I watched the recent match between Bradley and T90M, and it’s worth noting that the communication level of the Russians seems to only support their tanks going out alone ：D
How so?
Chinese main^
Highest TT vehicles in various other countries are
M4A3E2 / P-26A-34 M2 - 5.7 / 1.0 USA
Tiger H1 / FW-190 A-5 - 5.7 / 4.7 Germany
Nothing - Britain
Chi-Ha / Ki-10 - 1.3 / 1.0 Japan
Nothing - Italy
Nothing - France
Nothing - Sweden
Nothing - Israel
Talk about nation supremacy…
Really? Man, nobody told the the Abrams has a 1 second reload!
You have 80 matches in the M1A1 AIM, mate. Build better autoloaders.
I wanted to read through this entire thread, but it’s 270 posts long and I am tired. I’ll summarize my thoughts on the matter as follows:
I suspect there’s some form of misconception about War Thunder being an armoured warfare simulator. Let’s remind ourselves that this game started out as a realism-leaning air combat game. If you really want an accurate portrayal of current-era armoured vehicles, you’ll have to wait until the current era of armoured warfare has passed. For security reasons, quite obviously, no country can publicly make available all data regarding their current armoured capabilities or limitations and we should not expect to have 100% realism in this game.
The reason I emphasize the word game is to remind you that the purpose of this software is to be entertaining and attract players from many backgrounds and nationalities, not to serve as a simulator-grade software. Some people will insist on playing their native country and that their country’s vehicles or aircraft should, for whatever reason, be made superior to the competition; because winning is fun.
It boils down to providing balanced gameplay, and there is no objectively correct approach to this.
Summa summarum; remember this is a game produced for entertainment.
1 Like
exactly, so why so much restrictions in maintaining a balanced game? if they have to be guessed just balance them out.
3 Likes
“We have learned how to use materials and geometry to improve armor protection from previous generations without having to get into the Depleted Uranium material”
He’s talking about export armour packages because the U.S Gov refused to export DU armour for the Swedish tender.
This is correct. He stated there was no evidence stating improved hull armor from Sweden trials. They clearly wanted to get the non DU armor package closer in protection values in the DU armor or non-DU American abrams. I was simply replying to that statement.
1 Like
Great post, it seems we were on the same page and I was working under the same details as you.
1 Like
not sure about the US but here the EU false advertisement can get you fined for all youre worth
1 Like
One how does that first sentence work
Two USA doesn’t give out the full info on its stuff and the media just say what they heard which could be wrong
1 Like
The problem is that the design requirements do not relate to actual performance. In fact it often can exceed OR fall short of the requirements based upon other design tradeoffs. Furthermore, though you have budget documents you do not know the actual result of the changes in protection achieved. I can say, for a fact as I’ve seen the classified documents, you still don’t know what you are talking about. This is like saying a car brochure is an accurate representation of the vehicle itself. It is, but only in the very broadest of strokes.
The fact is, you have to admit you don’t know what you don’t know. IF you refuse to listen to the people that do know that is on you.
And I’m telling you. You guys have no idea what you are talking about.
1 Like
It should be obvious. If the information that is relevant is classified. You cannot access the relevant information. The information that is used is a gross simplification of something and is missing many key pieces of information.
1 Like
This is the point. It should be about fair gameplay. Not arbitrary standards of realism that don’t have access to real information.
Eh. Not really. The USA only gives accurate information. They just don’t share all of it. You can call it a lie by omission if you want. But I don’t even think that applies.
Eh. Since both of those nations are far older than the USA. Likely not true. And the absolute debacle in Ukraine for the Russian Army at the hands of outdated American equipment is all this historical proof you need that Russia and by default as they simply use modified Russian equipment, China is full of excrement.
By this standard you cannot believe anything. But that’s not how it works, is it?
3 Likes
We already discussed this well over a month ago and came to a decent understanding, I’m not sure why you’re reiterating things again.
I’ve already said that the only things we (and Gaijin) have to go off of is publicly available documentation, I’m merely presenting said documentation.
I don’t claim that this is air tight or entirely accurate to reality.
Nobody is asking for the use of classified information, the point is to fine enough justification to do something. You don’t know what the general layout of NGAP is, though you can estimate the effective armor increase, you know the exact weight, you can tell exactly where it was applied, in which variant, and so on.
This is hardly something protection can be based on.
I mean it’s enough to do “something” like you said. But it does not justify giving NATO tanks artificially inferior protection in game terms.
2 Likes
Well if the goal is fair gameplay, then after rework of NATO armor you’ll have to buff USSR MBTs, so they can be at least a little bit competitive. What would you suggest for a buff? And how to balance different NATO MBTs like Leopard vs Ariete for fair gameplay? We will artificially buff the weak tank or artificially nerf the strong tank?
Uh. Right now Russia has an unfair advantage in protection. I’m not talking about making NATO tanks better. I’m talking about making it even. Particularly in the case of the USA.
Well an Ariete is never going to be a Leopard. The answer for Italy lies in other vehicles. However, they could give the Ariete better ammunition and better armor (in the case of the hull it is pretty well established they are not giving the Ariete the armor the manufacturer says it has).
Well they are artificially nerfing strong tanks and buffing weak tanks already. The historical record is very clear on this. NATO tanks in game are artificially weakened in protection, ammunition performance and reload times. meanwhile Russian tanks are artificially strengthened in armor and post penetration resiliency.
That’s not even getting into the superior accuracy of NATO tanks or their superior post penetration survivability, neither of which are reflected in game.
I’m not saying to change ALL of this. I am mostly talking about their unwillingness to give DU armor to the hulls of Abrams, and other general changes to turret survivability. In game NATO tanks are bigger with larger “weak spots” In reality this is immaterial, but in game it is a major liability. I suppose if they made Russian tanks as inaccurate as they are in real life, and NATO tanks as accurate as they are in real life (in terms of gunnery) this could be balanced that way. But the unrealistic engagement ranges of tanks in this game won’t even help that much.
The bottom line is, Russian tanks are idiot easy to play and Abrams are far more challenging to play. This should be rectified.
9 Likes