buddy that’s not how you call mods, you are not scarin anyone.
They do check the forums periodically, which means if neither me or any people in here were banned or kicked then that means we are safe.
The evidence we show is hard cold number, that cannot be affected by rng, the screenshots we showed also act as cold proof and your video is also proof to us.
Engine block and armored glass in cockpits will stop blast damage pretty well.
But that’s an even smaller target to hit compared to wings / tail / cockpit sides.
I suppose you do know how modules work in WT and how your cannons work?
I suppose 2k battles in all modes should be able to teach you that these parts are inseparable but contains all vital bits that you need to take down an interceptor before its too late.
Tank battles even teach you that if you play cannon SPAA, specially after 12k battles.
All of these points we have been talking is stuff your learn the moment you look more than 3 seconds into damage models.
But cherrypicking, sealioning and lying are your specialty and this and many other threads show it. (hope you liked the new words btw), You win by tantrum and by hollow threats of “Mods come ban this dude please”
Okay buddy, if you really want to say that Tu-4 need to be 7.3BR while B-29 should ROT in 7.0
because
-You ignore the major differnce between 12.7mm M2 and 23mm NR-23
-You ignore precedent on bombers that received +0.3-0.4 BR difference because of "SINGLE TURRET CHANGE’ when Tu-4 did a whole overhaul
-You also ignore Spitfire Vb/Vc, which are almost identical but have +1.0 BR(Three BR step) gap because of weaponry change
-Or maybe you also would ignore Tornado F.3/F.3 Late which are nearly identical outside weaponry but also has +1.0BR gap.(F.3 Late on 13.0 has AIM-120B and AIM-9M while F.3 on 12.0 stuck with AIM-9L/Skyflash SuperTEMP)
Then, for the same reason, how about sending T-34-85 from 5.7BR to 4.0BR because it is a T-34 but with a new turret? /s
Seems you didn’t get that straight even though we explained it for a month.
Because you hear only what you want to hear.
It is not my fault you never heard of the term ‘sealioning’, so let me tone-polish for ya.
You dislike sealioning, and you don’t even want to Google it and such
“Argumentum ad nauseam”, hope you like this term more than ‘sealioning.’
Also, did you forget what you said when you talked about “B-29 to 6.7” from your take?
“B-29 to 6.7 if Tu-4 is 7.0” iirc.
Because you just cannot admit that ‘according to precedents of other bombers that changed weaponry, Tu-4 and B-29 need to have +0.7 BR gap’
I never knew that ad nauseam can be a good debate, or you are having diffrent definition for ‘a good debate’.
Am I crazy? Of course, I am crazy. /s
If I weren’t crazy at all, I wouldn’t fight against the wall who cherry-picks the fact for months to debunk that ridiculous hot take that Tu-4 needs a radical buff, because of ‘both are nearly identical and the weaponry difference shouldn’t be larger than one BR step gap’
When I can just ignore you instead.
I explained why you are wrong with multiple explanations and analogies, and you are the one who is not listening to any of that, and just keep pushing “Tu-4 from 8.0 to 7.3BR, you guys are idiots who hate bombers and soviet vehicles, because you guys cannot accept soviet vehicles need to be in fair BR.”
This discussion can be a plain example of Brandolini’s law.
I didn’t said full no about Tu-4 at 7.3BR, yes?
I said,
A. Send B-29 down to 6.7 and make Tu-4 7.3
B. or send it down to 7.7 first, then watch statistics to check the impact of the buff, and if Tu-4 acts awful similary, then we can try to send them down further to 7.3.
It is easier to make a 0.3BR buff instead of pushing the 0.7BR idea, no?
