Haswell

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-ghost-field-improvements No love for Umbrella?

I have accepted your in-game application as well, welcome!

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/storyline-campaign-registration

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-cv90105-tml Might be fun, looks to be a Stingray 2 but with a magazine gun instead of ready rack. The 12 round magazine reload looks far too long to be practical, so I'm guessing the 5 round option will be used more. Too bad there's no mention of vision control capabilities. Gun handling should be very good if it keeps the current stats.

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/maintenance-may-20-0

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-northern-wind-battle-path You get a CV90, and you get a CV90, everybody gets a CV90.

Updoot. https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/developer-diary-kornet-d1-changes

"Better for the player" is not necessarily the same as "better for making money". It's very much possible to do both, but that often requires planning long-term and sacrificing short-term profits... which isn't what AW seem to be going for. Remember, the entire exstence of this game now is all about squeezing money out of its players before shutting down. I'm strongly on the side of not caring about "real vehicles" as long as the gameplay is good, especially when the game lore has already given a free pass to fantasy elements by virtue of being set in the future. The gameplay is already about constantly being outnumbered, pitted against overwhelming odds, physics-defying airships, and recently fighting a UFO using Cold War tech. Realism got thrown out of the window long ago, there is no need to cling onto the idea of playable vehicles must exist in real life.

Very nice! How does it look like if you add in the extra side armor?

I just want to highlight this part in case anybody brings up "real vehicles" at any point in the future. This thing is a napkin design.

What should have been a joke guide is unfortunately less of a joke and more of a sanity-preservation technique. 1. Check the HQ screen, stare at chat, despair as you often see bouts of stupidity (nobody being stupid in this screenshot surprisingly). 2. Click on the middle button on the top right corner to pop the chat out. 3. Drag the popped out chat to whatever corner you desire. I prefer bottom left corner so I can forget it exists entirely. 4. That's it.

Blyat overprogression compensation didn't make it into the patch, note got updated.

There is no progression version of the MBT-70. There is however the KPz70 which isn't purchasable in-game (but available in the web shop for gold anyways). Were you by any chance looking at the KPz70 instead of the MBT-70? KPz is the one with the mobility advantage and 72km/h top speed at stock, MBT has 65km/h top speed and you'll be hard pressed to hit 70 without commander skills. Can't comment since I haven't played either variants enough to remember how they used to be compared to now, though they don't feel particularly weak or strong right now. Not amazing or horrid, but in line with pretty much all the other low tier 152mm guns (ie. Sheridan, Starshit). Both variants have always been relatively squishy in the hull and turret frontally, even compared to same-tier peers like the Abrams and 2AV. Their armor haven't been buffed up to 0.33 standard yet, so they suffer a lot of problems when facing tier 7-8 bots that got the 0.33 treatment. My advice would be to pretend they are Leo 1s and don't get hit, anything with 600 pen AP will go straight through your turret. Horrible accuracy is the case with every single low tier large caliber gun, nothing changed in this regard. Again, are you sure you haven't been using the KPz70 with the 120mm gun option? Considering the 72B and Merk 2 are literally packing the equivelant of tier 8 armor right now (because it's such a brilliant idea to push 0.33 standards onto only some vehicles while leaving the rest at 0.32) , I don't think you have to worry about their armor getting nerfed. View range reduction for MBTs overall is needed to maintain the vision control difference between squishies and non-squishies, otherwise there would be no point in playing squishies when MBTs can yoloscout perfectly fine. Not that they aren't already way better at yoloscouting because 0.33 armor as it is.

All translations are welcome, depending on how often you post them you can either make separate threads for them, or make one big megathread to hold all the posts in there. If there are lots of demands for a dedicated Korean section on the forum for the users, let me know and I'll see what I can do!

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-su-152-taran Coming in May apparently, but the article doesn't mention that. My guess is something for WW2 ending.

Pretty much exactly the same as last time, so... https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/desert-storm-raid FAQ: List of possible missions restrictions: 3-6 AFV/LT/TD/MBT (pick one class) 7-10 AFV/LT/TD/MBT Chang MBT (any tiers) Chang non-MBT Francine all Shishkin TD/AFV Shishkin LT Shishkin MBT Wolfi AFV Wolfi MBT Wolfi TD Schreiber all List of possible normal missions (can accompany any restrictions listed above): General: Earn 20,000 points of net XP. Only the matches in which you are amongst the 3 best XP earners (PvP) or the best XP earner (PvE) of your team count towards this objective. In a single battle, eliminate 3 (Random Battles), 10 (GLOPS) or 20 (PvE) enemy vehicles. PvE: Deal 250,000 damage. Only the matches in which you deal the most damage of all players count towards this objective.\n\nAlternatively deal 40,000 damage in a single match while obtaining the Teamwork medal. Destroy or help destroy 250 enemies. Only the matches with 20+ kills or assists count towards this objective.\n\nAlternatively destroy or help destroy 35 enemies in a single match while obtaining the Teamwork medal. Win 10 matches while achieving 70% performance (the percentage of your shells that hit and do hitpoint damage) in each match and dealing the most damage of all players.\n\nAlternatively deal 30,000 damage while achieving 80% performance in a single match. Collect 10 Destroyer medals.\n\nAlternatively destroy or help destroy 30 enemies in a single match while achieving 80% performance (the percentage of your shells that hit and do hitpoint damage). PvP Deal 50,000 damage. Only the matches in which you are amongst the 3 best damage dealers of your team count towards this objective.\n\nAlternatively survive a match while dealing the most damage of both teams. Destroy or help destroy 50 enemies. Only battles with 3+ (Random Battles) or 10+ (GLOPS) kills or assists count towards this objective.\n\nAlternatively destroy or help destroy 5 (Random Battles) or 15 (GLOPS) enemies in a single match without dying yourself. In 10 matches, be amongst the top three damage dealers of your team.\n\nAlternatively, in a single match, deal 5,000 damage (Random Battles) or 20,000 damage (GLOPS). In 10 matches, destroy or help destroy 3+ (Random Battles) or 10+ (GLOPS) enemies.\n\nAlternatively, in a single match, destroy or help destroy 3+ (Random Battles) or 10+ (GLOPS) enemies while having the highest number of kills/assists from both teams. List of possible hard missions: PvE: AFV: Deal 350,000 damage. Each death of yours removes 50,000 points from this mission's progress. LT: Deal 350,000 damage. Received damage is multiplied by 3 and then deducted from the mission's progress. MBT: Deal 350,000 damage. Damage dealt from the distance of 150m or more is multiplied by 10 and then deducted from the mission's progress. TD: Deal 350,000 damage. Each hit without damage deducts 10,000 points from the mission's progress. PvP: AFV: Provide allies with spotting info worth 20,000 damage. Each death deducts 2,000 points from the mission's progress.\n\nAlternatively, in a single match, be the player with the most assist damage from both teams while not receiving any damage yourself. LT: Deal 30,000 damage. Each death deducts 6,000 points from the mission's progress.\n\nAlternatively, in a single match, be the top Experience earner of both teams while not being hit more than 2 (Random Battles) or 5 (GLOPS) times. MBT: Deal 50,000 damage. Received damage is multiplied by 2 and then deducted from the mission's progress.\n\nAlternatively, in a single match, deal the most damage from both teams while not losing more than 800 (Random Battles) or 4,000 (GLOPS) hit points. TD: Deal 30,000 damage. Your each hit without damage deducts 2,000 points from the mission's progress.\n\nAlternatively, in a single match, destroy or help destroy the most enemies from both teams (3 at least) while missing no more than 2 (Random Battles) or 5 (GLOPS) shots. List of freebies (probably non-repeating):

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/maintenance-april-15 PvE changes look a bit irrelevant, I'm struggling to see who would actually play standard difficulty above tier 2.

NOT COMPLETE. I'll finish this up when I have the time. The general pattern here is that secondary objectives simply don't matter at all either by poor placement or lack of gameplay relevancy. What's the most important thing to you in a PvE mission? Will anybody be surprised if I say good gameplay is the most important thing to me? Having two dozen different variety of bot vehicles to fight against isn't relevant at all when they all follow the same pathings and behave exactly the same way, the variety is flat out unnoticeable when the gameplay is simply about getting from point A to point B and shooting at everything in my way. Achievements are pointless when they have zero effect on gameplay and don't make it any more fun (challenge runs are far more fun while not having any actual achievements tied to them). None of that pride and accomplishment garbage work on me, don't even try. What's your favorite mission objective preference in PvE? The more complex the objectives, the better. Objectives that require people to split up and operate independently (ie. multiple attack/defense areas) are among my favorites, throw them all in. More experienced players will have noticed that challenging content such as spec ops and heroics already require such strategies such as rushing to advanced positions far away from the immediate primary objectives, even though there are no scripted objectives requiring players to split up. Just leave all the escort stuff out of it. AI in the game is dumb, the two best ways to handle escort objectives is to either get the AI stuck so they can't move or rush far ahead of them to remove all possible threats. One is flat out intentionally breaking the game, the other is just a speed and DPM race. Not. Fun. How difficult do you like your PvE? Because normal PvE is the most played mode in the game, it has to appeal to the widest audience (read: terrible unskilled players) while not being boring to more skilled and experienced players. A good difficulty point would be "barely soloable" where one player can just barely carry the match alone with great difficulty, the addition of other players will naturally make it easier. Players have been long begging for the option to play PvE missions without the requirement for a full team (random or not). Give players the option to play missions with incomplete teams, such as undersized platoons or even solo. This will solve the majority of difficulty issues almost instantly, by allowing players to choose how challenging they want their PvE experience to be. Map thoughts: Albatross A decently designed map actually, but fairly sensitive to inexperienced players who don't know the objectives and positioning. -decent usefulness for both squishy and non-squishy vehicles. -good use of map size, objectives are sufficiently far away from each other to encourage movement. -limited randomization of objective sequence keeps the mission mildly interesting for replayability. -"Destroy the Command Center" objective is very vulnerable to inexperienced players completing it too early, leading to insufficient time to prepare for the final defense objective. -good placement for secondary objectives on the runway, further encouraging movement into meaningful map areas. Otherwise meaningless. Anvil Extremely simple straightforward mission, nothing much to say about it. Boring I suppose. -favors non-squishy vehicles more due to generally short range engagements, insufficient open sight lines. -single primary objective to capture, no thinking required. -poor secondary objectives placement, encourages movement to irrelevant map locations. Banshee Also straightforward, with the twist that delayed northern bot spawns will catch anybody in that part of the map off-guard. -favors non-squishy vehicles due to the corridor map design, but has some map positions viable for squishies. -bot spawns in the northern part of the map (in the railyard) can and do spawn on top of inexperienced players, with no indication or warning for players to avoid the areas. -single capture-type primary objective, meh. -inconveniently placed secondary objectives. Basilisk Straightforward, but offers viability to both squishy and non-squishy vehicles alike. -good map positions for both squishies and non-squishies, though some skill is required to make most positions work due to the semi-corridor map layout. -single capture-type primary objective, but takes sufficient time and effort to travel there. Decently challenging. -secondary objective THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS, completing the objective will extend the game timer by 3 minutes. This is very useful if the team is lacking in damage output and requires extra time to complete the primary objective. Cavalry Short and boring map, but viable to both squishies and non-squishies nonetheless. -wide open map suitable for both vision control and brawling. -single capture-type primary objective, boring. I'm seeing a trend here. -irrelevant secondary objectives.

Welcome!

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/community-survey-pve Post your open answers and others thoughts here. I'll probably most of my thoughts for each map here because a number scale wouldn't properly convey what each of the maps are good/bad at.

Basically tells us nothing except something will happen. Speculations?

According to the 0.35 patch notes it will last until at least September, so you have a lot of time to finish the contract at least once for the T-90A Blyat. Do keep in mind that you also get lootboxes that will grant you a tier 6-8 premium vehicle for free for each subsequent contract completion. Assuming you focus only on the PvE missions and complete them every day/week you can generally expect to complete a contract every 4 weeks, or 3 weeks if you also complete the PvP weekly missions.

OS: Windows 10 Home, version 1809, 64 bit Game Version: 0.35.7984--2021-03-30_05:30 Brief Description: Object 490 can be set on fire by triggering an engine fire, despite a 0% engine fire chance as stated in the module tooltip. Steps to Reproduce: Be Object 490 Get shot at in lower front plate (engine hitbox location) Wait for fire to start Result: Object 490 can suffer from engine fires. Expected Behavior: Object 490 should not be set on fire from engine fires, OR; engine fire chance in module tooltip should list a non-zero probability. Fixes/Workarounds: None. Other Notes: Screenshots below. Note that it's not an ammo rack fire, as my ammo rack is not destroyed.

Issue appear fixed, but before the weekly update. Looks like a bad server config.

Looks like a game issue more than hardware. Hardware issue tend to give you artifacts and other things that won't show up on screenshots, this isn't it. How rapid do the textures flicker, and at what distance? This might be from a bad LoD setting or shaders, do you have other screenshots showing this effect?