Guys, I'm not sure why we are discussing Spanish Leopards, but that can be taken here:
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/939-international-tech-tree-project-unofficial/
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/494-ground-forces-discussion/
Its got nothing to do with this topic.
The possibility remains open in the future.
No news on that at this time.
Its currently in the Challenger line.
Hello
We are aware of the error on the model and it's already in the process of being fixed. We tried our best not to show off the engine deck in the blog for this reason. It may not be corrected in time for the major update, but will be corrected.
One is for consoles.
We are taking action on every reported instance. The initial case reported was not reproducable and fixed on client restart for many.
For others it seems there are spesific issues that persist. For this, it's better to share your client logs so that they can be forwarded. As the issue does not reproduce every time.
If you wish to discuss BRs and balance, please use the existing pinned topic:
If you wish to discuss the IS-3 / 4 specific, there are also existing topics without the need for a new one. Please check for existing topics before starting new ones:
It was actually just an issue of a client restart needed. The VROMs were not fully correct inside the client and a full start stopped all issues.
So its correct and fixed.
Perhaps you missed the update last year, however Finland in its entirety was added to Sweden. We have absolutely no plans to split Finland between trees based on who it was allied with. All Finnish vehicles from now forward will go into the Swedish tree. Germany has no need of these vehicles (mostly because it already has them) and the main purpose was to bolster the Finnish tree. As Finland is now a subtree of Sweden, all of its vehicles will go there.
Regarding the KV-1B, as this was an exclusive reward tank, for the time being, we don't plan to introduce it again. But we don't rule it out entirely in the future.
Cosmetic only.
Because you want an answer on something, does not mean its relevant to this topic and you get to throw the forum rules into the bin. I'm aware you have been on these forums for years, as I have provided you answers via PM, threads and reports. Unfortunately I or anyone else for that matter cannot catch every ping, question and topic. But you have never been purposefully ignored.
I think the actual matter is you disagree with the answers provided or if a report was not implemented, for whatever reason that may be, you perceive that as being ignored.
Just because new tanks are added, does not mean we stop monitoring the performance of older tanks. If tanks slip behind too much, they either receive a BR adjustment or potentially changes to their shell loadouts. We never stop monitoring any vehicle.
Now, once again, your question has been answered, 3 times now. Fair warning has been gi...
Read moreIm not sure what relevance this has with regards to the next major update.
It is balanced across the board based on how those tanks are doing. If they required the shell, it would be open for consideration for them to receive it. Rounds and tanks loadout composition has never been about what they used in combat or historically had. Shell selection is a balancing tool.
Regardless, your question was answered the first time round. It wasn't an invitation for a shell discussion here.
Shells are added based on balance requirements. We have no reason to remove any shells that don't cause balance issues.
He joined our content team as far as im aware. But again, its not really my area
I dont have any info on that or what hes working on specifically.
Sincere answer: we never announce that in advance and that won't change
It's called a teaser for a reason.
Already two blogs today and currently nothing else planned.
Correct
We will accept any in the meantime as suggestions via reports.
devtrackers.gg