The Dev Server is Opening with Major Update “Tusk Force”! — Now CLOSED

[Fluffy_Bucketles]

Doesn’t even make sense from that front, as the expensive options are ARH. Which are significantly less problematic to defend against whilst deploying 38s.

[Stona_WT]

Dev Server is now closed.

[not_a_bug1]

So the CM502 still useless, sad.

[Selasco]

so, we will not get new turret baskets yet… why gaijin cant keep a single promise? holy shit

[Morvran]

@magazine2

New tank modules

We’re continuing to add new and updated internal modules for vehicles that don’t currently have them. For the T-64 and T-80 series, the autoloader module will be refined, and a new element reflecting the conveyor mechanism will be added above the turret ring. This new element will retain the same functionality of the autoloader module we have already, and will effectively make it easier for the autoloader system to be disabled. The vertical and horizontal drive models have also been refined, they are now more accurate and in general will take up a little more space inside the tank.

Before

After

As well as this, all T-72s, T-90s and ZTZ96s, ZTZ99s, the VT4A1 and the WZ1001 will all receive new detailed tank modules.

Expect to see these soon in more detail, with further tanks planned for the future too!

@Stona_WT

• T-72 (all variants), T-80 (all variants), T-90 (all variants), ZTZ96 (all variants), ZTZ99 (all variants), WZ1001(E) LCT, VT4A1, MBT-2000, Al-Khalid-I — new FCS (fire control system) modules have been added. They are still being configured and their destruction doesn’t yet affect the function of the tank systems.
• T-72 (all variants), T-80 (all variants), T-90(all variants), ZTZ96 (all variants), ZTZ99 (all variants), WZ1001(E) LCT, VT4A1, MBT-2000, Al-Khalid-I — elevation and horizontal drive modules have been improved and refined. They are still being configured and their destruction doesn’t yet affect the function of the tank systems.
• T-64 (all variants), T-80 (all variants) — the model of the autoloader module has been refined.

They have added more, at least general internal modules.

[Selasco]

cool, but this will impact very little the top tier… im asking turret basket for all tanks that dont have it yet type 10/txk, leclercs, challengers, merkvas, arietes… (if it have irl ofc)

[Morvran]

Challenger 2s dont have turret basket IRL.

Not that it would change anything. If the shot didnt kill , it would disable everything anyway

[Selasco]

so add to the rest then…

[Morvran]

Which clearly they have started to, with dozens of T-Series tanks and variants

[mineLo]

dont know what you are expecting to achieve with an unaimed HE missile

[DirectSupport]

can someone tell me if using current multi-vehicle spaas, if you spawn two launchers, it won’t fire both launchers once you press the missile fire button? or is the bug still there?

[_OceanFish]

It launch one at a time if you have the two launchers active and press the missile fire button.

But it launch two if one of the launcher only has 1 missile remaining for some reason it looks like.

[Morvran]

Sky Sabre seemed to fire one at a time from what messing around I did on the dev server

[KhorneFlakez1337]

Gonna be completely honest, as much as I’d love to have MITL so I could properly guide the TV Martels, I don’t think adding MITL CAS would ever be a good idea.

Genuinely, what would the counterplay against such weapons be? If the counter to a weapon/vehicle in ground battles is “Just spawn a plane/heli, bro”, it that weapon/vehicle shouldn’t be available in ground battles.

[Morvran]

Depends on the MITL.

I dont think Martels would be too bad as youd need to guide them one at a time and be essentially AFK whilst doing it. Also, having to manually steer the missile could be made fiddly so accuracy was hard. If anything, would make them weaker than they are now in everything except range and “LOAL”.

Though things like the Paveway IVs being denied DL because it “would add MITL” is really dumb

[KhorneFlakez1337]

@Morvran_

Though things like the Paveway IVs being denied DL because it “would add MITL” is really dumb

That’s actually silly lol

For the Martels, Walleye IIs and whatever other early TV MITL missiles there are there definitely could be ways to keep them balanced, but I struggle to think of a way that could make stuff like Spike NLOS balanced

[Morvran]

Yeah, so would have to be done more on a case by case basis, but there refusal for any MITL is kinda wierd.

(especially given that technically SAL For the Brimstone was added specifically to add MITL to the missile :D )

[AblativeKitten]

@Morvran_

“would add MITL”

… isn’t that just LGB with a bigger designation range?

[Morvran]

Yep