@Gaijin why do you guys change the reloading time where is the problem… At start T80s had 6 seconds after some patches and changes from 6 seconds changed to 6.1s and now to 6.5s what is the problem the real time the realistically is 6 second why you even give 0.4 more seconds??..
They use reload times as balance.
Bro a lot of tanks do not have their reload, Type 10 should be faster than 4S lol.
5 Likes
how is it balance when abrams get 5sec reload
They balance the performance of a tank using several factors, one of them being reload times.
They do not have to balance the reload times between tanks (as in; tanks of the same BR having the same reload), Just to keep a tank at a desired BR or perhaps in parallel with other changes to make it a new BR if they see the need.
Abrams has a great reload in real life ngl, this is kinda accurate they can even reload faster while not moving.
Balancing, the T-72/T-90 should reload in about 3-4 seconds, but it’s 7.6 or 7.9.
Sure, standing still, it’s do-able, but you start moving, especially cross country, not at all.
1 Like
It would be still good like 6-7s and also I don’t think gaijin want to dev this kind of things it would makes people mad.
Gaijin is literally lazy to fix armor on certain tanks so they buff the reload “Here’s something you did not need, that’s all i can do” But fixing the armor is a big NO.
The armor on the T80’s is fine so a reload buff is certainly not going to happen.
3 Likes
The whole reason they added the 5 second reload was to balance the Abram’s because of how shit the US mains were with it.
1 Like
Cap, it was to cool down the storm they caused because they wanted armor developpement but Gaijoob decided to give them 5 sec reload that nobody asked for, just what they did with the Merkavas…etc
4 Likes
Carouselle autoloaders don’t have a set reload rate since it may have to rotate multiple spaces to find a shell of the desired type, so instead of having a realistic random-esque reload of somewhere between 6.0 (grabbing a shell right next to the cureent position) to ~9.0 (grabbing a shell from the opposite side of the carouselle) seconds, they compromised with having a set value of the time it takes to reload a shell 2 spaces over since having your reload rate randomized is horrible for gameplay. Same reason as to why the T-72 has a 7.1 reload instead of 6.5.
3 Likes
Let’s break it down from 10.7 Abrams to Sep V2 since you genuinely think it’s not balanced:
10.7 Abrams:
+Mobility.
+Competitive armor scheme (hull & turret) for its BR.
—105mm Gun/round (pen & postpen).
11.3 M1A1/IPM1
+Mobility (although it starts to take a hit from here).
+Competitive armor scheme (± on hull, but def. on turret) for its BR.
~ Series start to struggle on survivability.
11.7 AIM/Click-Bait/HC/M1A2
+Competitive armor scheme on the turret for its BR.
+KE-W/M829A2 (A2 being the 2nd best penning round in the game).
~Good mobility, but they start to weigh around 62 tons.
—Hull armor is negligible even against decent to good rounds for its BR (3BM46, L26, JM33, etc.)
—50.8mm CHA turret neck against IFVs with 30mm APFSDS like PUMA VJTF and KF-41s
12.0 SEP/SEP V2
+Competitive armor on the turret.
+M829A2.
—Average to subpar mobility
—Same hull armor as 10.7
—50.8mm CHA turret neck against IFVs with 30mm APFSDS like PUMA VJTF and KF-41s
Considering each iteration of Abrams gets on average a new disadvantage to overcome, i think its current 5s reload aced (having to invest actual money or lose your sanity to get it) even sounds unreasonable, given i’ve never aced a single Abrams to get such benefit that can be easily swept away if you take out the loader.
If you’re going to be the soviet-side Alvis, at least elaborate your ragebaits a bit further than just throwing bad takes and basic memes.
4 Likes
One of the factor is USA mains are the best in da world
Which can happen pretty easily.
Soviet mains are found in shock after realizing that the autoloader would have to be filled deterministically from spawn to reload as fast as their dokuments say they can, therefore they would have to know the order of threats they’ll find in battle from the start, and fire/hit the round they need in the precise circumstance.
At least it is the most expendable crew member from a survivability standpoint.
It’s just an inherent flaw of the carouselle design, just like how every design has it’s pros and cons.
Carouselle autoladers are extremely compact, but have a varied reload rate and can only have blowout pannels if the turret is crewless.
Casette autoloaders are faster, can have blowout pannels if installed in a bustle and are more simple designs, but take up more space and with older ones each “section” can only carry one type of shell (the Strv 103 should only be able to carry 25 of X, 20 of Y and 5 of Z shells as an example. Modern ones can come around this with digital computers keeping track)
Revolver autoloaders are just like casette but even faster, but take up even more space (Kf 51 can only carry 12 shells in the autoloader in the bustle with the revolver design IIRC).
1 Like
Though it is a shame that some tanks lost their reload rate advantage. Looking at the CR2s for this.
Was one of the fastest reloads in game, now its average, Its also been nerfed since then as well and now faces much much stronger tanks.
Its really quite annoying that they use reload rate as a balancing measure and then not balance tanks using reload rates :D
2 Likes