also has its own ammunition now instead of generic german ammo.
Does it actually have unique ammo?
1 Like
on the dev server all the generic german ammo was replaced by actual ammunition the belgians used in their 1a5s. should perform basically the exact same but its not just a copypaste job entirely now
1 Like
On the dev it got the chemical rounds removed and swapped for Belgian equivalents (+ a 105mm HE shell). The APFSDS is still DM33 though iirc
3 Likes
Yeah but not the APFSDS that would have it perform meaningfully different
It’s like when someone points out that the smoke launchers on the 2a4nl are different from those on the German 2a4. Sure it’s technically different, but not meaningfully so.
Personally I’m hoping the Leopard 1a5BE is “Transitory” in its current state, I.e. it’s adding depth to French 9.3 until the AMX-30c2 gets added, at which point the 1a5BE will get its full compliment of rounds and its turret armor package and get moved to 10.0
This is even more relevant now that the 3105 turret has its reload increased to 7.5 seconds, so the 1a5BE with MECAR APFSDS will be a faster firing alternative
1 Like
at 9.3 darts having varying performance honestly dont matter, there is basically nothing with armour around those ranges. mobility and map knowledge is the meta there.
I genuinely think you could give a leopard 1a5 the obj 292s dart and it would still do about the same.
A bunch of new posts. Oh, just people reconfirming that sub-nations should never have service vehicles added, only one-off prototypes.
As it made clear that those who supposedly support better additions of a vehicle only support it if it’s replaced by a one-off over representing an historical vehicle like a nation’s last MBT.
5 Likes
I still can’t believe how they saw a domestic Belgian upgrade and decided it didn’t need the firepower part of that upgrade for some reason. They didn’t even just leave out higher performing rounds for the sake of BR, they didn’t add any Belgian ammunition to it at all.
2 Likes
I cannot wait to see Gaijin refuse to add the F-86E(M) to UK TT
because it is C&P of both the Italian CL-13 and the Hellenic F-86E(M), while acts same as American F-86A-5 and “Community asked for it”
Just like how they reacted to Washington B.1
/s
5 Likes
I can. It’s the same reason aircraft would be missing ordnance that makes it more unique.
Gaijin wanted it and X BR, so they gave it stuff it could use, even if it’s wrong.
2 Likes
yep. It could be stated plainly that the Sabre F.4/F-86E(M) only exists because the UK custom-ordered it, but as long as the vehicle already exists in the game, it’s C&P unless added to designer nations, because if it’s not pure domestic licensed-built (no matter how unique or otherwise), it’s C&P too, apparently.
1 Like
Yes it is-
Yes it is…
We ordered those heavier
We ordered those without 37mm
We ordered those as replacement of Kittyhawk…
:/
4 Likes
One off prototypes are still added though…
There’s no reason to oppose additions because opposing additions =/= supporting additions.
I love & support everyone that shares the latter interpretation of copy-paste… I just disagree with them, as do the dictionaries, artists, researchers, anyone that’s detail minded, etc.
I’m honestly impressed no one’s accused me of being an “art lawyer” because I am detail oriented & have a strict adherence to the definition of copy-paste.
People act as if I’m insulting their way of life because I call vehicles “unique” that were researched, & determined a new model commission was necessary.
The biggest irony is that even copy-paste vehicles need research to find out if they can use an existing model; it’s still expensive to add copy-paste, just not as much as commissioning for a new model.
I’m not insulting them though, I’m just disagreeing. I’m not belittling their perspective, I’m considering their perspective always. Even perspectives that go against dictionaries & artists’ meanings of words, I still consider the perspective before providing my own.
For me, I wanted a unique 9.3 option that wasn’t AMX-32 105.
I can always bring 9.3s into the 10.0 lineup, I can’t bring 10.0s into the 9.3 lineup.
That is a somewhat valid argument (except for the gooner tanks).
But at the same time how is a little bit of research in any way comparable to the cost of making a new model? It’s nowhere near as expensive to use a model you already have.
2 Likes
naw they’ll ignore it like they do with everything else.
Technically they’ve started adding some text to justify vehicles on a few of the recent dev posts, but I don’t think it really addresses the core of the problem
"Duplicate Vehicles : Why we add them "
Because you are lazy that’s why…
5 Likes
@Nick_Cloud
Spending 20% less to produce one extra vehicle in an update isn’t laziness, it’s still passion.
Just cause 4 Typhoons are copy-paste doesn’t mean they don’t have passion.
People overwhelmingly support the <10% of copy-paste added each update because it’s additions that only benefit players for a variety of reasons.
Even if a lot of them I’ll never play.
The reason this thread was created points to that not being so overwhelming. Additionally it’d be more accepted if it were properly balanced, but it’s not. A few trees get the brunt of the copy paste, and so not only have the rates of actual domestic designs for those trees plummeted, but the unique feel of those trees is getting diluted
There’s obviously a place for import duplicate designs, namely capability gaps in trees that can’t domestically address them, but that’s not how a lot of these designs are being used
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes