I am a bit of wheraboo myself, but I like to keep it realistic. Hopefully it balances out like it did for the Sherman.
Get it. It's fun. Sure, like any heavy if you're facing someone who knows what they're doing, you're going to get blasted. But I've bounced long 88s, 128s, 122s, etc. You also get an m3 90mm which is sufficiently punishing. As for uptiers I've faced many more t34s and Panthers than Patton's and Leo's, so you get plenty of bullying moments.
If it's anything like the sheer amount of bullying I can do in the Jumbo, I'm looking forward to it.
I think it's a reliable as the 75mm jumbo....except with a much more punishing gun. It might just be people seeing a pershing and shooting center mass like normal. I don't think it'll be as prevalent as the 75mm jumbo was, so I think less people will learn how to counter it.
I'm a wheraboo for the German planes, the Fw-190 was truly magnificent compared to the flying casket that was the 109.
The air cooled radial engine Fw-190s are tied with the later p51 variants for sexiest WW2 planes. The Spitfire is overrated dont @ me
"Unbalancable". Fuck this statement and fuck the Gaijin shills that think "x is unbalancable". There are ways to balance shit for the sake of gameplay (I.E feedback from players or playing their own fucking game), War Thunder is barely "realistic" and more of "how many shitty mechanics can we introduce that estimates to RL scenarios". There should have been decompression, separation of WW2 and Cold War/Current content and fixing more shit. But instead people cave in and think Gaijin is right when in reality they fuck up more than possible. Its like what @Secret Asshole said about Escape from Tarkov. Fuck the devs and fuck their shit 'vision'.
First of all, lol calm down.
I want the game to improve and not rely on Gaijin's mediocrity thanks.
Unfortunately refining gameplay doesn't generate the short term revenue that adding gimmicks (lol, fucking dozer blades) does.
Within the context of armored warfare, it's essentially impossible if you're striving for historical accuracy. All it takes is an perpendicular shot to the side to put most tanks out of commission. Failing that, there's the doctrinal differences between the countries (like how the Brits made their heavy tanks to support infantry and fast ones for hunting tanks, Germans were mainly on the defensive, Russians were designed for exploitating breakthroughs)/
So? Nothing wrong with that. I'm talking vastly inconsistent armor models, really bad map design focused on arbitrary cap circles, inconsistent damage models, etc. There is a loooong laundry list of things that could have been done to really form a solid core game around. Instead we chase new gimmicks.
As an WoT veteran, the only thing that WT does right is letting you examine the armor values of your tank. But the bad map design is something that's carried over with the two other games. It gets kind of annoying how every game mode revolves around picking one out of three or four routes on a (mostly) symmetrical battlefield just to fight over no man's land. Sure, Armored Warfare is different with the PvE missions, but it's still gives off the same vibe; it's just that the you aren't punished (much) for driving through open farmland like you are in PvP.
