Results45

Knight of the Sea
  • Content count

    4,485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal

Community Reputation

1,718 Outstanding

5 Followers

About Results45

  • Rank
    Marshal of Advocacy
  • Birthday 12/18/1997

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    oresults45o@gmail.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Coast, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

18,642 profile views
  1. ground vehicles

    And maybe an option to select "yes for both as premiums"?
  2. IMO events are an extra hassle to grind for the vehicles anyway so.......this is good news!
  3. Good points, but that's all to say that both the D. 551 and XP-40Q can be safely placed in Tier 3 without clubbing or being undergunned.
  4. It was never fully built; designed as an alternative design to Object 770 and 777.
  5. Check this out: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EH80-rZDlxowhR2G31A3h4KxhqA7nh9AwH2bNZilkdk/edit?usp=drivesdk Based on the chart, the D.551 would have significantly better acceleration than all other competition while the XP-40Q and I-180 would fair similarly in most if not all other aspects. MiG-3 and the upgunned He. 100D on the other hand are appropriate for where they are: Tier 2
  6. Not more than American, British, and Chinese/Intl. Tree heavies. Russia just has the most whereas US had autiloaders and China built copycats.
  7. These are a few dedicated CAS jets: LTV A-7 Coarsair II, IL-102, and Sud-Ouest Vautour Here are your future Objects: IS-7/Obj. 260, Obj. 277, Obj. 278, Obj. 752, Obj. 770, Obj. 777, and Obj. 279 And here's your "T" tanks: T95E2/E3/E4/E5/E6/E8/E10, T57, T58, and T110
  8. We could have those right now if someone found a way to create a user mission where all BR 8.0+ jets had ATGMs (essentially short-range missiles at lower altitudes).
  9. Cuz it was P-40K with four Brownings going at least 640km/h.
  10. XP-40Q-2/Q-2A/Q-3
  11. And things like infrared night vision, Gen. 1/1.5 Air-to-Air/Air-to-Ground missiles, and mini-nukes (payloads for alternate history). I gib Mach 1.5 jets
  12. With any sort of preventative system (disease, personal habits, consequences of animal behavior, tendencies, etc.) there are different levels of measures to keep things in check.

     

    Here's what spawncamping/killing prevention would encompass:

    1. Attack the root of the problem: keep the fight at the objectives or at a map's center via larger maps, multistage tactical objectives, and free respawns for players who don't survive the first 3 minutes to solidify frontlines longer.
    2. Decentivise pushing enemy spawns and/or camping enemy spawns from the beginning by not rewarding players for making spawnkills.
    3. Make the exact position of enemy spawn zones a mystery: keep the position of friendly spawns invisible to opponents, shift spawns on a regular or random interval, or add spawns bases/FOBs at the squadleaders' command based on available team resources (in EC & WW Mode).
    4. Implement an early-warning system to mark enemy positions on or near spawns in Arcade and periodic auto voice-commands stating presence of enemies on or near spawns zones in Realistic and Sim battles
    5. Have some (not all) spawns be 50% to twice as far away from the main objectives and have them be protected by layers of AI anti-tank guns, Flak guns, and "smart"/extra lethal AI tanks
    6. Other mechanics like integration of BF1-style "behemoths" (1-3 player-driven OP or advantageous vehicles for the team on the verge of losing) to draw fire away from spawn zones.

     

    From keeping the fight away from spawns to devaluing spawnkills to making zones themselves invisibile and constantly shifting, this how we should prevent and reduce spawncamping.

     

    List of community-made solutions:

     

  13. That's an exception going high speed with sparkle guns. Maybe put the D. 551 in Tier 3 or late Tier 2 at best. And with a speed of 662km/h, a 20mm cannon, and five 7.92mm MGs, the only two other aircraft I would compare it to are the MiG-3 (already ingame) and the XP-40Q going 676km/h with four .50cal Browning MGs:
  14. With any sort of preventative system (disease, personal habits, consequences of animal behavior, tendencies, etc.) there are different levels of measures to keep things in check. Here's what spawncamping/killing prevention would encompass: Attack the root of the problem: keep the fight at the objectives or at a map's center via larger maps, multistage tactical objectives, and free respawns for players who don't survive the first 3 minutes to solidify frontlines longer. Decentivise pushing enemy spawns and/or camping enemy spawns from the beginning by not rewarding players for making spawnkills. Make the exact position of enemy spawn zones a mystery: keep the position of friendly spawns invisible to opponents, shift spawns on a regular or random interval, or add spawns bases/FOBs at the squadleaders' command based on available team resources (in EC & WW Mode). Implement an early-warning system to mark enemy positions on or near spawns in Arcade and periodic auto voice-commands stating presence of enemies on or near spawns zones in Realistic and Sim battles Have some (not all) spawns be 50% to twice as far away from the main objectives and have them be protected by layers of AI anti-tank guns, Flak guns, and "smart"/extra lethal AI tanks Other mechanics like integration of BF1-style "behemoths" (1-3 player-driven OP or advantageous vehicles for the team on the verge of losing) to draw fire away from spawn zones. From keeping the fight away from spawns to devaluing spawnkills to making zones themselves invisibile and constantly shifting, this how we should prevent and reduce spawncamping.
  15. We're talking spawnzone detection here, not necessarily adding new spawns to already teenie 3 x 3km AB/RB maps.
  16. That's like P-61, Hs. 123, and Ju. 87. Horrible speed and/or climbrate, but insane lead barfing rate
  17. Petty good English, I'd say And nice illustration for detection zones (#2). Here's a list of other solutions if you're interested: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/342381-spawn-camping-views-and-opinions-keep-it-nice/&do=findComment&comment=6887182
  18. Yes, but at 703km/h. Kinda fast for Tier 3 dontcha think?
  19. Guys, guys the aircraft modeling/gameplay team is completely independent of the GF and naval teams so we may in fact get initial trees for Naval Forces CBT by Thanksgiving or Christmas before tortellini tanks in February and French aircraft later next year. Not saying it will definitely happen like that, but that's how the system works. That would be.......send the guy to gulag who goes through with that idea. Tiers 1 to 4 (besides the F4U-7 and Swiss aircraft): And these -- most of which didn't make it into the tree: Fighters --- Cauldron C.714 --- SNCAO C.A.O.200 (premium) --- Dewotine D.26/27/371/372/373/376 --- Loire L.C1 --- Loire L.210 --- Mureaux M.113/115/117 --- Bleriot-SPAD S.510 Attackers/bombers --- Amiot A.143 --- Amiot A.351/354 --- Bruguet Bre.693 --- Bruguet Bre.1150 Atlantic --- Dewotine D.720 --- Bloch M.B.210 --- Bloch M.B.152 --- Bloch M.B.155 --- Bloch M.B.174 --- Bloch M.B.175 --- Bloch M.B.131 --- Hanroit N.C.530 --- Hanroit N.C.600 --- Latecoere Late 298 --- Latecoere Late 611 --- Liore C1 --- Liore 210 --- Liore-et-Oliver LeO H-470 --- Potez 633 --- Potez 63.11/63.13 --- Potez 540/542/543 --- Potez 141 (premium) Variants --- D.500/501/510 --- M.S.406/410/D.3801/D.3802/D.3803/Morko Morane --- V.G.33/36/39 --- Potez 630 C3/631 C3
  20. Misc/Other

    PS4 Pro runs upscaled 4K resolution at 60fps: https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/235274-how-sonys-playstation-4-pro-does-4k-without-delivering-4k PS4/PS4 Slim vs. Pro: http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/ps4-pro-vs-ps4
  21. Well including a probable upcoming French and International tree(s), there will be several simultaneous campaigns to participate in: Pacific Theater throughout island chains and on mainland China including the B-25 Doolittle Raid on Tokyo (US/Chinese air-tanks-boats/midsized naval vessels vs. Japanese air-tanks-naval forces) Atlantic/W. European Front from U-boat hunting to air raids on Britain to D-Day and beyond (US/UK/Commonwealth/France/others vs. Germany/France/others) Mediterranean/N. Africa Theater (US/UK/Commonwealth vs. Germamy & Italy) Russian/E. European Front from Poland to Moscow/Stalingrad to the Caucasus/Black Sea (Russia & Germany/others vs. Poland/others and Russia vs. Germany/others) Minor fronts like Norway/Finland, and Japanese occupation of Phillipines/Indonesia/Papa New Guinea/Thailand/Malaysia/Oceania Add in command structure, AI/player-driven supply chains, and resource management and we've got ourselves a pretty dang exciting World War II Mode
  22. Misc/Other

    Yes, this could mean WT on iPhones eventually They just added PS4 support for rendering at 4K resolution
  23. If you bug-report* it, maybe they will add it! *fix or add visual details, functions, and mechanics present in real-life vehicles, but not currently present on an existing one ingame
  24. Bombs and rocket settings screen (loadout, detonation distance, etc.):
  25. Well the suggestion mods have approved both your topics so you might wanna work it out with @Hannibal_Barrca and go forward from there.
  26. Tanks/Vehicles

    Um.....Type 74 has hydro right off the bat. What fun would having the most powerful tank ingame be without leaving your enemies constantly guessing where your weak spots are?
  27. And for regulars like us added dev threads so we know where to ask them stuff.
  28. For all the newbies and first-time rumor-roundup participants out there
  29. Is the Vickers Mk.1A/1B ingame this patch as a premium or stock tree vehicle? Also I would like to remind everyone of this (updated according to 1.69): CONFIRMED: MASSIVE BR CHANGES IN COMING MONTHS (posted in the official updates section) Japan - more CAS planes in next patches, working on rocket bombs Thinkin' about it...... Looking to improve post pen damage for large caliber guns (especially for slow reloading) IS-7.....still maybe Spawn killing - moving spawn location not very likely as it requires map changes. They have some other ideas that they are working on but would not elaborate on that (apparently difficult for coders & devs to implement) BT-42, BT-7A - interesting tanks that they might consider introducing They have planed vehicle list for 1 year ahead BMP, BMD - very probable Navy - soon new test with ships that have powerful guns Smoke??? - thinking how to introduce them (probably as smoke grenades shot from main gun) ERA - will introduce only if all nations gets it World war - no real information, wait for new some time Nope! (for now): Chinese tank tree - no comments, currently only for china server, maybe few interesting tanks will be implemented on warthunder servers MIG-21 & F-100 nope No air-air rockets because whoever gets on tail first wins T-64 still possible but not now Xbox support War Thunder: Mobile Edition (Metal/Vulkan for mobile devices and performance optimization on PC/Linux platforms) And don't forget to check-out AntonYudintsevCEO on Reddit and White_Wolf and VSN's Q&A threads on the .RU forums (only 2 currenty open) to ask questions and posted for upcoming answers!
  30. gameplay

    Try reading the first paragraph of the starting post......this suggestion is for selecting an exact number of bomb loadout you want on the airfield in addition to dropping an exact number or whole series/load at a time.
  31. Yes, Object 268 or T-10M: Tank Destroyer Edition
  32. You advised me to take discussion of this issue to the forums so I shall do so right here.

    5 minutes ago, Stona said:

     

    READ rules before you start asking questions.

     

    Is there any way to challenge or petition for reasonable amendment to forum rules and how moderation is carried-out?

     

    Because things like images (i.e. food & GIFs) and videos of content from other games should be allowed when posted in good faith, serve to uplift the community (in reasonable amounts), in support of constructive ideas, and when demonstrating a potential future game mechanic that currently cannot be replicated in Warthunder in any way.

     

    The deeper issue here is not about entirely about keeping the forums "clean", but the expression of ideas, support, and empowering the community to advocate for the right changes in development (not just what the devs think is right or what senior mods state without backing up with discussion, data, and facts).

     

    Discussions can actually be enhanced and prove to be more valuable to the devs if player ideas are supported and critiqued by mods and senior staff instead of being over-modded or stagnated due to lack of official proof that the issue exists. Examples include being able to look at the data from claimed "internal tests" conducted two years ago that 1.0 spread in comparison to 0.7 spread makes no difference or that adding ragdoll paratroopers/ground troops would raise the age-rating to PEGI 18+ instead of an acceptable PEGI 16+.

     

    Modding should include adding positively to the discussion instead of constant trimming, redirecting (which can serve to steer discussion as well), and staying neutral.

     

    I would appreciate a response (and please don't delete or avoid this).

    1. Results45

      Results45

      Update v1.1

       

        46 minutes ago, Pacifica said:

       

      Pizza for me..... but the point is, we do try and keep relevant information flowing! it is difficult for users to find relevant info when things are spammed and or thread is derailing...

       

      If Staff have "Cryptic" clues for up coming content, then we may have a bit of fun! But, like I said we want users to read relevant info without sorting though nonsense that may go on

       

      You advised me to take discussion of this issue to the forums so I shall do so right here.

        Quote
        Quote

      5 minutes ago, Stona said:

       

      READ rules before you start asking questions.

       

      Is there any way to challenge or petition for reasonable amendment to forum rules and how moderation is carried-out?

       

      Because things like images (i.e. food & GIFs) and videos of content from other games should be allowed when posted in good faith, serve to uplift the community (in reasonable amounts), in support of constructive ideas, and when demonstrating a potential future game mechanic that currently cannot be replicated in Warthunder in any way.

       

      The deeper issue here that needs addressing is not bound to keeping the forums "clean", but the expression of ideas, support, and empowering the community to advocate for the right changes in development (not just what the devs think is right or what senior mods state without backing up with discussion, data, and facts).

       

      Discussions can actually be enhanced and prove to be more valuable to the devs if player ideas are supported and critiqued by mods and senior staff instead of being over-modded or stagnated due to lack of official proof that the issue exists. Examples include being able to look at the data from claimed "internal tests" conducted two years ago that 1.0 spread in comparison to 0.7 spread makes no difference or that adding ragdoll paratroopers/ground troops would raise the age-rating to PEGI 18+ instead of an acceptable PEGI 16+.

       

      Modding should include adding positively to the discussion instead of constant trimming, redirecting (which contributing can serve to steer discussion as well), and staying neutral.

       

      I would appreciate a response.

       

       

      P.S. even if I am penalized for forcing an answer; please don't delete or avoid this

      .

    2. Pacifica

      Pacifica

      We support player input always, thats why we have the Suggestion and Bug report area, a great many updates include player suggestions

       

      But, we do not discuss Moderation on the forum...

      1.1.5. Deliberately challenge moderation or administration, if you have issues or concerns with any actions taken please send a Private Message to Moderators, Senior Moderators, Lead Moderators or Community Managers/Administrators.

    3. Results45

      Results45

      I would like to point out some loose ends that should be addressed:

       

      --- Why the "Polling Station" forum section in the .RU forums isn't replicated within the international forums and instead takes place in more indirect forms like surveys via newspage links.

       

      --- Why it would be hard for Anton and/or the host of Shooting Range/Thunder Show to spare a few hours of their time a year to talk face-to-face with players via livestream (same for Russian players by available devs).

       

      --- Why it would be difficult to recruit a new category of dedicated "CDK Expert" volunteer forum staff (for both RU and Intl. forums) to help new users get started with CDK modding via official step-by-step guides and Skype/TS/Discord/Mumble workshops and one-on-on content creation training (like what was done to add STEAM mods, WT.live mods, and Wiki page editor staff).

       

      --- Why suggestion helpers over the year have not seriously considered categorizing the hundreds of not thousands of active suggestion threads both to help players have an easier time finding and supporting ideas and to assist developers to quickly find ideas/inspiration for future content.

       

      --- Why a single nugget of "internal test" data on 0.7 spread can't be shared or at least some alternate detailed reasoning be given in response to the countless well-thought reasons/counter reasons/solutions players have presented justifying the addition of 0.7 spread (the more silent one end of the discussion stays the more ignorant that party seems of the current state of the issue).

       

      --- Why many of you senior staff/admin  when confronted with requests to add paratroopers/ground troops (even no blood & basic ragdoll animation) insist on giving the response "Paratroopers, ground troops, and crew reinforcements running around the battlefield will force Gaijin to raise the age rating to ESRB "M"/PEGI 18+ which will noticeably decrease the potential audience that War Thunder caters to" when Gaijin/other publishers have developed many games of equivalent percieved levels of violence (many actually several magnitudes more violent and even with troops I would call WT a PEGI 12+ game) at PEGI 16+ instead of PEGI 12+  (both are one and the same ESRB "T" rating in the US and parents who tolerate "T/12+" will likely tolerate "T/16+" as well).

       

      --- Why the cause for keeping AB/RB matches below 30 minutes is constantly justified when the reality is that 95% of matches don't even last 10-15 minutes?Adding just 50% to arena sizes (given the max playable area in CDK can be scaled up to 300% of current ingame map sizes) with tactical primary/meaningful secondary objectives would give players a much more dynamic feel for combat at the expense of matches running 5-10 minutes longer (still under claimed 30 min. maximum).

       

      --- Why it would be so unfavorable for developers to disclose minor upcoming fixes/content considered for patches in the coming year (especially issues with vehicles/game mechanics most griped about by players and hinting at a multitude of future decals, supported software/hardware platforms, and gameplay/game mechanic additions, revisions, and removals). By hinting at and disclosing minor/moderate non-vehicle content, players can be given a chance to debate the changes on the forums and return feedback instead of experiencing the new features/mechanics upon fully-functional release and griping about the negative impacts it has on gameplay only to either have to deal with it in the long-haul or force the devs to reluctantly remove it after much hard work to complete the additions/changes.

       

      --- Why mods & admin staff seem to readily take the route of giving warnings often taken by the common player as harsh and at times seemingly without reasonable cause -- especially if players are constructively demonstrating an idea for a future game mechanic through footage from another game or the one GIF/foodie pic that was spammed 50 pages earlier but is relevant if posted once -- rather than steer a discussion/conversation in a more positive manner when possible (preferably through contributing/critiqueing player ideas of other players or giving a brief statement of support). Otherwise in situations of brash and trolly players I fully support how modding is conducted currently.

  33. Not an issue if the climb rate on afterburner stays below 70m/s
  34. tanks/vehicles

    TKS 20mm will ambush all in low-tier realistic and sim battles, but just think about how much damage the 37mm TKD can do : http://derela.republika.pl/tkd.htm
  35. And all these on this list: https://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2017/03/theorem-on-newly-discovered-tanks.html?m=1 And this (the definitive tree): And a handful of others like torpedo-launching tanks, the SS1-4 quad SPRG, the Shisei 15cm Tarenso MLRS, and the Type 75 MLRS/SPH.
  36. The Type 75 MLRS was already passed to the devrelopers and Type 87 with Oelikeron GDF is already in-game.
  37. tanks/vehicles

    And a great compliment to these: .
  38. Just more info on the weapons system and the vehicle(s) that mounted it. Maybe I will
  39. Oh darn :P Maybe next time........
  40. M60A1 elevation, depression, and gun-turret armor increased: .
  41. Mai still hasn't answered my question about the Shisei 15cm Tarenso MRLS.......
  42. skins/decals

    Interesting......
  43. ground vehicles

    Already been passed to the devs. .
  44. tanks/vehicles

    Sushi-flinging for April Fool's?
  45. gameplay

    Well here's two suggestions for commander's cupola and gunner/driver periscopes.
  46. tanks/vehicles

    The Japanese Sturmpanzer..........hmmm.........would be good right after the Ho-Ro!
  47. Tanks/Vehicles

    Still don't get why the T95E1 is coming to WT as a "heavy" when it was clearly developed as a potential medium tank replacement to the M48, but led to the M60 instead. I added those because I thought you implied them.......but sorry, not gonna edit your posts again 8.3-9.0 is where late-model current generation (Gen. 1) and modernized variants (Gen 1.5) will live. US has M60A3/TTS/SLEP, M60A1 RISE Passive while Britian and Japan have Chieftain Mk.5 (arriving in the coming week), Chieftain Mk.10/11, and Type 74C-E/G. Italy and Japan are who you should worry more about for Gen. 2 MBTs (full-body composites) at BR 9.3-10.0
  48. gameplay

    Would this include commander/driver sights?
  49. ground vehicles

    Can you add a 5km option to the 2nd poll question? And maybe something about auto-tracking and lead-indicators to the OP as well?
  50. Sounds like a premium to me
  51. Tanks/Vehicles

    Wouldn't 125mm APFSDS ammo and ATGMs punch through the sides and back of the MBT-70 from 2km? Fixed Exactly, but no higher IMO.
  52. ground vehicles

    Halftrack SPAAs, halftrack FlaKs, and now halftrack TDs???!!! Nice.
  53. All for any mechanic that makes things more realistic
  54. Gameplay

    Here's a better solution, guys:
  55. Wait, so this essentially the Italian MiG-13/Su-5?
  56. ground vehicles

    Back on topic, shouldn't 2.5-3km be the minimum radar detection range for lead-indicator tracking? Because with guns like Shilka, Vulcan, and Avenger being practically lasers are easy to lead and kill jets below 2km. Also SPAA in real life had radar detection ranges up to at least 5km* (8, 15, or even 40km for the Shilka, Gepard/Type 87, and Sgt. York). *M163 VADS and AMX-30 DCA
  57. ground vehicles

    Well here we have the F-89 Scorpion and Sud-Ouest Vautour with more than a hundred rockets each: .
  58. Well 24 stock + 6 premiums for 8 national trees* equals totals 240 possible slots for WWI/interwar vehicles *Germany, Russia, Britain/Commonwealth, US, Japan, Italy-Hungary, France, and International
  59. Tanks/Vehicles

    Nah T-72B with most potent loadout and base T-80 is good enough
  60. interface/ui

    Makes sense.
  61. Why would the F2H-3/4 be at 9.0? It goes 112km/h slower, carries roughly the same payload (1,000kg more), and climbs 14m/s less than the F9F-8. IMO the Banshee should be placed at BR 8.7 before the Cougar and then have this* come after the Cougar: *same payload, higher climb rate by 4.6m/s, and 38km/h faster
  62. Tanks/Vehicles

    True, but usually not vehicles and maps.
  63. Tanks/Vehicles

    Chieftain Mk.5 and T95E1 are here (watch from 3:30 to 6:55): .
  64. Tanks/Vehicles

    Probably not this patch, but maybe we'll see the Leo 1A3/A4/A5, Spahpanzer SPIC, Waffentrager SPGs, and Begleitpanzer 57 in 1.71 Composites are likely as far off as the French or International Tree though.
  65. Tanks/Vehicles

    That's part of what I meant by "fully-composite tanks".
  66. Can you please give us a little more info on this vehicle?
  67. Tanks/Vehicles

    Leo 1A5 could have mounted the RM-120, but never did (only 1A6 & Kpz-Keiler)
  68. Tanks/Vehicles

    Well M60A2 is basically an uparmored M60A1 with main armament similar to the Sheridan. Britiain, Germany, and Japan would receive (at BR 8.3) the Chieftain Mk.5, Leopard 1A3/1A4/1A5, and STB-2 or Type 74E/G respectively. This doesn't rule out stuff like M60A1 RISE (ERA), M60A3, Leopard 1A6, Kpz-Keiler, Chieftain Mk.10/11, T-62 mod.1972/1975, fully-composite tanks in the coming year of course.
  69. gameplay

    Ships and boats towing floatplanes back to port? Nice.
  70. Would make for really nice loadout combinations ingame....... As for the existing PV-2D, I recommend that you go and file a bug report
  71. So it this essentially the PV-2D (same payload) offered in WWII Chronicles except with five instead of eight Browning machine guns?
  72. Beautiful. Now how about the F3H Demon, F4D Skyray, and F7U Cutlass?
  73. gameplay

    64-player ready PvP user mission on a 10x10km Tunisia map: http://live.warthunder.com/post/594946/en/
  74. gameplay

    Yup, exactly what happened when inexperienced "rookie" pilots went on their first escort sorties (and what colored squadrons were known for not doing): .
  75. interface/ui

    Might this work for tanks with multiple rocket rails/tubes, MGs, and main cannons too (especially SPRGs like Type 60/SS1-4, M50 Ontos, ELC EVEN 75/120, and WZ-141)???
  76. gameplay

    And then Kursk drops-in on the map rotation with all the space we want, but nothing worthwhile to fight over.
  77. tanks/vehicles

    Well 3BM13 APFSDS pens 436mm @ 2000m and 3BK4 HEAT-FS pens 440mm (all ranges): .
  78. tanks/vehicles

    Well if it gets APFSDS it might have to be placed at 8.7
  79. Don't know why Gaijin didn't fill-in BR holes with perfectly suitable production models instead, but yeah only 1-2 T25s, T92s (should be a premium and replaced with the T49 instead), and T28/T95 GMCs made it through trials. Never thought the Panzer IVG/H Hydrostatic Drive Edition would perform that much better than the existing Ausf. G and H though....... Any concrete performance data to justify it at BR 5.0?
  80. I mean it's kinda like how somebody asked on an episode Shooting Range if the devs will be adding the FV215b (presumably as a stock vehicle) and the host said that they weren't going to unless and issue of balance arises. As for the Panzer IVG/H mit Hydrostatischem Antrieb, the BR it would fit into (4.3/4.7) does not need plugging, only one was ever produced, and it is not in dire need for balance in the stock tree against specific vehicles of rival nations. Also the Maus/E-100 had a dedicated role to fill as Germany's last heavy tanks, the T26E1-1 "Super Pershing" was among the ten T26E1s assembled (wonder why they didn't just label it the T26E4 instead?), and most if not all other prototypes in stock trees had at least a pre-production batch of 3 completed. The tank suggested here on this thread is none of those things.
  81. tanks/vehicles

    How abut the addition of ERA, thicker armor, and a .50cal machine gun?
  82. But that's still a purebred T-26.......the thing I'm suggesting here is a mashup between a Panzer IV Ausf. G chassis and Ausf. H turret (kinda like the Tiger H2 but to a lesser extent).
  83. misc/other

    Well then La-174 fits the bill then. It was available for research for a week back in September 2014 and is basically a La-15 with slightly better performance.
  84. misc/other

    How about the La-175 and all those death-grind/event prize vehicles?
  85. Like what (besides Maus/E-100)? And AFAIK the major midtier BR-hole in the German Tree is at 5.0/5.3, not 4.3/4.7
  86. Only one was ever built....... should it be it be in the stock tree?
  87. ground vehicles

    Well prop aircraft let alone jets going 750-1225km/h two-thousand meters up are actually pretty challenging to hit (if you've ever participated in the "War in Mid Air" event) so I don't see the big issue with letting radar-equipped SPAAGs have lead-markers for spec-sized fast flyers at high altitude. Aircraft flying 1900 meters and lower in RB/SB/EC though would not have lead markers to assist SPAA aiming as that would be too OP
  88. ground vehicles

    Can you add add altitude indicator and lead-markers when tracking jets above 2km in RB/SB/EC modes?
  89. gameplay

    Looks fantastic!
  90. tanks/vehicles

    Well on the note of TDs, some T-10s were converted into casemate tank destroyers (aka Object 268): https://topwar.ru/15308-obekt-268-zveroboy-bez-perspektiv.html
  91. Nice. IMO mine's better though (better post and poll questions)
  92. Hello, today I am suggesting a peculiar-looking tank -- the Panzer IV Ausf. G/H with Hydrostatic Drive: Short History The Panzer IV Ausf. G/H mit Hydrostatischem Antrieb was the result of an alternative drive system developed for the Panzer IV. Hydrostatischem Antrieb (German for hydrostatic drive), nicknamed the "Thoma" drive, was designed, built, and tested in 1943 on a repaired Panzer IV Ausf. G chassis recovered from combat. Surviving Panzerkampfwagen IV mit Hydrostatischen Antrieb in the US. Note the now sloped engine deck, and the smaller rear drive wheels. (Source:- commons.wikimedia.org) The Thoma drive operates similarly to the petrol-electric drive found in the Porsche Tiger 1 prototype and the Ferdinand "Elefant" tank destroyer, but had the added benefit of being less prone to catching on fire. The Hydrostatic Drive system outside of the vehicle. Photo: – Spielberger Publishing The Panzer IV chassis used for testing underwent heavy alteration in order to mount the new drive system. The engine compartment was almost completely rebuilt and housed the drive under a large sloping engine deck. Behind the drive, two supporting oil pumps were installed and connected directly to an unmodified Maybach HL120 TRM engine powering two hydraulic motors. A swash plate drive sent power through a reduction gear into the newly added rear drive wheels, which replaced the original idler wheel. The new controls added to the Panzer, note the new control “wheel” and the many new dials. Photo: – Spielberger Publishing In 1944, the vehicle was tested with a hydraulically-powered Panzer IV Ausf. H turret. One working prototype powered by the new "Thoma" Hydrostatic Drive was ever built only to be captured by the US 3rd Infantry Division advancing through Augsburg on April 28th, 1945. A year after WWII ended, the vehicle was shipped back to the United States where it was analyzed and tested in Detroit, Miscigan by Vickers Inc. on April 12th 1946. This was the resulting report filed: “The power train consisted of two staggered-plate oils pumps that are assembled as a unit and are driven by a 12-cylinder Maybach engine. Oil is pushed by the pumps to two separate oils engines which power the drive wheels of the tracks. The oil engines are attached to the final drive housings. The engine and power aggregate are located in the rear of the vehicle, and the vehicle is moved by rear mounted drive wheels. The volume of the pumps is controlled by the driver, who thereby controls the torque of the various pressure conditions that are created by the steering and stopping of the vehicle. In the same manner, the forward and backward movement of the vehicle is achieved by directing oil flow. Pressurized oil to activate the pumps and engines and for the high-pressure connections was advanced by a geared-wheel pump that was connected to the vehicle’s engine by direct drive.” Most if not all German test data was lost and the vehicle was left to the elements at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. It was relocated in 2015 to the US Army Center for Military History Storage Facility in Anniston, Alabama where it now officially rests. This Pz.Kpfw IV mit hydrostatischen antrieb is now in storage in the U.S. Army Center for Military History Storage Facility, Anniston, AL, USA. (Photo – Masa Narita) Source: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi-germany/panzer-iv-mit-hydrostatischem-antrieb/ Alternate article from Achtungpanzer.com: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/10-5cm-k18-auf-panzer-selbstfahrlafette-iva-dickermax.htm Specifications: Designation Panzer IV mit Hydrostatischem Antrieb Dimensions 5.41 x 2.88 x 2.68 m (17.7×9.4×8.8 ft) Total weight, battle ready 25 tons Crew 5 Armament Rheinmetall 75 mm (2.95 in) KwK 40 2-3 MG 34/MG 42 7.92 mm (0.31 in) machine-guns Armor From 15 to 65 mm (0.59-2.56 in) Propulsion Maybach V12 gasoline HL 120 TRM (220 kW) 300 bhp@2500 rpm Suspension Leaf springs Speed on /off road 42 km/h (26 mph) Total production 1 Additional Images: Additional Links and Resources: Hope you like it!
  93. Everything about these sections is laid out below, so let's jump into it! Categorized Suggestions: Developer's Perspective I check the forums to see what inspiration I can get from the players (or sometimes when I get bored). Among the first places I look is the suggestions section, but more often than not I find myself asking, "What am I doing here going through all these suggestions that don't quite fit what I'm looking for?" This usually happens after scanning pages and pages of suggestions when I start realizing I should get back to my regular work like modeling naval craft or designing maps. Now if only there was an easier way to look for good player ideas...... Forumer's Perspective Every time I dive into the suggestions forums here, it's a zoo -- an unending list of literally thousands of ideas that players (like me) would like to see in-game. The solution to this would be to categorize suggestions like bug reports: by game aspect, by country, by vehicle type, by game mode. Features: 1. Suggestion threads categorized in sub-forum section (titled Vehicles, Loadouts, Forums, UI, Economy, Game Mode, Gameplay/Maps, Battle Modes, Skins/Decals, Naval Craft, and Other/Misc.) 2. Sub-sections within those main sub-forum sections (vehicles by gameplay type/country/role, maps by gameplay type/region, UI & Economy by function, etc.) Illustrations: CDK Community: 1. A sub-section within the "War Thunder Live Community" sub-forum or as its own independent sub-forum 2. Tutorials on all things CDK (anything from downloading & uploading to creating vehicles and maps from scratch 3. Sections (sub-sections in parenthesis): Tutorials* ("Video Tutorials and step-by-step "Instructional Tutorials") "General CDK Discussion" [moderated] "Meet the Modelers" (Lassar's Team, BVV_d's Team, White_Wolf's Team, VSN's Team) [moderated] "Developer-led Projects" (aircraft, GFs, naval, maps, and economy/UI) "New Projects" "WiP Projects" "Completed Projects" "Implemented Projects" 4. Example modding community (Bluedrake42) *"CDK Expert" member-led tutorial threads note: the "Suggestions" subforum now contains over 7,000 topics