I saw that one in this thread, and the dude who posted it was pretty proud of it. Makes me question what’s actually going on.
2 Likes
Hell is rampant with the souls of the silent.
I’d rather be loud and dead then silenced and alive.
I don’t care if it pisses people off. It’s the truth. If you cannot handle it, that is rough.
1 Like
I say we put the VT4 in US tech tree as China itself has got a fair amount of US, UK, and Japanese based vehicles dating from all the way back to WW2, starting from the Taiwanese M8 LAC , all the way up to the M60A3 TTS, not mention the Pakistani Al-Khalid-I which should be under the UK tree.
Doesn’t work like that bud, VT4 in the Thai subtree in the Japanese Tech tree has logic, VT4 is just irrelevant to anything American.
This is just weird. I don’t see any logic in this, please give some reason for your madness.
1 Like
if we didnt stop gaijin，now u will see VT4 in JP TT
Forget the vt-4 in the Thai subtree, it isn’t good of a vehicle anyways. Instead we could see far better vehicles from Malaysia:
8 Likes
Then I guess the question now is what’s actionable.
Pretty sure the spall liner is a must add, but I don’t know what the issue is with implementing it.
(Is it accepted for years and never implemented? Was the source unreliable? Was the bug report badly made? Or worse, was the source reliable but Gaijin doesn’t think so?)
Another thing was what MAUSWAFFE mentioned about DTC-10’s penetrator supposedly being 600mm long but that’s not the number Gaijin used. Is there no declassified document showing it to be 600mm in length for the penetrator?
And just to clear things up for the rest who hasn’t been keeping up. Which vehicles are the ones that need fixing? I’m pretty sure Rank VII (7) and above are the ones in question right?
PS: The British Raj spanned India Pakistan Bangladesh Myanmar and even bits of Malaya and Somaliland. If India went to UK bcs of that relationship, who’s to say these others are any different. I feel like India could be grouped with some other countries to make a seperate tree tho. Them alone isn’t enough.
2 Likes
I dont, but i remember that some ppl asked gaijin which specs did it use for it. Meaning they have or use some of known information based on brochures or the open data.
Devil’s advocate here. I’m not sure it’s admissible to Gaijin…
This is from 3 years ago. Community Bug Reporting System
And wasn’t that a classified leak? I remembered seeing that pic from a leaks discussion. If it is… unfortunately it’s not admissible either…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Hr982185S8Vh
This is even better written despite not having official sources. It’s all individual calculations and without something saying the round is DTC-10 125, the measuring tape beside it means nothing.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/tLls7xIilg1a
Again, Photos from unstated sources doesn’t count according to Gaijin.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/M0xsVo00Pnk9
This is just terrible.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/q0rjuuSg5f8l
This is likely true but with no hard evidence it’s guessing.
Possible solutions: If getting official data is not possible at this time… Y’all could ask for a change in the acceptance criteria for bug reports. That’s the only other foreseeable solution. That could open a whole new can of worms. Might even backfire and be used to buff other already strong tanks.
you didn’t stop anything, VT-4 was always delayed. Did you stop the VN-1C too?
2 Likes
We need action, not words. This announcement shows that gaijin don’t think he is wrong and don‘t want to make any changes.
5 Likes
The core goal of Chinese players has always been to resolve the ongoing problems facing the Chinese tech tree. You cannot keep diverting the conversation with unrelated remarks to avoid addressing these concerns.
3 Likes
Reminder to everyone here that classified documents CANNOT be posted on the Forum. It’s your own responsibility to check whether a source is classified or clear to be used.
Please check this link in case of doubts:
12 Likes
If you don’t then you are just as clueless as me and every other person here about this situation. The Major’s 850mm at 2000 meters is still the more authoritative statistic.
I think the Chinese community would be happy if the non chinese stuff got removed, and replaced with chinese alternatives instead.
Captured and imported gear is an important part of the Chinese TT, especially at earlier tiers. This is also true for some tiers of France, Italy and Sweden. There is no reason to remove them, even with them in the tree, the Chinese TT is still rather small, we need an expansion, not replacement.
5 Likes
Yes exactly. And I hope that non-chinese players can better understand this
Very well then. You remove all Chinese vehicles from the foreign tech trees and remove foreign vehicles from China as well
4 Likes
As there is no reason to withhold the Thai VT-4 from the Japanese tree.
But, for at least France and Sweden, they have their vehicles in other trees. Unlike China. Whose mains threw a fit (as shown by the existence of this article before anyone says ‘when’) at the prospect of a foreign export vehicle in another tree.
“Tis for thee, but not of me” type stuff. Its ridiculous!
11 Likes
I don’t care about VT-4 for Japan TT as long as it’s marked Thai and not added during V-J day.
as Chinese national and Chinese main I do not want Singaporean vehicles in China TT.
i.e. I do not want yet another Leopard 2A4 copy or F-15 copy in another tree. If they do this now F-15 and Leopard for China the next thing they will do is Su-27 for Japan and T-64/72/80/84/90 for USA or Germany. What’s the point of Nation-based techtree mechanism again Gaijin?
What we need is Gaijin to actual fix China’s own vehicles ingame and stop infuriating both sides when millions of other better options are available.
I don’t need to point out how many suggestions for Pakistani or (DPR, I don’t care about Ro and political stuff might make it inappropriate too) Korean vehicles are already existing on this forum.
Also either remove T-84’s BTA4 or give it to the T-80UD/BE aswell. BTA4 integration into 2A46 is a Pakistani modification not Thai.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/u1eWnPupv39Y
Dear Gaijin: Your “information” remains a farce as long as this bug report remains “aCcEpTeD” instead of actual fix implementation.
10 Likes