We didn’t ask for more modules you can have the honours of a pioneer with the new modules you asked.
Drawing the line for this is obviously complicated.
Do we stop at paper designs ? partially constructed ? in service ? with or without IRL flaws ?
At the end of the day, no matter what you chose :
-
Rules should be applied equally amongst nations, which is currently not the case (as BMPT and turret baskets have demonstrated)
-
In service designs should not be overshadowed by not completed ones. Kronshtadt is for example notoriously weaker and actually balanced, and everybody stopped complaining about it now.
Sovetsky Soyuz on the other hand - and to all of those that don’t play naval - would be the equivalent of a BMPT in armor, except it also boasts what i would consider the naval equivalent of a Leopard 2A7 firing some sort of APHEFSDS (high pen, high explosive, because once again, who cares about physics), with a decent reload
Sounds balanced enough ? I’m not done : it’s also one of the only ship that can rush towards you and not die because of the multiple layers of armor on the bow, absent on any other ship, which means all other ships have to angle (except yamato, in that thing you just stay far and show the side or die)
they were asked specifically for 2s38 though and more broadly light tanks
But your bias is kind of showing with that message ngl
Aaah yes, only NATO players asked for modules, just to sabotage themselves
Prevent russian players from getting them as well, they’re better than us
Russia Thunder
1 Like
Oh they did it again, rules for thee, not for me
Spoiler
Am i the only one who sees a pattern between country R buffs in game and how poorly it’s going on the 3 days 4 years trip ?
It’s been ramping up like crazy this year (the buffs among other things)
1 Like
No you literally voted yes for this for everything that has been added and will be added.
In particular as part of this task, we’re currently separating and detailing the elevation and traverse drives of the M1 and Leopard 2 series tanks with the addition of a hydraulic drive supply tank, where disabling this part will also disable the guidance drive.
Yes absolutley they did that and didn’t even read the description on what they asking.
Literally dig grave for Soviet tech tree and found themselfs in it. What a beautiflul karma.
3 Likes
Yup
Not what is currently going on, is it ?
the initial idea came from players who were fed up with light tanks being empty. Gaijin then changed it to “everything” which is fine, but now they are not implementing those changes for everything
1 Like
It was in a ballot you people didn’t even read it.
At no point in the vote there was a “we won’t add the modules for russian tanks or add them late so they can have yet an other unjustified advantage for a patch or 2”
1 Like
This is labor intensive and painstaking work however, as it cannot be implemented for all ground vehicles in the game at once — each vehicle would require separate manual work.
You really should start reading the description.
What logic to this un-synchronized implementation?
1 Like
It’s almost as if a competent developer would first deal with the most problematic vehicles (the ones with >60% WR)
Twist the poll as you like, even in module implementation, the last vehicles concerned are, once again, russians
First to get buffed, last to get nerfed. The poll in on itself is fine, which is why people voted for it
The way it is implemented and the choice of priorities is once against biased. That’s all there is to it
2 Likes
People getting what they asked.
Yeah and it was completley open what is going to happen but now you people so unhappy.
Yeah its not like 2S38 got it modules first. Or T-series getting autoloader.
If this kind of answer was spoken in a professional environment - you’d have been fired.
Doing half-assed job with a make-do attitude correlated renewing your CV
2 Likes
Ok so for a quick summary of russian bias so far we have :
- KH38MT, existence unclear, added anyway. IR camera with questionable performances compared to known documentation
- LMUR, 8 hardpoints instead of 4, Merkava and Strv 122, only vehicles to withstand it, see their roof armor nerfed the exact same patch
- The manpads article, which can be resumed to : “USSR igla and Western Stinger and Mistral are visually the same, so we don’t think french or US engineers could make them turn harder” (the sentence itself is full of russian exeptionalism)
- Relikt / western ERA / NERA (first one is lighter, but stronger against Kinetic AND chemical threats somehow)
- Sovetsky Soyuz and VERY generous interpretation of what it theorically COULD have been
- Pantsir SM-SV added right after buk, because “it was underperforming” according to Gaijin, but nations with SAMs performing even more poorly did not get anything
- BMPT and the unconnected ammo belt
- Addition of internal modules being a nerf to surivability => russia comes last
Most of these have an impact on top tier, which is the end of most people’s grind and an overall large pool of battles played.
8 Likes
The autoloader changes nothing, since you can still shoot back if your opponent missed that one charge by 2cm with spall disappearing to said autoloader
2s38 was the one thing that started it all, and players complained quite a lot, so Gaijin had to reluctently do something about it (i think it was also in the context of the review bombing, but i could get my timing wrong on this one)
2 Likes
This community is known for shooting themselves in the foot.
Cry about APHE for ages, proceeds to vote against APHE changes.
Cry about lack of damage their rounds make, proceeds to vote for detailed modules, cry about too much damage.
1 Like
Notice how almost nobody complains about the modules themselves, but the double standard
3 Likes
Well i mean im not working there how i should know what logic they have i don’t even know what their data you asking pointless question here. Best guess is T-series have less performance than Tanks who got additional modules so adding basket for now is pointless.
Well you got what you think you voted for and now getting what you really voted for.