BMPT was just an example I used to demonstrate my line of thought as clearly as possible. What I am saying is not limited to vehicles that are so blatantly OP that their performance is obvious from the stats.
plenty of individual aspects of a vehicle’s performance that can be assessed without actually playing it. if a tank has only 5° of gun depression, I dont need to play it to understand that it will struggle to play hulldown, if a tank has poor reverse speed, I don’t need hundreds of games in it to understand that disengaging from a firing position will be more difficult. I dont need to play Zero to understand that I probably shouldnt try to turnfight it with thunderbolt.
Actually playing the vehicle gives you additional information about how those characteristics translate into gameplay, that much is clear. But thats different from saying that you play vehicle in order to be able to form a knowledgeable opinion about it in the first place.
True enough, but there are many more niche aspects of a vehicle that require you to use said vehicle to actually be able to argue whether it is better or not
you dont need to be an exceptional player to understand that, for example, Zero is extremely good at turnfighting and that trying to turnfight it in a Thunderbolt is probably a bad idea.
likewise, you dont need to be above average to understand that 5° of gun depression is going to make certain hulldown positions inaccessible, or that poor reverse speed makes disengaging more difficult.
Obviously, the better you understand the game, better you can understand how those characteristics translate into actual vehicle performance, but that doesnt mean you need to be a highly skilled player to understand the basic implications of those characteristics in the first place.
Oh, absolutely. AMRAAMs on premium hornets, need i say more?
nonetheless my point is more that playing the vehicle is not a prerequisite for forming an informed opinion about it in general. If im about to stick with my aircraft examples, I dont need to play rafale to know that if i dont approach it with utmost care, MICA is going to send me on vacation real fkin quick.
I partially agree. Someone doesn’t necissarily need to play a vehicle to form an opinion about it as long as they have a healthy amount of common sense and understanding about how the game plays at that BR.
My favourite example is using the Leclerc, T-90M and SEPv3. Anyone with a healthy amount of common sense and knowledge about top tier, whether they have played all 3 vehicles or not, knows that none of those 3 tank should be at the same BR in their current states.
I hate to use clickbait as example again, but it do be funny that it is somehow 12.0 while leclercs are all 12.7.
Yeah, I think thats a pretty fair way of putting it, and I would probably go even further in that direction.
Anyone can look at a stat card and describe what a vehicle has. And with some basic understanding of the game, anyone can also make reasonable conclusions about how some of those characteristics are going to manifest in gameplay. You dont need to play the vehicle yourself to know that 5° of gun depression is going to make hulldown gameplay more difficult, for example.
Where I think actual game experience becomes much more important is understanding the context in which those characteristics exist. You can tell me the Leclerc has X amount of penetration and X amount of armour without ever playing it, but if youve never played top tier MBTs or fought vehicles at 12.7, I dont think you can meaningfully judge whether those values are actually adequate for its BR.
So I dont think the relevant distinction is really “have you played this particular vehicle?” but more like “do you have enough experience with the relevant part of the game to understand what the vehicles characteristics mean in that environment?”
I completely agree with what you have written, it is an accurate representation of what goes on in warthunder. In our version of top tier game play and in fact in every tier; mobility, reload and fire power are key to winning matches. Take a look at my war thunder stats I have the bmpt for example everyone talks about it being overpwoering yet I cant get a 1/kd ratio in it. Only time I can do this is if I attack some one from behind or hide behind team mate mbt. Yes it has trolly side armor “what the heck penetration situations” which it should not have. However it has poor mobility and no reverse speed and it can not impact the battlefield, it can create chaos for everyone due to being hit a number of times and it still survives, but that is frustrating for both the peson playing it and those shooting at it. Now take a look at my IS-7 stats 2.55 kd ratio against modern heat rounds, T-58 complete bs shananigan shots and sabot rounds. Why is that?,simple answer mobility, fire power and a decent reload. I can challenge the best players at br 8.3 no problem due to it. Nato vehicles have plenty of that, excellent fire power great mobility and a fast reload. On the ground after playing USA, USSR, and France I can really say there is no ground vehicle bias. There are certain br brackets like USA 8.7, Soviets 8,3 and France 7.7 in which those respective nations excell in add down tiers to that and you get some high win rates depending on update. One thing I can claim for certain and I am sure of it, is that armor plays the least role in war thunder.
I did spade the M1A1 and yes stock version is at a massive disadvantage vs other vehilces including the spaded T-80s. You dont have the mobility or the fire power to compete for positions on the map. If you are comparing it to the 80UE1 then it also has a visibility advantage due to 2nd gen thermals. However once spaded you will have the fire power and mobility to outperform those vehicles. Vs certain vehicles you will lack visibility due to using gen 1 thermals.
Lol you must be new here, those minor nation mains always says the big three are easy mode/easier to play, do you know what that means if you think deep enough? also the said person also have stats that is identical across all the nations they had played including the big three, what does it mean? someone has been talking chit bro like if they claim easier but somehow their number says they perform almost similar, then you can predict the next thing they going to say “i intentionally turned off my brai…” lol
During last couple weeks I only saw 1-3 Leclerc overall, ever since addition of turret basket and BS way FCS implementation Leclerc’s became worse than ever.
Not even SHARD round could save them at this point.
I was making a joke in lieu of the comment explaining to me how vehicle performs differently when spaded. Im fairly certain after some 20k battles i know that.