I talk about reload rates.
Which are constant and subject to balancing for manually loaded tanks in every tech tree.
Therefore artificially buffing mainly NATO tanks
And plenty of tanks all over the entire game, because actual reload rates are borderline impossible to determine for manually loaded tanks. It’s a simplification. None of the things I mentioned are.
So why Relikt numbers can’t be simplicifation despite
It is tho?
I know it is. I talk about why people cry about this?
Because simplifying the numbers and not modeling dart degradation is one thing. Inconsistent damage calculation and giving the same strength over the entire plate is another.
and you put the fault on russian tanks ? read what your saying, its a real mechanic russia had it with their autoloaders for years.
yet still being very one sided baised. nato still has the best ammo in the game, and by far over the russian and chinese. asking for expand the difference only say that your completly baised.
at the start gaijin didnt expect the missile to be op, because before that, rrussia didnt had any cas at all. but the mistake were corrected and gave a full fake ir guided bomb to some nato ( also theb real one for other ) loadout of 8-12 bomb. which is better than 6 kh38mt.
what not mention other heli ? ah64, thats clearly busted. heres a reminder.
bmpt was bad implented, but quickly nerfed to the ground. thats just pure skill issue.
1 Like
How you know that?
Look at Gaijins explanation why destroying baskets block rotation according to them. The same logic would 100% apply to carousels.
Completely missing the point. The point is that the existence of the 38mt as a functional weapon is still not proven and its relevance on the SU30SMs even less so.
Because the 64E doesn’t rock a fake loadout with a physically impossible ldircm coverage area.
Again missing the entire point. The anno layout is pure fake. It should work the same as it does on the Marder but it doesn’t.
Know what? That the plates give the same protection on every point of the plate?
Sure it’s better but also held back af and doesn’t get artificially more survivability instead they get nerfs on actual blow out panels for no reason.
Yes. That’s just
Not really. Gaijin could absolutely offer different values on different points of the plate.
The effectiveness of angles is simplified since that is really difficult to properly implement.
But protection falling off at the edges shouldn’t be an issue
But they did what they did with reload. “Gaijin could absolutely offer different values for reload rates on different point of speed”.
1 Like
There’s a marked difference between adding a flexible reload mechanic for hundreds of tanks and crew levels and just splitting a static module into a couple zones.
Accuracy nerf and missiles when all 4(!) unused that MAY detonate the vehicle is hardly can be called a “nerf to the ground” lmao. It is still the same cancerous crewless turret, bullshit side sirvivability annoying shitbox.
What’s difference?
One needs plenty of coding adding a completely new mechanic. The other is just remodeling a single existing module.
Ah yes, Ka-52 and Su-27SM with 6 Kh-29s and Su-25SM3 with 4 Kh-38s didn’t exist. Even Su-27SM alone was good enough.
Insane out of touch take. No they are not lmao, they are slow (easy to intercept which ends up happening), unrelaible, and impose launch speed restrictions which makes carrier more vulnurable during launch.
And yet your okay with nato plane getting their weapons they never had ?
Even with the technical comptability excuses, it’s still the wrong variant of the plane.
It does have a insane fake dircm coverage
Wtf are crying about. The bmpt has 2 feeding mechanism. Which why when you shot the turret ammmo only the turret crew and atgm with FCs dies
1 Like