is there any particular reason on why the stormer HVM hasn’t received the Martel missiles? this would make it far better since they have a proxy fuse
Or just give it ACLOS so that the missiles dont need the player to SACLOS guide them by such extreme levels.
yeah that to lol
Stormer didn’t use Martel unless Im mistaken.
it was upgraded to carry them and we have seen them being used in Ukraine on their stormer the UK give them
Well… Except all the things that weren’t fixed. Including the fact they still sometimes phase. Especially on high ping.
But also things like the buggy as hell IRST and missing IFF still yet to be fixed and the massive tracers that vlcan be seen cross map.
Also the things not modeled like the low intensity laser
I think you mean Martlet (LMM) which is very diffrent to Martel.
This is a much more advanced missile that would drive the BR of the vehicle up. Hence why it has not currently been added as it is the primary SPAA for the popular 10.3 lineup.
This may be reconsidered in the future.
Some connection issues are impossible to avoid and this can happen with a number of missiles. Some are not even issues within the game, but personal connections. However the primary issues with the Stormer have indeed been fixed.
As for “all the things that weren’t fixed” there is only one other report and thats on ammo capacity.
yeah sorry I get the 2 mixed up I didnt mean the anti ship missile lol
Yes, give me the automatic Stormer, just as irl
Hello there!
If we are clarifying things about the BR changes, may I ask one last thing?
Why did M1A1 AIM not receive its historical KEW-A2 shell (slightly worse than M829A2), while M1A2 has M829A2 at the same BR and the M1A1 HCs are receiving M829A2 at the same BR too?
Now, M1A1 AIM will have slightly worse armor and a quite significantly worse shell at the same BR as these tanks, which makes it practically pointless by comparison.
I believe it is a shame to depict the Australian Abrams in an unhistorically worse state at the same BR as much stronger variants for no apparent reason.
There is definetly one for IFF and low intensity laser. Those were submitted by Gunjob
while true, the range is supposedly still only 8km, and most of the 10.3 line up has moved to 10.7 so they could use it as a justification to move it to 10.7 and keep the AD at 10.0 for a possible 10.0 line up (things like the MBT-80, and challenger 1 mk1)
Right now the performance of the vehicle does not show an indication of requiring a new shell. So the devs will closely monitor it at its new BR position and keep it in consideration should it be required in the future.
Except without the shell to justify its new BR no one will play it…therefore you will get no data
3 Likes
But… what does this even mean? Is this another case of “player statistic” balancing ignoring the objective technical capabilities of vehicles?
M1A2 is the same as M1A1 AIM, but with CITV, better armor and a much better shell.
M1A1 HC is the same as M1A1 AIM, but with worse thermals, better armor and, now, a much better shell.
M1A1 Click-Bait is the same as M1A1 AIM, but with worse thermals, better armor and, now, a much better shell.
Logically, shouldn’t M1A1 AIM have a shell on par with these tanks, since they share the exact same BR, rather than having a significantly worse shell at the same BR?
Why are player-defined “performance statistics” more important than real, tangible and objective technical capabilities?
Irregardless of my disagreement with the logic (or lack of thereof) used by the devs, thank you for your quick reply!
Exactly. I just want to use M1A1 AIM because of its cool camo but it is pointless when, at the same BR, now we will get other variants with significantly better shells and with also better armor (even if just slightly so), since I am not going to handicap my lineup over looks.
What is the point of M1A1 AIM now? What did I grind it for when it’s just flat out worse than its regular tree counterparts?
Yet again, a case of:
Sorry about the bitterness, I’m just frustrated that my favourite-looking Abrams (ever since the camo fix) is being neglected like this xD. To make matters even worse, the KEW shell is completely ahistorical too…
Anyway, apparently Gaijin wants me to replace my beautiful AIM with HC.
10 Likes
“yOu cAn BuILd a LINeuP ArOUrNd iT/WItH iT.”
Also the M1A1 AIM should have a 2nd-generation Thermal Sight (known as the Thermal Sight Module attached to the .50 cal) for the Commander but it’s not implemented in-game even though it’s modeled…
Granted it’s not Hunter-Killer capable, it would act like thermal Binoculars.
You can access it through through the gunner sight if you switch to the machine gun! Not exactly practical so I never use it though… but yeah; many tanks have their commander mg’s sights modelled as commander sight, they could do the same here, I guess.
3 Likes