Everything that you could mention as a problem with the Abrams/Clickbait you could also point out as a problem that the Type 90/Fuji has.
Yet the latter perform much better than the former.
Germany had similar 40-50% winrates as the US in the month(s) before the Leo 2 PSO was added though.
Well, isn’t it obvious that most new players will start with one of the big three nations ?
I mean, M1A2 has been in the game longer than BVM but it has like almost 3x less games played.
Same for HC, it’s in the game for way longer than 90M but has like 2x less games under it’s belt.
AIM and 80UK are one update apart and they have comparable number of games.
Click-Bait and E1 are two updates apart and CB has 10m+ more games.
To me this looks like US wallet warrior vehicles are much more popular relative to their TT counterparts than RU ones.
CB is an update older than Fuji but has 10m+ more games, so I think it must’ve been your luck.
1 Like
Other wargames (modern warfare) abandoned national states as playable faction. Its just BlueFor vs RedFor. You select the treaty you’re fighting for and instead of US, Germany and whatnot you pick a combat formation. A historic division, brigade or battlegroup with unique unit rosters. Combat formations from one side always fight together vs. the opposite one. This way all important unit branches are covered. This way it doesn’t matter when one division won’t have the best tanks, another one lacks good air assets and a third one doesn’t have good long range units. They complement each other.
1 Like
Maybe RU tanks aren’t that oppressive as many people suggested or GER ones are better.
As I said, WRs obviously depend on multiple factors, and I was trying to say how US definitely has more deadweight than other major nations which definitely isn’t doing any favors to the nation itself.
It can be justified when people are crying about game mechanics they don’t even understand.
They want things changed for everybody, when the problem is their refusal to learn the game.
Take for example the russian bias thing. It’s almost exclusive dogwater players complaining how the game is rigged.
2 Likes
People get so mad about things like engine smoke cover too calling it cheating through smoke when they don’t understand it’s a real thing. Because they don’t understand mechanics. There should be a requirement to post suggestions, or else a game will become stale and not reach its full potential. Look at the people that got maps cut in half because of flanking
3 Likes
I played at the time. PSO was not the reason why the winrates improved, it was the decrease in the amount of 2PL players (people either finally grinded out the TT, or just stopped playing it).
2 Likes
Oh yeah I agree, I don’t think the Leopard 2 PSO was a large part of the reason. Just used it because I remember the winrates being low in the months before they released the Kings of battle update.
Although I think the FOTM effect that came with the Leopard 2 PSO did have a small effect on improving the winrate. Just like the US top tier winrates also increased after the release of the SEPv1, even though that thing wasn’t significantly better than the base M1A2.
11.7*
Nothing from the ground is capable of intercepting aircraft that are using IR AGMs on live server.
Wow, German players are skilled 61% of the time. Wow! Skill means the vehicle’s OP right? M22 needs to be 10.0 cause people have 5:1 KDRs in it and 70% win rates?
Skill has nothing to do with vehicle capability.
1 Like
I don’t think I want to know what happened here
Leopards and challengers were designed as main liners, really armored tanks with decent mobility, good armor and good gun to help against other armored vehicles mainly, but stufff like the leopard 2 were later fitted with anti bunker capabilities, something wich the challenger 2 had as one of its main purposes with the HESH
T series tank were build on the doctrine of having a short tank that were pretty hard to hit, then later evolved to help against new munitions with more armor new ERA and even upggunned them, at the moment they stay behind in survivability because most FCS nowday are more than capable of defeating them even with their short size
Japanese and Chinese tanks were developed with the doctrine of creating relatively light, easily transportable vehicles that are still armored enough to survive on the battlefield. In both countries, many bridges cannot support the weight of full-sized main battle tanks, so lighter designs were necessary. China’s modern tanks, for example, were influenced by the T-72’s technology, resulting in compact, moderately armored tanks with good cross-country mobility. Meanwhile, Japan’s Type 10 was specifically designed to maneuver through mountainous terrain, which is why it features an advanced hydropneumatic suspension system that improves mobility and adaptability on uneven ground.
hes banned
wha… what did i miss?
click on his profile
gg lol
They were however both, actually basically every NATO mbt in the 1980s built with a fear of the huge numbers of soviet armored vehicles, so sniping is partially the solution although out manoeuvring is also part of that.
At least with China they limited 99A’s ability to carry applique armor since rail and road transport is limited to 55t. IDK about Japan.
Mainly just the auto loader and the 4km reverse speed. They do have the advantage of having longer range and easier maintenance, as well as being better at not getting stuck in poor terrain.
japan can also remove the armor of the Type 10 and even add more to a 48 ton version
IDK about the transport limits of Japan and whether this correlates to the design is what I am saying.
Japanese bridges, roadways and transport infrastructure don’t really have the strength to handle the Type 90 outside of Hokkaido, that’s one reason why the Type 10 was developed. It’s lighter and can be sent basically to any corner of Japan while the Type 90 is Hokkaido exclusive.