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.
Can’t say I’m surprised.
1 Like
You got me, my ego is as busted as the 2A7V 😢
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.
Fine by me, I’m all for it 🤷♂️
1 Like
I’m all for a more realistic implementation as well.
My issue is with NATO mains complaining that it should have never been added in the first place, because it “nerfs” their tanks, realism be damned.
I’m just happy the inside of Abrams and Leopards aren’t so hollow anymore.
3 Likes
I can understand that point of view. I dont mond having more detailed modules either visually it looks a lot more appealing.
1 Like
Wow that is wild, not even modeled for any value just an invisible part. This is where we are at
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
I wish someone would have pointed that out at implementation, would have furthered the need for increased detail
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.
3 Likes
No one was interested. Those who complain in this thread then rejoiced and said it was historic
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.
5 Likes
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.
Im sorry son, the abrams is a fine tank, even im positive in all of them bar the base M1 and that was my first 10.0 tank.
the CR2 can get one tapped through the LFP by 2.3 tanks man, should it ? god no.
The abrams are still sitting behind the leopards as contenders for the best top tiers.
The Melons who leave with one death are a HUGE issue for USA at top tier, to act as if its not is ridiculous.
Just like to point out that it really isn’t very big. It’s the same size as the original turret ring, but underneath it.
Edit: Plus, now they kinda have to model those autoloaders better.
The Abrams is not fine.
Exposed turret ring.
Abrams hull armor is from the 80’s (literally nothing changed when it comes to hull armor since the base M1)
Fighting against superior tanks most of the time.
I don’t know how do you define fine, but when it comes to Abrams it’s totally not fine at all.
Hello and sorry for using a translation program, but my question is important because I have been playing this game for about 10 years and this update is unfortunately the worst. Why if the driver is hit from the side in the Abrams tank, the turret is disabled due to shrapnel? This cannot be realistic, and if it is, it is more harmful to the game than beneficial. Where is this game in the end characterized by realism, and this is a good thing, but some things will harm the game more than they benefit, such as the Abrams or Leopard tank, when any penetration occurs at the engine, even not at the driver, it is sufficient to disable the turret. Where is the modification that you said would be made so that the part that is disabled would be only the upper part and the base of the basket? Why was this part not modified before the update was released? Thank you and sorry that I mention you @Smin1080p_WT It is the first time, but really this is very sad for me
5 Likes