perform strongly” with their BR split in fact are quite effective in their gaming modes. This was forcing us to cancel this option.
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

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...