FV4030 was completely unrelated to MBT80
2 Likes
lack of specifics about the reduction of K5s effectiveness or something
They model digital zoom on aircraft…
Why cant they add it to ground vehicles an Iphone has more zoom than the AJAX in game
1 Like
I would say the Puma also has a digital zoom, BMPT, 2s38 etc basically anything with an unmanned turret that’s all being displayed on a “Digital screen” for targeting
We have a precedent for returning the zoom feature to a scope with only digital zoom, when too many PASEO-equipped units were added.
The solution is simple, remove ahistorical L23 from the Shir 2, move it down to 9.3/9.7, and then replace it at 10.0 with the functionally identical Challenger (Pre-Series) or Challenger Mk 1, that did actually historically receive APFSDS.
6 Likes
the solution is simple, dont change anything? theres no solution needed the shir 2 doesnt need “fixing” it would be quite bad at 9.3-9.7 and its not the only a-historical thing in the game
1 Like
So you are simultaneously against improving the historical accuracy of the British tree AND adding more options for lineups and variety?
Genuinely impressive I guess.
i love playing the shir 2 to much i dont want it changed and whats with everyones sudden 4030 hate anyway?
dont get me wrong i want the game to be realistic but until that happens to everyone i would rather keep my a historical cheiftain challenger to decimate 10.0
and i would love the challenger mk1 btw
This to be honest the 4030 is fine where it is, it’s also an event vehicle not a regular TT vehicle so inherently rare unless you go buy it off the market place as a collector because it also isn’t a premium vehicle. It definitely isn’t broke and it doesn’t need fixing.
if additional chieftains, challengers or any other vehicles (maybe an mbt80) come along that can be slotted in at a lower br then so be it there are many choices available that have yet to be implemented.
1 Like
No one is hating the Shir 2. It is a very cool and very historically significant vehicle for British tank development, and I was thrilled to see it added to the game.
It is just currently implemented incorrectly.
isnt everything? i wouldnt mind more historically accurate stuff but as it stands the shir 2 is in a great place and taking the dart away and moving it to 9.3 would be a big nerf considering like nothing at the br uses apds
I can’t think of any other vehicle in game that uses ammunition that historically it would be completely incapable of physically stowing, so no.
not that specific but completely innacurate things
the challenger 2s performance
the KH38MT
like every nato tanks performance
the terminator
must i go on
This is such a bizarre argument to try and make, do you genuinely think this?
‘Gaijin have made some questionable decisions while modelling these highly classified, currently in-service/in-development vehicles and munitions, therefore my 1970s MBT which is overall well documented should also be completely inaccurate, these two things are definitely totally equatable.’
1 Like
just puttng words in my mouth now arent we, im not against the realism of it but the shir 2 is in a better place right now and as i said would perform much worse if it got changed weather its historical or not
and there is a lot of accepted challenger reports from 2 years ago that are accepted and not implemented
I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth.
Exactly as I said, you listed highly classified vehicles and munitions that are either still in service or still in development, as the basis of your argument that these things in game have inaccuracies, therefore it’s fine that the Shir 2 does too. How exactly is that me putting words in your mouth?
idk and idc
They giving it to germany. Already been passed to devs for german ground.
Swear they said the other day theres no evidence to support the abrams getting upgraded turret armour IRl, and then today they have gotten the better armour? Yet we here with all this evidence just for a little bit if extra pen and get denied for 2 years.
3 Likes