I mean, this is the same game where the M247 can actually lock its targets, and ADATS works in all-weather conditions.
War Thunder allows systems to function at 100% efficiency (despite reality saying otherwise) because random chances for stuff to fail is a nightmare, both in terms of actually balancing it as well as choosing what to implement. What should the Pantsir’s actual interception rate be? What munitions should it perform better or worse against? How often should a MiG-27 break its cockpit firing the gun? How often should missiles just go dead off the rail? How much of this should be up to random chance vs user error?
Hundreds of vehicles and weapons perform much better than they did in real life, because War Thunder isn’t real life. I don’t disagree the Pantsir is bad for balance, but this isn’t the way to balance it.
You know, when the Bradley has to rotate its launcher after every stop, it looks like a nightmare and is completely unnecessary in the game. But it’s there. Just like the completely useless pod on the Buccaneer, which you have to carry instead of an extra missile. Or the single warhead on the TOW-2B with an explosively formed penetrator that, on top of that, gets neutralized by Soviet ERA, which is completely unrealistic. And there are countless examples like this, but only for one side. That’s exactly what constitutes the Russian bias being discussed in this thread.
you do realise this is a video game not a simulator the US doesn’t get M829A4 for a balance reason, besides M829A2 is already the second best toptier shell and even M829A1 beats 3BM60
When China gets the KD-88, C-701 T/KD, C-704, HJ-12, AKD-21; PL-15, -16, -17, -21 (All of which pre-date and outperform the R-37M); PL-8B, PL-9, PL-10 (All of which outperform modern Russian SRAAMs); FK-2000 and ground-based TY-90s; DTC-10E which gives DM53 performance for the 99A’s gun; Spall liners and further needed model fixes for the 99A and VT-4A1; apologies to China for years of modelling errors and not fixing them.
you can kill a t90m with a dm23, but you have to aim well, same goes with the abrams but there is a large difference on how easy to do between a leclerc and an abrams… saying otherwise is just stupid
I’ve noticed that Russian tanks seem to “get shit done”; it’s something that honestly catches me by surprise when I’m using them. If it’s all because this game has a bias towards Russian vehicles, it could be chalked up to how this game is Russian in origin. Coupled with that, it does encourage me to have more of an appreciation for Soviet mechanized weapons (tanks and planes, at least), even if it might be historically inconsistent…not that I’d know for certain on that aspect.
I guess one personal issue might be that I sought to prioritize other countries’ tech-trees, and I haven’t prioritized Russia’s. But, considering that Russian vehicles (WWII Soviet ones, at least) are pretty good, I ought to sort my shit out and consider committing more towards Russia, and save, like, Germany for later.
Russian bias in 2024? Honestly, when i want an easy experience, I just take Soviets/Russians, I am rarely frustrated, it is really easier than other nations I play, especially in tanks. I don’t know if it can be called bias, but I would just call it patriotism.
Yeah, show me a top-tier attack jet you can do a 52k/d while playing GRB only. Its literally one of the clearest instances of bias in this game. In current game state russian tt doesnt need 95ya6 or kh-38 at all.
Russian planes were using R-27ERs vs Aim-7ms for over a year and once they finally got somehow balanced with the introduction of fox-3, su-27sm got 12 missiles… while playing against jets with just 6 of them most of the time.
