This topic.
Only thing I have to say is it’s important to account for the different types of tons.
You’ve got the US ton, which is the smallest one (short ton), short ton’s about 2,000lbs or 907.8kg
The imperial ton (long ton), Imperial Ton’s about 2,240lbs or 1,016kg
then metric ton, which is 2,204lbs or 1,000kg flat.
Most sources put the M1A2 at around 62.5 imperial tons, which comes out to 70 short tons. So if I had to guess that source is using short tons instead of imperial tons.
And there’s already a bug report out there about the M1A2 being underweight by about .8 tons
2 Likes
This should have been the norm from the start. Otherwise obviously russian vehicles which have every single bit about them unclassified and well known via primary sources will beat NATO tanks with at best primary sources from 80s. But i am afraid we are just screaming into the void.
1 Like
Every vehicle should be treated like this, not just. It should be implemented as close as possible to available sources, and bug reportable based on such too.
If no primary source for something exists, secondary should be used, if that doesn’t exist either, educated guesses should be made.
This reminds me of the F-16AJ, which was implemented poorly due to lack of sources. While it is very much debatable if it should have been added in the first place, what annoyed me the most was how it was added.
Spoiler
There is exactly one source on it, being a brochure. Yet Gaijin changed what was shown in this source by making it closer to a regular F-16A. Gaijin eventually released a statement saying they didn’t implement the F-16AJ, but a hypothetical F-16A in Japanese service.
They even stated they guessed F-16AJ would have lost capabilities in actual production, by saying nobody else used this specification of F-16 (tested on a YF-16A). This had no source behind it, yet could not be reported based on the brochure alone…
I really hope this post leads to at least some form of change for the game, as more classified or otherwise hard to research vehicles will be added and the current system simply doesn’t work for those.
4 Likes
Sadly this topic is not getting as much attention as we would like it. I hope that after new year more people will return to the forum and vote.
Also a question to the 20 people who voted no. Why? It is one of the changes that has no downsides. You can implement and change things using secondary sources and in worst case scenarios educated guesses. I dont see a reason to vote no.
2 Likes
Cause they will get stomped by better players if tanks were balanced
2 Likes
I want to avoid that mindset. Im hoping someone will give me a serious and constructive answear. After all the point of the forum is discussion.
1 Like
Nah I think he is right tho. Probably 50/50 split between what he said and just some unloved trolls who can’t stand to see someone else succeed in their efforts and making others game experience better while they rot away in their mothers basements hunched over a keyboard balding at 23.
1 Like
I want to belive there is someone who will give me a proper explanation. Let me dream.
1 Like
Ok, what do you think. I’m curious, this is one of the things where it’s either people who want their no skill play style to endure or just trolls who think they are funny by voting no. You said it yourself. There is really no reason to vote no.
Well, there is also a optioin that these are Spanish loyal followers, that never fail to dislike/hate speech anything that comes from Spanish. Yea thats probably the case.
1 Like
Yeah prolly right
1 Like
Yea, i just realised its probably Spanish fanclub.
Tbh im impressed they still hold any grugdes. Not like they should in the first place. The change that was proposed and what we got were 2 different things, and Spanish should not be blamed for snail tirckery. But they do they.
3 Likes
Very much supporting this. All Western vehicles past 1980s (at best 1990s) have next to 0 primary sourcing available that relates to their armour.
M1A2 SEPv2 & 2A7V illustrate this perfectly. Both have been known for ages to have improved protection from both KE & CE threats, yet in WT they are no different to vehicles from late 1980s (in case of SEPv2) or are actually worse than the prototypes of their previous iterations from 1990s (in case of ther 2A7V).
Gaijin pretends to believe they can keep going forward by relying on pretty much the Swedish Trials, but no… they very much can not.
12 Likes
+1 I fully support this suggestion. This can be a incredible good change for EVERYONE.
1 Like
Can’t believe the conversation here dried up so quickly.
+1, hope people will start seeing this again.
2 Likes
Sadly unlike the stock APFSDS that affected everyone in top tier, this affect only those who try fixing the game, so minority.
2 Likes
This reluctance to make assumptions is the entire reason half the MBTs we have are dead
Admittedly the Leclerc based on what we know is a bit buggered anyway, but tanks like the Chally and Ariete are screwed over (I can particularly speak for the Chally as we’ve continually had armour nerfs to the point where we can barely defeat incoming shots when hull down, which is the whole point of the Armour scheme)
There’s absolutely no reason to reject this poll on the basis it would mean we could actually provide decent sources and get a whole host of buffs for minor nations
Unless of course you’re deluded and think the big three are underpowered in all game modes and every other country serves as an RP pinata.
3 Likes
It’s always the same story.
Anything short of manuals is discarded.
But then manuals are discarded too for being classified.
It is evident that Gaijin’s current modern MBT armor modelling criteria DOES. NOT. WORK.
One of the most recent examples would be Merkava Mk.4’s weight and armor.
It should be heavier but also significantly stronger because of that.
However, Gaijin is rejecting THE LITERAL IDF stating so because “it’s not a primary source”. They then proceed to demand manuals they would discard for not being public as well.
It just feels like they actively try to do anything on their power to refuse to improve things towards realism.
5 Likes
Relevant to this topic:
3 Likes