Glad we got decompression, not glad that it is practically worthless.
12.7 is still compressed. The Merkava Mk4M is not equivalent to the Type 10, Leclercs*, T-80BVM, T-90M, etc. etc. The Challengers are 12.7 despite underperforming massively. The Ariete is also underperforming but is now 12.3, the same BR as the Oplot, 2PL, 2A5, despite being worse in every metric. The AGS has moved up once again to 12.0 without getting new rounds. The TKX (P) which is essentially a sidegrade to the Type 90 is now 12.0, same BRs as the late M1A1s and M1A2, Leopard 2A4M, T-80U-E1. The armour sucks and the firepower is low compared to them. The only upside is mobility and reload, which hardly qualifies as an equal tradeoff.
Not to mention that UHT, HAD, AH-129D and AH-60 are not 13.0 material. The AH-64E and Mi-28NM are oppressive while the others are just jokes.
*Not to mention that the Leclercs aren’t exactly 12.7 material either.
AlvisWisla，，，，What I said might not be very polite
I’m really curious, did you sign any official agreement? From what I remember, no matter what chaotic changes gaijin made (regardless of which tree), you would be very pleased.
That, but at the same time the new SPAA’s can hit a helicopter which is at the landing pad before it even takes off. For game plays sake they need to adjust some things for sure.
Helicopters & airplanes do not share the same “spawn protections” that ground vehicles do. But I think you can agree that it’s simply unfair game play balancing to spawn & be dead within seconds. I think giving Helicopters & aircraft a few seconds of radar/spawn protection until they take off would be fine. This could be a set half-sphere around the helipad after spawning along with a weapons lock to prevent them from being able to fire without any form of retribution.
Helicopters do have spawn protection for probably about 3-7 seconds from what I remember. Though this disappears within that timeframe regardless of what you do, unlike with tanks.
I agree with all of this. But a difference of 1.7 BRs is ridiculous
, and you’re asking for it to be higher?
I think it’s great until it runs out of ammo (which happens plenty of times).
That severely affects your overall performance and situation since you almost always have to rearm after a while, which isn’t easy for a light tank in the Top Tier environment.
The 2S38 should be at most 0.7 or 1.0 BR different to the HSTV-L.
So if the HSTV-L is 12.0, the 2S38 should be 11.0.
If the HSTV-L had more ammo (such as 60 like with the RDF-LT), I could see it being a 1.3 / 1.7 BR difference.
They will probably try to fix the BR compression from top-tier and slowly going down in BR to low-tier. I think (and hope) to eventually get somewhere around the 14.0-14.7 BR range at the end. Take Israel for example. They have a lot of pretty decent tanks at the beginning, but there are just outright better tanks for their BR at the same BR range currently. I hope for air to go up to 15.3 for the same reason. There are planes that will demolish everything in a downtier, but cannot do shit in an uptier. An easier way to fix this across the entire game is to only have a maximum up-/downtier of 0.66.
The mobility of the ZTZ-99A is much more worth it than the slightly better armour of the VT-4.
VT-5 doesn’t get 566mm pen round. It gets a medicore 490mm pen round, similar to that of the Type 90’s (120mm DM33 equiv).
The Centauro RGO gets 588mm pen round for the same 5s reload.
The Centauro is faster on some maps (such as sand / snowy maps) but worse in others (like city maps).
I can somewhat agree with them being the same BR, but I can’t say that they should be the same BR as the Type 90, which effectively gets much more usable armour (unlike the VT5), similar mobility as the VT5, similar dart (but with a 4s reload instead), and better gun depression.
If anything, the VT5 and Centauro should stay at 11.3.
The Al Khalid and MBT-2000 could also stay at 11.3 considering they are worse than the Type 90 and M1A1 in most significant ways.
The Centauro is far less mobile, which is why it has a higher pen round.
On top of that, top tanks don’t use flat armor anymore so using flat armor pen is not correct.
Stat cards show armor plate thickness, so you have to divide by cos the angle.
283 /cos 60 = 566mm of pen.
DM33 is 552mm.
MBT-2000 cannot stay 11.3 with 3BM60 equivalent round. It either loses DTC-10 or moves up to ideally 12.0. They are better than Type 90.
And M1A1 is under-BR’d.
Comparing light tanks to MBTs is a false equivalence fallacy.
Top-tier anti-aircraft guns are still encountering 11.7 aircraft. This shouldn’t be the case; these aircraft are still dead in the game. Why didn’t the Pantsir-S1 move to 12.3? Why didn’t the Tunguska move to 11.0? Developers, if you’re already making changes to the battle ratings, you need to be smart about it. As usual, you’ve done everything crappily.
Again, Centauro is faster on roads, sand, and snow terrain. Its top speed enables that (110 km/h instead of just 71 km/h)
Well it’s not just mobility in city maps that makes the VT5 better, but the turret rotation speed too.
The higher penning round to compensate is fairly reasonable.
So I agree that, for the most part, they should be the same BR.
They effectively have the same angle coefficient (since at top tier all APFSDS round are long-rod penetrators)
No issues with using flat pen here.
So should the T-90A move up to 11.3 / 11.7?
And no, they are not better than the Type 90, for multiple reasons.
That I agree with.
And so would comparing mobility between tracked light tanks to wheeled light tanks?