Wot Part Deux

[Stefan Fredriksson]

There was (is?) a freeware game called "Astrowars". When I started it was about winning through fighting. Then it turned to "I got more and bigger friends than you, don't attack me." For me that is boring.

To me that is what CW looks like?

[Edmund]

Still slowly grinding the KV-4 (Very slow). I have the turret, engine and gun to get still. Since I believe the stock turret can take the better 107mm I thought I would make that my main goal. Am I correct that the better 107mm will fit the stock turret?

It will. You can check which guns will work in a turret by right-clicking on it. At the bottom of the new window you'll see which guns are compatible with the turret. In this case, the 107mm ZiS-24 fits in the turret KV-4. Remember, it's always best to get the top gun first.

 

Thanks. Last few battles with the KV-4 were horrible. In all of them my team was rolled on the oppisite side and then my side was crushed. Had one were I was fighting 3 tanks alone and surviving. But then the other team rolled up on my rear and then 6 or more were pounding my poor tank. It didn't end well. Going to work on the improved 107mm. I have been using the 122mm for damage and pen (Although not that much better). Tried the 107mm with both ap and he. Wasn't happy. Tried he on the 122mm but the shell was slow. No gold shells.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Edmund

[Przezdzieblo]

I would like to see Contentious. In the variant I was reading about it would be rather TD, with limited traverse 120 mm gun, autoloader and, may be difficult, hull elevation instead of just gun (in fact, there was some very limited vertical movement for fine aiming).

 

I found a problem with WOT is symetry. All nations MUST have X tier, all trees MUST end at X tier. This lead to tanks unifications, artificial data changes for ballance and making such never-ever-were monsters like E-50 Ausf. M and 120 mm FV 215b. End UK heavy tree at IX tier Conqueror, but make that tank right!

[Edmund]

........Fair point on Conway, though It was supposedly a standin for failure of Conqueror as I understand it, so you can make a case for it being alongside Conqueror in one tier or another.

 

By failure of Conqueror, I presume you refer to it taking so long to be built. Not the failure of the Conqueror tank itself. Correct?

[Max H]

limited traverse 120 mm gun,

 

Are you sure? it's got an L7 at bovvy and used a 20 pdr for testing IIRC. It would e nice to see in game, along with the s-103, but it would be very much a fantasy tank - there was very little armour fitted, the gun was strapped on top without a proper fighting compartment and the engine had no protection from artillery whatsoever - unless of course someone found the design for the rest of the hull somewhere in the archives

 

Sorry, I mean Action X. It was a turret for the Centurion that looked very similar to the one on 40 ton Centurion, though it was different. Picture of it on page 100 of Simon Dunstans ian allan centurion book, mounting what looks like a 20pdr. Looks like it was capable of a 105mm as well.

 

Aah, thanks. Centurions in-game don't have anything like that, other than the 40 tonne cent.

 

Fair point on Conway, though It was supposedly a standin for failure of Conqueror as I understand it, so you can make a case for it being alongside Conqueror in one tier or another.

 

IMO for a unarmoured (for a TD, at least) turreted slow TD with a 120mm gun T8 would be best - like a faster less armoured t28p. Dunno what would plug the gap at T9 in that tree though between it and the 4005

 

By failure of Conqueror, I presume you refer to it taking so long to be built. Not the failure of the Conqueror tank itself. Correct?

 

si. They wanted the 120mm fielded ASAP, on a pig if necessary, and were looking into how best to do so AIUI

Edited January 29, 2013 by Max H

[Przezdzieblo]

Max H, you are talking about test mule, something even less serious than FV 4202. The real thing got to look very different; one variant was with crew of one, armed with double 120 mm low-pressure guns or single 160 mm gun, low-pressure too; see Rob Griffin`s Chieftain. I do not know what was the timeframe of those variants - in 1956 it was supposed to be armed with single 120 mm L1 gun, got a crew of two, armoured tank front with ribbed glacis and look like this:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited January 29, 2013 by Przezdzieblo

[Przezdzieblo]

As for FV 4201 and T95/96 issues, there were talks about guns compatibility. UK 120 mm gun (called Sollution 2B, 2-piece, bag charges) was too heavy for T95, but would fit into T96; Americanized version (new high performance materials) would be light enough for T95; 90 mm T208 and 105 mm T210 could be mounted in FV 4201 but with reduced ammo stowage. AFAIR turret compability (at least in terms of ring diameter, not sure if other subsystems, f.e. traverse mechanism, would cooperate so easily) was a matter of later talks (and probably was never tried).

[Max H]

Max H, you are talking about test mule, something even less serious than FV 4202. The real thing got to look very different; one variant was with crew of one, armed with double 120 mm low-pressure guns or single 160 mm gun, low-pressure too; see Rob Griffin`s Chieftain. I do not know what was the timeframe of those variants - in 1956 it was supposed to be armed with single 120 mm L1 gun, got a crew of two, armoured tank front with ribbed glacis and look like this:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

Thanks! That looks a lot more like it, certainly WoT material.

 

Hmm, odd they didnt include that turret, it was due to be fitted to all late production centurions, and its no more unrealistic than 'schmalturn'. Looked a wee bit like a scaled down Chieftain turret (more so than the one on 40 ton cent). Maybe we can also talk the devs into mounting L11 on the top Centurion. After all, we nearly did that with ones we supplied to Israel.

 

If we had the fv4202 at tier 9 it would also make a nice link to have the centurions leading to the chieftain, even though that would mean yet more crosslinking at high tiers which devs are not too keen on. L11 on cent would made chieftain a lot less special, and for little performance benefit probably.

 

Id love them to end the heavy line at Conqueror. Id also second for them actually getting the tank to perform like its namesake. I gave up on M103 for the same reason, ie it sucked. Whats the point of a heavy tank that cant take damage? It was routinely deflecting rounds from L11 on the ranges for heavens sake.

 

Haven't you heard? We can't have L11 as it has far far too much penetration for WoT, with that on the field mauses, E-100's and IS-4's would be stuck in the lower ranks of win % Ending a line at T9 is not a good idea IMO, who'd bother playing it? You also need to remember the opposition that the conq is facing, and was designed to face - wasn't the IS-3's stock gun what it was intended to stop IRL?

 

One thing I would love, that WOT would experiment with the different turrets of T95, being made compatible with Chieftain. Ie, if you unlock T95, you get another turret and gun option for Chieftain, and vice versa. After all, they were both designed with the same turret ring for this reason. Alright unusual for one turret of one nation to unlock another, but not reason why it couldnt be done I guess.

 

That would be cool, but what would be the point for the chieftain? It was invulnerable to 100mm rounds at point blank from directly in front too, right?

 

OTOH, considering the fictional and never built tanks we already have, it doesnt look much of a stretch to explore in a game. I mean, who wouldnt want a 152mm derp gun on a Chieftain?

 

I would be very much surprised if no-one ever considered putting the L9 on it, and the m60A2's gun would be very similar in wot - no guided missiles, which restricts it to throwing HEAT and HE

[FlyingCanOpener]

The big clans don't care about Africa today because the income isn't worth bothering about, but I suspect that if there were 3 tiers of clan wars (8-10, 7-5, 1-4) that they wouldn't turn their nose up at bringing in an extra 8k gold a day (assuming the income was halved at 7-5) for owning the same territories in the mid tier map. So long as the Russian server (from what I've seen max US concurrent users is just a rounding error for the Russian server) is happy with clan wars as it is it won't change.

 

We still wouldn't do it. Alt-clans play on the main server still go for the high tier maps because they can be used to clear land for the main clans. Why waste chips milling about in the lower tiers that could be better used at the top to keep the land the top tiers have? Because no matter how you slice it, the income is not worth the heartburn of dealing with the smaller clans.

 

And for the record we do fight. Lots of people want to take our shiny things. We just swat them aside. They then get butt hurt because we are obviously in cahoots with Wargaming.

[Rubberanvil]

Pardon me for going off topic for a moment, is anyone else here have a problem with game lag spiking constantly?

[Fritz]

Incidentally, I bet a fiver the Tier 10 heavy will turn out to be this.

http://www.flickr.co...oti/5844644362/

 

That barn of a turret would make it unplayable.

[Marek Tucan]

Conks is frontally mostly impervious or totally impervious to IS-3 with historical armament (and T-10A... Not T-10M, but then that's why T-10M got built )

Problem is that IS-3 has "better-than-historical" gun as top (it isn't the only "culprit" in this aspect, on this tier) so you are more likely to meet it with BL-9 than with D-25T..

[Harold Jones]

Tanks that actually existed tend to not be particularly good in this game since they are usually hampered by having reams of real world data to use when coding them. Paper tanks do better since they can be basically made up from scratch and tend to fit their tiers better. Also in real life there was no need to balance tanks to be fair to all sides.

[Harold Jones]

The tiger actually does quite well when all it faces are the tanks it historically fought, but that happens about 1% of the time. Balance is necessary for a competitive game, if this was a simulation and not an arcade shooter with tank skins throwing out balance would be fine. Thankfully they don't appear to do much if any tweaking based on Clan Wars performance.

[Fritz]

For real good balance I would simply abandon the concept of a "tier" and would use fluid balancing where no tank has an "equal" that it must be balanced against.

[Edmund]

The tiger actually does quite well when all it faces are the tanks it historically fought, but that happens about 1% of the time. Balance is necessary for a competitive game, if this was a simulation and not an arcade shooter with tank skins throwing out balance would be fine. Thankfully they don't appear to do much if any tweaking based on Clan Wars performance.

 

Exactly. And even ones that it toasted quite regularly (im looking at you Mr Cromwell and Churchill) have an overpowered gun to vie with the Tiger1's buffed gun performance. I mean where does it stop? Id quite happily deal with getting wacked by a Tiger. How often does it seem like you have a happy time crewing one? Like never.

 

TigerII performs like real life. If real life included a 105mm gun. If you had the long barrel 88 (possibly one of the finest guns of WW2) you may as well start throwing spitballs at the competition. Granted part of this is due to fighting tanks that never existed. Partly its because (as we can see with its mounting on Tiger1) it doesnt really perform like its namesake.

 

I know, its not going to change now. But with multiplayer games on the market (war of the roses, war thunder) the market isnt exactly as empty any more as it once was. They are either going to have to come to terms with some of these issues, or people are going to start going where they dont occur. And considering the work the devs put in, that I think would be a crying shame.

 

Im sure Im not the only one feeling this way. Whats the point trying to progress if you dont actually feel like you are making any progress?

 

You are not alone. I agree. I have often wondered why the game isn't broke down into service years versus tiers. Say 38 to 40, 41 to 43, 44 to 46, and so on. I know am crazy. But it was my first thought when I started playing a while back.

 

Oh well I like tanks and play because of that. I took a break because I got frustrated. But I am back. For a while at least. Trying to split time between GW2 and WOT.

[Max H]

My copy of conqueror arrived today, I am happy Had a quick flick through the variants bit, and noticed the fv217 - low silhouette, 30 deg traverse either side and it mounted a 120mm or the US 155mm gun. Anyone else think it would make a good T9 TD between 215b and tortoise? Because I do, it fills the gap really nicely with a bigger gun than tortoise and a nice link to 215b

 

See, I dont see what the problem is in making stuff invulnerable over the frontal arc if its realistic.

 

That was for directly in front, with 30 degrees side angle it was vulnerable

 

Incidentally, I bet a fiver the Tier 10 heavy will turn out to be this.

http://www.flickr.co...oti/5844644362/

 

That barn of a turret would make it unplayable.

 

How about this barn of a tank?

that's not the 21cm BTW. With a huge gun firing HESH and half-decent camo the 4005 shouldn't be too bad if you stay at range

 

TigerII performs like real life. If real life included a 105mm gun. If you had the long barrel 88 (possibly one of the finest guns of WW2) you may as well start throwing spitballs at the competition.

 

I disagree, the 88 l71 can still cut it at T8 - it works fine on the jagdtigger, albeit with better MM. It's certainly one of the better stock guns around

[Stefan Fredriksson]

I'm with you 100%.

Getting M103 was an "achievement", but as for playing value, as in fun... that's why I backed to T29.

T110 is a great tank, but facing other tier 10 I get worse results than when playing my tier 6-7 against other tier 6-7. So what's the point?

 

My suggestion: a real-life Wot version, without tanks that did not make it past blue-prints.

They are already in game, so it should not be too hard.

 

And yet another version. One without feed-back, except for visual, and to some degree audioable.

No counters visible, you shoot at a tank until you consider it dead, not when the game tells you.

No shiny markers on tanks, only way to tell difference between friends and enemies would be skin-color. And a few other stuff.

[Fritz]

I think that was called Steel Beasts last I checked.

[Skywalkre]

I'm with you 100%.

Getting M103 was an "achievement", but as for playing value, as in fun... that's why I backed to T29.

T110 is a great tank, but facing other tier 10 I get worse results than when playing my tier 6-7 against other tier 6-7. So what's the point?

 

My suggestion: a real-life Wot version, without tanks that did not make it past blue-prints.

They are already in game, so it should not be too hard.

 

And yet another version. One without feed-back, except for visual, and to some degree audioable.

No counters visible, you shoot at a tank until you consider it dead, not when the game tells you.

No shiny markers on tanks, only way to tell difference between friends and enemies would be skin-color. And a few other stuff.

 

Id PAY for a copy of that. Maintain the same free play method (unless you choose to go premium) but if there was a stand alone ' World of real life tanks, circa 1918 to 1960' Id pay good money for it, no question. Forget WOP or WOB, this is just what I want. Heck, lets throw some real life maps in. Villers bocage, chinese farm, that kind of thing.

I'm in a similar boat as you and you're entirely right in that there's a fairly large % of WoT players with the same issues.

 

That's why I'm really keeping an eye on War Thunder. Someone mentioned their current flight model is a little bit more hardcore/realistic so if they apply the same thing to their tank combat when they introduce it I may end up jumping ship from WoT.

[Skywalkre]

Two bits of dev news.

 

The first isn't all that big a deal. Nothing major.

 

 

The second is kind of major, though still disappointing. Basically, they are introducing a skill based MM... but not for pub games. Instead they're adding a 7 vs 7 (apparently matches up with some gaming league) that will be seperate from pub matches and company battles and it will match players based on skill level.

 

 

Why they just don't do this for normal play is beyond me.

[Harold Jones]

They talked about doing automated tournaments once upon a time, I suspect that 7v7 will be the fruits of that. I wouldn't be surprised to see them introduce some sort of for gold tournament entry fee with gold prizes once they feel they have the bugs worked out.

[seahawk]

Any ideas on the second US med. line ? I am wondering if it worth to push the current light/med/heavy line.

[Marek Tucan]

dunno about the higher mediums with autoloader, but T71 is a lot of fun, so worth going for that line even just for it. I like it more than the French autoloading tanks, possibly due to nice accuracy and aim time - seems to me you can engage really quickly with it.

[Skywalkre]

Any ideas on the second US med. line ? I am wondering if it worth to push the current light/med/heavy line.

I'd probably avoid it at this point. The only tanks that are fun/good are the T71 and T57. However, they're talking about nerfing the T57 in 8.5 or so and I'm worried that'll make it obsolete. It's fine now but certainly not OP. The rest of the tanks are meh or bad.

 

If you enjoy playing at mid tiers, though, I highly recommend just going up to the T71 and staying there. Fantastic tank.