OK maybe you have had personal dramas before. I for one don’t remember people and refrain from commenting on that.
There are real-life doctrinal differences. Russian gears are designed to steamroll in large formations and are somewhat disposable. In-game it’s press W and win. Many NATO tanks are designed as movable fortresses that can hull-down and hold defense lines, notably Challengers and to an extent the Abrahams. I can’t say whether they’re balanced in real life, but war thunder is a game with favoured ways to play. It just seems that having an OK forward speed, OK gun, minimal frontal weakness is better suited for the game than indestructible turrets with paper hulls. Also if you forward faster you get to strategic spots sooner.
Besides, the cannon breach on Challengers is much more vulnerable than T80/T90 because of the larger area where anyone can easily penetrate. I wouldn’t say they are as good as the BVM, yet you have them at the same BR. That’s what I call an imbalance.
The challengers are pretty bad/overBRed, but the Abrams is actually as good or better than the BVM. Having good all round mobilty with incredible firepower is just massive.
The problem with armor is that it relies on the enemy having bad aim. If the enemy has good aim the armor suddenly isn’t an advantage anymore, while mobility and firepower will always be advantages.
Don’t make it sound as if I were pro-compression or what. Compression and imbalance are the exact same issue. To say there is no imbalance because there is compression misses the point entirely.
Well, I wouldn’t say the Abrahams are bad. But it’s easier to kill an Abraham when teamed up with a T80 than killing a T80 when playing solo and join Team America. Personal experience.
Abrahams are like Challengers, but better in every way, at the same BR.
I don’t think they necessarily need to be.
One tank can be kept at a lower BR for whatever reason Gaijin has, which will make it unbalanced in an, otherwise perfectly decompressed environment.
If a tank is imbalanced, Gaijin moves it up to a higher BR. If a top tier tank is imbalanced, How could Gaijin move it even higher? There must be a reason some nations do well in most BRs and suddenly go sub-50 win rate at top, and vice versa.
Compressed because at the same BR some vehicles are better than other vehicles, and I’ll take the liberty to say T80BVM is one of the better ones. That is imbalanced. And as long as Gaijin insists that every nation has a “top tier” regardless of the vehicle, you’ll still have T80BVM and Challenger 2 at the same BR (and maybe 2A7), be that 12.7 or 15.0, unless they address this imbalance by nerfing T80 or bffing Challengers.
The T-80BVM is honestly barely above middle of the pack.
Leopard 2A7s/Strv 122s make up the absolute top MBTs, but the ones following it are the multiple Abrams tanks and the Type 10s.
Hell you could argue that even the Leclercs and Merkavas are up there above the T-80BVM. I personally won’t go that far quite yet, but it is possible for someone to succesfully argue that.
I’m a fan of moving tanks up regardless. The Leopard 2A7s and Strv 122s for example would be more than fine sitting on their own at 13.0.
BVM, 2A7V, SEP, … being better than Challengers, Arietes, … at the same BR is literally the definition of imbalance.
See? At top tier compression and imbalance are the same issue. Because as long as you call them “top tier” they’ll keep having the same BR however you decompress. You can have them at BR 20.0 and they’ll still be fighting each other.
Imagine area around 9.0 is perfectly decompressed and then you put 2A7V there for some reason.
That tier is decompressed with 2A7V being a sole unbalanced vehicle that should be moving up.
Clear difference in the quantity of vehicles that are problematic.
No they aren’t, see above.
Or they won’t.
See, for example, how 2A5 isn’t at the top BR anymore after years.