Wow, someone is so unfamiliar with basic logic that they’re demanding proof of a negative. Go ahead and prove that people in the Soviet Union didn’t walk on their heads. With documents.
2 Likes
So you don’t need to proof you statements. Ok, no wonder that devs don’t care about your sad stories.
btw. even the last paragraph in this screen of the book, you so adore, says, test shoot didn’t penetrate the armor.
1 Like
This statement is so true. Compared to the other few project ships (i.e. Etna, Margottini), the Russian ones are just outright ridiculous. While the Izmail’s fine, Kronshtadt as of right now is second only to the Scharnhorst and the SovSoy will very well and truly replace it as the most cancerous battleship to sail War Thunder’s seas. The fact that most of its specs are made up like its armour makes it even more egregious.
Speaking of armour, if one has incomplete evidence of a ship’s armour scheme or has barely any evidence of such, as is the case right now, why don’t you just leave it be and move onto something more complete like the Imperator Nikolai I, which likely has more complete evidence for its armour layout and was actually launched like the Izmail?
They aren’t even trying to hide their bias towards Russia even in the Naval realm at this point.
11 Likes
That bias were Abrams get best achieved reload time, when soviet T-72, T-80, T-90 automatic loader get worst case scenario, when it need to reload shot from the other side of the loader rolling all carrousel, not the nearest one(not even the average one). For sure it’s Russian bias.
Or maybe when Scharnhorst have 3 RPM reload, when Sovetsky Soyuuz will get 2.1 instead of 2.6, and Roma 1.3 instead of 2.0.
yeah, build and tested should be a minimum standard for everything in game.
You really don’t understand how shipbuilding works. With approach like this you will stay with USA vs Japan on some BRs, and then when Rocket ships arrive you will get total domination of USSR. Believe me you don’t want it. And maybe if you played naval from low to top not just couple fights with costal ones, same like person who you replied too, you get some different thoughts about naval.
Projecting on planes and ground you will loose a lot of vehicles too btw.
yes.
This is how the world works.
And this is how parts of this game should work.
We have teams, so the lack of br’s of one nation should be compensated with good stuff from others.
Also war is made to be asymmetric.
You build good ships to destroy my ships, lets bring planes into this, that can sink your ships way better.
Different doctrines exist for a reason and should be in game, and not forced to be the same for everyone.
like the Sowjet/Russian doctrine of flooding the air with big, supersonic anti ship missiles, at the start of engagements, while the US focusses on lots of small, subsonic ones, primarily fired by planes.
Also we lost a vehicle that was build and tested, being fully combat ready for a way worse reason.
Gaijin being unable to build a balanced game, without destroying old stuff.
No.
Just you don’t want to believe
Doesn’t compensate as we ‘grind’ nation’s tech tree, not just pick from cargo.
1 Like
What after war Japan will provide to be asymetric? Or Germany? Or Italy? Heck even Britain.
At the same time, the gaijin developers directly stated that Iowa’s HC fuse variant would not be added to the game, which is not a technical issue or a balance issue, only a groundless rejection XD
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9PvsbVrbMpEw
3 Likes
Doesn’t look like a rejection
like I wrote.
Teams consits of multiple nations.
Let’s look at the reality, and oh, the US has a base in Japan, ready to defend them and make operations from there. Also esp quite a bit bases in Germany.
There is a reason NATO and the Warshaw Packt was founded…
So you want clones in their trees?
Well, technically, all fuze in naval are currently delayed fuze one so not much of needed.
Ammunition options have always been a gameplay balancing factor since day one.
2 Likes
Modeling this ammunition will not affect its balance, it will not have absurd penetration values like Sovetsky Soyuuz’s SAP, it is essentially just a HC with longer delay
i was a little frustrated at the time, perhaps i could’ve done with a mocha
My own opinion, agree to disagree
I don’t really follow toptier ground news too much, and on that Yakovlevs still waltz over mid-late props (sometimes), the SKR and Pr.206 remain as excellent frigate and torpedo boat respectively, that was merely a poor generalization on my part
2 Likes
Every tree has a weak point or missing things at some BRs in air, ground or Naval tree, i don’t see why russia should be any different
So you don’t want Lion and Normandie class BB?
As an Abrams tanker I can confirm that, in fact, the load times for the Abrams in game are longer than they would be IRL. In several combat encounters in an M1A1 HC my crew were easily able to beat 5 seconds for the 120mm. The TCGST (Tank Crew Gunnery Skills Test) minimum passing score is 7.0 seconds for everything but MPAT in air mode which is 8.0 seconds… So I will grant, a crew with no points in loading could give a base time of 7.0 seconds (longer for the proximity fuze but that is rarely used.) However, an expert would be able to achieve close to three seconds. The 7.0 seconds is for all 120mm variants of the M1.
The current spread is not biased positively. In fact it is still biased negatively as the best you can do is basically the combat STANDARD, not expert at all.
For the M1 with the 105 the situation is much worse. The maximum time allowed according to the TCGST is 5.0 seconds for HEAT and SABOT. Therefore, a crew with no points in loading should be at 5.0 seconds with an expert crew, again, somewhere around 3 seconds. The current spread of 6.5 to 5.0 is completely fabricated by Gaijin. If you cannot meet the TCGST standard you cannot crew the tank. No American Abrams with a crew of actual tankers would load in a time above 5.0 seconds. Thus proving, again, the bias against the Abrams is real.
I understand that Gaijin uses load times to balance the games. They publicly acknowledge this and it makes sense. If Expert Abrams Crews were reloading in 3 seconds as would be what to expect IRL the tank would be more difficult to fight against and autoloaded tanks could not compete as their load times are fixed. Like many things in this game reload times are an example of Gaijin artificially nerfing NATO equipment while they artificially improve Russia/China equipment. IF they actually applied the real values of these vehicles China and Russia would not be able to compete in game. But let us not pretend that this is “realistic” There is nothing “realistic” about 10.0 and above tanks in this game. The bullets are fake. The armor is fake. The simulation grossly simplifies armor penetration and post pen damage. The turret basket stopping turret rotation when damaged is not at all what would happen in real life. The fire control systems are not modelled at all. Reload times are fake. The maps are entirely too small for actual modern armored warfare. There is no infantry. Repair times are as fantastical as magic. etc. etc.
Anyone using “realism” as some sort of bar for top tier tanks (especially including Gaijin) is just deluding themselves. It’s all fake.
5 Likes