Cool, but are we eventually going to get an explanation as to why the ammo belt is considered external at some point or?
7 Likes
How can they explain when they used no source?
1 Like
Still no way the anmo feed is that strong or partitioned
The tws was also acting up sometimes, in a way that the marker for the target you selected and the target just disappears on the tws screen, and it only appears again after moving it around. So if you want to manually select the target next to it, you never can because you cant see the marker anymore. Though i dont know if that happens on other tws from aesa radars as well, since its my first jet with aesa radar?
Exactly what’s the point of 11.3 or 11.7 when all 10.7 are ALWAYS uptiered to these br’s no matter what
Probably just propaganda brochure laying somewhere
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT may I ask why the su-27 flanker changes were stated to be in this server update when it occurred two weeks ago?
1 Like
Oh and btw @Piciu713 (not sure if you are the right person to ping, but if i don’t im afraid this issue will just get ignored again, like it is for longer than half a year now)
Are there any plans to do anything about the situation in top tier naval, which in comparison to the current BMP-T drama is absolutely comparable (or arguably even worse)?? With 4 (well 2 of them are the same) so 3 ships there where one holds a whopping 8,7:1 K/D, the second 6,2:1 and the third one a measly 2,9:1 (and those stats do include bot kills afaik…Yet they all have still the exact same repaircosts and modifiers? Tell me why would anyone with a last bit of sanity play the Musashi or Yamato in Naval RB? Unless you have to spade it, in that case youre really screwed? With tons of major bug reports accepted for over 6 months now one would really think something could have been done or at least planned ages ago? I mean seriously theres multiple spots right below the turrets just above the main armor belt with 11 !!! mm of armor?
1 Like
J-10C model fix when perhaps?
1 Like
March update /s
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Why does an 11.3/11.7 vehicle need to get buffed when it finally recieves the BR it should have had day 1?
As it stands, I think it could and should go 0.3 higher without a single change. Totally remove it from the LoS of 10.3s
1 Like
Even 10.7 shouldn’t face it. Move it higher than 11.7 :)
Ideally. But I think most 10.7s at least have the bare minimum firepower required
more like 10.3-13.0. It does just as well higher when side and hull armor barely changes enough. It just does “worse” because there’s less light IFV at that br.
I do not handle balancing and have no insight into nor influence over development, these are just my personal observations without having played the vehicles:
It’s a vehicle with the survivability of an MBT, with the offensive capabilities of light tanks but doubled (two canons so you can switch and not overheat the barrels) and fire on the move ATGMs. Compared to other light vehicles at 10.3-10.7 it gets way higher survivability and more offensive capabilities than it’s contemporaries.
6 Likes
Give the BMPT APFSDS and 1200mm penning missiles
1 Like
no
I think putting it at 11.3 is cringe lol
3 Likes
Lol, for people like you, even 13.0 will be too high. The first 10.7 that comes along will eliminate the Terminator without the slightest problem, but hey, “I don’t know, but I’ll tell you what I think.”