Smin1080p

@MikeGoesBoomer Yo you see what you did here?

Next to none unfortunately. Back when we used to have BVV on the forum, he was in a slightly different position. Hes now one of the lead War Thunder producers and far more busy.

Not to mention, back in the days where we used to do those topics, the community as a whole was smaller and a thread was swamped with 10+ pages after about 1-2 days of being open.

It simply isnt practical or viable to do any more. Language barriers put aside.

Thats not the best example as we did exactly that with the Mirage III, not just here multiple times, but social media and Q and As too. It didn't stop the spam.

Fairly sizeable. Absolutely nobody has correctly guessed the main part what's coming so far )))

We do this via dev blogs. Its generally not possible to share plans more than +1 major in advance, because the contents often can and do change before release and also because previous history shows, whenever we do this, it also has a big downside that people use the "but you promised us this". Even last year when we loosely outlined our plans for 2020, there was a lot of people claiming we lied about Chinese Helicopters. It was also the same case back in 2014 when we published or proposed aviation trees. A lot of those aircraft changed, were not added and new ones not on the list were. Yet so

Thats exactly why we slowed them down. Because the comments were normally "waste of time" or "this was pointless".

There is only so many times we can answer the same questions on BRs, Maps and the 10 or so most commonly asked questions. The answers don't change and its a waste of developer time to keep asking them over and over.

Thus we take the opportunity to try to ask a larger range of questions from all over that don't normally see the light of day. They may not apply directly to you, but they are questions that apply to someone.

We will be having one at some point in February most likely.

When considering timelines, its very important particularly when sources are intended to align. Its better to show it in Soviet Service in that instance, rather than a museum piece under another livery and service.

But as I said though, its down to the consultants and it should be fine as a supporting secondary source as long as its history is confirmed.

If/when new vehicles are announced, it will be done via the dev blogs or dev server/streams. We cant release details on them right now

The French one used an entirely different form of countermeasure and as we said in a previous Q and A, they are planned to come in the future.

The aircraft model in game was never fitted with flare dispensers at any stage. The mounting points are there by error on both models, neither of which used them there.

Jaguar GR.1A and GR.3 was the only variants to use this type of flare location.

The models will be updated at some stage and these mounting points removed.

Again, we will forward it onto the consultants to decide. I would say a Ukrainian one (ex-soviet or not) is not the greatest example. But lets see what they say when its forwarded.

No need when people use it responsibly. It simply doesn't need to be a dumping ground everytime people cant use the correct place.

We are still too far off the patch to really be flat out denying things. As soon as it's closer and reasonable for us to do so, we will always try to be as clear as possible on what not to expect.

But if any of us has given a hint that it's unlikely, it means thats generally because it is, but naturally things could change at any moment until we get closer.

As a generally heads up to everyone though, that doesn't mean it's open season to literally discuss everything not yet denied here. That's still wishlisting and we have plenty of topics for that and those vehicles.

Your correct, I don't, but my responses and information come from the people that do. That's what I'm here to do.

Where possible, we always try to expand BRs when we can do so without causing the damage that can come by doing it when its an unsustainable change to support.

In order to expand BRs, there needs to be enough players at a given bracket that can also be supported with strong matchmaking around the clock (taking into account all timezones where the playerbase drops off slightly, like Australian timezones), enough of a vehicle pool to cover a -1 BR spread, a clearly consistent and matchmaking pool and several other key factors.

Right now we cannot move the Leopard 2A6 / S

Reloading rates have always been a joint central ground between documentation and balancing. We keep them as close as possible to actual combat, but as explained by BVV in the M1A2 article, the developers reserve reload rates as a soft balancing mechanic where necessary.