@DirectSupport addition of the EMBT series wiuld solve a lot of problems
Fully functional tech demonstrator. That can lazily be added to 2 nations.
France gets an actual hull armored tank.
Germany gets a bit of flavour an autoloader mbt.
It can get DM53 in french tree since its both german and french
I disagree that they are all bad but yeah some are
The leclerc is compared to the abrams not because of its armor or shell but its mobility
It can get in position faster than most top tier tank even the abrams depending on the version allowing you to get the first shot
The ariete yes is a glass cannon and the only good thing that it gets is a 5sec reload and dm53 that it never really deserved since the other round which is a copy of m322 in game
Merkava is far from bad having decent mobility despite its appearance with i think the second best round at top tier (correct me if am wrong) and a 5 sec reload and good survivability (having a ridiculous amount of smoke grenades plus a motar smoke launcher) and you are immune to most atgm
The aps can be helpful sometimes against heli now that its fixed and atgm
The ZTZ 99A is in a awkward spot ill admit it isnt good but its not bad either i just wish the would fix the armor and give it its 6 sec reload to make it more competitive at the br
Currently its just a faster t72 with better turret armor and the same weak spots in my opinion
I would love to see EMBT but I think that would be long after the 2A8 and XLR gets added unfortunately.
Its is worse then 2a8s.
And you act like gajin cares much about it and doesnt go the easiest route of implementation
I disagree
The leclerc is compared to the abrams not because of its armor or shell but its mobility
It can get in position faster than most top tier tank even the abrams depending on the version
The ariete yes is a glass cannon and the only good thing that it gets is a 5sec reload and dm53 that it never really deserved since the other round which is a copy of m322 in game
Merkava is far from bad having decent mobility despite its appearance with i think the second best round at top tier (correct me if am wrong) and a 5 sec reload and good survivability (having a ridiculous amount of smoke grenades plus a motar smoke launcher) and you are immune to most atgm
The aps can be helpful sometimes against heli now that its fixed and atgm
The ZTZ 99A is in a awkward spot ill admit it isnt good but its not bad either i just wish the would fix the armor and give it its 6 sec reload to make it more competitive at the br
Currently its just a faster t72 with better turret armor and the same weak spots in my opinion
What kind of stupid standards are you going by?
Embt scope is significantly large than 2a8, when it actually ends up creating a proper tank it’s going to be significantly more capable than 2a8.the 2 tanks showed over the years were tech demonstrators not finished products like 2a8 mostly is.
Also forgot to mention that embt is not meant to replace Leclerc and Leopard for France and Germany. It’s an export product
Chronological probably
That has never been a thing for war thunder I thought people understood it by now, the only standard is if gaijin thinks it an appropriate addition.
I know but you probably also know that when one nation gets its top new toys the others want the same
But following this exact principal, you are okay with France using a early 1990s round, while the majority uses post 2000s round with russia using a 2016 round ?
No I’m not.
In this case, the thing with French rounds is that there is a huge gap in development since they kinda dropped ground vehicles development after the Cold War. There is the 120 F2 which IRL is apparently quite a bit better (at range) than the F1, but in game would be about 1mm better so kinda useless.
I personally don’t understand the talking point of year of introduction. Top tier has been all over the place for a while now, with vehicles from late 90s fit fighting vehicles from the late 2010s for as long as the type 10 introduction.
The question should not be wether the round is “too new” or not, but rather :
Yes. The Leclerc series has a decent blend of mobility, firepower and silhouette. And they go along one of the best multirole planes if not the best for GRB. SHARD should only come to the game once a new variant of the Leclerc series arrives.
This concensus has only been achieved between French mains, and some other anecdotical players. I haven’t seen the broad and unanimous concensus you and DirectSupport are appealing here.
Because giving the Leclercs the shard would be a big buff. The Leclerc doesn’t need a buff. Why would you give something that doesn’t need a buff a buff? If you give the leclercs their most modern, best in service round despite there being no need for it, other Nation players would rightfully ask for the same
I know I’m a bit biased as a French main. I do think that Shard could already be given to the AZUR at least, since the AZUR currently is a side grade to the S21 without actually being foldered. Giving either the S21 or the AZUR the SHARD would actually differentiate them from each other.
I also don’t think we should base ground vehicle performances on the performances of the whole lineup, especially Air and Ground vehicles. While many people (such as myself) do have both the rafale and Leclerc in our lineups, there’s a non zero amount of people that only have ground vehicles. “Punishing” them on this kind of argument is a bit nonsensical. It’s also worth considering that the ground and air devs are different people and they in general havent seemed to balance vehicles based on the entire lineup (aka the mig27k, ka50 and whatever t series the Russian have had at that time that bullied the rest of top tier 3 odd years ago).
Even if we start Even if we start arguing with the Rafale in mind, I don’t think giving SHARD would change much, except improving post-penetration damage, and would not shift the performances of the Leclerc in any meaningful ways
Firstly, saying that SHARD would be a big buff is a bit nonsensical. The main “buff” would be the post pen damages. The weak spots against most vehicles would be about the same.
Also, the argument of “don’t give buffs to things that don’t need buffs” is a bit backwards imo. If you were to go by that point, the game would simply stall and we should not add any new vehicles ever, because why would we buff lineups that are already good enough (since only nations with vehicles about as good if not better than the Leclerc can get newer, more powerful vehicles at top tier - eg Leo 2A8, SEP V3…).
It’s a buff none the less and yes you shouldn’t give buffs to things that don’t need it especially ammo since that is one thing gaijin can easily balance over. There is a reason why neither the US nor Germany have their in service rounds that are quite a bit older than shard.
Ain’t that convenient. When I said its unfair to invest another million to ace each crew to get the best reload time on loader-based MBTs against autoloader MBTs, the retorts were “it’s on the people who owns the vehicles”, “we must evaluate vehicles on their potential”. But when I want to take the bigger picture for balance considerations, then its unfair because not everyone owns every vehicle.
Take a side here, you’re either glad you only have to invest a million + spading to get your vehicle’s potential, or you actually don’t care that the leclercs have a natural competitive advantage like the reload time you don’t even have to pay for to get it. Because again, War Thunder has turned into a reload competition, and right now? The Leclerc is quite well positioned in the meta without the need invest 4 million to ace four crews of the respective top tier MBTs.
It’s not nonsensical. Players above were asking me to think about the potential of the vehicles, and therefore, I’m thinking of the potential of the lineups. Leclercs w/SHARD + Mambas + Rafale would easily become one of (if not the) best lineups in the game hands down.
Then Gaijin should improve F1 instead and skip this addition until the Leclerc XLR gets added.
I’m me, and other people are not me. I gave my personal opinion. I also think that the autoloader giving 5s reload from the stock experience has to be taken into account.
I highly disagree with this. The reload is very important if both you and your enemy mess their shots. Or if you are in a 1 vs several situation (in which case your team is probably already being destroyed in those usually 3 minutes to spawn kill games at top tier). Usually, I still think armored vehicles have the edge especially in smaller maps/CQB because they can just point and click less armored vehicles and deal catastrophic damages, while in a lower armored vehicles, you lose in reaction time by having to aim specific weak spots. More often than not, engagements are decided by the first shot fired which usually knocks out the crew, the turret basket, the engine…
Leclerc w/SHARD would imo not change the overall strength off the lineup. The MAMBA is good but extremely situational. The SLM and I’d even say Pantsir are still overall better SAM (since I actually still prefer the ITO over the MAMBa in the most situations (one can kill planes in multi path, the other can kill helis). The Rafale is singlehandedly carrying the lineup since it can perform all tasks better (CAP and CAS). Thus having a slightly better Leclerc would not change much