it’s all silly.
1 Like
I mostly agree execpt with the IS4M and IS 6
You say that it happens to every tank. You have not proved that.
I brought it up to demonstrate that a bunch of mechanics have bugs, and are not reliable most of the times. You have not disproved that, by providing a single example. Yes, you disproved that it only happens to 2 piece/bulk modelled ammo, that is true. You however did not disprove that ammo explosions are not a reliable mechanic, and, over the years, there have been a single example of this happening to a vehicle that is not in the criteria i have described, which further proves how trash the damage model/coding is.
True. But go back to why i brought it up. That still stands. To disprove it, you will have to show that it happens to every single tank, even those with single piece individually modelled ones. If not, at least prove, that it happens regularly to those (except of course the blowout panel tanks).
It was an objective failure. Learn history.
No. he is not. Most of his wealth is in highly inflated Tesla stock, that will sooner or later crash.
If he is so damn wealthy, why did he have to get a loan from the Saudi Arabia?
He is a serial liar, a fraud, and an idiot.
After all, i bet you have your house covered in solar rooftops (a false advertising), while you have your full self driving Tesla (coming next year since 2014 or so) in a Hyperloop (of which most startups already went bankrupt. A trash idea Musk stole from a 100 or so year old fantasy), operating your own fleet of fully autonomous robotaxis (since 2020 appearently) generating $30k every year for you, while you can watch the live feed from the Mars colony (when Starship can’t even launch without blowing up, something NASA could do 60 years ago flawlessly) with your brain implant (which started as a completly different thing by people that are competent at least in one thing, unlike Musk).
Also don’t forget the whole Twitter thing…
Did i leave out any of his lies/false promises/overhypes?
EDIT:
Yeah, i left out Starlink, which is also a complete BS if you think about it more than 2 seconds.
Oh and how could i forget the Boring Company, that promised fast tunnel boring that pays itself by selling bricks made from the materials dug out. Which ended up being a not so true, while the tunnel was dug slower than an average tunnel, despite it being smaller than the average.
What about the high speed self driving pods? That was ended up by manually driving Teslas at 50 km/h, and also creating a nice deathtraps if one or two Teslas decide to just blow up (which they like to do).
END EDIT.
Maybe learn to think critically before believeing anything to that failure (he was also fired from PayPal because he wrote so trash code, and he was a bad leader too).
A few things to consider:
Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/@commonsenseskeptic/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@Thunderf00t/videos
Because reload rates can be changed. And many of them are also not realistic. Just watch any video about a Leo 1 reloading, and it is much faster than in game. Same goes for a Leo 2, Abrams, etc.
Reload rate can be used for balancing a tank.
What I just quoted is what I said about it. You just lied.
Beyond that claim I made (that individually modelled ammunition can not explode when blacked out, and that your statement is untrue), I have to prove nothing else, and to prove my claim, I have to show literally just 1 example. It is your claim that individually modelled ammuntion always explodes, as such, you have the burden of proof to show that is the case, keeping in mind I provided proof showing that it is not the case.
I don’t. You never provided proof of it being true in the first place. You stated it as being true but that is nothing.
You don’t have ground to stand on to demand something like that.
Going great guys! Make more noise and arguements, keep this thread up top, so this gets attension then I can eventually have more fun with my Bias Heavies when their reloades are buffed.
Why? those 2 need it the most. The 122mm is the worst 7.7 gun.
Move the Sturer Emil to 10.0 as well because it has a big gun
Where?
And you disproved it. Congrats.
Now, could you address what i originally brought that thing up? Or are you just going to be dishonest and claim that i lie?
LOL.
Atleast the 128 is balanced cuz long reload. 88 has a pretty standard reload
As much as I want this annoying mechanic reworked it will never happen. Barrels with muzzle breaks should get more hp because it’s easier to hit them. You know what will help these heavies instead? Being able to shoot more than once per hour and actually defend themselves.
Bruh it’s a tank destroyer it does nothing well except penetration.
Conquerer don’t benefit much from having stab in arcade, in rb the stab often comes in handy making sure you able to land accurate shot quickly, it also center-mass all the T-54 variants and early T-55s without the chest plate, there are probability of getting gaijin’d but the odds were like 7 going through them clean and 3 bouncing off.
1 Like
Stabs is not an issue.
The problem is the very unreliable shell, combined with the tank being overpressured by basically any HE shells it will face, as well as a long reload and a very small ready rack, while it is very slow, and has relatively bad gun depression for a british tank.
1 Like
It can’t hull-down particularly well because of the -7 gun depression, so the LFP is almost always exposed, unless you hide behind a destroyed tank or rock. The side-armour of the conqueror is also abysmal, able to be penned by IS-6s with the slightest of angling.
The gunner’s optic is also ~50mm, so at mid ranges 35mm SPAA shells with APHE will oneshot the whole turret crew too.
The cupola (although having very good armour), has a small weakspot that can nuke the entire crew.
The ammunition rack near the driver is very easy to hit, (pretty much like any british tank at that BR), and the first-stage ammunition rack is easily hit too.
Overall, I don’t think it should lower in BR, but it has many issues. The biggest issue, by far, is the reliability of the shell to deal damage and to penetrate (not shell shatter). This wouldn’t nearly be as much of an issue if it hadn’t had a reload of 15s. The reload shouldn’t lower, but this problem is enhanced by it.
1 Like
Hitting the right side of the mantlet with APHE that does not overpressure also damages the ready rack charges.
If you hit the mantlet with any APHE that overpressures, if it pens the mantlet, it nukes the crew (soviet 122mm, german 128mm and so on).
It should not go down for sure, but i’d give it a reload ot 9s at worst, but more likely 8 or 7.5s with expert crew, and also remove the ready rack. 8 shells wile both of them are unreliable is just not enough.
Shattering in one thing, but also dealing no damage and causing no shrapnels is just so bad.
After all, if the M103 can have no ready rack (so it’s reload does not change no matter how many imes you shoot), so why not this too?
1 Like
Another thing I see as increasingly necessary - undoing long-since redundant nerfing of the postpen for APCR, APDS, HEAT, HEATFS, smaller-sized APFSDS, and HESH.
If that means all those HEAT tanks go up in BR im fine with it.
Another issue with the reloading is that losing a crew member is a percentage based penalty, meaning the already suffering long reloading tanks get a massive penalty on top, yet if they take out the crew of an enemy tank, that penalty is not nearly as severe due to their shorter reload.
1 Like
Usually, fast-reloading guns with HEATFS are pretty good, but when it takes 15 seconds or so to just knock-out one or two crew members, HEATFS becomes very frustrating, other than if you manage to hit ammunition.
1 Like