I would rather keep it at 8.0 and instead see it reload buffed a lot, and have the HORRIBLE aim dead zone above the hatch looked at.
The ammo works very well when it has the 2.0 second reload of the light tank at 9.0. VT shells also very nice.
I would rather keep it at 8.0 and instead see it reload buffed a lot, and have the HORRIBLE aim dead zone above the hatch looked at.
The ammo works very well when it has the 2.0 second reload of the light tank at 9.0. VT shells also very nice.
It seems it’s balanced around the VCC 60/30 and the HVG is left with nothing, i’m fairly sure the reload on the HVG is a lot faster in reality and it makes no sense for it to be slower than WW2 tanks with projectiles several times it’s weight in even smaller spaces, I smell like just more Gaijin nonsense to have the reload be this slow…
It really just needs an ammo buff because it’s unusable like that.
Of course I’ve tried it, but to no avail.
Yeah well, what more can you do? It’s clearly screwed because of the VCC being implemented, which also just shows how shell performance and spalling is entirely made up and adjusted at a whim.
Idk, I just don’t have much hope for such bug reports submitted as suggestions. Btw does your bug report contain any real life sources like that brochure with spalling measured?
No, It’s more from a gameplay perspective that it’s just unplayable.
Plus I doubt they’d accept a brochure as source anyways, you know how absurd it is to get any sources accepted, that’s why people feel forced to use classified documents.
Except for the Russians, if you use as a source a YouTube video made by a retarded child drunk on propaganda they accept it for you, I’m not kidding, it really happened.
This is actually a video from the manufacturer, would be same as to use a video from Leonardo page for Italian stuff. Although it’s submitted as a suggestion.
Too bad: “You Tube is not a reliable source of information” words of the developers of Gaijin… If you try to do the same thing with any NATO vehicle you get the answer I wrote, and they don’t accept the source but if you do it with a Russian vehicle then everything is fine this in my house is called “Russian bias”
And there are several more embarrassing examples where Gaijin accepts videos on YuoTube always for Russian vehicles, the one I used above is just one of many examples.
EDIT: Fixed typo
Since when are videos allowed as source? They dismiss documentation of the company that produce the weapon as not a primary source, but a video is good enough for Russia?
Idk probably because of exact value mentioned, unlike for Ariete tanks hull composite for example.
PS since it nerfs autoloader protection I guess bias works a different way this time XD
@Smin1080p_WT is it within rules that bug report can be submited using video as a source, even if as suggestion?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dfgYXDZWTKOd
@soymilkman
@The_Guard
@Burgermankillz
@Gran_Lowe
@FamilyOwl
@Macekeeks
Well, sadly it will only ever get buffed if we all happen to get one post rolling about it. I got it during the spring silver crates, and BOY was I excited I got it!
Then… I got it, and it’s the worst vehicle ive played in a long time… playing the fox, at a lower br, IT IS A IMMENSELY BETTER VEHICLE.
I proposed to gaijin they:
Make the reload 3.75 or 4.0 secs when aced. (Abrams has a 5 sec reload aced with double the cannon size, a 60mm vs a 120mm).
An increase in spall by 15-20% as there is no reason that the 30mm the fox fires has double the spall of the 60mm on the Aubl.
However, we need documentation apparently, but the abrams and other tanks get buffs based on player performance.
Supposedly it’s fixed if my bug report about the M300 spalling is to be believed, no idea what they fixed though as it doesn’t seem any better.
Even with alleged improved spalling it takes 8 seconds to load a tiny shell for whatever reason.
6 secs to reload a shell next to the commander and gunner lol. Should be 3 secs.
They fixed it my ass
Hey also need to consider other things I brought up. As I am a console user though, I do not have access to the tools for data collection they want.
Do you have any unclassified documents on the Aubl? That’s what we really need
Feel like it shouldn’t require documents to proof that it wouldn’t take 8 seconds to move something the weight of a water bottle around, or that a 60mm APFDS would have the same post pen damage as a 25mm APDS autocannon.
One would think… but unless we pester gaijin about it, the Aubl 74 HVG will continue to be borderline useless
I did, and they said they fixed it so now any report on it will be closed and said to not be a bug.
I just tested it in game. It spalls as much as the fox, not more than, for a larger projectile. I suggest we bug report it again. Send the link to it when you make it.
So I can also say “I have the same problem!!!”