There was no “disconnect.”
I am guaranteed more wins when I play Russia. My stats even reflect it. Also you’re full of crap. You didn’t like something I said a few days ago. I’m not going to do this forum nonsense with you. Keep it up and I’ll just put you on ignore, since you’ll never put me on ignore because you like drama.
“Have a nice day.”
Nah armor alone isn’t important, otherwise the T-90M wouldn’t be so incredibly mid at best.
Armor is only good at top tier if you can combine it with firepower, mobility or both.
There’s a broad mix of nation vehicles you have ~60% USSR really isn’t much different.
Okay?
You aren’t going to engage in discourse about a video game on a public platform intended for such
Suit yourself I suppose.
T90M is great. Even more busted damage model than the BVM.
Most likely y’all don’t like it as much because the dopamine per second pressing W is slightly lower, due to its worse handling.
It has mediocre mobility, mediocre firepower and it’s easy to deal with when fighting it.
If you think it’s that good, why aren’t you grinding for it?
because i don’t play overpowered vehicles/trees
always been a fan of russian tanks esp. T90s, but basically cheating isn’t worth it
The T series all have blowout panels.
They just call them turrets/crew compartments.
“Have a nice day” is a parting, which means we are done. Now you ARE on ignore. hAvE a NiCe DaY.
T-90M is easier to use than T-80BVM, both are more difficult to use than Abrams or Leopard 2.
Cause while T-90M has armor, and BVM has mobility…
Abrams and Leopard 2 have even more mobility and ammo-gun, which is easier to work with.
You have a short memory.
the T-64A and B were a volumetric nightmare…The turrets were so armoured and the hull excluding the driver port and lower glacis the tank was near invincible. It was the first tank with composite armour (another Russian first)
T-54 and T-55 were a good match for the Leopard 1. Yes Leopard had more pen and better rounds but it also had inferior armour, no APHE and was poor at brawling.
Was the M1 better probably, but that didnt make the T-64 bad
his memory isn’t short at all
the T-64s were awful, so bad it’s the reason we still have nation soup matchmaking to this day as Gaijin split it to prevent MBT-70s only being on one team.
There isnt a single nation, at a single BR above 60% WR or below 40%. What exactly do you want? Does it need to be perfect 50? I dont get it.
I think this is pretty damn “fair”.
Wait france is above 60 at top tier air, guess we have french bias.
I guess thats what happens when the devs accept airshow hud footage (never have before) and the guys word the fuel is at 50%, even though in the video you see bingo go off and you see the guy adjusting fuel indicator from 800. And you had french shills claiming they werent using kg for fuel even after the fact this was exposed.
How many times has this happened for russia? Or do we get all our fm crushed to dust at higher tiers?
It’s best not to accuse someone of having bad memory, and then immediately follow that up with misremembering something.
Volumetric wouldn’t be a thing for years after the T-64’s introduction. Your memory also failed you on the T-55, which wouldn’t be implemented for 2 years after the Leopard 1.
And none of it mattered. The NATO counterparts were running circles around these things and immediately climbed to 70%+ winrates, neither the Chieftain Mk3 nor T-64A stood any chance whatsoever.
This situation got so absurdly one-sided that Gaijin had to prevent the US and Germany from being able to team up in any way, shape or form for over a year.
And do I need to link this again?
The T-64B was utterly garbage and it once again got dumpstered so incredibly hard that Gaijin had to place a limit on the number of M1’s that could be spawned per match.
I don’t recall any following match-ups ever being as imbalanced as they were then where similar drastic measures had to be taken.
So what’s next? You’re going to tell me that the T-80B was doing just fine against the IPM1?
This take is simply delusional. It’s the equivalent to claiming that the IS-3 vs Tiger II H was a good and balanced match-up prior.
Leopard 1’s absolutely demolished T-54’s, and once more: The T-55 wouldn’t be implemented until 2 full years later in 2017.
major nation win rates should remain roughly equal, without a single one holding the lead for years on end
minor nations wr don’t matter since they are always add-ons to major nations (i.e. there’s almost never a 50% JP or FR team)
bias/imbalance in ARB doesn’t matter since teams are mixed
in GRB they aren’t, which is much more likely to create scenarios where a team gets sealclubbed (like when i have to face germany russia and sweden whenever i play US)
the addition of better SAM to NATO is helpful, even if they are gimped and DIRCM was stealth-buffed to make russian helis and Z10ME almost invulnerable
ARB Aren’t usually mixed though? Anything basically below top tier at least doesn’t have the same nations fiighting themselves unless theirs a sale.
couldn’t tell you, i only play at or near top tier
The only way for tech trees to have equal win rates is if it was purely mixed battles, or all players in the game played all the tech trees.
DIRCM changed nothing for helicopters.
Ka-52’s IRCM was already defeating anti-air missiles for years.
DIRCM not being fixed would make the Ka-52 more survivable against IR missiles funny enough.
Schizophrenia.
T-90M is among the worst top tier MBTs in the game.
You also have to be pretty special to have a K/D below 1.0 in the M1 Abrams, yet here you are.
