Didn’t know NATO was only 3 nations
It’s not and it never will be end of story
NATO was practically US, Britain, Poland, and Greece. It wasn’t only recently when the rest got whipped into shape on simply spending 2% on defense.
Wa wa wa wa shush NATO is not just a 2% mark and btw Germany was spending more then Poland while not at the 2% mark it
Spending $10 when you make $1000 isn’t the same as spending $10 when you make $100. Either way it doesn’t matter everyones on the same page after Russia invaded. Some are even spending beyond the set minimum.
1 Like
The first post was a joke.
I’d disagree on T90 part. If we say that T90 is crappy compare to NATO tanks without it’s current armor that is represented in game, that implies that T90 is currently balanced for the sake of gameplay with artificially buffed characteristics to compensate for the overall mediocrity stat wise which allows it to have top tier tanks, NATO on the other hand is scrutinized with a lot of documentation being rejected with label given “Not enough info” which signals that NATO tanks are balanced for the sake of realism within legal limits. Two different ways of balancing, Russia’s “bad parts” are fixed with fake missiles and overdone protection which saves it from being the worst in the game, NATO tanks are heavily restricted with their armor values underrepresented, if the MBT is bad the nation doesn’t get any crutches. Just look at them poor Merkava, is reverse gearbox really worth making more than a meter thick armor be made from foam?
Meanwhile T90M has very specific spots that you have to aim to, which also have overrepresented protection such as immortal carousel and fuel tanks.
Lets say that that Merkava and T90 meet each other after going past corner, in Merkava i have to recognize that i see T-series then think if it’s T90 and not T80 which has weird lower plate, then aim at the right weak-spot then shot. Which doesn’t always do much thanks to it’s modeled spall liners and things mentioned above.
Meanwhile T90 can shot anywhere and Kill/Disable me without thinking. People pay IRL money to lower their reload by 0.5, there’s clear massive advantage of having armor.
In short, my point is, why Italy can be bad at top tier with Ariette but Russia can’t?
Why Israel, being famous for their air defense, has the worst SPAA, but Russia can’t?
Israel’s current MM is 19/20 games against Russia with BMPT which can front kill Merkava not even mentioning the seizure inducing peppering one has to take to take a shot at it and miss.
1 Like
No idea what any of that has to do with the T-90M’s being bad in War Thunder.
War Thunder’s meta = Mobility + First hit cripple/kill.
The T-90M has the literal worst mobility at 12.7 and the literal worst firepower at 12.7, that’s why it’s plain bad.
I have a common saying: ‘‘Inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the importance of armour’’.
That’s also why I always said people overrate the SEP v3 prior to it being added, the extra bit of armour won’t make a significant difference in War Thunder’s meta.
I’d also take a wild guess and assume you’ve never played the T-90M yourself, because if you did you’d notice that most of the time you get one-tapped with the first shot you take anyways.
It’s always the same story: People who’ve never played the T-90M talking about how it’s armour is oh-so-important and makes it 12.7 worthy, meanwhile, it’s sitting on pretty much the lowest global stats (Statshark) of any 12.7 tank in the entire game.
Italy has the 2A7HU which is superior to any Russian MBT in the entire tech tree.
Most of the Arietes are now sitting at 11.7, whilst the T-72B3A is currently still 12.3 despite arguably being worse, and the T-90M’s being 12.7 despite being some of the worst top-tier tanks.
1 Like
“Just click at the head lol”
For the record, i’m not denying me being bad, but the whole argument is personal attack which can be summed up as “You bad lol, just click at the head”.
Leopard 2A7HU is German import, i’m very much against Leopard spamming trees instead of fixing nation’s signature MBT. With this logic when Greece will be added somehow that’ll make Israel good, as if i couldn’t pick Germany as nation to grind, no offence to Greece.
Also since you mentioned it, if armor really doesn’t matter then why so adamant that it shouldn’t be added to NATO MBTs? After all only bad players point out an importance of armor. Nobody will probably notice it, allegedly.
Just give the Abrams it’s DU armor, give Leos whatever armor they’re asking for and call it a day. Player base will greatly regret this decision.
That’s not at all what my argument is, if you think it is, I would ask you to read my previous reply again.
My arguments are:
- You’ve never played the T-90M yourself and thus you think the typical: ‘‘Grass is always greener on the other side’’.
- War Thunder’s meta isn’t about having the best frontal armour. Mobility, reload speed and responsiveness matter more and the T-90M is awful at these attributes.
- You overvalue frontal armour. Most shots aren’t even to an opponent’s frontal armour anyways. A while back I went through dozens of matches and compiled data on each shot taken against a Russian vehicle. 71% were shots to their sides.
This is why I don’t find the SEP v3 to be superior to the SEP v3 Trophy, the added armour makes very little difference because this game is about not being hit in the first place, whilst inflicting the most amount of (lethal) hits on the opponents.
That implies that a ‘fixed’ Ariete will somehow be able to compete with a M1A2 SEP v2 Trophy or Strv 122B+.
Then why it has the best armor. For balancing? Why can’t the same logic can be applied to Ariette. Why Russia can’t be worst and is artificially “balanced” but Italy can and left in the gutter(If i wanted to play Leo i’d play Germany). This “balancing” only one nation. And again, are we balancing for fun or for realism?
Somehow that supposed to advocate for not modeling frontal armor? Then remove all armor, why bother, side shots kill anyways, also Russia has the least green side protection. And if it’s overvaluing why not add it then if nothing will change? That aside if it’s all side shots what’s the downside of modeling armor on NATO? “Front armor doesn’t matter for NATO but only Russia needs it.”
Like… we should let it be or what? I don’t get the point.
Some vehicles are good and bad in certain things, but we have only artificially or good artificially bad. There will never be true equilibrium, that’s not the point. Are we representing as accurately as legally possible vehicles from different nations or are we making a balanced game?
i.e. You’re making a case that Ariette will not be good with more accurate armor but T90 with more accurate armor will be bad, so we can’t have that because we need balance.
What straw man, “armor doesn’t matter that’s why we balance T90 with armor” “I doubt Ariette would be good but we must help Russia by giving it armor”
All this implies that balancing is done around the top bracket of players who tryhard and pick best of the best regardless of fun. I just want to play the tank i like that is well represented. Playing against Russia is not fun.
t-90m is useless. you will quickly notice that only players who are extremely dogwater at the game will say t-90m is good lol
2 Likes
Useless or not there is very big problems with the way Russia is treated, or are we saying that the community are mostly dummies who can’t play and it just so happens that Russia in “top nations to play/grind” usually takes first place? People are playing and a big portion is complaining, I’m not saying nerf is due, i’m saying buff is due, but to NATO. I wouldn’t’ve cared or even went to forums is Merkava wasn’t so dang badly protected against cold war era tanks. I dare you to say that Russia suffers.
Mate, what?
Are you implying that the Ariete IRL has equivalent or superior armour to the T-90M? Really?
The T-90M should sit at 12.3, Gaijin is artificially keeping it’s BR high for unknown reasons, despite it being the (shared) worst MBT across 12.7.
Yet you’ve not noticed that nearly every NATO tank has a artificially quick reload speed?
Strawman #2.
Explaining that frontal armour isn’t as relevant as you think it is =/= Claiming there are no MBT’s with incorrect frontal armour.
Russia needs it, because on the whole Russian MBT’s are trash in every other category. It’s a balancing factor where the pros (armour) are off-set by the cons (mobility, gun depression, reload, etc.).
- Reload? Trash.
- Reverse speed? Trash.
- Acceleration? Trash.
- Neutral steering? None.
- Gun depression? Trash.
- Vertical traverse? Trash.
- Survivability? Trash.
Yes?
I can’t say anything in regards to the accuracy of the Ariete’s armour as it’s not a topic I’ve researched, but I don’t see a problem with it’s current itteration at 11.7.
It’s got great gun handling characteristics and fantastic firepower coupled with decent mobility, that’s enough to make it work at the BR it’s at.
1 12.7 vs full lineups.
I have not said that Ariette is better than T90, don’t know where this came from. I have claimed that it is better that it is currently represented and for a fact i know that it must have better electronics thanks to open trade and NATO tech sharing compared to sanctions and copying and “replacement of imported good”.
I think there was already a discussion about this where it showed that good(Ace in game) Abrams loaded loads ever 2,8 or something seconds, plus France is pretty much the only NATO nation with autoloaded which doesn’t need expensive crew skills, every Russian top tier has autoloader. No need for spending money for that advantage.
Ok, we still need frontal armor modeled.
Ok. We balancing for the sake of game balance, this thread started with Gaijin dev showing everything to prove that Abrams’s armor isn’t as good instead of just saying “we decided not to because it’ll ruin the balance”, so we be balancing NATO for realism.
So why can’t Russia’s current top tier be stripped of it’s artificial balancing and placed at much lower BR? Is it CAS? Then why are we adding non existent missiles. Or make it like Italy/Greece for Israel and add top tier Leo from some small nation as subtree and call it a day, works for NATO. Why all this bother with balancing T-series.
You want T-series to be competitive and is okay with the rest of the nations taking an L, why can’t Russia sit in the gutter while all others have fun? Why we must sacrifice for the sake of one nation? I want to play Merkava, i want it to be competitive, i need armor, more rotation speed and i need LAHAT from cannon. Also that BMPT is bothering me a lot, it’s difficult, i need Israeli only door for my M338 in it’s front hull.
Russia also only has 1x 12.7 MBT if we’re being honest, the T-80BVM is the only MBT they’ve got that comes anywhere close to stuff like the SEP v2 Trophy, SEP v3, 2A7V, 2A7HU, 122A, 122B+, Type 10, etc.
Meanwhile, USA has 6x MBT’s which could all be 12.7.
You literally just said: ‘‘Why can’t the Ariete have the best armour for balancing’’.
So tell me, what changes does the in-game Ariete need to represent these ‘‘Better electronics’’?
‘‘For that advantage’’
You mean the advantage of having a slower reload than the vast majority of opponents?
Ah yes, and I’m a married to Scarlett Johansson.
- The M1 Abrams on average achieves a reload in roughly 5.4 seconds according to primary sources.
- The M1A1 and onwards reload slightly slower, the fastest I’ve ever seen anyone link is around 6.2 seconds, the vast majority are around 7-10 seconds. Most available sources indicate 8rds/min, or 7.5 seconds.
- Manufacturer data regarding the Leclerc states 10 rds/min, or 6.0 seconds.
- Leopard 2A1 tank manual states 7-8 rds/min, or 8.6 to 7.5 seconds depending on the tank manual version.
- Challenger 2 sources state 8 rds/min or 7.5 seconds.
- Challenger 1 is stated to achieve 6 rds/min or 10 seconds.
So, to compare the actual rate of fire to the in-game rate of fire:
Leclerc: 6.0s > 5.0s
M1A1/2: 7.5s > 5.3s
M1: 5.4s > 5.3s
Challenger 1: 10.0s > 5.3/7.1s
Challenger 2: 7.5s > 5.3/7.1s
Leopard 2: 7.5/8.6s > 6.4s
That’s fine, but I’m 100% sure people will complain about a T-90M sitting at 12.0.
Ah yes, other nations are taking the ‘L’.
I’m certainly feeling that ‘L’ as I’m sitting on a 5.6 - 1 K/D ratio in my M1A2 Trophy and 5.2 - 1 K/D ratio in my SEP v3 by stomping Russian MBT’s all day.
/s
And here we see the true agenda. You just want Russia to be terrible and for your favourite nation to be dominant. You don’t care about balance whenever it doesn’t suit your agenda.
That ends the discussion.
4 Likes
what is this supposed to mean? SEPv3 is very much my wife, it’s just our honeymoon is over.
1 Like
If we ignore the rest of the 12.7s and the 12.3 that has a APS system. Yk what basically no NATO tank at the BR has.