Ohhh the good old defamation campaign.
Shall I bring up the Mi-28Nm LMUR thread again? Where you tried to tell everyone, even AFTER we tested it, that the mi-28nm was “invincible” when in our own testing the new Chinese heli, and the Ah-64E were the ones actually invincible?
Careful now, your bias is showing.
@UniqueScorpions-live @PaulsBackPack @ItsOnyy @AblativeKitten @ODST_Viper24251
can you guys go makeout in PM? its getting kinda zesty in this thread
I want to see Scorpion say more silly stuff thank you
you can do so in PMs
you guys are really obsessed over him for no reason
Have you tried doing that in an actual battle? Yes, it can, but the spread and ballistics of the APBC shell are so bad that you are not landing any barrel shots at medium range (and in CQC you are asking to get killed).
You are just conveniently ignoring the fact that the APFSDS of the 2S38 can not only destroy barrels and breeches but can also lol-pen any vehicle frontally and disable and kill crew, unlike the Begleit, which has to flank and hope it’s not seen first before engaging anyone.
No YoU cAn’T sAy ThAt
Please quote where I ever shifted goal posts, PROVE IT. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.
I have said 2 thing about him, obsession isn’t here I have better things to do. My PM’s remain clear for people giving me info on the Hawk 209 lol
Funny how you didn’t respond to my comment about the mi-28nm thread
Anyway when coastal decompression
It HEAVILY struggles against Leo 2, which is most of what you face.
Sure, I am done with the misinformation and anti-NATO shills.
Good joke, that is never going to happen. We need full on naval decompression
never
coastal doesnt exist
Isn’t Italy apart of nato?
To reduce subjectivity, I deliberately started this discussion with vehicle characteristics rather than personal gameplay impressions. I focused on what features a vehicle should reasonably have at a given BR. For example, I pointed out that at 10.7 a tank is expected to have baseline tools such as thermals or a usable reverse speed. I did not argue based on how these vehicles perform in the hands of exceptionally skilled or inexperienced players.
One possible reason is sample size. Even a single good match can easily create the impression that a vehicle is exceptionally strong, even if its overall performance across many battles is average or inconsistent. That is exactly why I prefer to rely on vehicle characteristics rather than isolated gameplay outcomes.
From the very beginning, my point was that at 10.7 the T-80UD lacks baseline features expected at that BR, such as thermals or adequate reverse speed. This is not a matter of assumptions or personal experience - it is a comparison of vehicle capabilities. For reference, the T-80B already has these features at 10.7.
According to this logic, does that mean I have no right to participate in balance discussions about vehicles I have played for 1000+ battles? I don’t think that’s a reasonable approach.
I fully agree that some vehicles - for example the BMPT - were genuinely overpowered at 10.3 or even 10.7. However, the 2S38 is nowhere near the BMPT in terms of overall impact and dominance.
There is also an obvious contradiction here: the vehicles being described as “toxic” and “overpowered” belong to the same USSR lineup that often suffers from early team collapses at this BR. If those vehicles were truly as dominant as claimed, this outcome would be difficult to explain.
I think we’ve reached a point where further discussion won’t be productive.
We clearly approach balance from different perspectives, and I don’t see new arguments being introduced.
I’ll leave it at that.
What is real is my 2.0 vessels getting eviserated by the French 3.3/3.0 coastal line up (at least Marne and Aisne no longer spawn next to PT boats)
Here’s the money and keep the change while you’re at it.
Genuinely very valid points, however:
T-80UD should not face 9.3.
