I can only assume you’ve never driven an abrams in game.
Pretty much any penetrating shot disables your turret drive. It’s incredibly unrealistic and extremely frustrating.
For the aphe thing, all I’m asking for is fairness and a semblance of parity, especially considering aphe is currently dramatically overperforming in game.
Yes, correct, I did not, but that’s also not really what I meant. I meant, imagine if you could not repair it. Target destroyed. One hit kill.
In WT, destruction happens by killing all crew, because damage to everything can be repaired, the opposite of real life where causing damage is the priority but killing crew is secondary. That’s incredibly arcadey - but also necessary because tanks are so much more accurate than they would be in a realistic environment. Especially pre modern ones.
That’s why I said that it’s one thing to model ammo physics realistically, and quite another to model its effects realistically.
I agree that irrespective of realism or arcade, a pvp game needs competitive parity. That’s a much more egregious issue than whether APHE is realistic or not.
The APHE is what creates the disparity in the game, and to a lesser extent the too low damage of the other bullets. Add this to the already horrible damage and penetration record, which makes everything in the game seem RNG-driven, and it makes the game experience somewhat stressful, making it so that after two games you no longer want to play, and you are just forced to play for the sake of getting the tanks you like.
I know. That’s why I said both options that create parity (APHE nerf vs all others buffed) are acceptable to me. I was just explaining the other factors besides competitive parity that make me lean towards one more than the other.
To some degree, it is. You haven’t even cited the worst factor in this regard, which is server desync. That gets us all killed plenty times.
It’s definitely not a game I play to wind down.
On this point though, I’m sorry but I have to confess I don’t get the logic.
It’s a game. I play it for fun. When I’m not having fun, I stop and go do something else.
Life is full of negative experiences that we can’t skip (heartbreak, death of loved ones, health problems, mental health, fear for the future etc), at the very least the optional experiences we consciously elect to do in our free time should be positive ones!
Ah, gotcha.
I agree. The ‘stun’ mechanic could have been a solution, or would at least have helped but sadly it was voted down as well. It’s… infuriating to get the drop on someone, put a solid shot into his turret and murder his commander and loader but then he just casually turns his turret and turns you to dust, especially when you know dammed well that it would have nuked his entire crew if the round was APHE.
Ultimately, the solution (if they’re not going to actually fix APHE), is to significantly increase the amount of spall that solid AP rounds create. Do I like the solution? Absdoltely not, I want stuff to be as realistic as possible but sadly we’re heading further from that goal every update.
Yeah. But the stun mechanic also exposes the issue with the gameplay loop if damage worked like that.
Basically, let me put it this way. If tank combat were realistic, alpha strike would matter even more than it currently does in Ground RB - first person to land a shot has usually already won.
Problem: our tanks are far more accurate than they would realistically be. Hitting someone is very easy, and more importantly, hitting specific pixels is very easy.
To have a gameplay loop where alpha strike is so decisive, you would have to have a mode where hitting the enemy anywhere requires some skill. Imagine simulator view but you can’t fire through the commander’s binoculars (negating parallax) unless you have commander fire control. This way you get a sustained engagement where a solid hit is usually conclusive unless it bounces off harmlessly.
Of course, such a mode has an accessibility problem… It is much easier to make a basic shooter game popular, that’s why we’re here. Tanks are super precise, so in order to have sustained fight, you make them tankier than real life and infinitely repairable. You define defeat through death of crew.
And even in this setup the over performance of APHE is a competitive issue.
And then they balance around that by putting tanks at certain BRs that are virtually immune to AP unless you snipe specific weakspots…
By this point the mess has put in deep roots. I’m not sure how to untangle it. The only reasonable starting point would have to be Gaijin say, screw the vote, here’s a new dev server with nerfed APHE, test it out for a month and then we’ll look at the data.
Yes, I’m tired of shooting at the same time as the enemy, dying and my bullet disappearing.
This happens to me. I like tanks, and I like using them in test drives. The problem is that in order to use the final models and their better bullets, you have to unlock and use them. That’s why I keep playing. It’s an absurd reason to play, but it’s mine.
Adding my thoughts here, the Comet had an automatic shell ejection system and straightforward loading process with a shortened casing using a dedicated loader. There is zero reason why it takes more than 5.5 seconds for an Ace crew to load the gun when half of the process is automatic, and the other half is ergonomic.
May 2026.
Gaijin still dislikes Britain, the comet’s reload is still glacial despite proof of the contrary.
Ahistorical, even.
Hello again! I have found data supporting a faster Comet I reload. Gaijin failed to model correct ammunition stowage practices (some shells are even stored upside-down!). This would translate to a first-stage ammunition stowage in the turret basket and significantly better reload as a result.
Comet I Incorrect Reload and Ammunition Stowage
It’s funny how blatant they are with it too.
“APDS was an effective round” Implement shell shattering and make it bug out even on flat plate. Oh also make it get absorbed by a single crewmember at times.
“APHE is breaking game balance and is overperforming” Put it to a vote and then when APHE wins buff it even further.
“The Spitfire’s FM is an unstable mess!” No it’s more realistic.
“Okay then does that mean all other aircraft will get more realistic FM’s?” Hah, no. We’ve actually simplified a lot of them, just not for Britain. Have you flown the 109’s and La’s that now barely suffer any control stiffening? They’re awesome!
“On that subject the Mosquito and Hornet are a bit boaty which is odd considering their lack of weight…”
Don’t care, hey have you flown the Yak 2KABB? Best plane ever that was, ignore the massive performance issues that were widely reported that’s all capitalist propaganda, trust us it was vastly better than the Mosquito.
“In that case can the later Griffon Spitfires have their max boost settings like everyone else?” No, not even the terrible FR47. Oh and make the Tempest V a 6.0BR aircraft in Sim.
“Can we have the Spiteful and the Fury X?” No, but look at this obscure Yak3U wonderplane that never saw service.
Tons more I could add here, such as the Lightning being slower than the F-104 despite being faster in reality, the Conqueror having an abysmal reload speed and no floor originally, the 17lber being buggy and possibly the least accurate gun in the entire game, the fact that the British Firefly doesn’t get APDS while the Italian one does.
Does the British Eurofighter fly correctly yet? I know it was reported that during the dev server all Typhoons flew well except for one… can you guess which one it was?