Honestly, the biggest thing would be a spall liner I think. Would help survivability a ton, reducing the chance of 2 crew getting hit from one shot.
Armor cheeks/mantlet being up-armored would also be nice too.
Aside from that, I hope they revisit the mobility. It’s just crazy that the Type 10 is proven to be more mobile than the Type 90 but it’s currently sluggish and on par with other nations vehicles (when it should be the best in class).
dude imagine a mobility buff my mouth its watering just thinking about that
It always worried me the wording of “submitted as suggestion”.
It sounds like they aren’t treating the matter as bugs that must be fixed, but rather as “changes” that they address to have been “suggested” to be possibly taken into consideration.
smin already said that all submitted as suggestion its to fix vehicle related problems that isnt a bug such as wrong armor values or armor model
Honestly it’s a bit of semantics because they’ll reject bug reports they don’t agree with either.
The important part is them acknowledging the issues/grievances so at least we know they’re aware.
That’s my point. It’s the fact that they don’t compute the blatant errors as bugs, but as “possibly different as according to a suggestion”.
It makes the report feel like it’s based off subjectivities instead of objective facts that require correction.
True, too!
To be fair, most information about top-tier tanks is based on assumptions and estimations. However, that is not an excuse for Gaijin to pick and choose the sources they prefer, fabricate information, and then refuse to make changes when confronted. Good examples include the 20mm thick breach / trunnion, worse mobility than the Type 90 and jumpy suspension.
I have a question whether the nanocrystalline steel from which type 10 is made is correctly reproduced in the game?
As I know, it is lighter than ordinary steel and much more durable
it is not ingame there is no such thing as nanocrystalline steel ingame what it should do its basically be 1.5x more effective than RHA ingame while keeping the same thickness effective thickness should be partially better
Is it possible to report incorrect armor material as a bug?
it is as long as you have sources and a picture of the ingame material, btw the material is the whole thing outside its not the composite RHA needs to be replaced with NCA
I saw some articles about nanocrystalline steel so I may look for them.
actually type 10 from the game, using this armor destroys its technical specification which assumed weight reduction.if we assume that it is made of ordinary steel and not nanocrystalline steel, its weight should be greater and mobility worse
what they did its make the armor thiner in order to replace it with nanocrystaline steel, it offers almost same weight while making it much more resistant, in fact most of the weight reduction comes from the RHA replacement consisting in a weight reduction of almost half the weight compared to a normal RHA frame and external armor
We have this document that state the usage of nanocrystalline steel in both the type 10 and type 16. We also have a study that shows what effects it has against kinetic impacts.
great job like always drag0oon
:D
I believe someone made a report on those two some time ago. I’m not sure if it was rejected or not. However, generally, I think this special steel has the highest chance to somewhat improve the armor of the Type 10, or at least make it autocannon-proof.
not really, as much issues as the VT-4A1 i will say the type 10 has more open bugs for what i know
its not really fair comparing both since type 10 has been out for more time and so there is more bugs known about it since players had more time to see it and meanwhile the VT-4A1 was recently brought to the game so not much times to adress every single bug so that depends on the people
I read in one article about the Type 10 that the side armor can withstand hits from 35 mm bullets.