good idea
LOL
the reason I brought up the kingdom of siam is because someone said japan shouldn’t get thailand due to historical reasons
If that is your stance, so be it, but as i said - it in my modest opinion quite unnecessarily devalues and undermines the chinese community efforts in regards to bug fixing in the eyes of non-chinese community (for example over at our discord, lot people share this same sentiment).
Because instead of rallying everyone behind the same banner of current bug reporting system being no longer sustainable, in light of blocking VT-4 for thailand it comes across as chinese community demanding fixes only for themselves.
Dont forget, diplomacy isnt neccesarily zero sum game.
well then it seems this whole issue can be partly caused also by language barriers. wouldnt be the first time.
Anyway, if you and others want to argue in favor of systemic change to bug fixing system, you have my support.
1 Like
It is necessary to clarify why the autoloader in the original VT4 tank exported to Thailand is protected by the main armor belt, whereas the autoloader in the VT4A1 variant is not covered by the main armor.
2 Likes
100% agree, just that the Chinese players will cry and mald that they won’t get a leopard 2 or an F15 in their TT.
1 Like
Thank you for your understanding. You are absolutely right that fixing the bugs and issues with Chinese vehicles is the top priority for the Chinese community. At the same time, the issue regarding which tech tree the VT-4 tank belongs to cannot be ignored either. So, please also accept my apologies for my excessive remarks on the matter of its.
1 Like
Are the Leopard 2 and F-15 even essential? The Leopard 2’s in-game handling feels worse than the M1’s.
2 Likes
each nation base have those types of people like the ones in the uk that begged for the refale when it came to the game through india
2 Likes
performance is not reason.
it’s just not needed, should be some where else that’s it
1 Like
China does, which proves you’ve never played the tech tree.
Q-5L, which is a 16km class CAS aircraft.
Im at 8.0 in China now :)
I don’t think they do. Most just seem to want their own vehicles fixed mainly, while this subtree seems to just be Gaijins excuse not to do that.
And even if Gaijin fixes the Chinese issues I’d say there is better subtrees that aren’t controversial like Pakistan, Bangladesh or even North Korea (if Gaijin decides against a Korean tree and splits them to US/CN)
3 Likes
not really, it’s hard to kill, but 2 bomb is also a huge limit to its efficiency
considering the efficiency, it’s not so good
To be fair the tank seen in game is not the Thai tank, it’s the Chinese Norinco demonstrator. Main visual differences are the sideskirts, the side ERA and the flat plate for the Norinco logo on the turret. The Norinco Demonstrator also uses DTC10-125, which is a superior round to the BTA4 Thailand uses.
Thai VT-4 (top) and Norinco demonstrator (bottom)
Chinese VT-4 in game is the Norinco demonstrator
I think what happened here is Gaijin had only ordered the VT-4A1 model in the past, so they now ordered the new Chinese VT-4 with new information. But they were also too lazy to fix the VT-4A1 at the same time.
It’s not bad that they fixed it for the new VT-4, it’s bad that they didn’t apply such an easy fix to the VT-4A1
3 Likes
dont quote me on this as i only vaguely recall it, but its not that gaijin doesnt want to but rather cant in some cases. the SEPv2 was IIRC outsorced and thats why the ARAT cant be removed as it is hardbaked into the model.
Its what happened with the challenger 3TD it came with a brand new model that was more accurate then the challenger 2s and fixed some of the problems people asked for the old models to be updated and gaijin took that as remove the new damage model and replace it with the old one thats buggy
In some cases yeah, they’d need to make completely new models. In this case the issue is just moving up the autoloader module a bit because for the VT-4A1 it’s sitting inside the torsion bars of the suspension and lower than the frontal armor meant to protect it.
VT-4
If Japan can’t have a single Thai VT-4, then China should not be allowed to have a single NATO vehicle.
End of Story.
I don’t even have the words to describe how I, and thousands of others, feel about this. In the same post you’re addressing this whole issue in, you just confirmed a nation full of NATO weaponry as a sub-tree for China. What the hell.
3 Likes
That’s not how it works. Chinese players don’t want their tanks in the Japanese tree, just like I doubt many people would be happy with a Russian T-84.
They are both China, so they belong in the Chinese tree.
Neither do Chinese players. No one is asking for that, they just want their domestic vehicles to be added and fixed.
5 Likes
I am not comfortable with Singapore and NATO vehicles within the Chinese tree. As a Simulator Player, it’s not only frustrating from a gameplay perspective, but extremely lazy and anger-inducing. If Thailand can’t receive what it has historically because Chinese players find it politically incorrect, that same rule should apply in reverse. If Japan cannot receive a single VT-4, then China should not get to keep a single foreign adversarial vehicle.
Then don’t add Taiwan. It’s just copy and paste at this point.
Sure. I’ve regularly seen them beg for US aircraft, and do you know what Singapore for China will have? Significantly more American Aircraft. Do you want a Strike Eagle in China? Is that healthy? Gaijin just confirmed it in front of us all.
Are you going to sit and look at confirmation for Singapore into China as totally acceptable, but agree that an Export vehicle given to Thailand, a friend of Japan and current sub-tree, is unacceptable? How exactly are we supposed to see this as anything other than a threat from Gaijin after bringing it up under this topic?