Type 74G is 9.3 and is a glorified tank destroyer. Even WW2 era cannons can kill it, including SPAAG’s.
Type 16’s - All of them, can be given Type 93 and uptiered accordingly depending on the rest of the vehicle’s capabilities.
That’s literally all Japan even has in the 9.0 BR zone other than the Type 89 that’s been nerfed into oblivion and the Type 93 SPAA that’s woefully overtiered for its capabilities.
Type 74 f still gets type 93
Wow.
I’m gonna take a break. I’ll play 292 and then M1.
See what the results are.
But that line right there says balance isn’t what you’re looking for, at least to me.
Edit: and it’s 10.7 right now. I didn’t ask for the BR to be lowered.
Which is also a glorified tank destroyer.
No evidence for either that it effects spalling in this instance. Necrons addressed this point earlier in this thread as well as a video. Why are you even bringing up other parameters in the first place? The whole argument that has been laid out is that the M1 should get M833 because lower BR tanks have shells with more penetration.
So really by the argument being put forth nothing else should matter unless you’re conceding that other parameters do indeed matter and that tanks are balanced based on the sum of their parts (no way, like many have said in here) and that the M1 is fine where it is as a result.
So you have no problems with reload being increased to 6.5s reload, being slightly better than the 2A4 in exchange for being a slightly lower penetration shell then the 2A4. Parity yes?
You’re not wrong much like the leopard1
Tell me which one is DM23.
And no Necrons is not a source.
Congratulations on being able to pull a random line of code from the datamine github, now are you going to prove to us what this line of code actually does in practice?
Yes, but the Leo 1 does have mobility as an advantage over many of its opponents.
The Type 74 doesn’t have that in comparison. It’s not exactly slow but it’s not faster than the plethora of its opponents. That’s why it’s a glorified tank destroyer; middlin’ mobility, very low armor values, good gun and shell characteristics.
No, thats not how this works, I still dont know which one is DM23.
Sounds like to me that any of the Leopard 1s equipped with DM33 should not have it then.
So you’re not going to prove what that line of code actually does? Which could be anything given that you clearly can’t and don’t know. Especially given there is nothing there that has anything to do with spalling. I thought about as much.
You’re welcome to prove to us all however that this specific line of code is what determines spalling at any time though. We’ll wait.
Still not an answer, I’m waiting.
You’re the one who’s bringing up other metrics like reload rates buddy
As I am waiting for you to substantiate your question.
Good I see that you have no interest in doing anything but strawman and deflect.
Got anything better?
Well you want parity yes? Only reasonable that the reload rate increases in-line with the penetration to achieve parity with other vehicles at that BR.
Seems pretty unreasonable to just expect to have the best of everything with no downsides.
I never said anything about parity! I talked about more accurate representation
Maybe, but I’ll digress back to topic since this isn’t a thread about the Leo 1 or Type 74.
Though I imagine at this point I’ve cornered the naysayers with my last argument point, so I’m just chilling at this point in time.
Asking you to substantiate your question isn’t strawmanning or deflecting.
Your inability do so on the other hand is telling, because we both know you do not know what variable determines spalling and you lack the technical capability to prove it.
I never said anything about parity! I’m really talked about more accuraterepresentation
You might not have but others have. So you would be fine with it keeping the 5s reload and moving up by 0.3 then since it would be better than the other 10.7s respectively?