Didn’t you post this exact post earlier in this thread?
Or are you repeating it from another thread?
Basing the M51 BR solely on pen alone makes no sense.
2 Likes
I disagree with the notion of killing the vehicle, since most of the time, there is somewhere a vehicle can be placed where it’s at least viable, if not interesting, without significantly compromising historical accuracy.
While there is a precedence for artificial buffs (which I often find disagreeable anyways), there is also already a precedence for vehicles needing to stop to set-up their armaments. This limitation is something the vehicle be feasibly balanced around. Even if this precedence didn’t exist, I still believe there is no issue with challenging the current status quo of vehicle balance and artificial buffs/nerfs.
I feel that limiting it to firing from a standstill, but with access to higher penetration APDS than most other SPAA get would actually make it more stand-out gameplay-wise. Worst case scenario, it can also be moved down too.
1 Like
If it loses its HEFI and APHE, its stabilizer, and ability to aim and shoot on the move, but gets access to 40mm APDS, it might be fair to put it at 7.3, though I’m not sure if it would be very fair against 6.3 aircraft since it has a decent search & track radar, as well as good range because of the 40mm caliber (unlike the M163’s / ZSU-23-4M2’s 20mm and 23mms). Though it would have to setup and wouldn’t get guns on target very easily after moving as a significant trade-off.
I will admit, it does sound like it would be an interesting vehicle. Probably underpowered in some situations, but overpowered in others.
And need I remind you we are going 5+ years with no change in ammo for swedish SPAA? Realistically your want for a nerf comes with no benefits, or did we not learn from the 3 years of no tracers when gaijin stated those aircraft would get their targeting computers to make up for lack of tracers.
Additionally you are missing the picture. The vehicle needs to come to a stop, with the turret locked forward. In its current BR it can fight vehicles with CCIP of which if you need to shoot at something like a helicopter or the Albatross, not being able to move and fire puts you into prime position to just die instantly.
Additionally your proposal for APDS makes the vehicle another ZSU-57-2 and thus the tree loses its only SPAA which currently already has a pretty atrocious record.
This change hurts the small 7.7 lineup and the early 8.0 lineup both of which lack effective fighters to make up for the poor SPAA. Your suggestion all in all once more pushes Sweden into having no SPAA from 5.3 (if you can’t a scout car that’s a trash SPAA as a SPAA) until 8.7, we don’t need more TDs on Sweden given that’s already the roles they move into because gaijin refuses to correct their ammo. You’re only causing more problems, your suggestion literally makes no sense as it’s a general nerf to the tree
I also don’t see it going down in BR, you’re asking for a fairly strong 40mm APDS that can be spammed (well as good as the Veak can) what ends up happening is it just goes back up in BR and further becomes redundant. I’m being entirely honest when I say I don’t think you thought about this at all. I think you have no idea how much of a net negative this would be. You’ve essentially just said no I don’t care about the tree having a SPAA and want the next SPAA to be a glorified TD like every single Swedish SPAA below it but I also want it to be terrible because it can’t move and shoot. I also don’t want it to be an SPAA so let’s get rid of any of its ammo as an SPAA.
If it loses its SPAA rounds then why keep it as an SPAA? It’s a nerf to a already mediocre vehicle. Now if this game had devs that cared about fixing gaps you could argue we could fill the role with the Tridon but this is the same dev team that insisted Sweden needs both the worst and second worst 12.0 SPAA for a lineup of which only 1 other actual fighting tank exists.
Direct counters?
A-4E and the Yak-130 are as far as I know the only possible counters… but that’s also if your brain dead in an xm246.
If you just turn the radar off you can track a target very accurately.
Biggest thing is the modules, it makes them neigh unlikable. Played the Ush recently and spammed the 81mm rockets to get nothing, it simply at them and deleted me.
The vehicle is also weirdly volumetric esq on the turret. The vehicle in all would get balanced better if gaijin overhauled the module system.
I’ve had APHE shells from the Ho Ri when playing in an uptier with my Type 87 RCV (P) just get eaten by the modules.
Just to clarify, it would still have an HE round, just not the current one.
1 Like
Pretty much any aircraft with relatively fast MCLOS AGMs (bullpups, RB05As, AS-30s, AS-20s, Kh-23M) can kill them rather easily. The reason I know this is because it has already been tried and tested in squadron battles, where 35mm SPAA (like the XM246) are proven to not be effective against them.
MCLOS AGM aircraft appear as early as 2.3 (with the Ki-48-II), but you start properly seeing them (as in, they have more than just one or two fast MCLOS AGMs and are pretty capable at killing other aircraft in the process) at 8.0, 8.3, 8.7, and especially at the BRs of 9.0 and above.
1 Like
Yeah. That’s egregious. They should fix it asap.
You can look at it like that, but this isn’t really how I think about issues like this in my head. What I do want is for vehicle to be implemented in a manner that is close to the actual vehicle, and to let it fall where it may with the actual features for the most part. There would have to be some wiggle room oc, but not make-up new features kind of stuff. This is just how I would prefer to see the game work, but I get that many people are more fixated on just having a line-up, historically be damned. That’s still a valid desire that I can get behind, but the line has to be drawn somewhere in a game that markets itself on realism and allows players to report historical issues.
The VEAK 40 that is in-game does not exist, and is arguably only a slight step above the gun and turret swap shenanigans WG pulls in World of Tanks.
I’d certainly like for the tree have an decent SPAA for that BR, but maybe the VEAK just wasn’t cut out for what Gajin envisioned. Mayhaps the SU-57-2M is a better pick for around BR 7.7 with its proxy ammo.
I was informed the APDS was only a round they briefly testing for the L/70, rather than made standard, so we could easily forgo that round. You’re probably right that it would’ve been a balancing headache, so thankfully that can just be put to rest. Balancing around the full caliber rounds is easier.
hey go check the matchmaker for me real quick and compare the amount of american players in it to other nations, or go play non-american 8.7 for yourself and count how many games are against america
Tank that has a kill you instantly in the tracks hesh round with a 2.5 second reload and a rangefinder? SPAA on a light tank chassis and a second 35mm SPAA?? Yeah, in combination that’s fucked.
guy who doesn’t know what a flank is voice
So you want to add a vehicle where we only know they used some ammo but there has been no evidence of what round the ZSU-57-2M used?
So you want to fix a balanced vehicle with a vehicle with a fictional round since it had proxy ammo but we have no clue?
Again you never answered about the Radkampfwagon, should that vehicle lose its turret rotation entirely and have no access to third person since there’s no way for the driver to see out of?
Again you’re trying to fix a non problem by shooting it and putting some tape on it without actually fixing the problem on the tree. Should we also remove all the planned upgrades to the Yak 141 since it never got them in real life and make it a civilian aircraft for realism?
Look at the end of it, I couldn’t care less if they deleted the Veak just as long as a suitable replacement is added. Tridon technically could be added but you want to implement vehicles like it’s Arma so I guess I also need to make sure my vehicle has its brace arms down for recoil, oh wait 90% of vehicles that have them in game don’t use them or they are just there for visual flavour rather than function. So Tridon under your wants can’t work so we go back to having nothing to fill the gap
As it stands, you’re right that it can’t really be added. But going off what is known, I think it sounds like a viable alternative to the VEAK. Oc, we’d need to wait for more to come out on it, which does happen.
Apologize. I thought you were being rhetorical. They never even needed to add the Radkampfwagon in the first place due to its mock-up status. I don’t know much about it, but I’d assume the Radkampfwagen was at the very least intended to have a fully rotating turret, whereas the VEAK was never meant to be able to fire on the move.
The whole third-person camera thing is just a basic, all-encompassing game convention found across thousands of titles that just makes the acting of controlling your character/vehicle more feasible. You’re functionally a disembodied entity controlling the vehicle, not really bound by its vision limitations of the actual crewmen outside of gunsights. This is an acceptable concession of immersion to make the game playable due to the fact that this isn’t a multiplayer VR game were you’re just one crewmen.
This is therefor not a game mechanic I need to justify on a vehicle by vehicle basis. Sim might be different ig (?), but I don’t play that mode and can’t comment.
As for the matter of the driver, no other vehicle with visability restrictions like this would actually affect the player. Many vehicles are buttoned up such that the driver can’t see. StuG III G’s driver can’t for instance. If the StuG driver can see through closed viewports, and crewmen can telepathically control machine guns, then assuming the Radkampfwagon’s commander is just really good at giving call outs to the driver is not at all outside the game’s logic. Said logic, I can accept since it would require the game to basically be an entirely different genre, whereas most of the realistic changes I want are pretty doable within the current limtations of the game’s code.
Its a matter of perspective. Each person has their own things they perceive and don’t perceive as issues. I consider very inaccurate vehicles to be a problem. You don’t need to share that outlook, but just know that’s where I’m coming from on this.
I know basically nothing about the Yak 141 or most jet aircraft in general. I’m unable to comment on this jet, nor am I willing to go down a whole rabbit whole on it rn. I’ll save that debate, that’s undoubtably already happened, it for the jet enthusiast who have the slightest idea what their talking about. While the VEAK 40 is a little foreign to me, it’s still a ground vehicle I can understand enough to comment. Even then, it was only a tangent, when the vehicle I meant to discuss was the XM246.
I wouldn’t be totally opposed to brace arm functionality being modeled, nor would that necessary ruin the vehicles it applies to, but ik it would require a lot of effort to rebalance several vehicles. This specific topic is tangential anyways, and there is no purpose to going over that here. I merely wished to discuss how the VEAK 40 could’ve been done in a more appropriate manner within current game logic.
-
In what way should or can the ZSU-57-2M be added? Without info on it’s round in what ways would it be a Veak replacement or different from the current one in game. I’ve heard of a passive radar for it but not seen it.
-
The current problem I have with your want of the Veak simply shouldn’t come to pass, not unless we change a ton and I mean a ton of vehicles, my gripe that I have with your proposal is you don’t seem to have a problem with any other fictional vehicle, you seem to want to irl larp a vehicle rather than allow it its own artificial buffs like other vehicles just for the sake of realism but ignore any other vehicle that also has these exact type of buffs, it’s you being a hypocrite.
-
As for the Tridon it would ultimately be cannon fodder, it’s a open top vehicle with less ammo and fire rate than the Veak with one benefit being Prox ammo, but again it turns into a worse WZ from China and shouldn’t be 8.0 as it’s again inferior in mobility, size, armor, survivability, fire rate, reload, ect. We are also asking for gaijin to add the swedish equivalent of AHEAD which in game is notoriously mishandled by gaijin and nearly useless in a lot of case which again leads to the vehicle being ineffective.
Simply put your solutions are entirely useless for actually fixing problems, you simply want the vehicle nerfed which in turn makes one TT entire unable to deal with CAS in the air. Your solutions stem from you being unfamiliar with the tree or the nations vehicles and yet somehow have enough knowledge that you believe you can make a solution which should be taken seriously. I have no problem with you on many other topics but your stance and views on this are of someone who needs to either do some actual research or just quit talking about things they have no basis to stand and form arguments about.
the true correct answer is to replace the APIT belt entirely with APDS, no more cupola cheese for you young man you are doing your job now
Gaijin could move the T58 to 7.7 and he likely would still defend it as balanced because it’s a US vehicle.
Wow, America is popular in a game with a massive playerbase in America.
The HESH round hasn’t been good in months.
The famously mobile M48.
Then check your flanks?
you mean the atgm launchers, which were even before the nerf, considered to be very niche vehicles and relied on range AND ambushing people to get kills.
and you think taking that, and giving the same massive downside to an spaa wouldnt cause any problem? just to test this, go play the veak but give yourself the same limitation, you cant touch your mouse until 2 seconds has passed since you stopped, oh and you gotta turn off your stab.
I know your opinion regarding US stuff is about as well respected/liked as tooth pain, but claiming that the T58’s round isn’t good is a whole new low.
I see these things even at 12.7 and they still one-tap practically everything with a single round to the turret face or side of the hull.
4 Likes
my guy what are you talking about, the su-57-2m is a wz305 (which is 8.0) but with a radar.
which means its more likely to be 8.7 at minimum, but more likely 9.0 or 9.3.