Damn I almost forgot about that! Literally the time when I stopped playing the game because of how little sense and how annoying it all was back than!
Dont forget the Ru251 that was there to help out too…
1 Like
I will make note that the examples you provided did get “fixed” over time, but it’s understandable to newer players why they complain about the newer vehicles. A lot of the “bias” boils down to implementation of vehicles/features and, for example, shooting a tank and doing absolutely nothing due to spaghetti code saying you didn’t shoot. To someone that plays against Russia a lot, it would appear that the game is biased towards Russian vehicles, when in reality the game is just a mess.
The same thing they’re doing with TT USA air, just not have them at the highest BR
Personally I think 12.3 would be too low for them, but maybe in the future the Leopard 2A7V can be up-tiered to 13.0, and the T-90M and T-80BVM could stay at 12.7
2 Likes
Are you perchance in a few wt discord servers?
- They possess eyes and can read bug reports.
The core issue isnt russian vehicles being universally better than their ““counterparts”” from other techtrees but that gaijin consistently gives them favourable treatment in ways that inconsistently but noticeably affect their performance and decrease gameplay consistency.
Gaijin attempts to make vehicles equal to such that they can simply never be equal to, by artificially improving their capabilities, primarily in the way of artificial inconsistent survivability.
This results in a sole increase of gameplay-inconsistency and lowers skill-gaps at higher brs.
No matter how much you artificially buff e.g. a T-90M, it will simply not be as good for warthunders gameplay structure as e.g. modern Leopard 2’s or M1 Abrams’
And of course, we can argue over how nato tanks have been absurdly broken in the past but that will not change, nor help the discussion for the present or recent state of the game.
Aside from BMPT’s being prime example of a already overperforming vehicle receiving artificial survivability buffs (6mm of rha that doesnt spall, fake external belts etc.) you also have many hidden platings on russian mbts that absorb spall, such as the 2mm of structural steel on T-64 and T-80 autoloaders; (sufficient to absorb spall, same thickness as horizontal-drive modules, but armourThrough value too low to create spall)
The autoloader module itself also does not create spall either, yet can absorb it aswell.
Hidden 45mm mCHA (0.98x RHA) gun cradle (on chinese mbts it’s part of the trunnions);
Present on all T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 variants
Trunnions being a demented artificial survivability buff and a major cause of shot inconsistency: (remember that the inner barrel diameter is 125mm… Is anyone going to act as if not a singular part of the russian mbts’ trunnions is thinner than 150mm?!)
^ every part of this is modelled to be AT LEAST 150mm of mCHA (0.98x RHA) and up to 300mm effective.
Then again Trunnions should be removed from every vehicle to begin with, just that their dimensions and effective armour are the most absurd on T-Series mbts
Or other changes that aren’t announced nor have any sources provided for them (thank god datamines exist so these changes arent entirely hidden):
Or here’s them randomly deciding to make it significantly harder to overpressure T-90M:
(if you understand how overpressure/pressure damage works in this game, then you should also understand just how significant and stupid these two changes are).
And ofc there are also Contact-5 and Relict casually auto-destabilizing the best APFSDS rounds in the game at any angle and distance, reducing their residual penetration to such a degree that their damage (fragmentation count, amount & penetration) can become nearly non-existent - aswell as heavily affecting their trajectory.
The destabilization effect of the Relict/Contact-5 tiles on the skirts is also 5x higher than that of Duplet, despite Duplet having either the same (relict) or significantly more (contact-5) listed KE equivalence.
There are several other examples to bring up but I believe this to be sufficient to illustrate what I am trying to convey.
I could ofc go over e.g. Leopard 2’s and M1 Abrams being artificially nerfed in several ways through changes that at the same time benefit russian mbts (modules e.g.), or LMUR’s being added as hardcounter against IRIS-T the second the absurdly overpowered russian cas (SU-30SM // KH-38MT) had any counterplay whatsoever but this has probably been done to sufficient extend by other people in this thread.
To be quite honest, I would not mind any of this nearly as much if it wasnt for these things increasing gameplay inconsistency as much as they currently do.
Shooting weakspots/critical components should be rewarded with reliable results instead of being another roll at the slot machine that ends up punishing you despite not making any mistakes.
18 Likes
The thing is China upgraded the autoloaders, no traces on Russia doing the same exist. I’ve used the BVM it works quite fun if anything.
I would be fine with the horrendous damage models if it wasn’t for that **** *** module called the “Trunnion” which legit is just a buff that only benefits Russian (Maybe China?? never had issues with it tho) breaches a black hole
1 Like
I literally said how every match ended up as the same way.
However:
“your stat shark said that you are not even a good player… so you are BS”
“you only have one NATION tanks…you know nothing”
“Sweden Leo2s are OP…NATO bias”
“literally your problem/skill issues… other NATO main doesn’t complaint as you do”
…LOL
I mean barely going positive in a 2A7 is pretty impressive. Unfortunately I have seen even more impressive 2A7 performances in my random teammates.
5 Likes
You’re correct it’s not impressive in the slightest. But it also doesn’t matter for the discussion at hand.
it does not matter some bad player will say russia op, some mid, some good
and the same on the other side of the argument
Better focus on the argument itself, because in the long run it looks like good old deflecting
1 Like
Remake this as an actual post. We can’t have a quality reply like this lost to the slop of people pretending like this doesn’t exist.
5 Likes
Everyone who actually wants to understand that these things exist does so already, the rest literally looks like this
Spoiler
I thought this topic was about russian tanks
my man you are a legend.
1 Like
The hard truth is that conceptually and technologically Soviet and Russian tanks (excluding the T-14 whenever it becomes operational) are simply at a disadvantage to modern NATO tanks.
We all know that the Russian defence industry was struggling after the collapse of the soviet union, and therefore wasn’t able to keep up research and development at the same pace as other Western and Asian countries. Meanwhile the Russian MoD obviously didn’t have the funds to finance massive modernisation or development programms untill the last decade. The main driver for the russian defence sector therefore was the export market, with Russian tanks often either being the budget option or only option for the lesser beloved or sanctioned states.
So why not simply accept all of this and therefore reflect this reality in game by properly balancing vehicles through their BR instead of artificially nerfing or buffing them at the cost of realism.
Not every nations top of the line tank needs to end up at 12.7 at all cost.
4 Likes
Because the russian tree is the most popular one in the game. Not having vehicles at the top BR would make that playerbase unhappy and have a negative impact on Gaijins bottom line.
1 Like
And the people that actually want to face Russia at top tier, do they just suffer the consequences of your ilk’s inadequacy ?
Probably “just play SB”, innit ?
Gaijin disagrees, especially when it comes to their major nations.
4 Likes