Sounds interesting.
I think the angle of attack against the enemy plate should also matter, if something like this were to be made.
T-80UD, for example, may not be directly facing head-on with an M1 Abrams, at 500m out.
yikes
1 Like
Returning to topic, I’m testing the Object 292’s efficacy versus the M1.
Simply put I’ll play a set number of battles and see how many kills I achieve with Object 292, then flip and do so with M1 KVT.
More results to come soon.
If the results are what I think, it’ll be a cinch to say that parity with M833 isn’t an enormously difficult proposal.
Japan has a 405mm pen dart at 9.0 on both the type 74 E and F (type 93 shell). I don’t see any reason the m1 should be limited from m833 considering the timeframe of the rounds production is only 3 years after the tank and one year before the m1ip. It was used plenty in both models. and even in the US tree the 120S is at 10.3 with a 598mm pen dart with the same reload rate of the m1 (granted its a 120mm). Adding m833 wouldn’t cause a whole heap of change.
8 Likes
Tbh, it wouldn’t change much, so no I don’t think it should get M833. M774 hits the same weakpoints. M833 would basically just be a placebo, and might give gaijin an excuse to up the M1 above the Leo 2s.
2 Likes
Its the same change with the HC’s moving from M829A1 to A2. They wont pen anything more than what they already do bar some extremely niche situations, you will still be aiming for the same exact weakspots. However, A2 is more reliable than A1 due to that extra bit of pen.
Now if the M1 went from M774 to M900 that would be a gamechanger, but as you said, 774 to 833 just improves reliability and thats about it, heck, its not even at the top end of 9.3 darts to begin with, let alone 10.7 where proper 120mms are already being tossed around.
Since I expect someone will also take it out of context, no I don’t want the base M1 to get M900.
7 Likes
Well said. And something I brought up. If we were so wanting the imbalance the game, we’d want the best and keep it at 10.7.
To me this is patently absurd. M833 is parity and yes, maybe just a placebo, but it’s enough to warrant players enjoying the vehicle a little more when playing it.
3 Likes
I agree, generally speaking, problem is where you draw the line. Do we give decades old vehicles in minor nation inventories updated rounds that put them at unfavourable BRs simply because they carried them? Its a recipe for frustration.
1 Like
How about it gets M833 but gets put back to 6.7s reload speed with the Leopard 2A4? That would be a fair trade-off.
1 Like
The issue with you argument is that nations with statistically worst vehicles have higher win rates.
Just look at the arietes, they perform worst in every area yet have a higher win rate.
Look at the F-104A/C in air(and the entire US air tree)
Yes, it’s all on the US players playing badly. I’m tired of the mental gymnastics US players will use to try and justify their win rates.
US win rates low? ITS BECAUSE OUR VEHICLES ARE BAD AND EVERYONE ELSES ARE GOOD!
US win rates too high? “Uhhh well, it’s a complicated issue with many factors that need to be considered and blah blah blah”
It’s the players, end of story.
5 Likes
Name me a time in the last 2 years when the US was trouncing everyone with 65 or 70 percent win rates.
2 Likes
This is already the case in game because the type 74 with the type 93 shell didn’t receive that shell until 1993 whereas the type 16 which entered service in 2007 doesn’t get it for balance reasons
2 Likes
Two years ago, December. According to the WT Data Project the US had a WR second only to Sweden, at ~65%. You want to know why? There’s literally no reason. They added the SEP w TUSK in October, and the WR plummeted in November, but then climbed to insane levels in December. Between these months, nothing significant changed. Just a rotation of players, as good ones probably came to play US to get the SEP and F-16 combo, before jumping ship to nations with players that weren’t so trash.
2 Likes
2 years and all the high skill players jumped ship and suddenly everything is in a sub-40 win rate.
If you want players to stick around, lower the skill floor in the US Ground vehicles so they have parity.
Why would good players stick around if the bad players are still shitting the bed and ruining games? It’s just more fun to not play US at that point.
1 Like
Why not just have the real reload rate we’re talking about a 105 mm Shell versus a 120 mm shell at that point
Because bad players with a lower skill floor learn to become better if they feel they have a chance at winning.
Welcome to the game War Thunder where reload rate has explicitly been said to be used as a tool of balance.
So do you want to answer my question?
It would provide parity as they shell would of almost equal penetration to the leopard 2A4 whilst having the same reload.
2 Likes
So because bad players do poorly, they should get help instead of just learning to play already strong vehicles? But what happens if you make those already strong vehicles stronger? In the hands of good players they become oppressive. Balancing around lowest common denominators allows for good players to abuse broken vehicles and seal club. Should Russia 10.X get similar buffs because it suffers from the same issues? Fuck no.
2 Likes