‘‘Fake’’ Yeah someone has an agenda to make the Do 335 look good I guess.
Statistics for the F-1 look a lot different from what that player is doing, and I would use Thunderskill opposed to the stats of a player that has been around since 2014, using a vehicle from 2013, meaning those could be stats from almost 10 years ago.
Besides whoever plays this game for k/d is not to relevant for the average player, I have zero interest in hearing what someone like that has to say about a vehicle and a TS stat with a decent enough sample size will tell me more relevant information for an average player.
These stats tell you nothing about the plane. So congratulations - big samole size, useless data. Small sample size?. Fake data. What an epic tool.
And again better KPB than K/D. Which indicates fake or some compulsive backup user in Ground RB. Either way, absolutely useless numbers.
It’s useless data right now. It’s data that’s also weird and inconsistent as hell. It’s unreliable. So it should be treated as non-existent.
It would be pretty nice if Gaijin allowed us to at least see vehicle stafs by game mode, since CAS RB and Air RB are quite different from each other, yet share the stat screen.
What do you mean by that? Everyone has their biases, sure. I just dont think there is any significant bias in the game. The only vehicles I think tend to over preform are premiums but that is more of a monetization issue then bias towards a certain nation.
It is probably worth noting. Many light tanks and tank destroyers (which are light and mobile) were designed around the idea that they can be devastating offensive weapons with their speed and ability to pen heavy tanks. They were designed in part to do exactly what they do to heavy tanks.
Many heavy tanks ended up being defensive weapons. The Object 279 when it was cancelled was noted as being too heavy to cross russian bridges in defense of the homeland and they ordered tanks to be made lighter for this reason. It is a defensive weapon. Just like many Tiger IIs etc. were relegated to basically be pill boxes. Even some russian ships which turned out to be of poor designed were relegated to nothing more than aa platforms.
Light tanks destroying heavy tanks is doctrine and design.
If you ignore the stuff they and for nations like the US, yeah. If anything there is a bias towards major nations but that cant really be helped to an extent.
You actually might be surprised. Failure to fuse on light vehicles is a real world problem. A pass through shot isn’t entirely unheard of and should probably happen more often in game. It depends on the shell, and modern ammunition is more reliable for sure. But failure to fuze isn’t unheard of.
Correct. And if no light vehicles ever was capable of damaging heavies, the game would be unbalanced in the opposite direction. Moreover, there are several fast vehicles with derp guns that are still balanced nonetheless. M56, ASU 85 and JPz 4-5 are imho good examples of “modern” vehicles that nonetheless fit in WW2 reasonably well. They are true glass cannons because they actually die rather easily (unlike other lights), their gun handlings are atrocious even by SPG standard, and the lack of a turret somewhat limits what they can do with their speed. Also, no rebate on CAS, of course.
But this is actually perfectly coherent with what I said. If a vehicle sacrifices everything for X, it should benefit from X. The M56 is quite literally just the gun, if you take it away there’s no point to the whole vehicle. It needs to be an assassin or it doesn’t work at all. Just like if you take survivability away from Tortoise and Jagdtiger, it’s just not competitive to spawn them (which is the issue they were having, and to a smaller degree still have, but it’s much better now). They need to be battering rams or they don’t work at all.
Also correct. If we had more game modes where that was relevant, the balance issues would probably be less than they currently are.
Example: remember the “defence” mode in World War? That’s the sort of thing that, if it was a regular mission type, might encourage you to spawn something like the JT more. Lock down a crucial area and hold it - that’s what the vehicle is best at.
Yes, but doctrine is of limited use in WT, or our IFVs would all be unemployed, since we’ve got no infantry… :P
PT-76 is where it is, because it’s the only way to make it competitive vs tanks. If it was with the Cold War stuff, no one would play it.
I know. Which is why I picked an example where the damage would have been devastating even without the fuze triggering.
Game mode. I seriously hate some game modes. We should be able to block games by mode, but they force use to play maps and modes we don’t want to. I admit their are 3 maps I will bail on, and two game modes I will 1 death bail on. I hate them, I don’t enjoy them, I won’t play them. COD of all games does this really well. War thunder needs to let us pick the mode we like, and let us truly ban maps. COD is nice because in the lobby you can see the next map, if you don’t like it you leave. Here you are stuck in a nonsense forced play issue.
Lack of diversity in play mode. It is always capture the point. Never TDM. Never progressive objectives etc. They really do fail in the game mode diversity department.
Barrel collision. Believe it or not IFVs, short barrel, and heavy tanks would play a more strategic role if we had barrel collision. It would make city fighting make sense. It would make barrels sitting in buildings peek firing require more timing and finesse. They need to implement this to make the diversity of tanks more relatable and usable.
The country that used radar AAMs before anybody else (like way before anybody else) and developed the most radar AAMs has the most attention to radar AAMs in game?
4 steps of matchmaker means more fine-tuning for similar but different vehicles.
& decompressing the total range is the ultimate form of decompression.
Stop accusing everyone that’s pro-decompression of not knowing what it means.
At least the people that I call out bad takes of all oppose decompressing the total range of BRs.
