Yes all tanks should have more traction but it is particularly felt by heavier “under powered” tanks
The Challenger spaded Chally 2 ingame is essentially a stock version of how it should be…
Yeah i also feel like the turret and hull traverse is super slow.
Just going to stick this here if it hasn’t been already. Don’t care too much about what they’re saying but its additional internal footage that people can use for proof of something.
To be fair they have their reasons for that. All vehicles in game have absurdly low centres of gravity (like between the base of the tracks) to make them almost impossible to flip over as 99% of WT players would not be able to keep a tank upright for more than 60 seconds, and as a consequence if they had realistic traction these vehicles would be climbing cliff faces (they used to lmfao, I remember the CR2 was able to tow another tank up a 70deg+ hill).
Realistic traction would requiring moving the Cg up a LOT on every vehicle for the sake of avoiding that, which I would be all for but I suspect most wouldn’t.
Or the devs are just being lazy again
I really dont understand why CR2s are at 11.7.
10.7 105mm Abrams can one tap you anywhere they aim and I just had a T-72 tank 4 rounds of L27A1 because it couldnt pen the LFP
2 Likes
Funny thing I noticed.
DM53 actually has the exact performance in game which is stated to be “exceeded” by L27A1 @2km 60deg (350mm true, which is 700 los)
sidenote, I have no clue who I just pinged. i am very sorry 2km
3 Likes
I swear traction is “modeled” as a modifier that just effects engine power. The steeper the slope the the smaller the modifier (eg 0.8 and so on). Its why tanks like the vt 1-2 can basically ignore slopes as it has so much excess hp it can afford the loss as well as why tanks such as the challengers feel anaemic going up slopes.
1 Like
Problem with L27 is that theres no way it achieves that performance.
Take a look guys!
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9cQQwWM3hP53
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/d4irhKguXduF
1 Like
There was an attempt.
2 Likes
I’m not entirely sure what source they expect us to offer for reload rates? There’s video evidence of crews doing 3.1 but that’s not a source, there’s written evidence of them doing 4 but a secondary source isn’t enough, the challenger’s loader qual requirement is 3 in 12 (4 seconds) but that just… doesn’t count apparently? Do they want an official statement from the government?
you need three secondary sources or one primary source off the top of my head.
They always, unless the source explicitly states otherwise, assume that reloading rates start with a round in the chamber already. So in your 3 in 12 seconds example, Gaijin would take it as a 6 second reload, (First shot at t=0, Second at t=6, & the last at t=12). There’s also that Gaijin use reloading as a balancing aid, stuff like the Type-10s and the STRV103s should probably fire faster too for example.
What’s the source for that? The Castlemartin accident report puts the typical reload time required during training at ~7 seconds.
Gaijin did buff the M1s reload rate on a source and video evidence.
We have a fixed fire rate for Russian autoloaders, despite real life has shown the carousel needs to rotate to the position and that gives a variable fire rate depending on where the selected round type is.
Gaijin wont add lap loading…
Wont model armoured ammo bins.
A ready rack that holds more than 4 rounds.
And now refusing bhp and rate of fire changes
3 Likes
Yeah but there are more wa- I mean Yanky players that will go and bitch on reddit
At least we get something in the CR2. The TTD has been needing a fire rate buff for a long time and how it gets 6.7 seconds is beyond me. Maybe the turret ammo is actually back in SA while fighting in Europe or Asia and the loader has to run back for each round
2 Likes
Just proves reload rates are BS and always have been.
CR3 not receiving the 5 second Dm-53 reload buff was also nonesense.
Reload is a balancing lever
What we have is the official Average fire rate for the autoloader, as Gaijin doesn’t model different reloads within an ammo rack.
How do you know they haven’t already been using lap loading in their balancing already?
They are modelled as armoured, it’s just not alot lmao
is there actually any evidence for or against this?
The 1st stage replenishment needs buffing either way
If you’re referring to the 2E report:
The report states the CR2E has 1327hp, That is the stock HP for the 2E iirc. Fully aced it has 1500hp, the report actually claimed only 1479hp, so a Nerf.
6.7 is their default reload in general, most 105mm guns get it. The worst example imo is the Rooikat 76, that also has a 6.7s reload, even the Aubl HVG gets a 6s reload
There are 2x 2 year old reports for it accepted. But if nothing else,.our replenishment time could and should be dropped through the floor
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ojFgCJ6Jnos4
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nzUoCC2yxJx5
2 Likes