Well recent Abrams changes showed that we should expect something like that in T-series
I did not. I’m saying that it’s a double standard when baskets and the floor of the challenger get implemented the way they are but carousels don’t.
I don’t know what banana republic you’re from but if you vote for something specific to be done then it doesn’t give the executing party the right to do whatever they want.
And if we do get it then I’ll gladly scratch that from the russian bias bingo but until then it stays.
No, the basket is usually the last thing which gets repaired. The engine basket combo is not 20s.
Russian mbt’s had autoloaders modelled while not a single nato mbt did (and some still dont). Why does your kind only look at the “double standards” when you don’t like it instead of acknowledging Gaijin functions purely off of double standards and should always be expected to act like it?
if you vote for something to get done you give power to the people in charge to do it in the way they want unless the exact way is explicitely stated. people like you see half a promise and drool up a fantasy for how they could implement it without any critical thinking and then are surprised when your fantasy doesnt come to reality.
3 Likes
basket itself is 19s.
2 Likes
Which Nato MBT is missing its autoloader? Also you can turn that around quite easily into Nato MBTs had their loader modeled since the dawn of this game while russian tanks were missing their carousel. Because, you know, the corresponding part to the autoloader is the human loader.
Now read how they describe the changes they want to make and tell me how anyone voting for the change could or should have predicted that instead of doing realistic and detailed modeling Gaijin would do the exact opposite. The only fantasy here is how Gaijin implemented the baskets and no one voted for Gaijin going off the rails in the realism department.
Truly don’t know either chief, you need something?
While no SBMM hasn’t available for this game.
I could walk you on a couple games on my courtesy if you insisted to prove anything special.
Take care fam ❤️
PT-16/T14 mod, 90120 and AGS just to name some.
russian mbt’s with loaders also still have loaders modelled so… ? and this is pretty extreme goalpost moving dont you think
you voted for “more buzzword buzzword modules” and you got “more modules”…
2 Likes
Gee i wonder why.
You mean just like your goalpost move?
Ok im gonna indulge you since were not getting anywhere anyway. Lets just incorrectly assume that the current implementation is what the community voted for and go towards the other part i described to Whisloy above:
How do you explain baskets and even the rotating floor of the Challenger blocking turret traverse while autoloader carousels dont in the context of the reasons Gaijin gave that i posted above?
gaijin inconsistencies.
where? I am just giving examples of gaijin being inconsistent and favourite different nations in different aspect rather than some focussed campaign.
2 Likes
On old models which have bustle autoloaders that Gaijin doesnt exactly know what they look like.
Here. The autoloader is not a corresponding module to the basket, because they dont fulfill the same purpose and dont have the same functionality in game and since were discussing the different treatment of 2 existing and modeled modules its a goalpost move. Just like me moving the goalpost to Nato MBTs having their human loader modeled before carousels got modeled. Its both irrelevant for the question i asked below that you ignored so please indulge me now and answer it.
Thats right. The logical corresponding “module” would be the loader. It was modeled from day #1 of WT. When loaders get hit, it stops reload cycles until replaced. Same what happens to damaged autoloaders, which unfortnately wasn’t modeled from day #1.
Only western tanks seem to have a turret basket, which totally jams everything and prevents you from aiming the gun. Its an imbalance.
3 Likes
Tanks & aircraft are allowed to have prototypes.
Ships are exclusively only allowed to have production vehicles.
Tanks & aircraft are given far, far more privilege for addition to the game than ships.
If tanks & aircraft were on the same standards as ships, all real prototypes wouldn’t be in War Thunder.
@UNN_Daedalos
Rules are equally applied to all tech trees. You even admit it to be the case.
There are no paper ships in War Thunder & never will be.
Only paper ships from one nation are unbalanced
Actually only one : Sov
There are no paper ships in War Thunder, so your post contains obvious disinformation.
Also I have one question:
Is M10 Booker a paper tank to you?
Keep crying buddy.
At mid-high tier I ha really hard time with Russian ground veichles, problem I haven’t found on other trees.
The prototypes problem is not only russian cuz they placed things like the Begleitpanzer57 (only one prototype built) and the Kpz70/his American version in the normal tree while you have mass produced vehicles such as the L39 albatross placed as Premiums.
1 Like
I don’t care about M10
Remove it if you want
Soyuz IRL has a keel made of steel, the rest was never mounted and is therefore : thin air
I have nothing against implementing a realistic soyuz with 2000 dude sitting on one metal plate and a few compartments with no guns, no engines and no armor belt.
I’ll gladly give my Clemenceau up this instant if Sov disappears from top tier.
Russian mains like to repeat NATO should have built more AA when mentioning the obvious imbalance in that area. Well I guess the soviet navy should have built more battleships
Because ships are too expensive to make a distinction especially in the timeframe we have in war thunder. Youre comparing apples to oranges. Tanks and Aircraft have much harsher standards than ships.
This is enough for a ship to be eligible for addition into war thunder, do you think a tank or aircraft in the corresponding state of building would be eligible?
Crew sailing into battle on this with the power of thoughts and prayers
2 Likes