I feel like the PUMA with its superior layout and the Vilkas with its spikes, being fine at 10.0 and 10.3 repectively, demonstrates that there is no reason for the KF41 to remain at 10.7. At the current BR, the KF41 stands alone, with players forced to face higher tier enemies with little increase in capability. I love to play my italian 10.3 lineup, partly because it keeps me away from the 11.7 uptier. At 10.7 the KF41 puts me at risk of 11.7, with no tangible benefit compared to the PUMA and Vilkas. I think a decrease to 10.3 would be a great addition to the lineup, allowing players use of the Ariete(P), Leopard 2A4 and the KF41. This, I beleive, will have no impact on balance and only serve to increase the number of players intrested in what is an attractive tank.
Well, Japanese is difficult! (lol)
{ I’m Japanese :) }
Could you explain - every day you make some kind of patches (at least my client download download smth every day). And every day the aiming range on the SU-39 is different. For even days it is 10 km, for odd days it is 5-6 km.
Can’t decide? Or maybe you can use some kind of version control (git? you know, maybe?)))) to avoid breaking other developers’ changes.
Because it looks like the developers made smth and broke other changes.
Go play it and then come here talk about Dart that hit AMX 30B in 5 metters front upper plate and Shatter Gaijined much.
I want to bring up 2 tanks I think are a bit undertiered…
T-28E is a 2.3 tank with the L-10 cannon. 67mm of pen with 150 grams of explosive filler. This tank absolutely clubs and I’ve gotten multiple 15-20 kill streaks with it a few times now in arcade.
M3 Lee is kind of the same deal. It’s a 2.3 tank with a 75mm gun w/ 97mm of pen and also derps everything in one shot.
Both of those could be moved to 2.7 imho.
Peak confirmation bias. Now that bias is at least real.
There are many examples more.
Calling everything that doesn’t line up with your world view CB, is also a clear form of CB.
I wonder what you get out of simping for GJN insisting there is no bias. Everyone can read the Dev blogs dude, they went mask off with the russian bias ages ago.
You cry up with russian bias when something like that happens to russian tanks. Yet you don’t do the same when it happens to non russian tanks.
It is confirmation bias on your side.
You guys are yet to provide a single evidence for ruaaian bias.
How would you know that? Do you watch my games and monitor my forum activity?
It’s funny how you guys just pretend the MANPADS dev blog didn’t happen. That is literally definitive proof.
Did you ever cry about it happening to non soviet tanks?
If yes, how many times?
By what way? Because they standardized it? Just like they do with pen calculations?
You know, your (in plural) favourite new crytoy, the Object 292 just happens to miss ~300mm penetration with it’s dart. Yeah, that’s the russian bias for you.
If you can’t even read a dev blog, why should I bother reading anything you post…
Limiting PID to the effectiveness is not standardization, it is blatant bias. It’s like saying the Sherman can’t possibly be stabilized because the T-34 isn’t.
How is it bias? Could you explain it?
EDIT:
Btw, i can also use your argument to the penetration calculators. They usually return a smaller value than the actual penetration, so by your metric it is evidence for bias.
If you aren’t able to get it from reading that devblog, then you’ll never get it I’m afraid.
Just showing your true colours when that’s the only response you can come up with.
Very ironic for you of all people to be accusing others of being a crybaby.
To your nonsense - yes.
Maybe you could finally provide evidence of the bias you claim that exists.
What you currently do is just crying and coping with this bias nonsense, because you are just bad at the game.
Who is crying about a non existent bias as a coping mechanism? because it is not me for sure.
They would never do that only because stabilised T-34-85 and T-44 existed and USSR tested stabilised sights on some of their tanks before the war but non saw further production because of war starting.
You have been told a dozen times. GJN posted evidence of their RussianBias themselves when they released that MANPADS devblog. They specifically mentioned how they were using Russian documents on the igla as “average g”, but interpreting western documents as “maximum instantaneous g”. If that wasn’t bad enough, they doubled down saying “they couldn’t see how the Stinger would turn so much better with such a small increase in fin area”. Lot’s of “we think”, “we believe”, and “we cope”.
It’s funny how your type always have to try and bring it back to stats. I know I’m not great at ground rb, but that doesn’t make me wrong. You’re also bad at WT, you don’t see me using it against you as an insult.
Crying? I probably abuse RussianBias more than you do. The difference is I don’t think it is fair for the game to remain this way.
You on the other hand rage every time someone brings up RussianBias, or points it out, like you’re getting paid to do it haha. I hope you are and you aren’t just shilling for a Russian company out of your own volition.
Rly? Can you give me some info on them? Or link it? I am interested.
I know they actually developed NVD too, but stabs look interesting.
Again, they have standardized it by some formula. Just like they did with tank shells.
And guess what buddy, they are not accurate at all!
The new crytoy tank, the Object 292 is missing 300mm of it’s pen. And it is a russian tank.
It is an universal thing, and applies to every tech tree.
Just like APHE doing more damage, and solidshot less, than it IRL did.
Also, APCR and early APDS is basically useless, and not realistic at all.
Yet you don’t seem to cry about those.
Yes, you cry about it. Also, why do you think it is fair to be in the game (let’s suppose for the sake of the argument that it is real)?
Damn, they are already late for the latest month’s payment!
Now seriously: I just debunk your nonsense.
I am constantly calling them out on their BS. I am also not defending them when i debunk your nonsense. I just state facts.
“Танковая мощь СССР. Часть 3. Золотой век”
Or theres web site version of the book at Читать онлайн "Танковая мощь СССР. Часть 3. Золотой век" - Свирин Михаил Николаевич - RuLit - Страница 38
AdBlock is adviced.
Stabilised T-34-85 were named T-34-85-ST
Oh and I seemed to have been wrong about stabilised sights, they were produced on latest T-26 ans BT-7 series.
Spoiler
You can read about NVG and TOS-1 stabilised sight at
# Первые советские ИК приборы и стабилизаторы прицела танковых орудий - "Оружейная экзотика". (Нереализованные проекты, опытная и малоизвестная серийная военная техника) — LiveJournal
