Not planned currently.
Nothing off topic about an F-84F removal discussion. We haven't said anything other than its being replaced in the French tree.
What is off topic is when the discussion turns into a opinionized personal debate about how much someone likes/dislikes it being added in the first place, that it should have been a skin etc, followed by more off topic and moderation challenging by those who very much know by now what a post being hidden means, but decide to push the limits anyway.
Thats all been done when it was added for the French tree and can be continued in a French F-84F topic in the relevant area. This isn't the place and we don't need 3 pages of spam.
Indeed. As we have already said, if people wish to submit primary sources via a historical report we can forward it on for review. But right now, the current naming convention for it was confirmed by primary documentation provided by our Chinese consultant.
So another discussion about it here is not going to change that.
Not planned. Peace Rhine is not an offical name or variant. We don't plan to change the current naming which more accurately represents the variants present.
No part of any tree is ever a closed chapter, but we are not going to confirm any new vehicles outside of a dev blog or offical announcement
Dev Server reports are stored in the respective dev server sections. Once an update is released, only TMs can see them.
Questions are taken from everywhere and all platforms. Website comments, forum topics, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and WT live for life example.
Voting on what questions is not the best if ideas. We want the Q&As to cover a wide range of topics and areas. Not "wHen f-14/MiRAgE f.1/mIg-29???" Every few months.
Also considered, but again, just because something is the most upvoted, that's very easy to manipulate on the forums as many Communities with the same pov share topics on their discords and then spam either upvotes or confused emojis on whatever they agree/disagree with. So it's very easy to artificially influence. Naturally we CMs can see exactly who is reacting to what, not that we really need to as you can generally come to predict 9/10 whos doing it without even looking just by the content. That's why often the reactions / upvote system is pretty meaningless in a lot of ways.
Sure, we could then just not answer the most upvoted, but that's very easy to then get accused of "ignoring the community" when in fact we are not, we are just not making Q and As about popularity and who can direct the most people from their disco / Reddit / other platform that they share to upvote.
So we are in a bit of a catch 22, damned if we do, damned if we don't. In effect, we already do this by taking questions from existing topics, website articles etc. But a general "questions" topic is also under consideration depending on the format and understanding that not everything can be answered.
Kirill has actually done full video and live stream Q&As before. Unfortunately he's also very busy as WT is not our only project.
LastGreyAngel is also quite active on this forum in his relivant areas. So asking him a question in a topic is sometimes not a bad bet for an answer anyway as he does his best.
Map size is a very subjective matter. A common perception is that "the community want larger maps" when the reality of that is not quite the same. In fact we also added a very large desert ground forces map not too long ago with Red Skies.
I'm not quite sure what you mean regarding the implementation of MBTs as we already have them in game?
As for the map filter, we will pass such questions on as I don't think there has been an official response on that so far unless I missed or forgot something.
I'm not quite sure where the "the developer working on EC "...doesn't like ground forces that much..." Comes from, but that has no bearing on EC development. It's not about what certain developers personally enjoy.
EC Is a very resource intensive mode. Take naval EC for example. It puts a massive load on both server and local PC operations.
We also don't want to split the playerbase of existing modes as this can greatly impact the matchmaking and balance.
For any recent updates:
Plus there are other user made topics in General Discussion too discussing many topics.
1) buy a one way train ticket to Siberia
2) board said train
3) meet [REDACTED] when you reach [REDACTED]
5) you are now a mod
In all seriousness though, it depends what type of mod.
The process is usually:
Community Helper > Forum Mod (or any mod)
Active Bug Reporter / Open application > Tech Mod
Open application > Games Master
Im not sure how you got this from the 3 Wiesels in their 3 main and distinct variants we added (Not the total 20+ variants that exist of it). They were a very popular and much requested vehicle, like the Starfighter we also added in a series. Most people haven't even heard of the VAB, let alone adding multiple variants of it at once. But this is just off topic at this stage.
As I mentioned previously, its not the first time we have added multiple variants of a vehicle at once. Pretty much every vehicle added could hypothetically get variants, but does not mean its practical, realistic or should be done.
All variants and choices ultimately lie with the designers and developers.
This has nothing to do with this topic and can be taken to the aircraft section.
Being exported and the total number of variants is rather meaningless in the context of the game. We have vehicles that maybe had 1-2 prototypes being the most popular vehicles in game. it depends on the vehicle itself, the playerbase interest and general interest.
Seeing as we are a online military equipment game who's entire playerbase is pretty much online military equipment enthusiasts, im not really sure why the relevance of those who are not online military equipment enthusiasts and what vehicle is more popular to them and why it is being brought up here. As you said yourself, the Wiesel is the more popular vehicle to the core playerbase of the game
It seems yourself and Tantor felt the need to come here to defend a vehicle in a context that it very clearly was not even being discussed. Since the only context relevant here is the game and its playerbase.
Anyway as I said on the previous page, this VAB discussion was already off topic and unneeded. It could easily have been a PM or a separate topic. A public defence and/or last word on every French vs other nation vehicle is not required every time I answer someone else's question.
Plenty of examples even in the last year alone.
Multiple Harrier & Yak-38 Vairants: https://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/1214
T-72 Variants: https://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/1151
3 x B6N variants for Japan at once, multiple F-104 variants across several nations: https://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/1106
You seem to be mixing up several posts. Please actually check the context of the post I was responding too:
There are 20+ Wiesel variants, just like there are 10+ VAB variants. It does not mean we need 10, 20 or anything more than is actually required for the game.
To the overall playerbase of the game, the Wiesel is the more relevant and popular vehicle. Whats more popular in history, outside of the game, in other communities or anything else is totally irrelevant.
We are on a War Thunder forum, talking about War Thunder content. Not a random military history / vehicle discussion. Im unsure how that context could be mistaken for literally anything other than the context of War Thunder as all of our (Gaijins) factors and points are based off unless we explicitly say otherwise like in the historical sections of dev blogs.
Nobody made any mention of what was more popular IRL except yourself as thats a meaningless factor really and the only parts off topic was yourself coming here to revive and continue a discussion after it had already concluded and after I had already said:
There really was no need for any further posts other than I said, what could have easily been a PM or a separate topic, as you misread and misinterpreted several posts and felt the need to divert the topic once again, which you have already been previously warned about and are also well aware of by now at this stage.
Any further comments on the matter are not required. You can take it to PM or start a topic about the VAB in the French section if you want to discuss it with others. It has no place here.
Suggestion topics are not the only metric by which we judge or view popularity. The forum is a small % of the overall playerbase.
Even in this case, the Wiesel is more popular if we were to go by that alone, as you clearly point out with the 400 vs 200 upvotes.
But its a rather meaningless figure anyway, as previously discussed. Many smaller nation communities have their own discords and other external communities, from which topics, posts, suggestions and other mediums are frequently shared on Discords and other platforms, leading to a rush of upvotes and similar minded attention. Providing an image of artifical popularity in that context. When the actual number of players in game for that nation is in fact, far less. Larger nations span a much bigger % of the playerbase, many of which don't use the forum at all and thus dont see or view suggestion topics. The forum overall makes up less than a fraction of % of the overall player base, so the scaling logic also does not correspond.
When there is credible material to discuss something here, then naturally it can be. Right now there is none for the Mirage F.1 and there is also a dedicated topic already open where that aircraft can be discussed:
But you know that already.
Regardless, this is now far off topic and can be taken to a more relevant place.
Im not sure what this has to do at all with this topic in any way. These numbers and metrics you are quoting are pretty meaningless and precisely the reason why we don't use the forum suggestion system alone to judge things. Nor do we use Discord sizes to judge, so im not sure why you bring that up either. You are also basing this of no factual population data, no economic data and no statistical data, but purely your own opinion and perspective. Which you are free to have, but should have just been a PM and not a random off topic post.
A lot of false information and assumptions are made here and it has literally nothing to do with this topic at all. Please keep on track to the topic and hand.
Please do not ignore previous off topic warnings and continue to publish false and incorrect statements about stats, data, player metrics and staff members and twisting statements. Again, this should have been a PM and you will not be warned again.
You are also confusing repair costs / economy data with the actual monetary economical data of the game. Which are two separate things and the later of which is not "public knowledge" at all.
Its not correct. Whilst its true some consultants might work on multiple nations vehicles and overlap, share documentation and sources, the "Italian expert" is not the same as the "French expert" because there is not just 1 person involved. There are consultants and designers that have worked on both or several nations.
We have several French Staff members available to translate. But again, lets please not slip back into off topic.
Well we do actually know. That's why we give a hint in the right direction.
Just to clarify, you seem to be confusing Mods with CMs / Store team. Whilst its true Moderators don't know in advance (we would have to kill them), CMs and Store team do because its part of our job to prepare news, take feedback, suggestions etc and also answer questions when the time comes around for dev servers etc.
I wouldn't have said:
If we were going to start bowling dev blogs at you like it was the MLD Baseball season today or super soon. It is true that we expect another major before the end of the year, but that doesn't mean dev blogs are starting this week. Which is what was being answered.
Nobody said this. All we said was the Jaguar was not going to get 4 x Sidewinders until proven it can actually have and use them on both the overwing and underwing at the same time.
Here is the post:
No other British Jets are "missing" SRAAM. The only 2 jets to test SRAAMs were the Harrier T.52 and the Hunter F.6. The Harrier T.52 tested them on the basis to prove the viability for the Harrier GR.1 and beyond the Hunter F.6 and Harrier T.52, the Harrier GR.1 and Jaguar International were the only 2 jets that were directly promoted with them as an intended possible armament. The GR.1 case was even stronger as there is Hawkers own material supporting the connection:
If you have information otherwise then please feel free to submit it for consideration, but as we have said, something being possible is not also a 100% guarantee it will come. Ultimately the developers have the final call on all weaponry. So the statement your quoting here is not a greenlight for everything possible being a auto implement.
Whilst this does indeed advertise, beyond that, we have no information of the technical capability of these aircraft to mount or use the system. We know for sure the Harrier and Hunter could. Beyond that, its highly questionable until new information can be found if it exists.
The whole reason why the GR.1 was given SRAAM in the first place, as without it, it would find itself in heavy missile territory due to its flight performance but have none for itself to actually be meaningful in game. The SRAAM was the only missile tied directly to the GR.1 as there was nothing on the AIM-9B or G for the GR.1. T.52 in effect would be a worse performing GR.1 flight performance wise, so it would have found itself in an even more awkward situation.
So you asked, but you knew?
We are not going to provide a timeframe for something thats not even close to happening in the next major update or in general. Plans can change and we generally do not speak about any plans, no matter what it is, more than 1 major in advance. So what your asking for is not possible to give any form of direct answer on. Right now, we are focused on Israeli aviation.
In general helicopters are not suited to direct PvP in many cases unlike aircraft, ships and tanks. Inherently they are supporting units. Some have far greater offensive capabilities than others. Helicopter EC has also not been ignored. A lot of suggestions and ideas were explored, but most of them would have larger negative consequences on the mode than benefits. Player numbers don't allow for any further breakdown in matchmaking such as BR splits, so a lot of the ideas put forward simply were not viable to implement. A lot of feedback for example on the maps and gameplay was worked on and direct towards the implementation of the City map, which generally tends to be the most suited to PvP and the most well received. But in general. PvE will solve a lot of the issues and concerns raised in feedback.
An artificial short / small "bump" to the stats is not a good way to balance things, as its not the normal or natural day to day flow of things. The game is balanced across the whole player base as it stands on a periodically reviewed basis. Making events around specific individual vehicles and then basing BRs based solely on that is not a good data sample.
Some nations don't have as many variants when it comes to MBTs, so in order to have viable lineups much like how we introduced the Type 90B for Japan, some nations too will also see similar introductions.
The choice is there for those that want to have an additional tank for their lineup.
Britain has very few variants and modifications of Challenger left that are actually possible right now. TES is the next possible step and beyond that, we will explore in the future perhaps. If everything is introduced all at once, then there is nothing left as an option for the future.
We also currently don't consider the "Challenger 3" as viable to introduce in any way right now, as no material at all in any form exists on it beyond basic PR. So it leaves very few choices.
No, I was referring to the extra protection blocs that were being mentioned in the post I responded. The photo you posted is not Megatron at all.
Im not sure what you are trying to refer to here, but it seems you misunderstood my post.
The name refers to what the tank is, which is Challenger 2 in its TES configuration standard. But that may change as, after all, it is still in development.
This is not something a report is for.
Its not missing, it is intentional.
These are not "Promised" tanks, but initial planned trees. These are the vehicles we envisaged to introduce in a preliminary manor and are not set in stone. Plans can change and these are not 100% confirmed.
This is also the reason why we do not do roadmaps, as BVV explained in the Q and A today.
Yeah nope. We dont make a second blog on a day just because we get the "OmG a bOaT / lOw TiER / ToP tIEr" comments. If we did that, we would be making 10 blogs a day as the people who believe their opinion reflects the whole of the community will always post such comments whenever a particular blog does not apply to them.
The only thing that dictates what blogs are posted is our own development schedule.
The amour package for the Leclerc's and any additional shells is one of the few upgrades left to the existing variants possible outside of full other variants. Whilst they are still performing very high in game (Both still at 11.0 and both on the upper end of that still in efficiency) then those options are less likely to materialize where other nations armour packages were more necessary for balance already.
Any increase in survivability at top tier can also be a considerable bonus particularly when many tanks have common weak spots or similar disadvantages. As previously explained, its one of the few remaining options for the Leclerc's, and currently is not something in consideration right now for the coming update. The XXI alone is still an upgrade as it stands
Let me assure you its not the first time at all, from someone who sees it on a daily basis
BVV goes into great detail about the pros / cons in todays Q and A. You can refer there.
We are implementing it in the same way we have implemented practically any other tank. Not all vehicles come to the game immediately with full upgrade packages and all of their full shells.
This is nothing exclusive to one nation or any one tank and not new at all.
Where has that been said?
All that was said is that not everything is 100% certain and should not be treated as promised. We just had a new ZTZ not too long ago.
It's fairly big, but as some things are still being finalized, it's too soon to talk about the overall size.