No, people with "narrow eyes"do not offend me, but apparently they do offend you.
So it is intentional bigotry. Must be miserable being a bigot and using player names in a game because you are offended by other people… snowflakes.
My dude, the fact you immediately went into Stats. Makes everything you said irrelevant. Stats do not mean anything. Veteranship simply depends on how long you have played the game. However there are categories of Veterans. Ones who have played for a long time have experience, then you have the technically Veterans, ones who have a lot of time but don’t have much experience, or their accounts are just old.
If your account is from only 2020, that still makes you a Veteran. Just a relatively newer one, i’d say 4 years is relatively equvilant to either a PFC->Private First Class->Corporal at best. But this is merely just giving you an idea, nothing more or less. It doesn’t really matter in game but it is useful to give you a better visual on your position within the whole WT definition of Veteran.
1 Like
Well he is correct with what he states, veteran or not (see above).
I’m experienced apart from 8.0+ (never came for modern Thunder and always has most complaints) and agree with much the OP says, though not all.
2 Likes
As an asian myself, i thought the name was funny. So i don’t really find it offensive.
It does not promote a healthy atmosphere, especially when you see the intent.
(Now do I mean you being Asian or the name? I’ll leave that open).
i very well know stats don’t mean anything.
i was just simply questioning OP’s claims by showing that his actual experience whilst playing the vehicles are the opposite to what he claims. he claims they “easily dominate” whilst he himself isn’t dominating in them. this makes me question his statements and credibility in the matter.
(i put no actual weight into the K/D ratios themselves and i’m not in any way looking down on him as a player because of them)
i can agree to most of that. i might have had i to narrow view on veterancy. But i would also argue that number of battles weighs heavier than years played (depending on what is discussed of course).
a player who has had an account for 8 years but has only played a few times a week and has a total of 1000 battles, i would argue, has less valuable input than a player who has had an account for 4 years but has 15k battles (unless we are discussing changes made to the game over time).
“It doesn’t promote a healthy Atmosphere.” If this is related to this whole cultural “Appropriation”.
Then that thing is dumb as heck. Won’t dive into it, but let’s just say, if you wear the most stereotypical outfit. A lot of Asians will find it funny. The only ones who don’t are primarily Westerners, while I am one myself, I do not believe in that dumb idea. If someone wants to wear a Sombrero or let’s say a Kimono, let them wear it. Otherwise, you create cultural segregation which is what appropriation is in disguise.
Now let’s never discuss this again.
1 Like
he might very well be, i have not argued against it.
i just put into question his authority and credibility on the matter since; firstly he has no experience at all in top tier in any nation except for some battles in premium vehicles and secondly has progressed through his tech trees with a lot of help from premium vehicles. This makes his experience in the game not at all representative of the majority of players.
As i did say in my original post:
I would completely disagree. As I stated, you’re using stats once more. Just because you have 15k in battles does not mean you have the experience to back this up. May 30th, 2017, 7 years of experience in this game, and from that I’ll tell you, you meet a lot of people who have those numbers but are performing incredibly poorly. Anyway to go on, those 15k battles rack up, but that doesn’t mean you know what you’re doing.
Grammarly decided to correct your wording and stuff.
i truly don’t understand what you mean here since the subject is based on inductive conclusions.
this is self-contradicting. having more played games inherently gives you more experience of the game.
Or are you using (and reading) experience as meaning; “understanding of” instead of “exposure to”?
More battles played gives you more encounters and more data to come to conclusions with. any sort of study on anything inductive in nature gains more reliable results with more input data.
i’m confused, how do you measure performance if (as you previously said) you don’t look at stats?
i didn’t claim something like this either.
i think you have been misunderstanding me somewhere so to clarify:
Having many battles means you can with more confidence claim a seen pattern to be true.
Having many years in the game means you can more easily compare to past events and past patterns to claim changes.
what causes a pattern is a different discussion. if the player learns and gets better is a different diskussion.
If I went into 15k battles and just performed badly in most of them. =Still doesn’t mean I’m a good player.
I analyze how a person performs with how they respond to a situation. Not statistics.
Statics are paper stats, nothing more and nothing less. They’re the equivalent of people claiming “on paper the Tiger I was superior” In reality, it had so many logistical implications many were minor but it bugged the living hell out of engineers who had to deal with it.
To summarize: Paper stats seem to be good or bad, but you can only learn if something is gonna perform effectively or not by doing actual field or combat testing.
i wholeheartedly agree.
But it has nothing to do with my original post or what my point has been.
…(same here) but playing solely Air RB, your description of German CAS planes is quite accurate as you described the issues you have with “standard” armament to “crack” armored targets.
Some years ago (in the old axis vs allies world) flying Germany (on an old inactive account) was boring like hell as the wt meta in props favors fast climbers and good turn fighters. Your only threat were the few good Spit pilots, and they got swarmed, so the majority of losses were based on ticket defeats as some US boys farmed pillboxes early game and your MG 151s can’t pen/kill them.
-
So i tried German strike aircraft and was actually disappointed like hell. The only thing that really worked for me was the lowest 410 with the 50mm BK5. But you had to wait with your attack run until the sky was clear as the flight performance and handling with HOTAS was a pain.
-
The Italian SM 92 was able to kill pillboxes in Air RB (i used stealth with AP) but as i always fly with HOTAS, SFC and instructor off the ammo expenditure was not worth the result.
As a summary:
- So the artificial superiority of plane vs tanks increased for 0.50 cal users just based on mouse aim. That’s why German aircraft lack the versatility of other nations.
- The fact that wt allows mouse aim flying (combined with artificial stabilization) allows “impossible” kills of even heavy tanks from direct above with stuff like US AN/M2 0.50 cal and AN/M2 20mm - kills that never happened irl.
I mean gaijin’s policy is inconstant:
On side they claim “realistic” battles and require the birth certificate of the grandfather of the engineer of a cannon or shell in case you want to prove that they are wrong.
On the other side they allow mouse aim which enables ground kills by aircraft which are totally unrealistic.
But:
The players accept this. I mean if i would be WW 2 tanker in wt i would ask why my 20mm Flak is ineffective vs enemy aircraft - despite the shell allows combat ranges up to 4 km. Just a few guys are aware of that stuff like 20mm disappear at around 2km, whilst 0.50 cals hit up to 2.5km…at least in Air RB you can outrun 20mm cannon shells at very high speed thx to this effect…
2 Likes
Hello,
im new in here, but playing tier 3 Germany at the Moment in Realistic Battles i would fully support the claim that US / Russian Tanks are far superior to any German Tank in a 1v1 situation with same class and skill.
I base this claim on my own “subjective” stats. When you dont have either USA or Russia as Ally your loss Rate will be 19/20 games and the one game you will have super CAS Players and their best 5 players will be called simultaneously by their Moms to clean up their Room during the Game.
I picked Germany because i thought their Tanks had a Bonus in Speed and Armour. Now i discovered that they are definitely not fast, and to my historical knowledge even less durable. i hope it will somehow improve on higher tiers, but on tier 3 it`s just disappointingly unbalanced to me.
Even with Tiger Tanks almost every Frontal hit will result in a blow because one tiny random fragment will hit the ammo cache one of the side. And this goes for all the other Classes. Just finished a game where i needed 6! Hits with a Panzerjäger 4 (70V) on a t34 to finish him of (being lucky the first shot disabled his movement), while a btm one-shooted me in the side right after my kill. Just a tiny example.
Although i woulnt contest that im more often located in the lower 50% of the team ranking than the upper one, and the fact that i still couldnt destroy even a Barn with my Stuka, despite those facts im open to consider beeing the worst Warthunder Player ever and beeing the reason of those devastating “subjective” stats. But then with the same honesty i would challenge Gajin to make those Stats available for the Public. Again my Claim: Germany playing against Russia and USA (historically) will loose over 90% of the games.
Some points i would change for Balance (since i dont want to criticize only, and i wouldn`t have dared comment in here without doing my first in-game payment, since i consider criticizing something that others create for you to enjoy freely, as very low) would be:
-
Make tier 3 German Tanks less subject to Ammo Explosions when taking less Ammo into battle. Saying that Secondary Ammo-Detonations should be impossible when you go to Battle with 0 Rounds in theory. This also Adding to realism, maybe even giving little speed bonus.
-
Make German (maybe in general) AA Tanks like Wirbelwind more effective on Planes further out than 1000 Meter (1 km). To my historical knowledge the 4-Lings-Flak was a very effective AA Weapon against Air Targets way above 1000 Meters. (and yes i use HE Rounds)
-
Generally giving higher Bonuses to German Side Armor, but for sure Front Armour. I also would claim that this is historically accurate.
But for the time being in this Tier i`m just always happy to see an American or Russian Flag beside the German ones at the start of a game !
Even low tier. Its a MASSIVE difference whether you spawn a 109 with one 250 kg bomb or a P-47 (hellcats, mustangs etc etc) with 3 bomb drops, tons of cal50 ammo and Hvars.
Both cost the same amount of spawn points, but the ger 109 just strikes one hard target, while others kill up to 3, supplemented with Hvars and thousands cal50 rounds vs lightly armored targets.
1 Like
I also took screen shots
This is an su25 with 4 40km laser guided Air to ground missiles…
And in comparison…
If i take two kh-29Ts with my su-22m4 it costs me around 850 sp…
They’re not even the 30km range ones!!
This isn’t fair gaijin…
Have you tried angling the Tiger? That’s how its supposed to fight, not full armor presented to the enemy.
HVARs are a neccesity, not a luxury. Germany has heavily armored SPAA that completely nullifies .50cals. If America had the 15mm, 20mm, or 30mm that Germany gets then they wouldn’t need HVARs. Germany however gets the powerful autocannons without fighting heavily armored SPAA, the only exception being Britain which is rare to come across. Also P-51 and F6F only get 2 bombs, and the P-47’s 3rd bomb is only a 500lb.
Lastly, America almost always has large 1,000lb bombs, but Germany get’s access to the B I G bombs, 1,000kg, 1,800kg, 2,000kg.
Germany has the best rank 3 tanks. I’m sorry, but it’s about ~2,000 hours before players actually get a grip on Warthunder BS and complexity and actually be able to determine which vehicles are bad, and which just requires game knowledge that goes against irl strategies and historical accounts.