Smin1080p

I dont know if you noticed, but thats why the moderators hide it and why we warn people not to do it.

There is a wishlisting topic and pretty much a topic for everything else that was being discussed.

"Someone else was doing it" is not an excuse for you to do the same.

There is only so many times some questions can be asked and answered.

Most questions being asked have already been answered. People just expect the answer to change.

There is also no reason to be wishlisting in this topic. So please do not.

Current overall population, current matchmaking pool, current queue times, current daily average global over a 24 hour period numbers and current vehicle pool. These are just a few factors.

Its very wrong to assume because you can currently get quick matches in X vehicle, that an expansion to the BRs is possible.

Right now, you are seeing lots of PFMs because its a brand new event vehicle not even a full week into its infancy. All new event vehicles are "spammed out" in the first week or so and then it drops off.

BRs cannot be expanded based solely of a short term period of higher population, but is done over a long period where consistent numbers are shown.

Very easy to be willing to take a risk when it is not your risk to take and when all the evidence suggests its not viable.

Please read the opening post of the topic and title of this topic.

On the dev stream it still had R-60s and more, which was unhistorical. People also pointed it out (this topic) and requested a fully historical Soviet PFM.

The RAF and FAA are under the same national military and both British. They often passed aircraft backwards and forwards as well as often combined operation. The case with the Phantom FG.1 is also entirely different, because not only was the F-4K originally tested with a gun pod by Mcdonald Douglas (just not by the FAA because they didn't want it) but the FG.1 was the same aircraft just passed from FAA to RAF service and then fitted with gunpods. They are the exact same aircraft and just continued their service with another branch of the military.

Its not the same as an export model of MiG-21PFM that is a separate variant or modification entirely.

I have answered this many times already. The developers have been away for the moment on new years/Christmas holidays (Russian Christmas is Jan 7). Until they are back, there will not be a BR update. The situation will be reviewed when they r...

Just to conclude this, it is indeed a Czech export PFM. Not the Soviet one we have in game:

The suggestion itself is irrelevant. We are forwarding a ticket to a developer to fix an issue. He himself may not have that source to work with. As such, for efficiency and speed, the issue must have the relevant source attached. All that was needed is the source showing the rack correctly.

A Technical Moderator can help trace any report and tell you why whatever action took place. Nothing is ever discarded and topics can be restored if needed.

We also plan further changes to the system this year so the guidelines and structure is more clear and the submission requirements cannot be missed.

You are welcome to disagree with it, but it is a fact of War Thunder and over 50% of all vehicles in game were "never used in service" let alone a lot of their weaponry.

Its not a standard for being in game and never has been.

Dear Players!

With the start of a new year, its often good to reflect on the previous year. As you may remember, at the beginning of last year, we announced the Active Bug Reporter program, in which we can highlight and thank those users who have contributed towards improving the game, by submitting a number of high quality bug reports throughout the year 2020.

We are pleased to announce the first recipients of the Active Bug Reporter rewards program:

@Synthjaeger


@Iron_physik


@HK_Reporter



@relliK




@I_NAMELESS_I




@Stuhlfleisch




@UNIT_normal




@[email protected]




@Shirazz




@_David_Bowie_
...

It does matter indeed, and SRAAM was intended for GR.1 too. Thats why it has them also. They are not "fantasy" but a fully proposed and intended option, but one which we have many examples of such in game:

No valid bug report is a waste of time to anyone. All of your valid reports have gone though and have been of very high quality.

This report simply requires a source or base of where you got this from. Then its valid.

None of the moderators are upset. There is only concern that reports are being duplicated on both forums in the attempt that submitting them twice will get one submitted faster which is not the case when they both do not follow the guidelines on both sides.

If it was removed, then it did not follow the guidelines.

I will need to see the report to know why exactly.

Nobody has called your reports a waste of time or discarded them meaninglessly. You failed to follow the guidelines when submitting them and then rather than simply correct them, you went to the Russian forum and fired the same reports with no changes.

You were not spamming and that's not the issue here.

They are not being hidden because on the Russian forum, reports are simply left open and never actioned if they are not following the rules. We prefer to close them so the user knows they did not follow the rules and must resubmit them if it was wrong. If your post was hidden or rejected, it means you did not follow the guidelines.

No moderator is trying to "stop" your reports. Thats not how things work. Several Technical Moderators have tried to talk to you about the way you approach things, but you have ignored their advice.

Again, thats not this forum and I cant speak for that one.

I have not seen the source, I am going by what was said here in this topic and this topic is not a bug report and no source has been posted.

It needs to be submitted properly under the correct area and then can be investigated.

Im not going to comment on what reports are / are not accepted on the Russian forum, because thats not my domain.

Bug reports being fixed has no baring on what nation they come from. A Japanese tank bug is treated no differently to an American tank issue. What matters is sources and the correct evidence / material.

Please do not submit duplicate reports both on the .com and .ru forum. Not following the guidelines and what's required on one forum does not mean it will be accepted on the other. Bugs wont be accepted this way.

As I said previously, event vehicles need to be interesting and something people want to actually obtain. This version of the EBR is the most interesting and desirable for those people who are not just focused on the French tree.

If you believe you have proper documentation to back that claim up, please submit it via a historical report. Quoting a random source (particularly American) is not really viable here.

As for its wheels, the game does not make any distinguishment between 4 x 4 or 8 x 8 wheels due to how they are currently designed. So the ability to retract is wheels if implemented now would be a purely visual matter and not have any gameplay relevance.

Not really sure what you mean here?

If your referring to the EBR. It has multiple variants, Like the Puma and like the Sd.kfz.251 and many other vehicles.

It also proved to be the correct choice as it was a popular event vehicle, that lots of people went for.