World of Tanks vs. War Thunder

So a few months ago a new game came to the spotlight, taking many WoT players and WoT Youtubers, including KrebsCOHO, Jingles and Nethervvoid. I didn’t really know what was about War Thunder that so many people were starting to drift to it. A few nights ago I decided to play it and I finally understood what sets it apart from World of Tanks.

One important thing to note: War Thunder is nothing like World of Tanks. It’s like comparing basketball to chess. On War Thunder, you select a number of planes to enter a battle, and select one to start off with. The game gives you a series of objectives which can lead to your victory. Once you’re shot down, you can hop on the next aircraft and start flying right away. The game is fast paced, intense and filled with action from the first moment you get into the battle until the very end.

On World of Tanks, most of the times the outcome of the entire game is decided on the first 2 minutes. More specifically, who goes where. It’s a single game, 10 to 15 minutes in length, and very slow paced. Once you’re dead, that’s it. You can either quit to your garage and get into a new battle or watch your teammates most likely fail spectacularly.

War Thunder keeps you active for a long time, giving you plenty of opportunities to contribute to your team even if you screwed up previously. World of Tanks gives you one chance and that’s it. Once you’re dead, you’re out. One screw up loses the match. It’s a perfectionist and strategic game where every move has to be coldly calculated in order to increase your chances of victory, and one simple mistake or dumb luck (read: ammo rack) from the enemy is enough to seal the fate of the match.

On War Thunder, you’re freely flying through the world, allowing for a wide range of maneuvers. On World of Tanks, you’re confined to your tank’s capabilities and to the terrain, making predetermined paths that you know you will follow when you are on those maps with those tanks.

On War Thunder, a tier 1 plane is capable of punching holes and bringing down a plane of much higher tier. On World of Tanks, you must adjust your playing style based on the match tier you’re on. A Tier 5 Heavy Tank on a Tier 7 match filled with other Heavy Tanks must usually find some way (sometimes impossible) to flank in order to do damage, or seek the lower tier enemies to finish off, which, depending on the side of the map you chose to go to at the start of the match, might be all the way on the opposite side, leaving you stuck with tanks much bigger than you.

In the end, who is better? No one, really. It depends on whether you’re a basketball guy or a chess guy. World of Tanks is a far more technical and strategical game, but that’s its curse as well as its blessing.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Stuff
28 comments on “World of Tanks vs. War Thunder
  1. Kumacho says:

    Not only can a Rank 1 aircraft knock out much higher ranked aircraft, I have killed 2 rank 11 fighters in one game in my reserve (less than rank 1) aircraft.

    That’s like a MS-1 taking out an Batchat…

    But you hit the nail on the head. WoT is more slow and strategic while WT is fast paced and will not punish you as badly for minor mistakes.

    • Tazilon says:

      If War Thunder is anything like the other MMO Flight Sim games I’ve played, Air Warrior I-III (a game in which I won more tournaments than any other player) and Aces High, the level of tactics is extremely high for good players. With the ability to move in 3 dimensions through the air, tactics are much more flexible, numerous, and sophisticated in aerial warfare than tank warfare.

      Fighters are typically Boom and Zoom or Turn and Burn and the tactics they employ are vastly different.

      They are also completely different than in tank warfare. Dicta Boelcke fully applies, frequently in direct opposition to tank tactics. For example, in tanks, you want to focus fire on one tank at a time to eliminate guns as fast as possible. In aerial warfare the opposite is true. Your goal is to engage every enemy in the fight. An unengaged enemy plane will devastate your forces if you try to gang up on several planes and leave 1 or 2 enemies free to fly at will.

      Within specific battles, neither game is at all strategic in nature. Tactics is using moves/techniques/etc to win a battle. Strategy is using battles/logistics/etc to win a war.

      A more proper comparison would be Tanks are like playing checkers; Planes are like playing chess.

  2. Harnisfechten says:

    well, War Thunder goes from rank “reserve” (0) to rank 20, so rank 11 is like tier 5-6 in WoT. So more like a stock MS-1 killing a Sherman. Two Shermans.

    But yes, that’s what I like about War Thunder. You are never useless or helpless, nowhere close. Even in a reserve plane, you can still stand a chance at taking down much higher ranked planes, and you can still nail ground targets, which is important for your team to win. It’s all about playing the planes to their strengths. I was in my rank 1-2 F2 Buffalo, and I shot down a rank 6 F6F Hellcat because he got down and dirty and got into a turning fight with me. I’ve killed plenty of higher rank planes (10+) in my fast little MC.202 (rank 4) using hit-and-run tactics. I had a battle recently where I was down to a rank 1-2 russian fighter, and I shot down 3 enemy fighters ranked much higher than me (7-9). It happens quite often if the higher-ranked plane isn’t careful.

    I disagree that WoT is more strategic. It is a different kind of strategy/tactics, but War Thunder requires just as much tactical know-how (if not more).

    Also, War Thunder is 50x better than World of Warplanes. I’m serious. List any feature or parameter, and War Thunder does it better. Graphics? yup. Looks better and runs better on higher settings. Gameplay? yup. Better flight models, damage models, and physics. Features? yup. War Thunder has Arcade Battles, Historical Battles, and Full-Real Battles, which scale up in realism up to classic WWII flight-sim levels. It also has single player modes, including single missions, mission editor, dynamic campaigns, and coop gameplay. Name anything about WoWP and I will tell you how War Thunder is better.

    WG better watch out. When War Thunder adds their land vehicles, if they are as much better than WoT as the planes are better than WoWP, WoT is gonna lose tons of players.

    • Tozapeloda77 says:

      The world design of WT is much better from lets say 500f, but try to get nice graphics for your tanks in a map thats at least 10 times bigger than any WoT map, even on the highest settings in WT the trees and everyting look, pretty crap when you get close, and thats what those tanks will do. You btw forgot this was a comparison between WT and WoT, not WoWP. But ive playd all three of these games, and WoWP will never beat WT, and WG may lose the naval battle part, but WoT is so far ahead, and stands so strong, I do not believe WT can beat them.

  3. Harnisfechten says:

    ps and Kumacho, I wouldn’t say War Thunder is necessarily more fast-paced either. It can be fast-paced, but sometimes it can take a good couple of minutes to fly to a position, whether it’s flanking around to get a good route of attack, or climbing to a higher altitude to get ready to dive down.

    • Greymaus says:

      More of a Q than a reply, but I’m intrigued by WT and would love to give it a go, however I understood that its still in beta also is a joystick the way to go or more of an arcade type mouse does it all type?

      • Harnisfechten says:

        I tried it with a joystick at first, but I’ve switched to mouse aiming. I find it more precise. When using the joystick, I was lucky to shoot down 1-2 enemies per battle. Now I am able to regularly and confidently land hits and shoot down enemies. I have mapped the wasd keys to the pitch and roll axis, and q and e to the rudder, so if I need to do a snap roll or something, i still can.

        As for it being still in beta: honestly, it has more features and feels more complete than many games feel on release.

        Arcade? Well, in Arcade mode (it has three game modes) it has a very realistic damage model (not like WoWP), the flight models are fairly good (not like WoWP), the planes travel at realistic speeds and altitudes (not like WoWP), but it isn’t some crazy intense sim where you need to manage propellor pitch and elevator trim and such. The cool thing? You can. It has historical battles and full-real mode, where it IS comparable to other realistic WWII flight sims, with all those detailed controls.

        In my opinion, Arcade mode is a perfect blend of arcade-like ease of control and accessibility, with enough realism that you need to use real tactics and techniques to be successful.

  4. Tedster59 says:

    Also, War Thunder is client-based, so you get all the related hacks.

  5. Crousti says:

    Sorry, tier 1 taking on a tier 11 plane ? I can see only 1 reason for that to happen : the tier11 pilot is the worst ever, and the tier1 is the luckiest ever. any tier 6 plane just 1shot a tier 1/ reserve. It also goes 5 to 10 times faster and higher. The gap in performance is so huge it cannot be compensated with somewhat equally skilled pilots. I remember emptying 2 clips at the ass of a tier 5 bomber, and it did next to nothing … so, tier 11 ? not happening once people start sharpening.

    I went from WOT to WOWP, then back to WOT, for mainly 3 reasons.

    1/ slow gameplay suits me better.
    2/ stupid teammates have way less impact on WOT. Someone rams you in WOWP ? Dead.
    3/ pay 2 win. While WOT has a somewhat indirect pay2win, as you need premium account to keep paying for gold ammo (and soon gold consumables), you can still be competitive without. On the other hand WOWP is a direct pay2win. There is a limit of 5 or 6 planes you can get on a battle, per player. Except if you pay; this allows up to 9. Which means you can just use reserve planes at the start to crash into your enemies (best/only way to get rid of someone 10 tier higher), and THEN use your normal ,expensive and efficient planes. And i am not inventing things here, i have seen it happening.

    Crew training can also be instantly accelerated by paying; fully training a crew would require hundreds of battles… or just 2 minutes and a credit card. and it really makes a difference. that would be like being able to buy crews with 4 or 5 skills in WOT, directly. That, to me is a huge problem.

    While i can bear with a change in gameplay once in a while, points 2 & 3 make WOWP a no go for me.

    • Kumacho says:

      War Thunder is NOT WoWP. It is a much better game in which a tier 1 can kill a tier 11. A tier 1 can shoot, damage and even kill a tier 11 if he plays well and the tier 11 is dumb enough to get in a turning battle a low altitude with a tier 1 he deserves to be shot down.

      You need to stop comparing WoWP to War Thunder. They aren’t even in the same league.

      Because you keep referring to WT as WoWP I have to believe you didn’t put any time or effort into the game. And since you think it is impossible for a tier I to shoot down a XI you obviously don’t have a grasp of the game at all.

      There is even a medal for doing it. They dont’ normally make medals for events that are impossible.

  6. Strucker says:

    War Thunder was an ok game, but it has its share of problems, if you are looking for a comparable game to WoWP I’d say WT is a better overall game, however. The company which produces WT (Gaijin) is the reason I no longer play the game, they provide little to no discussion to non-RU clients, their support staff is the equivalent of a block of wood, and overall the game feels like it really has a couple of years before it is stable enough to play.

    This is why I personally enjoy WoT, as a company WG has gone through the most difficult stages and really come into their own where they have a fun game that is overall well balanced with regular content updates and better communication across the different populations / servers.

  7. Dead_Zombie says:

    I personally find it comical that anybody would compare planes (War Thunder) to tanks (WoT).. 2 totally different games play styles,speeds and equipment your playing with.. only idiots in my opinion would continue to compare them to each other at this time. and this pay2win is stupid….

  8. Kumacho says:

    Arcade shooters, both of them. Why wouldn’t you compare them?

    The methods of winning are similar. Use your virtual vehicle to destroy the enemy or his base. In WT you do have a third option of destroying all the ground targets first.

    They are similar in more ways then they are different.

    They are in the same genre so there will be comparisons.

    The only idiot here is you for being so ignorant to call others comparing games from the same genre as idiots.

    Pretty low class to enter a blog and call everyone posting in it idiots. In MY opinion you should just carry the fuck on and leave this conversation…

    • Tozapeloda77 says:

      Yes, but everyone comparing on the internet sounds like they can only play one of them, I have both installed, and ready to play when I want. And if I dont feel like playing an arcade shooter I start one of my total war games for example.

  9. gold316 says:

    i play war thunder i played since closed beta and ur absolutely right about the comparisons but now war thunder has fucked up big time

  10. Hellolight says:

    Chess doesn’t have RNG or a rigged MM in it…

  11. Rincewind says:

    WoT vs WT?
    Im attaching a pair of wings to my Hetzer. Hetzing in the skies. Glorious!!

  12. DatGuestInfo says:

    Came here for World of Tanks information and it is what I got, I appreciate it, sounds like I should try it. I am indeed looking for a slower, strategic paced game.

    However, I would like to note that as a War Thunder player (that is what brought me to World of Tanks, and ultimately here), there are several modes that depict the play style that you mention in World of Tanks in War Thunder that are not “fast-paced”. For instance, Historical Battle you get 1 death and you’re done, much of the mode is also decided on due to team and player positioning, and sound similar to how you mentioned World of Tanks.

    Full Real Battle takes the spin even further, removing friendly markers, upping damage and removing flight instructors that correct some of your errors allowing for leeway. This is a true cutthroat game mode.

    Anyway, what I’m saying is that there is more to War Thunder than mentioned, it is also a strategic, great game. While you may be able to contest planes several tiers higher, you must be careful about choosing your battles and how you fight them. Some planes simply cannot go against others, regardless of their tier.

  13. Calistarius says:

    wot id a kidds game , like wowp, and wt gives u the feeling u r actually flying and fighting, not this dum ass tier conzept from wot, its just a mony grainder for the wot guys thats it.

  14. BullSaw says:

    WT is cool, and with their tanks coming out it will be even cooler. But while being cool and fun to play is great, WT really lacks something that WoTs has: competitiveness. World of Tanks is a balanced game where everything you do will put you closer to winning or losing the battle. I’m not talking about random battles. In the actual competitive environment, you are given the same options as the enemy team. Winning comes from knowing what to do with them. WT is too much pay to win for this to be an option. I agree with the statement that WoT is more like chess; calculated moves to put you on the advantage (with a little RNG thrown in), but I would say WT is comparable to a casual game of basket ball, rather than pro. The game will be unbalanced, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun.

    And to those of you who will say that historical and FRBs are a good competitive playing field, take note that there are so few (if any) highly realistic games that are also highly competitive. It’s a formula that will never work. Realism is not balance, which is what a competitive game needs.

    • alex zhou says:

      war thunder doesn’t have competitiveness? it has enough.

      • Artarka says:

        PS: Went to this thread again because WT being DDoSed
        I would say WT have less competitiveness, since I never saw or experienced “Oh No! We’re neck-in-neck and I gotta get the last shot in for the sake of the team!”. In WT its always one sided with known winners after a certain time.

      • Wailing Siren says:

        WT is competitive. I saw plenty of battles where we were neck and neck and where I had (and took) the chance to deliver the final blow with our team having only 100 tickets left. A strange thing is the matchmaking though. Ending up with tier 3 bombers (Catalina’s) or even higher while playing with reserve-tier 1 planes is a bit frustrating. Emptying 2 clips on a bomber only to be shot down by one salvo of his turrets is a bit disappointing. Anyway, most of the time, one loses because there was bad teamwork. Chasing planes while some should attack ground targets is not a sound tactic. Losing in WT is not as devastating as it is in WoT, as the rewards in WT seems to be more related to personal achievements than the fact that your team won.

  15. Wilfredo says:

    I absolutely love your blog and find a lot of your post’s to be exactly what I’m looking for.
    Would you offer guest writers to write content in your case?
    I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on many of the subjects you write regarding here.
    Again, awesome website!

  16. What’s up, this weekend is good in favor of me, as this point in time i am
    reading this enormous informative paragraph here at my house.

  17. PROGAMER says:

    I think that WoT JUST manages to hang on against WT ground forces (yes it did come out) just because WT has pretty jumpy tanks (movement is slow and sometimes jumpy and the connections aren’t that smooth for the WT servers) But I like the physics. In WoT, the two tier spread and the static hp bars (mostly for their massive hp differences) if you are just ONE tier lower, say, KV1S vs T37 (KV is a V heavy, T37 is a VI light) and the T37 has a tonne more hp than KV1S. WT has NO static hp bars and so even the weakest tanks, if you can penetrate, you can kill.
    Also WT vs WoWP. Again, no hp bars, more about hitting them until their plane falls apart or hit their crit spots. In WoWP the bigger plane wins all the time, same with WoT, the higher tank will basically ALWAYS win a battle. Not WT, in WT a, say pz II will be able to kill ANYTHING it can penetrate, in WoT, lets see, you pop round the corner and try to hit a Chi Ha, ah….just 100dmg, err…lets see…reloading…..Chi Ha pops back round the corner and rapes you with a few 47mms.

  18. wot gold says:

    Heya i’m for the primary time here. I found this board and I find It really useful & it helped me
    out a lot. I hope to present one thing again and help others such as you helped me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: