Once again, we are seeing Gaijin’s lack of consistency or open double standards in practice. The French EBR is going up in BR and receiving a new shell. It didn’t lose one to have a new one added, the new round was just added in addition to its existing load outs
Gaijin is still treating the US 90mm tanks differently than it treats other nations. The 90mm is still missing the large filler M82 and the low velocity small filler M82.
It’s not balance, it’s hypocrisy. @Smin1080p_WT @Stona_WT
well no, its just laziness. why add a new shell for a tank thats already over br’ed when you can add another premium to milk EVEN MORE money from the players.
This is leaving out the quite important context that the EBR is not just going to for the first time. But has gone up 2.7 BR across it’s time in game.
The new shell is being introduced on the EBR as it was a 4.3 BR vehicle when it first joined the game. It’s now moving to 7.0 with the latest round of changes, so it’s entirely reasonable for it to be receiving a new shell at some point during it’s transition the more it increases in BR. When a vehicle has had that significant of a BR change over a period of time, the chances of new shells being considered are naturally higher.
Absolutely, as long as Tigers gets to exist with two different shell types, one being massively better than the other due to overpressure that also allows for kills that shouldn’t be possible (like external overpressure on non penning shots), there will always be a hypocrisy that they actively choose not to add large filler M82 to not only US, but almost every other country except Russia, which doesn’t have US 90 mm cannons in their tree.
That’s irrelevant.
How many BR spots did the Tiger E go up before receiving the large filler PzGr?
How many BR spots did the IS2 44 go up before receiving the BR-471D?
How many BR spots did the Maus go up before receiving the PzGr 39/43 TS?
The M26 has gone up and didn’t add the large filler M82 and keep the low velocity M82. No, it had the low velocity M82 changed to the high velocity M82.
The T32 and T32E1 went up and didn’t receive the T50. No, they just kept the T41.
The T-34-100 and T-44-100 were scrapped before the BR-412D was created, yet both tanks have that round.
There is no excuse for withholding rounds that the tanks should have. There is no excuse to not treat US tanks the same way other nations are treated.
Hell, the T25 went up multiple times, lost its stabilizer and still didn’t receive the same treatment.
Not to mention all the tanks that were added to the game with 2-3 different APHE rounds.
The 90mm tanks don’t get their rounds, on top of having to field hilarious nerfed M77, T33 and M318.
I’m afraid it’s not in the comparison you raised with the EBR Vs 90mm US armed tanks.
Each tank is taken on a case by case basis. There has never been a rule that if a tank goes up on BR, it will receive a new shell. Plenty of tanks, as you can see from the current and previous tables, have changed BR without receiving a new shell.
No, I took it as another example of the double standard and then raised multiple others. Go through the other trees and you will find countless tanks with 2-3 APHE or AP variants. Why shouldn’t it be the same for the US tree?
The T-44 sits at 6.7 with three APHE rounds and two APCR rounds.
The M26 also sits at 6.7 and is denied its additional APHE and APCR.
Ignore the EBR. I want an explanation for that. What balance justification is there for the T-44 needing all of those options but not the M26?
And I want APCR to be a better round than APHE and repairs to be removed.
Oh and AP to have its correct slope performance and blunt shells to be bad against thick armor plates 👍
Balancing vehicles by giving them even more powerful APHE to one shot everything is terrible balancing, just because armor penetration is actually useless when you can’t deal enough damage.
It literally goes against anything that was done in reality, where the main focus was always to be able to penetrate the enemies armor.
that is because unlike in game IRL many crews would bail out of a tank after it was hit even if it wasnt penetrated or none of them were injured and the tank was stiff functional.
that would be a horible mechanic to add to the game but was a significant factor IRL
Repairs are part of the game. Removing them fundamentally changes the game. The decision to make APHE the default round is arbitrary. Making APCR more powerful than APHE would have little impact on the fundamental game. The meta would change and BRs would be adjusted, but that happens anyways.
@Smin1080p_WT is there any reason why Gaijin won’t address the open double standard in this issue? They are now considering giving British tanks APHE rounds for their 75mm guns. This bias can’t be allowed to continue.
And yes, I will continue to bring this up until Gaijin does the right thing and adds the alternative M82 rounds to the US 90mm tanks.
Im not sure which bias you are referring too here. American 75mm guns have had APHE rounds for a long time. Most British tanks with 75mms on the other hand have no APHE at all.
This consideration for British tanks has nothing to do with the American 90mms at all.
I’m not sure what the confusion is. Why is Gaijin able to add additional rounds to British tanks that they used but is unable to do the same for US tanks? There is no logical reason to Gaijin not adding the various M82 rounds to US 90mm tanks instead of just changing the M82 to a different version. Add them all.
I never said the British 75mm has any correlation to the US 90mm. I’m using it as yet another example of Gaijin doing something for one tree they refuse to do for the US tree.
All nations have shells added to them and changed. This change is no different to others.
The two cases are entirely unrelated. The consideration to add APHE shells to some British tanks is entirely different, as their 75mm guns have no APHE variant at all. What you are suggesting is to add a second variant of an existing shell that 90mm armed tanks already possess a variant of. The two cases are not the same.
There are multiple configurations of the M82. Why are we not given access to all of them? When the M26 was moved up to 6.7 in realistic, the velocity of the M82 was increased instead of adding the super charged M82 as an additional round. Why was that done?
There are lots of examples of shells with multiple possible configurations. We do not have every variant of every shell possible in game. Suggestions are always welcome for more.
If a tank is moved up in BR, that is generally because its efficiency is already too high for its previous BR. The purpose of increasing it is to primarily stabilize its BR to be nominal. Adding new shells with potentially even better characteristics is not always done when a vehicle goes up in BR. As I explained to you previously, a BR increase is not a set rule that a new shell will also be added: Don’t just change M82 velocity, add the large filler M82 as well - #202
No, I’m asking specifically why the M82 velocity was changed. Why would it be game breaking for any US short 90mm tank to have two M82 configurations?
I think they could easily add both M82 models, as there’s an example in another tank, namely the Tiger 1’s 88mm ammunition. It has two APCBC rounds: the PzGr 39, which penetrates slightly more and has a lower explosive charge, and the PzGr, which carries more explosive at the cost of less penetration. In short, the Tiger 1 already has what’s being requested for the American 90mm gun.
I just find it hilarious that Gaijin’s official position is that not a single tank with the US 90mm would be balanced having multiple M82 configurations but the dozens of vehicles in other trees get multiple APHE configurations with zero issue. Man, that M82 must be one heck of a round.
