Uhm… The thing works the other way around. I’m asking the question: “How do you know that the loading between the VT-4 and the ZTZ99A/WZ1001 are pretty much the same?”
If the manual doesn’t state specific names of the components and gives us 100% confirmation that the loading systems are the same then we can’t possibly use the VT-4 manual as a way to change the ZTZ99A/WZ1001 reload speed.
@子夏忆雨 @MightyBaozi okey you two please stop trolling.
we all know they are just same T-72 loader, and you can even get similar data in T-72. it’s just gaijin want or not
I don’t think that the ZTZ99A, VT-4A1, and WZ1001 uses the T-72 autoloader, maybe a variant but it’ll be heavily upgraded
At least they have same load time sequence, I saw a video comparing their time sequence, this part, thry are same.
the other part, like if it’s modified to hold longer APFSDS, nobody knows
If you mean the video that goes around about the reload, again, that is not reliable since it is cut. And unless you have proof of the autoloaders being the same as the T-72… Then I’m not trolling and you should stop.
I know the rule, this is like every body knows but there are not published materials so no way to issue.
Okay, I can just replace a few nouns in your reply statement to ask how your development team determined the relationship between VT-4A1 and ZTZ-99A regarding loading time, but this may be interpreted as “trolling” by others. So, what I want to say is:
I believe you are aware of this fact: the loading times of the T-72/90 series, ZTZ series, and VT-4A1 are tied together, and the confirmation of these MBT loading times is determined by the inertia of the game development team’s thinking. If we all pursue the so-called “can confirm 100% confirmation that these MBTs’ loading systems are the same”, this is definitely not something we can achieve.
So, there’s no need for you to defend the unchanged loading time by questioning the reliability of the data source. Just admit that this is just data that has been overlooked by the development team.
I believe that the loading time of ZTZ-99A has not significantly improved compared to T-90M (at least there is no evidence), but the 7.1s loading has severely limited their combat effectiveness. Other MBTs can shorten the loading time, so T-90 and ZTZ can do the same. As gamers, we cannot directly report these issues to the development team, so I sincerely hope that you can contribute to improving this unfair situation.
In addition, you have always hoped that players can be optimistic on the forum. My answer is: "Players all hope to be optimistic, but we need positive changes in the game, not passive waiting and being ignored.
7.1, a number full of torture, restrained China’s top tanks to the death
Ok let me give you a quick answer:
I’m NOT part of the development team, I do NOT know.
There have been suggestions to change reload times and in certain cases these were accepted, but they do need material and sources for them which, as you stated, is something that can’t be achieved.
Again, I’m not part of the development team and i have no contacts with them whatsoever so I wouldn’t know their process to get to the 7,1 seconds figure. What I’ve done is questioning the legitimacy of affirming that, because of the Thai VT-4 manual, other tanks are supposed to get a buffed reload. So far in this convo nobody actually gave me (NON-CLASSIFIED) sources that back your theories on the autoloaders being the same, it was just a “I believe it”.
This of course can happen, as you’ve seen with the Ariete the reload of a tank can be tweaked. Whether it is a good choice or not that is not my decision.
Absolutely, but here is where my role limits me. Even if i knew of good changes coming i couldn’t tell you for obvious reasons. I do understand your sentiment about the reload, but I really can’t do a lot about it (I’m a player myself and i do have the ZTZ99A and the other Chinese tanks, i would enjoy any buff done to them).
Why are we trying to prove the autoloader is the same as the T-72? Shouldn’t we be proving it is a modification of the T-72 with faster reload? All literature says the ZTZ-96’s started from the T-72, same with the 99’s. It would be the logical default conclusion that the autoloaders are the same unless proven otherwise, especially factoring in China’s military development at the time which does not lend itself towards making substantial modifications to a design they are using a stepping stone to learn from.
I’m sure if I dug around enough, I could find schematics for the T-72 and match them to the autoloader schematic of the VT-4 anyways.
still, no matter how it is, it needs to be proofed. that’s the biggest problem we meet in modern vehicles.
The question is, should the T-72 continue to withstand a loading time of 7.1 seconds? Proving that the loading speed of T-72/90 is faster than 7.1 seconds is much simpler than proving that the ZTZ99 loader is stronger than T-72/90. And I really can’t believe that the development team can make a favorable distinction between Chinese tanks and Russian tanks for China.
I know there is a natural inequality between the development team and the players. But this fact still disappoints me very much: the development team can change the vehicle data without providing any explanation, but players have to risk being sued and find the information that can be accepted by the administrator (or in other words, find the information that the administrator wants to accept) among a bunch of materials.
The most notorious unequal treaty in the history of gaming. And constantly inducing some fools to leak secrets. I suspect this was intentional by Gaijin. They are fishing.
They pretended to refuse the information. Then secretly hand over these materials to the Russian Ministry of Defense.
The model for accepting bug/issues/modeling reports severely hamper countries that show restraint in boasting about its capabilities. Gaijin is aware of this but they continue to operate on the idea that they need sources that explicitly state the performance metrics to the exact number which is frankly impossible to find without being classified in a lot of countries. And worse of all, they do not use enough common sense when modeling vehicles that are an entire generation newer than their predecessor. ZTZ99A is a completely new tank that shares essentially zero in common with older 99. They do not even use the same chassis yet somehow they have very similar hull protection??? Even in the x-ray the model for the composite armor is completely different.
VT-4A1 is hilarious. How was it a 11.7 vehicle in the first place? Now it is 12.0. And since Gaijin does not want to make any changes to it, even though the community has tried their best to present the most up-to-date, accurate information without leaking classified info and getting into trouble, they should lower its BR. And yet they don’t.
Do you really think 2A7V should have inferior UFP protection compared to Strv 122? 2A7V is much newer and heavier. Although there is no concrete source proving that it is better, there is also no source stating that its worse… Do you really think M1 Abrams retained 350 KE LFP protection even on SEPv2? Decades have passed since the first M1 variant and the tank has gotten much heavier… So they still use composite armor material from 1970s in LFP, yet they change it in the turret? Even if there is no concrete evidence… You either balance the vehicle by BR change or under reasonable estimate with help from declassified sources, deduce those changes within the realm of possibility. It’s time for Gaijin to focus on game balance, because truth be told, historical accuracy and realism is impossible ever since Gaijin moved to tanks/vehicles past the Cold War.
Regarding UFP protection for 99A, there is the PPT presented that shows 7xx KE no ERA and 8xx KE with ERA. This is from an official military presentation, unless Gaijin thinks that they are somehow lying? The Thai manual is an official operating manual for tankers and the information in there cannot be false as well. At the very least give 800mm which is the lowest possible figure…
My suggestion is the same as before. Gather as much sources possible with potentially upcoming vehicles like ZTQ-15 starting right now, then when inaccuracy show up in dev server report them at the earliest available time. This is the best possible chance of getting somewhat accurate vehicle and at least they can give an explanation if they don’t agree. What I hate is Gaijin deliberately ignoring latest bug reports on 99A like they are doing right now.
Labeling a two-year-old report about a 99A armor bug as “ackonwledge” and labeling all recent reports as “not a bug” is something that Gaijin did, completely ignoring the reasonable and realistic demands of Chinese players.
Since Gaijin refuses to make corrections, we can approach it from a different angle:
There is no evidence proving that the lower front portion of the 99A is real armor, so its thickness should be considered 1mm; there is no evidence proving that the turret area of the 99A consists of real armor and explosive reactive armor, rather than an inflatable model or toy, so the turret armor should also be 1mm; there is no evidence proving that the main gun of the 99A is a 125mm smoothbore cannon, and not a 7.62mm machine gun, so the 99A should have its main gun removed and be limited to machine gun fire only; there is no evidence proving that the engine of the 99A is a real engine and not a person hidden inside a cardboard box pedaling a bicycle, so the engine power should be reduced to 1 horsepower, and its top speed reduced to that of a bicycle.
I can’t make everyone happy, but I can make everyone angry.
6 months of air RB, this is what it gets me
Gaijin really succeeded in making most players angry, and only the faction favored by Gaijin escaped
I can now clearly say that Gaijin is not unaware of which APFSDS China has; rather, it is deliberately placing China’s most advanced weapons at the lowest tier, so as to trample on and insult the Chinese people