- For PC
- For MAC
- For Linux
- OS: Windows 7 SP1/8/10 (64 bit)
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.2 GHz
- Memory: 4GB
- Video Card: DirectX 10.1 level video card: AMD Radeon 77XX / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. The minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Windows 10/11 (64 bit)
- Processor: Intel Core i5 or Ryzen 5 3600 and better
- Memory: 16 GB and more
- Video Card: DirectX 11 level video card or higher and drivers: Nvidia GeForce 1060 and higher, Radeon RX 570 and higher
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i5, minimum 2.2GHz (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 6 GB
- Video Card: Intel Iris Pro 5200 (Mac), or analog from AMD/Nvidia for Mac. Minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i7 (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 8 GB
- Video Card: Radeon Vega II or higher with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Most modern 64bit Linux distributions
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.4 GHz
- Memory: 4 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 660 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months; the minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Ubuntu 20.04 64bit
- Processor: Intel Core i7
- Memory: 16 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 1060 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD (Radeon RX 570) with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
As all our players know, we never adjust fixed vehicle characteristics to improve balance. All vehicles in the game are made to be as close as possible to their real life characteristics, to the extent it is possible with the level of detail of our physics model and the documents that we have. |
This approach has several advantages for players, including the chance to use the game as special interactive library and the opportunity to check ‘whether a whale is stronger than an elephant’, an opportunity to compare vehicles in battle that never faced each other in real life combat.
If the players are justified in thinking that a particular vehicle was different in real life to the way that it is portrayed in the game, then the game will be changed to match, sooner or later (if the evidence they present is correct and reliable).
We are constantly working on ensuring that the performance and special features of all vehicles are well detailed both in terms of the setup of individual vehicles as well as the overall model.
Some of our recent additions include the introduction of advanced thermodynamics as well as improving the shell explosion model.
Naturally, some allowances do have to be made as long as the game stays a game, but we still try to bring everything that you can experience in a 5-30 minute battle into the game. The main allowances are related to the crew and to vehicle repair, which affects in-game tactics in certain ways, but does not change what will happen to your opponent straight after you fire or the way they move into firing position.
The balance of battles in the game is adjusted using the Battle Rating — a measure that affects who will oppose you in battle. |
There are many that believe that the developers consider vehicles with the same Battle Rating to have the same combat effectiveness, but it does not work that way at all. This rating only determines the possible opponents (this becomes obvious when you look at bombers and fighters). The basic premise of Battle Ratings is that they affect the tables of possible meetings in battle (see the related development blog).
Before Battle Ratings were introduced, aircraft were balanced according to their ranks. There was approximately the same number of ranks as there are battle ratings now and they were used in exactly the same way to determine possible opponents (but in those faraway times the fork was much wider, with +\-5 ranks). The availability of different game modes with different types of tasks and special features required different tables to be used for each mode (i.e. their own Battle Ratings).
Any changes to the width of the fork of the Battle Ratings that appear in battle and the Battle Ratings of the vehicles themselves are based on statistical data, analysis of player opinion and by considering which vehicles can meet in battle and the way it can affect the results of the battle (as opposed to thinking that because two vehicles are approximately equal, they should have the same BR—sometimes this is the case, but not every time).
We often hear that the balance should be adjusted in some other way, that it should be ‘historical’ or based on technical characteristics. There is no such thing as historical balance in any way, shape or form—there were few battles that were fought on equal terms as strategists always try to have the greatest advantage even before the battle. Another consideration is that the two sides of most battles would have different objectives—the mission of one side might be to occupy a staging area, while the other side could be trying to inflict the maximum possible losses on the enemy, or to delay them until the reserves arrive.
Vehicles were never created equal—most vehicle models were designed for a specific, non-ambiguous purpose. |
For example, fighter aircraft could be designed to fight bombers (in this case, with more powerful armament and greater speed), or to escort long range bombers (here they would have to be able to achieve long ranges and be able to operate effectively at the heights that bombers fly, while powerful armament is not as important). There are other typical tasks—anti-aircraft defence, patrolling, reconnaissance, assault, coastal defence and night missions. All of these applications affect the technical characteristics of the vehicles. Their historical effectiveness was affected by both their characteristics compared to other vehicles and the number and specialization of possible opponents.
Another significant factor that affected the popularity and effectiveness of vehicles was the ease of crew training, their predictability in the hands of the pilot and ease of servicing and repair. Any vehicles that had not been fully developed and were unreliable or overly complex were rarely the pilot’s favourites and it was rare for them to display their powerful sides.
Land vehicles tasks could be even more varied: assault vehicles could penetrate well reinforced enemy positions; anti-tank vehicles would destroy enemy tanks (preferably at a long range), reconnaissance, infantry support, anti-aircraft, etc. The majority of ground vehicle models were also designed to support or attack infantry.
In every situation, most vehicles could also be used against other vehicles—this flexibility is another positive aspect. However, every vehicle also had its main role and purpose. Quite often, the same vehicle model was re-purposed or modified to fulfil new objectives when they appeared as well as when it became obsolescent.
Sometimes, vehicles were made to be used under the conditions of numerical or air superiority, sometimes only for defence and sometimes only as part of units that required support from another type of vehicle and other specific uses.
Neither their years of service, the years they were designed and accepted for armament nor the battles in which various types of vehicles fought each other show that they were equal.
Balancing by using technical characteristics is a tool that can only be used for duels, where none of the other objectives and tasks that make War Thunder stand out among other games are considered. These unique features allow us to create and use different vehicle classes and unite ground and aerial vehicles in one battle. |
The use of tables instead of Battle Ratings provides a possibility of using more precise settings (at least, it allows for different tables to be used for different countries) but also makes them harder to understand and interpret. It then becomes impossible to identify who you will ‘meet’ at a glance, as tables of changes during upgrades would take up many times more text than what is used for all the changelogs at the moment.
This is why there is no reasonable alternative to our Battle Ratings and most players have acclimatised to the current system which leads us to discussing the road ahead.
To be continued...
Kirill Yudintsev
Creative Director of Gaijin Entertainment
Comments (126)
So basically, they are telling us balancing the game is a pain in the neck? Well, I don't blame you devs, you did a pretty good job if you ask me.
for the aviation part i totaly agree! i can handle all kind of planes with all kind of planes : ) but ground forces, well thats way to inbalanced in my oppinion currently. but iam sure, as soon as we get EC for ground forces, most issues will be solved with it. bigger maps, endless spawns, takes time untill you cant sit into better vehicles,... balancing ground forces is seriously hard if you wanna use realistic datas! We can see this at tier 5 aspecialy : )
well some Russian planes are undertiered a bit. Example we all know it the infamous Yak 3P. For a after WWII super prop it was built incase the Western allies didn't stop at Berlin but keep going. The plane at 4.7 is a bit crazy, however putting it at 5.0 should fix that as it can compete against Bf 109's and late Doras and fight the Griffions too. The Bf 109 had the same problem it used to be 5.0 and it can fight all then they lowered it (IDK why) and it out preforms most 4.7 planes tanks=dead.
When i read through these comments, im always astonished how IGNORANT people are. They have no evidence for their false disproven statements but they are still repeating them like parrots. P.S. Cant wait for World War mode! Finally a reason to join a squadroon. :)
I have observed most of these statements for over three years and are you calling them ignorant because of the lack of knowledge or are you meaning STUPID, which in turn you would be violating War Thunder Policy about not insulting other players, so which is it? They must have something to protest about if they keep repeating the same thing
I love this new series of informativ Dev blogs about the how and why. Hopefully that will ease the number of tinfoil hats.
It will be one more year to put that ideia in game, the snaill isnt very fast. They love make players wait for years.
It's sad it came to this, you having to address the whole community using world war click bait. As far as I can tell you are doing as well as can possibly be done, doing it not because it is easy but because it is hard (the JFK moon shot), far better than any other attempt in existence. I'm sure your ships will destroy WOWS as you have the balls to use realistic algorithms and physics rather than boring old reliable: "hit points".
We live in sad times if people fall asleep anything longer than a Facebook status! :-) But I think that we at least have something to look forward to.
@Fliegel you know it, personally i love text heavy stuff, but im in a minority 8)
Looking forward to hearing about World War mode! :D
i hope for big maps with many different strategic missions and fascinating buildings like factories, military bases and such.
Oh yeah, i cant wait to get infos about WW mode aswell!! And yes^2 i cant wait to finaly get bigger, serious tank maps : )
You guys are evil, how dare you to finish the post without talking about the world war mode, it makes many of us suffer...
Don't worry, you'll get info on that soon!
great click bait!
Damn that was pure click bait but looking forward on new info on this! So is World War mode basically going to just be historical missions? I really hope they make some kind of system like ex: The *name tank* can get in matches with *specific list of tanks* for it. I know in the post it specifically says historical won't be balanced, but perhaps a good balance could be player count? Maybe something like how ever many Tigers are on the Axis team the allies get +1 tank and the Germans get -1 tank?
I really wanna see matches that come out like the Fight of the Swallows event. Much more objective based and exciting. MAYBE there could be something similar to this in tanks. I think this is a great idea and please consider this Gaijin... There is already infantry modeled in the game. I see them on test flight on the runway and stuff. Perhaps one team would have to cover a INFANTRY ADVANCE with their tanks while the other team tries to stop them!!!
Or maybe even a defense gamemode where the map is slightly changed for this gamemode! The defending team would have 2 minutes to find a spot in the town or whatever you are defending. The attacking team would have multiple respawns and the defenders would get none. The map could be filled with many more trenches than in the original map, ai artillery, and ai infantry in the trenches to help defend the objective. And to make things better you could add TANK TRENCHES!!! This would be amazing
good job, I think you are moving in the right direction.
Balance is a female dog in any game, I always vouch for realism and true to the papers performance of vehicles but I find it difficult to achieve in War Thunder's game modes. For planes, in era 1-4, the meta is to climb, whereas in era 5 it's speed, but in both of those metas, most games require the elimination of one of the teams. But not in AB, where games are more objective driven and you get more than a single life. I slowly see a shift into EC, which may become the main game mode one day.
yo. o7
Hai. C:
Submit a complaint