I disagree for the following reason. I do not intend to say what you are capable of as a player in the machine. It is by no means a question of that. Obviously it is a highly uncontrolled variable. But from an objective game balance perspective, it only can be a clear no.
The vehicles are very similar in mobility. But that’s where I see an objective balance end, honestly. The Leopards carry the advantage in armor, penetration and survivablity. Now that spall liners are a thing, the Leopards tanks are notoriously difficult to kill in one shot from the sides or at an angle. Worse even, you probably won’t kill both the commander and the gunner, making it highly likely that a return shot will kill you, as your enemy does not need to aim that well to kill you.
It is this what I refer to by balance. Arguably, the Ariete is in a similar place. But it is this, I argue that makes it no comparison at all. The same player will do better in the Leopard. It is simple as that, because that is simply forgiving and will allow you to react.
I do not intend to say that the real thing is weak, that is a different story. I do intend to say that the Leclerc is a highly difficult tank to play as it is unforgiving and comparatively weaker by its ingame stats.
Yeah but I hope it goes in the tech tree at like 10.7 or something because France doesn’t have anything at that rank (with the light tanks and jaguar hopefully coming to the game it could make a nice lineup)
If they add a top tier rank 8 premium tank to France, it will make the win rate fall out of the sky so I think it’s a good idea. Only then they might buff the Leclerc.
Ares being a S1T1 you still have Bayard, Carnot, Duroc, Estienne and Foch with very minor exterior cosmetic changes (mostly being a reshuffle of the front side skirts).
Take into account the preseries (S1T1 = preseries run, the S1 we have ig is supposed to be a S1T5/S1RT5) did not have the full armour package Gaijin could make up armour values to magically fit 10.7 (at this tier the armour is already magically guessed anyway)
Really they could C&P and have 1 10.7 TT + 1 10.7 prem with the same model. Just bullshit foreign ammo in the premium as part of an export proposal.
Also waiting for them to do the same with AMX 40 (P1/2/3/4 had diff engines, could and should be exploited from more prem and 10.0 choices, maybe with better ammo)
And a similar split for the Vextra 105 (split it into the normal french ride with 105F2 and the Saudi trial model with 105G2 and an extra licence plate)
We don’t have the full book. Would you be able to upload the relevant pages about this?
These are diagrams put together by one of the authors of this book, Thierry Guillemain. I suspect these are the “protection increases” that are discussed in the book:
On another note, we’ve been able to do some testing with the Leclerc’s mobility.
It doesn’t look like we will be able to get our accurate top speed nor accurate acceleration with the current physics engine. It’s just too basic:
This is all that the engine code amounts to
To break down the relevant parts: 1. The gear ratios are correctly modelled 2. “driveGearRadius” (drive sprocket radius) should be 0.4 (40cm) not 0.35. Increasing this to 0.4 would increase the top speed to 82km/h. Technically, the Leclerc is able to go ~100km/h but its governor limits it 90km/h (see 3.1.) 3. “mainGearRatio”, “neutralGearRatio”, and “sideGearRatio” are all values that seem to be made-up and are retroactively applied to set certain conditions: 3.1. “mainGearRatio” is used to set a hard limit on the top speed. Increasing this value results in going through the gears more quickly but lowers the top speed. In the case of the Leclerc, we could lower this value to get our top speed of 90km/h but our acceleration would become worse. 3.2. “neutralGearRatio” is used to set the time it takes to neutral steer 3.3. at this point, we are unsure what “sideGearRatio” does but it didn’t show any effect on acceleration 4. 1500hp is achieved at a max RPM of 2500. However, according to the testimony of Leclerc crew members, it is able to reach 1500hp at 1200rpm. Similarly, according to Martin Klotz who was the Head of MBT and AFV Programmes at the time, the Leclerc takes 2.8 seconds to reach 1500hp.
Spoiler
If we were to change the max RPM to 1200 to try and mimic the short time it takes to reach 1500hp, then it would limit the top speed to ~32km/h.
Moral of the story? With how engines are currently modelled, there is no way to take into account the Hyperbar system. This results in disproportionate performance compared to IRL, as we can with the T-80U whose acceleration is overperfoming by about a factor of 2:
Spoiler
Meanwhile, the Leclerc accelerates just as fast as convential diesel engines.
The best solution? Gaijoobles implement a more realistic physics engine; however, this is not seen on the 2024 roadmap…
Man, I don’t know… There’s only so many inputs you can make into those few lines of codes. The only way to get accurate acceleration is to increase the hp which is ‘too unrealistic’ for the devs. But T-80U going twice as fast as it should be is ‘just fine’…
No. There are no evidence of that.
Anyway, Devs like to use the Swedish Testings like its the holy bible, so its time for them to use those testing when it comes to other vehicles as well.
You see comrade western documents cant be used to buff or nerf russian vehicles therefore we decided to only nerf western vehicles by using russian documents.
@WaretaGarasu and @Panther2995
Alright, I did my tests now.
I’ve decided to test both involved.
T-80U in-game: 3.6, 6, and 11 seconds.
Strv 104 in-game: 7, and 16 seconds.
[Both level 1 crew [not crewed]]
Both are over-performing on asphalt according to that trial.
Strv 104 images: Forgive that 1000kbps 720p quality.
This indicates that T-80U is likely fine, but ground traction and/or friction, and general acceleration may be causing over-performing acceleration if that document is accurate.
This confirms Bossman’s results, as well as adds Strv 104 at minimum to the potential pool of vehicles over-performing.
Look at the different variables in play between your test and Bossman919’s test; the conclusion you should have come to was “T-80U is overperforming with expert crew by a massive amount.”
Swede tests are supposed to be pushing the optimal mechanical limits, not averaged performance with a shoddy crew who doesn’t understand the difference between a clutch pedal and a brake lever. With expert crew the tank should accelerate like swede tests describe. With fresh noob crew it should be worse; as expert+ace crew will be maintaining the max mechanical performance possible.
