[2020] Dev Questions & Answers Compilation

05.08.2020

Aviation

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.

Helicopters

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.

Naval

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.

Misc

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.

08.10.2020

Aviation

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.

Misc

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

05.02.2021

Aviation

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

20.04.2021

Aviation

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 com

13.07.2020

Aviation

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

26.05.2022

Aviation

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.

Helicopters

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

Misc

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.

07.02.2023

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.

Aviation

Planes

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 c*ckpit 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.

Helicopters

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.

Naval

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.

Misc

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.