This thread is for discussing rumors. Not baseless speculation and wishlisting of what you think will / want to see come. If you want to wishlist or discuss aircraft that are not rumoured, confirmed or on topic, use the proper places. You will not be warned again.
There is a whole forum outside of this topic. Please use it.
Allow me to answer this as I do and I know. F-111 is not coming now. So I would suggest you stop ignoring multiple warnings.
More a question for the marketing team im afraid.
The reasoning was explained in the dev blog: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6915-development-fleet-research-changes-and-the-first-battleships-en
As for other trees, there are no plans to split any more right at this moment.
The possibility is open for a nation of have one or both types of Naval tree now.
Because someone posts something, does not mean you are obligated to respond and restart a discussion over and over, especially when you have already been warned.
I think we are ready to change this to the "Suffering" Roundup topic. Because thats mostly what it is right now.
Most kills at top tier are not made with BVR missiles right now. They make up a much smaller % than kills with missiles like R-60, Magic and AIM-9J.
Indeed, it would be good if everyone could have everything. But the USSR is not in need of a new top fighter right now after the MiG-21Bis and thus a BVR capable will come later on when its ready and when its more required. As of right now, the MiG-21Bis is one of the best aircraft in game.
It also has nothing to do with being scared of giving BVR missiles to those nations. Moreso the platform that actually carries them is even better than the MiG-21Bis, so its not needed right now.
Thats the end of this discussion. If you want to talk about it more. Move it to the correct topic. It wont be warned again.
Luckily it does not effect my 2 jobs (WT and my other one), I am already with my family and I can still play the game and build models, so all is well for me thank you )))
Verbal warnings have been issued already to those offending. Should they continue, it will be more severe.
Considering 10.7 was only recently possible, not anytime immediately soon thats for sure.
Yes. Seems like there will Indeed be one now
Guys, I know its christmas and you all cant wait for Santa, but this thread is not a
Please use the correct topic(s) if you want to do that.
When they actually buy them, then it would be a more valid question to ask.
So then it would be a valid question in 2023. Much like the case with the Rheinmetall Challenger / Challenger 3, its not viable at all right now.
Couldn't really have an A-7 and no Greek skin ))
Designed partially and built mostly by Germany, hence the German tree.
We have made it clear several times. Nations without a tree have their vehicles distributed based on who they are closest too or what gap they fill.
For example Class 3P is developed and built by Germany mostly, so it goes in the German tree. Rooikats were more British, so they go British.
Canadian ADATSs would normally be on the fence and not really something we would generally add because of that, but British tankers wanted a new SPAAG and this was one of the top viable suggestions, plus America already has an ADATS system, so the UK was even more logical.
Popularity also has an effect. If people upvote it a lot, its more likely to get noticed.
The Skins are created and hosted on Live and come from there and the whole point is to give back to the creators as well as get some cool skins in game. Its a big part of what they are all about, not just popular aircraft in game.
We just had a patch last week, a Winter Marathon, sales and New Years events. Plenty of things to keep people busy until we get closer to the new patch next year.
Lets not get into wishlisting please.
Have a very Merry Christmas and happy holidays everyone
The book is an unsupported secondary source. The photo (Not photos, as apart from one of them, all the others are either Export or not PFMs at all) is a PFM with a different radar configuration to the version we have coming to the game. In the same way, the MiG-21Bis can have its radar systems removed and swapped out for one that can fire and guide Kh-66, but we dont have that. We have a version with the pure air-to-air radar and much in the same way, we have the PFM with the Kh-66 capable guidance system.
No there is not a bug report at all. There is a discussion topic. Thats
not
a bug report, so do not mislead people.
Bug reports go here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1957-weapons-and-ordnance/ and require you to provide the minimum level of information required. If you want to submit one, please source your photos properly clearly stating what aircraft it is and what its carrying (I don't mean just you claiming it, I mean a source that confirms the photograph) and we can forward it on to be reviewed properly.
To add, I've also not been ignoring anything. Perhaps you were not aware but its just been Christmas and most of us are on holidays. Please don't expect me or anyone else to be sitting in a discussion topic on a MiG-21PFM and treating it as a bug report when its not.
Or maybe dont go off topic at all and use the actual threads already in existence specifically for the things you are discussing?
People act as though this topic is the only place to discuss things and that no other forum / topics exist outside of this one so they have to discuss everything here, but its just not the case.
So no, please do not go off topic here "just because" there is nothing to talk about for now. We leave these threads open for datamines and for people to use common sense. If you want to Wishlist, go to a Wishlist topic. If you want to talk about random future additions go to the relevant national vehicle section and discuss it there.
A reminder, this is not a BR discussion.
If you want to discuss the recent changes, go here:
New Year smoke fix. Now works in all battles.
It was fixed before on WIP client simply waiting deployment to live. Baring in mind patches have to be scheduled and co-ordinated cross platform.
Plus some minor fixes can still take place. What I meant was. Don't expect major changes over the next week and a half at least.
Not anytime soon. The number of pages is pretty much irrelevant as people just keep wishlisting rather than use the proper topics
We haven't denied anything this rumor roundup yet really. But it's far too soon to talk about what's coming next.
But also given the MiG-21Bis was only just added, you shouldn't expect to see anything even better than any anytime super soon as it is already one of the top aircaft in the game.
We really don't want to have to start issuing forum warnings so early, but doing this again will result in one. Please do not previous warnings. We have been more than clear.
Because something has not been denied just yet (it's too early for that) does not mean you should discuss it here. There are no rumors or facts to base it on. So no, not discussion of it here is inside the rules when there are already topics open on the MIG-23.
There is also no reason to be wishlisting in this topic. So please do not.
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.
We have not said, announced or made any indication of a new EC range for now.
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.
Yes, everyone is just returning with the first significant update of the year today.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 than get bogged down running backwards and forwards on each of the hundreds of historical matters that come in for investigation all the time. To the average player, they are not the priority. Indeed some are much larger than others and those always are given as much priority as possible. But it's Pandora's box and is endless when it comes to what defines a historical issue and how subjective it is to source material.
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.
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 matters and what to help improve the situation by working with these machines both in forum reports and Dev server etc.
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.
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.
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.
Sweden had a Finnish plane before the full Swedish tree was even in game. It has never been "a pure Swedish TT"
It is.
Matra Magic is not all aspect. Currently no A2A infa red missiles have all aspect in game. Hence why AIM-9L and R-60M have not yet been introduced for aircraft.
I would not place bets on things I said not to expect yet.
I have no idea at all why we are talking about AIM-9X here but please take it to the pinned Sidewinder discussion topics if you want to carry on. This has nothing to do with this topic.
Not really relevant to the next major. New ones will be periodically added. I think enough have been distributed already to give some clues about the general timeframe in which they are deployed. Needless to say, they wont be frequent as most people dont have all of them.
Yes sure. Allow me to trigger our whole marketing team instantly by ruining the name )))
We are still too far off guys.
Your correct, I don't, but my responses and information come from the people that do. That's what I'm here to do.
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.
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 will be having one at some point in February most likely.
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 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
Fairly sizeable. Absolutely nobody has correctly guessed the main part what's coming so far )))
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.
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.
@MikeGoesBoomer Yo you see what you did here?
Fun fact, It was me that suggested the Chinese air tree in 2014 ))
I was a moderator at the time.
Inb4 the "MiG-23 confirmed!!". Remember that other swing wings exist. We didn't say it's that.
We never denied it, we just said don't expect to see the big bois like MiG-23, Tornado or F-14 right away ))
I am still waiting for the "mUH QnA", I'm sure someone will be upset )))
But thank you, we appreciate the feedback.
Still also didn't confirm it either ))
Normally every Q and A we have the "waste of time" comments. I was simply saying we appreciate the feedback regardless but it's nice to see people enjoy it this time.
Nope. Not the G8.
Britain had a new top rank jet every major patch last year. So I would perhaps lower your expectations for the time being.
As someone already mentioned:
1) We have not even started dev blogs yet
2) We have not confirmed or denied swing wings in general but also we are not going to discuss it further right now.
We dont exclude the possibility of tanks being redone. It was done for Tiger 1 for example and the STA turrets. But really none of the tanks are outdated in the same way the aircraft that were reworked are.
We just had the first generation Harriers added 2 patches ago. The Harrier 2s are not close.
Neither of these aircraft are coming soon. So lets stop with the off topic please.
This is not correct. All the Apaches were subject to Licencing and we have that now. It applies to every model.
We never announced or said the YAH-64 would come. But licencing has nothing to do with it not being here.
Practically useless in every gameplay sense.
As we said recently on a Q and A, we dont plan scouting for helicopters right now so something like this isn't only impractical but pretty much redundant at the moment.
As cool as it looks
Generally most scouting / recon aircraft had specific variants.
For example the Spitfire PR XI or XIX:
Or the dedicated photo recon variants of others like the F6D/K (P-51):
All of these aircraft were generally specialist variants with dedicated equipment installed, usually sacrificing guns, armour or something as the trade off.
We don't have any of these special variants in game with the exception of aircraft like the Spitfire FR XIV or Seafire FR 47 among a few others. Even then, IRL their purpose was not active scouting with live results, but long mis
We already answered this a couple of Q and As ago. Its not planned right now for helicopters. Command vehicles on the ground were not scouts, They commanded other tanks and relayed comms.
Again though, command vehicles were not scouts. You wouldn't find them at the front of a conflict scouting enemy's, rather at the back receiving responses from scouts or giving commanding orders.
Thats precisely why we dont have so many of them in game. Some even had armaments removed to compensate.
We do not speaketh the name of the cursed one ))
Thank god it never left a paper proposal.
I mean? Are you sure you want it?
Oh I know whats coming. I've just said 50,000 times already that its too soon to be confirming on denying anything. But people forget that about an hour after I say it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That is to simulate what in reality would happen with radio callouts and for gameplay purposes.
Its not exactly the same thing as a plane with a camera that needs to be taken back to base and the photos extracted, by the time which is done, wherever that tank was at the time the photo was taken, its likely travelled several hours by then.
Everything passed for consideration goes into a database, so they are all stored and listed together.
Nothing is deleted or forgotten unless its implemented. But similarly, not everything can be implemented, either due to lack of information, references, sources or legal or other external reasons.
If we asked people to submit everything to the standard of whats required to actually implement something, nobody would submit a suggestion.
It takes months worth of research and collecting sources, documents, books and museum trips generally to have enough.
Suggestions are set to the standard thats a solid starting point for consideration. But nowhere near whats actually needed to viably implement something.
Soon™
Guys, we said this year with the F-4F, not next patch.
Because its probably the number 1 swing wing people have spoken about. It wasn't about their induvial performance or capabilities.
Neither were armed. They were test aircraft.
Never flew and wasn't a swing wing. Its wings had to be set on the ground.
You are confusing long term overreaching questions that we have denied previously, only for plans to change with the short term things we deny here for the next update.
My notifications ;-;
We dont want to put a timeframe on them right now. When they are ready to start, they will.
When that is, is a suprise ))
We have (as a team) discussed this and whilst some hurdles and other factors do remain, where possible we will attempt to do this.
It might not be possible to give specifics on each and every one, but certainly with some we should be able too.
Unfortunately no. Not only because of the volume, but we simply dont have the capacity to do that for each and every single rejection. We often cannot release the sources without permission, so we would be here forever if we were trying to do that for every report closed. Some sources also cant be released.
Guys. You actually have something real to speculate over now.
Could we please stop going off topic into the realms of things not relivant here. This is wishlisting.
There is no F-14 in this pact and the Su-57 is not even close to where we are right now.
Your right, I could. But I wont. Because we have detailed blogs and proper news to do that and I'm not going to spoil things.
Also me not denying something does not translate into something being confirmed. As I've said, multiple times, it's still too soon to start doing that.
Exception being the F-14 as that's just a meme at this stage ))
There is a lot of news that could happen potentially any time from now over the next few weeks.
Afraid I can't be more spesific than that at this time.
The point was. It's not coming this patch, which is what this topic is about. So there is no reason whatsoever to discuss it here.
devtrackers.gg