Talk:War Thunder

Reviews
This page is missing reviews. Just saying.--Casvdschee (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There were reviews, but they were totally removed on 29 September 2015 by someone whose only contribution was the removal of that section along with some other miscellaneous edits done on the article:


 * "these additions have been added to the game as a personal opinion, the originator obviously has an axe to grind and frankly I'm surprised that your nuetrality stance allowed this to go through the wjole section needs to be deleted, let's stick to what the game is please guys, dont turn wiki into a review engine"


 * First of all, it was not originally intended to be an opinion. It accumulated to be one (with a bunch of unreferenced sources) but instead of pulling each one out from the root, everything was just deleted altogether, which is far harsher than keeping a stub. Second, the fact that the remover states "the originator obviously has an axe to [grind]" discounts the remover's own neutrality since he is putting his opinion that the game is being reviewed too negatively before the actual facts and referenced material showing both sides. Third, he says "your" which means perhaps he doesn't really understand that Wikipedia is not a person, and his continued misunderstanding is then confirmed when (fourth) he believes that adding a "reception" section somehow turns Wikipedia into a review engine, whereas the reception section is intended to be a paragraph summary of key points made by game critics both launch and throughout the game's lifespan. --Longbyte1 (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

We lack info for versions 1.25 and 1.27.
As the tittle says, we lack info for versions 1.25 and 1.27. Please add info to the timeline section to make it complete. 76.0.99.169 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can. I'll have to dig through some of the development logs to find the various patch notes and updates.151.190.40.1 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Physics for Simulator Battles and Realistic Battles
The majority of the community that plays Simulator Battles claims that the physics are identical to the ones in Realistic Battles and I myself play both modes and agree, however there is lacking creditable evidence that they are indeed identical, and more so that they are actually different (as stated before). The problem is that the development team is somewhat secretive and the ones that deal with the community do not actually know about the game engine itself. For now I have included a forum post as an example however I am sure it is to be removed, but I rather have no information regarding this than providing information that actually seems wrong with no evidence as opposed to speculations. ZdrytchX (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a Mod for the game, and while I can't go into major specifics behind the physics engine, I can say that the physics are similar between the Realistic and Simulator modes; however they aren't identical. There are some factors figured into the Simulator side of things that are not considered in the Realistic.  Factors such as engine torque. Kitsunedawn (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I still have to counter torque, I play RB with joystick with "full real controls" settings because mouse aim controls have problems on my computer due to the fact I play War Thunder with less than 10 frames per second at times and the other joystick modes aren't worth it since the twitchy bounce effect from sudden movements is still there on simplified and realistic settings (and auto-trim is bugged on those modes too). I still suffer the same physics challenges and seem identicle so I'm not sure what you're on about with engine torque since they seem the same to me. And that includes bugs like the F7F's resultant torque being clockwise though should be anticlockwise (viewed from cockpit looking forward) along with a whole bunch of other physics-related bugs. Don't bother asking me to report bugs since I absolutely dislike the attitude that the War Thunder moderation system has when it comes to bureaucracy and managing the community.ZdrytchX (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mac OSX
The support for Mac OSX is negligible, the game is not cross platform — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipjegasman (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that Mac can't play with windows? The game is actually cross platform though, I for sure know that PS4 can play with PC, PS4 players are shown with an * in front of their name on PC. Redalert2fan (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not An MMO
Wikipedia defines an MMO as having hundreds to thousands of players in a single instance. War Thunder typically has up to 32. It isn't an MMO. Vaxine19 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just read that it is an MMO. Danny231 (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, no matter what developers prefer to call it - it is not an "MMO" because it lacks the "Massively" part. I mean, we don't call games like Battlefield an "MMO" just because it has more than one player, right? So why is WarThunder an "MMO"? It is an online vehicular combat game, nothing else.107.77.161.11 (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the words 'free-to-play' banned on Wikipedia?
I'm just asking, because this article doesn't use them. Is this because actually discussing such matters, and adequately covering the subsequent commentary concerning the paid-for-to-avoid-grind reality of 'free-to-play', is beyond the capabilities of Wikipedia video games article contributors? This article reads as little more than regurgitated publisher fluff, and fails entirely to explain how the content is paid for. I'd have thought that such essentials were among the first thing an article on a game would discuss, and that vague, repetitive and confusing descriptions of differing gameplay modes could be condensed down to a couple of sentences. And that the 'reception' section could be expanded beyond the couple of sentences in the current article. I refuse to believe that a product which has won the awards described at the bottom of the article (assuming it actually has, some are unsourced) did so without attracting comment. If people want to read uncritical and uninformative publisher hype (which, I note, is likewise unsourced, though it seems obvious where it is coming from), they can go to the publisher's website. That isn't the purpose of an encyclopaedia. 86.133.149.209 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It's just a shitty article in case if you really missed all the improvement tags. It's because also Wikipedia editors don't care about the most popular games in the world (this one rated only "Mid-importance on the project's importance scale" which is typical in such case) and instead write about stuff like Development of Fez that normal people just don't care about. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Android Nvidia Shield not anymore supported
They quit support for it like two years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.254.120 (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Faction introduced: China (Sept 2019) Controversy
This patch introduced quite a bit of perhaps unavoidable controversy with it, namely the |removal of Taiwanese flags from the game. This wasn't the first time that Gaijin was forced to remove content that may offend the CCP with the suspension of the |"pilot diaries" blog and the removal of the manchukuo Ki-27 skin. In addition, a reddit user has mentioned that |tencent which once had monopoly rights in China to their private version of WT had their license recently expired, but I have not verified this information yet. I won't add this controversy to the article because I don't really know what wikipedia's official stance on politics in videogames. ZdrytchX (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Steam user review score
I think the Steam user review score should be included in the Reviews section of the article.Attack the D point (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless covered by proper reliable sources, user reviews are not appropriate for mention because they're what's called self-published sources, so random forum postings, user reviews, etc would generally fall under that umbrella. Eik Corell (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

New plane idea
I was wondering if you could put the top gun maverick f 18 in the game that would be super cool 😎. 2600:8807:8496:7E00:DEE:9725:E2C4:3AA7 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ask, and you shall receive. Added it now. Also added su57 leak and mig29 leak. Ale rc310 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * i just realized i replied to the wrong comment Ale rc310 (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Add J-8 leak
Leaks for the J-8 have occured, but so far I can't find a reliable source yet since it seems that the usual news orgs have not covered this leak yet for unknown reasons. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * i have added it with the original (archived) forum post as the source. I also added the su57 and mig29 leaks Ale rc310 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Forums are not reliable sources and since it provides no commentary I think including the J-8 leaks count as original research. I would err on the side of caution and remove them. Secondly, this list is becoming borderline cruft, as it's not actually relevant to the game of War Thunder. Limiting entries to the most abundantly clear leaks with reliable sources will avoid cruft and keep the list compelling.  HarryKernow  (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think that at this point in time there is enough substance to split the list into its own article? RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is coverage for incidents in reliable third sources I don't really see an issue. I think at this point there are too few incidences, so would keep them here... but you know War Thunder forum users, just give it a year.  HarryKernow  (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering the linked (forum post) source is literally the event it references, i don't know how else it should be cited. @HarryKernow Ale rc310 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: split the leaks section into a standalone list
This section has relatively decent third party citations and is relevant to War Thunder, but is getting rather large and cumbersome for the main article. I propose it is split into its own list article to be named List of War Thunder classified document leaks (or something to that effect).  HarryKernow  (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think if there are enough sources then it should be fine. Especially considering that the classified leaks have had some other interesting effects like one of the defense companies publicly saying that they do not check if people are players of War Thunder. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. Ylee (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose A lot of the sourcing seems like WP:OR or of questionable reliability. It should most likely just be changed from a list into a paragraph or two of prose stating the most prominent leaks, which would be perfectly fine for the purposes of the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree 100% with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. A bunch of the sources don't have anything new to say and more importantly they're conflating 'sensitive', 'restricted', 'classified', etc. Also, it doesn't seem to be clear to some people that it's ordinary for people on the forum to share (non-classified) military documents when they are arguing or making suggestions to staff. They're only providing reliable citations. So it's dumb to word it like "The leaker revealed the information" or whatever. Nicerink (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

War thunder mobile
so at May 4th 2023 on 6am war thunder mobile launch open beta so should we add it or different topics? Wibu in 1945 (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 player action
Should we add a section to do with the following:

Players of the game are complaining about the game’s economy. This is because Gaijin tried nerfing it, before reverting the changes after intense backlash. This then lead to players wanting a complete fix to the game’s economy. Currently, there is no consensus on what these fixes should be and how they should work. 49.186.54.79 (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a section - War Thunder ScruffyFox (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So should we add the planned player action, that will start on the 26th of May? lv_oz2 (User page) (Talk page) 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if other websites mention it. Currently, I can't find any, so in my opinion, we shouldn't add it. ARandomName123 (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does this link work as a source: https://steamcommunity.com/app/236390/discussions/0/3824163953456551723/ lv_oz2 (User page) (Talk page) 21:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s also an article mentioning it: https://mp1st.com/news/war-thunder-community-lashes-out-at-devs-after-economy-changes-calls-for-in-game-strike-on-may-26 lv_oz2 (User page) (Talk page) 22:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is fine, but I wouldn't use the steam post. If you are going to add it, take care to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. ARandomName123 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Found another one: War Thunder fans organise extraordinary review bombing campaign over reverted economy changes, studio pleads: 'If your goal is not to hurt the game, please use other, less destructive ways' | PC Gamer ARandomName123 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023
As of 24/5/2023, the negative review count mentioned in the Review bombing section has gone from 65,000 to 102,064 negative reviews. Furthermore, steam has added an "off-topic" filter, which hides most of the negative reviews (so it displays as 19,768 negative reviews). ArgoreOfficial (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AnnaMankad (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Move review bombing to "Reception"
doesnt fit too well in History Sealboyer (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

New document leaks as of Aug. 30, 2023
My account is new so I'm unable to edit the page, but the manuals for the Eurofighter Typhoon DA7 leaked recently on the War Thunder forums two days ago (August 28, 2023).


 * Forum post
 * Forum post (link to moderator comment)
 * TheGamer article
 * Esports.gg article

Proposed Description:

A user of the game's forums proposed the addition of the Eurofighter Typhoon DA7 aircraft to the game, posting public details about the plane and linking citations and web pages discussing it on July 21, 2023. On August 28, 2023, a different user replied to the thread with a Google Drive link to a "730-page manual for the DA7 that contains EVERYTHING on all the systems, weaponry, flight data, etc." The user stated that they "hope this data will help the devs to add this magnificent jet faster and make it as accurate as possible!" and that they "Can't wait to fly it in the game!" The forum reply was hidden by a moderator shortly after. The document, while somewhat public, was under foreign export restrictions, violating Gaiijin Entertainment's policy on restricted documents.

Of note, I do not play War Thunder, nor am I knowledgeable about its community, I just like contributing to Wikipedia. Also, my citations are a bit "unpolished" so they may need improvement. Addiment (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Request to move the leak list into its own page
With the last leak concerning the F-117 flight manual being added, we are well over a dozen military document leaks being reported. Shouldn't this list be made into its own page, to go into greater details and avoiding clutter? With a quick summary being kept on the main page and linking to such new page (I should mention this is my first time using the talk page on english wikipedia, apologies if I did something incorrectly) Evo1726 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There's already been a discussion about this a few sections up, and the main concern was that the sources aren't reliable. This is still the case (imo), especially with the F-117 section, which currently links to the removed forum post, instead of secondary coverage.
 * I've added a split template to the relevant section, if you don't mind. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is suggested to keep the sections connected. It is important as context to people in the future as they read into the article.
 * Making it a separate article will make it a footnote rather than retaining the seriousness of the incidents and occluding it from a majority of the readers. A majority of readers will only skim through the articles and read the titles, not the contents unless the subsection is of interest.
 * In a secondary note, it is better we don't have another article stating "This list is complete, you can by expanding it" and cause more work to counter defacement. SplitScream (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At the moment, there is neither enough examples for a blurb nor an article. If the number keeps growing, maybe it should be its own section, later on if the number keeps growing a lot then maybe its own article. Also I'm not sure how the details of whom, when and so on are relevant to the game or it being its own article. The leaks might be worthy of mentioning in an existing article for military leaks, but unless you have examples of how important details are missed because of the scope of this article, I don't think making it its own would be relevant. Tricameral (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support FWIW I am still in favor of splitting. The document leaks are only tangentially related to War Thunder in the first place. If the sources are not acceptable for its own list article, how is the list acceptable in this article? So IMO the options are to split the list or remove the list; keeping it as-is seems like the worst option to me.  HarryKernow  (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This seems seperated enough for the game itself and notably signifant enough to justify the splitting. Maxime12346 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Splitting is the wrong way to go about this, it would be better to write a new article from scratch in prose format, without an indiscriminate list, called something like War Thunder document leaks. In that case, the list can be removed from this article. If it were split in its current state it would merit swift removal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ZXC's proposal per ZXC, oppose splitting a bare list. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

mig 29 and su57 leaks arent leaks
they are simply manuals taken from the game DCS 02ded (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * everything about the f117 is also unclassified, except its stealth technology, so it doesnt count as a leak either. im not sure if i can post links here but i do have the manual 02ded (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the f117 row, and I'm looking into the mig29 and su57 ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023 Regarding New leak on warthunder forums
Add the newest instance of leaked classified documents to the chart for such events. Relevent details: Date: September 26th 2023 Vehicle: AH-64D Apache Longbow Restriction Level: Export Restricted Description: Details not known about why or how

Source: Admin Response on War Thunder forum to the event https://forum.warthunder.com/t/technical-manual-for-ah-64d-longbow-apache/27350/6 Goddess Aife (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

T-69 IIG leak was real.
The documents were removed by the moderators.You can see the warning message on the forum thread's seventh page.That document had restricted marking on it. https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/486670-type-69iig/&do=findComment&comment=9237916 Miraz2005 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If you can find a secondary source to verify this, feel free to add it back in. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I need to cite both secondary and primary source? Miraz2005 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Only the secondary. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

M2 Bradley Leak
It seems like that yesterday (12 December 2023) an export restricted document was leaked. LeviJr00 (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

SU-57 leak again
So, apparently another leak happened, this time, the SU-57.

I know some of you are confused because it was featured before, however from what my contact told me (who seemingly saw that unfold on the forums), it is other documents that weren't the radar that got leaked. Unfortunately it was taken down so quickly there is not even an article out there I can find even after going 15 pages of research typing " war thunder su-57 leak 2024 ". AOG731 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Unless it has appeared in a reliable source, we can't include anything. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It happened again (T-90 leak)
https://dotesports.com/war-thunder/news/its-happening-again-war-thunder-players-continue-to-leak-classified-military-documents DarthCloakedGuy (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)