Oh i know, just confuses me how they think not having directional rwr is resonable.
up to 16(!!!) possible kills every game ao there are far more than enough to kill at LEAST one per game. and in terms of KD then dont die as often. say you die every 2 games on average, if your KD is under 1 you get less than half a kill every game.
the american AH1F does not have flares or chaff. thats part of the problem
a plane that either out dogfights or out speeds everything else at 9.3(except f-106) doesn’t deserve to be 9.0.
simple as that.
3 Likes
Whilst also out base bombing everything just prior to that too.
If I see a pair of Su-7Bs in the Jaguar. I odnt even bother trying to go for a base. 2 will kill all 4 bases before ive even gotten close to the first base
2 Likes
Everytime a death to something that isn’t another player happens or someone leaves, there will be one player that cannot get a kill in a match.
If someone gets two kills, there also will be someone that can’t get a kill.
You have players denying kills by crashing or j-ing out, so you would have gotten a kill, but didn’t end up with one.
On top of that, you have teamkillers.
That’s 4 factors that can result in you dying more often than you get a kill on average.
The result of that is that for each player with a K/D of 1.0 you also have a player with a K/D below 1.0, meaning that the player with a K/D of 1.0 is above average.
Also no, a K/D of under 1 doesn’t necessarily mean that you get less than half a kill every game.
A K/D isn’t even linked to how many kills you get per game.
K/D is Kills per Death. You can get less than half a kill every game and still have a K/D above 1.
It is messy and there are even more factors in GRB and the simulator mode.
The reality is that in War Thunder the average player does not get a kill for every death.
Edit: I should correct this a bit, the average K/D probably is higher, since matches end without everyone dying, but it still is below 1, thanks to the factors I mentioned.
The metric that we are talking about is Kills per Spawn (K/S?). That K/S is a 0.6 and the reason why that is so low is, well, unlike deaths, a spawn cannot be avoided and refuels/rearms count as seperate spawns.
That actually means that refuelling and rearming hurts your K/S statistics lol
1 Like
For Super M18, in Arcade Mode the original M18 is only 5.3, change to 90mm M82 is worth 6.7?
Gaijin, lower the Zero’s BR right now.
T26E5 moving to 7.0? I mean this has to be a joke…right? if that moves to 7.0 so should the King Tiger. Like we can’t be fr gaijin.
Vehicle: AMX 32 (105)
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 9.3 → 9.0
If the Leopard 1A5 and clones are going down to 9.0 this thing really should too, top round compared to the 1A5 is significantly worse as well (361vs421 pen) and very awkward gunner zoom at 10x only.
3 Likes
Dude no, the Pbil is a monster. That thing is a fast ratty demon you play to demolish everyone at that BR, you can kill so many things frontally at that BR. You just need to get good.
CHI NU II
Ground RB
4.3->4.0
literally just a japanese panzer IV but slightly slower and less armored its only advantage is a 10MM pen bonus but that makes zero sense to be at 4.3 you cant just decide a vehicles placement off KD alone should not be facing 5.3s when 1.0 tanks can pen it frontally
its got a 50mm front plate to panzer IV-Hs 80MM and the panzer IV H is lower and still considered unarmored
8 Likes
Type 95 Ro-Go
jp_type_95_heavy
-
Arcade Battle BR: 1.3 → 1.0
-
Realistic Battle BR: 1.3 → 1.0
-
70 mm Reload Speed: 4.0 s → 3.5 s
-
Correct missing shoulder-stop stabilizers to both guns (Bug Report)
Rationale
Compared to the Nb.Fz. and T-35, the Ro-Go falls short massively in terms of firepower. The 70 mm has some of the lowest shell velocities in-game, while the 37 mm is too underpowered to compensate.
The Ro-Go’s armor is modest, and the mobility is poor, so it would not become a toxic vehicle at 1.0 by any stretch of the imagination, but it would become a more appealing purchase.
11 Likes
Type 2 Ho-I
jp_type_2_ho_i
-
Reload Speed: 5.9 s → 3.3~4.0 s
-
Add Type 1 (APHE) Bug Report
Rationale
Other vehicles with low velocity 75 or 76 mm howitzers like the T-28 (1938), M8 HMC, or early Panzer IV’s have aced reload speeds of 3.3-4 seconds, but the Ho-I’s is longer than even many higher velocity 75 mm guns. This should not be the case, as the Ho-I’s rounds are shorter and lighter than the German short 75 mm rounds, and more accessible than those of the Panzer IV’s due to the convenient bustle ammunition rack. The Ho-I has a need for better reload too due to the abysmal HEAT shell muzzle velocity, which makes misses at range more frequent and punishing.
The Type 1 APHE shell already found on the Ho-Ni’s, Chi-Nu’s, and Chi-To’s was also adapted to lower velocity cartridges, such as that of the Ho-I’s gun. It would be fairly analogous to the K.Gr.rot Pz. round the Panzer IV’s use in terms of penetration and filler.
11 Likes
Type 3 Chi-Nu
jp_type_3_chi_nu
-
Reload Speed: 6.0 s → 5.3 s Bug Report
-
Add Type 95 (APHE) Bug Report
Rationale
The Chi-Nu currently has an unusually long reload despite the relatively spacious turret and proper bustle rack. While most of its competition at 3.3 has moved up, it still has to face them consistently, where the arbitrarily longer reload still hampers its capabilities. It’s more in need of a fire rate buff than the Panzer IV’s are, and it makes more sense for it to receive it based on the vehicle’s internal layout.
It should also have the option to use the Type 95 APHE round from the Ho-I, which was adopted for more powerful cartridges.
14 Likes
German RB Ground BR’s:
- Sd.Kfz.234/2: 3.7 up to 4.0, and Rank III. This is the German equivalent of the Chaffee and would fill the gap of a Rank III scout.
2 Likes
Type 5 Na-To
jp_type_4_na_to
-
Reload Speed: 6.5 s → 5.0 s
-
Replace Type 4 (APCR) with Type 4 (AP) Bug Report
Rationale
Despite having a very open compartment with two dedicated loaders, the Na-To has a rather poor reload compared to other SPGs with similar guns, such as Marder III H or M10.
The Type 4 APCR round is a fictious and should be replaced with the actual Type 4 AP round.
14 Likes
I think that the armor protection of the Somua SM is only barely adequate, and is clearly weaker than that of other tanks at the same battle rating. Armor protection does not only refer to frontal armor – the side armor of the Somua is very fragile and can be easily penetrated by various types of fire. In terms of protection, it even performs worse than some medium tanks at lower BRs. As for its mobility, it only accelerates faster forward than other heavy tanks; its sluggish reverse speed and turning speed prevent it from handling many urban combat situations. Only its firepower is quite excellent. Overall, its combat effectiveness is not particularly outstanding.
I believe it could even be lowered to 3.7. Its protection level is slightly higher than that of the Panzer IV F2, but lower than that of the Panzer IV H. The Panzer IV F2 is at BR 3.3, while the H is at 4.0, so 3.7 would be a reasonable choice for the CHI-NU 2. The only reason it currently appears better in statistics is that the players using it tend to be more skilled on average.
The SOMUA SM is modeled extremely incorrectly atm. The armor is double what it should be on the front, on top of the lack of an MG port weakspot.
1 Like