Gaijin and modern NATO armor

This is a strawman. I’m simply pointing out that since top tier tanks are all fake the goal should be to make them all balanced against each other. Gaijin has already acknowledged they use loading times as a balance measure. The loading times on NATO human loaded tanks are ridiculously high based on documentation and available footage. An average crew can load an M1A1 in 5 seconds and sustain that until the ready rack is empty. This is well documented. I am not complaining about that because the artificially slow times keep them balanced with Russian and Chinese equipment. What I’m complaining about is how the protection of top end Russian and Chinese equipment is artificially high whilst the protection of NATO equipment is artificially low. If it was even, it would be fine. It’s not even. Russian stuff is much harder to point, click, kill than NATO equipment.

Another FACT is that the engagement ranges in this game are very unrealistic compared to how these tanks are designed to fight. The guns are all way too accurate as well. This makes for good gameplay, but negatively impacts tank survivability vs. real life. Which, again, is fine. But if you fake everything but armor, you are treating the tanks and the players who play them unfairly.

5 Likes

It is not a strawman it is us essentially agreeing that the game has to be a total fake in the modern era and it is otherwise Russian vehicles would be left far behind and it may be that Gaijin over did it and will hopefully correct it.

This is a discussion you and I can have but it all it all gets bogged down in “Russian Bias” stupidity when the kids get into it. Untimely there has to be balance in game between a M1 and a Top tier Russian tank. It could be done using CAS to balance the game as a whole, but the player base expects balance vehicle to vehicle in the game.

Fact is nobody has any real experience of war the way Gajin makes it at high tier, Tank vs tank and no infantry.

Sure. But Gaijin has not created balance. It has simply made Russia, and to a lesser extent China, too strong vehicle for vehicle vs NATO nations. It’s bad game design. Especially given how fake all the top tier stuff is.

1 Like

Yeah. I won’t argue it further.

1 Like

Oh, I never questioned the suspension upgrades. I just double highlighted it to point out the ridiculousness of Gaijin’s easily debunked assertion.

1 Like

All that needs to be said.

1 Like

You must be playing a different game than the others? Which China MBT in the game is “stronger than NATO”? The 99s are at best middle ground and far below T-90M and Leopards, maybe the Abrams too.

1 Like

Russian Bias

I don’t think it’s just the M1 or even top tier. I just played Italy for the first time at 6.7 and it is truly terrible. The game just falls apart after 6 BR across the board. I don’t want to go off topic, but it opened my eyes to just how bad the game is later on.

I just hit a T144 from twenty feet with a M26 with APHE and it ricocheted, maybe Russian bias does come in mid game lol . I am seriously heading back to WW2 land. Ignorance is truly bliss in this game. I want nothing to do with my era of armored warfare in War Thunder .

Gaijin: well nice, but I’m gonna ignore this.

4 Likes

The internals on opposing tanks are not the same so the comparison is not 1 - 1. An UFP penetration on T-64/72 usually results in the immediate death of the vehicle which is why there’s almost no complaints about the T-64A for example. Leo 2 can survive an UFP penetration quite often even prior to spall liners and the LFP on an Abrams is one of the worst places to shoot it in 90% of cases.

The biggest issue I have with Russian top tier isn’t even the armour, it’s the arbitrary survivability buff from RNGnon-explosive ammunition and internal components like carousel eating any and all shrapnel (highlight in one of Phlydailys videos where he tries to show the difference between spall liner and non-spall liner between the T-90M and T-80BVM, spoiler: there was no difference). 2nd is Vikhrs and 3rd the inflated turret drive speed using max limits of the 2E42 stabiliser.

😐
“If I can’t click UFP it’s bias”

We should fight against this BS double standard ages ago but well better late than never.
people are bored of ridiculous BS from gaijin now enough is enough

1 Like

NATO the treaty organization doesn’t. The countries that the organization consist of do. Usually with more strings attached, some sell them with more strings, some with less.

I mean, this is all fair. However, I maintain that Russia Top Tier is EZ mode . Top Tier for USA is skill mode. And that is just ridiculous.

3 Likes

I agree entirely with this, but I wanted to chime in and point out that Chinese vehicles have artificially lowered protection due to their incessant fuel tank explosions. Their fuel tanks explode more often than their ammo, to the point that you can reliably shoot the front fuel tanks around a corner to kill a Chinese tank. It’s stupid, and ensures even things that shouldn’t kill them do - and that’s not even mentioning the plethora of other issues that Chinese vehicles have.

And now I stray slightly off topic from that because I felt like saying my own piece without making a separate reply-- it’s unfortunately not just NATO tanks that have a problem. Pretty much every tank at top tier except for those in the Russian/Soviet tree has at least some issue with it - and that’s not me screaming ‘soviet bias’ before someone points that out, that’s just what I’ve observed. Considering that all these tanks are fake, why are we not balancing them based off of that?

This is what I personally can’t understand about Gaijin’s approach to top tier in this game - on one hand, they admit that all of these vehicles are technically fake because they can’t know for sure, while on the other, they refuse to use that to balance them against one another, and instead only take exact empirical evidence that meets their standard. It’s clearly set up specifically so they can deny whatever they don’t want to implement, but I just can’t understand why. I doubt most of the people responsible for implementing these values even play the game, and I feel like it would be much better if they did. Why don’t they have their own people on this, testing these things on a payroll? Every other major game studio has this.

1 Like

Just stick to ARB as God intended.

1 Like

There’s your problem. Italy is true struggle bus life. They don’t get a fair shake at all. That might change with the Hungarian sub-tree adding things that will have armor.

Yesterday someone created a poll to vote on which nation suffers the most, I still chose Britain. They haven’t been given a fair shake at all in this game. The Challenger is far from what it should be, and all that weight they keep adding without any improvement in protection. The Challenger has a reputation of being very well protected in real life for a very good reason.

1 Like

Put the clown on ignore like I did.

Just one really important question for you . In fact, the only question any soldier needs to know about the M1. Does it have a water boiling vessel inside? Can you make a brew?

May I ask how you know this? You have 5 fights on the M1A1 and it’s your most recent US tank.
Your USSR tanks end at rank 3.

I take it you’re more of a game talker than a game player.

According to statistics, the USSR has the worst winrate after the USA. All other countries are better.
image

2 Likes