Well ,no you really don’t at all but Gaijin could and my expectation was that they would.
No, vehicle characteristics should be the primary seperating factor because technology is not always equal to performance.
The PT-76 is competitive, at 5.3. The M109s/2S3 are conpetitive, at around 6.0. They fit the game because vehicle characteristics are more important than the technology. The M109s have the most god awful gun handling, but have large caliber HE that can counter heavier armor.
The Ikv103 has a terrible chassis, and the gun is the ONLY decent part of the tank. Add to that the HEATFS with high pen doesn’t make it some invincible meta vehicle. It is still pretty shit overall, especially i comparison to, let’s say, the 4.0 Stug IIIG. The Stug IIIG only has 145mm max pen, but the APHE shell has better post pen, and can still handle all of the vehicles it can face while actually havong survivability.
5 Likes
And HEATFS shouldn’t be at that BR because…?
As I said, it isn’t even a terrible vehicle. It simply isn’t suited for higher BRs than where it currently sits at.
It’s quite a mobile vehicle with low armor that has very good gun depression, but trades damage for sheer penetration.
A reminder that pen =/= damage.
3 Likes
Yea, cause then it wouldn’t be fair to everything. It would just make late WW2 heavies an unshakeable meta because there would be no counters.
2 Likes
How about like no.
Us swedes already have to deal with horrendous repair costs and it aint even that good.
Repair and ammo costs are dumb anyways, go back to coping that you played your heavy wrong and got outskilled by an Ikv 103. (Mad respect to anyone that plays that thing well tbh)
2 Likes
I would have thought era related detail would have been a base level requirement upon the games inception to make any war game appealing.Far from being a bad idea i would have tbought it mandatory for any tank game that claims to take it self seriously.Its a far cry from the detail of the tank models themselves.
That’s why we have CAS incase you forgot and late heavies are redundant and tiresome to play in the cold war era of fast well armed vehicles.
Yes, vehicle characteristics, like weaponry.
It’s a tank destroyer. It should be fighting M47s and T54s, not PzIIIs and 75mm Shermans. Thats the issue.
And the ha-go should be facing T-34-85s and late shermans- your point?
And the Ikv 103 has insane pen but low damage and long reload, plus a bad chassis.
So its balanced where it is. I would take a Stuh or Stug over it any day.
I’m afraid that’s not the case.
It does not have the adequate ballistics to fight with a decent chance at that BR.
You still fail to explain why HEATFS shouldn’t be at that BR. All I’m reading is opinions disguised as supposed facts.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s mobility should be understated, it’s quite good, especially in reverse and turn radius
If you played fifa 24 would you find it realistic if the Real Madrid team was from 1966 and Barcelona were modern day in what is meant to be the top recreation of football? You might in a fantasy game but one with the expectation of realism?
Ah, true. The gun handling makes it annoying, though.
1 Like
You are comparin two completely different and untelated games that don’t even remotely share the same design philosophy.
And as you conveniently ignored in my previous answer: something something about WW2 equipment still serving in the 90s
1 Like
Why should the T-80U, first produced before the end of the Cold War face the M1A2 SEP V2 that was fielded in 2004? This isn’t quite fair for a tank to be facing something with 20 more years of technology and development, right? Or is it only a problem when the WW2 heavies face vehicles within the same decade with better technology?
CAS isn’t a ground vehicle, nor should it be required to play for anyone that wants a counter to a ground vehicle. Ground vehicle balance isn’t determined by being able to be balanced against CAS, it’s balanced against other ground vehicles.
Yes, heavy tanks are bad against vehicles designed to make them redundant. Same can be said about Interwar to early WW2 tanks too. Almost like this argument would apply to more than just WW2 vehicles and would need to be split in more than just that place to be fair.
2 Likes
Why should it? It’s from late 1930s, right? It fits its BR fine.
Even then, you can add that one as a low tier AA!
Even more proof that historical matchmaking sucks and performance in-game is much more important than dates.
1 Like
The Ha-Go fought Sherman’s and T-34-85s during the US island-hopping campaign and the soviet invasion of china later in the war. Also- Panzer IVs served within syria to '65, ten years after the Ikv 103 was made.
Historical Accuracy™
3 Likes