Not sure man. It’s got strong contenders. Am i correct in my assumption you haven’t been around when the glorious “ground breaking” aka gamebreaking got released? It’s always like this. always has been. It’s a downgrade for 1-2 weeks and some persistent some bugs last half a year.
Stuff gets fixed and then its good again. If it annoys you too much just find something else to do for 2 weeks. It’s always the same and so far it was never worth going crazy about it.
Unless you want them to stop updating the game? Cause i can promise you it will be the same with the next update. and the one after that. and…
If it actually be modelled i wouldnt care if it eats spall or not. The main issue is that if u shoot m1 and t tank,
M1 cant shoot cuz it got its hori drive meanwhile if u shoot t tank it still can traverse and shoot. Not to mention autoloader eats all the spall.
This basiclly makes t tanks have 2nd chance that other tanks dont rly have.
I’m a Russian main and was fine with autoloaders being modelled. The only thing I’m getting here is that NATO mains can’t objectively look at their tanks. If they’re not the best its unacceptable.
That’s not the case and is simply the wrong way to look at things. We don’t want perfection, we want accurate modeling/adjustments/feedback and bug report implementation. There have been reports on turret basket, bustle, adjustments that predate the turret basket problem that were already put to the devs a while ago. And instead of using said feedback and fact finding, a fictional implementation has been provided.
Did you know that the appearance of Soviet autoloaders has nothing to do with reality? For the T-72, part of the autoloader was a steel round plate consisting of 2.5mm steel and 30mm podboi. It does not participate in the autoloader at all.
For the T-80 autoloader they added a steel frame, which also does not participate in the operation, with no mechanical parts added in the center.
Notice no one even noticed how inaccurate the autoloader was made
Hey, I do have a little feedback to give, although not on this exact topic. The Sherman II in the British tree is functionally identical to the M4A1 in the American tech tree, and should be moved down from 3.7 to 3.3 to match it. It’s been an oversight for many years now :)
100% agreed, I want Russian autoloaders to pop (why does my ZA-35 autoloader pop but not a French or Russian one?), but any realism changes are welcome. BR can always be adapted to match realism.
Let me try this: If your tank suddenly gets a huge element added that produces tons of spalls on hit, taking out your entire crew and making you a frontal one-shot, which was previously impossible, then that’s a reason to complain about it.
If this “feature” soon affects all tanks, then so be it.
If it only affects two nations, that’s simply bad.
It’s bad for the Leo 2, but it’s catastrophic for the M1.
yeah it doesnt im testing out my 2a6 and 2a5 Rn they genuinely are surviving just the same if not more.
Yeah it doesnt, Soaked two hits, one a DM53 from an ariete the other an KEW, then I made a mistake which got me killed, no relation to the turret ring additions.
Ive 3300 hours on this game mate, these additions are not bad at all.
They would of been if they didnt dial the DM back a bit right enough.
It is already planned for the CR3 TD I believe as it has a turret ring, and slated to be for the merkavas and such as well.
So let’s remove the armor from the Swedish STRVs and expose their turret ring to any WW2 tanks to easily disable them, model the turret basket as horizontal and make it spall more into killing every crew in the tank. Let’s see if the winrates drop to the ground.