0 thoughts on “War Thunder: War Thunder Dev Server Datamine September 8th, 2018

  1. no matter who you are and what is your opinion on War Thunder you have to wonder, how the hell can they do things like these?
    T140 105mm T182E1 penetration loses 28mm at point-blank range?
    if that is it\’s real performance, where did they find 309mm in the first place?
    on top of that there\’s a big problem with the fact that Gaijin has a history of adding tanks to the game with incorrect data, I don\’t even need to mention the case of the Japanese Ground Forces but there\’s also issues with the performance of the american 120mm guns, both by incorrect performance being given to the wrong ammunition and also from simply not adding the correct types of ammo, especially for the T34
    I really want to believe Gaijin won\’t hurt the game further but due to past examples I can\’t tell if this change is based on actual data OR simply for convinience of their \”agenda\”

    NOTE: why the hell must the Warrior come after the Conqueror? in the US GF case it makes sense to have the M60A2 in the TD \”line\” but a ATGM armed IFV makes no sense to be added in the british heavy tank \”line\”, it would make more sense to be in the same line of the Swingfire, it would make more sense to add the Challenger or even the Chieftain 800/900 prototypes to the HT line because they fit it better

    1. The loss of pen for the AP round for the T54 is only for flat armor, the performance against sloped armor has largely remained the same, if not improved, from what I saw. People need to stop looking at flat pen values, this isn\’t WoT. I am pretty sure the initial stats for the 105mm AP was copied over from M103s 120mm AP round. It made no sense for this ammo to have the same stats. They changed the ammo type from AP to APCBC, that\’s why it can have smaller penetration against flat armor but roughly the same performce against sloped armor as the 120mm round. It even has lower ricochet chance to boot.

      It\’s really getting tiresome to reply to these kneejerk reactions, to devserver changes of all thing. It\’s always clearly stated that everything on the devserver is subject to change and is not final. Concerning the Warrior: seeing as you have troubles reading let me reiterate to you what\’s in this datamine – the Warrior is merely under the Conqueror in the techtree. It\’s not connected, it doesn\’t require you to research it first to be able to get it.

      Also, the T34 has nerfed ammo because if it had the proper ammo it would get uptiered,and raped to death by everything.

      1. that\’s not the issue here, the issue is:

        why not doing it right in the first place?
        and you have to agree that due to their history you cannot be sure if this was a \”innocent\” mistake or proposedly done for some reason

        WARRIOR: no I don\’t, and find offensive you would write that, all I did was express my opinion that a TGM armed vehicle fits better with the TD line (Charioteer, Striker, Swingfire, etc…) and due to the inflation of RP cost it could use the bonus research from the previous vehicle, especially since it\’s gameplay will be partially similar

        this opinion is also partially due to my personality, I like things clean and in proper places and it \”pains me\” a little when I look at those TTs and see things out of place, especially vehicles of lower BR following higher BR vehicles (makes no sense), and honestly it\’s about time they rework the GUI a little, and I believe I\’m not the only one thinking that since they recently released a Q&A where someone even asks to make the air and GF TTs in the same layout of the Naval Forces TTs

        also, so what if they increase the BR of the T34 if it finally gets the proper ammo loadout? while the T29 is still a bit OP at 6.7, the T34 (despite loss of ROF from the bigger gun) is still very capable as well, if given the proper loadout there\’s not reason as to why it would not work at 7.0

Leave a Reply