tanks/vehicles GER Leopard 1A5 for 9.0/3 (with apfsds)

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

10 minutes ago, Nope said:

For me the 1A1A1 didn't have to be implemented.

I respectfully disagree. Main problem of german TT after first Leo was introduced was that players did not had anything else to spawn in after they lost their tanks, only old ww2 stuff. More Leopards should be implemented but not creazy Kailers, leo 2, A6, A5. We're moving from one extreme to another.

Yes for more leopards

No for powercreep

A5 does not make sanse cuz' none of it's prime features will work in game at this moment.

A3 is what that Tech Tree needs.

[FWD13 508]

3 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

I respectfully disagree. Main problem of german TT after first Leo was introduced was that players did not had anything else to spawn in after they lost their tanks, only old ww2 stuff. More Leopards should be implemented but not creazy Kailers, leo 2, A6, A5. We're moving from one extreme to another.

Yes for more leopards

No for powercreep

A5 does not make sanse cuz' none of it's prime features will work in game at this moment.

A3 is what that Tech Tree needs.

This is only relevant now in the future it's more than likely. Tanks like the T-90 and M1 Abrams and planes like the Mig-21 and F4 phantom will never fit in this game but tanks like Leo 2 prototype and T-80A and planes like the Mig-19 and F-100 will have a place in the game in the far far future if there are any hopes of expanding the lines when we max them.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

@fwD13 So what's the point in suggesting them now? I am sure if Gaijin managed to find, make and introduced 500 machines they won't have troubles finding even more when they decide to do so.

Problem with Leo 2, T80 etc is that it's grey territory. Complicated full of electronics, FCS etc. after all it is a game "arcedised" simulator, that is why we do ont have air-to-air missiles an all that automatic controls. To make peoples use their skills, reaction time, ranging abilities and not just rely on electronics to do this for them. It's no longer competition.

Mig-19 and super sabre has more different problem, Gaijin devs has stated multiple times that game engine cannot support supersonic flight. That's why we are limited to 50'/60' transonic aircrafts.

Furthermore who's gonna fight mig-19 or F-100 no other caountry has a plane in this segment, If they have it's either a Mach 2 or very high climb rate plane but limited to transonic speed (Étendard IV, G91Y). There's simply nothing competetive to those machines. Next thing air-to-air missiles were invented not without a reason, air combat is much more difficult at high speed.

 

I do not have anything against modern planes and tanks but they simply won't be ever implemented because of that reasons. Get on with it.

23 minutes ago, fwD13 said:

if there are any hopes of expanding the lines

No there aren't, and that's a good thing.

[FWD13 508]

27 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

@fwD13 So what's the point in suggesting them now? I am sure if Gaijin managed to find, make and introduced 500 machines they won't have troubles finding even more when they decide to do so.

Problem with Leo 2, T80 etc is that it's grey territory. Complicated full of electronics, FCS etc. after all it is a game "arcedised" simulator, that is why we do ont have air-to-air missiles an all that automatic controls. To make peoples use their skills, reaction time, ranging abilities and not just rely on electronics to do this for them. It's no longer competition.

Mig-19 and super sabre has more different problem, Gaijin devs has stated multiple times that game engine cannot support supersonic flight. That's why we are limited to 50'/60' transonic aircrafts.

Furthermore who's gonna fight mig-19 or F-100 no other caountry has a plane in this segment, If they have it's either a Mach 2 or very high climb rate plane but limited to transonic speed (Étendard IV, G91Y). There's simply nothing competetive to those machines. Next thing air-to-air missiles were invented not without a reason, air combat is much more difficult at high speed.

 

I do not have anything against modern planes and tanks but they simply won't be ever implemented because of that reasons. Get on with it.

No there aren't, and that's a good thing.

The point of suggesting it now is public opinion and support over time(meaning changing needs over time in the game and gained information over time) and the tanks and planes mentioned were just examples, wherever the public thinks the line should end is where it will end. If the Mig-19 and F-100 are equals but have no equals who said anything about them seeing any other aircraft but themselves, but the main point is wherever the public thinks the line should end is where it will end and as long as there's balance there really not a problem.

Edited February 21, 2017 by fwD13

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

Just now, fwD13 said:

public thinks the line should end is where it will end. 

Bollocks!

It is the developer who is responsible for making game playable not "public".

Public does not make vahicles models, do not programme physics and will NOT decide about anything but playing the game or not. You are overestimating your power.

You can suggest not demand. Public will take whatever Gaijin decide.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

4 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Bollocks!

It is the developer who is responsible for making game playable not "public".

Public does not make vahicles models, do not programme physics and will NOT decide about anything but playing the game or not. You are overestimating your power.

You can suggest not demand. Public will take whatever Gaijin decide.

Thats where youre wrong, because Gaijin is not going to waste money on things that nobody wants... It would be stupid of them not to listen to the public. As long as they think, that a new vehicle will bring them in more money than it cost them to create it, there will be more vehicles, the more hype, the better...

Edited February 21, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer

[FWD13 508]

Just now, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Bollocks!

It is the developer who is responsible for making game playable not "public".

Public does not make vahicles models, do not programme physics and will NOT decide about anything but playing the game or not. You are overestimating your power.

You can suggest not demand. Public will take whatever Gaijin decide.

Gaijin said no to the Maus yet thanks to the support of the public they changed their minds, back before 1.37 the Yer's used to be a problem but do to the public's voice 2 Yer's were removed the 3 bases before the airfield was added and the remaining Yer's were split up, and when the B-17 OP gunner problem came around it was the public's voice that got that fixed. Public opinion does matter.

[FWD13 508]

9 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Thats where youre wrong, because Gaijin is not going to waste money on things that nobody wants... It would be stupid of them not to listen to the public. As long as they think, that a new vehicle will bring them in more money than it cost them to create it, there will be more vehicles, the more hype, the better...

I also agree.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

22 minutes ago, fwD13 said:

Public opinion does matter.

Sure i did, which is why the forum exist. But still players do not decide.

 

If they wanted do implement modern tanks they would propably do it already. Once again I am not against modern tanks in general but i want planes, tanks and navy to be at the same technological level. If we can't have modern planes than i don't want modern tanks. Thats it.

27 minutes ago, fwD13 said:

public's voice that got that fixed.

How wrong you are.... So many things were suggested and did not achive anything. We play the same game, and come up to similar conclusions as well as Gaijin, something might be suggested but how do you know developers did not though about it earlier ? And simply let community "do their thing on forum" to secretly make sure players want it. Do you realize how many times bloody F-100 was suggested before ? It end up rejected allways.

[Nope 10,634]

3 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Once again I am not against modern tanks in general but i want planes, tanks and navy to be at the same technological level.

 

I can understand what you're saying. Gaijin doesn't want to go into the 70s era because of the speed of the planes and possibly because of the complications of radar, thus 1970s tanks shouldn't be in unless there is no choice.

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

1 hour ago, fwD13 said:

This is only relevant now in the future it's more than likely. Tanks like the T-90 and M1 Abrams and planes like the Mig-21 and F4 phantom will never fit in this game but tanks like Leo 2 prototype and T-80A and planes like the Mig-19 and F-100 will have a place in the game in the far far future if there are any hopes of expanding the lines when we max them.

 

whys there one rule for Germany and Russia and a different rule for USA and UK???

 

If the T80 and Leo 2s are okay then the Abrams and Challenger are also okay... 

 

These double standards on this forum is getting ridiculous its almost as bad as listening to modern day politics... 

[Retry 7,363]

53 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Bollocks!

It is the developer who is responsible for making game playable not "public".

Public does not make vahicles models, do not programme physics and will NOT decide about anything but playing the game or not. You are overestimating your power.

You can suggest not demand. Public will take whatever Gaijin decide.

Technically, as a consumer, literally his only job is to demand...

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

12 minutes ago, Nope said:

I can understand what you're saying. Gaijin doesn't want to go into the 70s era because of the speed of the planes and possibly because of the complications of radar, thus 1970s tanks shouldn't be in unless there is no choice.

Finally someone in his right mind. 

8 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

whys there one rule for Germany and Russia and a different rule for USA and UK???

 

If the T80 and Leo 2s are okay then the Abrams and Challenger are also okay... 

 

These double standards on this forum is getting ridiculous its almost as bad as listening to modern day politics.

I think the problem is many western armies had a lot of obsolete old tanks in their arsenals and keep upgrading them just to keep them on par with most recent soviet tanks as well as developing new designs. So yeah we can have 70' 80' modifications for older tanks but not new 80' designs. I guess Germans and Soviets were a little ahead of competition in tanks just like americans outclassed everybody else in planes, which is my issue with modern Leos. We can achieve one nations supremacy in one aspect but due to Technical limitations we won't achieve this in other.

[_EQUAI_ 356]

3 hours ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

I respectfully disagree. Main problem of german TT after first Leo was introduced was that players did not had anything else to spawn in after they lost their tanks, only old ww2 stuff. More Leopards should be implemented but not creazy Kailers, leo 2, A6, A5. We're moving from one extreme to another.

Yes for more leopards

No for powercreep

A5 does not make sanse cuz' none of it's prime features will work in game at this moment.

A3 is what that Tech Tree needs.

This is how the German TT should be going not jumping to the latest vehicle possible, You only get something like that if it is absolutely needed.

As much as I would want the more modern vehicles and aircraft the game is not ready for those yet(if at all possible) and instead of suggesting these now Its just better to suggest something relatively close to what you already have in game. 

[Manaherz 622]

The more Leopards for Germany the better :> +1

 

This is how the German TT should be going not jumping to the latest vehicle possible, You only get something like that if it is absolutely needed.

 

@BLUEBLACK_EQUAI, yea but why get than the Russians the T62? It was not necessary but they got them :/ So a little bit of lacking this statement^^

Edited February 22, 2017 by Hoodwalt

[Nope 10,634]

10 minutes ago, Hoodwalt said:

@BLUEBLACK_EQUAI, yea but why get than the Russians the T62? It was not necessary but they got them :/ So a little bit of lacking this statement^^

 

The T-62 is the closest counterpart to the M60A1.

[FWD13 508]

1 hour ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Sure i did, which is why the forum exist. But still players do not decide.

 

If they wanted do implement modern tanks they would propably do it already. Once again I am not against modern tanks in general but i want planes, tanks and navy to be at the same technological level. If we can't have modern planes than i don't want modern tanks. Thats it.

How wrong you are.... So many things were suggested and did not achive anything. We play the same game, and come up to similar conclusions as well as Gaijin, something might be suggested but how do you know developers did not though about it earlier ? And simply let community "do their thing on forum" to secretly make sure players want it. Do you realize how many times bloody F-100 was suggested before ? It end up rejected allways.

I never said you were against modern tanks and currently yes is no need for modern tanks right now but that may not be the case in the future, also F-100 gets rejected because its to far of a leap from current tech. My point about the public's voice was it hold influence which leads to change or things getting added. 

[Nope 10,634]

1 minute ago, fwD13 said:

I never said you were against modern tanks and currently yes is no need for modern tanks right now but that may not be the case in the future, also F-100 gets rejected because its to far of a leap from current tech. My point about the public's voice was it hold influence which leads to change or things getting added. 

 

The F-100A isn't really that far a leap in tech and that gets rejected. The big obstacles involve radar and missiles, which are not present on the F-100A last I checked. Between the tanks in-game right now and back then, the big obstacles involve composite armor, FCS, modern suspension and anything that exceeds the L11's APDS for KE. To overcome these obstacles in tanks without overcoming the obstacles in planes (which according to Gaijin is not possible with the current engine) is silly especially considering there's potentially as much complexity for both tanks and planes in terms of technological gap.

[FWD13 508]

1 hour ago, *swanseasean96 said:

 

whys there one rule for Germany and Russia and a different rule for USA and UK???

 

If the T80 and Leo 2s are okay then the Abrams and Challenger are also okay... 

 

These double standards on this forum is getting ridiculous its almost as bad as listening to modern day politics... 

I said Leo 2 proto(Leopard 2AV Prototype (1976)) and T80A, which are not equivalents Abrams, Challenger, Leo 2, T-90, and Type 90 . The Leopard 2AV Prototype (1976) and T-80A would be end of the line tanks and as long as there's balance whats the problem.

[FWD13 508]

3 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

The F-100A isn't really that far a leap in tech and that gets rejected. The big obstacles involve radar and missiles, which are not present on the F-100A last I checked. Between the tanks in-game right now and back then, the big obstacles involve composite armor, FCS, modern suspension and anything that exceeds the L11's APDS for KE. To overcome these obstacles in tanks without overcoming the obstacles in planes (which according to Gaijin is not possible with the current engine) is silly especially considering there's potentially as much complexity for both tanks and planes in terms of technological gap.

Who said anything about air to air missiles and Radar, they have guns they don't need there missiles just like the B-29 doesn't need its nuke and the F-100 and Mig-19 series would be end of line and face each other since they have no other equals. The big obstacles you list are up to the Gaijin team to figure out I don't see a personal concern has anything to do with them getting added, if they can't do it they'll tell us until then it's possible they'll be added.      

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

2 hours ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

I think the problem is many western armies had a lot of obsolete old tanks in their arsenals and keep upgrading them just to keep them on par with most recent soviet tanks as well as developing new designs. So yeah we can have 70' 80' modifications for older tanks but not new 80' designs. I guess Germans and Soviets were a little ahead of competition in tanks just like americans outclassed everybody else in planes, which is my issue with modern Leos. We can achieve one nations supremacy in one aspect but due to Technical limitations we won't achieve this in other.

 

Soviets and Germans ahead of competition? Soviets maybe Germany were behind for a very long time post ww2, thats why the Chieftain was considered the best tank in NATO until the M1A1, Chally and Leo 2 came along which were all around the turn of the 80s, and remember the original M1 still only had an L7 gun and without the US and UK the Leo 2 would not have existed, and without the French neither would Leo 1 to an extent.

 

So as much as i respect and agree with majority of your posts that one i disagree with Germany were playing catch up throughout the cold war in real life.

 

the Leo one A5 only caught up with technology already in service with other countries, remember the FCS that was introduced on the Leo 2 and Leo 1A5 in the 80s was already in service on the Chieftain.

 

to say that Germany was ahead of competition is slightly off, the leopard was a huge success yes but it did not introduce anything new to the world. the MBT was an already a concept, The inclined driver position was introduced on Chieftain, it didn't increase firepower, Gun Stabilisation had already been introduced. The Leopard 1 was a hugely successful design but not ahead of its time and had no bleeding edge technology to say that it was ahead of competition is a myth.

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

1 hour ago, fwD13 said:

I said Leo 2 proto(Leopard 2AV Prototype (1976)) and T80A, which are not equivalents Abrams, Challenger, Leo 2, T-90, and Type 90 . The Leopard 2AV Prototype (1976) and T-80A would be end of the line tanks and as long as there's balance whats the problem.

 

The T80A is the equivalent of Chally and M1 though I think you are confusing the Challenger 2 and M1A1/A2 (the equivalent of t-90)

 

the T80A is a 1982 development of the T80B, the Challenger 1 Leo 2 and Abrams are all of the same era and similar technology and performance.

 

if you had said T72 id agree with you but you didnt.

Edited February 22, 2017 by *swanseasean96

[FWD13 508]

40 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

 

The T80A is the equivalent of Chally and M1 though I think you are confusing the Challenger 2 and M1A1/A2 (the equivalent of t-90)

 

the T80A is a 1982 development of the T80B, the Challenger 1 Leo 2 and Abrams are all of the same era and similar technology and performance.

 

if you had said T72 id agree with you but you didnt.

The only reason I said T-80A was because on some post I reed someones said the T-80A maybe could be added(I think someones was talking about adding the Leo 2 and the T-80A came up) but it can't be added if the T-72 isn't so if someone wants the T-80A the T-72 needs to be added first. I was only use the T-80A as an example. 

[Retry 7,363]

2 hours ago, fwD13 said:

The only reason I said T-80A was because on some post I reed someones said the T-80A maybe could be added

#ReliableSources

[FWD13 508]

6 minutes ago, Retry said:

#ReliableSources

I was using it as an example as an end of the line tank if someone things the T-80A could be an end of the line tank, I would be suppressing information to support my cause. I know the T-72 is more relevant in compression but if I had used the T-72 instead of the T-80A I've basically stated the T-80A has no place in the game, the T-80A hasn't been suggested nor has been any information to suggest its not a possibility to be added(please do not start posting reasons, when time comes that someone suggests this, will be the time this discussion will be appropriate). My source in this case is relevant because someone thought it could be an end of the line tank and since that's the context I'm using it in I don't see the problem.