Wrong vehicle, we all know the Rhino chassis is just an advanced FV432, not an M113.
Yeah, doesn’t really correlate with the point I’m making. There’s some vehicles in the game that are “newer” but still suck. The ASU-57 was made in the 1950s, the Phong Kong being from the 60s or 70s, the PT-76 being the 50s aswell. All of these vehicles kinda suck, even within their own BRs.
It won’t. All it would do is create an imbalance in WW2 tiers and create niche vehicles that work somewhat-fine at their current BRs.
3 Likes
1944 is kind of misleading, since, like the Centurion, by the time they were ready to see service in front line units the war was over.
They’re still WW2 vehicles though. Just very late or only produced in tiny batches.
2 Likes
Hi, would multipath height be something that can be reported or no?
Yeah, it’s not contemporary to the Tiger II or Pershing though.
Personally, I would classify it as early Cold War along with the Centurion, since they were too late to see combat.
That’s why I mentioned detailed blueprint, something realistic, layers to be approved and stuff. The only thing I’m against is design made up completely out of a board and pencil in a office, as I said, it would have more balancing issues than paper designs,
If said paper designs (reads deeply documented concepts) could’ve been added we’d have ‘more’ realistic vehicles, Ho-Ri I as example (production specifically) it is totally on paper being somewhat or not balanced by developers interpretation, when even the design is not even the real one, is kinda a mix of the original plans and a enlarged Ho-Ri I prototype concept;
Where only the Ho-Ri II is the actual, more realistic approach for this project and allegedly it was set to production and only partially built before the war ended thus setting a end to the project, I said allegedly because I couldn’t find concrete proof that the Ho-Ri II existed.
Although the Sensha-manual states otherwise there are information backing up in their blog:
SENSHA: Type5 Ho-Ri : The Japanese Ferdinand (old article, only available)
SENSHA: The Ho-Ri Tank Destroyer (updated article, archived)
3 Likes
To note, the Ho-Ri I (the design one, not the production vehicle in-game) would have much more weaker engine, about as half as it’s in-game and thinner armor specially in the hull, as in the superstructure would still the same.
The current Ho-Ri I (production) in-game, is more realistically labeled as Ho-Ri III based of Sensha-manual blog information with slopped upper glacis armor and thicker hull, which in my perspective is completely fictional.
1 Like
We do not plan to split the game no. The BR system balances vehicles to whete they naturally need to be. Putting a hard cap on WW2 will just allow a set of vehicles to dominate with no real balanced competiton.
Regarding sub trees, as answered just last week, they are integral to the trees they are added into. So there are no current plans to partition them off. They are integrated into the nations they are deployed into. As with the British tree rework.
3 Likes
Its a game convention. So not reportable.
1 Like
Please see my response a few posts above your question:
Sorry, i have not specified it, and i want to make sure.
What i meant is not multipath as a whole, but for example for a specific radar guided missile.
Hello Smin, how was the weekend :)
We need new dovbleg
We need to get Chinese vehicles fixed
1 Like
any sweet cakes today?
Seems like realism has been getting a lot more optional these past years.
Voting on whether to make APHE shells more realistic and now this.
Wish we didn’t have to sacrifice realism for the sake of pleasing some players.
ah okay, thanks.
Also fix CS/SA5. It’s such a wrongly modeled and depressing vehicle. It is easily one of the worst top tier SPAA
1 Like
You can’t make this game realistic, if they did there would be no fun nor balancing
2 Likes