Thats a man of taste. People always forget how important it is for a vehicle to look good. Nothing beats being the best looking mofo chilling on an airfield in a custom battle (and laugh about all the others in their ugly but OP tanks /s)
Looks should be considered when putting vehicles at a certain br xD
Well when Chinese tree first came out I didn’t even bother to grind it, but as soon as they added VT4A1 everything is changed.
Norinco cooked so well that even a NATO enjoyer like me decided to grind it.
I was mainly talking about the top tier ones, the lower ones were… still a good balance, the A4M has better thermals and similar armour to the abrams, worse firepower and similar/worse mobility, that I think is a good ‘balance’ not necessarily saying it was any where near good, but average.
Same with 90% of tanks, the chinese and russian tanks will lose the autoloader, which is just as bad since u can’t fire at all for another good 30s. The ariete… nvm forget about their survivability, chally, merkava, none of them have better survivability, and yet a7s have better, and the rest similar armour to them. The only ones that come out on top is the russian ones, but we all know their reverse speeds.
I mean it is GRB, I would actually much rather GAB as a metric for tanks, even though it is unrealistic and all that, no CAS or heli, no SP, 3 spawns per person, and no nationality issue.
An example.
I mean VT-4A1 and VT-4 are basically the same, VT-4A1 has next to the same K/D.
They have minor differences, but given the T84 can literally use the same rounds as VT-4, I think not much is changed. Also judging by videos they are pretty similar.
Same.
Would like to see, since it is possible. spending 30s fixing autoloader is pain.
They are virtually the same. Also I never played the ‘VT-4’ and I have been saying VT-4 prior to its presence in game, so appology for using the wrong name but they are virtually the same tank.
They are for sure better, but armour is still among the worst in top tier, and the spall liners… Plus many people think they are actually as good as NATO tanks in mobility when in reality the reverse really hurts its ability to retreat and the bad depression sucks.
I beg your pardon?
Iırc they changed the ufp armor behavior and made it better.
Now sure its not the best protected tank but I still love it and prefer over 99’s.
As for the reverse speed that’s on Gaijin, VT4’s should have the same reverse speed that 99’s has but Gaijin refuses to fix it.
Irl al khalid uses the same SSAL as the VT4
So you trade penetration and spalling for 0.4s faster reload speed.
Looks like a sidegrade at best to me.
Can NATO stuff also be fixed please?
3BM46 is getting 6s flat right? Might run a match or two to see if it worth spading the T-80U, since I got the UM, shooting the hull of 2a7 or 122b is a hit and miss, even if it pen then it sometimes generate no spall that only turns the modules or crew slightly orange, spall liner = roll dices
I just prefer mobility, so for top tier China I’ll likely just bring the ZTZ99A, VT-4A1, M1A2T, ZBD04A, VT5, CS/SA5 and HQ11 as the ground part of my lineup.
I partially agree, although ZTZ99A in the green digital camo goes incredibly hard imo.
Yeah, those T-80Us are getting some help against hordes of M1A1s.
Spall is determined by residual penetration, so no wonder your round does little to no damage.
VT4A1 with wt live Thailand skin beats them all :)
This would also potentially increase the reload time for those guns, as its done for ease of reload and to help aid it. So if we were to model the autoloader centralisation, this would also be a factor if its turned off.
Hence why we do not do it for any vehicles as a blanket standard. The variables of manual reloads (factoring gun position, crew condition etc) are not modelled just as the autoloader centralisation are not.
Nice oversimplification
Ah but it is accounted for in the reload time of the autoloaders and manual loaders have shown to also do it faster than in game so I think the current system works but the Russian autoloaders skip parts of the cycle to give us the numbers we have in game
So the Russian autoloaders now do not follow that principle
In perfectly ideal conditions, faster manual reloads may always be possible. By removing (or turning off as you suggested) the raised barrel element (which is currently not modelled), that is also not going to be those ideal conditions for manual reloads.
So again, we have no plans to model this universally for all. As this would negatively impact manual reloads if that were to be disabled too and not just come for autoloaders (and not just Soviet Autloaders). But manual too.
I’m not asking for that implemented
I’m concerned that the Russian autoloaders are now using a number that’s more ideal than any situation you can possibly have in game and that the time for the reload is evidently physically impossible to sustain, not because of the carousel as it can be argued other autoloaders do not have incremental loading times, but because it ignores key functions and movements of the gun required before loading that cannot be ignored
The current number for the reloads ignores the fact that the gun must recoil and eject the shell before starting the process and a time frame is given for that so there’s no excuse to leave it out
As a wrapping thought about this “balancing” move, if the philosophy behind balancing modern vehicles will be solely around reload times and not on a holistic approach—addressing armor, potential unique gadgets/features, and so on—then reload stats shouldn’t be considered with expert/aced crew training and should only be affected by the loader’s base crew leveling.
It is completely asymmetrical and unfair (from a perspective that no longer even has to do with balance or gameplay itself, but with something conceptual) that manual loaded vehicles have to not only spend XP to boost its basic reload time, but also spend another million or around several hundred rounds PER VEHICLE to achieve their best possible reload times, while autoloaders get their reload times for granted.
I invite anyone who agrees (or even disgrees) with this to go on a topic I recently opened to share your thoughts on that matter.
When reload rate is mainly a balancing tool, how can you just buff most russian tanks in one go? I’ve never seen such a list of one-sided buffs in WT.
From a historical point of view, the new values are possIbly too idealized. It depends where in the caroussel is the shell etc… how long it has to rotate for a certain ammo pick. Position of the gun breech etc etc. Long story short: Such a new, short reload @ russian autoloaders is just wrong and not sustainable in a fight.
@Smin1080p_WT
You always wrote here that reload rates are not historic ones, but mainly just for balancing. And then all T-64, T-80, Т-72, ZTZ96, ZTZ99 Series and VT4, VT4A1 in one go? Where they all in need of a balancing buff? I wan’t to remember that there are turret vids of Leopard crews, which fire off a shot in a bit more than 3 seconds. Several in a row. So, when is this coming?
How is it possible that its done in a way that it looks like a global super buff to all eastern tank models?
You are referring to our previous answers on manual reload speeds. Autoloaders have always been source based. Such as when the Leclerc was most changed prior to these changes: Community Bug Reporting System
Leopards are manual reloads.
" in addition to the fact that the reload time is a balancing tool (for tanks without a loading mechanism)"