The M1’s are some of the other best 10.7’s
Still doesn’t stop a Leopard buff giving it a significant advantage
We are talking about 10.7 vehicles, not top tier. And I have zero interest in getting tar babied into what ever problem you seem to have with the Leopards.
You can’t give different reloads to different members of a same family of tanks.
You can’t give 2A4 a faster reload without giving it also to 2A6s, 2A7s and 122s.
And the last thing the game needs is 2A6s, 2A7s and 122s with 5 second reloads lmao.
Matching buffed T-80UD with 6 sec expert reload instead of ace one wouldnt really upset the ballance. Leo2s already have 6 second reload, making it aviable through expert would just make it that it isnt paywalled.
Given after 270 battles im MAYBE in 1/4th of progress towards free ace, i dont believe there would be that many aced leo2s running around on average.
Leopard already has a significant advantage over the T-80UD
1 Like
Several, in fact:
-THERMALS.
-Better acceleration.
-Better top speed.
-FAR better reverse speed.
-Better turret traverse speed.
-Better gun traverse speed.
-Better gun depression.
I guess T-80UD having better armor and a 0.4 second better reload is too much. See, Leopards MUST be the very best in every single field and aspect…
1 Like
In gun handling, reverse speed and gun depression. Sure.
But you make it sound like T-80UD doesnt have any advantages over 2A4 as well, which would remain even if Leo2 got slight reload speed buff.
And, once again, aced Leopard2s already have 6 second reload, i dont see anyone calling for a nerf.
If Leopard 2A4 got a reload buff, T-80UD’s ONE and only advantage would be armor, and absolutely nothing else.
Reload, which would be removed by buffing the Leo
And buffing would mean an aced ~5.5 second reload
Armor, which would be unaffected by reload speed, and better shell and resulting post pen damage, also being unaffected.
Yes, which would be either paywalled or limited to players with approx. 1000 or more games with it takes to get free ace (rough guesstimate), ie. limited amout of players, just as ace reload is limited now.
And is the layout of the L2s turret so different to the Abrams that it justifies such a longer reload? It’s the same gun and same basic layout using NATO standard ammo.
And again this conversation was simply just “a slightly faster reload would be nice for the L2A4 to offset the turret basket”
nobody was making major demands for significant buffs, just whimsically asking for a slight offset for a significant nerf.
But I asked earlier, and no one has been able to reply; what would be the point of Abrams, Leclercs and Merkavas if they lost their one advantage over the Leopards, which is rate of fire?
Different play styles, being in different nations with different supporting line ups, just thinking other tanks look cooler (main reason I ground top tier Russia despite their tanks being sub standard IMO), APS systems, better CAS.
Not everybody just chases the meta vehicles.
I have both Russia and Japan at max BR (well I did pre T-90M arena), USA at 12.0, Germany and UK at 10.7, and a few others anywhere between 9.0 and 5.7 ish, I just play what ever takes my fancy at any point.
youre not the one with a leg to stand on here lets be real.
both shuddup now
taps thread sign
Not everybody chases meta vehicles indeed, but isn’t it better for the game if every vehicle facing each other is, even if in asymmetrical ways, roughly as valid for the meta?
For instance, Russian tanks have clear advantages, and clear disadvantages. They aren’t truly meta, but they aren’t useless either.
However, tanks like Leclerc and Merkava are already on a tight spot regarding usefulness, and their fast reload is one of their few saving graces.
That being said, in an IDEAL world:
-Leopards would have a faster reload…
-…because Leclercs and Merkavas would have their armor fixed (and mobility too in Leclerc’s case), which would make their current gap with the Leopards smaller even if the reload was similar or the same.
The only issue is that these tanks are basically glass.
1 Like
As I said above:
I will not disagree that all the issues with minor nations tanks are a little more pressing then a Leo buff, but that doesn’t mean we should completely discount issues with the major nations vehicles, they are still valid issues even if they should be a lower priority, the issue is Gaijin prioritizes small problems in major nations over big problems in minor ones.
But that’s a Gaijin issue that we should not take out on other players.
Yes, I think the issue with the Type 90/10 and Leclerc’s now losing BOTH their autoloaders and turret baskets from any hit is a bigger issue then the leopards reload speed (and don’t start me on the nanotwinned crystal steel armour), but that doesn’t delegitimize the issue for Leo 2 players.
Hmmm… if anything, I’m thinking;
-Abrams, with fixed armor, could have a 5.5 aced (5.8 expert) second reload.
-Leopard could also have a 5.5 aced (5.8 expert) second reload.
-Leclercs, Challengers and Merkavas would keep their 5 aces (5.4 expert) second reload.
That way, the minor, weaker tanks would still have some of a reload advantage, while the Leopard and (fixed) Abrams tanks, generally better in every other way, would have a marginally worse reload to make up for being generally better in terms of armor and survivability.
Guys I would remind people no matter if you agree or disagree with someone’s take at no point are you to make personal attacks and or make false claims as that will result in a timeout or depending what was said a perm ban.
I would ask for everyone to try and stay on topic.
2 Likes
Yeah, I think the Abrams is a little fast TBH, but we have gone so far into the weeds I will leave it at that.