First circle: Nothing there says the mm is historical. just says that the vehicles are made using historical documents.
Second circle: again, nothing saying the mm is historical. only says that the maps are made to represent irl theaters. that just means “we have maps that are based on the topography of europe, north africa, and east asia”
ignoring what ever you meant on that one you have an arrow pointing at
third circle: says they have PvE that is historical. says nothing about PvP
fourth circle: immersion means that you feel apart of the action. immersion does not mean “this feels like a ww2 battle” unless they state that.
You’re seriously suggesting a Tank Destroyer shouldn’t have a firepower advantage over a Heavy Tank? That’s literally the whole point of that vehicle type.
If you’re fighting with 10K hours in a BR full of new players (6.0), you’re not having a fair fight. I’ve aced at 8.7 in a Marder 3H. Does that mean the Marder 3H should be an 8.7? No. Performance from high skilled players should NOT decide what is and isn’t balanced.
Just because a vehicle is good in the hands of an experienced player, doesn’t mean it’s good to the average player. The M-51 is sluggish, as slow as 70-ton heavy tanks, has poor gun handling, and armor of a 3.3 tank. It’s a Tank Destroyer at heart and does that job decently. Any competent player will not die to a RARE M-51 player in the average engagement in game.
75mm M3 is good at 3.3 and bad at 5.7. AMX-30’s gun is very good at 6.0 and good at 8.0.
M4A1 is at 3.3 not because it has a fantastic gun, but it’s a bad platform. It’s the other way around, Jumbo 75 is at 5.7, because it’s a very good platform too strong for 3.3, even though the gun is bad at 5.7.
You only confirmed my point, where gun and platform are swapped.
False. I have several nukes using the 75mm EBR in full uptiers to 6.3. It has an extremely high fire rate with tons of utility. Raw Penetration isn’t everything on a gun. Even for the slower Jumbo 75, the gun is still excellent at handling opponents if you can aim properly.
Standard HEAT shells are not good at 8.0. They might be workable, but HEAT-FS and APDS are better in most ways. The 105mm HEAT shells fired by the AMX-30 have little post penetration damage and reward good aim and punish those who don’t know tank internals by heart.
M4A1 is one of the best tanks at 3.3.
The 75mm Jumbo is at 5.7 because of its stupid thick armor and solid mobility. It is not the gun itself that makes a vehicle; it is all aspects. Stop trying to balance off of one piece of a vehicle. You cannot look at a gun alone in a vaccum and dictate if a vehicle is good or not.
Not sure why people assume that playing lower BRs = always facing noobs. There’s tons of clans and players with 70%+ efficiency and win rates that play at lower BRs.
A noob can straight up buy a 11.3 premium and jump straight into the high ranks as well.
Because it does. The lower you go, the higher the concentration of lower skill players exist. It’s really simple to understand. Level doesn’t necessarily dictate skill either. A person might be a high level without ever improving at the game.
As an example, I can comfortably play 6.7 games and constantly drop nukes running a 100+ degree fever with a migraine while sleep deprived. I’ve done it many times.
You could stick the M-51 at 4.0 and it’d be better balanced than being at 6.0. Why?
Tanks at that BR spread can already pen each other easily and most TDs are overkill for the job. Armor isn’t as much of a factor like at 6.7-7.0 where a lot of tanks rely on it solely to survive. A KT, IS-3, or T26E5 is worse off than any light tank if you get rid of its only advantage.
“M-51 is at 6.0 not because it has a fantastic gun, but it’s a bad platform. It’s the other way around, AMX-30 is at 8.0, because it’s a very good platform too strong for 6,0, even though the gun is bad at 8.0.”
The advantage of the tank destroyer is also cheap price, not just firepower. Video games lead you to believe that tank destroyers always have superior firepower, when it’s not always the case. Although even in War Thunder TDs have a lower spawn points cost.
Stug 3 doesn’t have superior firepower over a Panzer 4, but it’s cheaper, because it doesn’t have a turret. Stug 3 was actually made for infantry support.
Yes… in an EBR. M4A1 will not be good at 6.3.
I used Leopard 1 and DF 105 in the same lineup and I know you’re lying.
Everyone at 8.0 should know tank internals by heart, it’s not that hard. Everyone should know on which side the gunner and driver sits or if the tank is an MBT and has an ammorack next to the driver.
Yes, I never said it’s bad. You can’t read.
Jumbo 75 is a platform upgrade over M4A1, M4A3E8 is also mostly a gun upgrade over M4A1 and a cast hull, M-51 is a platform downgrade and a gun upgrade over M4A1.
The value Jumbo brings makes it go up from 3.3 to 5.7, the value M4A3E8 brings makes it go up from 3.3 to 5.7 and the value M-51 brings with it’s gun should make it go up from 3.3 to 8.0. What’s so hard to understand.
The whole argument is that I think the M-51’s gun is of much higher value than you think.
Let me rephrase it, because you clearly can’t read.
M4A1 is at 3.3 not because it’s a tank, that is a bad platform for a good gun. It’s a normal well rounded tank. It’s the other way around, Jumbo 75 is at 5.7, because it’s a very good platform too strong for 3.3, even though the gun is bad at 5.7.
