Video summary

The State Of War Thunder, Mid 2026. Issues, and suggestions.

Main summary

Key takeaways

Gaming

Storyline

This video isn’t a plot walkthrough—it’s a commentary on the current state and future direction of War Thunder in mid-2026. The creator focuses on systemic issues they believe are affecting the game (progression, monetization, matchmaking/design choices) and outlines what improvements could be made.

Gameplay / mode highlights discussed

Core modes and how players behave

  • Arcade Battles (AB) and Realistic Battles (RB) remain largely PvP team deathmatch-style.
  • Even when PvE objectives exist, the creator argues that in practice players don’t actually pursue PvE goals.
    • Those who try are reportedly mocked or criticized in chat and online.
  • AB/RB are described as accounting for most daily active matches.

Helicopter PvE mode (added after community requests)

The creator says helicopter PvE is gameplay-wise mostly fine, but:

  • Rewards are far too low to justify the time compared to a few regular PvP ground RB matches.
  • The mode is structured so it’s nearly impossible to make meaningful progression, which reduces participation.
  • It’s hidden deeper in the UI (inside simulator battles), meaning many players—especially newer ones—may not even notice it.
  • Because of these factors, the creator expects Gaijin might later remove it, citing low participation (“nobody played it”).

“Advance” asymmetrical ground mode (example of a good mode hidden poorly)

  • About four years earlier, the creator praises Advance:
    • One team attacks in sequence.
    • The other defends using points already held.
    • They note a tanks-only version also sounded fun.
  • Their claim: it was effectively ignored because it was hidden under simulator tabs and not integrated into normal rotations.
  • They argue that if similar modes were mixed into regular RB rotations, they would perform much better.

Nuclear Thunder (April Fools event → problematic “new version”)

The creator distinguishes between the older and newer versions:

  • Original Nuclear Thunder (from a few months earlier) was described as one of the most successful events:
    • heavy ground target destruction,
    • strategic bomber “match finisher” gameplay,
    • high-altitude combat to stay outside SAM reach,
    • overall aligning with what players ask for (similar to Air RB / “Air RB EC”).
  • The new Nuclear Thunder is called unplayable/disastrous, primarily due to:
    • SAM threats starting almost immediately after takeoff,
    • AI ground vehicles with laser-accurate AA shooting from long distances,
    • reliable enemy downing of players/missiles (including fast aircraft around Mach 1),
    • a meta shift toward anti-radiation missile salvos against SAM sites because SAMs can shoot down incoming missiles,
    • SAM launchers allegedly moving and “blinking” radars, adding artificial difficulty,
    • the creator says the “teamwork encouragement” argument doesn’t fit War Thunder’s real player culture,
    • strategic bombers removed, which they view as removing in-match goal motivation/progression,
    • rewards framed as too weak for meaningful progression in a mostly PvE-focused mode.

Air RB spawn / runway variety concept

The creator suggests reworking air battles so teams don’t all spawn in the same place:

  • Use multiple runways/spawn points, similar to ground RB.

They also suggest experiments with:

  • earning “spawn points” during the match to join additional aircraft,
  • possibly smaller teams (e.g., ~8 players) with limited multi-spawn per player.

Strategies / key tips mentioned (practical guidance)

No formal “how-to” guide is presented, but the creator’s mode/tactical view includes:

  • For (new) Nuclear Thunder, success is described as depending on:
    • using salvo anti-radiation missiles to destroy individual SAM sites,
    • accomplishing this while being attacked by aircraft and while SAM coverage shifts/moves.
  • For players frustrated by progression:
    • the creator implies PvP is typically optimal, since PvE modes often have worse rewards and slower progression.

Big issues and “design patterns” criticized

1) Progression centered on PvP behavior

  • Core claim: progression/carry value is designed to depend on PvP performance.
  • PvE exists but is allegedly effectively punished:
    • socially (player culture),
    • and through rewards/progression systems.

2) Game mode discoverability and UI

  • Examples: helicopter PvE and Advance are allegedly too hidden (deep in menus / simulator tab).
  • Suggested fix: make alternate modes obvious on the first match-selection screen.

3) Modern vehicle content ceiling

  • The creator predicts Gaijin may run out of truly modern vehicles to add around mid-2027, given the current pace and talk of fifth-gen fighters coming “in the second half of this year.”
  • They expect workaround tactics such as:
    • repeating “iteration premium” approaches (e.g., the F-16 situation) with F-35 variants,
    • distributing small differences (like drag chute equivalents) across trees/premiums,
    • adding/expanding infantry mode to justify more minor variations.

4) Premium saturation and top-tier monetization pressure

  • Premiums are described as becoming a much larger share of added content.
  • Concern: it encourages grinding straight to top tier using premiums instead of organic progression.
  • Potential downstream effects mentioned:
    • reduced variety in matchups,
    • incentives to make premiums stronger or awkwardly tiered.

5) Bug reporting / evidence acceptance problems

  • The creator argues bug reports often fail because Gaijin allegedly:
    • doesn’t show sources/spec reasoning,
    • dismisses reports even when players provide evidence,
    • may only change things silently much later.

6) Known technical/UX gripes (examples)

  • Air RB spotting issues at higher tiers.
  • Radar locks snapping to friendly targets despite IFF (“magnet-like” behavior).
  • Missile radar cross-section too strong (missiles allegedly “steal” locks unrealistically).
  • Ground map design: hallway maps with one cap and limited flanking.
  • Spawn-to-spawn sniping early in ground battles.
  • Overly intrusive “killed by” pop-up UI.
  • Insufficient profile privacy/scouting controls (they want more granular privacy beyond streamer mode).
  • Crew lock critique: they question why waiting in the hangar is allowed while “longer queue time” is treated differently elsewhere.

Positive changes recognized

The creator credits several improvements over time, including (high-level):

  • Separate countermeasure pops and split ground/air BR handling.
  • Research bonuses for later tech trees after unlocking the first.
  • Inventory recycling for unused wagers.
  • Fuel sliders for aircraft.
  • Free backup vehicles.
  • Stock countermeasures on higher-tier jets.
  • Nerfs to mid-map SPAA in air battles.
  • Predator drones moved up in BR.
  • Economic updates, such as:
    • avoiding repair bill losses per match basis even if you score no points (with premium),
    • better outcomes for free accounts compared to earlier periods,
    • no repair cost when killed by friendly fire.
  • Air research improvements:
    • more vehicles moved into folders,
    • reduced research costs,
    • higher kill streak rewards.
  • Maneuver kills added (they’re personally happy about it).
  • More ships on air battle maps and more air-to-ship weapon relevance.
  • Anti-radiation missiles added (they’re happy about this addition).
  • Improvements like maneuver kill tracking showing up in their videos.

Monetization / money discussion points

  • The creator says they don’t want War Thunder to “die,” and acknowledges Gaijin is a for-profit company.
  • Preferred monetization model:
    • renewing premium account annually during the anniversary sale,
    • viewed as less predatory than alternatives.
  • Premium vehicle pricing:
    • premium vehicles are described as too expensive,
    • future prices are predicted to become extremely high (they reference “Jetsons wallet” framing for new rank-10 premiums).
    • lowering prices could increase sales volume.
  • They argue price reductions are unlikely due to backlash from existing owners if prices drop later.

Key suggestions / wishlist

Game mode improvements

  • Add more PvE / co-op content, potentially using PvP vehicles as a basis for PvE campaigns.
  • Expand Air RB:
    • multiple runways/spawn points,
    • experimental ARB modes where you can earn additional “spawn points” to bring more than one plane,
    • smaller teams with controlled multi-spawn per player (as an experiment).
  • Make Nuclear Thunder permanent, but without the unplayable anti-air-focused changes.

Matchmaking / UI / QoL

  • Improve match selection visibility:
    • don’t bury important modes (e.g., helicopter PvE) behind multiple menus.
  • Allow map bans by lineup (not account-wide), possibly reducing extra clicks when switching BR ranges.
  • Add an option to toggle off large “killed by” pop-ups after death.

Balance / rewards

  • Greatly increase RP rewards for ground battles (creator suggests at least doubling).
  • Fix spawn positioning issues for low-tier vehicles on certain maps.
  • Increase decompression in BR:
    • air BRs up to at least ~16.0,
    • more decompression especially around mid tiers (roughly 9–11),
    • ground trees also need decompression (creator thinks more needed at higher tiers).
  • Consider allowing air spawn advantages forward relative to ground RB at higher tiers to reduce SPAA + SAM spawn pressure.

Systems and player controls

  • Provide stronger privacy controls so players can’t scout profiles if they don’t want to be.
  • Rework or remove crew lock mechanics instead of relying on longer hangar waiting.
  • Allow fuel sliders down to ~1 second minimum for all aircraft (they argue forcing extremely high starting fuel is irrational).

New content ideas

  • A World War I tech tree spanning roughly BR 0 to BR 1 for countries (1915–1930), optionally skippable/optional.
  • Submarines:
    • they want them added but worry they’ll be too slow if implemented realistically,
    • suggest either realism compromises (speed adjustments) or a submarine-focused mode with suitable maps,
    • they would enthusiastically play naval if done right.

Gamers/sources featured (at the end)

  • BVVD (mentioned as the poster who responded to feedback about Nuclear Thunder; name given as BVVD)
  • Tim (“Tim with a business degree” referenced by the creator while discussing monetization; presented as the creator’s own perspective/identity)
  • Gaijin / “the snail” (the developer/publisher; referenced throughout as a source of decisions and communications)

Original video