Good thing it isn’t up to you lol.
2 Likes
I look forward to the day when the game’s official servers eventually perish, and then it gets rebooted on private servers that can free the game from years of whine-appeasement nerfs like what has been done to SPAAGs.
Because nerfing the things isn’t and never was the answer. Only better map designs not allowing them to get to point blank distance was.
Me suggesting to force-feed the people doing the screaming the thing they hate until they capitulate is pure, unadulterated, vindictive vengeance. If they will not adapt to the rules of the game, break them until they do or leave.
You can do that already.
We already had this talk before, you’re an extremely delusional individual with “master plans” about seeking vengeance on the community or some other cringe stuff.
You’re also acting tough about tiers you barely even play lol.
3 Likes
You have evidently not played against these vehicles in a while. I have had XM246 turret face eat dozens of 25mm APFSDS no problem, 155mm HE hit the gepard turret face and only destroy tracking, and multiple ammo explosions on my own Type 87 only setting fires. Against MBTs armed with only a cannon and small machine guns, it will always take a main gun shot to frontally destroy them. And you better hope disable them in one shot or else you are getting 100+ 30-35mm shells on you.
1 Like
Nah. I would rather have a lower BR SPAA as UK needs an spaa in the 7s. They already have the Marksman in the 8s. And we all know Gaijin balances vehicles based on pen, so the Falcon would stay in mid 8s if APDS was added back.
1 Like
Yeah of course there is. But they’re french and gaijin hates france so they will never be added
2 Likes
I’m not against making damage models actually work - that doesn’t harm the actual capabilities of the vehicle itself. As long as the weapons still work, that is what really matters to me - both in their anti-air AND anti-tank abilities.
What I seek is a game that is truly stable and dependable - where weapon performance doesn’t get upended at the drop of a hat just because certain people start bleating loudly. It’s what I’ve always wanted since more than a decade ago. If you consider that to be some “master plan,” well joke’s on you I guess.
Instead of nerfing the weapon, nerf the people’s ability to scream about it. You do this by intentionally doing the opposite of what they ask until they run out of tears to shed. Otherwise the game loses its soul “doing what the audience wants” exactly like how Disney obliterated Star Wars by having no real story to go upon beyond “making a movie they think the audience wants.” Because said game has no real skeleton to build upon should the whims of the audience change, as they inevitably do.
I only arrived at “the community is the problem” after many years of seeing X get screamed about and nerfed, the same people who previously screamed about X then scream about Y, endlessly repeating loop until nothing works. Often by that point the original complainers very well may have fully churned out of the game, yet their damage has been done. And snail, true to their logo, either forgets to undo the old nerf when the game boundaries shift to where it’s no longer needed or just refuse to.
Hence, I arrived where I arrived, logic-wise. Instead of bowing to people screaming about dying to X, empower Z specifically to counter X and write a short Dev Blog/Dev Article explicitly saying “Hey community! Struggling to kill X? We’re aware of damage model problems with X and fixes are being worked on, but for the time being use Z to kill X!”
Nerfing should only be an absolute last resort after literally everything else failed to change the problem - after BR adjustments, reward adjustments, map adjustments, objective adjustments, etc. Because there are more people than just the folks screaming “X is OP!!!”
Thus, the real “vengeance” I seek is to watch them scream and achieve absolutely nothing, or better yet have their screaming result in the exact opposite of what they scream for, intentionally to spite them.
this not a matter of game balance but realism.
we suggesting removing limits unrealistically, but then bringing realism into this argument?
the majority of these vehicles cant even be killed by a 50. cal… their armour is far superior to the low tier SPAA you have spent the majority of your time facing.
you seem to have not faced these 35mm SPAAs… at all? (practically)
also due to your lack of experience around the 8.0 bracket have we not considered that 8.0 is a transitional BR with stabilised and unstabilised tanks? with tanks lacking stabilisers while also being extremely light and easy targets for stabilised 35mm SPAAs being a genuine problem?
with all of this, this brings me to a conclusion that your argument is lacking actual relevant experience to back it up, while I agree you have played this game for years and have “experience” it just isn’t at a battle rating where its relevant to this argument.
4 Likes
So yeah, nothing more than a spiteful player trying to change things at tiers he doesn’t even play at.
2 Likes
Guess Im free to force feed walleye, gbu8 (and kab500kr in next update) to those spaa and rest of 8.3-10.3 and just let them adapt to that.
1 Like
Puts 12.7 tanks at 9.0
People complain
Tell them to adapt
They leave
Look guys, I’m the best manager ever
That guy has some weird ideas not gonna lie.
3 Likes
No
-1
mr snail should remove all APHE rounds from other AA to
very toxic and ruin game experiencing
Consult the graph statistics say otherwise,
plus 30mm SPAAs have considerably less penetration than the 35mm gepards ect, with 30mm SPAAs having 53mm of penetration vs 68mm on 35mm SPAAs.
I do agree that the APHE they have is over preforming however, if it were up to me, the APHE changes the community voted against, should have been added, but should apply to SPAA only.
but the reason why these should go lower is simply because they only have 53mm of penetration, the average side armour below 8.0 actually increases to ~76mm, along with these SPAA just not being competitive against the aircrafts they are forced to face.
1 Like
Why did their apds belts get removed? Is there any logical explanation behind this?
They quote historical materials (someone correct me if wrong) it was supposed to be “balancing” also but they seem to have not moved them down in br to account for it, which i go into in this post. (Ik you got merged here, hi lol)
Ok if was meant to be balance, could’ve they just move it to 8.7? Like the T58 with its powerful HESH shell, it went from 8.3 to 8.7. Wouldn’t that solve the problem?
My view is that they should only go down, so i welcome the APDS removal, my reasoning is that both france and britain (with Britain already having a vastly superior SPAA at the same BR, 8.3) lack true dedicated SPAA in the 7.7-8.0 area.
1 Like
They gave them RARDEN 30 APDS shells basically, which irl wont work mixed with the other types due to differing muzzle-velocities (1150-1200m/s vs 1080m/s).
Since the HS831L isnt dual-fed, such rounds wouldnt be used via auxiliary belts like on Gepard either.
As sole AA ammunition, APDS isnt viable and FAPDS wasnt available until decades later (and I am not even sure if 30x170 cartridge even has any FAPDS available today)
What Falcon atleast could get though is APIC-T (Hispano Suiza Type RINT / Oerlikon Type HLC or Type HKC [latter w/o tracer]).
This shell has a incendiary charge infront of a hardcore (ingame that’d be APCR/HVAP), so even if it has to be used in full-belts (due to a higher muzzle-velocity of 1100m/s compared to the other types’ 1080m/s) would be somewhat viable against aircraft.
Unfortunately, I cant find any documentation on the characteristics of the Core itself (Weight, Material and Diameter, though the latter can be estimated via their diagrams).
If i find those, I’ll bug-report it…
Hispano Suiza HS 831L ammunition
ingame Falcon would use the Oerlikon KCB ammo but if I cant find data on the Oerlikon APIC/-T then the Hispano Suiza one [RINT] would work too ig
The relevant characteristics listed in the brochure are;
mass = 360g
incendiary charge = 13g
muzzle-velocity (L/75) = 1100m/s
tracer-duration: 2 seconds (~1700m)
penetration: 60mm at 200m @60° impact angle (Plate hardness R = 160 kg/mm²)
My Oerlikon brochures for the automatic cannon type KCB (new designation for HS831 cannons) doesnt list the APCI-T shell whatsoever.
Solely my brochure on their standard-targets (1987) mentions it (with no characteristics but two targets it needs to penetrate).
In this case however, it is for a version without a tracer called HKC 078 (HLC would be the variant with a tracer - let’s just hope it isnt a typo because I have no clue what “K” would stand for)
Oerlikon’s test-RHA plates usually have tensile-strengths of 105-120 daN/mm²
As for HLC, it was mentioned/shown in a 1976 BAEE catalogue;
But again with no further specifications.
I did already report the other types that are currently available ingame and will report the lack of APIC/-T once I can find data on the core…
The other reports I made;
Falcon - Incorrect HEI-T specifications
Falcon - Incorrect HEI (“HE-I-T”) specifications
Falcon - Incorrect Explosive Filler for APHEI (SAP-I)
Note: I keep mixing APCI-T and APIC-T here, just be aware that I mean the same thing with both of them.
3 Likes
Fascinating - so then would Snail interpret APIC-T as a type of “AP-I” or as a type of “APCR”? Because giving the Falcon “APCR” would be worse than useless due to how Snail models APCR shattering on angled tissue paper.
APCR.
I can use the Oerlikon minimum penetration requirements as reference for shattering- & penetration angles but idk if they’d care about it to be honest.