- 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
Dear players,
We have another round of questions and answers for you, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov!
Aviation
Q. Around a year ago, you introduced “temporary” measures for aircraft matchmaking above 7.7 which made mixed battles and allies vs allies / axis vs axis more common. Now a lot of time has passed and there are more vehicles and players at those ranks, do you have plans to return to normal axis vs allies matchmaking?
First of all we would like to say that the concept “normal matchmaking with allied-axis” sounds rather strange in relation to aircraft BR above 7.7. Basically there are aircraft from times when the meaning of axis or allies didn’t apply for existing alliances. The question then becomes: for which alliance should we count Germany in such a setup? However some time ago (couple of months) we added to the top ranked aircraft battles (BR above 10.0) the possibility of creating matches not only “all against all” but also “nation preset against nation preset”, which means USSR + China + Germany against all others because at that time top ranked German aircraft were represented by aircraft from GDR. This option proved to be well balanced so we plan to add a similar option in addition to the current “random” also to the BR range between 7.7 and 10.0.
Q. The current aviation maps are increasingly too small for Mach 2 capable aircraft, when can we expect new larger air maps better suited to Rank VI jet gameplay?
The size of the locations themselves is ok, it is usually 64x64 km and some locations have a size of 128x128 km. In the missions the size of the battle zone and the distance between airfields can be really short for top ranked jets this is why we are reworking all aircraft missions at the moment so that the size of the battle zone better matches the flight characteristics of the aircraft. Some of the missions have already been redesigned and are in the production server (both Smolensk locations, Guadalcanal, Berlin).
Ground Forces
Q. The Stormer HMV is extremely inconsistent in terms of hitting a target and doing damage. Most of the time it appears to phase through or just miss entirely, making it very unreliable for anti-aircraft operation. Do you plan to do anything to improve this vehicle to make it more usable? In reality it should have automatic target tracking lock on much like Helicopters have for ATGM’s rather than having to manually lead targets. This sort of system could greatly help the missing targets issue if implemented. Or perhaps introduce a new top rank British SPAAG such as the Warrior ADATS prototype, Tracked Rapier or Canadian ADATS?
According to our statistics it isn’t as described. The efficiency of the Stormer HMV is comparable to the efficiency of 2S6 or ADATS at the 7th rank in RB it is in 3rd place among all SAM’s. So there is no great need to implement a new SAM right now. However this doesn’t mean that any of the proposed vehicles will not appear in the game in the future.
Q. Can you tell us why USSR ground forces have been without T-90 and later T-72 models for quite some time now? Is it due to technical limitations? The USA already has the M1A2 Abrams and Germany the Leopard 2A5 for example. Can we expect T-90 and other more advanced Soviet MBT’s to come soon?
One of the most perfect if not the most perfect serial soviet main battle tank, the T-80U is already implemented in the game. It isn’t significantly different from the M1A2 or Leo2A5 with its “build time”. The regular T-90 and even the T-90A are inferior in mobility to the T-80U and do not differ much from it in protection or firepower. What about plans to add it? Yes, we are already working on the T-72 and several modifications of it and one of them might have already been released in the last major update, but for objective reasons it wasn’t possible due to time deficit, so we plan to implement it in the next major update.
Q. It's been sometime since you last gave an update on the M60 turret and gunshield situation. Recently we have seen a lot of new volumetric amour schemes being implemented, can you tell us when we can expect the corrected M60 gunshield and turret with the values that were reported?
Yes, we are working on the task regarding converting the M60 gun mantlet armour to volumetric armour technology.
Q. Is it possible to implement the ability of air-to-air missiles to hit ground targets? For example, for Type 93, which lacks other types of munitions, or Sidam Mistral?
No. First, it is not realistic to launch an air-to-air missile from a ground carrier to ground target. Yes, we do know about test launches of the IR-guided air-to-air missiles on ground targets, but these vehicles will not benefit from this, since the missiles are too weak to destroy any ground vehicle, except unarmoured/lightly armoured ones. However, we plan to give these vehicles abilities, similar to light tanks (repair help, scouting, etc.) to make these vehicles useful even when there’s no threats from above.
Naval Forces
Q. The Admiral Graf Spee and the Prinz Eugen/Admiral Hipper class have remained a dominant power in Naval Forces since they were first introduced. Most nations still don't really have balanced counterparts to them which can make gameplay very one sided against them. Do you have any plans you can share with us to address this matter and prevent such a situation from occurring in future?
Their combat efficiency is no different from similar ships nevertheless. Most of the gaming nations have 8’’ guns, similar to the Hipper - sometimes slightly better, or slightly worse. Graf Spee is outstanding here, but its high calibre is compensated with a higher reload time. So we can’t agree with this observation.
Other
Q. Both Naval Forces and Ground Forces maps suffer common issues with people having direct line of sight into spawns from reasonably early on from even distant parts of the map. Do you have any general plans to better balance and improve maps by putting more physical / terrain barriers in front of spawns to stop people from simply abusing map design?
We have such plans. And each update we make changes on many maps including those that were designed to solve the problems described above.
Q. Do you have plans to review the HUD to give more info about hits and rewards? Maybe it is worth moving this data somewhere on another part of the screen?
We will consider this suggestion.
The War Thunder Team
Comments (293)
Can we please for the love of god get a gamemode for "TANKS ONLY", spawn camping is pretty much annoying as it is now, and it is the META of the current game, people are fed up and leaving the game early.This game started to go downhill the minute you introduced more trollish vehicles like the G91 R4 with no skill rockets that kill any tank from miles. Please give us a "tanks only mode", I don't like being spawn camped by planes.This Gaijin is not fun and maybe you should play the game sometime.
just completely avoided the issue it being the 3rd best dosent mean it is int broken there are many other reasons why it would be third while still being super broken, such as it being used AS AT which it does better that being an AA and all of the assists probably help that ranking go up a bit. "it works enough for it to be 3rd" is int good enoughcant do what it was intended to do in the 1st place and you are spitting on people who are trying to make it work hoping for it to be fixed
Japanese Heavy tanks when though?
NOTHING on the mess that is top tier Air BRs now.
when the game devs think the only thing that matters about ship design is gun size and nothing else
Question for the next Q&A: BR adjustments, SL repair costs adjustments, and even vehicles' functionality are driven by internal statistics. Like many other data-driven decision processes, it has sometime resulted in improbable and inadequate changes, that have greatly shocked the WT community. Do you plan on revising the method and type of data gathered to drive these changes? Also, do you plan on disclosing what sort of data is gathered?
Additionally, do you plan on adding a new "human check" validation process, to investigate data-driven decisions? Example: a vehicle is "performing well" according to internal statistics, so its BR is increased, or its SL repair cost is increased, or its functionality is not changed despite players reporting issues - a human check would try to find out why it is "performing well" according to internal statistics, then a final decision would be taken based on that investigation.
Naval is bad because don't have battleships.Where is Bismarck,Tirpitz,Yamato,Schnarhorst,Hood and others.Gaijin please take in consideration this,because many people want BATTLESHIPS in naval battles.
Agree it would get more players interested, but we would need bigger maps & longer game time for this. EC is the best current option for this.
Gunship, i want pt boats out of top tier. Ai's literally just charge all cap points while the cruisers fight. The domination matches depend solely on which ai is capping more points and in the better pt boat killing the other ai. 20 minute ques for 5 minute matches. And they wonder why naval is dead, and take a look at the mods, under 1k boats destroyed in total and no game time with destroyers and cruisers
When are you going to fix the wobbling aiming on the Strv 103? IRL it's aiming is smoth, nice and quick!
When shall you fix all S-tanks, all is broken when you shall aiming with them. In real world all S-tanks move soft and smoothly then they are aiming without wobbling. In game is it constantly wobbling from left to right and sometimes up and down.
Yikes. Someone's out of touch with their own game lol
Submit a complaint