thats why they wont buff manpads, they dont want precious ka50 sales to sink, its funny how all these gimped weapons seem to favour russia and there sales pitch
9 Likes
a 16G mistral can’t hit a jet maneuvering to 8G, unlike what is stated by Matra/MBDA (refer to LeGrandSarrazin’s post), so the “average” vs “instantanious” explanation doesn’t make much sense. The same goes for stinger.
Also, as many pointed out in this thread, russian sources are considered unacceptable by the devs when they mention western vehicles. That rule also appeared a few weeks ago, and this post is contradicting it. I think the devs are shooting themselves in the foot by doing that.
And it’s not like “assuming” anything is needed, considering how well documented those particular bug reports are
22 Likes
so lets remove all nations and leave russia in i give it 4 hours until the russian mains come in to complain
1 Like
Well done on this one Gaijin. I disagree with some of the reasoning used in the prior devblogs about other issues, however, this was a job well done. Maximum overload of a missile does not reflect how tight it turns or it’s reliability to score a hit as most players might think. There are a number of other factors that come into play in regards to the calculation of a missile’s maximum overload and performance.
Although, to simply satisfy the playerbase, the statcard should simply be adjusted to read the actual maximum overload of the missile, even if this is only achieved for a small moment in time. This will avoid the misunderstanding and outrage we are seeing.
interesting how said rule appears before they knew backlash would occur or around the time it did, its why im convinced this blog post was written way before all this mayhem happened, the abrams blog felt rushed hence the really dubious suspension claim with nothing to back it up all based on assumptions.
3 Likes
dont forget the 2A7V and the WE dont believe it went into service with that armor WHILE the T-80B got Thermals with only 3 of them having it for tests outside of service
8 Likes
Found a clueless gaijin dev’s alt account
8 Likes
The fact they literally say in their own devblog that their decision about the 2A7V is “illogical” would make me laugh if I didnt wanna cry so bad
Just because a target is manuevering at 8Gs doesn’t mean a 16G missile is capable of hitting it. You need to consider the relative velocity of both targets and their manuevering direction, G overload does not reflect turning circle.
and you need to read the source again that states 25G max for the missile while it only gets 16 max ingame with a wrong turning radius
5 Likes
Turning circle can be found using the overload and the speed.
And to nobody’s surprise, the mistral and stinger speed is known.
However this is very much irrelevent, since we are discussing overload and not turning circles in this case. First hand sources are unanimous, those missiles are underperforming, even after the change they made.
5 Likes
I think YOU need to reread. The developer clearly stated that the ingame overload was its average.
while the Igla got its MAX overload not average same for the Strela so double standards
4 Likes
Its very funnny when it comes to russian stuff barely any documents are needed to make them insanely good, and when it comes to NATO stuff having people that make the stuff say it has certain features isn’t enough to give it that. What a complete fucking joke
7 Likes
Right sure, the clueless dev that spent hours creating an Abrams bug report last night to prove Gaijin wrong. Lol
Not only that, someone above already pointed out the the average calculated by gaijin was erroneous because they did shit calaculations and ommisions of key features such as momentum
4 Likes
Stinger has four control surface, not two “fixed”.If you want to take rolling into consideration, and ignore 22G is just single-plane overload ,this can only be identified as a intentional nerf.
27 Likes
And why aren’t we using glorious soviet sources for effectiveness of capped antitank shells when it comes to how well decadent western ammo bites into armour? It would only be fair.
Against side armor of a Sherman (38.1mm) at 60 degrees angle, the game shows protection value of
63-64mm when using 76mm BR-350A (T-34 1940, 78mm base pen, listed as APHEBC, has APCBC ricochet), and
97-101mm when using 75mm PzGr 39 (Pz IV F2, 137mm base penetration, listed as APCBC, has APCBC ricochet)
Both are capped&ballistic capped shells but the soviet ones have a special class (APHEBC is barely found anywhere else in the game) that makes them much better against slopes comparatively to their base penetration value. To wit, the German shell loses 64% of its penetration against a 60 degree slope while the Soviet one loses only 46%, thus they end up at 49mm and 42mm respectively (according to the ammo statcards while against flat armor the capped German shell is nearly twice as effective.
While a slight difference can exist due to overmatch mechanics, the 1mm difference in caliber shouldn’t cause such a huge discrepancy.
And I refuse to believe there would have been such a glaring difference in cap design that those shells weren’t simply copied in a year or two by every nation that got their hands on them, since this affects every nation that has shells listed as APCBC instead of APHEBC.
5 Likes
Forgot to mention that losing only 46% penetration value means that the shell is stronger than HEAT against slope as HEAT works on strict line of sight thickness and loses 50% against 60 degrees.
In case anyone is wondering the source on this one it’s from:
13 Likes