yeah, they definitely should bring a separate Leo 2a4 with C-tech, instead of giving DM33 to the current one.
No, they should give 2a4 we have in game DM33 and keep it at 10.3 because I said so👀
1 Like
make it 11.0 (makes less sense)
I mean 10.7 exist as well just saying
and theres no reason for it to exist, i genuinely do not know why gaijin does x.3 or x.7, it seems so useless when it can just be rounded down or up and then you get put in a proper br range
Game is balanced to the liking for ru lovers
As you see with fantasy t80bvm the pantsir and su25sm3
Meanwhile nato tanks get nerf after nerf. :)
But ye dare us to say something lol
1 Like
dont worry, we have a diffrent allready
Leopard 2A7V’s - spall liner bug.
lets see what we will get this time…
The total number of fragments and their armor penetration when penetrating the side of the hull of Leopard 2 series tanks has not changed; a bug that led to an underestimated number of fragments when penetrating the forehead of the hull of Leopard 2 tanks has been corrected.
In terms of anti-fragmentation lining, the difference remains as it was. The anti-fragmentation lining stops fragments flying in a wide sector, but it does not stop heavy fragments flying in a narrow sector.
For comparison under the same conditions: L2A6 and L2A7V
Applicable to the T-series - the number of fragments is the same, but due to the dense arrangement of the equipment, some of them may, from some angles, be stopped by the automatic loader fence, guidance drives and other equipment.
But usually, when pierced, the number of fragments is sufficient to cause significant damage, regardless of the presence of anti-fragmentation lining
Discord> there we do the reports for the german stuff and collect data about some vehicles
1 Like
“It was actually bug that made shells not behave like nuclear aphe after pen on leopards comrade )))”
He’s not a mod, he’s an employee.
To compensate lack of skills of Soviet mains hah they are the most disgusting type of players in this game
Smin passed this one, so there’s at least a chance.
The other one was also passed by Smin. So were the multiple reports on the underperforming hull armor of the Leo 2A7V and PSO, yet none of them were implemented so far, with most being labeled as not a bug after a few days.
Ach so.
It doesn’t matter who passes a report. Regardless of if it’s me, Trickzzter or anyone else. The outcome is decided by the developers, not us.
1 Like
The joke is that the arguments are just assertions.
Basically it says: The Stalinium components of the T tanks stop spalls better than the NATO aluminum. Or have I missed something? Or have there been real fire tests on Leopard gun mantlets and can they back up their claim?
Let’s be honest: just have balls in your pants and say clearly that the Leopards have been weakened regardless of rl performance because they are otherwise too strong in the game.
I really don’t have a problem with that. But first stuff like installing spall liners and then just making the Leopards non-functional is simply not good marketing.
9 Likes
Thats the part that bugs me the most. Gaijin devs being ADAMANT their modelling is as accurate as possible, followed by them quietly correcting issues at a later date. Its a massive issue imo, and a primary cause of bad blood and distrust.
Players spend hours/days of their time and their own money to make bug reports that get denied by gaijin and their secret “sources”, followed by gaijin fixing the issue at a later date without acknowledging the bug reports at all.
It’d be much better the devs stop wasting players time and just say “this vehicle/weapon has been artificially weakened to fit the current games constraints for balance purposes. Performance may be revised at a later date”
8 Likes
they then would have to admit that russian tanks have been buffed and nato tanks nerfed
to keep it balanced
And they would never admit that ^^
8 Likes