i just think you take it too serious and cant handle being killed, regardless if there is a legitimate reason to it.
Which buff?
i dunno when, but they never used to perform as well as they do now.
Now you can smack pretty much anyone with absolute ease with m62 if you know where to shoot.
Alright, time to pack it up, we’re done here. You’re clearly uninterested in a well balanced, competitive game, instead you simply want vehicles to appear as the historical concepts you’ve learned about. Yes, the Tiger was a formidable opponent to a lot of vehicles throughout the war, but giving one team the equivalent of raid bosses has absolutely no place in a competitive game, no matter how much you personally may like it.
I think you need to step back and realize that just because you’re happy to fight with one armed tied behind your back just because Japan was historically outmatched when it came to armored vehicles, that doesn’t mean anyone else is or should be. War Thunder is a competitive game before anything else, and competitive games should be balanced. That’s all there is to it.
6 Likes
That is YOUR opinion.
I have mine.
Sorry you cant handle that.
Theres 0 sense in your statements and I start to feel pretty rase bias here with all those “we cant expect Jap tanks to be good”. By that logic you basically say that A6Ms should be fighting biplanes over china, that Tiger 2s should be fighting M24s or M4s … ? Like what are you even talking about? “age/ entry into service” there are modern vehicles since 2.3 br in swedish tech tree. There are ww2 cruisers fighting modern frigates with quided missiles. . .
If you wanna talk how historicall it is. This is not the place and you are just wasting your time. We are talking about game balance here which needs to be fixed with japanese ww2 ground forces.
3 Likes
i can agree there are many exceptions like i stated i regards to age/service.
But there is not an issue here.
If your suprised other nations have better tanks and you cant play them like you do other nations is frankly ridiculous.
Catering to any one specific vehicle has a trickle down effect.
This does not need to be one.
Indeed. If someone is unwilling to have a good-faith discussion about video game balance being about balance, then those contributions tend to be moot to point of basically being off-topic.
More generally, the Chi-Nu seems fine at 3.3 to me. I could maybe see 3.0, but 2.7 would be absurd. It’s absolutely better than existing 2.7s, and most definitely should not be able to face 1.7s.
4 Likes
What are you trying to say here?
BR exists to classify performance and matvh vehicles based on it. Higher performance, hogher BR, lower performance, lower BR.
Nobody cares when a tank was made when it comes to game balance, only performance. So what if Chi-To is from 1944, it still is a higher BR than some much more modern vehicles since it performs better, but also lower than some older vehicles performing better than it.
It’s how this game has always and will always be balanced for good reason.
3 Likes
I’m generally also a defender of the Chi-Nu at 3.3 🤔
The issue is not really that the Pz IV is better because of the higher penetration, but that if the Chi-Nu was lower, it basically performs like a Pz IV without the competition of a Pz IV.
A 3.3 Pz IV always fights at least T-34 1940, M4A1 and the Cromwell Mk. V.
And here comes the issue:
The Pz IV is generally much worse than all the allied 3.3-3.7 tanks in a 1 vs. 1.
There will be instances where you can kill all of them because it just happenes that you could get your gun on them, but unless you get lucky that will only happen from a defensive position.
The gun is generally not worth that much, when the enemy can just kill you more easily.
So if the gun isn’t worth that much, the Chi-Nu isn’t that much worse than the Pz IV.
So it will either be a worse performing Pz IV at 3.3 or a better performing Pz IV at 3.0.
The only solution is in my opinion to nerf the reload of the Chi-Nu and put it at a lower BR.
With it’s tiny turret a slow RoF should be expected. At the moment it’s just 0.5sec longer than a Ho-Ni III, which has two loaders and a wider superstructure.
The same could be done with the Chi-Nu II. I can’t even imagine how the loader would be able to reload that gun in any reasonable time.
All the Japanese tanks also have that weird positioning of the loader behind the gun instead of of besides it.
2 Likes
Except the gun on the Pz.IV F2 is what evens the playing field.
I don’t consider Pz.IVs to be the OP vehicles most people do. As you rightfully pointed out, the Pz.IV can be clicked on by enemy tanks fairly easily, but the same is true for the Pz.IV shooting other tanks.
However the Chi-Nu is a case of where it can be clicked on but it cannot click on other tanks. Sure, this might not be the case if you have Pz.IV vs Chi-Nu, but the moment you have something with more armor it becomes blatant.
This wouldn’t be that problematic if the Chi-Nu had some sort of other advantage. But it doesn’t. The mobility is worse than a Pz.IV F2’s, the armor is as well. Even the reload is technically worse by 0.1 seconds.
And then, when compared to something like the Sherman at 3.3, the Chi-Nu kinda just falls apart. Now you have a tank that can click on the Chi-Nu with a stabilizer, pretty good damage, faster reload, better mobility and armor that can also stop the Chi-Nu’s round unless aimed properly, and a bunch of other smaller advantages like .50 cal, turret traverse and gun depression. At the same BR.
1 Like
If only we had every decimal point for BRs, so it could be 3.2 or 3.1.
I’m not sure how much clearer this can be explained to you. Video games exist to be balanced. Battle Ratings exist to match vehicles of equivalent technical capability.
Real world political/industrial/strategic/doctrine/etc historical context elements are not relevant to War Thunder.
1 Like
say’s who?
Japanese vehicles are implemented in such a way that they can still compete but are far from the best.
This is semi-realistic and honestly would be silly if anything other.
I chose Japan to get the Japanese experience, not just what suits me.
This is the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard…
Even ignoring that “haha Japanese tanks bad” is some horribly oversimplified internet misconception, it makes no sense… Will you put M22 at rank 4 now? Historically it was pretty ineffective in an anti tank role.
We have BRs specifically so we can ignore age (which would make for horrible matchmaking) and go by pure vehicle performance.
And Gaijin never even put Japanese vehicles higher in BR for some twisted backwards “realism” either, but because their BR balancing takes pure stats, but not their relation to average player performance. So a good player doing good in Japanese vehicles but better in others will drive them up, because there are no inexperienced players to balance them out like the other nations, specifically US/USSR/GER, the most popular starting nations for new players.
No…?
Age has no factor on balancing, and never should.
Just 1 of the few games with my 3.3 line up. Chi-Nu is fine where it’s at along with the others. Wished I recorded that honestly. The only questionable Br for me would be the Type 87 P and RCV (manageable but for the sake of line up, maybe a -.3 br would help), R2Y2s, and most of the Japanese Zeroes.
All I get from the past 50+ or so replies is one guy going on and on about the Chi-Nu being solid at 3.3 while everyone is pulling up numbers from everywhere but the goal post got moved and is now “historical battles”.
The point is that BR is for matching the CAPABILITY of a vehicle, not year of make, not a single factor like 75mm M3 gun vs 75 Type 3 gun, or skill issues. Its been repeated quite a bit above that the Chi-Nu is playing above its weight class so I’ll refrain from repeating the points stated earlier.
Personally, 3.0 is a good starting point but I’m also in favor of looking lower based on how well it does at 3.0 and the match maker at that BR
2 Likes
imagine catering to 200k plus players and making their vehicle really good whilst also applying vehicles to their realistic capabilties and having unique abilities and difference’s.
no-one wants their vehicle to be worst of their br.
so we buff.
Then people complain they getting killed by far superior vehicle and that vehicle becomes op.
It never ends.
Can we not accept certain vehicles are better than others?
Fuck sake, or we expect to be hotshot fuckers in every nation br? calm your ego or play something that caters to such.
What makes a vehicle good is its advantages over its contemporaries.
Take that away and you have vehicles that only look diff.
As a matter of fact, no. That’s why BRs exist. If we expand your argument to galactic proportions, that’s like saying skill issue that you lost against a T-90M while using the Pz.II C. Not really something to stand behind if you accept that this sort of unfair is called “balance”.
3 Likes