Jump to content

The new Chrysler K and you.

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

Lethalhavoc #41 Posted May 19 2017 - 23:36


  • Players
  • 37986 battles
  • 9,996
  • Member since:

View PostWarrhorse, on May 19 2017 - 14:49, said:


The most complex part is the take down of Foch's video and the threats to his channel. that alone would make any decent human been worry about shopping this vehicle He DID made non constructive critique (at best) but censoring its just NOPE.


After* all this is useless the ones that will buy it , WILL buy it because its fine, standards and values are only for poor people apparently. if you can rolfstomp a player for not trowing to the proverbial ether a fixed amount of money. hey Sucks to be them xD


WG has done good, but right now its just doing BAD (and yes Ik its the* EU region and their practices have been questioned several times already this NA long live the puppet)


It is what it is.

I don't know or follow Foch doings.

I am to understand though, that WG had treated pretty good as far as access to press accounts is concerned.

I think that if he had talked to WG first before making his rant video, that none of this would have happened.


Given the good working relationship that CC's have with WG, it would seem reasonable to take that step first.

WG does have a product image and is entitled to protect that image.

Free speech is free speech, but slander is slander.


While, i'm not condemning or defending either Foch or WG. 

I can say that from the evidence at hand, that WG did talk to him first before taking any outside actions against him.

Which is more than Foch did.

NeroGermanicus #42 Posted May 19 2017 - 23:36


  • -Players-
  • 38681 battles
  • 1,067
  • [HAX] HAX
  • Member since:
The first time I came up against the new K tank I was sitting out in the UDES. Penned him frontally and the top of the turret no problem with standard AP. And with the same gun as the T29- T32 why bother?

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users