I don’t care if Russian fans patience ends.
It just means less Soviet tanks in matches.
USA having over 20 under-BR’d vehicles is a tad funny.
It’s not a double standard though, as the standard is economic & performance data analysis.
USA has a 2026 F-15C. Newer vehicles has nothing to do with how good the vehicles are, as it depends on what technology is used in said vehicle.
T-90M/T-80 use the same armor modifiers, while firing notably worse ammo than M829A2.
If you think you need M829A3 to deal with Soviet tanks, you’re shilling for Russian vehicles.
There is none.
Prototype weapons have always been allowed, which is why USA has some as well.
You say the standard is “economic & performance data analysis,” but that’s not a standard for implementation decisions—it’s a standard for BR adjustments. The criticism being raised is about vehicle and weapon modeling, not whether a tank is statistically overperforming.
If performance statistics are the deciding factor, then why is historical accuracy used to justify some implementation decisions while player performance is used to justify others? Those are two different standards.
Likewise, citing M829A2 versus T-80/T-90 armor modifiers doesn’t address the original complaint. The question isn’t whether current US ammunition can defeat Soviet tanks. The question is whether equivalent evidence thresholds are being applied when deciding what weapons, armor packages, and ammunition enter the game.
Saying “you don’t need M829A3 to kill Soviet tanks” is a balance argument. Saying “there is no double standard because performance data says so” is a statistical argument. Neither actually addresses the allegation of inconsistent implementation standards.
If there is no discrepancy, then there should be a clear rule that predicts:
When a weapon is added.
When a prototype is accepted.
What level of documentation is required.
How missing values are estimated.
And that rule should produce consistent outcomes regardless of whether the vehicle is American, Russian, German, French, or Chinese.
completely false, the T-90M is only barely worse than the 2A7 and ZTZ-99A. It is wayyyy better than all the legacy top tier (2A6, 2PSO, M1A2 SEP, etc)
The 2A7HU, IS better (not arguably) if you have the skill to use it to full potential. Every tank can be great if the player is good, that is why Italy and GB are so overtiered.
This is true, but can gaijin prove Russian tank armor? Can gaijin prove how they implement NATO tank armor? I mean look at the Ariete which still is horrible (the last update made the Ariete armor worse, only the Ariete with WAR kit is better).
I think right now every top tier nation is relatively balanced, except for Russia. Play a few matches at Italy at 13.0 and report back to me if you think Russia is balanced
90M doesn’t even come close to 2A7.
I also don’t understand why did you put ZTZ-99A up there, as it’s clearly far from being the best in the game. China now has access to M1A2T (basically SEP copy) and it’s performing way better at 12.7 than what 99A is doing at 12.3. Speaks volumes about the 99A’s strength and SEP’s weakness lmao.
Depends.
If you can make use of it’s faster reload speed while keeping your hull hidden then SEP can definitely be on par or even better than 2A7s.
su30sm2 is not OP , right now in AirRB it does have the highest potentinal, but i wouldnt class it the best(rafales and eurofighters if they are good they will beat u to it and u wont be able to beat them in kills at the end of the game), but the 2nd ur against a good rafale or eurofighter playing right or even f15ge sometimes they will win the fight, only thing that is russian bias(not really) is the bmpt , russian tanks are worse than abrams, they are easier to play but worse, your only top tier jet is the fa18e that in no world it could compete in AirRB against su30 rafales and eurofighters, but usa has a plane that should be 14.7 without any problems but stays at 14.3 and its the f15ge that thing is amazing to play
Whether a weapon is accepted as historically valid.
Whether it is implemented.
Whether its implementation would be balanced.
The thread is about #2, not #1.
Saying “all weapons are accepted” doesn’t answer why some accepted weapons are implemented while others remain absent for years. If implementation depends on BRs and subsystems, then those criteria should be transparent and consistently applied.
You also say nobody brought up performance, but in your previous posts you cited performance data, under-BR’d vehicles, armor modifiers, and ammunition effectiveness as evidence that there is no double standard. Those are performance and balance arguments, not implementation arguments.
More importantly, “there has never been evidence” is an extremely strong claim. To prove there is no double standard, you’d need to demonstrate that comparable cases are treated comparably.
For example:
Are prototype weapons treated equally across nations?
Are projected upgrades treated equally across nations?
Are missing armor values estimated using the same methodology across nations?
Are documentation requirements consistent across nations?
If the answer is yes, then show the methodology. If the methodology cannot be clearly defined, then people are naturally going to question whether implementation standards are actually consistent.
“M829A2 can kill T-series tanks” is true but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether US tanks are capable of killing Soviet tanks. The question is whether accepted capabilities are implemented according to a consistent standard.