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.
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.
Can we pretty please just end the VEAK 40 tangent here too? I’ve said my piece. I’m not really wanting to do turn based combat rn. I don’t hate you or anything, but I feel this discussion is becoming unproductive, I have no will to continue it, and I have real world matters to attend to.
You can have the last say or whatever you want, but just know I’m probably not going to go on much more.
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.
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.
He won’t, his reason and argument is clouded by realism. Which clearly has more relevance than a vehicle performing in a game I guess with his logic we should need the Type 93 back into oblivion where its missiles are actually useless since they’ve been buffed to a fictional level to be somewhat useful
it would most likely use proxy round seeing it is an upgrade package, and the round existed, and the finns were trading with the russians at the time, so while it never had solid proof it would use the round, its very likely would use it.
the other solution is not giving it he-vt, then you got a discounted zsu 37, so it would be sitting at like 7.3 or 7.7, aka where the veak currently sits.
I’ve seen the FCS and radar package stuff mentioned but again as for the ammo I’ve only heard it mentioned by word of mouth. I’ve seen countless suggestions but nothing concrete
Also it wouldn’t be a ZSU-37-2 counterpart. The 57mm overheats too quickly and accuracy is basically non existent when fired for longer than 2 bursts
It’s “best” round (DM23) is 2nd worst penning round at 11-10.3 range (MBTs of each nation (premium)) coming after the M774. It’s armor isn’t great against other MBTs. It’s 6.0 sec reload is on the longer then most other MBTs. It can’t look back. It’s only faster forward then the Chinese ZTZ96A and Challenger Mk.3. And faster the ZTZ96A and T-80B in reverse. So from what I can see it isn’t so amazing in these terms.
