Yes, the less mobile tank that can get killed if you expose even a small portion of your hull is too OP.
2S38 is a 2024 vehicle at the same BR as the DS
2 Likes
2020*, entering service later, but yeah.
F-16A MLU is a 2006 vehicle at the same BR as a 1978 F-16A
Don’t expect correct balances in War Thunder.
1 Like
Thats what happens when Russians couldnt produce proper tank until 2000’s because of very bad economy and refused to enhance their Armor technology.
1 Like
It might have entered service, But I dont think its actually entered mass production yet (and thus actually deployed) and its not due to till sometime next year if not later. So both are correct, depends on your definition
Correct balance means different years fighting each other.
Imbalance would be same years fighting each other where USA always wins.
1 Like
Until where it comes to point that even Gaijin would not be able to stop Nato advance.
Sooner or later Russia will fall behind against Nato no matter how hard will Gaijin try.
1 Like
Which is why I think they are going to add an “end date” where they arent going to add tech for certain nations past a point. Meteor for example would destroy anyone and everyone. R-37 is the closest the russians have but I dont think its meant for fighter vs fighter combat like the Meteor is, more for nailing things like AWACS. So I doubt we’ll ever see Meteor. Probably the same for ASRAAM, at least not for a very very long time
Give the game a better-made damage model and better-made maps and the imbalance would not be so noticeable, since it would depend more on where to position yourself on the map and make ambushes, and by drilling from the side the tank would be destroyed. In addition, the Russian tanks They don’t have bullets that are so obsolete during their time, they could still defend themselves.
Gaijin doesn’t want to stop it.
We’ll be to a stage where everyone’s using prototypes.
130mm Leopard 2A5, 152mm T-14 prototype, 140mm M1A1, 140mm Leclerc, etc.
@poopooo
Ground damage models are among the most accurate in the industry outside of perforation.
Better made maps have been rather recent.
Im expecting this to be added soon, probably as a premium BR12
No my God.
I wish it were true, then this game would be wonderful.As long as the APDS do not have the same fragmentation as the APHE, this will not be realistic, keep in mind that the tungsten fragments into many small pieces, and then the game does not implement the bouncing of the fragments inside the tank.
1 Like
This hasn’t actually changed. The only difference is in game they have simply buffed all the russian components to science fiction levels. They have also nerfed some the NATO features.
One of the biggest ways they nerf NATO without you being able to know, is all the stupid CQB maps. NATO tanks out range the living crap from russian tanks. In game they are not allowed to show this advantage on tiny maps.
Also… where is the auto tracking system NATO tanks have. The Chieftan, the M1, STRV 122… All of them have computer systems that allow you to target components of russian tanks and track them electronically on the move.
1 Like
lol opinion discarded
imagine thinking those trash ztz turm is better
1 Like
It’s so frustrating always receiving a Air to Air only or Air to Ground only vehicle like the Tornado F.3 or Tornado GR.1, the most important Aircraft Britain needs right now is something comparable to the F-16A/C (a pure Multirole Aircraft with the capabilities needed to fight in Air Realistic and Ground).
1 Like
That is only going to the Harrier Gr7/Gr9 till the Typhoon. 9Ms are going to be quite a major buff for the Gr7 in A2A and hopefully MAWS soon too
in other games made by other developers (wargaming) the tornados could have been made into 1 aircraft with both loadouts but gaijin adds them separately which is a good thing
i think if Gaijin doesn’t want to focus on balance, they should consider reintroducing the old alliance separation system. At the top tiers (e.g., above 10.0), lock player battles into specific alliances, either having NATO against China and the USSR or allowing for a mixed battle. This way, NATO’s system can complement each other more effectively.
I’d prefer not that at the moment. Soviets have such an overwhelming dominance due to over-tuned vehicles that in my experience, Soviet only teams win all the time. Especially when they all have T-80BVMs that are really hard to kill and they all have Pantsir that make CAS useless.
I’d love it like that, but there is just too much imbalance between nations for that to ever be fair in GRB. Not too mention the underlining nation vehicle design doctrines that would mean one side would always have an advantage depending on the map
1 Like