And those vehicles already face dm33 so what’s the point here it’s nothing
The U.S. doesn’t need to be a tactical underdog in every BR because you claim there’s asymmetric balancing.
That’s just your opinion. I would imagine the majority of people would disagree with you that the US is the underdog in every BR too, because that’s just a bit absurd to even say.
And even with M833, it still would be a tactical underdog because it lacks the same penetration as a 120 or 125.
In your opinion again. It isn’t an “underdog” by being stronger/weaker in different areas compared to other vehicles.
But at the least it wouldn’t be shoehorned into needing to somehow cross open fields to get inside 500 meters to reliably penetrate something that can kill it from three or four times that distance.
Maps that have average engagement distances over 500 meters (the minority funnily enough because of the horrible map rotation) basically all have ample flanking routes or dead ground. If you’re holding W across an open area in view of enemy you’re doing something wrong and the tank is not to blame.
1 Like
And those vehicles already face dm33 so what’s the point here it’s nothing
That isn’t an argument. The vehicles at 10.7 that have DM33 also have significant drawbacks in other areas which allow them to have it at that BR. Again, it’s asymmetric balance.
And we’re back to “it has redeeming features”.
Yet those redeeming features are all situational and require you not take a shot at all during the match, all while hitting with a round that is usually seen more at 9.0 than at 10.7.
2 Likes
And again, blaming the players, rather than holding up the very real difference in firepower.
PS: Your map rotation might keep long distance maps away from you, mine doesn’t.
1 Like
And again, blaming the players, rather than holding up the very real difference in firepower.
Well it is the players fault. If they intentionally decide to use a vehicle in a way which it isn’t suited and intentionally decide not to utilise it’s strengths then that is the players fault, not the vehicles.
That’s like me going into ARB and turnfighting every spitfire or zero I see in a FW190 and complaining that the problem is that the FW190 is being held back in turning performance compared to them and should be able to turn with them.
2 Likes
These are shells both of these vehicles received in less than 5 years of production. there is zero reason neither of these tanks have the appropriate shells. the normal m1 has a shell that it never used as it’s stock shell. m774 came out the same year specifically for the m1 and should be the basic shell instead of m735. I’m sure there’s many more instances of this across high tier
And again, you are using a tired argument of “play to its strengths”, when the strength of main battle tanks is weighed in their main gun firepower as much as their mobility.
Bonus, you never even tried playing it.
3 Likes
And again, you are using a tired argument of “play to its strengths”, when the strength of main battle tanks is weighed in their main gun firepower as much as their mobility.
Just because you are hellbent on ignoring the obvious and important point doesn’t make it “tired”. It’s tiring having you blatantly disregard that vehicles are not all identical and have different characteristics that cause them to be stronger or weaker for different playstyles.
Bonus, you never even tried playing it.
Ah and how about the people who have and do and tell you the same thing? Ah you just ignore them anyway because you have zero intention of listening to anybody.
3 Likes
These are shells both of these vehicles received in less than 5 years of production. there is zero reason neither of these tanks have the appropriate shells. the normal m1 has a shell that it never used as it’s stock shell. m774 came out the same year specifically for the m1 and should be the basic shell instead of m735. I’m sure there’s many more instances of this across high tier
Look, a lot of vehicles in the game don’t have shells they used. The simple reason is because it is another balancing tool that gaijin use. Gaijin has not added either of these shells to these vehicles because evidently they do not see a need to. They’re evidently performing adequately at their BR without them.
1 Like
Again, he speaks of playstyles as if every tank MUST have a playstyle.
News flash, main battle tanks don’t have playstyles.
Firepower, armor, mobility.
If one lacks the trio greatly from the rest, it suffers.
The M1 Abrams with M774 suffers as a result. Outliers and tournament players do not count as the masses. You are free to disagree and demand everyone “be pro like tournament guys/Necrons”, but that isn’t making it a game, that’s making it a chore.
3 Likes
So what you’re saying is 9.7 should be more equipped to handle a 10.7 then a 10.7 should be equipped to handle an 11.7
1 Like
Again, he speaks of playstyles as if every tank MUST have a playstyle.
Newsflash. Every tank does have a playstyle. Did you even play the game to get to where you are now or did someone do it for you and you’re just posting on their account?
I find it hard to believe you managed to grind your way to top tier without noticing this.
The M1 Abrams with M774 suffers as a result. Outliers and tournament players do not count as the masses. You are free to disagree and demand everyone “be pro like tournament guys/Necrons”, but that isn’t making it a game, that’s making it a chore.
Well that’s good since gaijin balance based off the masses and it has remained unchanged for a very long time now so you’ll be glad to know that it is apparently doing fine.
2 Likes
Are you just incapable of NOT insulting players???
1 Like
Stuff like mobility, gun handling and reload are useful on each and every map, just like your shell performance is, so calling it situational is simply ridiculous. Ignoring all the equally important positives and fixating on a single drawback isn’t very wise.
Some tanks have mobility, some have armor and others have good shells. This is what makes them unique and your calls for “parity” looks like you want every tank to be exactly the same but with a different skin applied to them.
1 Like
It wouldn’t be the same, because the round isn’t even as powerful as its OPFOR. Parity doesn’t mean sameness, Motorola. Your outlook on this has you confused to believe I want a super-tank.
The fact is most 9.3 and 9.7 tanks are a threat to an M1 at 10.7, and 10.3s are a major threat.
Giving it a round to complement it isn’t making it OP.
It’s not an insult I’m genuinely asking because it is honestly such an absurd statement you made that I can’t believe someone who has played through a whole tree would say it.
2 Likes
Some tanks have mobility, some have armor and others have good shells. This is what makes them unique and your calls for “parity” looks like you want every tank to be exactly the same but with a different skin applied to them.
Truly this is the pinnacle.
1 Like
I’m ignoring any response from you from now on.
As stated, M833 would not be sameness.
1 Like
This can be said for basically any 10.7 MBT.
Giving it a better round is basically buffing one of the best MBT at that bracket, literally spitting in the face of other, much worse contemporaries.
1 Like