Players are not gods. No one is perfect, no one can cover every angle of an engagement.
When a flank is exploited there is a difference between three deaths and two.
Yes I know. I do not believe they should have the same BR.
You’re describing the behavior of every NATO MBT but excluding the power difference between 4 seconds of reloading versus 5 / 6 seconds.
All NATO MBTs can exploit flanks.
Not all NATO MBTs can do so while being able to engage 3+ targets. The Type 90’s reload time allows it to do this.
Glad you know you’re talking to an OG Japan main that completed all of Japan as their first ever tech tree.
Chi-To also fires APHE. Also the good M4 76s are all 5.3 and 5.7.
IDK about ATGM number reduction cause it’s been 4 since I got mine in 2019.
The R2Y2 engines produce a combined thrust of over 2200kgf, perfectly fine from my experience.
Type 74G is the only one with the known upgraded reverse speed in game currently.
Oh I didn’t talk about N1K2s. I love them they’re strong aircraft. I don’t think they’re unverperforming and over-BR’d. They remind me of the F2G1 a bit. Haven’t had much issue flying mine outside BF-109K4s using their superior maneuverability.
2 Likes
I’m still grinding that nation, my first. But then I’ve also been grinding other nations casually.
Again, as I’ve said before, they have much better armor compared to the Type 90 in return for 1-2s slower reload.
Don’t want to get shot every 4s? Shoot it first, because if you’re disabled through gunner/breech/etc, it wasn’t 1 or 2 seconds that were gonna enable you to live in 95% of cases. If you die in the first shot to it, any 120mm MBT could have done the same.
Also, the enemy cannot shoot you if you retreat behind cover.
All MBTs can do it, period. Some have much better protection (ie T80BVM, T90M, 122B) that allows them to be much more aggressive, and that is both more rewarding and exciting.
Better at doing it, sure. The difference between can and can’t, not at all. A difference of 2 seconds across 3 shots isn’t much if your enemies were caught out unaware.
So does the M4A1 76. But that one has a stabilizer, a HUGE advantage.
Type 89 used to have 6 ATGMs, it was reduced to 4 based on an erroneous bug report. 2 in the launcher and 4 in the hull, bug report cut out the “2 in the launcher” part.
Again, historical or not, a nerf is still a nerf.
I have a few pieces of the pilot’s manual. They are underperforming. Too low top speed, too high weight. Their lack of speed alone makes them overtiered.
I don’t know how you’d compare it to an F2G since it can go MUCH faster.
“perfectly fine from my experience” isn’t worth much considering you just said a relatively agile and slow fighter is similar to the F2G. You also somehow lose to 109 K4s in dogfights with it, so I’m not sure what you’ve been trying to do with it.
Huge red flags there.
2 Likes
It takes 15 seconds for the Abrams to fire 3 shots. 18 for the Leo 2.
It takes 12 seconds for the Type 90 to fire 3 shots.
The extra second adds up quite quickly.
10, 12, and 8 respectively. You start any engagement with one in the chamber.
Again, such is the tradeoff for WORSE PROTECTION.
The lack of heavy armor translates to increased mobility. The fire rate is separate.
1 Like
If anything they need the Britain or Italy treatment. Treat it like Sweden and you get an annoying paper tank, HE slinger that takes so little skill my grandma could get a frag with it, Leopard Two copy-paste and a powerful heli and busted fighter as premium at top tiers.
If anything you want less top tier premiums in your nation to not get low-quality pay to win players that leave after one death.
4 second autoloaders are unfair and very much counter sub par ammunition but is so damn common at top tier you’re probably dying to them more just because they are currently overrepresented, there’s similar complaints about almost every new vehicle until the novelty wears off
2 Likes
The Type 90 tech tree already dominated 11.0, same with the M1A1 after the 5 second reload buff. The entire BR range needs to be increased. The balance issue is when they face 10.0 vehicles.
This is of course not possible until Gaijin decompresses top tier by increasing max BR to 12.0+ as it is with air. I do not understand why Gaijin hasn’t done this already with the addition of Rank VIII vehicles.
1 Like
increasing the BR limit by 0.3 won’t change much at all, the abrams still struggle because top tier American ground players are the german mains of high tier. there’s always going to be game ruining crap at top tier because that’s the nature of modern tech tiers. when the tanks are balanced the drones, average player of a nation and premium helis will still break it all
2 Likes
Only slightly faster than an M1A1, which can reliably do 60kph+. Against that kinda speed you’re not getting anywhere much faster or getting a significant advantage.
Said M1A1 also has a MUCH better dart with just under 600mm of pen. Pretty big upgrade from 480mm.
It’s the horsepower per ton plus the higher max speed.
Yes but this only improves shot consistency. They can both pen the same weakspot areas. The only thing this helps is diagonal shots against Russian tanks which is already risky because of fuel tank mechanics.
Reload has nothing to do with who gets the first shot first. The only aspect that determines that, aside from human reaction time, is the aiming speeds of the horizontal and vertical drives and the luck of the draw of who had their reticle pointed towards the other before they saw each other.
The Type 90, and by extension the Type 10, both have some of the worst aiming speeds of top rank vehicles.
4 Likes
The performance changes all due to bug reports. For some reason published information over inflates Japanese vehicles performance. While the actual documentation show them to be a lot less than that. As for the BR’s that’s due to the meta being turn fighting, which Japanese planes excel at.
Those vehicles BR’s are based on their performance in air not ground.
If you bothered to read the link posted you would see that several people proved the weight is intact correct.
It is correct now at 4.2t, but it was 4.6t for a while. That while it was also missing 20hp that it also only got recently. Though both of those were fixed very recently.
But there are still the issues with Type 91s, which are now the worst kinetically performing MANPADS in the game, despite having significantly better performance in reality. They also use optical contrast guidance like a Strela, rather than optical imaging, resulting in a ground clutter that makes them useless against low flying helis, which is most helis.
2 Likes