Jump to content


Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Oicraftian

  • Rank
    Plays more test server than tanks

Profile Information

  • Server

Recent Profile Visitors

522 profile views
  1. Simply put, Dirizon is fucking retarded. If you asked him why old tech loses to new tech, he'll say its because the old tech is from someone racially inferior to him. Then claim he's not racist. Official forums *true poaster* at work. WG sanctioned racism.
  2. Dirizon is like when the drunk person thinks he is a historian. "Gee I wonder why a 1990's tank driven by US has an advantage over a 1945 tank driven by 'goat-fuckers' from an army whose purpose is to terrorize farmers, can you explain why?" Except he's not asking the question. Its his central argument. Lol. Fucking dumbass
  3. he also ignores post content that he cannot refute. I believe its part of a general trend of ignoring post content he may not reply adequately to.
  4. It may also surprise you that non monobloc kinetic penetrators defeat less than LOS, and thus, the T-54 offers significantly more than 200mm LOS armor against older generation kinetic penetrators. Further, this was in the case of the IS-3, and not the T-55. I got the date wrong of course, IS-3 is 1945, and thus its 3 years off (1967). It may also surprise you that the economical gun (U-5TS) and the shafted gun (D-10T) it replaced in low end AT didn't get high funding in anti armor roles. Resulting in poor performance if you neglect to consider the difference in technology and cash investment. I'm not an idiot. So I can feel your anti Russian sentiment. Not sure how to reply considering you were just complaining about Wargaming having a "Pro Russian tone", a claim which you have yet to even attempt to prove. I'm not sure you are aware that APFSDS penetrators struggle to defeat armor equivalent to their own rod length.
  5. As for the completely off topic rant. Export T-72 variants are very strictly limited in ammunition selection, usually to what amounts to a 'training shell' resulting in insufficient anti armor performance against a tank almost twice its own weight. M1 actually has far more armor than just 52mm.
  6. D-10T's switched to BR-412B immediately postwar, with production already having begun during the war. BR-412B is APBC. Can defeat M48 reliably from at minimum (UFP hits) 500 meters Soon, supplemented by BR-412D, a shell capable of comfortably shooting up the M48 at typical combat range, one of the most heavily armored NATO tanks at the time. This shell is APCBC shell. Estimated 250 mm of armor penetration As a result, there is no need to develop new ammo for D-10T. Even Conqueror is vulnerable to D-10T, so there is no need to add in new advanced ammo (as Conqueror designer underestimated D-10T) At the same time, 3BK-5 is introduced, capable of ~300 mills+ of armor penetration (3BK-5M also has 380mm pen) When M60A1 arrived, Soviet brings 3BM8 for D-10T onto table, with performance ranging from similar to inferior compared with L7's equal technology level shells, at a more affordable price. Chieftain, precious british tank, is vulnerable to 3BM8, and 3BK-5. Chieftain and M60 have similar armor protection. "Lowly" D-10T isn't so funny anymore is it? HEP and HESH is terrible ammunition against tanks. Radically better designed? Any citation? Early cold war composite was T-64. In Europe, typical max engagement distance was about 1500 meters according to US. Additionally, 'superior FCS' only rolls around with digital computers. Before that, it is not really a large gap in performance. Stop trying to sound snide. So they significantly reduced turret weakpoints, but they added weaknesses to already weak parts of the hull, or the STB-1's turret sides. Creating an effect of 'directional immunity'. Thus. Armor aids. Maybe the T-44 wouldn't hurt so much if it had 360 alpha and the L7 had 320, though with associated adjustments. T-54 is just wargaming dumb dumb. Object 140 has been typically passed up for T-62A, but in a normal balance model its not a bad idea to buff the Object 140 They are also substantially less flexible in the gun arc, as well as 70 pts less alpha, extending HTK. Not to say that their superior platform isn't making them very strong. But this is the hulldown meta. I believe Skorpion G is considered superior to SU-130 PM on this forum. Wargaming is bad at balance. You have yet to prove that Wargaming is systematically biased towards Soviet vehicles. Repeating your belief won't make it fact. Your entire argument about Russian bias is a fallacy. (Text block is split into two separate quotes, but it is poorly formatted in the original post)
  7. "Some tanks are too shell proof" Correction. No tank should be shell proof. Get away from armor aids. Last section is kept because fuck arty. I'd just like to point out that from a gameplay design perspective the L7 is a bullshit tool for balance. Because its so good (in game) that it automatically makes shit platforms competitive. Taking away its alpha to give it handling is hardly a bad thing, in this sense. Historically it doesn't make sense either, because its not even more powerful than D-10T. Armor aids is really common, and I get the feeling people are becoming so accustomed to it that they are asking for it by themselves. French heavy line is already something that should not have been added in current state because of anti weakspot bullshit. Russian bias (particularly historical) is a bullshit theory made by wehraboo fucks, and brit-boos? who think Comet and Chieftain were great tanks. And dream of super strong Centurion tenk spanking the 'silly Russians' or whatever. Factoid D-10T and L7 have similar performance in technical characteristics. D-10T fires 100 x 695, compared to L7's inferior 105 x 607. L7 competes because of higher tech ammo, but is handicapped as result. D-10T has ammo development shafted as soon as T-62 (1962) exists. D-54 is a brute force D-10T with cartridge at full power. L7 is about 5.9 MJ at muzzle (APDS), D-10T is about 6.1 MJ (AP), D-54 is about 8 MJ. Higher if ammo mass changes. Similar power as HT guns. > 320 alpha plus inflexible Potential TX med balance solution can be found here. Briefly. D-54 320 to 380 alpha, L7 to 320, buff softs for L7s, D-54 vel to 1000 m/s, nerf bloom (a bit) STB-1 gets gun buff, maybe burstfire like Italy, except slow, short, accurate burst, without firepower penalty. (Small advantage) Italian autoloader gets fixed refill rate Leopard gets best stabs in game American rework. M60A1 replaces M48A5. Has strong-ish hull & turret. Weakspots mantlet (But not for HEAT lol) and cupola. Bad bloom. Good ROF L7. Fast-ish. T-62A gets 7* gun dep, but lost 20mm turret front. Mobility overall nerfed for Soviet meds (softs) but particular nerf in turret and hull turn rate. Object 430U dies, Object 140 replaced by Object 430 AMX 30B combines 390 alpha with highest AP pen for med, best in class accuracy, then adds highest TX VR, at cost of gun bloom (0.15/0.15/0.06) and armor. Inferior mobility to Leo. Quick aim time. *AMX 30 has non L7 gun. Stronger cuz Baguette engineering and a few hundred more KG. Object 907&T-22 die *Batchat... 320 alpha, but better acc? IDK, leave as is I guess. I forget some other meds, honestly fuck them. But then. Iterations of WOT by 2017 already show how toasted the game is. My apologies if I seemed offensive. I wrote this abruptly.
  8. I might be the weird one for thinking this... Shouldn't light tanks have good DPM for trashing almost every non acc firepower stat?
  9. I just assumed it was in fashion, not for any particular purpose, sorry for the inconvenience
  10. Like I mentioned earlier there should be an option for all, with sub-categories for specific modes. Truly a beautiful way to implement user friendliness without hamstringing yourself in options, as you (WarGay) are seemingly completely incapable of implementing any new mechanics game modes & decent maps. That way, you (Wargay) can liberally fuck around with very little consequence, as players proceed to boycott your new broken as fuck game mode. Its working really well for the Koreans with their mega grind MMO's. Next you should add the option to pay for bot, often allowing better gameplay because usually the bot is better than the players in WOT. Don't advertise shit until it works. But that's a bit hard for Wargay. Now I'd imagine it'd drastically increase profits, or they could hide it behind the paywall. But mutually destructive strategies appear to be a company favorite.
  11. A-44 Looking at the stat cards Does that stat card say 0.1/0.15/0.15 bloom with 258 pen, 400 alpha, good gun arc, almost 2800 DPM, and have armor in the process? "Its not as OP as the defender" If this is true, then it'll make the Defender look balanced as it viciously snap shots 400 damage holes into your UFP with near T9 medium level DPM as base. When in doubt, load gold for instant weakspot pen
  12. Fire control, just like I listed Moreover, I apologize for not thinking through the theory more clearly. The main points are this: Armor is significantly less effective than real life Armor penetration loss over distance is not scaled well Relative armor equivalence is less than in real life, increasing the probability armor will be defeated Armor penetration values are fantasy, and generally much higher than the given mechanics should allow Guns are substantially more likely to hit than in real life Improvements to the players fire control are huge For instance, the automatic compensation for the drop of the shell, makes it much easier to hit a weakpoint over distance. Sight magnification relative to combat distance Players have vastly superior area awareness in the given combat distance Soft cover provides little inhibition to player ability to track and engage a target, substantially improving their ability to engage and destroy a target that has already been detected Mobility is directly based on real life So. You aren't much faster, but the probability of getting hit when exposed is much higher. And the probability of other people hitting you is much higher. WarGays main efforts to compress battle distance are Raw deviation Shell velocity Clutter Reduction to accuracy
  13. OK. I said they streamlined target acquisition and firing, gave a bunch of QOL improvements that real life tanks never had, and reduced armor. Basically. You can die easier. Because tanks ingame are like what? 3x more likely to hit you than IRL? I didn't say "Oh you should make map larger lel" More shots pen, more shots connect, you fire more shells, etc These problems aren't just solved by multiplying map size or whatever shit. These problems are solved by making it harder to kill shit in the given map size.
  • Create New...