- 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)
I dislike very much BR I have stop playing tanks over 3.7 BR cuz I cant compete with WW2 vs Post WW2 Tanks & Post WW2 ammo. It also hurts very much when you invite friends since new players are forced to play a BR 0 tank & if you join them you also are forced to do the same. Instead 2 features would fix this: - Horizontal Trees - Every newplayer starters with one vehicle from each BR so can enjoy and produce more content. - No Hvy Tanks on the start - Heavy tanks break the game in la...
I disagree, if we allow new players to have 1 vehicle of every tier then Tier V will be filled with new players getting their arse handed to them. You start at Tier 1 because that's where you learn how everything works. As you advance it becomes harder and harder as a game should until finally you hit Tier V where the seasoned players are
I have nothing against BR and I know that different purpose must be considered, but two medium tanks like T-34-85 and Sherman VC "Firefly" both at 5.0 just still doesn't make much sense to me. One significantly outperform the latter and they are both medium tanks. I liked the point about different goals for each team. That would be something!
When can we expect BRs recalculated for EC mode? Those used now are take from old mode that have little in common with EC when it comes to matchmaking
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. WRONG you mispelt Dokumentz
Good Explanation,ok Tanks by BR,understood BUT Create no more than "0.7" Difference @ Br 1.0 Difference Tanks blown-up too easily. then my other main Complaint,MAP Size/Base Locations. After 10000 tank games I see your still making SMALL maps,they need to be 10X Bigger,if your giving 1.0 BR Advantage forcing lower br,like me @ lvl 100 player into Forced Combat vs Seeking Flanking areas,other routes to objectives,which Smaller maps don't provide.Towns ok but 3 in same town,again too close!Thank U
For the BR part I want to say that BR is not the only way but the other way I will point out is no a Business model but a idealistic situation. Here it is As you said battles were not both balanced and weren't wanted to be (otherwise millions more will die since the war will last tens of years). So you can just design historical battles without balance but according to the historical battles and missions and let observe if the history changes or not. You really don't have to balance anything.
Continue: But since this is also a game and it needs money to be developed, you of course should think to attract people to the game and make them happy for them to buy. While this looks like it's the only way cause of the economical reasons, you can still apply my suggestion to only Sim EC battles where nearly all the community that play Sim mode will support this (or I think they will but am sure about half of the community will). It's all written in EC feedback thread :) Thank you again
Our proposal for historical matchmaking also makes use of Battle Ratings to achieve balance. It is ranks that are replaced by "date of service" and thus restrict the matchmaking to plausible historical encounter. So implementing Historical matchmaking the way we see it is not a big deal. I'll increase realism a lot.
So, instead of the Tier System, it would be divided up by each year WWII was fought? 1939-1945. I can see that for the WWII machinery, but what about the Post-War stuff? Would they get their own tab in the tech tree? Or maybe make a tab for each year with the machinery that corresponds with the year it was in service? Actually, come to think of it, that might make it too cluttered.
We proposed to regroup some years so for example their could be 12 ranks : pre-1938 ; 1938-39 ; 1940 ; 1941 ; 1942 ; 1943 ; 1944 ; 1945 ; 1946-48 ; 1949-52 ; 1953-58; post-1958
Not at all hypocritical are we Gaijin, did you all forgot the time where you artificially buffed Ho229 to make it more enjoyable to fly, or the time you decrease the engine settings of Griffons Spit because lots German player couldn't handle them. Or the other time you give P51D30 a higher engine settings........
dont know what happened but after patch my game wont start anymore.. the launcher loads fine but when i press play then all gaijin programs stop.. great
Lo que nos interesa a nosotros los jugadores es que equilibren las partidas, no es posible que en una partida de rango 6.7 (IS-2, T44, TIGER B H, etc) ingresen tanques de rango 7.3 como los t54 is3, is4 y los Britanicos que son mas blindados a comparacion con los alemanes y tanques rusos, esto provoca un desequilibrio en las partidas que a la mayoria incomoda porque es casi imposible lidiar con tanques de mayor rango, pido creo en nombre de la mayoria de tanquistas que corrijan ese punto,
Submit a complaint