Necrons31467

Member
  • Content count

    1,775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
medal medal medal

Necrons31467 last won the day on November 20 2016

Necrons31467 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,381 Outstanding

3 Followers

About Necrons31467

Recent Profile Visitors

8,691 profile views
  1. Firstly, Gaijin has already stated they will not remove currently existing tech tree vehicles, at most, they're compress a few T-54's into a tab which would shorten the grind just as easily. Secondly, you're missing the most important of features the T-55 has over it's T-54 predecessor: -2 Plane stabilization system -580 HP engine (Non-gameplay related improvements) -NBC protection -IR equipment -Bore evacuator Additionally, I have a feeling they're gonna add it with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour). See my reasons as to why I believe that's the case here:
  2. It's not: That's the T-44's UFP compared to the T-54's UFP, which is angled at 60°, clearly, the T-44's UFP is angled backwards further thanks to the weight distribution. And even if it is indeed angled at 60° constructional, what are you even blabbering about? an incorrect number in the hangar? come on....
  3. But just don't mention the fact that there are countless vehicles that has weirdly incorrect UFP slopes right? just focus on the Sovjet ones... Tiger II H, in-game UFP angle: 52°, historical angle, 50°. M60, in-gane UFP angle: 66°, historical angle, 65°. etc, etc. Besides: The entire vehicle is leaning backwards because of the weight distribution, thus increasing the UFP slope, plenty of vehicles have it.
  4. Couple days ago I had played 3 matches in my T-10M, and that's all I played since last updating my Thunderskill profile, Match #1: 2 kills, 1 cap, 0 deaths, victory. Match #2: 4 kills, 0 cap, 0 deaths, victory. Match #3: 5 kills, 0 caps, 1 deaths, victory *updates Thunderskill page* Efficiency and winrate drop down 0.02% each... uhmmm, what?
  5. Right, because the T32 and Conqueror are ofcourse at 7.0 and 7.3 for no good reason at all. Oh, and this is a match I played 2 seconds ago: Roflstomped IS-6's, T-54's, Jagdtiger's and IS-2's, Russian Bias Amirite? oh no wait, IS-6 is the big troublemaker, but the T32 is fine at 7.0....
  6. IS-6's and T-54's stomping Tiger II's = Russian Bias. T29's, T34's and T32's stomping Tiger II's = not Bias. Centurion Mk. 10's, Conqueror's and Centurion Mk. 3's stomping Tiger II's = not Bias. Centurion Mk. 10's, Conqueror's and Centurion Mk. 3's stomping IS-6's and T-54's = .... I don't know anymore, please enlighten me.
  7. Ah yes, Sovjet tank gets down-tiered and stomps bottom tiered vehicles = Russian Bias, German tank gets down-tiered stomps bottom tiered vehicles = no Bias. Please, give us more of this impeccable logic.
  8. Well I have played it, and here you go: Average of 5-1 K/D ratio, over 3 kills per match and a 64% winrate after 1100 matches played. Please, down-tier it further.
  9. It's already OP: The fact that you can't seem to make an already OP tank work says more about you than the actual tank itself. Panzer IV G, Panzer IV F2, Gepard, StuG III G, Tiger H1, not enough clubbers already? Your playercard only confirms what many here suspected, you're a poor player and wish to have your vehicles be powerful enough to compensate for your lack of skill, basically saying: ''Screw any and all balance in this game, I am what matters''
  10. Uhmm.... well, someone isn't familiar with overmatching mechanics.... Oh no wait, must be Russian Bias, hahaha, sorry for that silly mistake of thinking it's an actual game mechanic working properly.
  11. Why oh why are you firing the StuH's APCBC shell at a T-34's angled upper glacis? * 30mm of pen against a 60° slope, lemme go ahead and expect a penetration against a 45mm plate angled at 60° * Or are you seriously trying to tell us that the arcade crosshair is to be trusted? it's never worked properly, just learn weakspots on vehicles and aim for those.
  12. Please reduce the T-44's BR to 5.3, 7.92mm MG killed it.
  13. As for the Tiger H1 vs IS-1 comparison... First clip shows that the IS-1 can't angle it's hull to reduce the chance of it's lower glacis being penetrated, as seen by the first clip, the shoulder plates are just far too vulnerable. The second hit shows that even if the IS-1 is angled, the lower glacis is still a guaranteed one-shot-kill for the Tiger, the cramped interior fo the IS-1 makes sure of that. 3rd shot, cupola hits are one-shot-kills. And lastly, turret front is just terribly weak. Conclusion: the IS-1 is extremely vulnerable. Onto the IS-1 firing at the Tiger H1 First thing to note, the transmission on the Tiger H1 is basically a black hole in which any shell disappears, all you can do is hope to cause a fire, this is in stark contrast to the IS-1's lower glacis, which is ofcourse a massive weakness of the vehicle. Second clip, unlike the IS-1, the Tiger H1's hull is practically immune to the 85mm once well angled, one might try and go for the lower hull side, however, chances are you'll hit the tracks and do nothing else. The following clips clearly indicate that the Tiger is ofcourse vulnerable if unangled, however, as for the turret, the superior survivability thanks to the 5 crew members of the Tiger H1 cause turret and cupola penetrations to not be fatal, unlike on the IS-1. Conclusion: the IS-1 driver better hopes the Tiger H1 is not a fair distance away or angled against it, it can easily struggle to defeat the Tiger H1. Made a quick direct perfomance comparison between the two, which I'll quickly summarize: Tiger H1 is the more mobile tank: FAR quicker traverse, has the ability to neutral steer and practical top-speed that is quite close to that of the IS-1. Tiger H1 has superior armour: Turret armour is the most important section of any tank, the Tiger H1 is superior in that regard, even properly angled even that is superior to the IS-1. Tiger H1 has significantly superior firepower: it is superior in every single way apart from reload speed, which is identical to the IS-1's. And lastly, the Tiger H1 has the massively superior survivability: thanks to it's front-mounted transmission, 5 crew and spacious interior it will give the IS-1 trouble when dealing with it. So, the IS-1 being at 5.3 is justified, it's a worse tank in every major way.
  14. Turret penetration on a KV-2, all turret crew die instantly, blows up ammo stored in the hull bottom, nukes the cannon breech, vertical drive and horizontal drive out of existance, radiator/engine gets heavily damaged and even the driver infront is blown to pieces: ''Gun is garbage''
  15. It's something that has come naturally, as every single time I mention the T-10M, I get exactly the response you gave, only without it being a joke :P
  16. Better penetration? Check Better traverse rates? Check Massively better gun depression? Check Better armour when properly angled? Check Better turret armour? Check Better survivability due to crew spacing and crew numbers? Check Massively better HE shell? Check Ability to actually angle itself unlike the IS series which only expose the terribly angled/weak shoulder plates? Check Yup, Tiger H1 is indeed ''not much better''. *Facepalm*
  17. Just like how the IS-3 ''can'' be penned through the turret by a Panzer III, seriously, such a useless statement since in practise it doesn't happen anywhere near often enough to have it even be worth mentioning. Chieftain's regularly ricochet their 400mm pen APDS shot after shot off my T-10M, Leopard's HESH harmlessly ricochets off of the upper glacis and the Jagdtiger's 128mm shell kills just my driver with a lower glacis penetration, that is ofcourse, if it doesn't riochet at the slightest horizontal angle.
  18. Please, down-tier it, it can't compete against the massive powercreep and Russian Bias that has infested this game. (Sarcasm intensifies) Oh, and on the subject of down-tiering clubbing machines, let's just go ahead and down-tier the Centurion Mk. 3 and T-10M aswell.
  19. So... basically giving a MASSIVE slap in the face to whomever did their best to unlock the thing.... tasteful. Apart from that, Gaijin has already stated it's not going to happen, nor is the 150mm version going to be added.
  20. rant

    Because it's been proven to work very well indeed. (Sarcasm intensifies)
  21. No, I did not, the optics port is on the other side of the mantlet. *facepalm* Even if there were, it's not modelled in the actual armour, so please check these things before commenting on them. Besides, you're still missing the point, when a T-10M with 282mm of penetration goes through the ''300mm'' mantlet of a T32 people call Russian Bias, 'however, when a German tank with 235mm pen goes through 250mm of Russian armour it gets overlooked entirely. Problem is, people don't understand the mechanics, so... The T32's mantlet is made of cast steel, thus we must apply the cast steel modifier, doing so will show us the mantlet is actually 283mm in effective thickness, furthermore, any shell striking armour will have a + or - 10% deviation in it's penetration, this means that with a relatively lucky +5% the T-10M can already penetrate this T32's mantlet up to 150 metres away, it's simple maths, not some ''SEKRIT GAIJIN BIAS DOKUMINTZ''. Again, you're missing the point, it's a random glitch, the point being that random glitches can always occur, yet some immediately chalk it up to Russian Bias when the Sovjets just happen to benefit from the situation. And this video was taken from before that bug was occuring, infact, this was not long after the patch that buffed low TNT equivalence APHE shells and nerfed APHE shells with high TNT equivalence, which ofcourse mainly nerfed the Sovjet nation. Sigh, I didn't even read this comment at first, you really are entirely clueless aren't you? First off, Smoothbore guns have been around for like, ever, they're not some ultra high tech equipment that some believe it to be. Secondly, the gun reloads at around 13 seconds while firing needle ammunition only, please, don't you even dare go down the Russian Bias road with the T-62's gun as an argument. Thirdly, the ammunition it currently uses is under-performing, actually, the stock round in massively under-performing, even after a detailed bug report was forwarded, it has never been fixed. So much for the selective bug fixing only benefitting the Sovjets right?
  22. The thing is though, it'd perform better at a higher battle rating, even if most people using the thing are complete monkeys, the RU-251's HEAT-FS shell struggles to one-shot stuff when in the hands of inexperienced players (especially at around 6.7), sometimes they even require 3-6 hits to kill a single T29, at higher BR's there are generally less crew manning enemy tanks, and the crew that is there is far more cramped. Since the HEAT-FS shell will go through practically any armour anyways, the up-tier won't matter as much.
  23. Even when the IS-2 Mod. '44 sat at 6.7, the 7.0's and 7.3's of the Sovjets were often down-tiered, this isn't an issue that has only recently surfaced. Abit of a generalization going on there, British 7.0 - 7.3's stomp the Sovjets of equal tiering quite hard, the main problem is that the German playerbase is not exactly best known for having skilled players, quite the opposite, this in addition to a few soft nerfs to the Tiger II's and the addition of quite powerful contemporary heavies have made them really quite weak in comparison to other nations, however, this ''meta'' switched every few patches or so, for now I'd simply recommend switching to a different nation or a different battle rating (3.3-4.7 German roflstomp just as hadr as ever).
  24. That's the German KwK 43 APCBC shell with 235mm of penetration going through the turret front of an IS-4M (250mm of armour) quite reliably, does this mean the game is Biased towards the Germans? Yup, that 7.92mm coaxial machine gun bullet just went through a 75mm thick plate and one-shot the gunner, German Bias at play? King Tiger takes two 122mm APHE shells to the turret front and is still perfectly capable of fighting back moments later, almost as if nothing really happened, more German Bias? Point being, there are mechanics at play which some of us might not fully understand yet, that doesn't mean the game is automatically biased towards a certain nation, and it is just that, a game, that means glitches can happen, just like in virtually every other game ever made.
  25. So, to get back to rumours about 1.69, Gaijin has made several statements regarding the development of Ground Forces over the past month, some of which are: '' War Thunder was ready for modern vehicles. New mechanics, which were implemented specially for the event will be tested for main game modes in War Thunder. '' Mechanics, plural, that most likely refers to smoke dischargers and likely composite/ERA. '' April fools is a great opportunity to test new machines '' ''Machines'' is what is being said, not mechanics in this case, I'd say that makes it likely that ERA/Composite armoured vehicles are planned (April Fool's ofcourse only had composite/ERA equipped vehicles). '' We do not plan to add the T-64 separately and independently from the other nations. If we decide to add the T-64, it will be added along with other tanks similar to its performance for the other nations, which is pretty hard to do without going into tanks of the late 70 early 80's. We will however experiment with the additional armour protection kits. '' This confirms atleast a new form of armour protection, I'd bet on ERA, also note how this makes it clear they've been open to adding the T-64 for quite a while now. '' The Т-62 is possible, T-55 will be implemented for sure. '' T-55 was already expected to come with 1.67, but this was not the case. Now, could this mean we'll see this? : Kontakt-1 equipped T-55, I mean, the T-55 isn't really a difficult tank to model, it's nearly identical to the T-54 Mod. '51 afterall, yet was still held back for (likely) one or more patches. Gaijin has recently seemingly taken a newer approach to patches, one patch will be a smaller one, the next a major one, likely implementing a major new mechanic in the latter, the last patch was ofcourse a smaller one, could ERA be the next upcoming major mechanic in 1.69? that would explain the delay on this tank atleast. Yup, lot's of ''maybe's'' and ''if's'', but this is a rumour thread afterall :P
  26. Then why not just suggest something like that? this testing phase is to gather feedback like that.
  27. For some reason the German/US/British teams still haven't figured out HESH is ridiculously powerful at the moment, seriously, I'm driving along at Normandy, I get ambushed by a hull-down Chieftain to the front of my T-10M, I eventually end up taking 3 shots from his 400mm pen APDS shell before I retreat back behind cover, only my driver died and my cannon barrel suffered slight damage, a match after that, a simple up-tiered Centurion 10 shoots me once with HESH and pretty much 80% of the modules inside my tank got obliterated. I can understand that not everyone already has access to HESH, but when I see Leopard's and M60's spamming HEAT-FS at me killing a single crew member at a time, I just facepalm, especially when they then ofcourse get mad in chat because of ''Russian Bias''.
  28. Crew didn't eat the shell, driver wasn't in the line of travel, the ammunition was:
  29. Which begs the question, how exactly does that shell not penetrate that lower glacis? Matching the angle shown in my replay and then checking the armour thickness after which I then extrapolated the angle of impact, it seems my T-10M's BR-472 shell which penetrates 126mm of armour at a 60° slope somehow magically failed to properly penetrate 76mm of armour at a 55.2° slope.... I don't know what's worse, the broken penetration mechanics or the absolute lack of consistency in terms of damage output on any shell type in War Thunder.
  30. Point blank range penetrating hit with the T-10M's APCBC (200 gramms of TNT equivalence) shell into the lower glacis of a Conqueror, yellows the driver and a bunch of ammo, just wonderful....
  31. All of those matches were with the T-10M, since that's the vehicle I'm grinding modules on at the moment. ( Just check any of my Server side replays from the past 6 days or so if you really need evidence :P )
  32. I was speaking for an in-game point of view, not historical one, considering the T-10M's APHE is massively superior to anything the M551 has to offer, the even longer reload is just a massive slap in the face and significantly brings down the effectiveness of the M551. Neither does the T-10M per se, the general aspects of a heavy tank are: Poor mobility - T-10M has excellent mobility. Poor reload - T-10M has a poor reload. Heavy punch - Heaviest punch for any shell in the game. Poor gun handling - The stabilizer aswell as the acceptable 16°/sec turret traverse make for decent gun handling. Good armour - T-10M has some of the best armour in the game. It's comparing two equal tiered vehicles that regardless of classification face eachother on a general basis, the comparison is valid.
  33. Assuming this is in reference to the M46 in Arcade, I'm really not sure why it's at 7.0, it's far better in RB than in AB, which makes the arcade BR placement even more questionable.
  34. So, it's a Leopard that somehow is less mobile while also having FAR less armour, all while having a FAR worse reload rate, worse survivability, worse ammunition and no access to any form of solid shot. You could've easily said the same thing about the T-10M, it's mobile, laughably enough it reloads faster than the M551 while also firing a FAAAAAAAAR more powerful shell and additionally it's actually got some armour, I'd even take the 7.0 Object 906 over the M551 any day of the week. Except, unlike every other ATGM equipped vehicle in the game, the M551's ammo racks (which are literally everywhere, and thus impossible to miss) will detonate 97% of the time like any other high tiered tank's ammo rack, thus it's less survivable, besides, with the extreme lack of armour shells like HESH and HEAT absolutely demolish it. How does that make any sense? prior to 1.67 both tanks had stabilizers, after patch 1.67, both have updated stabilizers, how is the Chieftain worse off in any manner related to the stabilizer?
  35. And we've seen ERA during the April Fool's event, just because something has been ''data mined'' doesn't somehow immediately confirm a quick introduction into the game, besides, wasn't the Sturmtiger's gun data mined like 2 years ago? Regardless, the point was, it isn't here now, thus it is of no use against ATGM's in the current state of War Thunder. It's true though, ATGM-equipped vehicles are just ''meh'', they're one-trick-ponies, if they can get into their trademark position, and if they happen to be lucky enough to encounter enough enemies from that position to make a difference in the match, and if they do not get flanked, HESH'd or bombed out, they'll likely wreck people, other than that, they're easily killed vehicles with rather large limitations and suffer from the unreliability of their main weaponry, and all that is assuming the enemy isn't at a significant distance away giving them plenty of time to dodge the missile. Really?
  36. Problem is, the M551 is a terrible tank.
  37. I'm not sure about that, I unlocked my T-10M 5 days ago, after 3 days of playing the tank I was at a 43% winrate, I then would've agreed that the Germans are indeed roflstomping again, however, strangely, I'm now back to a 53.4% winrate with a 4.7 - 1 K/D ratio, It's almost like the dominant nation is switched around on a 3 days cycle. From what I can tell so far, the Sovjets don't stomp as easily as they used to a few months back as is evident by my IT-1's 66.1% winrate and my T-62's 64.1% winrate (compared to my T-10's), both of which I haven't played for a bit. The US still seem worst off though, (39.5% winrate M60A1, 38.1% winrate M551 Sheridan). It's also funny how in Tier V Simulator things are entirely different, 77.8% winrate Chieftain, 71.4% winrate M60A1.
  38. After doing some extensive testing at the user made test drive, I could easily see the Super Pershing is indeed extremely vulnerable to the Panther's APCBC shell, Not only were most penetrations one-shot-kills, some shots also managed to penetrate the portion of the mantlet with the overlap and destroy the gun breech entirely aswell as injuring the gunner, even the upper glacis in general was sometimes penetrated, though I did not mark it here as it was only very rarely, besides that, the Super Pershing is clearly extremely vulnerable to the Panther's 75mm.
  39. No it does not, not reliably. At 52° the HEAT shell penetrates roughly 137mm of armour, clearly, not sufficient to go through the upper glacis of the King Tiger, now, this is ofcourse assuming we're not talking about lucky high penetration rolls or firing downwards onto the upper glacis. (Yes, I did test this, and I have the recording, just not gonna bother uploading it unless someone here want to see it).
  40. Remove the possibility of getting a map in which the sun is located directly behind one of the teams spawns, making spotting opponents for the opposing team nigh impossible, while the others have their opponents completely illuminated. Increase BR spread to 9.0. Remove pontless AI tank spam on various maps that do nothing but eat people's FPS, randomly kill player controlled vehicles which they otherwise should not be able to do and mark opponents on the map for the whole enemy team to see. Those are just the first three I can think off of the top of my head, there are countless more issues that need addressing, but these jump out, especially the second. (I'll add more issues along the line) Fix the incredibly annoying tendency for tracks to inexplicably eat entire shells without issue.
  41. Because they're excellent tanks? Over-powered, decently armoured for it's mobility, almost nothing can match it's firepower in a flanking role, everything it pens goes down in one hit, excellent piece of machinery. Panzer IV's can penetrate the turret front of a Panther II, Panzer IV's can penetrate the turret front of a T-44-100, Panzer IV's can penetrate the front of a Centurion. Actually, I have really enjoying farming Ru-251's in my M46, the IS-6 I haven't encountered much yet, they're mostly on my team.
  42. Right... because the 76mm Jumbo is clearly on-par with the other 76mm Easy Eight. What? I mean... what? The Super Pershing is a better M26, so how do they supposedly end up at the same BR? the M26 at 6.0 I can understand, even if from my experience I don't deem it necessary, the Super Pershing should however never go lower than 6.3, it's got around 190mm of frontal armour across the turret and hull, this makes it immune against the Panther's, IS-1/T-34/85's and Tiger's, while it in return can one-shot any of them. Yes please, down-tier it, I'll be at an 8-1 K/D ratio in no time. M47 is alright, nothing special, but not bad, 7.3 is fine for it.
  43. What makes you say that?
  44. I've played the M46 ''Tiger'' consistently, probably beginning at early 2015, the regular M46 I've gone back to very recently, and am still playing right now, as you can see, same results as with the Premium version, Panther 1's are actually some of the more rare opponents, so no, it's not a different story.
  45. Ugh, I cant read properly it seems, sorry about that. Well, I guess to a lot of people the M26 naturally seemed like the better choice, that often leads to the poorer performing players gravitating towards it while the more skilled players take the underdog, though I haven't played that event, i'd imagine it being similar to the Historical Rhine event, where 75mm and 76mm Shermans were still doing just fine against Jagdpanthers and King Tiger's Assuming that's in reference to the mobility... Top-speed (medium terrain) T-44-100 36 km/h M46 46 km/h Forwards 360° traverse T-44-100 11 seconds M46 11 seconds Backwards 360° traverse T-44-100 12 seconds M46 12 seconds Top-speed (reverse) T-44-100 -9 km/h M46 -15 km/h Is able to reach the first AI in the test drive in.... T-44-100 31 seconds M46 27 seconds The M46 is just more mobile. They're probably quite similar, I;ve tested both guns against the German 88's, both the 100mm and 90mm have massively better damage out-put, the 90mm especially, though at this point I'm ofcourse going off of memory.
  46. Never went back and unlocked the Super Pershing, the Jumbo 76 I haven't really played enough to give my thought on. But lacks the incredibly important stabilization the M60A1 has aswell as having worse overall armour and worse gun performance (at the earlier stages of unlocking modifications especially). Yes, all have 50. cals, yet it's opposition does not, that's why I mentioned it, also, the armour can be decent because nobody knows where to aim since they're so rare ont he battlefield. M26 stomps the T-34/85 hard, hence why the T-34/85 is also at a lower battle rating. T-44-100 is probably quite decent, but can't match the M46's mobility nor gun handling, the 90mm is also superior in flanking attacks, (better post-pen dmg, better reload), though again, the T-44-100 has a higher BR.
  47. Lol, what? The M26 is currently quite a competitive machine, that being said, it's one of those tanks which suffers from BR compression, 6.0 is too low for it's capabilities and 6.3 can occasionally cause it to end up fighting stuff beyond it's capabilities. The M46 is one of the best medium tanks in the entire game, similarly to the M26, it might be slightly too good for 6.7 but would be under-powered at 7.0, it's also not just a minor engine upgrade, it's mobility is infact so high it's slightly superior to that of the Panther II. It has a turret, excellent gun depression, 50. calibre machine gun, better armour than any of those you mentioned and excellent mobility, the Ru-251 is a Pay2Win premium, it's not that fair to compare it to the Ru-251 since anything that's similar in playstyle to it will look poor comparatively. With the recent IS-6 spam the HEAT-FS round is also especially useful. Skipped it, M60A1 is probably just better in nearly every way.
  48. And the Exaggeration Award goes to....
  49. The Centurion Mk. 3 is indeed under-tiered. That's an excellent way of getting yourself killed in an IS-6, I guess nobody was able to aim at him properly? If a Centurion is one-shotting your King Tiger frontally you're being silly since you're taking full ammo load-outs. Stick to 6.3 for the moment, more down-tiers and the Ferdinand, Jagdpanther and King Tiger Porsche are good tanks.
  50. There, fixed it for you.
  51. Adding APFSDS to the current NATO MBT's is just utter nonsense, they don't need it, and it's just taking further dumps on the already power-creeped T-62 and most of the Sovjet Tier V's in general.
  52. Not going to take part in this discussion too much, but I will say: '' All US tanks (T95 included due to cupola) can be easily taken out by first hit '' Not exactly the case for the T95, as shown here: Yes, you can beat them frontally, it's just not an easy one-shot.
  53. Modern tanks don't use simple Steel+STEF+Steel composites any longer, nor do they use the 115mm gun, nor do they have the incredibly low by todays standards 18 degree per sec turret traverse, nor do they have incredibly out-dated fire control systems, etc. T-64 isn't modern, please don't use that term to describe it, yes it has composite armour, yes the tank would be too powerful in the current line-up, still not modern.
  54. T-64 isn't ''modern'' though, it's quite a few years older than the Type-74, the main issue with attempting to go further with ground forces is that you can no longer balance each nation out properly, a T-64 doesn't really have an equal, atleast not unless we start implementing tanks with guesstimates mainly in regards to their ammunition performance and armour.
  55. T29 used to be Pay2Win, now that the T34 is here, it's got an equivalent in the normal tech tree, not P2W. Tiger II SLA doesn't feature differences that are significant enough for a up-tier, not P2W, T-34-100 is basically a SU-100 with a turret, but also with a higher battle rating, not P2W, Ru-251 is a Jpz 4-5 with a much lower battle rating, a turret, HESH but a slower reload, it's P2W IS-6 is a T-54 Mod. '47 with a much worse gun but at a lower battle rating, close to P2W, Strv 81 is a Centurion Mk. 3 with three extremely situational and difficult to use ATGM's at a higher battle rating, not P2W, Yes, to convince me of this game being ''Pay2Win'', you do need to say more.
  56. Lol, ''Sources: Wikipedia''. Come on... if you're going to claim something is incorrectly modelled in-game, atleast give us some reliable sources that back your statements up, not... whatever that is.
  57. No kidding m8. Edgy or not, it's quite true, this is what yesterday's match looked like: At around 7.0 it goes as follows: USSR alone stomps Germans, USSR vs US is relatively even, Germany/US vs USSR is the US being dragged into a defeat thanks to the Germans, Brits/US vs USSR is the US slightly dragging down the Brits, though they still have the advantage over the USSR, Brits vs USSR is the USSR being roflstomped, USSR together with anything that isn't Germans against the Germans is the the Jerries getting absolutely smashed. German Ru-251 drivers possess the skillset of a toddler, the Panther II is severely under-played, even though 7.0's get constant down-tiers, Jagdtiger's are severely misused aswell as under-played, Tiger II H drivers suffer from the tank being in a poor state aswell as nobody apparently being able to just wiggle the darn turret and the Leopard drivers are basically the Ru-251 drivers but add +2 years to their age.