American vs Russian bias and balance

So all of us who aren’t hopped up on the copium are well aware that Russian tanks are artificially overperforming and NATO tanks artificially underperforming (most obvious example, loaders can be killed but autoloaders are not modeled as destroyable components).

This was virtually inevitably going to happen as soon as gaijin added the basic M1 and the T-64B back in 2018, the 1979 was as overpowered or more vs the T-64B in 2018 as the T-80BVM is now. The T-64B even with better armour and firepower was no match for the M1. This is probably the period where Russian players were complaing of “American bias” unfortunately for them the “American bias” was eminently realistic.

It’s at this point gaijin realised they would have to gimp the crap out of NATO vehicles even more than they had already lowballed the basic M1( low end estimate for armour, M774, regen steering, spall liner) if there was to be any chance of maintaining parity between NATO vehicles and Russian vehicles.

So gaijin cumulatively gimps NATO and overbuffs Russia to keep the treadmill of new top tier additions going on and on. This method of artificial balancing worked fine for a while to maintain parity but it was always going to end in disaster as we see now.

I get why you do it, if you treated the attributes of all NATO vehicles in the same manner as you currently treat those of Russian vehicles( actually realistically), then in the next patch the following scenario would be very much a thing:

T-80BVM comes over a hill, spots “Click-bait” premium facing him at about 1500 metres, T-80BVM gets the first shot, fires 3BM-60(Russia’s top round for this tank) strikes the lower front hull and bounces(it’s now a much more realistic/russian 560mm thick), “click-bait” returns fire with M-829A4 (the Americans top round for this tank) and lolpens the upper glacis through the relikt (both are no longer overbuffed), hits the ammo, kills T-80BVM(ammo now cooks off when hit, only blowout panels will save you if it’s hit).

Naturally this would piss off Russia mains to hell and back, and basically require NATO tanks BR to be at least 2 steps higher than 20 years newer Russian tank variants. Russia tree ends at rank 7, BR 11.3, only Armata is viable as a rank 8.

But please can you just come forward be honest about this kind of thing being the case and at least bring things back to parity.

It 's fine that you pull the armour values of Russian tanks and ERA out of a magical wish fulfillment hat just make the values for NATO vehicles somewhat believable mildly low ball estimates instead of insultingly bad jokes. ( You expect us to believe the USA when they learned of the T-series tanks possessing 125mm guns at the height of the Cold War decided to be “sporting” and leave the Abrams with armour that can’t even resist their own advanced 105mm ammunition across half it’s frontal profile? How on earth where they able to withstand Iraqi T-72s 3BM-15/22 then?)

(This is my new account if you wonder the lack of top tier, I used to have 4 Chally 2s but lost the email to that one)

14 Likes

Autoloaders are mostly non-Russian countries. Autoloaders are “modeled”, it’s called the cannon breech. :)
Your example is non-Russian.
Modern Soviet tanks aren’t more powerful than NATO tanks as you claim. T-64A is more powerful than NATO tanks, but that’s why its BR is 9.3 instead of 8.3.
T-80BVM has M1A1 like turret, shooting its breech or under the ERA kills it.

Regen steering isn’t a feature in War Thunder, which would benefit Russian tanks as well.
Spall liners are just now being added to War Thunder & didn’t exist prior to the next major update.

Soviets haven’t gotten a new top BR addition in years, T-90M is literally the first one in years.

There is no artificial balancing in War Thunder.
All vehicles are treated in the same manner.
M1A1 HC with M829A4 would be 13.0 & never face BVM in random battles.

Ammo already cooks off currently.

You really drink that Soviet propaganda.

2 Likes

+1
Agree

This is pure copium.

2 Likes

There is artificial balancing in the game. Reports about missing armor on the Leclerc have been made, Gaijin acknowledge it and closed it saying that it was normal.

1 Like

The Leclerc historical report is active, acknowledged, and passed to devs.
It is not closed, there is no one claiming it’s normal.

1 Like

Woof woof

1 Like

Not bad bro…

3 Likes

Lmao that is fact

It is quite the opposite. Russian Bias cryers are sniffing up all the copium, that’s why is there a glabal shoratge of it.

Hmmm, where is the loader on the Type 90s/10s, TKXs, Leclercs, Strykers, CCVL, AGS, XM8, HSTVL, XM/MBT-70, Turm 3, Kpz-70, PT-16, VT1-2, Rooikat MTTD, the Chinese tanks, VCC-80, AMX-50s (okay, they technically have a loader, but still), SK-105, CV90105, CT-CV 105, Strv 103s???

Evidence?

What the hell?!

Did they allow you to make a new account? Multiple accounts are against the TOS.

T64a Should have being facing M60 and Leopard 1. Not M1. Also gaijin did add a bunch of prototype tank in Nato. So they could compete and they were OP. Remember the Time when Germany have like 90% win rate Because MBT70 and Leopard 2k? So your Russian bias Claim as always with people like you are crap.

1 Like

the main report is still going ive really stopped caring because im yet to see any of the leclerc reports go through except the change to all dm43 rounds going to 4kg but that will have no real effect ingame tbh

I don’t mind them balancing in order to give all nations competitive tanks, but I’d really like them to address modification research to make it fair. Russian tanks typically get access to the important combat modifications like range finders and thermals earlier than their western counterparts. It’s silly that the M1 Abrams has to wait until tier IV to unlock its laser range finder when the T80B gets it in tier II.