In the past yes, now NATO CAS is very much capable of being on par.
Speaking of SM-SV, there’s a really funny counter to it that the US has.
Electronic warfare
1 Like
Nobody here disagrees with you that Russia didn’t need the SM-SV, that was a bs addition
Of course they do, otherwise GAIJIN would have to limit the arsenals of NATO countries
It’s not like the Brimstones haven’t already wiped out the normal panstir of history
1 Like
they already are
1 Like
Yet you are saying that the Abrams is such a bad MBT and so much worse than the T-series.
So how is it a privilage to have access to what you consider such mediocre vehicles?
Most of which have better mobility, better gun depression and a better reload as a compensation for their worse armor.
Just lmao.
How is it favored towards Russian tanks when they aren’t even ranked in the top 5-10 of 12.7 lmao.
Again, you confuse your personal struggles with balance problems.
I’m going to pick a Merkava Mk.4 over a T-series every time any day of the week.
1 Like
Went from saying Leo and ZTZ are the only competitive tanks to saying Leo and T-series are the only competitive tanks and then bringing up the Abrams as a positive even though they were painting it as supposedly a very bad vehicle before, lol
2 Likes
While also claiming Japan is a western nation and failing to prove it
I’m sorry, but if you can’t do basic geography, you probably shouldn’t be spreading your opinion here
Su24m is within pre 11.7 interval I was talking about but thing is you dont need that much. Intruder easily wipes out 4-5 enemies without getting killed while having no fnf at all for example. And a10c despite having 6 fnf + ton of gbu39 sucks completely at 11.7.
A-10C could go to 11.3 and still be meh
It’s simply not built for this kind of environment.
In air sim though… that’s different
1 Like
Same could be said about skill level not gonna lie
1 Like
The problem with the A-10C is its mobility. In rgb is just Bad
Because you judge the vehicle based on average player’s experience like if they stuggled then your performance is also capped? that’s not the type of mentality I would imagine someone can improve at the game bro because you are using a sample of numbers that include players who are completely dogwater at the game, they doesn’t even know what they were doing like why would I wanted to know their numbers? my logic is I like to focus on the vehicle potential because a good player already defined what it can achieve, and I only want to be half as good. It’s not complex, the core philosophy is pretty easy to explain, I focus on what I could control, like I can adapt the playstyle to overcome the vehicle weaknesses.
That would drag it away from top tier spaa at least and help a lot.
True, it would be nice to see it go down in br for ground. Maybe air too, it’s not 11.7 material
2 Likes
Re-read what I typed and try again. I think you’re not quite getting my point.
YOU look at the top players and see what they are doing with certain vehicles. This is done expressly with a view to improving your gameplay. Fine. Good. Whatever. Doesn’t have anything to do with what vehicles are objectively overperforming though, does it?
I AM looking at the stats with a view to game balance. In the thread that is basically all about game balance. The thread is not called ‘What vehicles are doing well when used by ultra-dedicated players and how can I improve?’
Totally different points.
How about f111f then? You get plenty of fnf but you need stars to align to get some good amount of kills. Otherwise its fnf spaa, s1 or sm sv intercepting your stuff and constant paranoia because your rwr wasnt built for 2010s+ monstrosities. And mavericks from low level approach struggle to kill enemies in one hit.
But what are US and German players complaining about? I agree that bias exists, but you have good armor and shells that already penetrate anything when aimed at weak spots. Just to mention, you have the two highest-penetration shells in the entire game (as if there was any need, with my L27A1 I have no problem destroying any Russian tank). At 2000m and 60-degree inclination, they penetrate 33mm more than the British, and that’s the worst figure of the US ones; better not to mention the German ones. If you want to be immortal and just shoot randomly and pierce, then you’re no better than what they’re doing now with the Russians. I repeat, the problem isn’t armor or penetration, but the little things that ruin the game in a meta where it’s difficult to get two shots off the enemy. Disappearing rounds, parts that don’t create splinters, anti-splinter coatings that should allow you to respond to people shooting at random but that weren’t included, exposed missiles with a 100% chance of exploding while others have a 0% chance, etc… The tanks of the various nations are beautiful precisely because each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I’ve seen challenger players complain that they’re slow, but damn you, that’s their mentality! They were designed specifically to be mobile bunkers, why play them if you want to be fast? Of course, this is a game and not an international espionage system, and gaijin should loosen their grip on the technical documentation a bit. There’s already more invention here than at a science fair anyway.
1 Like
I may be biased, but I like the F-111 :) ( I know he’s just a bit of a rascal, but I like him and I spend a lot of time with him at 11.7 )
I also do like it but when its full downtiers. And I like its, su24 and su34 designs.