It seems to work like an ACLOS in the test room, ofc how well it keeps up with an enemy that is actually trying to dodge is anyones guess.
Whelp I made a thread
And as I point out there, arguably the worst SPG of its BR range by a chunky margin simply due to the RoF (forget having no autoloader too ofc).
example chart from my thread
bkan - 3.2 seconds autoloading. br 6.7 (though limited angles to fire, fair)
auf1 - 7.5 autoloading. br 7.0
type 99 - 7.5 autoloading, br 7.3
2S19M2 - 6 seconds autoloading, BR 7.3
2s19M1 - 7.5 seconds autoloading, BR 7.0
GBT 155 - 13 seconds non autoloading stock, 18 seconds non autoloading (so can be worse as crew die…) BR 7.0
So far no comments, so I assume its going to fall down the cracks but it would be nice for chaps to help bump it up to get noticed by gaijin and maybe make it more viable. Even with the Vickers documented rates of fire it would still arguably be “worst in class” for its BR in terms of firepower, but it would at least not be so far behind the others.
As for bug reporting, someone else already did, “not a bug, RoF is a balancing factor” and “burst fire has more involved” etc etc.
and no one was surprised…
I actually had hopes from the dev stream where they mentioned it having better than this by a lot, and IIRC the shot time they showed it… it did.
I also had hopes it being premium would mean gaijin would give it a good nudge… sigh.
I am legit depression mode over it, this is a vehicle I have asked for and hoped would come since gaijin first added the vickers mk1 and 3 to the game, its the 2nd main SPG I have been hoping for (the 1st being Abbot).
Im just, I am sad.
I just hope we can get enough commentary on the thread to get gaijin to notice and go “hang on, it is a bit silly like this”.
I mean, even with the vickers numbers, it would still be worse then the rest… is it really too much to ask for those stats? xD
Looks like falcon isnt getting its radar it was promise and wont get a BR reduction either
3 Likes
Hopefully just not ready
Im convinced that they use the “conflicting information” excuse for anything they know is wrong but dont want to change for whatever reason. They used the same excuse for not fixing BOL
4 Likes
Or they just forget about it and give no offical statement just like the CR2 “fixes”
1 Like
Oh my god, they really are doing that on purpose…
2 Likes
4 Likes
Is this new?
1 Like
Still haven’t given it its spall liner !!
1 Like
The Ajax had it on the previous dev server, but it was only 10mm and wasn’t actually modelled as a blowout panel.
It then went live, and it was completely removed, there was no armour plate there.
Now they’ve added it back on the dev server, and its 35mm and modelled as a blowout panel.
Overall it’s makes the Ajax a lot harder to ammorack and also increases the turret protection quite a lot as you’ve now got 35mm more armour protecting the crew, it’s a nice buff. They still haven’t fixed the mantlet armour though despite my report.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/tkC4JF95eJ7f
I reported this, I’ve had to make it a suggestion as they consider reload rates to be a balance choice for whatever reason.
If anyone has the front page or more information on this document we have a much better chance of a buff
anyone got information on the turret traverse rate of the AS90? i’m looking to give it a buff
everything ive seen seems to say its pretty much correct ingame
oh right,
in addition is there any info on the gunner sights?
can’t actually check what they are right now, but they are bugged anyway
Whelp, heres hoping they take note of it, I also copied over my reloading chart as a comment to try to nudge the balancing factor issue too (lets be real, being able to fire off 4 rounds for the GBT firing 2 as a stock crew is… excessively different, and 7 for 3, and so on and so on)