Exactly, if you have an issue with lineups then please talk to your local defense ministry or privatized military corporation and tell them to make something new. The Leopard 2 only recently got a new engine in the last 15 years… It’s been using the MTU 873 since the mid-1960s.
Meanwhile I hear people yelling about 3 T-55A variants as if it didn’t have multiple armor packages, modifications, engines, and so on.
I can see why most people go to Russia, though. Fun low tier, amazing 3.3-4.7 lineups, strong 6.3, interesting but small 7.0 lineup with the IS-3, and a VERY wide variety of options for top tier.
Helicopters are the best in terms of usability and capability.
Naval is… Yeah naval kind of sucks. I’m glad we have 3 Kotlins, though. Those are great destroyers.
Ganguts suck…
Air is good but… It gets weak the higher you go, up until you hit the highest aircraft.
Russian Bias does exist and those denying it are shills and fools, however I’ll take the simplest and most general approach regarding the topic of autoloaders.
They should absolutely be modeled and destructible.
Yes, doing so would be balanced.
Yes, doing so would be realistic.
Simple as.
Anyone advocating against such implementations is missing the big picture.
Okay, different loading times for manual loading according to their speed and terrain under them.
Change stabilizers and make them work worse on higher speeds.
Actually, why i even bother mentioning it? Watch Spookstons’s video series “If War Thunder was historically accurate”
It doesn’t, those who argue it does are simply sheep and idiots.
That isn’t an approach, those are blank statements.
No, they shouldn’t.
Yeah, nope.
I mean… yeah, do you want to implement hydraulic leaks too? If that were in game then the American bias around the M1A1 Abrams would disappear.
Anybody saying they should add autoloaders simply isn’t thinking right.
Autoloaders are slower than real-life on T-80s & T-72s, which I’m perfectly okay with as that’s in-line with all other tanks.
I don’t get why you think Russian equipment is the best in the world & that realism allegedly “favors Russia”.
I really don’t get why anyone would think realism benefits any nation let alone “Russia”.
Eh… I feel like autoloaders SHOULD have their realistic load times, but only in the situations that they would load that in.
Such as the variety of ammunition you have, how many of it you have, and so on.
It depends where the shell is located inside the caroussel. If its at the farthest away position its alot slower than ingame. If its just the next shell in the row, then its ofc alot faster than ingame. So for gaming purposes it was choosen to use a intermediate value in between.
Manual loading has the advantage that the commander might order a double shot - or follow up shot. So the loader can take the next shell already from the storage and puts it in asap after the shot is fired. Which is not ingame as well. Manual loading can be very, very quick if needed. The loader can get exhausted after a while or beeing impaired if the tank is moving fast in rough terrain. Nothing of this is simulated as well.
