Yeah probably because of a attitude like this.
3 Likes
But they shouldn’t be ignored.
3 Likes
There’s a huge difference between “armor shouldn’t matter” and “minor nations should be left to rot”.
The issue with minor nations is they will never field a full, competitive tree. You can’t have little to no vehicle development and compete with global super powers. Gaijin trying to force that to happen is ruining the game.
1 Like
Did you read the suggestions, fixes, and comments that I wrote down?
- Making light tanks only able to break barrels, break tracks, or get kills on flanks is making the type of vehicle useless for most gameplay scenarios. Breaking barrels is incredibly inconsistent from angles that aren’t near perpendicular, breaking tracks doesn’t stop a tank from killing you, and flanking is being made harder through Gaijin’s continual bad map design decisions
- Making HEATFS rounds have a negative SL multiplier against WWII tanks means that some vehicles are literally impossible to make SL with, or the vehicle is stuck with a worse round
- Extending the limit to 1953 makes all post-1953 tanks that should be lower BRs useless at their unnecessarily high BRs
- Making the post-WWII tanks that should be lower BRs into reserve tanks means that they cannot compete with vehicles even 0.3 BR above them, and they also have less tanks that they can actually fight against because the only tanks they can fight are other post-WWII reserve tanks
- Removing the post-WWII tanks that should be at WWII BRs literally makes them unusable
- Removing HEATFS from WWII BR vehicles will either make it so that a vehicle has no ammo to fire or it will be stuck with way worse ammo than its BR requires (plus in the case of something like the M36B1, there would be no reason to even play the vehicle anymore due to there being better non-HEATFS options)
- A tank needs to do massive damage to be considered a glass cannon, so if a tank does not do massive damage at its BR it cannot be considered a glass cannon (so the glass cannon argument cannot be used to justify the era split)
- Heavy tanks should be pennable by all tanks within reason (sure, a 20mm AA gun shouldn’t be able to pen something frontally except for a full downtier, but anything with a reasonable cannon should be able to at least pen a weakspot)
- Letting heavies be the only type of tank that can get kills, and treating all other types of tanks as supports for the heavies, is just bad game design. Other types of tanks should be able to get kills.
- A tank being able to overpressure light tanks with HEATFS doesn’t mean that it should be moved up in BR to where the Cold War light tanks are, as there are much better HE rounds to use on other tanks and HEATFS was literally meant to fight heavy armor
- Creating a BR split at 6-7 would mean that which ever nation has a lineup 0.3 BR above the cutoff will have to deal with 100% uptiers, basically making the lineup unusable (plus this doesn’t address any of the supposed “problems” with very mobile HEAT-slingers)
Why should that be the case? If a vehicle performs well at its BR there is no justification to move it up.
The problem is that a game should first and foremost be fun, and historical matchmaking would not be fun.
I agree some of these things are obviously not good/real arguments, but post pen damage, minor nation gaps, and low tier APCs that are SPAAs in game are definitely valid reasons to be against it.
By any tank with a reasonable caliber, most definitely. I put a caveat in an above part of this comment about small caliber stuff (in terms of tank calibers) like 20mm cannons probably shouldn’t pen unless its a full downtier on a weakspot, but most cannons should definitely pen a weakspot.
Exactly.
Source???
1 Like
Sorry if I came across as rude.
What I meant is that if a nation has a modest tank arsenal, then players of that nation shouldn’t be ungrateful about having this nation in the game in the first place, even if their tanks aren’t the best, they are still usable and they are here.
M-51 probably wouldn’t do great against T54s and T-55As, but it wouldn’t be completely useless either. It still has AMX-30s gun, which is more than enough to kill T-54s and T-55As.
You can’t expect to be free to destroy an entire BR bracket, just so your tank can be better.
But this would destroy the Swedish tree up to rank 4.
2 Likes
Source???
Are you serious? Do you honestly think South Africa could compete with the US? Finland? Sweden?
Do you think sub trees have their own full tech trees? What actual minor nations in game cannot have a full tech tree (outside of Israel, I guess)?
And fix all of the other nations (8), except Israel, which shouldn’t exist until after WW2.
The problem is you would also have vehicles like the ikv 72 that would fight t54s as well let alone half the SPAAs getting moved to a BR above the WW2 BR.
This is why I’m against historical matchmaking and similar matchmaking, it would destroy BR Brackets.
2 Likes
It would destroy the British SPAA line.
2 Likes
The only nation that would 100% profit from a change like this would be Germany.
3 Likes
These SPAAs are not far from a Toyota with the same Russian 20mms in the back scavenged somewhere. Do you really think a Toyota with an autocannon in the back should be a competitive SPAA, when it exists in an era where planes that can kill each other from 100+ km and SAM sites exist?
I would have a blast with both the Germans and the Russians at all BRs from 1.0 to 7.3 with the changes I proposed.
No, they aren’t.
How merciful of you that a 20mm autocannon shouldn’t be able to penetrate a 70 ton tank from the front, it truly makes this tank feel so heavily armored. Oh wait, unless it’s a full downtier…
Are you kidding me?
You didn’t read my BR table, did you. Even WW2 German stuff would move up. Also stuff like German M41, Jpz 4-5 and German M109 would of course move up as well.
No russia too. The whole IS line up IS7 and so forth.
I said minor nations, not sub trees. Sweden is a minor nation. Its tree is far smaller and less fleshed out than the major trees. Even with Finland, it’s full of copy paste and still isn’t fleshed out.
Sub trees are a way to bandaid the minor nation issue. The only sub tree that actually felt like a good idea was South Africa to the UK.
It’s laughable for me, that Sweden has arguably a bigger tech tree than UK. Less vehicles, but less gaps and more diversity at higher BRs.
Most of Italy’s Rank IV would be affected (assuming 7.0 max BR):
About half of Sweden’s low tier would be affected:
Half of Britain’s III and IV Ranks would be affected:
Virtually all of Japan’s Rank IV would be affected:
And those are just the four nations I checked.
But it would be either incredibly unfun (or impossible to play those BRs) for other nations.
You said South Africa and Finland, which are sub trees. Great Britain, Japan, China, Italy, France, Sweden, and Israel are the minor nation tech trees.
Yes, please show that the minor nations (besides Israel) are 100%, definitely, without question incapable of having a fully fledged out tech tree.
3 Likes
Do I really have to do all nations, I thought that with just 2 of the biggest ones you would get the idea. I spent a lot of time on that BR table, in fact I would rather not say how much, definitely too much.
With historical mm they just can’t. With non historical matchmaking they can, but then the game becomes another World of Tanks, like it does right now, slowly but surely.