Saddest day of my life 😔
All our lives, its why no ones uses the Weak 40
1 Like
Yeah, quite annoying that they just took the HE-VT for “Historical purposes” even though the vehicle was a prototype anyway, there is a lot wrong with what they did for many different reasons in far too lazy to search for but its not like they are just gonna revert the change any time soon lol, guess I’ll just take my 4-5 Xbox clips I have saved and sadly move on 😞
3 Likes
Even then, nations like America get super slow bug fixes (unless fixing the bug would result in a nerf). It’s not all about nation popularity.
1 Like
More so a mix of vehicle and nation popularity, multiple smaller vehicles got released last update and have yet to have any major fixes or armor holes fixed yet vehicles that are on the US get much more attention. Again vehicle popularity and nation popularity play huge roles. Its why the T34s on russia can get most bugs fixed soon but the Finnish T34’s have extra weight from the add on armor the soviet models have despite the Finnish versions not getting the armor.
3 Likes
90% of the attention I’ve seen given to America is ahistorical nerfs, e.g F4D-1 and F-84F losing CCIP, F-104 having its drag massively increased, and most recently the HSTV-L and Abrams having their turret rings expanded to include the baskets aswell (for some reason)
All this whilst ignoring things like the F-84F’s engine being too weak, the F4D-1 missing droptanks and Zunis, the HSTV-L having inaccurate depression, reload, and shell pen, and the Abrams still having a broken turret ring, engine exhaust, engine sound, and hydraulic pump.
When a nation isn’t favored by Gajin, the only “bugfixes” it’s quick to receive are nerfs.
2 Likes
The nerf to the HSTVL and Abrams is the monkeys paw effect from the autoloader nerf. And it wasn’t just the abrams and HSTVL, other vehicles received similar treatment. Though the change to the breach on the abrams now means you’re more likely to survive rather than die to a breach shot which is a huge win. Regardless we’re off topic DM if you want to continue this discussion.
4 Likes
Just thought about this and ya can’t really call the autoloader being modeled a nerf, that has single handedly saved hundreds of T series tanks from being killed
bro, KH-38mt is only a mockup and there is thread for it. why the Russia gets special treatment whit prototype vehicles.
2 Likes
Depends on type of game. In chess; probably yes but very flawed logic for a complex game that mainly appeals to players by its historical accuracy (you can always check out WoT if historical accuracy is not a priority to you). Why not give every vehicle same gun, shells, armor, mobility, sights, and for addition make every map perfectly symmetrical (so both teams have identical terrain to play with)? Wouldn’t it be “balance above all”?
It is a competitive video game, simulator game, arcade game; all those with both PvE and PvP modes and much more than that counting in wikis and forums. To balance things at the cost of accuracy is boring, easy and wrong approach. If there is a way (and there is in 99% of situations) to keep game balanced without sacrificing the historical accuracy (or other aspects) then it is the right approach even if its more difficult to achieve than other ones.
That’s quite the strawman, no-one is asking for that kind of “balance”. All I’m advocating for is that, in a competitive game, both teams (And the vehicles on both teams) have a roughly even chance of winnning the game. That neither team has advantages that cannot be meaningfully countered and/or played around. That is a fundemental part of a competitive video game.
And it is a competitive game. In all of the major gamemodes, there is a winning team (Who get much better rewards) and a losing team. Winning is highly incentivised. Yes, the PvE Assault gamemodes exist, but are so vestigal I’m willing to bet a lot of newer players don’t even realize they exist.
To be clear, I’m not asking for something that’s completely inaccurate. If I were aiming for complete accuracy, I’d advocate for the VEAK to be entirely removed from the game, since it never actually entered any operational service with anyone. If we’re going to take the step to include a vehicle that was cancelled and never entered service, is it really going too far to include ammunition that it absolutely would have fired later in life had it entered service?
1 Like
Gaijin gave it the ammo and let it play for what, 5 years? I wasnt playing this then, but Im willing to bet that during testing it didnt have the HEVT ammo and more than a few complained about how useless it was.
When Gaijin took the HEVT ammo off of the veak, they claimed the usual “its not historical” BS. But the very info that told them that the veak never fired the HEVT round also told them what ammo it did use. Funny how that same “historical” excuse didnt encourage them to add its correct high velocity ammo, which could have made it more useful at its current BR.
But also at the same time the HV shells would have made it a better version of the ZSU, against tanks…
Its amazing to watch how Gaijin’s devs keep hopping the fence of historical v balance, and come up with lame excuse after lame excuse to justify it.
If it wasnt so frustrating it would be extremely funny.
There is another thread where this behavior was brung up over the Swiss Hornets.
Swiss hornets loadouts - #49 by railgunDE112
The community manager here pulled a very funny back and forth bs saying
“As long as a weapon is technically compatible with the aircraft (that is, the functionality was not removed), then its open to consideration.”
then a few posts later coming up with an excuse against it
“Just because it is compatable, that does not mean its under automatic consideration to add.”
As the Veak is now, it definitely needs to drop to 7.0, all the tank is right now is a radar vehicle.
If it had its correct ammo maybe 7.3. If it had the HEVT shells move it back up to 8.3.
5 Likes
“Historical”
lol lmao even.
Half the tanks in-game fire rounds they never used.
2 Likes
To my knowledge there are only a few cases of this. Most of the time it’s because they technically can fire them and are given those rounds for balance (you’re free to agree or disagree with both that way of operating and if it makes a specific vehicle balanced or not). The Veak40 never had the ability to fire proximity rounds as those were invented after the decommission of the vehicle. As far as i know there are no vehicles in the game that fires a round/munition that was invented after the decommission of the vehicle.
Arguably most of the early swedish tanks, I think?
iirc they were out of service by the time apds came around for em
1 Like
Could you give some examples?
I actually don’t know very much about the older tanks in general.
It should be higher even without HEVT
???
The VEAK is entirely capable of firing those rounds. Any vehicle equipped with the Bofors 40mm L/70 can. There’s absolutely no modifications nessesary to do so.
If the VEAK had actually entered service (Which it was much closer to doing than the vast majority of other prototypes in the game), it obviously would have been given access to HEVT rounds just a few years later when they entered production. And based on the sources I’ve seen and some basic inference, it was always planned to receive them, as HEVT was in development concurrently with the VEAK.
We already have other prototype vehicles using rounds that were only produced long after the project was cancelled. Off the top of my head, the T-34-100 shouldn’t have BR-412D, and probably shouldn’t have BR-412B (Though the date of introduction of the B shell is trickier to pin down).
6 Likes
The veak can technically fire the 40mm HEVT rounds, and if it had entered service there would have been no reason not to load it with those rounds.
And as I pointed out earlier in this post, the information for the veak is old and hasnt changed in decades. Why was the veak ever given the HEVT ammo if it never had it in the first place? Gaijin knew it never used the ammo right from the beginning.
If it wasnt so frustrating watching yall bounce all over the “not historical - its for balance” excuse it would be extremely funny.
There is a secondary source I found which lists the HEF shell having a radio fuse with a 4.8 meter trigger radius. Presumably, this is what they originally used.
I’ve since lost the source, and can’t be bothered tracking it down again, but IIRC, the source is a US govermental translation of a publication from the Soviet Union on foreign SPAA systems.
Interestingly, it was originally released several years before 40mm HEVT was released publically. So either the Soviet authors managed to predict a round that didn’t exist at the time, but shortly would, or they’d found evidence that the VEAK was being tested with HEVT rounds which we know from other sources were being tested concurrently.
5 Likes