I saw a video of a leopard 2a4 reloading quicker than it does in Warthunder and in real life combat scenarios, by keeping its blast door open, If gaijin made this a game mechanic you’d be able to trade reload for survivability.
I’m not sure how this would work but is it a good idea?
The Video
Could be a good solution. But Giajin is keen on nerfing tanks like leopards and abrams, as seen by adding the turret basket. They can’t find a reason to buff them right now.
You blame Gaijin for following the feedback the playerbase demanded…
Every critic of the module system warned of this.
Gaijin did not add the turret basket for the player’s request of modules. They could have added it without making it considered horizontal drive. They do everything for buffing and nerfing. They can easily copy the turret basket to the other nato tanks but for months chose not to. Explain why for that then hm? Since they’re so eager to listen to feedback.
Dont blame the players for Gaijins shoddy work regarding internal modules
That is some kind of simulator or trainer. Not a real tank.
Anyway, Gaijin uses reload rates as a game balancing mechanism. Its IRL rate is not very relevant. Most tanks reload faster/slower IRL than they do in the game. Because its a game not a simulator.
Good thing I’m not.
People wanted modules, and expected Gaijin to implement them perfectly.
That demand, with that expectation was correctly criticized.
Gaijin is made up of people, people that make mistakes. All you need to do is check the ~100+ bug fix patches every year.
And with that, I expected such an implementation to have bugs.
Traverse being outright disabled instead of just power traverse.
Some vehicles not having modules that other vehicles have IRL.
Misidentifying the impact damage to those modules have.
All things I expected based on the history of mistakes Gaijin has made previously.
@CollectorOfSins Challengers flat out don’t use a turret basket at minimum.
Youd be right of course if they were actual mistakes . No one who wanted internal modules expected them to be perfect but also no one could have predicted that internal modules would be exclusively used to buff Redfor tanks while nerfing Bluefor tanks. I mean the current implementations and the modules for russian tanks that Gaijin scrapped after getting called out for modeling but not enabling them paint a pretty clear picture.
Gaijin hasn’t scrapped any modules for Soviet tanks.
There are fixes and tests they do with the modules because of the feedback, but it doesn’t “buff” just one side and never has.
And yes, I find the tests and fixes they do far too slow.
Not true. They wanted to add internal modules like FCS in Spearhead iirc but without functionality since that would be unfair if only those tanks were negatively affected. Of course that didnt sit right with the part of the community suffering from selectively added turret baskets.
What would you call Turret baskets but a targeted nerf and the horrible autoloader carousel damage model is nothing but a buff
Losing the ability to reload is not a buff.
And no, they didn’t “want to add FCS without functionality in Spearhead”, FCS has been modeled as modules for over a year now.
Also does NATO tanks not losing any functionality when their FCS is damage help Soviet vehicles?
would be nice to be able to choose to fire faster at the cost of instany KO from an ammo bustle strike
Yes they did. With precisely the exact explanation i mentioned. Very weird that they are fine with giving only Abrams and Leos a disadvantage with baskets but not russian tanks with these modules.
Still being able to turn your turret and fire while others arent is tho.
Is there an autoloader in-game that prevents movement after being damaged?
Cause last time I checked, there isn’t.
Being able to fire is reliant on a round being loaded, and most times I’ve shot a T-series tank they explode, otherwise they’ve fired prior to me shooting them and lost any chance of defense.
Also FCS damage should only impact auto rangefinding off the top of my head, and currently damaging FCS does nothing.
FCS being modeled on a tank is not a disadvantage at this time, and has never been a disadvantage.
It will be in time, as posted in the screenshot that confirms my posts’, but right now it doesn’t.
I had my FCS damaged and lost my thermals and LR though? It was my leopard 2a7v
Yeah most times but at the times it doesnt explode it can easily turn its turret with a blacked out autoloader and shoot its last round. Meanwhile shooting a basket ends up with blocked turret traverse 100% of the time.
I think youre misunderstanding the point im trying to make with FCS. Its ok that FCS doesnt do a lot rn but its a double standard when Gaijin doesnt add functionality for newly modeles russian FCS, because its unfair to only give that disadvantage to a couple of tanks but is completely content doing the same to Abrams and Leos with the baskets.
nah everything in WT is under optimal, standard operation. keeping the blast door open isnt standard so it should not be allowed. otherwise all manual loaders should be 30%+ slower to reload while moving
