He isnt saying nerf it because other countries are under performing.
He has stated that multiple bug reports and documentation proving that LA23a1 pens Kontact 5 while gaijin made an executive decision that multiple primary source documents were wrong.
Your making up arguments that aren’t being made.
If they did that, it would defeat the purpose of tanks such as the TKX having a 3-4 second reload if every other tank can do it in 2 seconds. And if such a feature was added, they would absolutely have to balance that out by doing what GHPC does and forcing a period where the ready rack has to be replenished and blowout doors (on some nato tanks) to be left open for the reloading proccess.
The firerates on NATO vehicles are subjective because they have a human loader, and since most maps are CQC brawls, that would heavily favor them versus tanks that only wield autoloaders. There’s a lot of liberties taken in many aspects of the game that benifit one or the other more.
That wouldnt be a terrible mechanic tbh
It wouldn’t be at all, if they did that. Then they could properly model the ammo in T-series tanks like how GHPC does it. It would be even better if they acctually forced everyone to fire from gunners sights like in MTC and left the barrel aiming in arcade. That would heavily reduce the “point and click” aspect of it and greatly slow things down.
This is kinda old, but a good read
and more recently this:
certainly make good arguments that soviet ERA and or armour in-game is overperforming accross the board.
there is also certainly plenty of reports for NATO tanks underperforming. From not just ERA, but armour and spall liners too.
Its just… getting old now, where soviet vehicles get the benefit of a doubt, meanwhile primary sources are rejected because “the devs know better”
(the whole “We dont beleive the stinger can do this because the Igla cant” arguement all over again)
That’s actually a pretty solid point. I am conflicted because your previous arguments were annoying, but these would be solid gsmameplay changes for RB
My previous arguments were essentially trying to neutralize the whole thing about Soviet ERA overperforming, especially considering China is another nation that heavily utilizes ERA, but somehow it’s just the Soviets ERA that’s the problem.
Then wanting to introduce things such as 2 second reloads for nato tanks that would only serve to benifit fast paced gameplay when it’s not ideal at all. That more serves to be promotional than anything else.
Not surprised it got brought up in the thread, but there is a bit of nuance when it comes to protection provided within knife fighting distance, since a fair bit of calculations are done at combat distances where rounds can reach their maximum velocity.
But the thread is definetely a good read. As far as I’m concerned, the main thing I mostly get from these topics is that NATO MBTS are weak when it comes to armor while Russian tanks are not, but have way better mobility characteristics than Russian counterparts.
The whole Abrams debate I’ve seen as of late is where it’s supposedly supposed to have all those good traits, unquestioned.
I still think its both,
Soviet MBTs have too much survivability. Both with how their ERA is coded relatively speaking and their underlying armour, whilst NATO MBTs lack a lot of their IRL survivability.
Yeah, people only talk about Soviet ERA/DM for no reason frfr
7 months PR campaign for BMPT… who would’ve thought.
It wouldn’t really ruin the capability of the Japanese tanks. They can do that 3-4 second reload consistently, while with human loaders you’d only get that one 2 second reload (since you can only carry one of those huge rounds, obviously) before needing to do the whole reload (about 6 seconds) so it isn’t really that much of a blow to Japanese tanks. And those other mechanics that you mentioned would be a great way to balance it out, I don’t think a significant amount of people would complain for that balance (only if gaijin doesn’t take it too far)
If there aren’t any blowout panels or doors to deflect the blast, it’ll go to the internal components and crew of the tank. I would like to know your logic on that (not opposing or hating, just curious)
The armor beneath ERA on Russian and (I believe) Chinese tanks are still stupidly strong against autocannons (at least frontally, might be affective on sides since they have spall liners that are also, absurdly strong). I can’t oppose this being false data in the game since I don’t have any evidence. But with the Western tanks, well, they don’t really have any ERA at the front, only NERA, which isn’t as effective IMO. AND no spall liner (at least on the Abrams I believe)
2 stage (or would it be 3 stage?) ammo stowage would be interesting.
1-2 rounds much faster, then the current ready rack, then whatever is left.
Ive also thought that manual loaders should get a reload advantage when stationary with auto-loaders obviously getting the advantage when on the move.
I didn’t really get that. I think what you meant is that there is something faster than the first stage ammo rack (So like the ammo that’s already in a loaders hand, I assume). From what I know a 2 stage ammo rack is the first stage and the reserve, but the Abrams does have two separate reserve racks, one in the chassis and one in the turret. Maybe that’s what you meant?
Edit: Just woke up, and I understand what you mean. Don’t know how I misinterpreted that, but yes, that is something that might happen if they ever implement this in the game.
Also a great idea. There has also been something that I’ve noticed when watching videos on tanks reloading.
Russian MBTs have a Lazy Susan style of reloading, so say that you want to switch to HEAT but you’re on APFSDS, you’d need to turn that ammo rack a certain amount depending on where that ammo is located, it can be the one right next to the APFSDS, or on the other side. That can drastically impact reloading speeds. As of right now, reloading speeds are the exact same when you switch ammo.
Very different for Western tanks, but not as significant. Assuming all types of ammo are all put on the same ready rack, then the reloading rate when switching rounds would not be impacted. If HEAT (for example) is in the reserve and not in the ready rack, the reloading rate would be much longer. This is, of course, much better than the Russians. Could be balanced when you switch the ammo half way through the reload, you’d have to wait a little bit for the loader to put the round back in the rack.
RU Tanks indeed have some disadvantages in the time for loading the shells and the maneuverability, but I think you guys forget the best advantage-------Protective capability. Especially the improvement of the Relikt in this major update, they get resistance to long-rod penetrators has been changed from 1.7 to 2.25, and resistance to shaped charges has been changed from 7.75 to 9. All of those changes make RU tanks become the best protection of all top tier tanks, that fact makes all players have to aim at them more carefully. To sum up, I believe that RU tanks should not receieve any benefits. The current modified balance is the best.(By the way: I already played 8 countries tank, (: )
It really would. Tanks like the Type 10s are already considerably worse than the 12.7 Abrams (I know you might deny that because you struggle in them), their faster reload is the only good thing that the type 10 has left lmao.
Current balance is the Abrams roflstomping the T-series lol.
The only advantage that the T-series has is relying on people being idiots.
Yeah, the only thing left is for Gaijin to bring Soviet ERA and DM on equal with NATO CN ERA / DM since there is no official dokument about their capabilities.
This thread can go 6ft under after that happen.
About mobility/gun handling → i’m sure RU players will adapt since they’re not idiots.
When everyone is an Ariete, people will stop being annoying to you.
That is true, since almost all NATO tanks does have the turret basket now and that the abrams armour got a lil bit improved it is now one of the best NATO tanks. But hey, i gotta say that i would like gaijin to ad something like the turret basket to Russian tanks, i mean, russian tanks doesnt have a turret basket, but we all saw how a bradley could destroy the turret control of a t90 by just shooting to the optics wich made the t90 turret spin and spin without stopping, so more modules to the T series would be nice, anyway, rn im playing russia and im enjoying it a lot, for me, is the nation that im enjoying the most in pair with germany, maybe it is because EEUU was my first nation,but i feel like After 6.7, the United States in the game has almost nothing to offer that other nations don’t already have, and even improved upon like the m60 tts, in the US u gotta play with the m735, but if u play the taiwanese version u get dm33, that is what i mean, US doesnt have anything that really makes u want to play it when the other nations get the same things or even better versions
Nah, people would still find a way to try and pretend that their own personal skill issues are because of external factors.
That is what often happens now, that is what will always happen often.
I want more detailed modules for Russian MBTs too. Not that they need the nerf, as they are already getting stomped hard, but since everyone is getting them so should the T-series.
US TTS gets M774 actually.