If you actually took the time to read the suggestions, youโd see theyโre focused on improving neglected tech tree and premium vehicles. Nobody is asking for more premium vehicles. The requests are about correcting historical inaccuracies and making existing vehicles more worthwhile to play.
Maybe if you took the time to click on my forum account, you would see that I have 17 hours of read time for a reason.
Sorry, but I donโt read Israeli ground forces suggestions, so please spare me the Terminator APFSDS talk.
You know the forums are not the place for this, right?
What the actual hell are you talking about, lad? This discussion is about the Challenger tanks. Nobody is asking for a new premium or a buff for the BMPT. The request is simply to give both the tech tree and premium Challengers the option to remove their additional armour as a modification.
What youโre talking about is completely unrelated. Iโm guessing you replied to the wrong suggestion because nobody here has mentioned any of that.
Donโt be dense and actually read the discussion before replying. ๐ซต๐น
Nobodyโs being forced to be here. Youโre in a thread about the Challenger tanks, so if youโve chosen to join the discussion, itโs because youโre interested in them being improved. Itโs not rocket science.
I donโt mean to be that guy, but what is a level 6 doing lecturing people about this tank? Is this some kind of burner account? I even tried messaging you about it, but if you still canโt understand the point, then just kick rocks.
They recently added this option for the Scimitar, so thereโs no clear reason why a similar approach couldnโt be considered for the Challengers.
You might want to look at this
Hello
This post explains exactly what I said above:
I am unsure because I am not Smin, but if we look at Sminโs comment,
I assume โGaijin made Challenger DSโ based on โa specific Desert Storm tank that was driven without an additional armour package for a specific duration when it got its own package.โ
Maybe that is why Gaijin says no? When they can, if they want to, if we rely on their other standard such as 'technical compatibility '.
I understand your point. This guy doesnโt have full control over everything, but I believe he can still make a really small difference and potentially help get the issue fixed in the future. For a tank thatโs supposed to represent one that served in Operation Granby, this multi million dollar company has done a pretty poor job of researching it.
As for the name, theyโve shown that theyโre willing to make changes to improve historical accuracy, such as the recent name change for the Leopard 1 equipped with the L/44.
Well, if we get it, I might be happy, butโฆ justโฆ
My expectations went straight down under, went underground enough to visit the Ministry of Magic. :/
They gave this tank an updated damage model but didnโt bother adding any of the things I mentioned or improving the ready rack you researched years ago.
*Edit: Flame2512โs research
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/m22cZZxaNPXJ
It very much does:
The version we have in game is based on the period before it was fitted with the extra armour. As I previously already explained to you, this was not a historical dispute over any lack of evidence the tank could / did carry this armour. Simply the version chosen to be represented in game by the devs was before that armour was fitted.
So we should ask for a challenger with the additonal armor package?
Quite frustrating decision, and brilliant move. I guess.
Perfect reason to artificially nerf some vehicle with โreasonable rock-solid reasonsโ.
โWe know Challenger 1 is capable of using armour package, but we simply wonโt give that because we decided to represent specific version which hadnโt received it yet.โ
It makes sense by its own logic, but is a frustrating decision.
I understand your position, but it is utterly frustrating.
Why call it a Desert Storm tank if it doesnโt accurately represent the version that actually saw combat during the war?(DS) Thatโs like calling a Sherman a DD when it doesnโt have any of the amphibious equipment that made it a DD in the first place. I understand that you had nothing to do with the tankโs creation, but you have to understand how half assed this $69.99 vehicle feels. The things weโre asking for are incredibly easy to implement or change, too.
You could probably help us out by bringing these issues to someone who can actually make a positive difference to the tank, rather than going back and forth with us and making excuses for something that shouldnโt be this difficult to fix.
I am always forwarding feedback on all topics as all CMs are. Its not clear why you assumed I / we would not.
I am also not โgoing back and forthโ or โmaking excusesโ, you are the person who pinged me in the first place. Which I would assume indicates you wished for an answer. All I can provide at any given moment is the current answer, which hasnโt changed since the last time you asked it.
So whilst I appreciate your personal frustration, please dont make baseless assumptions.
The feedback, historical corrections, and bug reports for these tanks have been ignored for ages. Iโm not going to keep pinging you guys, but I genuinely hope these issues get fixed in the future.
The reason I keep bringing this up is that no matter how hard I try to get even one aspect of a vehicle acknowledged, nothing ever seems to change. There are plenty of people in the community who put a lot of time and effort into trying to improve their favorite vehicles in the game, yet they see little to no results for their efforts.
I have a somewhat related question. Could the developers make certain types of add-on armorโsuch as track-link armorโavailable as unlockable modules to provide more realistic options? For example, in the game, the Tiger II (P) comes with track links on the sides of its turret as a standard feature; yet, out of the 50 units produced, only the final two Tiger II (P)s that survived the Normandy campaignโspecifically in Hungaryโactually carried them. Another example is the Panzer IV/70, which features track links on its side; it is nearly impossible to find photographs of actual vehicles with such armor. A further case is the Italian Leopard 1A2: the turret armor seen in-game was only ever a prototype, and all Italian A2s that entered service lacked this additional protection.
There are likely other instances where offering such unlockable armor options would make the in-game models more historically accurate, while also giving players the choice between a more historically authentic configuration and one with enhanced protection.
Suggestions are always welcome for the developers to consider.
