Jump to content
Diriz0n

Random Arguing about real tanks or something idk? [Split from: My thoughts on the game as current, and why I don't play as much any more.]

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, WhatTheSkara said:

 

I suggest the official forums for your level of autism, pretty sure people will like your stupid ideas.

 

You are a clown, you know that?  Because if you are stupid enough, to believe that Type 5 slinging HE is all the rage now,  you are even dumber than l thought you were before. Type 5 sucks now.  ls it still easy to play, and beneficial for a 45% scrub that knows nothing about much? Sure, but not much else. lt is a shitter now. And FV4K5? That thing isn't too hot at all either right now.

Pilsen was actually changed for the better, because it used to be an entire close ranged shoot out. Now they at least made a sniper schnitzel flank. Glacier tends to promote long ranged fire more so, too. Studzianka, Glacier, Fishermans tend to play out quite similarly, and are no problem. Minsk is bad, but certainly better than Himmels or Ensk, if you were an Strv or SPG. Like virtually Paris.  Continuing on, Kharkov is a huge improvement, from its former self, dedicating a new SPG / sniper schnitzel flank. Erlen, though still craptonne map, is so much better than prior with provided dedicated heavy tank zone, while spotters and snipers and arty can still do their thing. The point of a map is so every class is provided a means to operate. And though war gaming still shits on users like Prokh/Malin with heavy tanks,  or Himmels  / Ensk with SPGs or Strvs  .....l'd say that map quality is slightly improving. 

Zero tier spread. Garnering credits, crew exp, vehicle tech tree exp, farming boosters, playing for rank glory, playing for prestige progression / rewards. Playing for gold and bonds. Playing with friends. Re-spawn ability and many lives. Playing because someone prefers being a scoundrel, and likes both air strike and artillery bombardment.........For whatever the reason, there are a tonne of reasons why people enjoy front lines. And a major one would be, zero tier spread. 

l do not want the game dumbed down. l want the game averaged out. l advocate the lowering of armoured heavy tanks and assault TDs, such as Maus / E-Hundo / obj 268V4 / TE3 / Badger / 263 / Types. All for that sort of change. The vehicles that really only deserve to keep their armour, are tanks like T95, which absolutely need it. Types / Maus / E-Hundo / Tortoise maybe slow like T95, but aren't THAT SL0W AND CAN ANGLE THElR TANK, using effective artificial armour, and most have turrets. Tortoise, has a \2O | 2O/ casement sweep and -1O GD, giving it a pseudo turret. T95 is hopeless to just point itself forward and hope for the best, so it absolutely needs armour. Furthermore, tanks like 252Y, Chrysler, Liberte,  oho  are far too armoured too, this sickness is seen down the tiers as well. Then we have the breed like lS7 and obj 268V4 and obj 43OU, which combine too much armour with speed. Even tanks like Kran Van and Emill ll, with their front plates at level or with slight ridge, being greater than 7O' auto bounce angle, at their turrets being near impregnable to most munitions, AND they got their speed advantage. And their side armours can't be exploited like AMX5OB. l don't know where you rub off at, by l don't want a strategically heavy only meta. 

Likewise, the other spectrum, l don't want passive play combining LT spotting, TD camping, arty bombarding attrition style warfare  -  sucking the life out of gameplay. Sure, camo takes more skill to use than Type 5 pressing W, but can be equally lame. Camo values need to be toned down across the board to make the game more dynamic. More emphasis should be placed on constantly monitoring 15m transparency, view range and draw circles, double bushing - Etc than simply wanking and shitting on people with S1 or E25 or T67. Maybe make view range max 45Om, but decrease max defined draw to 55Om, and increase shell travel to eight-hundred for direct fire. lncrease bush transparency to 3Om, make proxy spot 7Om, include a radio operator skill that decreases enemy camo level only in peering through forested and scrubby terrain by 5%. 

Arty does not need to be removed. Arty needs to be turned into tank destroyers. This puts them into the fight, able to focus fire more effectively, get spotted while firing more often, sharing their HP with team, removing team guards needed to support arty. Stun removed, old pen restored, old damage restored for mid-caliber. 261 can have its 17Omm deal 1.45K.  FV183  / FV4K5 / FV385 can have their 182mm HE damage reduced to 1475,  the common 2O3mm from US/USSR tech trees reduced to 1.5K,  21Omm reduced to 1,525 dmg,  Conq GC with its 234mm reduced to 1.55k, and might T92 reduced to 1.6K. All these damages fit into line with the HE from tier X TD, and Jag Pz, and signify sharp drops from old dmg or current 183. They can be provided a low performance HEAT shell like KV tank howitzer, or T49 152mm short barrel, or ikea 1O3. And improve their camo because of TD bonus, improve their ammo capacity, R0F, acc/aim-time, and gun depression as many have zero.  Problem solved, more fun added on. Though people will undoubtedly complain about TDs and TDs, TDs are still freaking 5x better than arty sky shits 1km in the back. No more scrub 45% player free damage, people have to work for it 3x more.

l want a healthy game, where extremes are evened out. You are just a clod, like the toothpaste out of a tube, and can't see shit and just want to argue. lf you are the type of person that enjoys splashing people for two-hundred in the new Type 5, all the power too you. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 5:59 AM, Assassin7 said:

Yup, this stems from WG overbuffing armor 24/7.

I would just like to mention that you also decided armor aids is the way to 'fix' STB-1

 

On 6/27/2019 at 9:53 AM, WhatTheSkara said:

By reverting EVERYTHING but reusable consumables to 9.17 or whatever the patch before arty changes was

Wrong update. Try 8.5, just with the 8.8 arty nerfs.

weakspot is important

 

On 6/27/2019 at 4:34 PM, waferyt said:

I also think that some of the tanks are just too shell-proof, some tanks I have a less than a 50 percent chance trying to pen their flanks even with gold at times. It is infuriating that idiots who drive sideways on can get away with it because their armor profile is complete bs. The corridor maps that WG seem to love is limiting most of the the tanks I enjoy playing. More open maps would be nice but I doubt it will occur. One could dream for proper rebalancing...

"Some tanks are too shell proof"

Correction. No tank should be shell proof. Get away from armor aids.

On 6/28/2019 at 1:25 PM, Dirizon said:

Can say that again. l don't play much anymore.

 

The game just continues down a pro-russian sentiment, and by the Gods, l just cannot understand as to why. This is the 21st century, we are better than that. Take for example the lS7. And the overhaul buffs to Russian medium tank lines, where the T-44 & Hundo, 14O, T54Mod1 where buffed. Taking a closer look at the buffs, and you see detractions at all, no negative. Russian meds all gained turret armour  (why exactly did 14O & 9O7 need buffs to begin with)  and prem tanks T-44 Hundo and T54Mod1 gained huge buffs to view range, engine horsepower, gun soft stats. lS7 gained some health pool, got a gigantic engine upgrade, and lowered aim-time.

oh good another WGNA "Russian bias" conspiracy theory. Add in some shitty Greek show quote, the argument that "current year" is the justification for your moral contention on the fabricated issue. Followed by WG's 'balancing history' on a few tanks, some of which were actually mediocre.

Now taking a look at STB1, Leopard 1, and their planned but scrapped AMX3O changes.....And you can see that yes, l would be inclined to say the vehicles were in overall scheme of things buffed, why in addition were they also marred with nerfs? Really? They could not find a way to make it fair, and also tack-on some minor nerfs to lS7 and 14O? Why so instantly quick, to revoke the 43O/U changes for tiers 9 and X? Really? lt is this form of bigotry, that world of tanks supports, and won't change, since the beginning. And l grow tired of it.

The idea of changing their play style seems to be a concept foreign to the author of this text.

It may not have been apparent that perhaps, the 105's 390 alpha is a tad strong already.

FV4K5 fiasco has been a complete joke, too. FV causes problems, because of HESH pens, and outrageous HE splashes even without a pen. See what they did for Type 5? Remove the outrageous HE. Why not do the same? All FVs needed, where keep DPM same by adjusting R0F, but nerf gun damage dealt to 1O9O/145O from 115O/175O.

*Embrace HESH aids under different name, its good for the game*

*bullshit premium shell*

*un-nerf grille, game is already bad enough lulz*

*French TD buff

*common complaint about STB1 nerfs, followed by nerf review*

*indignation over IRL average performing L7 getting an alpha nerf in WOT*

*Give STB-1 HESH or something lulz*

*Leopard buff review*

And while we are at it, AMX M4 54 remains a complete joke, nice of WG to continually ignore it, unlike Type 5.  (Type 5 shoulders buffed whopping 6Omm, sides buffed 20-35mm, dispersions reduced .O2/.O4 moving, and +8/+8mm AP/APCR)  How about they give 54 some armour on those shoulders, at least increase the side armour to 9Omm like Somua, and increase 13Omm gun pen? For the life of me, why does panzer wagon still have 32O/42O damage, and not either 36O/44O or 39O?  And about the Bobject nerfs, those weren't nerfs. You ahve a birthday cake, right? Take away the cherry on top, and the icing. lt is still a cake. That is what WG did, they took away the cherry and icing, well its still a flipping cake. Bobject is still ridiculously easy to play and annoying to counter.

complain about armor aids and ask for armor aids. Well done.

l have this 113. l like it alot, but do l enjoy playing it? Not really, because l have to contend with all these 43OU, 26O, WZ5A, 277, and lS7  -  that basically do my fast heavy role a tonne better. And it is so sad, because 113 has already had 2 SEPARATE SEQUENCED BUFFS. Just disgusting. Let us not even start with 121, which deserves the tools 121B has got, namely engine horsepower and 35Omm HEAT

oh good, ask for more buffs instead of nerfs.

__

Break

__

 

I also do not like wargamings ethics either. Selling tier X tanks that l worked for in '17 before they were removed. Everyone else had the opportunity. At the very least, they should have made the tanks cost trifecta,  25K gold / 5K bonds / 25M creds.  Crew training manuals, although an extremely powerful tool that l no doubt will use, takes crew training and effort out of the equation entirely. *Trimmed useless text*

And now, all l am left with my usual gripes, that still pollute the game.

*+/-1 MM

*RNG

Tie this in with random sustained module damage, damage dealt either low or above, wild accuracy, and low and above pen rolls.

RNG is crazy, needs to be set to 6% max.

remove*

The problem that is HE, too. A terrible mechanic, HE from say Fochs 155 spamming 3-round HE magazine. Take Jedidleugh for example, he ambushes jag panzer E on cliff. His shots are ridiculously random, does like 55O one time, the next does like 95. Really? This is why HE is so hated, it is absolutely retarded and unpredictable. Why not implement mechanics, which trigger HE to be more regulated, averaged? So instead of dealing 55O one turn, and the next 95, it deals three hundred, seems legit. All this ridiculous talk about prem ammo nerfs.....lol. And just be silent about the real underlying problems. Like, do people know they plan to bring back arty damage? We have gone round circle. Arty nerf, arty nerf, arty nerf......ARTY BUFF. Really?  They plan to make T92 158O, CGC 146O, GWE 134O, M53/M55 122O, 261 11OO. They just reduced arty damages, in 2 stages over 2 years, why this now? Arty can't continually be nerfed, because it isn't overpowered. Arty generally performs poorly, bottom bracket. Arty isn't overpowered, it is broken. lt utilizes a stupid system, which isn't alike any other in the game, and gives people free damage, even if low damage. Take for example Type 5, a formerly broken tank. How did they un-break-it? By removing  (to a degree)  the dupe-shot HE naval cruisers gun, and making it no real different than KV2 or Sheridans gun, with the exception it can penetrate stuff with HESH. So no more outrageous splashes for 625 damage to side scraping E75, now you are going to do 225. How do you plan on making an arty non-broken? There isn't a way, they have tried several times already with class wide nerfs. More than once. The only way, is to make arty into new TD. This makes them use draw mechanics, makes them vulnerable to spotting, this removes their 1km away stand off attack range....over mountains and buildings, shares their HP into battle, allows more focus fire, and removes isolating teams because arty guards and campers aren't needed anymore. Problem fixed. 

-/text wall ends/

 

Last section is kept because fuck arty.

On 7/21/2019 at 6:48 PM, Wanderjar said:

It worth pointing out, that 25% RNG is actually BETTER than IRL standards even these days. back in ww2, 3 rounds on target out of 50 was considered very accurate.
*Uhm* IRL FCS had different factors. Like 800 meter average engagement range. In WOT, you would use say, 8x mag. IRL WW2 limits you to 2x-4x. GL HF.

so, IRL us a failed argument.

I would also say to the point on camo, make the tanks visible, but remove the highlighting and OTMs. maybe have the mini map with a type marker and force the team to type in chat what they think it is or what it is from their hit logs. Encourage team work and communication, much like a actual armored division (or BCT) does. let players drop markers on the ground (similar to arty does with the T) and let it be semi permenent on the mini map. Dont let arty have any vision at all, and just have them shoot at the ground markers the team lays down. also much like IRL

Yeah that'll totally work. > Sarcasm

Obviously it won't. WOT lacks so many IRL limitations that it becomes a hard cover only shitshow.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you aren't wrong certainly. Yes 3-800m engagement ranges were the norm in ye olde days and optics sucked IRL and Bigworld/enCore/whatever is still the same spaghetti shitshow it always has been, Core/thread count or no. Yeah it's just a suggestion which would also soft nerf arty as a bonus

7 hours ago, Oicraftian said:

this

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dirizon said:

Are you a war gaming employee?

Because you are certainly full of shit.

 

Okay, I can't believe I have to say this, but the shit flinging stops now. From both of you.

If you cannot have a mature discussion, don't say anything at all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Assassin stated, lets looks at this with a level head. No insults or trashing.

First, we are just going to ignore that bit about lRL, because world of tanks doesn't really fit that bill, and it never has. By the way, soviet D Series one-hundred may have had large case volume for propellant, yes. lt may have had a longer gun barrel for true rifling and velocity, sure. But it does not change the fact that they still used AP projectiles designed for BS3 during the war, the prototype and initial gun for early SU tank destroyers batches, basically outclassed AP and APC ammunition thoroughly dated. D-54 increased shell pressure maximums, so better ammunition development continued, but still at a slowed pace compared to England and Germany (still with APC projectiles until T-62 115mm project took priority)  Where the British and German designs race ahead, is their superior propellants themselves. Sure Russian ammunition carried larger quantity of volume for propellant, but have you thought that maybe Western idea was to use more powerful and efficient propellant as to get away with using less. And that was the case, superior materials. Next, was superior designed ammunition. They hurdled ahead in APDS ammunition, quickly. And HEP or HESH ammunition was just as promising as HEAT ammunition throughout early Cold War years, even serving extremely effectively in general purpose use, as opposed to HEAT. Next, the radically better designed spacious turrets allowed for more effective fighting compartment using Western tanks, even if T54 and T62 turrets were much better protected, with their sloped armour, thick cast plates using harder and more tensile Soviet steel, and early cold war fused silica inserts, excellent early composite armour which would go un-matched for decades. But as far as tank combat goes, much like boxing, its better to deliver and score punches, than to keep taking them in the face. Again, western tanks raced ahead in fire control and ballistic computer research, achieving better ME shots continually at distance.  But we really don't care about this stuff, do we.

 

  On 6/26/2019 at 5:59 AM, Assassin7 said:

Yup, this stems from WG overbuffing armor 24/7.

I would just like to mention that you also decided armor aids is the way to 'fix' STB-1

To recap, STB1 got a frontal turret armour increase. Nice, it helps. ln doing so, it also got a side turret armour decrease, drivers hatch armour decrease, lower front hull armour decrease. Tell me, are those nice, too? Like l am not trying to berate you, in your honest opinion, is it nice to lose armour? No, it isn't, those are called nerfs. When they buffed object / T54 / T44, did they decrease armour? No, they increased it. Tanks with already even prior substantially more armour than vehicles like STB1, AMX, and Leo. Again, with the first iteration planned nerfs towards obj U-  the 9  &  X, they were fiddling with nerfing the mobility, the dispersion.....but no armour nerfs. Which is what makes those tanks so problematic to begin with. Those obj are considered better 113, because of the armour basically match them or even being better. And where did this go? WG called the planned nerfs back almost immediately.

On 6/28/2019 at 1:25 PM, Dirizon said:

Can say that again. l don't play much anymore.

 

The game just continues down a pro-russian sentiment, and by the Gods, l just cannot understand as to why. This is the 21st century, we are better than that. Take for example the lS7. And the overhaul buffs to Russian medium tank lines, where the T-44 & Hundo, T54Mod1 where buffed. Taking a closer look at the buffs, and you see detractions at all, no negative. Russian meds all gained turret armour  (why exactly did they need buffs to begin with)  and prem tanks T-44 Hundo and T54Mod1 gained huge buffs to view range, engine horsepower, gun soft stats. lS7 gained some health pool, got a gigantic engine upgrade, and lowered aim-time.

oh good another WGNA "Russian bias" conspiracy theory. Add in some shitty Greek show quote, the argument that "current year" is the justification for your moral contention on the fabricated issue. Followed by WG's 'balancing history' on a few tanks, some of which were actually mediocre.

 

As above, how long did it take WG to turn back and dial back obj 268 V 4? A long time, that is how long it took. Buffs to lS7, obj and T series meds, included no nerfs just flat out buffs. obj U- series med nerfs, re-called. Take a seeming bad tank destroyer like obj 268, even it was substantially buffed. But they are afraid to restore Fochs B or 155, or even Grille, to initial release parameters....why? Why do the Soviets get to have a fast, high camo, turret TD with great gun handling stats in the SU-PM missions reward, but other nations have to follow the trends of bad gun handling and less held camo in vehicles like charioteer, skorp G, Grille, FVs  -  standard turret TD? Don't you see the nonsense here? l do, and many others do too. But it makes sense, and this has been talked about many times by Sirfoch, QB, Skill  -  world of tanks has a played weight of 74% within RU. That number may have changed, l heard it from QB 7 mo. ago, but that is a huge number. 3/4 of the weighted souls playing this game, are RU server. So it makes sense from the game to cater to soviet vehicles....or you make an overwhelming pop majority unhappy, and possibly leave? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Dirizon said:

As Assassin stated, lets looks at this with a level head. No insults or trashing.

First, we are just going to ignore that bit about lRL, because world of tanks doesn't really fit that bill, and it never has. By the way, soviet D Series one-hundred may have had large case volume for propellant, yes. lt may have had a longer gun barrel for true rifling and velocity, sure. But it does not change the fact that they still used AP projectiles designed for BS3 during the war, the prototype and initial gun for early SU tank destroyers batches, basically outclassed AP and APC ammunition thoroughly dated. D-54 increased shell pressure maximums, so better ammunition development continued, but still at a slowed pace compared to England and Germany (still with APC projectiles until T-62 115mm project took priority)  Where the British and German designs race ahead, is their superior propellants themselves. Sure Russian ammunition carried larger quantity of volume for propellant, but have you thought that maybe Western idea was to use more powerful and efficient propellant as to get away with using less. And that was the case, superior materials. Next, was superior designed ammunition. They hurdled ahead in APDS ammunition, quickly. And HEP or HESH ammunition was just as promising as HEAT ammunition throughout early Cold War years, even serving extremely effectively in general purpose use, as opposed to HEAT. Next, the radically better designed spacious turrets allowed for more effective fighting compartment using Western tanks, even if T54 and T62 turrets were much better protected, with their sloped armour, thick cast plates using harder and more tensile Soviet steel, and early cold war fused silica inserts, excellent early composite armour which would go un-matched for decades. But as far as tank combat goes, much like boxing, its better to deliver and score punches, than to keep taking them in the face. Again, western tanks raced ahead in fire control and ballistic computer research, achieving better ME shots continually at distance.  But we really don't care about this stuff, do we.

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. 

Quote

 

  On 6/26/2019 at 5:59 AM, Assassin7 said:

Yup, this stems from WG overbuffing armor 24/7.

I would just like to mention that you also decided armor aids is the way to 'fix' STB-1

To recap, STB1 got a frontal turret armour increase. Nice, it helps. ln doing so, it also got a side turret armour decrease, drivers hatch armour decrease, lower front hull armour decrease. Tell me, are those nice, too? Like l am not trying to berate you, in your honest opinion, is it nice to lose armour? No, it isn't, those are called nerfs. When they buffed object / T54 / T44, did they decrease armour? No, they increased it. Tanks with already even prior substantially more armour than vehicles like STB1, AMX, and Leo. Again, with the first iteration planned nerfs towards obj U-  the 9  &  X, they were fiddling with nerfing the mobility, the dispersion.....but no armour nerfs. Which is what makes those tanks so problematic to begin with. Those obj are considered better 113, because of the armour basically match them or even being better. And where did this go? WG called the planned nerfs back almost immediately.

 

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.

Quote

As above, how long did it take WG to turn back and dial back obj 268 V 4? A long time, that is how long it took. Buffs to lS7, obj and T series meds, included no nerfs just flat out buffs. obj U- series med nerfs, re-called. Take a seeming bad tank destroyer like obj 268, even it was substantially buffed. But they are afraid to restore Fochs B or 155, or even Grille, to initial release parameters....why? Why do the Soviets get to have a fast, high camo, turret TD with great gun handling stats in the SU-PM missions reward, but other nations have to follow the trends of bad gun handling and less held camo in vehicles like charioteer, skorp G, Grille, FVs  -  standard turret TD? Don't you see the nonsense here?

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.

Quote

 

l do, and many others do too. But it makes sense, and this has been talked about many times by Sirfoch, QB, Skill  -  world of tanks has a played weight of 74% within RU. That number may have changed, l heard it from QB 7 mo. ago, but that is a huge number. 3/4 of the weighted souls playing this game, are RU server. So it makes sense from the game to cater to soviet vehicles....or you make an overwhelming pop majority unhappy, and possibly leave? 

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a tank simulator. That has been repeated since '11.  lf you want one, then we are all going to be complaining about getting destroyed by apaches and warthogs, Hinds and frogfoots rather than tank barrels. f you want one, you need to look elsewhere. one-hundred mm tank gun, used to do twenty damage less even. And they buffed it up from that. Do l think it needs more damage, yes l do, they should make it like 32/pdr w/ two-eighty. But this isn't a tank simulator, and WG world of tanks balance has always been arbitrary. 

Allied tank design for a good thirty-five years totally forgo armour protection. Protection of M 47 and continued development was a joke, being vulnerable to even standard anti armour ammunition from post-war 85mm guns. Leo, AMX, Cent, lKv-91, Melara model fourty, Type 61  &  74 - the story doesn't get any better. These vehicles could be penetrated by a Soviet model 42  45mm anti-tank gun. and from the sides arc even vulnerable to 23mm autocannon. This is a joke. All western tank design were poorly protected tanks that featured mobility as a means of protection, or hiding the vehicle through defilade using gun depression,  not physical armour. M 47- onwards, had some but only enough for late world war ll with the thinking 75mm guns are adequate and the norm. Conqueror and T-43, eventually being produced as an M series heavy tank, were very limited and dead ends. lS4 falling out of favour for T54/55, and then T62,  it is quite clear only Soviets valued armoured protection until late seventies where sixty tonne MBT designs come to fruition. Because tank combat, like boxing, doesn't pay to get punched in the face, to depend on that. You need to be the one delivering the punches. So the whole argument of gun required to penetrate, means virtually nothing, when even half of the enemies they could expect could be penetrated by a 57mm anti-tank gun frontally, and the other half an 85mm could do it. There were so few Conq and T43 built, and were enver used aggressively, that they would never be encountered. one-hundred, 115, 122 were totally unnecessary. 

Mean error accuracy, ballistic computers, armed force cooperation and relaying  -  were all vastly superior in western philosophy. They went digital quicker too, by margin. l mean, T72MB3, the most common tank you would expect to encounter now in Russia, still does not have the commander have a proper smart battle system  (like commanders have to use a smart phone instead)  or 3rd generation C-TV tank panoramic sights. This is incredibly silly, especially considering the tank reached new contracts for continued manufacture in '16. The commander has to wrestle control of proper battle management sights from gunner, which is a terrible idea, or make use of simple forward lR from the seventies.  ls the armour suspect? Well a little long in the tooth, but still T72MB3 is considerably well protected, having better protection than Challenger 1, Leclercs, early Leo 2. But what does protection matter, when your tank is continually hit until destroyed because it can't function properly. This is incredibly apart from WWll king tiger, with its firepower and accuracy, it did plenty of destroying itself, not just relying on armour. And here lies the problem, l don't doubt the physical performance of the D series one-hundred, it was quite high. D54 is still used worldwide to this day, with Romanians making modern APDS ammunition to penetrate nearly five-hundred rolled steel armour equivalent. l just doubt the means which it gets directed, aimed, and fired with the hopes of actually hitting something worthwhile. And Border Kanone, L7, M68 haven't had that problem

Then there is air superiority. This doesn't speak good omens, with USAF having better air-to-air victory ratios in both Korea and Vietnam, which also featured Russia secretly sending russian airmen and aircraft to participate. And USAF still came out on top, by margin. And air superiority is crushingly demoralizing in echelon tank combat. Why do you think western countries haven't built fifty thousand tanks? There isn't a need. 

You seem Russian. or Ukrainian, or Belorussian. l do not hold that against you, but try not to let that skew how you see things. Before you call foul, my father was from Bulgaria, l know how the people think. But this is a video game, not  Da Comrade.  This game is unimaginatively pro-Russian, and it is not me who just believes that. Whether or not l decide to fill my mornings with watching the latest highlights from streamers across EU and NA, say from someone who takes the time to 3-mark tens...hundreds of different tanks, the common accepted notion is that the game unfairly caters to Soviet tech tree. And that yes, its subjective, but argumentatively sound. 

May l ask, why are you being a homo phobe? l mean, this was brought up before and not by me. l personally have no comment or slight, each and every person should allow to choose and act as they wish, so long as lawfully. Someones sex life, is up to them and them alone to decide. And for the record, thousands of people die due to aids. That isn't too fresh either, saying stuff like that. Do you have aids? Do you know what it feels like to suffer from immune deficiency, and slowly trot towards a shorter finish line? lf you do, then you know my point, if you don't stop saying that trash. 

give every tech tree, every nation, a vehicle like lS3A and defender. Buff every nation med tanks, like T54mod1 and T44, which includes no nerfs in the process. Make sure these med tanks match RU ones in armour values. They should ahve eighty mm side armour, not 35. and their camo levels, not camo like E-Fifty or M48 or Cent A X. Then give every nation a fast heavy tank like lS7 or missions rewards obj, then give every nation an equivalent to CW reward obj. Give every nation an obj 268 V 4 pre-nerf capable TD, fast with high camo, and great directional protection. Then take 8 months before nerfing them. Make the obj U series meds, like WZ and 121 meds, then see how popular they would be.  By the way, l never said SU-13PM was better than skorp G, l said it had better traits Skorp G and other turret TDs don't seem to get. Why should the SU get them then? lt is a turreted TD too. Which means WG is purposely holding back on skorp G, charioteer, Grille, Hellcat, M78, Etc because they are suppsoed to get excellent gun handling stats like SU. or in skorp G and grille case, excellent camo 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, its funny. M1A2 has a 79 degree front arc, but its only 52mm. Literally, the front hull of the tank, is 52mm thick. lRL overmatch or autobounce do not happen, modern munitions will literally wreck an M1A2 tank. The sides outside of frontal quarter, and at that using thirty degree arc, don't fare well at all either being able to be penetrated by autocannon like 35 & 57mm. A BMP-1 with a 73mm HEAT projectile from sixities, can penetrate the M1A2 even with TUSK, and likely kill driver and disable the tank, if not outright eliminating it. Future SEP4 plans, don't plan on improving it.  But Russian T series, specifically a late gen ninety ms or T14, or Ukraine T84U? These tanks have front turret protection and front glacis hulls, with probably one-thousand mm effective rolled steel equivalent vs HEAT, and over eight hundred vs kinetic perpetrators, meaning ammunition like M829A1 & 2 won't work at standoff ranges. And the states are slow to improving that, or even thinking of accepting the newer L51 gun. There jsut isn't any need, any scare. This isn't about calling into question Western armour armoured protection. Because tank warfare isn't balanced by armour. lt is firepower and mobility. Sure armour helps, but firepower and mobility is what leads to lethality.  And crew training. A MlG 31 pilot gets twenty to fourty air service hours every 6 months, F-22?  two-hundred +   This is laughable. And sure, a nationalistic russian can cry foul, in that both gulf wars the T-55 and T-72 tanks were dumbed down cheap exports, without russian exported ammunition and only local stuff, bla bla bla bla. ln 1996, why was Serbia afraid to release their M-84ABN tanks? At the time, they would have been upgraded and similar to M84A4, M84D, or M-95 Deg, which at the least make them direct counterparts and comparable to standard T72mB3. They hid them, instead. Because if not, they would have A)  been bombed  B)  destroyed by loiterers with ATGW  C) America takes notice and lands with ground forces and obliterates them with M1A1 tanks. Wouldn't change a thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

But this isn't a tank simulator, and WG world of tanks balance has always been arbitrary. 

(Content snipped, refer to original post)

And yet your defense that it should not be so, is based on the premise that you don't care. Which is apparently false, an idea validated when considering that you spent time attempting to push your own beliefs on the matter around.

Allied tank design for a good thirty-five years totally forgo armour protection. Protection of M 47 and continued development was a joke, being vulnerable to even standard anti armour ammunition from post-war 85mm guns. Leo, AMX, Cent, lKv-91, Melara model fourty, Type 61  &  74 - the story doesn't get any better.

Yeah, hence why all of the tanks you listed can not only stop 85mm shells at standard WW2 combat ranges, but Cent, Type 74, Melara, all make significant investments into armor protection. M47 is hardly a joke, with armor approaching T-54 levels.

These vehicles could be penetrated by a Soviet model 42  45mm anti-tank gun. and from the sides arc even vulnerable to 23mm autocannon. This is a joke. All western tank design were poorly protected tanks that featured mobility as a means of protection, or hiding the vehicle through defilade using gun depression,  not physical armour. M 47- onwards, had some but only enough for late world war ll with the thinking 75mm guns are adequate and the norm. Conqueror and T-43, eventually being produced as an M series heavy tank, were very limited and dead ends. lS4 falling out of favour for T54/55, and then T62,  it is quite clear only Soviets valued armoured protection until late seventies where sixty tonne MBT designs come to fruition. Because tank combat, like boxing, doesn't pay to get punched in the face, to depend on that. You need to be the one delivering the punches. So the whole argument of gun required to penetrate, means virtually nothing, when even half of the enemies they could expect could be penetrated by a 57mm anti-tank gun frontally, and the other half an 85mm could do it. There were so few Conq and T43 built, and were enver used aggressively, that they would never be encountered. one-hundred, 115, 122 were totally unnecessary. 

It may not have occurred to you, that the 115mm was historically saddled with ultra cheap ammo, plus APFSDS almost entirely lacks bullet drop within first second of travel, and thus its employment in the antitank role was a completely logical one.

SNIP more offtopic

 ls the armour suspect? Well a little long in the tooth, but still T72MB3 is considerably well protected, having better protection than Challenger 1, Leclercs, early Leo 2. But what does protection matter, when your tank is continually hit until destroyed because it can't function properly. And here lies the problem, l don't doubt the physical performance of the D series one-hundred, it was quite high. D-10*, D-54 never saw action outside of the 1950's Soviet prototype family

I also doubt you know what you are talking about here, so don't talk about it for the sake of saving time.

SNIP

You seem Russian. or Ukrainian, or Belorussian. l do not hold that against you, but try not to let that skew how you see things. 

Unimportant - I will neither confirm nor deny it

May l ask, why are you being a homo phobe? *false hurt feelings*

I think you are intentionally misunderstanding. Nevertheless, it is a mistake, I will edit it

give every tech tree, every nation, a vehicle like lS3A and defender. Buff every nation med tanks, like T54mod1 and T44, which includes no nerfs in the process. Make sure these med tanks match RU ones in armour values. They should ahve eighty mm side armour, not 35. and their camo levels, not camo like E-Fifty or M48 or Cent A X. Then give every nation a fast heavy tank like lS7 or missions rewards obj, then give every nation an equivalent to CW reward obj. Give every nation an obj 268 V 4 pre-nerf capable TD, fast with high camo, and great directional protection. Then take 8 months before nerfing them. Make the obj U series meds, like WZ and 121 meds, then see how popular they would be.  

I know what you are doing, but this has almost no relevance to what you were talking about due to the variables involved.

By the way, l never said SU-13PM was better than skorp G, l said it had better traits Skorp G and other turret TDs don't seem to get. Why should the SU get them then? lt is a turreted TD too. Which means WG is purposely holding back on skorp G, charioteer, Grille, Hellcat, M78, Etc because they are suppsoed to get excellent gun handling stats like SU. or in skorp G and grille case, excellent camo 

because balance, although technically SU-130PM is fake, the IRL options are 100mm D-10T, 122mm D-25T, and 152mm (like BL-10)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TR 85 MBT, uses an one-hundred mm weapon with modernized performance. And that outside of Russia. Claimed performance is around four-fifty mm penetration with modern APDS rounds. Well superior to anything D54 musters. So obviously, you haven't a clue. Actual lS3 tanks, not cheap exports, were used in warfare, and the only problem encoutnered were that they were difficult tp penetrate with ninety mm weapons. Not that they had terrifying fire control, or 122mm gun was really scary, or they were overly mobile. Nadda. Just the armour was troublesome. How about this, when western technology start getting obliterated by one-hundred, 115, 125 weapons, not ATGM fired by infantry, across the planet, then start sharing your very objective opinions. Your very objective opinions, that see china, ukraine, poland, czech repbl, lndia  Etc all venture forward to changes for Western tank armament, not Russian. Because it is second rate. 

Russian weapon mean error in accuracy, has always been suspect. Always. Even to this day, Sprut 125mm tanks guns are only expected to hit 1x1m square at 1.8km distance. Sure their ATGM solves this, but ATGM require a very competent battle management system and fire control, which again they lack in most tanks. (T72mB3) lf every tank they fielded were like T eight / ninety or T14, with commander having access to 3rd gen panoramic sights and a sensible fire control, where the commander didn't need information from a smart phone, okay sensible. But not the case. 

Allied one-twenty, push the envelope of accurate ranged fire hitting 1x1m square at 2.5km easy. They were striking targets in gulf wars even beyond that. Soviet tank gun technology just relies on ATGM, which probably why they push that development. 

How much M series tanks does USA operate in active service? Like M 48 or sixty in late A3 config? None? Maybe some engineering demo vehicles with HEP howitzers. National guard, maybe. Why? Because a tank should be modern, where 1 can do the work of 4, think efficiency. Gone are the days of mass assault. American tank fleet are undergoing mass conversions, where even old M1A1 can go through extensive SEP and TUSK improvement, and be converted to M1A2 Sep 2 or 3. But with Russia? They still believe in the nonsense, lets develop Armata, build one-fifty of them, and augment them with thousands of T72mB3 from the seventies and eighties. And cover them with modern ERA so they at least appear modern. Right. 

 

l have no problem with an increase in Soviet tank damage for their guns. Two-thirty used to be the D series gun damage, which was low and buffed to two-fifty. l still think it is low, and can see a damage buff to two-eighty like 32pdr or three-hundred, like KV5 ZiS or Lorraines one-hundred. No problem at all. l would have no problem if they increased 416, T54, and T62A / obj damage to three-thirty like oho gun. Even three-sixty like Udes, progetto, or STB1 seems sensible.  But all of them needed accuracy nerfs, and moving gun disp. nerfs. They need to have accuracy like A44, or obj 4 U- series med. That is typical Soviet accuracy. Like obj 268 V 4, lS7, obj 75A

And leopard, AMX, Cent, STB1 need current obj gun disp stats. Like .8/.8  on top of their in-game listed accuracy. So their accuracy actually means something. Like the grille, what kind of accuracy can it hope to achieve, with dupe-gun SPG level .25/.29 dis stats. Wth is that. How about they give SU13PM that kind of crap. You are obviously pro Russian, and you seem to mistake that l am not pro West. I am not. l want a balanced game. Where l can play Japan, Sweden, England, French, Russian, China and feel balanced and content. This is the year '19, I am not a bigot of a person. And neither should WGs dev team be that way either.

I know what you are doing, but this has almost no relevance to what you were talking about due to the variables involved.   This is very funny. l laughed when you said this. Just brush the topic aside. Sure thing. The elephant in the room? Just ignore it, and it isn't there. Why is why the obj 268 V 4 stayed the same way, for 8 months? Why is why obj 4 U- series med tank nerfs were called back. You people all think the same. You do not need to confirm or deny anything. l know.  People like you, are why WG thinks 252 is fine.   or some retarded staffer in an live event, can say Skoda VTU can out play an object 252

 

 

How about this, lets make an extremely mobile high HP/T vehicle like FCM and AMX CDC. Then slaughter this supposed mobility, with imbecilic terrible terrain resistances which make you seem like you are driving through mud all the time. 

How about this, lets give RU meds, RU LT tanks, those terrain resists too. How about that.  or is that still too ''''''  I know what you are doing, but this has almost no relevance to what you were talking about due to the variables involved.

Soviet tanks are the most flexible, are the easiest and most forgiving to play, outside of SPG class.  usually never get shafted by having terrible soft stats, Etc.  Make Soviet super heavy tanks, like obj 268 V 4 or obj 75A, that combine the modest speed and mobility of tanks like TE5, AMX54, Etc. How is that fair?  A super heavy is supposed to be like Type 5, or Maus, or Jag Pz. Not have fourty km/hr and 15/HPT  (or more)  The list goes on.   outside of FV421 CW reward, Super Conq, Conq GC, Bat Chat   or Chinese WZ1115A (which mimics soviet tanks and has their adv)  what actual competitive tanks are there? Strv and TE3, which are situational as fuck. And may l remind you, Brits had to deal with FV215B before getting their beloved super conq. 

lnstead of deflecting the remark, can you actually give replies about why the game isn't pro-Rusky?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

l have no problem

2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

l still think it is low

2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

l would have no problem

2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

lS7

2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

l am not pro West. I am not. l want a balanced game. Where l can play

2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

I am not

2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

I know what you are doing,

2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

l laughed when you said this

2 hours ago, Dirizon said:

l know

What's wrong with your "I" key? :doge:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dirizon said:

TR 85 MBT, uses an one-hundred mm weapon with modernized performance. And that outside of Russia. Claimed performance is around four-fifty mm penetration with modern APDS rounds. Well superior to anything D54 musters. So obviously, you haven't a clue. Actual lS3 tanks, not cheap exports, were used in warfare, and the only problem encoutnered were that they were difficult tp penetrate with ninety mm weapons. Not that they had terrifying fire control, or 122mm gun was really scary, or they were overly mobile. Nadda. Just the armour was troublesome.

Yeah, it might surprise you that about 25 years after a vehicle went into service its not as effective as it was when first revealed.

If anything, you should be impressed that its frontal armor is immune to L7. But then, that'd go against your agenda.

*hurt feelings*

 

Russian weapon mean error in accuracy, has always been suspect. Always.

Yeah, this myth has always been suspect. Thanks for admitting it.

Even to this day, Sprut 125mm tanks guns are only expected to hit 1x1m square at 1.8km distance. Sure their ATGM solves this, but ATGM require a very competent battle management system and fire control, which again they lack in most tanks. (T72mB3) lf every tank they fielded were like T eight / ninety or T14, with commander having access to 3rd gen panoramic sights and a sensible fire control, where the commander didn't need information from a smart phone, okay sensible. But not the case. 

Allied one-twenty, push the envelope of accurate ranged fire hitting 1x1m square at 2.5km easy. They were striking targets in gulf wars even beyond that. Soviet tank gun technology just relies on ATGM, which probably why they push that development. 

I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on how these numbers play on a real battlefield, or how they have been developed.

Not sure how you claim to that particular conclusion

How much M series tanks does USA operate in active service? Like M 48 or sixty in late A3 config? None? Maybe some engineering demo vehicles with HEP howitzers. National guard, maybe. Why? Because a tank should be modern, where 1 can do the work of 4, think efficiency. Gone are the days of mass assault. American tank fleet are undergoing mass conversions, where even old M1A1 can go through extensive SEP and TUSK improvement, and be converted to M1A2 Sep 2 or 3. But with Russia? They still believe in the nonsense, lets develop Armata, build one-fifty of them, and augment them with thousands of T72mB3 from the seventies and eighties. And cover them with modern ERA so they at least appear modern. Right. 

If you're so bitter about age, then T-90 should not be around because its chassis is rooted in 1957 and is actually in WOT.

 

l have no problem with an increase in Soviet tank damage for their guns. Two-thirty used to be the D series gun damage, which was low and buffed to two-fifty. l still think it is low, and can see a damage buff to two-eighty like 32pdr or three-hundred, like KV5 ZiS or Lorraines one-hundred. No problem at all. l would have no problem if they increased 416, T54, and T62A / obj damage to three-thirty like oho gun. Even three-sixty like Udes, progetto, or STB1 seems sensible.  But all of them needed accuracy nerfs, and moving gun disp. nerfs. They need to have accuracy like A44, or obj 4 U- series med. That is typical Soviet accuracy. Like obj 268 V 4, lS7, obj 75A

So, after they lose their fake armor, they need to have accuracy so bad they are almost unplayable, like the A-44. And you think that is 'typical Soviet accuracy?'

And leopard, AMX, Cent, STB1 need current obj gun disp stats. Like .8/.8  on top of their in-game listed accuracy. So their accuracy actually means something. Like the grille, what kind of accuracy can it hope to achieve, with dupe-gun SPG level .25/.29 dis stats. Wth is that. How about they give SU13PM that kind of crap. You are obviously pro Russian, and you seem to mistake that l am not pro West. I am not. l want a balanced game. Where l can play Japan, Sweden, England, French, Russian, China and feel balanced and content. This is the year '19, I am not a bigot of a person. And neither should WGs dev team be that way either.

I'm obviously pro Russian? 

"you seem to mistake that l am not pro West. I am not." double no means yes.

As for the mediums, your solution is now accuracy creep to make weakspot hits of 390 alpha common? I can see Leopard 1 doing that, because its liable to get its faced smashed in while trying, but as it stands, AMX, Cent, STB-1 are likely to get away with it.

Grille is actually somewhat mobile.

Yes indeed, how about they give the SU-130PM that kind of crap, considering it's alpha creep and thus ought to be obliterated with all haste?

This is very funny. l laughed when you said this. Just brush the topic aside. Sure thing. The elephant in the room? Just ignore it, and it isn't there. Why is why the obj 268 V 4 stayed the same way, for 8 months? Why is why obj 4 U- series med tank nerfs were called back. You people all think the same. You do not need to confirm or deny anything. l know.  People like you, are why WG thinks 252 is fine.   or some retarded staffer in an live event, can say Skoda VTU can out play an object 252

I get SJW feelings right now. "We gotta fight the powah". 'Its true because I said so and you hurt muh feelz'

 

How about this, lets make an extremely mobile high HP/T vehicle like FCM and AMX CDC. Then slaughter this supposed mobility, with imbecilic terrible terrain resistances which make you seem like you are driving through mud all the time. 

How about this, lets give RU meds, RU LT tanks, those terrain resists too. How about that.  or is that still too ''''''

Two different propositions, to which am I supposed to reply?

*SNIP*

Soviet tanks are the most flexible, are the easiest and most forgiving to play, outside of SPG class.  usually never get shafted by having terrible soft stats, Etc.  Make Soviet super heavy tanks, like obj 268 V 4 or obj 75A, that combine the modest speed and mobility of tanks like TE5, AMX54, Etc. How is that fair?  A super heavy is supposed to be like Type 5, or Maus, or Jag Pz. Not have fourty km/hr and 15/HPT  (or more)  The list goes on.   outside of FV421 CW reward, Super Conq, Conq GC, Bat Chat   or Chinese WZ1115A (which mimics soviet tanks and has their adv)  what actual competitive tanks are there? Strv and TE3, which are situational as fuck. And may l remind you, Brits had to deal with FV215B before getting their beloved super conq. 

lnstead of deflecting the remark, can you actually give replies about why the game isn't pro-Rusky?

I have yet to see you actually prove the game is pro Russian. This entire poorly written paragraph proves nothing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are full of myths and Russian Bias.  T54/55 had simple one-hundred mm glacis armour, effectively one-eighty vs kinetic energy projectiles. Good enough for most ninety mm ammunition, but inadequate against larger post-war bore. The turret increased that to two hundred-ten. It was not until eighties, where T55AM upgrades increased protection levels, with glacis to up to four hundred mm and turret to four-fifty vs HEAT, with resilience vs kinetic pen slightly less. So, by the French already had FL F2  ninety mm ammunition that could penetrate three-hundred+ and by 1961 Britain was already manufacturing APDS ammunition that could reach two-seventy. Meaning they could hard-kill T54 nearly 2km ranges. By '73, L7 in Kippur skirmish, already showing it can knock out fielded armour at the time, using German ammunition (L52) that could do three-hundred. US copied the round as M728. By eighties though? French projectiles used by AMX RC, could deal four hundred+ and did so, destroying vehicles in action first Gulf. So called T55AM was in first Gulf, as part of Iraq modern fleet  (thats funny) didn't seem to be much of a problem. Today? B1 Centauro and Stryker FSV, and Stingray LT, can fire projectiles up to six-fifty using APFSDS, or six-ten using HEAT, enough to challenge older T-72 and Type 69. This performance, dramatically exceeds any known D series one-hundred or T62 115mm ammunition developments. So much for your immunity.

 

Keep making tanks there brother, that go to the middle east and become smoldering scrap. How is that immunity working out for you.

 

Use these machines, like M84A4, M84D, M91 to commit atrocities in Balkans, but then as soon as USA and allies show up hide them in underground garages. Why? Because they would turn them into burning scrap too. 

 

Whether or not you are russian is irrelevant.  lol   You must be a comedian. Keep on producing those T72mB3, see how that goes. For every T series eighty or ninety or Armata,  18  T72mB3 get made too.  Awesome fourty year old tank fleet, with 1 modern tank being the platoon commander. But don't worry, we will change the standard gearbox and suspension, to automatic and electric now, and put overtop ERA and claim the tank is new. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to add something about why tanks is boring as fuck now: the tanks have gone unchanged for so long that there are no questions to be answered anymore. Back in the day every other patch would change 30ish tanks with several stat changes on average. There was a constant churning of buffing and nerfing occurring. And even if they didn't get it all right, at least the constant flux meant there was a lot of new things to try out. That was the biggest excitement of patch day, to test the changes to see what tanks are the new winners and losers.

Now, you can look at the tank lineup and know which team has the advantage. The tanks have gone without adjustment for so long that the game is stale, predictable, and dreary. It's not just that the balance is bad, though it is, it's that it's been bad and unchanged for so long that everything has been settled. I just counted all my tanks in tier 5, which is my most played tier. Only 4 are winners. Another 9 I would call playable. 44 are useless, noncompetitive garbage. 75% of the content in the game is not even really content, basically.

So now my tank ritual when I get the urge is that I log in, I play 2 or 3 stupidly overpowered tanks that have been absurd for years now, and then I'm bored. The decent tanks are boring, the overpowered tanks are SUPER boring, and I actually want to play the lame tanks but know I'll just get frustrated and rage quit because they suck.

If WG just starting making sweeping shuffles of all the tanks' stats the game would at least be interesting again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS

Who do you pay, to play your account? Its information I got, from Relic, from not one but many people.  Couldn't hack it to get into Rel main after they banded together again, went to Wonka. Saw that half the people their pay people to play their account, and decided to do it as well. And still do. 

I forgot, we were just talking about posting.  -Says Type 5 was nerfed to oblivion, and it still performs very well in random pubs, perhaps even better.  Is that post short enough for you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...