My top ten best tanks in the game
- T-90M
- T-90M
- BMPT
- T-80BVM
- BMPT-72
- Challenger 2E
- VT4A1
- Ariete
- Lecler
- TKX
The rest that not listed here are dogcraps that should be drop to 11.0
1 Like
PL-12 (old) was about equal with R-77 for quality.
I am not an expert on IR missile perf so I can’t say much there.
Your main weapon is radar missiles either way so I don’t think the IR missiles are too important.
The Su-27SM also has the option of carrying R-27Es and can carry more missiles.
Thanks to missile count + the options for what it carries the Su-27SM has the best missile kit at 13.7.
flight performance is close enough to be negligible.
Su-27SM does have worse awareness (no MAW, worse RWR coverage, worse radar) it’s still good enough for a solid player to make use of (especially now with NCTR).
The J-11B has the lower skill floor due to better awareness, but the Su-27SM just has the superior kit which makes it better.
“Selective loadouts” doesn’t matter because all ten tech trees have planes without weapons, which makes the claim disproved on that fact alone.
It’s a boring claim cause it’s easy to refute.
*“Selective Realism”
Lame statement, Colonel.
That claim cannot be disproved on fact alone, because, “Gaijin’s Standard is acting like a rubber band” cannot be disproved on fact.
Gaijin use fictional-ish standards when they want to bias something. Such as
-Ahistorical CM pods on F-5A/C(USAF) thanks to exported F-5A variant
-Weaponry which never integrated on Yak-141
-SRAAM on Harrier GR.1 when it was test-fired on Harrier T.2 instead of GR.1.
Or use technical compatibility when they want to make things ideal.
-Skyflash SuperTEMP on Italian Tornado ADV when our MoD didn’t let Italians have SuperTEMP
-Eastern Germany’s MiG-29 never had a stockpile of R-27ER but Gaijin gave them anyway because they were frightened about adding R-73 atm.
And when they want to nerf something they use strictly accurate historical options.
-F-4J(UK) cannot use American weaponry even though those are EX-USN F-4J.
-Taiwanese F-104G cannot get CM because some of those were EX-JASDF F-104J, when German F-104G were capable of installing CM.
Their standard are iffy and their definition of realism acts like a rubber band.
Gaijin has bias. That is the truth. It is quite debatable to call it russian bias because they do things like this around the globe, but they have bias. Maybe not for nations but more on vehicles.
Colonel.
I reckon you took this much time because this was interesting claim, and it was hard to refute for you. /j
2 Likes
Yeah, this is pretty much accurate. Gaijin is not consistent at all with anything (other than being inconsistent and having terrible game design). They’re also incredibly inconsistent with what rules they apply to every vehicle and how “realistic” they want to be as well as their balancing
2 Likes
He also never said there’s bias, he just said it’s bullshit.
Tomato tomato
He said bullshit, he ofc meant bias by that. It has no other meaning, except “a list of chaotic events led top tier Russia to become bullshit”, which at the end of the day, still means there is a (wanted or unwanted) bias
Anyway, Russia is largely privileged at top tier grb, let’ say it like that. More than any other nation
Did he say there was bias? no, just that it was bullshit.
Stop putting words into his mouth
2 Likes
Top tier Russia being bullshit = there is a russian bias
You don’t have to be a native to understand that
No it does not.
He answered your question and never said there was bias.
Stop putting words into people’s mouths or changing the meaning of things to suit your argument.
2 Likes
Ok so what does “top tier grb Russia is bullshit. They have the best SPAAs best CAS best tanks” mean to you ?
Enlight us
simply that there are bullshit aspects, not that there’s bias.
Here’s the quote:
https://www.youtube.com/live/l2SKdxiUdic?si=c0ycm-VFVwdK7YAF&t=12719
He’s saying he stopped playing top tier grb because Russia is bullshit because they have the best spaas best cas bmpt, then repeated top tier Russia is so bullshit
What does that imply
Problem is
You want to manipulate his speech for your use.
By putting words into people’s mouths or changing the meaning of things to suit your argument.
You are turning others who can be your allies into your enemies. By those movements.
You don’t have to be a native to understand this.
1 Like
literally just that he doesn’t enjoy fighting it.
Is that really hard to understand?
Stop twisting his words
1 Like
What does the sentence explaining top tier grb Russia is bullshit mean
Explain it
Literally exactly what he said, “it’s bullshit”
He never mentioned bias, never. You are still trying to twist his words
No it doesn’t mean that
I don’t enjoy fighting fast targets like french 7.0 tanks, doesn’t mean I call them bullshit
It literally does.
Stop twisting information, statements and data to match your stupid argument.
You’re trying to gaslight people, just stop it
1 Like
He either thinks top tier grb russian vehicles are “stupid”, “untrue”, represent a “nonsense” or expresses a strong “disagreement” towards them
Each one of them meaning top tier grb russian vehicles are stupidly modeled which advantages them, have a false modeling advantaging them, are modeled in a nonsense way which advantages them, or that Jon expresse a strong disagreement towards the modeling of russian vehicles at top tier
It doesn’t require a Masters degree to understand what it means