Why is this still in the Chinese Tech tree?
This is A RUSSIAN MADE S.A.M, not chinese. Like there are so many problems with this game, but the main problem is gaijin completely ignoring how vehicles are in the WRONG TREES.
Instead of lowing the 2S6 to 10.7, when it belongs at 11.7 , add the Tor M1 to 11.0
4 Likes
The F-16 is an American made jet, why is it in the Italian tree? It’s there because they operated it and the tree needed it.
Now apply the Tor and you have your answer
3 Likes
SO you didnt give any reasonable input, and ignored the problem, the tor m1 isnt in the russian tech tree.
5 Likes
Make a suggestion for it than
3 Likes
Because China bought and used the Tor M1.
Because it’s terrible and they already have the Pantsir and Tunguska, as well as the Strela nearby and more recently the Osa. No doubt they’ll get it; there’s just no priority to add it so they’ll hold it as content for another patch sometime and a “unique” vehicle for the Chinese tech tree in the meantime.
4 Likes
Maybe the Tor-M2, the Tor-M1 is far inferior in missile behaviour than the 2S6 Tunguska, and USSR has plently of SPAA vehicle, the best for now is more light tanks.
operator nation
CN players: Why Gaijin give we a bad SAM instead of lots domestic designs?
RU players: Why Gaijin dont allow we to play our SAM in our tree?
7 Likes
2S6 does not belong at 11.7, it’s inferior to TOR-M1 and ADATS, and ADATS is arguably over-BR’d.
6 Likes
But USA has F-16 your whole analogy its wrong.
3 Likes
To be fair, it should go to both. Just as the F16s ended up spread amongst a host of users.
It doesn’t seem all that flash, but it seems like fun, so I’d rather it be in the Ruski tree than the Chinese tree, as I’ve no interest in Chinese kit to get a Russian piece of kit. More ways to smite my fellow CAS players is always nice.
1 Like
2S6 is not 11.7 material, its 11.3 at highest.
It should be 11.0.
1 Like
Does Russia need it? No. Can Gaijin be bothered? Maybe, if there is enough of a cry considering it is just a C+V. Why would u want it? IDK.
In addressing why China has the Tor it is not wrong. In addressing the full post it is.
The question OP its doing its why there is no Tor on Russia TT. Your whole analogy its terrible. Everyone know that China use it. But its also in active service on Russia. There is no reason for it not to be in the Russia TT. Russia already having a good AA system its also a terrible take. Its up to player what they want to use.
Why USA got F-15 if they already have F-16C?. The latest its already good enough right?.. At that level its your analogy.
You clearly don’t understand the point.
I answered this question. Not the whole post.
The Chinese TT needed the Tor and the Chinese operated it, that’s why it’s in the TT.
1 Like
Depends how you see it. But I disagree that the 2S6 should be the same BR as ADATS.
2S6
Pros
- tracking radar
- can identify and intercept agms/bombs
- can deal with short range threats
- smokeless motor
- irst
Cons
- mediocre missile
- inconsistent at medium ranges
- inconsistent at longer ranges
TOR
This is where I completely disagree with you. The TOR-M1 is by far the easiest spaa to counter. You can put this vehicle at 4.0 and it’ll still suck
The HQ17 is a different story, it’s quite deadly.
Pros
- slightly longer range missile
- tracking radar
- can identify and intercept agms/bombs
- TV (it’s worse than IRST but I’m not sure by how much)
Cons
- mediocre missle
- produces a lot of smoke
- cannot deal with short range targets
- inconsistent at medium ranges
- inconsistent at longer ranges
The smokey motor is what really kills it. You can spot miles away and react accordingly to the missile’s trajectory to miss it
ADATS
Pros
- Really good missiles
- Smokeless motor
- Can deal with short range targets
- Can deal with medium range targets
- IRST
Cons
- No tracking radar
- Cannot identify (slave sight) and intercept agms/bombs - you have to actively know where missile is in order to intercept it.
- Inconsistent at longer ranges
What holds the ADATS back is it’s lack of TWS functionality. If it had it, it could very well stand toe to toe with the VT1 slingers.
- The TOR-M1 should either be the same BR as the 2S6 or lower
- The HQ17 should be .3 higher than the 2S6
- The ADATS should be .3 higher than the 2S6 with how it’s currently implemented. If it gets it’s TWS functionality, it should be the same BR as the VT1 slingers
2 Likes
What Russia needs are Tor-M2/Tor-E2 and Pantsir-S1M and Pantsir-S2 not an outdated Tor-M1 which can be comparable to the 2S6 which Russia already has
It’s horrible anyway, I would gladly trade away the TOR for 625E.
2 Likes
Yes, let’s give Russia TWO top tier SPAAs ON TOP OF the three SPAAs in Rank VII (that are not foldered), on top of all the other copy-paste ZSUs that are not foldered, on top of the BTs that are copy pasted and not foldered, on top of the GAZ that are copy pasted and not foldered.