why does ww2 tanks have to fight cold war tanks

[alibooboo1024]

t29 7.0 usa heavy tank gets uptier fight an t-54 t29 loses ww2 tank should fight ww2 tank not cold war and ww2

[Ihatetrainyards]

Escrito originalmente por 83athom:

Escrito originalmente por Ihatetrainyards:

That's very nice but you forgot to mention the APDS.

And? One of the T-54s you have to research to get the T-55 don't get APDS. And the T29 has APCR with almost as much pen, not that you really need it because of how much pen the APHE has.

That's also the T-54 model that no one uses due to not getting APDS and the shell trap.

[Nytar]

to put it simply, some people whined their light and medium tanks couldn't pen heavies, so they up BRed the heavies. I think there could be a happy medium but yeah, some mismatches are 10-20-30 and almost 40 years apart in some cases.

but in all honesty those lighter and medium tanks can do very well against the heavies if they use their brains. Iv had lower BR lights race up and pick apart my heavy. and I've done the same from the other end. they literally stripped every advantage from heavies, you are left with slow turrets, slow speeds, bad maneuverability,

[Ihatetrainyards]

Escrito originalmente por Nytar:

to put it simply, some people whined their light and medium tanks couldn't pen heavies, so they up BRed the heavies. I think there could be a happy medium but yeah, some mismatches are 10-20-30 and almost 40 years apart in some cases.

but in all honesty those lighter and medium tanks can do very well against the heavies if they use their brains. Iv had lower BR lights race up and pick apart my heavy. and I've done the same from the other end. they literally stripped every advantage from heavies, you are left with slow turrets, slow speeds, bad maneuverability,

I can't recall any light tanks being horribly downtiered besides the go-karts in 8.7 that have thermals and APFSDS on par with 9.3 MBT's.

[Baylock]

Escrito originalmente por biomike:

Escrito originalmente por Alzeid Baylock:

False. Year and era work. Because just like BR, you can damn well adjust it as needed because we're reasonable human beings and not ramrod rigid qualifiers.

Sick and tired of people intrinsically supportive of their current seal club lineups throwing out these rigid takes based on a few egregiously bad matchups like that's what we actually want to happen and are just going to go "tough it out honey" or something

So you think sending a tank with with just over 100mm of pen and no armor like the AMX-13 vs something like a T-54 is fine? They would be the same era.
Again Panzer 2 and KV-1 same era tell me how you would balance that?
Also what would you so with the Sweden reserves as they got cold war rounds?

I see you failed to read what was written. Read it again, and if you think you've got it, stop yourself, and read it again and again and again until you understand the following:

> False. Year and era work. Because just like BR, you can damn well adjust it as needed because we're reasonable human beings and not ramrod rigid qualifiers.

Only then bother responding.

[Baylock]

Escrito originalmente por Tom:

Escrito originalmente por Alzeid Baylock:

False. Year and era work. Because just like BR, you can damn well adjust it as needed because we're reasonable human beings and not ramrod rigid qualifiers.

Sick and tired of people intrinsically supportive of their current seal club lineups throwing out these rigid takes based on a few egregiously bad matchups like that's what we actually want to happen and are just going to go "tough it out honey" or something

can't wait for you to learn that real life isn't balanced

Can't wait for you to learn how to read what was written and respond to that instead of responding to what you wish was written.

[biomike]

Escrito originalmente por Alzeid Baylock:

Escrito originalmente por biomike:

So you think sending a tank with with just over 100mm of pen and no armor like the AMX-13 vs something like a T-54 is fine? They would be the same era.
Again Panzer 2 and KV-1 same era tell me how you would balance that?
Also what would you so with the Sweden reserves as they got cold war rounds?

I see you failed to read what was written. Read it again, and if you think you've got it, stop yourself, and read it again and again and again until you understand the following:

> False. Year and era work. Because just like BR, you can damn well adjust it as needed because we're reasonable human beings and not ramrod rigid qualifiers.

Only then bother responding.

So tell me then what would the AMX-13 face? If its not facing post war tanks then its not going by year or era.
If Panzer 2 isnt facing tanks like KV-1 its not going by year or era.
You cant pick and choose what you think should be put in the wrong era.
And god i truly want to see how you would work the ships around.

[Baylock]

Escrito originalmente por biomike:

Escrito originalmente por Alzeid Baylock:

I see you failed to read what was written. Read it again, and if you think you've got it, stop yourself, and read it again and again and again until you understand the following:

> False. Year and era work. Because just like BR, you can damn well adjust it as needed because we're reasonable human beings and not ramrod rigid qualifiers.

Only then bother responding.

So tell me then what would the AMX-13 face? If its not facing post war tanks then its not going by year or era.
If Panzer 2 isnt facing tanks like KV-1 its not going by year or era.
You cant pick and choose what you think should be put in the wrong era.
And god i truly want to see how you would work the ships around.

That's the fun part! You can!

Ships would lack BRs entirely, since naval combat is the one realm where this is irrelevant. NavyFIELD is a good exemplar at how any ship can fill a role. However, I would have not added *modern* ships within ww2 and immediate postwar ww2 hulls, they'd be their own thing since they are monstrously overpowered fighting older ships. The USS Douglas would also, uniquely, be removed until enough vessels were added to justify mid to high tier jets, as a bloody SAM boat fighting ww2 prop planes is just completely busted.

[Baylock]

More pertinently, you and your ilk are, as stated, thinking we mean era balancing as some monolithic, rigid thing. As exemplified by your inane PZ2 vs KV1 matchup- we want vehicles matched by era broadly which is further modified more strongly by the vehicle's capabilities,[/b] and NOT by player performance within that vehicle, as WT has traditionally been balanced by, which is why we have subsonic dedicated fighter jets that reliably see missiles, the Komet can see missiles, you name it.

[Eftwyrd]

Escrito originalmente por biomike:

Escrito originalmente por Alzeid Baylock:

I see you failed to read what was written. Read it again, and if you think you've got it, stop yourself, and read it again and again and again until you understand the following:

> False. Year and era work. Because just like BR, you can damn well adjust it as needed because we're reasonable human beings and not ramrod rigid qualifiers.

Only then bother responding.

So tell me then what would the AMX-13 face? If its not facing post war tanks then its not going by year or era.
If Panzer 2 isnt facing tanks like KV-1 its not going by year or era.
You cant pick and choose what you think should be put in the wrong era.
And god i truly want to see how you would work the ships around.

Don’t even get me started on ships, even amongst those of who play them I am convinced a majority don’t even understand the mode, insisting on spawning the biggest bruiser of a battleship they have available, in many cases being ships from world war 1, and preceding to punch out the last generation of gun armed cruisers from the Cold War, and failing to realise the little torpedo boats are winning objectives while they all punch blindly at each other. I am convinced it’s actually one of the best balanced modes simply because all the different ship and boat types can achieve something regardless of respective BR

[biomike]

Escrito originalmente por Alzeid Baylock:

More pertinently, you and your ilk are, as stated, thinking we mean era balancing as some monolithic, rigid thing. As exemplified by your inane PZ2 vs KV1 matchup- we want vehicles matched by era broadly which is further modified more strongly by the vehicle's capabilities,[/b] and NOT by player performance within that vehicle, as WT has traditionally been balanced by, which is why we have subsonic dedicated fighter jets that reliably see missiles, the Komet can see missiles, you name it. [/quote]

So you dont want it to be by era or year then.
Things are added by their capabilities, its when they are over performing they go up in BR if they are under performing they go down
Thats why the R3 has gone up in BR so much for example

[mogami_99]

Escrito originalmente por Eftwyrd:

Escrito originalmente por biomike:

So tell me then what would the AMX-13 face? If its not facing post war tanks then its not going by year or era.
If Panzer 2 isnt facing tanks like KV-1 its not going by year or era.
You cant pick and choose what you think should be put in the wrong era.
And god i truly want to see how you would work the ships around.

Don’t even get me started on ships, even amongst those of who play them I am convinced a majority don’t even understand the mode, insisting on spawning the biggest bruiser of a battleship they have available, in many cases being ships from world war 1, and preceding to punch out the last generation of gun armed cruisers from the Cold War, and failing to realise the little torpedo boats are winning objectives while they all punch blindly at each other. I am convinced it’s actually one of the best balanced modes simply because all the different ship and boat types can achieve something regardless of respective BR

Naval RB is not decided by BR. You are quite correct 1 player on a team with a MTB can win the battle while enemy battleships sink 10 botts while sitting behind a rock.
Naval RB is where a player can expect to receive a "rank does not matter" every battle.
While taking a cap is worth 200 mission points it is also worth around 10k silver lions. I have a premium account and a 15% booster and the last cap was worth 16k The battle was over 100k after paying repairs)
But unless you are player a BR 7.0 you will always be up tiered.

[Baylock]

Escrito originalmente por biomike:

So you dont want it to be by era or year then.
Things are added by their capabilities, its when they are over performing they go up in BR if they are under performing they go down
Thats why the R3 has gone up in BR so much for example

False! I do want it by era, but not by year, because arms advanced at a hellish pace during ww2 and to do so by year would be idiotic, but please, keep taking that L.

And no, the R3 went up because player performance was showing too high a winrate; the R3 would not feature within any ww2 lineups under the era system, which is perfectly fine, as it is still a very fast wheeled vehicle perfectly suited for capping points, marking targets for allies and spraying the odd low flying plane.

The fact it was hellishly outperforming vehicles 40+ years younger than it is incidental to the point; at the time, Gaijin still set BR changes based on PLAYER performance. Again, since you ignored what was written several times now, and I'm unsurprised you deliberately ignored it, we have a dedicated subsonic fighter jet that fights jets much more advanced than it, with no missiles nor countermeasures, because reasons.

Also, if you're unaware, here's where DEFYN showcased that gaijin balances by player performance, not vehicle performance: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/pty5su/so_me_and_few_decent_players_saw_gaijin_say_that/

[mogami_99]

I am afraid to think the USS Northampton moved from 5.0 to 5.3 because of me. She still does well at 5.3 but I was crushing battles at 5.0

[biomike]

Escrito originalmente por Alzeid Baylock:

Escrito originalmente por biomike:

So you think sending a tank with with just over 100mm of pen and no armor like the AMX-13 vs something like a T-54 is fine? They would be the same era.
Again Panzer 2 and KV-1 same era tell me how you would balance that?
Also what would you so with the Sweden reserves as they got cold war rounds?

I see you failed to read what was written. Read it again, and if you think you've got it, stop yourself, and read it again and again and again until you understand the following:

> False. Year and era work. Because just like BR, you can damn well adjust it as needed because we're reasonable human beings and not ramrod rigid qualifiers.

Only then bother responding.

Well here you say year does work

Escrito originalmente por Alzeid Baylock:

Escrito originalmente por biomike:

So you dont want it to be by era or year then.
Things are added by their capabilities, its when they are over performing they go up in BR if they are under performing they go down
Thats why the R3 has gone up in BR so much for example

False! I do want it by era, but not by year, because arms advanced at a hellish pace during ww2 and to do so by year would be idiotic, but please, keep taking that L.

And no, the R3 went up because player performance was showing too high a winrate; the R3 would not feature within any ww2 lineups under the era system, which is perfectly fine, as it is still a very fast wheeled vehicle perfectly suited for capping points, marking targets for allies and spraying the odd low flying plane.

The fact it was hellishly outperforming vehicles 40+ years younger than it is incidental to the point; at the time, Gaijin still set BR changes based on PLAYER performance. Again, since you ignored what was written several times now, and I'm unsurprised you deliberately ignored it, we have a dedicated subsonic fighter jet that fights jets much more advanced than it, with no missiles nor countermeasures, because reasons.

Also, if you're unaware, here's where DEFYN showcased that gaijin balances by player performance, not vehicle performance: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/pty5su/so_me_and_few_decent_players_saw_gaijin_say_that/

Now i will point out again the AMX-13 would be in the same era is T-54 as they are both post war
So you think the R3 would work in late cold war it was made in 1972, why would i take it over a SPAA with radar to shoot down planes
And they 1st add them in based off of performance, them making the plane get high winrates show that it is over performing so it goes up in BR

[Eftwyrd]

For those so obliviously ignorant of what sorting by era would do here’s a small chart https://imgur.com/q4xk0su

“That looks great” you might say on first naive glance, then you look closer and see 3.3 br vehicles in the 50s, 6.7 vehicles in the 60s, 7.7 vehicles in the 90s… and the worst part is these aren’t the vehicles you are all complaining about, most go completely unnoticed. it isn’t even complete with all nations, there are some nations with tier 1 vehicles in the Cold War era, if there are any of you that think any current 1.0 range vehicle is so OP it belongs in a bracket that gives tiger IIs trouble raise your hand and out yourself for the historically ignorant s***posters you are. There was not some magical cutoff where everyone started making better vehicles than ever came before at any period and ww2/Cold War division is no stand in

Trying to arrange by era expecting that to somehow define performance standards is nothing short of ignorance. Performance defines performance and nothing else will do because real life is not so organised

Edit: just noticed the type 65, a 5.3 spaa is in 1972 a decade after the 8.0 zsu-23-4, who here has honestly thought the aa guns bolted to the roof of a t34 chassis was better than a purpose built radar guided platform and should be what you use against f14 tomcats also from the early 70s, go on speak up