- 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)
Awesome, can't wait for World War mode. Will it be multiplayer? Or a more realistic single player campaign?
Would be nice to have the WW mode, But they should make factories, trains, railway stations, radio stations to be ble to bomb making the bomber pilots more happy, and making the fighters BR a bit more balanced. Put the ground force area far from the bombers spawning point so the fighters will have enough time to protect them, then fight vs each other. The base AAA is already effective if someone want to rape the base so its not gon be an issue. I also waiting for the EC mode in RB for both arms.
RB player here. As someone who hates the BR system and stopped playing regularly after 1000+ hrs and a lot of money spent because of it, I wanted to say that everything you wrote here is logical and sensible. That isn't the problem. The problem was that the 262 fought Sabres for over a year even though the community complained. Spit Vc is still overtiered. N1K2 is still 6.3 and costs more than a jet to repair. It is sad that you let these small, easy to fix balance issues mar a great game.
Well high costs is sometimes is just for to increase money gain and I cannot blame them. We live in a money based world and they have to be full for to produce. But high repair costs (if aimed to increase income) is causing Gaijin to lose money since for instance if one is buying premium, after he cannot afford repair costs he will not buy SLs but just stop to pay for premium since it wont have any bonus save RP (which case you just unlock but cannot buy).
It has nothing to do with that, it has everything to do with complaints from the playerbase that are redirected/ignored by the developers after they fall back behind their wall of statistics. The N1K2 is apparently "too good" to move down from 6.3 even though comparable fighters to it are ranked as low as 4.7(the La-7 and Fw-190A, for example). Instead it goes up vs. jets and costs more to repair than those jets. Why? I don't know. It doesn't make sense at all, regardless of what stats say.
yus
World war mode?? Yus yes yeeees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I hope that normall RB will stay :P
so.....world war mode :)
It's all nice and cool, I understand, accept and respect every word you've written here. However, from players' point of view, many battles are simply unfair. Plain and simple. We have to face, one on one, opponents in vehicles which are way superior to the ones we are in. You can write a wall of text about why that happens and how it's justified, but in the end, it's simply unfair, and that's what leads to frustration and anger.
Life is unfair @slavoyew. The wars in WW2 wasn't fair at all. I understand that this is a game and some "balance" should be but it does not meant that it will be fair. I don't have much WW2 history knowledge but I can say that at every point of the war one all sides tried to get superior to the others so sometimes allies are superior and sometimes axis for a limited of time (since enemy is improving as well) in the manner of "balance". The thing to be done is to design Chronological EC events :)
Not exactly. These are tactical battles of 16 vs. 16 not operational or strategic in nature. In '40 German tanks were outnumbered and undergunned. Yet won handily. At Kursk the Russians launched a surprise air attack on the German's pre-battle. It got smashed by radar intercepts giving the Luftwaffe a week of air superiority. The point being that the outdated or outnumbered can, could and did win. WT just show's what happens when 2 approximately sized forces meet, which happened alot.
So how about removing blacking out from Arcade Battles now? Isn't Arcade Battles supposed to be unrealistic? What with the reloading in mid air and stuff? Not ripping your wings? C'mon.
I agree with this 100%. Blacking Out should be an RB and SB mechanic, not one for AB where you can reload in midair and are practically invulnerable to physics.
First of all, thank you very much for this long (it will continue and cannot wait) article. Explaining things on dev/tech side usually seemed to be irrelevant for the pc games since players are not coders but in WT players are sometimes tech/specialist/expert/consultant guys and sometimes they are just have to research and learn tech side for to enjoy (SBEC for instance). So this communication that you started is without price and I bet it will give both sides more vision and fun.
We all know that there is no russian Bias in this game, but I do think that the br compression is real, and that there is a slight to big problem with Jets.... Still this is a good read on how the MM works and I thank all for making this clear up my mind
Submit a complaint