You know what. Fine. I will grind the Leopard 40/70.
I will then prove to you, that’s it is an overpowered vehicle. Got that?
Clearly words do not work.
1 Like
Enjoy getting machinegunned by Shermans and M6A1s.
One you cannot pen, the other you can only aim low enough to hit the turret weakspot and it’s hard.
Flanking is hard on CQC maps as well which are the common maps.
So yeah…
I tried looking for more players than use both Leopard 40/70 and AMX-13 but they’re rare.
4 Likes
Dont act like you are an expert on either of them: the AMX-13 DCA 40 you have played 32 matches, the leopard 40/70 you have played 15 mathes. I could gain the same experince playing those vehicles, you have, by playing them in the test drive. If only I could do that lol. You are not an authority on any of those vehicles.
I never claimed to be an expert in the playstyle.
I am an expert in analysis as it was my job in part of my past.
So what I can do is tell you that because I perform so much better in Gripen than F-15 that Gripen is clearly over-performing. So is Mirage 4000. It’s hilarious.
I can tell you that because I performed so much better in Type 89 than every other auto-cannon tank I’ve ever played that it was OP… which is confirmed now that it’s 9.0 where it should be rather than the 8.3 & 8.7 it was when I played it.
So yeah, I can be mid at things and still determine their position whether I’m amazing or bad.
It’s all about being consistent across like-platforms.
And I go to Defyn’s statcard for more aircraft options. [Gripen is really over performing]
Cavenub for higher BR tanks.
And so forth.
I’ll likely add TEC to my list of profiles to keep an eye on since he plays a lot of variety.
3 Likes
So are basing your entire arguments on playing the leopard 40/70 15 times? and being “an expert in analysis” Have you made food reviews on YouTube? what are talking about. lmao
Comparative analysis and monitoring performance.
I’ll keep being eh in them cause I’m bad with bofors against planes, and good enough against tanks.
But yeah, if Leopard 40/70 is OP it’ll perform significantly better than AMX-13 DCA for me.
Just as Type 89 has before for IFVs/autocannon tanks, and Gripen for top fighters.
It’ll be painfully obvious.
Oh yeah, I partially caused M4A2 to go up from 3.7 to 4.0 cause it was OP at 3.7.
3 Likes
I guess I will just have to take your word for it huh?
I don’t know the answer to that.
All I can say is when I found out the M4A2 was OP it was right before an event and it was still 3.7.
I spammed it out as a first gung-ho, and I got all 10 tank stars killing 50 players each 2 days using M4A2.
And yes it was made 4.0 before the next event came.
Stats changed its BR.
Oh and how I figured it was OP at 3.7? KV-1E was 4.0 and I determined that M4A2 was as good as KV-1E purely comparing the two.
And it was proven after that event.
3 Likes
What is good about its crew protection? Genuinely curious, I didn’t play it yet.
1 Like
So this is the context of this:
4 of the 5 crew members are out in the open unprotected, and of the parts of them that are protected it’s 8mm of armor.
This makes them vulnerable to ANY explosion and machine guns.
Vs a fully encased crew that is protected from many explosions, and machine guns.
Outside that the 40/70 gun sits up very high with 5 degrees of gun depression while penning only 90mm.
4 Likes
lol no 6.7
Ah sorry, I thought you meant that Leo 1 crew protection is good compared to other 8.0 tanks, socI thought maybe it has some features worth knowing about.
I appreciate the effort and I am sorry you had to waste it on me:-/
so gaijin, when is this thing getting a proper BR?
do we have to wait another 3 years like with the R3 T20?
and no, bad crew protection doesnt really matter much in a vehicle that zips around the battlefield like this thing does, with the turret rotation and the firerate it has.
sure its a more situational vehicle but it has no place sitting at 5.3.
stop balancing SPAA’s according to their ability to kill tanks gaijin, that is not how that should work.
what is it with italy and modern cold war SPAA’s sitting at way too low BR’s for it?
1 Like
If you balance this only by the ability to kill planes without giving it much better AA shells, it will be placed at much lower br.
It already has its proper BR.
Dude, this is bofors… it’s not cold war, the gun’s from the 1930s. XD
2 Likes
The Bofors L/70 (NATO designation 40/70) First created in 1947 and introduced to NATO in the 50’s. i.e Beginning of cold war(1947-1991 , (some argue that it started a bit earlier in 1946)).
Leopard 40/70 in game is a prototype from the late 90’s.
3 Likes
If you want the 40/70 to go where it probably belongs, give it the missing APDS for the Bofors cannon. Technically said round works on either the L/60 or L/70 version, with only a slight increase in velocity and thus pen in the latter.
2 Likes
i can fully get behind that, we have other examples of vehicles in game getting proposed/potential weapons and armaments to put them at a more balanced BR, it makes no sense to have a vehicle like this at such a low BR with that reason behind it.
its a bofors on a leopard 1 chassis alvis, that is the difference.
Okay and? Leopard 1’s chassis isn’t special other than allowing it to go faster than an AMX-13, which itself is cold war at 5.0.
The reason of the 0.3 difference though is cause Leopard 1 is far less survivable than the AMX-13 DCA.
You get to go faster at the cost of survivability.
3 Likes