I am so confused right now… I was saying that Leclerc’s UFP was incorrect, and you were saying that “no vehicle in WT is nerfed via armor” and calling me a liar and saying “I was making stuff up” before, so I am not really sure what your angle is here xD
Oh, meaning got lost across multiple posts.
I said the fact: Gaijin does not change armor unless proof is supplied via official channels.
They will not change armor values on a whim.
I also stated the fact that UFP is incorrect. I can’t prove it tho.
Well, first of all, while several people gave their opinions on the Leclerc’s weaknesses and ideas to fix or at least improve this problem (+ shielding, better reloading speed, Addition of more efficient shells (and completely balanced) to name a few each time you were told that no proof therefore no change (for the shielding for example, but in this case tell me how to obtain proof? How can Gaijin have the claim to say that they have some? Because if they don’t have any, how can he refuse our proposal because if Gaijin decreed that such plates were such thickness and this, without solid proof, he can therefore increase even a little because finally there are no documents or diagram to declassify.
Then you said that adding the 120 F2 would be useless seeing that it unbalanced the performances (which is false) etc…
In short, a lot of criticism can be constructive, you offered almost nothing as a solution, even if our ideas were imperfect or not complete we at least offered something. Moreover to say that we are Anti-French? For my part More chauvinist and patriot than me it’s rare, the French are the only ones I play because they are the only ones I like.
And that’s also why I want France to become more authentic, simple to play and more accessible to new players, Gaijin and other players spend their time telling us that France can play and play good result, inevitably Gaijin has made it an elitist nation where only the good player manages to achieve a good result, in short Gaijin is solely responsible for the low rate of users of the French trees.
Anyway, all we ask is to be able to debate and give ideas and useful suggestions to improve the vehicles present, if you don’t like the idea it’s your right but in this case, have , please have the decency to give any suggestions that might advance the subject. Thanks.
1 Like
I search for manuals.
Which usually has to be native-language, so in this case French.
So using the French language, search for materials that are public.
If you’re French you probably have access to the equivalent of a National Archive where you can legally obtain unclassified & export unrestricted documentation.
The reason Gaijin has difficulties finding documents is the same reason we do.
Japan, France, Germany, and China do not translate stuff into English.
They have to hire local experts to find this stuff for them, which we then are relying on someone that isn’t Gaijin themselves finding documentation.
Then with all due respect, that means that the OFL F1 having 620mm of pen isn’t really all that relevant when it comes to the balance discussion since it only applies to a few edge cases.
What’s more important is the performance of a shell in the more common combat scenarios we see in the game.
That said, I’m not sure that the OFL F2 would help that much in terms of balancing the tank, which is why I’d rather have a armor fix or a reload buff instead (in that order of preference).
Complete win rates, no. But we can have an insight of the overall WR through people using Thunder Skills. While the numbers will be biased as its only a percentage of the total playerbase that uses it and people who check their WR are probably better on average, it still gives us a good idea of the overall power balance between nations. Especially when we can match this with a good player’s data, such as Justin’s stats with the 2000-5.
Type 10 reload speed is accurate, I posted a video in this thread already. The Challenger 2 is also faster than the Abrams/Leo 2/Ariete even though there’s no IRL reason for it to have it.
Gaijin uses this as a balancing tool, which is why it not off topic to ask for such buff if they refuse to fix the armor.
2 Likes
@Smin1080p Please explain to us why a 11.7 mbt still has 250mm protected UFP when middle of the hull is at 550mm? Havent heard a single logical explanation from a single employee of gaijin since 2019. Laviduce created the best bug report one can create without leaking classified documents but you guys straight up rejected that saying armor is fine. Review bombing wasnt enough it seems.
They are never going to fix leclerc in any way .
4 Likes
what bothers me about Japanese top-tier reloading compared to Leclerc tanks reloading it is the paramters used by GJ:
Better conditions (with stopped tank) in the case of japaneses tanks
baddest conditions (with moving tank) in the case of Leclerc.
If the japaneses tanks had 4s reload in baddest conditions, ok, but we know it is not the case…
Gaijin knows and acknowledges t hat Leclerc’s reload is wrong and should be 5 seconds; however, they actively refuse to fix it because “according to muh statistics, Leclercs perform fine already, so they don’t need no technical improvements”.
1 Like
the Leclerc undeforming wouldn’t be so detrimental if France had any support assets added to the game but currently its been a year since France has received anything over 9.0
I linked him a thread where a Leclerc commander talks about armor that’s not present in the game as well as a video of a frankly BS kill asking for a clarification from a dev and he all but ghosted the thread. Don’t expect an answer.
That’s not what I meant, what I said is that the Challenger 2 having better reload than other tanks with human loaders is purely a balance decision and is not based on real life factors. There are videos of Abrams reloading in 5 and even 4s, but in game they’re capped at 6s. Meanwhile the Challenger 2 gets a 5s reload in game for similar performance IRL.
It’s a balance decision on gaijin’s part, and not one that I’m contesting, just observing.
i think loader decay could be a nice mechanic for manual loaders they start out with shorter reloads but gets fatigued to the normal reload
Ehhh, not too keen on that, for various reasons. First, it would be a de facto buff soviet tanks by nerfing human loaders tanks, which is the absolute opposite of what we need.
Secondly, because people will argue for the inclusion of random failures for autoloaders as a balancing mechanic, and the last thing we need is RNG failures.
And frankly, the balance between human loaders and autoloaders is in an okay state as a whole. If certain tanks need buffs or nerfs, these changes should be applied individually rather than through game mechanic changes. We just had an excellent example of that this patch: everyone was excited about the vikhr nerfs, but pretty much every other missiles ended up getting hit harder.
1 Like
i was only considering the ace reload as the shortest for people without an ace crew and people with an ace crew the loader doesn’t get fatigued but ya gaijin would see it as a reason to make other changes
Well, fatigue could actually, rather, warrant a buff, for example:
Right now, most NATO tanks have a 6 second aced reload. However, with fatigue, we could make it so that it goes from 5 seconds for the first 5 shots, to 5.5 seconds for the next 5 shots, to 6 seconds for the next 5 shots, to 7 seconds for any consecutive shot.
With this schematic I just came up with, NATO guns would be buffed for the first 10 shots, remain the same as now for the next 5, and only after 16 shots it would be a nerf. And let’s be honest: most people don’t carry or fire more than 16 times in a spawn.
Meanwhile my abrams has loaded more then 30 shells: Haha you’re funny.
rather 6 shots at the current relaoding rate and 1s more for all following shoots. Reset after 20s without shooting.
As long as russian otoloaders will get random failure i will support this.
Otherwise no, this will be buff for russian tanks rather then bringin more realism into the game.
Accurate to what?
The challenger 2 uses 2-piece ammo and the loader can lap-load with 1 piece already in his hand, 5 seconds isn’t the fastest it can load either.
1 Like
Sorry but I’m strongly against that suggestion. These changes would be indirect nerfs to the Leclerc, Type 90 and Type 10, which are definitely not needed. Doubly so, given that Abrams/Leo 2/Strv 122 have better armor, making them more likely to survive a shot.
It’d be especially bad for the Leclerc, as the opponent would be pretty much guaranteed to fire back faster and the Leclerc are easy OHK. Please no.
My opinion is, again, that problematic tanks should addressed individually, not through global mechanic changes. And let’s be honest: Autoloaders aren’t what makes soviet tanks busted.
This is gaijin we’re talking about, if they make these changes it’ll apply to all autoloaders. And the Type 90/10 and Leclerc do NOT need nerfs.
Also, RNG is a terrible mechanic. Let’s not add it to the game please.
The answer to that question is literally in the quote, come on mate.
I downloaded the video and watched it a 0.13x speed without the sound, stopping as soon as I saw the muzzle flash. The stop were at 02.618 and 06.018, so 3.4s.
That said, I don’t see the gun moving vertically at all, which it should since the gun has to be level with the autoloader for the reload to be possible. What this possibly means is that the crew has prealigned the gun with the autoloader so that it doesn’t have to move the gun to reload, which is where the 0.6s faster reload comes from.
However, if that’s the case then it’s not really a realistic firing scenario as it would require both the Type 10 and its target to be perfectly level, and it’s certainly not possible while on the move.
The video I posted earlier in the thread, where the gun does move, has a 4.082s reload.
I know that, Spanish Avenger’s video showed that I was aware of its existence prior to him posting it.
What I’m saying, for the third time now, is that both the Abrams and the Challengers are capable of 4s reload IRL but are given a 6s and 5s respectively in game for balance reasons.
2 Likes