they are faster, but its more agressive initial loft reduces that advantage a lot, the lmur flight profile is just so much better and smoother
at least they fixed it so that the whole visual model can’t be damaged anymore on the type 10 and only the top and bottom
and the leclerc one is the best one theyve made so far because the extra stuff is a separate module to the turret drive itself unlike on the abrams
1 Like
Yeah, I think it was mostly to deal with those side shots on big tanks that had black holes in their hulls.
You shoot the center of their hull, kill one of their crew and orange another one while he turns around and kills you.
Some tanks definitely didn’t need to receive baskets.
I think they wanted to say that in their reasoning but not totally direct.
If they went with your route and basically said it out loud copying your words I’m sure plenty of people would be upset anyways, so your gain there is minimal.
First of all, I doubt Gaijin cares about Simulator at all. ARB and GRB are their cash cows.
It’s funny to see top tier still being a mess, since it can be easily fixed by just adding a few good vehicles where it’s needed and taking care of LDIRCM.
1 Like
and yet the class 3 P doesnt even have a basket yet and its gotta be like the worst offender
You should give them some ideas.
It’s also a one shot almost every time v the JAGM based upon how Gaijin models HE v HEAT. Now, it’s gonna get MITL capability so even smoking has a far reduced capability to counter it. But fair. Honestly, they need a general chat spot so conversations like this can develop and be recorded.
I dont think gaijin would hire me
I Agree with most
Still i think being honest and direct in that case by explaning why youre doing it and what youre trying to achieve would have been received better by more players than somehow hinting to do it for some realism that is quite hard to prove and in the end should also affect all vehicles. Better balance a lot of people would have understood as necessary and good for the game. Well, i might also be wrong with this take, lots of people would still have malded (Bc MUH my favorite op toy not as op anymore waaahhhh, whatever, time to grind another nation to find out, timmy)…
Anyways, obscure “realism” when everyone knows penetration calculations take supercomputers quite some time and thus are impossible to actually implement so its always somewhere in between “realistic” and an arcadey game will always be sketchy…Is it more “realistic” but only for some (vehicles/nations/vehicle types: jets/pilots pulling 12 Gs consistently but spaa missiles are “realistic” and limited to actual maneuverability, yet lots cant reach anywhere close to their range advertised by the manufacturer and can get multipathed)? Its never realistic because it needs to be playable and fun. But then dont start to claim implementing stuff like that for 2 nations for the sake of “realism”, pls snail. Lots of Players are not idiots and they dont respond well to hypocrisy.
2 Likes
I don’t really know what would happen, but both options would make people mad and at that point you’ll have to pick your poison. They chose theirs. Was that the better option ? Can’t say.
That interaction is pretty messy if you ask me.
Jets being able to pull 15Gs multiple times without anything happening to them, while AA missiles don’t get the same privilege of “free Gs” is something Gaijin did to themselves by just adding things on top of things without any plan or tests. This game was optimized for WW2 and we have modern tech driving around with barely any changes made to the game’s core, which is a perfect recipe for disaster.
Gaijin already stepped over their words who knows how many times and they’ve seen most people being fine with it as long as they get to play their favorite toys. So many aspects of this game are bad, but people play it regardless.
1 Like
Obviously, you have no idea what you are “talking” about.
If those are the only thing damaged and stop all turret rotation completely then report it. You can bug report it here: Gaijin.net // Issues (just search a bit first so that you don’t report something that is already reported and known about)
A guide on how to report bugs can be found here: ([Navigation] Technical Knowledge Base | War Thunder Wiki)
Even when the basket is damaged?
Read my next answer below that one.
add in the missing hull armor
CR2 getting a turret basket when we have photos and drawings that confirm it does not have one?
I’m not that knowledgeable around the Challengers, but apparently it has a rotating floor that gets connected to the turret when the turret is mounted to the hull:
1 Like
The turret mechanism is independent it runs on a ball bearing assembly CR2 does not have a basket because of this design.
Now any round through the side or the centre is going to disable the CR2s turret.
Yet Russian tanks which also do not have baskets are being omitted from these changes?
1 Like
If you have proof of the turret being able to rotate without the floor following it then feel free to report it with those sources.
As far as i know it doesn’t in dev server either, only the floor has been added to the damage model (same with Leopard and Abrams), not entirely certain though.
Unfortunately I donated my CR2 to Ukraine or I would have gone out the Garage and confirmed it for you.
I suppose the devs can prove that a hit in that area would cause the turret to not operate? M1 and Leopard are different because they use a basket as seen when they assemble/repair or they are destroyed.
Will see how it acts on the dev and live server but if it operates like all the other baskets it’s a massive nerf to an already suffering tank