I would say subjective examples aren’t very good ones, yes.
And that is exactly the problem with the whole Russian bias discussion. There are very little objective examples for either side, because who gets to decide which examples are objective or subjective?
The examples that are closest to being objective are the BMPT release, Kh38MT and Mi-28NM. Everything else is mostly subjective, especially the ones involving Russian MBTs.
1 Like
i donk know what examples you are using
when a company has done stuff like more hp on russian gun barrels, wood log with the same properties as rha or the extra plate mantlet on is6, do you rly expect me to believe they wont try different aproaches to make the russians have an edge?
how long as era been broken? it benefits everyone, but what nation plasters it all over the tank?
its the same with regenerative driving, but russian tanks dont need it so… tough luck
2 Likes
I’d ask you to keep your made up words with yourself as well
3 Likes
Playing Russia at top tier is playing the game in TUTORIAL MODE
1 Like
I have a 45% winrate with the Leclerc, and not 20-25%, because winning along with Russia counts in the winrate %.
If they counted only the winrate without Russia being in my team, I would be at 20-25% (exactly the winrate I had during the last 60 games against Russia). It’s just stats…
https://wt.controlnet.space/ that is exactly why, for example here, we can see Russia has a tremendous 80-90% winrate in simulation GB. It’s because they never team up with NATO and always fight NATO instead. Because it is always Russia + China vs NATO, NATO always loose in every match (80-90% of the time), and Russia always wins. That’s why we see that NATO winrates are so, soo low.
That is exactly what would happen to me if I were to fight against Russia in every 13.0 GRB game. I wouldn’t have 45% winrate, I would have 10-25% at best.
It’s so, soo obvious…
It’s actually disgusting.
And your source for that is?
If it’s just stats you surely could give a source instead of pulling numbers from your ass.
Russia has a 80-90% winrate in top tier sim because they can spawn their overpowered CAS straight away at the start of the game, which is pretty much the main win condition for Russia at top tier in general.
Their ground lineup is just decent-good, but at top tier NATO is generally much better off on the ground in terms of MBTs, LTs and SPAA (except maybe Britain and Italy). The only exception in the BMPT.
3 Likes
And your source for that is?
My source is the way simulation GB mode works, and I linked below the source of the winrate I posted. In top tier sim, it’s always Russia + China VS NATO, and Russia has 80% winrate. It means if GRB mode worked like that, I would have 20% winrate, as France. But it doesnt, so I have 45% instead, because sometimes I team up with Russia. It’s logical
Russia has a 80-90% winrate in top tier sim because they can spawn their overpowered CAS straight away at the start of the game, which is pretty much the main win condition for Russia at top tier in general.
NATO can also spawn airs at the beginning of the match and take care of their CAS, so it is not really a valid argument.
By the time the NATO fighters are in a position to engage the enemy CAS jets they already have multiple Kh38s out, so you need AAs for that (which suprise suprise, almost no one wants to spawn first time).
For Helis it’s even worse, since it takes ages for NATO fighter to even reach said helis and a lot of AAs can’t actually touch the LDIRCM helis.
SO yeah, from actual experience playing top tier sim it’s almost definitely Russian CAS winning them games.
3 Likes
NATO CAS and Russia CAS are more or less equivalent, they all have FnF, jet CAS, GBUs, AGMs, …
90% winrate for Russia is not just a matter of “LMURs are better than AH-64E FnF missiles, so Russia wins every match”. It’s another reason.
NATO CAS and Russia CAS clash and destroy as many tanks as possible from one side to the other, but Russia resists more, destroys more, … and it’s not just because of their CAS…
It’s because it is methodically biased by the game
Once you actually play some top tier sim I’ll take something you say about it seriously.
It’s been the same for years. NATO MBTs beat Russian equivalents, Russian CAS just stomps the NATO MBTs.
4 Likes
So instead of proving me wrong, you just shift the whole argument…
1 Like
The round didn’t actually pen.
I hit an overlapping plate somewhere and that bounced the round.
If this was T-90M people would be screeching Russian bias, but in reality I just screwed up a shot.
I’m not you with your pointlessly made up accusations
1 Like
2 Likes
but it seems that t90m’s take up alot of “screwed up” shots
so called bais when they get spawn camp in 5 min matches
( if you cant understand with the video: matches are 24min and here you can see in the maps we are spawn camping them at 19min, so 5min in the gameplay)
The track, and track cover, are far more densely populated, and that leads to people hitting that armor more often, especially with the height they’re at.
People aim too high on T-series tanks, cause that’s how you frag Leopards and Abrams, but it’s not how you frag T-90s and ZTZs.
Aiming lower to hit those powder charges isn’t the going narrative on how to frag T-80BVMs.
All you need to do is search “drivers port/hatch” and you’ll see far, far more posts with that narrative than with aiming for ammunition.
I can count how many times I’ve hit the driver’s port on T-series tanks on 1 hand, and how many times I’ve aimed for the driver’s port on 1 finger.
And due to that, I’ve witnessed hundreds, maybe thousands of turrets fly.
Authority argument, you know I’m right, stop hiding the bias.
Everybody complain about russian bias at top tier except 3-4 white knights here, there is a reason. People are not paranoid.