Smin1080p

Sweden had a Finnish plane before the full Swedish tree was even in game. It has never been "a pure Swedish TT"

The game is actively enabling you to stop him by the overwhelming choice of helipads you have to choose from. Most maps have more than 5-8+ to choose from. Due to the very nature of EC, people will always eventually find spawn locations, which are protected by AAA. Add to this part of the EC objective is to advance into new zones and take the majority of the map, people are going to naturally stray across into an airbase.

Its the same situation of someone loitering near a base in Air RB or rushing a spawn point in Ground RB. There will always be those that do it and there is no way to reasonably stop every instance of it from happening without blocking off whole areas of the map for one team, which is counterproductive in many other ways and is not how the game functions.

Plus as I said, if someone is near one of your bases in Heli EC, do not spawn there. It is your choice to spawn there knowing someone is waiting....

This not griefing. Helicopter EC has multiple (over 8) separate bases you can choose to spawn in on. If someone is near your base, simply move to another one.

This is not against the rules at all. It simply means you are choosing to keep respawning at the same base, knowing someone is there.

T95 did not and still does not present the same balancing issue the Maus has. The two are hardly comparable other than the fact they are both super heavy vehicles. Maus is unique in the since its a super heavy tank that at a lower BR would be particularly overpowered against many tanks it faces, but also cant really compete well with higher rank tanks.

Vehicle collectability "rarity" has nothing to do with it. The point was, there should never be tons of Maus tanks running about as it presents a bigger problem. It should be with the IS-7, E-100 and others in lower numbers.

Hello

Warbonds are still earnable. Nothing is missing and they have not stopped being earned. All you need to do is simply complete daily logins, missions and tasks for the battle pass and you will unlock Warbonds just as before. Each Battle pass level requires 10 points to progress to the next.

Warbonds are available entirely for free without purchasing the Battle Pass at all. You can see all the levels you can earn them here: https://wiki.warthunder.com/Battle_Pass:_Season_I,_75th_Anniversary_of_the_Great_Victory

The Twitter post was entirely correct. Warbonds stay as they are. You earn them simply through the Battle Pass instead of the standard missions themselves.

2 Parts to this.

We did no remove the Maus for being a prototype. We removed it because its historically a unique and rare vehicle that should never be used en mass. Its much harder to balance due to how unique it is.

Panther II, Tiger II 105 and Flak 341 were removed because they were incomplete, paper or mockups.

We have never removed vehicles for being prototypes and the Class 3P is no exception to that.

Just to also add to this, not all Tanks have volumetric armour currently. Only the tanks listed in the Hot Tracks patch notes have been updated with volumetric tracks.

If it's "easy to do" it would have been done. The facts of the matter is It cannot be done, not because "it's hard". Nobody said it was that.

It can't be done because there simply is not currently enough vehicles to spread out over an even larger range and not enough people to support healthy matchmaking around the clock

It has nothing to do with repair costs, "soft balance" or anything like that. I explained very clearly earlier on why it can't be done. "Just move things around" solves nothing at all when there is not enough to move around in the first place and not enough people populating those brackets to support expanding them even more.

BR expansion will come over time when it's actually possible to do.

We cannot expand BRs when all the facts are telling us it's not possible and unsustainable. More vehicles added and progressively over time the numbers increase and stabilise which then allows us to make changes.

The claims of "do it then everyone will start playing top tier!" Are simply guesses without any factual bases, guaranteed outcome and when all the data suggests that expanding BRs too quickly without the foundations to solidify and sustain it actually does the game and matchmaker more harm.

It's very easy to say "just do it and take the risk!" When it's not your own personal risk to take.

It won't happen, because it cannot happen. The current top tier population and vehicle pool could not sustainably support a huge expansion to 12.0 BR. We never ever make such huge expansions because it's simply not possible. The expansions go from x.0, x.3, x.7 and then x.00 again.

It's all very well people claiming what's "ideal" for balance without understanding that's it's not actually possible for us to do.

12.0 BR is an entirely fantasy proposal at the moment I'm afraid. BRs are expanded when it's actually possible to do so. People misunderstand entirely that we are not purposefully "holding back" on purpose. We simply cannot expand BRs when there is not the clear evidence, population and vehicle pool to do so. You can't have whole absolute top BRs with nothing but 1-2 vehicles in total on them.

Whilst a good idea in principle, again, we simply cannot display all of our sources as a library / databank.

For one, some sources are private, purchased or not publicly available and our consultants went to various museum's / archives etc to track down and secondly because we cannot make all of that freely available for everyone else to simply use as they wish. Lots of people / companies would simply take it all for themselves if we made our entirely library public and thats generally why no game does that at all.

Whilst I cannot speak on behalf of our consultants who do that in this case, what I can say is if an error is made and a source is deemed to be poor, we will always correct it wherever possible.

What I can say is from our side (forum etc), we have been talking on new Tech mods and will continue to take more on who are keen on historical matte...

Again it comes back to time and resources. We simply so not have the people or capacity to be able to provide all the sources used each and every time a historical report is denied. We receive hundreds per day, many spam and many invalid. That alone is already a major challenge.

Some sources also cannot be shared either because they were purchased or come from private collections / museums. Coupled with the fact all the data and research our consultants and development teams have done is not simply going to be made into a publicly available wide resource, which is the only other way of showing everything which we have.

As for multiple reports. We already do merge and answer them all.

As far as I understand, the issue with Etendard CCIP is not as clear as you make out. Further investigation was required.

Often because it's just not that simple. Because a historical report is submitted with 2 sources that agree, there could already be 5 other sources in th Devs possession that debunk those. So then we have a stalemate that then requires one of our consultants to revisit the whole thing, potentially spend months hunting down in museums / archives etc to validate either source. We do not have an endless amount of developers or consultants with the spare time to instantly resolve potential / claimed historical issues.

Even then a historical issue can be quite literally anything. From a vehicle potentially missing 1mm of armour or 3kph of speed to literally a million other combinations of matters. Actual game bugs, crashes and issues will always take a priority in that sense. We have over 1700 vehicles in game and that number is only going to grow. In the grand scheme of things, you have to prioritize the bigger picture (game bugs and issues) rather tha...

It was not always just about asking. The game was always going to have to progress in some direction at some stage. Staying at the Korean war era forever would simply not have had the same interest. Afterburning supersonic jets and missiles were in internal testing for a significant time before the came. The limitation was getting them working in the game meta and the technical challenges they introduced.

There will always be someone disappointed with answers unfortunately. Asking the same question twice over wont change the answer.

Every single person has their own interpretation of what the "correct" answer for them personally is. But its not always the case in reality.

That was my approach too, certainly in trying to collect a wider range of questions so that every Q & A covered as broad of a scope as possible and everyone could walk away with at least one question relevant to them answered. But based on the feedback and comments we had underneath them, almost every time it was "this is useless", mostly because there are those that simply want to see the same topics talked about over and over again (BRs, Map size, top tier etc etc).

As you say, the developers are also very busy, so they dont want to be answering the same questions over and over on the time they do have free to do Q & As.

At some point yes.

Indeed its pretty much a case of we have already answered the big questions and when we try to expand Q & As to cover lesser answered topics and questions, the comments turn into "tHiS Q & A wAs UsElEsS" so if thats the case, its better to just not do them as often.

Yes, everyone is just returning with the first significant update of the year today.

Too soon at the moment to be talking about the next Season. When we have some news to share, we will let you guys know.

No need to get expectations up too early.

We have not said, announced or made any indication of a new EC range for now.