If RU vehicles were some propaganda, bias machines that’d definitely show in stats. Guess what, it doesn’t.
I think you’re getting the wrong end of the stick. Nobody is saying that Gaijin have decided to do their bit for Mother Russia by making Russian tanks super-stronk in a video game. Well, maybe some people are - but most reasonable posters aren’t.
The claims of bias are more down to one set of rules being for the RU tech tree and then seemingly totally different rules for other tech trees. In British English we call that favouritism. Bias even.
You can scream all you want but a good chunk of the playerbase see it in some form. That perception does not come about on it’s own - Gaijin if anything fuel it every time they pull dodgy Object-12842824 out of their archives, add a daft OP Kamov or break an entire game mode by adding a Supership.
I would however be wary of waving the stats around too much.
Looks at your rather impressive 63% winrate in a certain T-80BVM and then at the Leopard 2A7 45% winrate below it…
What was that about stats showing vehicles to be more OP than others?
To put things in perspective.
People cited T-80’s HHR armor. Said armor exists in Germany, Italy, Sweden, etc.
The lower-spalling armor is not unique to Soviet tech tree and never was, yet people claimed it to be Russian bias.
People complained that Soviet vehicles follow identical rules to everyone else, and lied about those rules being different, and claimed that fan-fiction was Russian bias despite it not existing.
Soyuz was added alongside Iowa and Bismark, no Russian bias.
No Objects are OP, and HSTVIL as well as the EBRs dismiss all claims of Russian bias in that regard.
Kamovs haven’t been OP in ground battles since 2019, but most helicopters were OP then too.
ADATS, etc got added which ended the reign of helicopters.
Win rate will never be evidence for anything other than team skill.
Rules are far from strict for all nations.
Why did Germany/Japan received so many fakes during the years ?
Why did Sweden receive something they never procured ?
Why would you ?
My Leopard 2A4 from Germany has 67% WR meanwhile T-80B has 55%, is this all the evidence you need lmao ?
Plenty of people that complain about the performance of RU vehicles in the game aren’t great players themselves.
It is what it is, mostly NATO mains who hadn’t touched anything outside NATO will say something like this
Hello the GOAT Jon Jones of WT @PompousMagnus, can you rank MBTs from best to worst? I would take it from someone with a wealth of personal experiences and accumulated knowledge that they can draw upon to provide insights.
Moslty comes down to what mechanic is added and how imo
One example :
They denied ̶L̶O̶B̶L̶ LOAL/Man in the loop for spikes (mechanic tested back in the April 2077 event) using the balance argument, which is logical and quite sound to me. I think nobody will argue the fact that being shot by something you can’t see is not exactly balanced.
They did the same thing with F&F Radar Hellfires, which is still sound, but already less since modern tanks usually have chaffs in their smoke grenade, so it would be equivalent to the current IIR missiles we already have anyway
Then they add the IRCM to the russian and chinese helis, which basically blocks any IIR missile. In addition to that, blade return on helicopters is not modelled, which means a standing heli is untargettable by both IIR SAMs (IRIS-T) and ARH SAMs (CAMM, Aster-30, SLAMRAAM). They even acknowledged it was in an unfinished state and needed tweaking, as the IRCM can act on every missile at once, which does not respect the simple laws of physics, yet they added it anyway. Considering the 2 points about ̶L̶O̶B̶L̶ ̶ LOALand F&F Hellfires stated above, one might wonder why ?
The Soyuz is also an interesting point. Unfinished ship, with different ways of implementing it based on how you process the suppositions made at the time. Yet they consistently chose the best supposition in every category, leading to a ship outshining known, practical and iconic ships despite it having never existed
Russia had undeniably the best CAS + SPAA combo till last update in June, and is about to get it back with BUK and the KH38 buffs + F&F missiles on helis, and while the tanks are not as good as they used to, they’re still average. It’s not really a matter of individual vehicles, but overall strong line up benefiting from… interesting mechanics implementation shall we say.
Then there’s the inability of some to recognize bias. Basically everyone is biased and that’s fine. Some to Russia, some to China, some to Germany, some to the US, you name it. I for my part am biased towards France, but it doesn’t stop me from acknowledging when something is unbalanced in game (The Rafale + MICA example in air RB comes to mind, and it is my personal opinion it came far too early). Yet we don’t see that when it comes to the KH38 (missile that was twice as fast as the rest of the competition), IRCM implementation, The Ka-50 outranging the best SPAA at the time (ADATS), Soyuz’s implementation, etc, etc…
Combined with the best helo, the best CAS and the best SPAA along with the best backup lineup where it dominated for the best part of two years, yes.
The Leo 2A7, strong as it is - has not had the odds stacked quite so much in it’s favour for as long before it was supplanted by better things.
I do note however that whenever people raise the T-80BVM dominating top tier with it’s magical shell-eating rubber - the invariable argument in return is ‘Yeah, but Leopards are better. Yeah, but Abrams are stronger.’
Look up the actual stats of those people and often it doesn’t really align. If all tech trees were equal, you’d surely find them doing FAR better in the Leopards, et al than the poor old, terribly unplayable Russian vehicles we keep hearing about.
I guess you meant LOAL as Spikes already have Lock on before launch.
I doubt chaff in smoke is implemented in the game.
If I’m correct 38s will receive a nerf to their average speed, which should be a net negative for them even with more range available.
You having BUK, SLM or Aster doesn’t really matter that much while you’re still using something like AGM-65D. All those systems are extremely dangerous to you, with SLM probably being the best one.
I don’t think I should mention a mechanic that would seriously impact any non-autoloaded tank in the game, as it’s convenient it’s still missing.
My Strv122 plss have 57 percent WR while T-80BVM have 65 percent WR
apply your logic here
wait that’s mean
Strv122 PLSS worse than T-80BVM?
okay make sense.
He actually talking about the Electro-Optical guidance capability of certain SPIKE models, that’s the ability to ‘fly the missile’ and guide it onto target yourself,
LOAL is the ability to fire the SPIKE into a target area, and let it’s IR seeker detect and kill the highest value target without player interaction required, somwthing present on most modern FNF munitions where E-O guidance is relatively unique to the SPIKEs
Exactly that one yes, sort of a LOAL - Man in the loop, i mixed it up with LOBL. Spikes and Akeron would have it (although Akeron isn’t in game yet)
Not currently, but i don’t see it particularly as a hard thing to implement (at least no more than IRCM ?).
Which one are you refering to ? Loader fatigue ? That one is not specific to russian tanks though, i would know, i’m one massive oui-a-boo. Also is a thing for Chinese and Japanese tanks afaik.
If he wants to get nitpicky about crew performance relative to the tank, then it takes very little oversight to know that soviet MBTs are extremely cramped and uncomfortable, which inadvertently leads to decreased crew proficiency over time, compared to more spacious and ergonomic designs found in the west (including jp and il)
Yes i think it’s more of a double edge sword than many realize
If we really want to go the full realistic road reload-wise, it means shorter reload for NATO tanks early game (especially problematic in the case of Leopard, as it’s already a very good vehicle).
Sure it might be reversed near the end of a game, but considering the average life-span of a tank in WT, i don’t even think it would bring any advantage to autoloaded tanks, especially those with a long reload
We’ll see when it comes to live, but currently it is extremely powerful, and while not statistically the best, is demonstrably monstrous given the ARH and multipath bypass VIA proxy fuse
It being ARH means the missiles are relatively easy to defeat and they don’t have that much pull either which makes it possible to out pull them in certain conditions.
On top of that they don’t pull as great directly after the launch unlike the other new SAMs which makes it extremely easy to defeat the missiles there as well
Maneuvering within it’s minimum firing range doesn’t show much, it’s not a SHORAD as much as a deterrence for long range CAS, the Pantsir exists to fill that role
