Retry

Member
  • Content count

    7,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
medal

Retry last won the day on March 8

Retry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,078 Outstanding

2 Followers

About Retry

  • Rank
    The Incredibly Average

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,776 profile views
  1. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Or you can just look at the SAC I posted a page earlier.
  2. It doesn't sound that complicated to me imo, probably wouldn't require much more than an if/else statement. Hideous looking pseudocode if STAB=1 ReloadParam= [Number] elseif STAB=0 ReloadParam= [2ndNumber] end
  3. Gnat also blows the ceiling out of all current fighter craft. If we want to go the direction of modern jet attackers that are still easy bait for Sabres, the Commonwealth can draw some New Zealand BAC Strikemasters.
  4. The former outperforms all current fighter jets in the fighter role. The latter outperforms 2nd gen fighter jets in the fighter role.
  5. Tomahawk is also an old, outdated subsonic missile with a ~1000 lb warhead that can be easily intercepted by CIWS like the Crotale or the Sea Vulcan. That's just the last line of defense, as a fleet will generally have early-warning and reconnaisance elements e.g. helicopters, aircraft, etc. which can detect interesting things ahead of time like a missile. A fighter jet should theoretically be capable of knocking out such missiles when detected early, as both the jet and their missiles are faster than the Tomahawk.
  6. I can see that Gaijin overdid themselves a bit too well this April... Maybe we should just stick with the IL-40P instead of the IL-102 then.
  7. B-52B has a max bombload of 43,000 pounds and 27 1,000lb cluster bombs is its typical munition. Max bombload rate of climb is about 3,000 ft/min at sea level w/ military power and it only declines from there. The XB-52 is even less powerful, only carrying a maximum bomb load of 25,000 lbs, less powerful engines, and only 2 .50 calibre machineguns tail-mounted. If we add the other jet bombers without the Bear and Superfortress, mostly what you're going to accomplish is annoying the fighter jocks without providing the iconic appeal of the really famous Cold War behemoths. And if we can't develop new mechanics/ modify old mechanics to support the inclusion of these biggest of the bad boys, we won't be able to for the middleweights. IL-102 is the equivalent of the A4D Skyhawk. There's pretty much 0 chance for the A-10 to be introduced for normal play.
  8. From "Yefim Gordon"'s book: "The recoil force of the 45-mm cannon exceeded that of the 37-mm cannon by 40%; to reduce it, for the first time in the Soviet Union the barrel was fitted with a large muzzle brake absorbing 85% of the recoil energy. The muzzle brake protruded noticeably from the propeller spinner, which increased the overall length of the Yak-9K to 8.87 m (29 ft 1~ in) as compared to 8.66 m (28 ft 46Jt., in) for the Yak-9T and 8.50 m (27 ft 1O~ in) for the Yak-9 sans suffixe. Like the smaller NS-37, the NS-45 had continuous belt feed. It had an ammunition supply of 29 rounds and a counter in the cockpit showing the number of remaining rounds. As regards the weight of fire, the Yak-9K was superior to all Soviet fighters and the majority of foreign ones. Only such 'flying artillery batteries' as the Fw 190A-6/R1 or the Bf 109G-6/R6 boasted heavier armament. However, these two fighters had two or even four cannons mounted under the wings, which led to a substantial deterioration of performance and handling, while the Yak-9K was little different from the basic versions of the Yak-9: its all-up weight was only 3,028 kg (6,677 Ib)."
  9. The Yak-9K does not and did not "nearly disintegrate" when firing its cannon.
  10. This happened? How'd I miss that? Pls no
  11. Funny how all the other jet bombers that happen to be made "useless" are tactical bombers and interdictors whose job wasn't to annihilate large strategic targets. Not every nation has an equivalent for everything, and not every nation needs an equivalent for everything. Russia has no equivalent fighter-bombers with capacities similar to the US. Japan doesn't really have heavy tanks. Germany doesn't really have light tanks.
  12. That's a lot better than anything I could come up with. (And way better than "Assault" lel) Doesn't really fit the theme of "famous cold war bomber" imo
  13. V-Bombers, B-52A, Tu-95 Introduce them in the same patch and give a cool name for it.
  14. Increase T5 airfield HP Problem solved.
  15. Huge failures are usually not produced by the tens of thousands.
  16. It was never a standard premium to begin with as it was only ever available as a limited edition bundle. So it does apply as a case where "whales" could get stuff and F2Pers could not.
  17. Well, that's a Mk.5 variant, and it also doesn't have HEATFS or APFSDS AFAIK
  18. For some reason I doubt that the Centurion Mk.10 was used in the Gulf War...
  19. Well, there was the P-38K bundle, and that worked fine imo.
  20. Considering the exposed nature of most SPAAs and open-top TD's, no way.
  21. tanks/vehicles

    It's hideous. I love it!
  22. M113 w/ Dragon ATGM and M150 TOW. There's also the IFVs that need not be named if we go more modern w/ IFVs of all nations at top tiers.
  23. There's nothing after the T95 to disrupt.
  24. It's looking nice! That cockpit feels albeit claustrophobic tho
  25. It's not a 100% predictor, but it's very easy to look at the ratio of regular and non-regular vehicles for Production models, for limited production models, for prototypes, for captured vehicles, et cetera. If you were to do so, you'd find that the highest regular:nonregular ratio lies with Production models. Limited production vehicles are usually ~50/50 and often filled holes in the tech tree such as those Sturer Emils which did see combat btw. Prototypes have a very low regular:nonregular ratio with the regulars almost exclusively existing to flesh out lines in certain lacking tech trees. There are exactly zero regular captured vehicles in the tech trees. Your premise is incorrect as the status of a vehicle clearly bears some clout whether vehicles become standard or premiums, it's simply not the only factor. I've put in many hours to those and tbh I'm more irritated by the fact that several of these were event vehicles when they shouldn't have been. Esp. Type 62, Bombschwalbe. That E-100 being an event vehicle caused an uproar and was probably more trouble than it was worth. Me-262A-2a & KV-220 WERE buyable by whales already, for a limited time... The definitive Me-262 fighter bomber should have been a regular vehicle. But I digress...
  26. It doesn't matter what it was later renamed to as it fits a tank destroyer line. The reason they named it a "super heavy tank" was because the US traditionally had lightly armored tank destroyers and gun carriages, not because it was an actual tank.
  27. Judging from the article, they already knew that.
  28. If a vehicle is OP, then it's BR'd wrong, FM'd wrong, DM'd wrong, or a combination of the three. I got screwed over with the La-174 as I decided to grind the Yak and MiG line instead of the Lala line before it was announced. (Back then wasn't a paying player so I couldn't just convertible RP it). That and the E-100 left me a bit bitter for quite a time. As for the hard-grinded ones: The Type 62 is a production vehicle, making that a limited edition is no bueno The F7F-3 is also a production vehicle, which means it had no business being an event vehicle in the first place. Me-262A-2a is yet another production vehicle, in fact the definitive German fighter-bomber schwalbe. KV-220 is the only one that actually had any business being a limited edition event vehicle.
  29. I'm not so sure. Lots of the people who complained about SPAAGs complained that they could be killed by them at all. If this was true, there wouldn't be so much complaining about vehicles like the ZSU-57-2 and M42 Duster knocking out tanks, as they were so bad at actually killing aircraft historically they ended up being used as fire support vehicles 99% of the time...
  30. Tanks/Vehicles

    It's not an opinion, it's a prediction. Predicting Gaijin's initial BRs is basically down to a science at this point. Why is this thread still open anyways, when there doesn't appear to be any proof that the VTS1's cannon can be reloaded?
  31. Tanks/Vehicles

    They'd be in different BRs and have different SP costs in RB, so still no.
  32. Tanks/Vehicles

    The 90mm cannon was basically obsolete by the mid -60s due to the emergence of the T-64 and its composite armor. Meanwhile another reconnaisance platform was already under production, almost certainly cheaper, and capable of doing the same role: the SPz 11-2 Kurz. As the Ru-251 still couldn't take out Russian heavy tanks/modern MBTs anyways, no point in putting them on the assembly line. The Leopards were mobile for MBTs but they certainly weren't doing the same job as the Ru.251.
  33. I'm away and can't do the air tasks myself, so I think I'll just buy my way through it.
  34. Nice. We could have the M36B2 & M46 in a Korean War scenario w/ HEATFS.
  35. Oh, was the HEATFS round available during the Korean War, timeline wise?
  36. Who cares about the tournament? I just want to see the next thing for the Dog Tags.
  37. "Pure" event pieces are a dumb idea imho, should've stuck with either normal vehicles or premiums and not limited-time nonsense. This comes from a guy who's been collecting them for a long time. Thumbs up for that bundle, but this probably belongs in "suggestions".
  38. Tanks/Vehicles

    I meant in general. Italy'll arrive eventually.
  39. Tanks/Vehicles

    If not for that pesky afterburner the G.91Y would actually perform on the realm of current in-game jets. https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968 - 0976.html
  40. The SB fighter-bomber players seem to manage.
  41. Nifty changes. A lump sum of $6,000 to $10,000 instead of 25% for a period of time gives a bit of a buffer and lets the RSPers more easily pick models they'd like to create instead of guessing what'd be popular.
  42. Flakpanzer Gepard, Type 89, and ofc the ZSU-57-2 in particular all carried AP round quite frequently. M163 PIVADS modification enabled the vehicle to fire an APDS round. I'd count your lucky stars that we don't have the M247 Sgt. York in-game, with its 150mm penetrating APFSDS round at 1,000 yards. 90% of all targets are tanks, not planes.
  43. Yep. You can usually double or even quadruple your purchasing power around december. F.E. doubling your GE from a given $$$ from a 50% GE sale, and then purchasing 2x the vehicles from a 50% premium vee sale. The GE sale isn't always there IIRC, but I'm certain there's always a 50% premium vee sale around this time. So you'd at minimum be doubling your PP. The USSR Spitfire IX sale is not regularly, so we don't know when it'll be available again, if at all.
  44. Never heard of the M10(90), that'd work better. A WWII variant of the M36B2 would still be nifty for WW2 chronicles events as an extra spawn.
  45. Other than a handful of prototypes, more advanced models of the Me-262 and Ho-229 don't exist. Including the blueprints, any Nazi Germany jet models are not capable of dogfighting MiG-15s or F-86s on an equal basis. Giving Germany US & Russian based equipment is not "ridiculous", it's what actually happened: The split of West and East Germany. And I do like using equipment that the Germans and Japanese actually used after the war instead of napkins.
  46. There's always a bundle or multiple bundles in winter, around Christmas. Winter is basically the WT sale era. I've never done it and never needed it. I prefer to use my money on new vehicles myself. If you don't know what you want, be frugal. Wait until around Winter where the premium vehicles are usually on sale for 50% to increase your purchasing power. Depends on your preferred game-mode. If you do AB GF/AB and buy a high tier while you're still in low tiers, you'll have a hard time once backups are exhausted. The Russian P-47D is good for GF RB. I've heard good things about the premium Yak, and the IS-6 tank is basically clubbing right now. Speeds up GF monumentously.
  47. Ah, missed that completely. Yeah, it's probably a shop job.
  48. *Prints @Stahlvormund101's post and staples it somewhere on the walls of Gaijin HQ* Anyways, back to topic: My revised 3-changes list: Rename current boats mechanic to Brown Water Navy (As they operated near coasts and rivers and such IRL), and add a separate tab for a Blue Water Navy. Start with JPN & US as first nations for Blue Water (like GER&USSR was for GF) to reduce development cost and time If it's just boats and stuff and no higher, there'll be quite a lot of people disappointed. The big stuff is iconic for WWII, so many want to play them in a WT environment. At the same time I don't agree with some people's call to scrap boats completely. They're already here and easier to balance in a one-person, one-vehicle combined arms environment. Also, I want my Chamsuri-class I figure that the problem of balancing between current boats and larger vessels can be avoided simply by separating them along the lines of Blue & Brown Water Craft, so they can get different matchmaking. In this scenario, we'd actually have four tech trees per nation instead of three. Periodically create dev-blogs for Italian Aircraft outside of the normal Dev Blog schedules, and include 1 per patch. Italy currently has a "skeleton tree" inside the German tech tree. I think it can be expanded slowly with some things that Gaijin has now even before they finished enough content to break them off into their own tree. F.E. one patch could include the MC.205 after the MC.202, variants of the MC.202 or G.50, or add reserve CR.32s before the Falco. The Italian Bombers could add a... whatever they had. That's at least 4 italian planes in 4 patches. Of course, once the preliminary ITT in total is ready for release, all of these can be moved there. Also, the Germans will need their own low-tier Ace plane to replace Marcolini's Cr.42 This gives the playerbase a nibble of new nations to come and keeps the hype and hope going. Enable Premium T5s Linked to my (documented) suggestion as I don't like typing the same thing twice Basically lock these "premium T5s" until one is able to get a few vehicles in that same tier for a given nation, then unlock them. There's a ton of interesting T5 like vehicles that aren't "fit" for the main tech tree or but would make really cool. F.E. SR.A/1 flying boat jet fighter, S-91 Czech fighter jet, Gloster Whittle, et cetera. Some potential cold-war ground vehicles can get such a treatment too, such as the M48A3 "Grim Reaper" one-off Vietnam modification. There's more for tanks, I'm sure, but I'm more rusty in this area.
  49. Huh. Never thought about that. The KV-85 and KV-1S should share the same transmission and engine IIRC, so their foward and reverse mobility should be similar between the two. KV-85's weight gain wasn't so much as to significantly hamper it, compared to the KV-1S. Yeah, in that case one of the two may be incorrectly modeled. Probably check in with the Historical section of the forum and ask about this, just to make sure. It might be bug-reportable...
  50. It might be useful to separate the B2 as two variants: a late WWII variant as either a premium, gift, or regular, and a Korean War era with all the bells and whistles at a higher BR of 6.3-6.7: HEATFS, AA .30 cal, roof armor, E9 tracks, M3A1 cannon.
  51. With the ability to develop useful railguns and lasers just over the horizon, perhaps a battleship-like vehicle will be experimented with in the near future.
  52. EDIT: As Smin says, a bug cannot be fixed until its reported. (For what it's worth, I haven't replicated it either.)
  53. Your question has already been answered. There is nothing more to discuss.
  54. @BlueBeta told you to cut it out. I'm not sure how much clearer this point can be made.
  55. The tank jocks from T1-T4 will charge into cities and complain that the infantry have Panzerfausts, requesting nerfs or their own separate game mode so they can joust each other in peace. The tank jocks in T5 would discover that man-portable anti-tank guided missiles are a thing. I mean, I wouldn't mind, but the average "pure tanker master race" might take issues.
  56. It takes less than a week of amounts of play-time to get a good lineup for the current in-game events, even less time if you focus exclusively on air. A new player that joined a month earlier can easily have what is necessary to do most of the event tasks.
  57. The question is fine. Half of the US fighter-bombers double as attackers, not to mention their actual attackers are pretty nasty (A-26, Skyraider). IL-2, IL-10 are awful in ordnance and not good in handling, unfortunately. Russia's best "mid-tier" ground attacker is the P-47D... Also, most of these aircraft you talk of are around the BR 1.0-3.7 range, low tiers. PTABs would give the IL series a real bite, as well as the Yak-Bs, IL-10M to replace the Su-6 as an actually used attacker, IL-40P as a fitting end to the attacker line (IL-28 should move to the other bomber lines.)
  58. HESH in general sucks against sides for whatever reason, especially with such a small calibre round. It's a low-pressure cannon so low muzzle-velocity, which combined with the light armor and after-pen does not a 7.0 make. It's a reconnaissance armored car that was intended to provide fire support to infantry and knock out the odd technical, not flank medium tanks. Panther can be killed frontally via the hull by a lucky 76mm HESH hit. That =/= "club". Esp. when 76mm HESH would not pen a Pz.V's turret with current ingame pen statistics (and thus be completely immune to the Saladin when hull down). Panther has a massive advantage in weapon ballistic qualities. Not to mention that the Panther II hilariously overmatches the Saladin. There's also that slight problem where many of the Russian equipment around BR 7.0-8.0 has side armor that renders 76mm HESH ineffective as well. Ru-251 certainly should've been 7.3-7.7 on the normal tree. Saladin would perform fine around 6.0 and would function as an effective bridge between WW2 and Cold War armored cars for the Commonwealth. Our Swingfire has a 1990s SACLOS upgrade package, so I'd have to say it's not too late.
  59. You're doing it wrong. If it's been 3 days, PM one of the suggestion mods e.g. Cokespray or SAUBER & ask them about its status. Include the name of the suggestion and the time it was posted.
  60. If you're spawning in a plane at the last second, victory will count for the air task and not the ground task IIRC.
  61. This thread's still going on? You're actually going nuts, aren't you?
  62. tanks/vehicles

    Ah. Good to know.
  63. tanks/vehicles

    This version also had 750-800mm pen, the only difference is the single warhead and not the TC. SACLOS isn't the same thing as tandem-charge warheads, which would probably penetrate many early MBTs like the Challie 1, M1 Abrams, Leo 2, T-Series. I wouldn't mind seeing a MCLOS version of the Swingfire ATGM at a lower BR myself. At least you're honest.
  64. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Yeah, that thing. The unfunny joke that never ends...
  65. aircraft/loaduts

    The P-51D is undertiered too. The P-63 had main cannon options of the M10 w/ 58 rds, M9 w/ 48 rds, or a model T-31 20mm cannon w/ 175 rds. The plane itself has a maximum speed of over 430 mph and an initial climb rate in excess of 4,000 ft/min. Anything lower than BR 5.3 is asking for a slaughter.
  66. His complaint about the SPAAG is that some Yak can kill it. This is also true for one of the best SPAAGs in the game. It's not difficult to see where I'm going with this...
  67. So basically this thing is a Pz.IV with Ferdinand/FerdiTiger reverse speeds?
  68. So can the Vulcan...
  69. If they're poor, uncoordinated 4-man squads, it's not too difficult as long as you get yourself in a position to bite them off one by one. The same can't really be accomplished if they're facing, like, a coordinated squad of four of you.
  70. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Strv-81 shouldn't have been in the British tree in the first place. It's not like they didn't already have the nifty Canadian Centurion Mk.5 (?) variant to draw from that's virtually identical in performance specs...
  71. aircraft/loaduts

    That's way too low.
  72. A 20% increase in RP is rather low considering the sloth of a grind tanks are. Still, better than nothing.
  73. aircraft/loaduts

  74. Of course, it's a random matchmaker, so one can conclude that many of his matches were also won by the other team's players leaving. The net result of games being lost due to leavers would be a 50% overall winrate. However, this doesn't happen every match, so if he plays the FoTM, plays with a good squad, or is just really good himself, and only ~50% of his matches are determined by leavers, he just needs to do well in the other 50% of matches to win most games.
  75. This is due to how the game is set up. Simply increasing the payload required to knock out a base in T5 would fix this, or making bases lose tickets per every ton of ordnance dropped on it instead of the airfield being either alive or dead, would allow a B-52 and Tu-85 to exist around this BR.
  76. aircraft/loaduts

    It's a prototype. Premium.
  77. Aircraft/Loadouts

    It's sub-550 kts (632 mph) at all altitudes w/ military/no afterburner. Where did you come up with that gem? One does not simply lose 3,000 pounds of thrust and only lose a few mph off one's top speed.
  78. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Around 50%-100% autobounce at ~12 degrees IIRC for the best ammunition, plus the front slat would stop HESH anyways.
  79. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Without those afterburners it would also fly like a bloated whale.
  80. Aircraft/Loadouts

    The Colts are fine. Similar MV as the Revolver cannons.
  81. I've heard anywhere from 2 to 4 rpm was a typical M551 sustained firing rate. That thing is probably one of the slowest loading conventional tanks of all time, if not the slowest. Tiny tank does not mesh well with huge shells.
  82. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Germany+Sweden Coalition Giving the German top tiers their own super swift meta filling Leopards, Gepards Adding to it the troll-armor 60mm @ 78 degrees tank destroyer thing (that'll likely be safe from HEAT on the UFP if given the slat armor) And the VEAK 40 which is basically an actually functional Sgt. York that'll fire faster and penetrate more than a ZSU-57-2 with APFSDS while still being effective against aircraft. What could go wrong?
  83. Aircraft/Loadouts

    OP was last active ~3 years ago. At this point, I think there'd need to be an entirely new suggestion for the F3H-1N specifically.
  84. I, too, can not fathom why any player would want: A historical lend-lease modification of a substantially exported tank (~900) who would fill the BR in the range of around 3.0-3.3 while having an actual punch compared to the vanilla Matilda and having a lower BR than the first real Soviet heavy tank A British premium tank at a time when British premium tanks are still rare that functions like a Churchill VI that can actually move faster than 20 km/h around the BR 4.0 area.
  85. I think you missed my point. My point was that bumper-sticker slogans like "make MM balanced" isn't very enlightening or useful because it's so vague, generic, and everyone has different ideas on how this would be accomplished. I was making a point by using three useless, vague bumper-sticker slogans to encompass the entire game. Talking without "saying" anything.
  86. Aircraft/Loadouts

    http://alternatewars.com/SAC/F3H-1N_SAC_-_15_May_1955.pdf
  87. Ah yes it's written right there in the game code:
  88. Aircraft/Loadouts

    According to the SAC for the F3H-1N, it's 10,900 ft/min at most with clean configuration with afterburners, which is around 55 m/s.
  89. I could get behind this.
  90. If by "non-soul-sucking" you mean "not a crapton of grinding", they never had them. Source: Veteran of "Indian Summer".
  91. I concur with Mercedes. .50 Vickers for 1.0, BESA for 1.3.
  92. Well, "Make matchmaker more balanced" is kind of a useless statement. If we're just doing bumper sticker statements then: Fix Game Bugs Add All Historical equipment around the WWII period Actual Ships
  93. The T-44's? Not really, no. The curvy turret bounces more more shots than it should. The Patton's turret is both flatter and less thick. T-44's turret is 120mm anyways, which is 30mm thicker than the T-34-85. The 76mm M1 needs to use regular AP at close range which is meh, or HVAP at longer ranges which is also meh. Granted, but the tracks and junk tends to absorb HEAT shots, and you'd still have to damage something really important to avoid being nuked. I've found the M26/46 easier to OHK (hull nose), but what I'm saying is that the T-44 is a bit better than the M26 and still compares pretty well to the M46. T-44M or T-44MS would be an equivalent for the M46 and IMO would have been a better choice for 6.7/7.0 than the T-44-100. It doesn't fail me in SB, that's all I sayin'.
  94. Won't be able to make it for the time frame. I'ma have my minion grind out the tanks and shelve out my own money to buy the aircraft stages last second.
  95. I was meaning in general as a fighting vehicle, but yes, that missing spawn is long overdue. T-44 in general has a smaller silhouette and a thicker and trollier turret, and lacks those MG hull and top 30* plate weak spots. The UFP is plenty to protect from its common SB opponents like the Long 75 on the Pz.V, Long 88 on the King Tiger, and sometimes even the 10.5cm and 12.8cm cannons for some reason, so they have to aim at my small sloped turret. It does if the M46 doesn't have HEAT unlocked or the T-44 is sloped around 30 degrees. I don't think the M46's HEAT round can pen the UFP of a KT, it's still 210mm flat IIRC. But I guess it holds true unless we get a T-44M.
  96. I'll grant the Mobility thing mostly because I haven't played the T-44 in a while and am not around to test it myself, but its mobility has never disappointed me in the past. And I played both the T-34-85 and the M26 Pershing in that event. They were on the Jungle map exclusively iirc (idk why that one in particular), and they were about the same tbf. A 85mm to either the turret front or the front plate penetrated easy and would usually kill 1st shot. I greatly prefer the T-44-85 to the M26 in SB, and would greatly prefer it to the M46 as well for similar reasons.
  97. There better be like a 3x multiplier for RB or something. There's rarely 12 player-controlled vehicles on the other team to begin with.
  98. 1.Okay, but what has that got to do with the T-44-85? 2.Not really, not at close ranges anyways. There was a T-34-85 vs M26 event a while ago, in which the M26 didn't exactly club the T-34-85, at all. 3.Unless someone threw a monkey wrench in the T-44-100's tracks in between that and the -85 I have, it really doesn't. 4.Reload sure, but after-pen? Always felt the 100's was superior. I'd have to ask for data digging for that claim.
  99. T-44-85 > M26 T-44-100 > M46 T-44-85MS (not in-game) >>>>> M46
  100. The actual development history of aircraft would say otherwise. Aircraft continue to get heavier and heavier to make use of more powerful engines and carry larger and larger payloads, which would indicate that heavy>light as far as the big picture is concerned.
  101. Higher MV & similar if not better slop modifiers / bounce chance compared to HEATFS, if the recent Event was anything to go by.
  102. Those later ones tho
  103. Coal grilled.
  104. Stick two slices of bread between a Sherman and you'll reach peak 'MURIKA
  105. Even if the playerbase did exactly that, with that many Shermans firing on a Tiger in-game, you can be sure that barrel's not going to last long enough to kill more than 2 Shermans. Shortly after that the tracks would go too...
  106. Edited in some sample SP costs and spawn numbers for tanks/aircraft.
  107. My Prem T5 suggestion got to Documented, so maybe not for long.
  108. So close to self-awareness... Your position was built on a foundation of sand. You've given arguments, supported by faulty reason, and opinions dressed up as facts. Making a change Granted, such data would be difficult, if not impossible, to conjure up. But that's none of my concern. I've thought about it since you posted your first four text walls. There's too many self-contradictions and false inferences in your posts to take seriously. One requires data in order to make proper use of analytics or "analytical ability", which you do not have. Constructing a half-baked theory based on some events and no actual data does not an analytical ability make. You have not demonstrated that the concept is universal to all games (or even FPSs really, just a bunch of anecdotes). And, considering the scope of games and game genres, you cannot. You cannot assume that if a concept is true for one genre, it's true for all genres. I am not the one setting out to change the minds of the forumbase and ultimately Gaijin to fundamentally change a game mode, thus the burden is on you to prove that the current AB/RB/SB split is detrimental to the game's long-term health. Go ahead and make a suggestion if you wish. The base model is identical throughout the modes, with only a few parameters altered in AB. If true, the split between SB and RB would be lower than the split between AB and RB, as SB and RB do share uniform "realistic" physics. Yet this is false. The split between SB and RB is far greater than the split between AB and RB. In fact, many player squadrons in-game feature both AB or RB playing capabilities, while almost none feature all three. They may have a preferred mode but can usually play the other without much hassle. RB players almost never started in RB and played some or quite a few AB matches before "moving on" to RB. And quite frankly, having done so myself, the difficulty spike was nowhere near the level of "relearning the game". An example of one of your non-materialized theories...
  109. A grossly over-simplistic interpretation of a complex issue. All original meanings and contexts were purged so you could insert your narrative. A grossly over-simplistic interpretation of a complex issue. All original meanings and contexts were purged so you could insert your narrative. SB GF has been doing well enough, never had a "time" issue The game is not an FPS. The game is not an FPS. Seeing that you cannot possibly have statistics as to why arcade appeals to arcade players and what function, this is your opinion of what the AB playerbase wants masquerading as a fact. Most I know specifically like the eased up physics. Save the "playerbase split" doomsday scenario by condensing two game modes into... two game modes. That math doesn't add up in the first place, not to mention that this is all based on your flawed assumption that AB players will welcome the changes.
  110. Added optional mechanics as a section with 2 entries: Variable spawn locations and reconnaisance AI mechanics.
  111. Your theories, like @The_Foreigner's, simply haven't materialized.
  112. Every single one of these complaints is the result of the way the MM works and is not integral to tech tree design layouts. And use punctuation. Please.
  113. There's nothing more to say. The answer was "we can get wheeled armored cars, but we don't know when." fin
  114. This suggestion is for, firstly, a Korean map located around the 38th Parallel and secondly, as a top-tier combined arms event. Example of event fluff text in-game: A suprise artillery barrage across the DMZ breaks Korea's 1953 cease fire almost as quickly as it began! North and south are thrusted to war once again. The US and British armed forces are authorized to bring in newer and heavier vehicles, while modern Soviet equipment mysteriously trickles in from the other side of the DMZ. Basic Idea: The Korean War is basically the last war that War Thunder's top aircraft were used as air superiority fighters before moving to AAMs & supersonic aircraft, which we do not have in-game. Not all top-tier fighters actually made it to the Korean War. However, if we extrapolate the Korean War just a little bit further in time, we can add a feasible alternate history mode where top-tier Fighters operate in a realistic fashion above near top-tier tanks. We can also use the 38th Parallel map for historical Korean Scenarios or in the main game rotation when we're not using it as an event map. Spawn System: Unlimited or EC-style "join in" system Starting SP=0 No "Spawn Point Hiking" Spawns are separated into three tiers: "Reserve":These vehicles can be spawned in by anyone and at any time. For air, these will be propeller aircraft, and for ground these will be the basic WWII relics e.g. M4A3E8, T-34-85. All matches will start with these tanks due to the SP 0 condition. Note that fighter aircraft that are otherwise designated as reserves may have to pay SP to carry a bomb load. "Second-line":More capable than the reserves, most of these were real-life Korean War vehicles. They will cost a moderate number of Spawn Points, however. Propeller bombers are also found here, except for the IL-10 1946. "First-line":Leading edge vehicles like the T-54 and M47 for ground forces, and MiG-17A, F-86F-2, Hawker Hunter for Britain, most of these never made it to Korea but existed around the time and will be present as top-tier vehicles. They will have very high spawn points and a limited number of respawns. The B-29 is also found here, mostly due to its sheer payload. Note that just because two vehicles share a "bracket", that does not mean they are equivalent. There may be spawn point cost or spawn number differences between each category (e.g. F-86F-25 vs F-86F-2, both considered First-line but the F-86F-25 will probably have one or two more spawns and a lower SP cost.) Vehicles Vehicles in italics are not in-game (yet) Fighter w/ bombs or rockets: +200 SP U.S. AIR GROUND Commonwealth AIR GROUND China/North Korea (USSR) AIR GROUND Note:Lineups are not comprehensive. Potential Objectives: Primary: Taking primary objectives results in a mission completion. Secondary (optional): Completing secondary objectives does not directly win a mission but may help make them easier to complete. Optional Mechanics __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CONCLUSION The Korean War is the last conflict War Thunder can feasibly represent with combined arms before the fighter portion of the game becomes historical. A "Korean War 1954" event can bring in War Thunder's top aircraft with some tanks close to the top. This event can be used to test the feasability of implementing several "deeper" gameplay mechanics.
  115. ground vehicles

    M60A3 Work on the M60A3 began in the late '70s on the M60A3. The M60A3 was an overall refinement/modernization of the M60 tank to increase its effectiveness. The M60A3 is the last US "steel" main battle tank before the United States went on to composite armour. The M60A3 had a rather brief history with the United States. As the M1 Abrams had just left the pipeline in the early '80s and was being built in numbers and building an increased number of those instead of upgrading the M60A3 was chosen by the US Army, the M60A3 was phased out. ERA packages intended for a M60A3 modernization program were not used by the Army and instead were equipped on US Marines M60A1 RISE PASSIVE tanks for Operation Desert Storm. Given that Gaijin has recently tested composites, ERA, and smoke, there's a chance that we see more advanced tanks for the meta such as the T-64 or modernized T-55s/62s. The M60A3 with modernized ammunition like APFSDS is a partial solution to these more modern tanks. If we don't, then giving it the normal ammunition selection will still allow the M60A3 to function as the slightly-improved US BR 8.3 MBT. Many players consider the M60A3 to be virtually identical to the M60A1 (AOS). This is not quite true. The advantages that the M60A3 will have over the M60A1 include the following: Rangefinder The M60A1 series from the vanilla variant to the RISE PASSIVE (last US upgrade) all include a coincidence rangefinder. In-game, this works rather slowly. The M60A3 utilizes a laser rangefinder, which would operate much more quickly, giving the M60A3 a slight edge over the M60A1 with long-range targeting time. Co-Axial The M60A1 series all use the M73 Machinegun co-axial, with a rate of fire of 500-625 rpm. The M60A3 upgrades to a M240 machinegun co-axial, which fires the same ammunition at a higher cyclical rate of 650-950 rpm. Smoke Launchers No variant of the M60A1 has smoke launchers. The M60A3, however, received six smoke launchers on either side of the turret. These can provide a local smokescreen for ATGM defense and other purposes. Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke System (VEESS) M60A3s & M60A1s were upgraded with the VEESS system. This system injects diesel fuel directly into the engine exhausts, which comes out as smoke. Due to the introduction date, only the M60A3, M48A5, and perhaps the M60A1 RISE PASSIVE (not ingame) would have VEESS, at least for American MBTs.Below is a picture of a T-72 Russian MBT utilizing a form of engine smoke capability. "Udran" Cupola Due to Israeli experiences, later M60A3s had their cupola type switched to the lower, sleeker "Udran" style cupola as seen below. Kevlar Turret Spall Lining The M60A3 introduced a spall lining in the form of kevlar, which technically makes this tank "composite". The kevlar doesn't help much against penetration, rather it reduces the level of spalling post-penetration. HESH, which relies solely on spalling, would be ineffectual against the turret (including the Malkara ATGM & FV4005 derp gun), and HEATFS fired towards the turret may be less effective as well. APDS is probably not significantly affected. General M60A3 Specifications: M60 Technical Manual: Primary Others http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M60.html http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product475.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m240g-specs.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-123/Appg.htm
  116. The purpose of this suggestion is for the implementation of a F-51D with korean-era modifications. P-51s were used in the Korean War, primarily as a ground-attack aircraft. The United States Air Force was a thing by this point, which overall took over the role of the previous United States Army Air Force. Instead of having USAAF printed on the wing, these would be identifiable by having USAF printed. In this time period, the "Pursuit" designation switched to "Fighter", and the P-51 was redesignated as the F-51. There were a few specific changes between the WWII Mustang and the Korean War one. The Korean War variant operated at 67" HG boost, as its ground attack role did not necessitate high levels of boost and the F-51 was long obsolete in the fighter role anyways. This boost is less powerful than the typical boost settings of the P-51 over Berlin. The F-51D also exchanged the M2 .50 calibre Machineguns for the electrically augmented M3 .50 calibres like the ones on the F-80C and F-86A, increasing its firepower. The F-51D would be greatly appreciated in AB as it increases the firepower of the current P-51, and would also be useful for RB and SB Korean-War themed events. Source: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/p-51mustang/an-01-60je-1-flight-handbook-f-51d.html Pg.9 for M3 .50s reference Pg.13 for 67" HG boost reference
  117. Long story short, it's rather silly for the Airacobras and Kingcobras with their .50 cal gun detachable gun pods to not be detachable.   The U.S. probably wouldn't have detached the gun pods often as they didn't find 2 .50 cals to be satisfactory, but the USSR often detached their gun pods in exchange for boosted performance.  So, why not allow all the cobras with the .50 cal pod options to be just that, options?   (Don't have time to hunt for sources today.  If someone can find one to support me, that'd be excellent!)