We have another round of questions and answers for you, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov!
Question: Are there any plans for a subtree for the Italian ground forces line to bolster their lineups much in the same way South Africa and Finnish vehicles provided their respective trees?
Answer: Yes, we have such plans.
Question: With the recent rework of domestic crew voices for naval forces, is it possible we will see something similar for Ground Forces? Including the sub-tee nations of South Africa and Finland as well as separated crew voices for British ground vehicles that currently still use American crews.
Answer: Yes, we are already working on it.
Question: Some years ago, it was mentioned that more British light tanks were under consideration. Are there any plans for many of their most famous, such as the Saladin, Skorpion, FV721 Fox, FV432/30, Ferret and several Warrior variants that currently have not found their way to the game? Is there potential for a whole light tank based line? As there are domestic examples available to add from almost all ranks.
Answer: Yes, the vehicles are in planning.
Question: With the new directional damage indicators in Ground Forces, are there any plans or considerations for allowing an option to switch between the new / old effects, or turning them off for greater customization?
Answer: The work is in progress right now, and we probably will implement it in the first major update of 2023.
Question: When will the rank of a vehicle and, accordingly, its profitability be changed in accordance with the Battle Rating of a vehicle that has had its BR changed multiple times? For example, the E.B.R. (1954), which initially had a BR of 4.7 and rank III, but now after BR rise it is 6.3, and the rank is still III and, accordingly, the profitability, which is at the level of AMX-13-M24, which has a BR of 3.7, and the rank is actually II.
Answer: The SL multiplier does not reflect profitability. If a vehicle has a small SL multiplier, it means that it earns too much, and not that it has such profitability. For example, E.B.R. (1954) does 5,000 SL/min in battles, but should get 4,000 SL/min – so its SL multiplier is 0.8; and the AMX-13-M24 earns 2,000 SL/min, and should get 2,500 SL/min – and its multiplier will be 1.25. And despite the fact that the AMX-13-M24 will have a multiplier of 1.25 versus 0.8 for the E.B.R. (1954), AMX will receive 2,500 SL/min and E.B.R. 4,000 SL/min.
Question: Now that we have modern 4th Generation aircraft, is it planned to introduce ejection seats for the animations of higher rank aircraft when the aircraft is destroyed? Right now, all of these vehicles still use the standard pilot bailing out with a parachute (carried over from WW2 vehicles) rather than the more realistic ejection seat these aircraft would feature.
Answer: Yes, we have such plans and hope to introduce the feature this year.
Question: With more complex countermeasure systems that contained multiple differing types of countermeasures at once, such as the BOZ pod being introduced on Tornado, will we soon see a rework to the countermeasure system that allows the pod to carry and fire both flare and chaff of different types at the same time? Additionally, other aircraft like the Mirage 2000 and Harrier GR.7 have MAWS functionality in reality, which is currently available in game on helicopters, but not fixed wing aircraft. Will this also be introduced for aviation?
Answer: Since most countermeasure systems have the same caliber for both flares and chaff, and can be interchanged, we have implemented a system for choosing the required ratio of different types of countermeasures for the player to choose from. However, for systems such as BOZ, where the number of countermeasure types is very different and cannot be interchanged, such a system is not suitable and requires a complex solution. And systems such as MAWS are not universal – they use infrared sensors mainly to detect SAM launches, in contrast to ultraviolet sensors used, for example, in modern helicopters. The implementation of this system is in the plans, but it is too early to talk about the release dates now.
Question: Japan is one of the nations that lacks top-tier SAM and close support aircraft. Any plans to fill these gaps with domestic vehicles, or by adding any kind of a subtree, say, South Korean?
Answer: In fact, Japan doesn’t possess modern ground strike jets, but this year we plan to add multi-purpose aviation, capable of dealing with ground targets.
Question: Do you plan to return the lead marker for aircraft which were able to calculate it in reality?
Answer: We are considering implementing instrumental lead indicators, first of all, as part of the cockpit HUD view, but probably in the third-person view as well.
Question: Any plans of transferring all BR 11.3+ aviation in the ARB mode to the EC-size maps of 128x128km+ ? Playing the 3rd-4th generation jets on the maps designed for piston-engined aircraft is not very interesting.
Answer: No, we don’t want to transfer the top-tiers completely on the biggest maps, but their quantity will be increased for sure. We are working on it right now and preparing to introduce some large missions for the top-tier aircraft.
Question: Do you plan a more functional environment for airfields, apart for AA guns? Destructible radars, jamming stations, drone control centers, ballistic and SAM missiles that, when destroyed, affect the enemy AA efficiency? Any plans for destructible runways, if there are more than one in the mission?
Answer: Probably yes.
Question: Do you plan to introduce anti-radar missiles for aircraft that have them? In 11.0+ mixed battles SAM SPAAGs dominate aircraft, anti-radar missiles might help.
Answer: Yes, we’re considering this type of missile. Unfortunately, there are lots of problems and actual data of their efficiency is controversial. Anyway, such missiles require a lot of effort in collecting data, and possibly specific simplification in their in game mechanics. For example, we know that none of the massively used ARM produced in the 1960s -1980s were not capable of properly detecting and effectively hitting the SAM SPAAG often used in War Thunder. Their targets were mainly such systems as S-75/S-300/Hawk/Patriot, with uncertain efficiency though. Nonetheless, we do consider ARM as a possible balancing media of close-support aircraft against missile SPAAGs.
Question: More physics for aircraft bombs? Such as weight to armor penetration ratio?
Answer: Yes, kinetic damage is planned for aircraft bombs.
Question: Is there any news or developments you can tell us about the development of the French Coastal and Bluewater fleets?
Answer: Stay tuned for news.
Question: The previous update brought some variety of camo options for destroyers in all nations. Is it possible we will see customization for small Coastal Vessels and the return of many of the skins from back during the closed testing of Naval Forces?
Answer: Yes, such customization options both for ships and boats are planned for the upcoming updates.
Question: At the moment, naval gaming modes look “suspended”. On the one hand, we have AB/RB sessions, which are too arcade; on the other hand naval EC, with massive battles. dynamic tasks and progressive spawn, but with basic arcade mechanics which feel obsolete here. Where will naval battles go? Will it be more arcade, or realistic? Do you plan to introduce some kind of simulator battles based on the EC?
Answer: We plan to develop both modes. Simulator battles are not planned.
Question: Do you plan to introduce a circuit flight mode for scout planes in naval battles?
Answer: Yes, we plan to improve this mode and add it to the game in the upcoming updates.
Question: Do you plan to revisit the damage from fragments, which reportedly calculate only explosive weight of a shell? At the moment, the damage to the crew compartments of ships deal only with external explosion with no damage to the compartment from explosions inside.
Answer: We have just checked the damage mechanics of the fragments inside compartments – all works as intended, right as before. At the moment we see no reason to revisit the fragment damage to the crew compartments.
Question: Is it under consideration to include the AGM-114L for helicopters that used it, given the advancement of weaponry added to the game since the introduction of the previous variants of Hellfire?
Answer: This missile is not considered at the moment, since it is capable of completely ignoring smoke screens, which is far off balance.
Question: Is there any consideration into splitting Battle Ratings for Aircraft and Ground battles? Many aircraft can perform strongly or poorly in one mode over the other (particularly attackers) but due to the influence of one or the other, some vehicles find themselves in tough spots based on their ground loadouts or capabilities. For those that prefer to use the aircraft in Air RB, is there any possibility of separate battle rating calculations for both modes?
Answer: This might sound weird, but every time we discuss this idea inside the team and see statistics, it turns out that aircraft which are expected to “perform strongly” with their BR split in fact are quite effective in their gaming modes. This was forcing us to cancel this option.