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
This entire BR change has been abhorrent. Many things that needed adjusting have been ingored and many thigns that were perfectly fine have been moved. Id go as far as to say, I want them to just revert this entire BR change and just start again from scratch.
1 Like
It is? Never saw the option for it. I’ll check it out later. Should be linked to the Commander sight keybind considering that’s what it is.
1 Like
In general, I get bitter every time I see that a chance to make of War Thunder a better game is thrown off the window like this.
We had been waiting for a BR/Balance update for several months, to solve many issues which have been present even for years… we expected Ground and Naval decompression…
And yet, what we got was zero addressing for Naval’s compression issue, just a 0.3 “decompression” for Ground that barely changes anything, and lots of nonsensical changes like M1A1 AIM’s, Challenger 3 (TD)'s or Leopard 2PL’s.
Literally the only two things I’m looking forward to from this update is the Merkavas’ 5 second reload (they should still not be 12.0 even then though) and the Russian lineup going to 10.3 so that I can use Strela with it xd (which remains at 10.3).
And worst of all is, I am so desperate for any sort of improvements, that I am looking forward even to just those two things…
Yep, absolutely 0 of the changes I wanted happened. Not a single one. In fact the things I feared the most happened instead.
2 Likes
Superior British Engineering
Is the BR change time determined?
it was always a close call between the Ariete and CR3 TD for which was the worst tank in game. But now the Ariete has a 5 second reload with DM53, as well as the better moblity. I think we can officially claim that title.
lmao that didnt take long to get flagged also yeah no I would take the Ariete over the 3TD, you lose a bit of pen but a faster fire rate and way better mobility
1 Like