Lying about what?
Kd is positive, in a pretty much stock tank… no ace crew on any of these tanks…
Win rate is a bit low, since USA mains always 1 life, how you gonna fix that?
The issue with Russia is that they have the best (or worst depending on how you look at it) volume of premiums but perhaps the weakest TT of the three major nations… it doesn’t help that Russia is still constantly getting screwed over by more and more premiums coming every update.
Pretty much every TT tank they have is overshadowed by something else in a different tech tree, or a premium. Every good lineup for ground vehicles besides maybe 8.7 is overshadowed.
6.7? The IS-2s are overtiered and the T-44 is good but struggles with its gun.
7.7? The IS-4M like any heavy tank stomps in a downtier but is terrible in an uptier, and the T-54 despite being a medium is the same way. The BMP-1 and Object 906 are excellent but also 8.0.
9.3? The T-72 is in 3 other tech trees at this BR, and the T-64A is just a downgrade to the T-72A. The 2S25 and BMP-3 are decent but also light vehicles and can’t do everything.
10.3/10.7? Good, if you have premium or event vehicles. Otherwise, incredibly mid. T-72B is a direct downgrade of the T-72B obr. 1989 which itself is not amazing. No TT IFV higher than 9.0 although the Sprut-M1 is pretty good and the SPAA is great.
11.0? China has way better tanks than the T-90A at this BR.
11.7? The T-72B3 is a nightmare to stock grind, and the T-80U is really weak compared to 12.0 tanks.
12.0? T-90M and T-80BVM are still pretty mid.
1 Like
IS-2s are too high in BR and could be 6.0. Otherwise Russia is great.
Honestly if they dropped the IS-2s back to 6.3, they’d probably be balanced. They straight up killed the obj248, after its battle pass, they nerfed the gun depression of pretty much every WW2 Soviet tank, with any thing bigger than a 85mm. Then the obj. 248 had its reload time increased, and if I recall right, they swapped its shell out… for a weaker one. It’s a 6.7 with a 5.7 hull
8.0 - 7.3 Russia is mostly a night mare, whether it’s the IS-3, IS-4, IS-6, T-54s etc. (pretty much the only good thing around is the obj 906, but even that struggles due to being .50cal’d through the drivers view ports or sides of the tanks.
I think it’s crazy things like the USA T34, T30, T29, T26E5, and a few others are at the br they currently sit at. They all need to go up one br.
As well as bring down the IS-3, and IS-6, (7.0 for the IS-3, and 7.3 for the IS-6)
However, they still won’t be super strong, as many things have heat even at 6.3 and up, negating any armor relevance.
At this point I’m about to make a “proposed” br change list and see if gaijin agrees.
1 Like
Russia has good lineups, but is pretty much always outclassed by multiple nations at the same BR. Besides 8.7, which is a very good lineup in my experience, probably the best 8.7 nation with France.
Don’t look all that magical to me. Looks like the loader has a surprisingly ergonomic setup.
PS. I can find more if needed…
2 Likes
Meanwhile the T-80U
Leopard 2A4
Challenger 2
Feel free to count the loading times.
3 Likes
Wow shocker. T-80 reloads in 6.0 secs! Almost like that’s what I’ve been saying to the deaf or the blind or the biased of the forum.
Abrams could have a good loader that could do an better than average reload, but it’s very rare to get someone doing sub 6 sec loads while in full combat gear.
You know this how?
1 Like
Ive known many a tanker and they absolutely can do reloads around the five-second mark for a relatively sustained amount of time. Even the three pice ammo on Chieftain and CR1/2 a loader can pull it off until they need to reload the magazine that holds the detonation charge
1 Like
If nothing else, they really should model lap loading and maybe a faster fire rate when manual loaders are stationary.
1 Like
In the actual forum post for this topic, I took a collection of videos chosen sequentially that @RavenGuardMarine saw and even liked. The average load time… I don’t recall right now but it was 6.5+ if I recall.
I just think they need to tone down the rois rage loaders, and in the case of the abrams, and sub 5 sec load time is in the most ideal conditions. In game the best achievable reload should be 5.75 secs or very close to that. I think that would be pretty fair for a manual loader, especially since things like the T-90m are stuck at 7.1 secs.
It makes it fair, would you not agree?
Id rather when someone used the huge amount of SL and then grinds an ace crew it reflects a cracked loader like we see in perfect conditions. we only get that for a few shots because of ready rack mechanics so a slower but consistent reload isn’t that bad in reality
Would be nice but I don’t think coders like the idea of it. Could be wrong though.
It probably would take effort, and given the CR2s still have 4 round ready racks, they probably arent gunna work on major changes to fire rate anytime soon, especially given fire rates are all balanced based
They did buff the reload to historical amounts on the RDF and HSTV-L. Although that was probably cause of sales.
1 Like
I think auto-canons are a special case, they all have correct fire rates, though the RADENs on things like the Fox and Warrior I think has too long of a reload or something and could be tweaked up a bit.
I’m not disagreeing it should provide an advantage, but such a large gap between things like the Abrams, and the T-72B3 for example make it a little unfair no?
And especially since the recent hstvl buff, where it got its historical reload, it makes me question why things like the T-80Us didn’t.
And that comes down to $$$
I can’t wait till Japan gets their 3.0 sec load time one day. We will all be screwed.
Exactly what I just said
All previous bug reports were denied for the fact of reload speed being a balance decision. It wasn’t till the RDF controversy we saw a change.