Jump to content
Intumesce

STB-1 Thread

Recommended Posts

Are you seriously running tier 10 mediums without improved optics? I can't see why I would want to have an IS-7 gear on a medium... when it has been proved that my IS-7 is blind with rammer/vert/gld.

If food, BiA, vert.stab. and gunnery skills are not enough to make the aim times workable than I'll just stop the grind at STA-1.

 

 

all mediums =/= same shit

 

This might suprise you but my setup:

 

121:

rammer/vert/gld/autoFE

140

rammer/vert/optics/autoFE

t-62a

rammer/vert/optics/autoFE

430

rammer/vert/co2/food

Leo1

rammer/optics/wet ammo rack/food

50m

rammer/vert/binos/105oct

4202

rammer/optics/binos/autoFE

patton's

rammer/optics/vert/food

and stb i'm currently grinding will have

rammer/vert/gld/food

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for a bit of clarification

 

why co2/food on 430 and not rammer/vert/optics/autoFE like on 140 and t-62a?

- 140 and t-62a both beeing great mediums with no real downsides besides typical russian weakneses. Since gun controll is amazing, 3rd slot can be sacraficed and optics put on. 430 on the other hand has two worse parametars than its brothers, ground resistance and gun controll, both can be improved by food but that runs the risk of dying because of frontal fuel tanks light up easily (typical russian weakness - russian bias?), so to migate the gun and tracks i put food and to counter the frontal fuel fiers i put co2 instead of optics. Danger from engine fires can be avoinded by not geting shot in ass

 

why ammo rack in leo1

having ammorack in front hull is a BIG problem, even if your tank is sniper/hull downer, you will get shot and if you wasted your rep already you are stuck with horible reload

so

remove vert and replace it with WAR, counter the lack of vert with food which also stacks nice with optics/rammer. Having engine and fuel tanks in the back makes for quite useless AFE

 

why binos/105 on 50m

-optics are no go since your cammo is shit, making you really easy to spot, taking a foward position binos light up fast and provide amazing spotting stand-off". Taking that forward position is crutial so thats where 105 comes in, giving you extra 2hp/t, mora than many engine uprades give you.

 

why gld on 121?

the aim time of 121 is horible, trying to migate that is a must, i would put food here also, but beeing a russian tank with forward fuel tanks i cant risk running without AFE and rammer > co2, so AFE must stay

 

why binos and optics on 4202?

-being a slow POS i want to put as much distance between me and the enemy in those situations im not just a support gun where anything but rammer and vert/gld is useless

(still not final thou, i consider replacing AFE with food and kicking optics for vert since AFE is +- useles since you are in hull down most of the time anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense, but WAR and CO2 are a waste of good slots. I would never ever use that shit on anything.

 

On your 430 you use food+CO2 to counter the lack of optics, and to stop fires when you are shot. But wouldn't it be better to just use optics+food and than use vision and camo mechanics to not get shot in the first place?

 

Also, WAR>Vertical on Leopard seems silly. Why improve your chances of not having the ammo rack destroyed when shot, when you can improve your aim times, shorten your exposure and thus not get shot in the first place? Being not shot would save your ammo rack and your HP.

Damaged ammo rack is the least of my worries when I "eat" a couple of 750 damage shots from campers. When that "light bulb" starts to shine I know I'm fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On your 430 you use food+CO2 to counter the lack of optics, and to stop fires when you are shot. But wouldn't it be better to just use optics+food and than use vision and camo mechanics to not get shot in the first place?

 

Also, WAR>Vertical on Leopard seems silly. Why improve your chances of not having the ammo rack destroyed when shot, when you can improve your aim times, shorten your exposure and thus not get shot in the first place? Being not shot would save your ammo rack and your HP.

 

Well in both cases you are bound to get shot , dotn tell me you can play to never get shot most of the games. I rather be sure that one shot will not completely fuck up the rest of my game than to shave of that fraction of a second of aim time.

 

optics will not save me when i finally get shot in parts of the game where i cant use cammo/vision, you must break out of your bush/cover sooner or later.

 

oh and ammo rack is my top worry, because i can wreck havoc and win a game in a tank with 100hp but i cant do the same in tank with 150hp and broken ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That still leaves my second argument: WAR is shit.

 

WAR does not reduce the chance of your ammo rack being hit, it only gives it more HP. +100 HP on your rack might save you from being blown up by shots from some low alpha tanks, but any tier 10 gun will still damage it, if it hits your ammo rack and passes the XY% crit chance check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That still leaves my second argument: WAR is shit.

WAR does not reduce the chance of your ammo rack being hit, it only gives it more HP. +100 HP on your rack might save you from being blown up by shots from some low alpha tanks, but any tier 10 gun will still damage it, if it hits your ammo rack and passes the XY% crit chance check.

Still a lower chace than without WAR, i know exactly how it works and thats why i put it. After all you are NOT fighting only big guns and to be ammoracked by some tier 8 is even more retarded and match breaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[sarcasm on]

 

Yeeeaaa... it's worth wasting an equipment slot for fighting those 5 bad low tier tanks which may or may not damage your rack every now and then.

 

[/off]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do not think it is worth the grind, there are currently much better med tier 10 tanks, and I have heard the line is a bit of a tough grind due to the subpar health pool and virtually no armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously running tier 10 mediums without improved optics? I can't see why I would want to have an IS-7 gear on a medium... when it has been proved that my IS-7 is blind with rammer/vert/gld.

If food, BiA, vert.stab. and gunnery skills are not enough to make the aim times workable than I'll just stop the grind at STA-1.

 

I don't remember where the post is, but someone gave the numbers: with Vents, BIA, Food, and situational awareness: you can still get max view range without the optics. Of course, it requires at least a 3 skill crew, preferably four. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[sarcasm on]

Yeeeaaa... it's worth wasting an equipment slot for fighting those 5 bad low tier tanks which may or may not damage your rack every now and then.

[/off]

Sarcastic or not, vstab on gun like leo1 will shave off just a small portion of aim time and since my full cammo crew gives me the option to be unspoted untill i fire my gun the trade-off is nice.

I think you should try playing leo and leoa before dising war on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need to fight a vision war with soviet medium tanks with camo skills than there is a huge difference between having 460 and 500 meters of view range. Without optics those roaches will slip past you at ranges as low as 370 meters, much less if you don't have all vision skills and food.

 

Paaranoja, on 12 May 2014 - 4:18 PM, said:

 

I think you should try playing leo and leoa before dising war on them.

 

 

Wat? I like those tanks. It's Wet Ammo Rack I have problems with, it's just not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need to fight a vision war with soviet medium tanks with camo skills than there is a huge difference between having 460 and 500 meters of view range. Without optics those roaches will slip past you at ranges as low as 370 meters, much less if you don't have all vision skills and food.

Wat? I like those tanks. It's WAR I have problems with, it's just not good.

Well it works for me, i notice a big difference with war, numbers dont lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any numbers.

If you are proving anything than it is the fact that food is OP, and that using it can make you feel that suboptimal modules are great too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any numbers.

If you are proving anything than it is the fact that food is OP, and that using it can make you feel that suboptimal modules are great too.

Aditional HP to ammorack decreases the chance of geting damaged for every gun fired against it, that chance is a number. That undeniable difference.

There is another number, thou less precise. I do notice a lot less ammo rack damage and because of that many more games where i can play ungimped. Thats also undeniable difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ammo rack is such a problem for your leopard run two repair kits, it almost never gets set on fire so doesn't need the extinguisher. 

 

The problem with WAR is that you are planning for something that won't happen every match, can be substituted by a perk and/or repair kits whereas Vertical stabilisers and optics will be beneficial in a huge variety of situations every game.

 

Edit: I may add, if you think WAR works great for you, that's fine but it's a specific playstyle choice. For most people there are choices more beneficial for them than WAR.

Edited by Stormtroop3r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAR does help, i dont get why so many ppl here get the idea from that it doesnt help, but....

Every module in wot has hp, and WAR (and safe stowage) increase this. Every hit deals x amount of dmg, tied to caliber BUT this dmg may vary by 25%
 

Combine this, and WAR will often be the difference between breaking ammorack (or not) Leopard ammorack has 260 hp with WAR and SS this would be 422,5 hp, compared to the following dmg (it scale linear with caliber, 2x bigger caliber is 2x more dmg)
75 mm   100
76 mm   105
88 mm   119
90 mm   122
100 mm  135
105 mm  150
122 mm  165
128 mm  180
152 mm  203
 

With 260 hp the 149-152-155 mm can 1 shot you (say hi +/-25%) with WAR they cant,  also anything above 76mm can break your ammorack (max roll is 131 dmg so more as 130...) While 128mm and above will ALWAYS break your ammo (even with minimal dmg roll).

With WAR, even Bl-10 and the like have a big chance of NOT breaking the ammorack (203 vs 211) while 122mm and lower cant break your ammorack at all (max dmg roll is 206 it needs 211).

So this makes quite a difference especially since the saving trow and suchs are for ammorack 50% (??) in practice with WAR the chance of a breaking ammorack is fairly low... The ammorack needs 2 hits from a 120mm gun (trow in 2x saving trow) so 4 hit by a 120mm gun, thats 1600 hp left from you tank, by that time there more urgent problems as a breaking ammorack...
 

This is assuming that:
- Module dmg rolls are subject to +/- 25% rule (like penetration and normal dmg are)
- Modules turn yellow below 50% hp (except tracks or fuel tanks, 1 module was the exception, forgot which)
 

WAR only makes sense though on high tier tanks and tank with relative high hp ammoracks. Low caliber guns deal disproportional much module dmg (2x 75mm = 150mm) a Leopard can take 3 150mm hits before dieing a Panther can take 6 hits from 88mm (and those 6 88 will deal MUCH more module dmg as those 3 hits from a 150mm
 

TL:DR: on high tier, weakarmored tanks with ammorack problem WAR is worth it 

Same also, sort of, applies to CO2 (but only for tank with frontal mounted fuel tanks)
 

ps: and for those who know think im wrong, pls show me where im wrong, the mechanics work in the way i described, only statement from main developer has value (Serb, Storm, Overlord, Veider, thats about it, no PR bs or wiki crap, they know nothing about mechanics...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAR does help, i dont get why so many ppl here get the idea from that it doesnt help, but....

Every module in wot has hp, and WAR (and safe stowage) increase this. Every hit deals x amount of dmg, tied to caliber BUT this dmg may vary by 25%

 

Combine this, and WAR will often be the difference between breaking ammorack (or not) Leopard ammorack has 260 hp with WAR and SS this would be 422,5 hp, compared to the following dmg (it scale linear with caliber, 2x bigger caliber is 2x more dmg)

75 mm   100

76 mm   105

88 mm   119

90 mm   122

100 mm  135

105 mm  150

122 mm  165

128 mm  180

152 mm  203

 

With 260 hp the 149-152-155 mm can 1 shot you (say hi +/-25%) with WAR they cant,  also anything above 76mm can break your ammorack (max roll is 131 dmg so more as 130...) While 128mm and above will ALWAYS break your ammo (even with minimal dmg roll).

With WAR, even Bl-10 and the like have a big chance of NOT breaking the ammorack (203 vs 211) while 122mm and lower cant break your ammorack at all (max dmg roll is 206 it needs 211).

So this makes quite a difference especially since the saving trow and suchs are for ammorack 50% (??) in practice with WAR the chance of a breaking ammorack is fairly low... The ammorack needs 2 hits from a 120mm gun (trow in 2x saving trow) so 4 hit by a 120mm gun, thats 1600 hp left from you tank, by that time there more urgent problems as a breaking ammorack...

 

This is assuming that:

- Module dmg rolls are subject to +/- 25% rule (like penetration and normal dmg are)

- Modules turn yellow below 50% hp (except tracks or fuel tanks, 1 module was the exception, forgot which)

 

WAR only makes sense though on high tier tanks and tank with relative high hp ammoracks. Low caliber guns deal disproportional much module dmg (2x 75mm = 150mm) a Leopard can take 3 150mm hits before dieing a Panther can take 6 hits from 88mm (and those 6 88 will deal MUCH more module dmg as those 3 hits from a 150mm

 

TL:DR: on high tier, weakarmored tanks with ammorack problem WAR is worth it 

Same also, sort of, applies to CO2 (but only for tank with frontal mounted fuel tanks)

 

ps: and for those who know think im wrong, pls show me where im wrong, the mechanics work in the way i described, only statement from main developer has value (Serb, Storm, Overlord, Veider, thats about it, no PR bs or wiki crap, they know nothing about mechanics...)

Your argument is sound and even makes me consider running a WAR on the Centurion Mk. 7/1, which gets racked constantly. However, the thing that keeps me from doing it is that I have to give up another module that has even more benefit. Which should I get rid of, the VStab, rammer, or optics? IMO, they're all more useful than the WAR because it's fairly rare that I'll get racked after using my repair kit. That problem can be mitigated by bringing both repair kits and then I don't have to give up a part of the holy trinity of medium modules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run food on my Leo-I and have found that I don't really need WAR. 

 

My play style usually involves me going boom about 3 seconds after my Leo-I is spotted... so...

 

its either 5K damage games shooting at tanks that can't see me or

 

1K YoloTatos.

 

 

I dunno... Pubbies on NA like shooting the Leo-I cause they can pen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAR does help, i dont get why so many ppl here get the idea from that it doesnt help, but....

Every module in wot has hp, and WAR (and safe stowage) increase this. Every hit deals x amount of dmg, tied to caliber BUT this dmg may vary by 25%
 

Combine this, and WAR will often be the difference between breaking ammorack (or not) Leopard ammorack has 260 hp with WAR and SS this would be 422,5 hp, compared to the following dmg (it scale linear with caliber, 2x bigger caliber is 2x more dmg)
75 mm   100
76 mm   105
88 mm   119
90 mm   122
100 mm  135
105 mm  150
122 mm  165
128 mm  180
152 mm  203
 

With 260 hp the 149-152-155 mm can 1 shot you (say hi +/-25%) with WAR they cant,  also anything above 76mm can break your ammorack (max roll is 131 dmg so more as 130...) While 128mm and above will ALWAYS break your ammo (even with minimal dmg roll).

With WAR, even Bl-10 and the like have a big chance of NOT breaking the ammorack (203 vs 211) while 122mm and lower cant break your ammorack at all (max dmg roll is 206 it needs 211).

So this makes quite a difference especially since the saving trow and suchs are for ammorack 50% (??) in practice with WAR the chance of a breaking ammorack is fairly low... The ammorack needs 2 hits from a 120mm gun (trow in 2x saving trow) so 4 hit by a 120mm gun, thats 1600 hp left from you tank, by that time there more urgent problems as a breaking ammorack...
 

This is assuming that:
- Module dmg rolls are subject to +/- 25% rule (like penetration and normal dmg are)
- Modules turn yellow below 50% hp (except tracks or fuel tanks, 1 module was the exception, forgot which)
 

WAR only makes sense though on high tier tanks and tank with relative high hp ammoracks. Low caliber guns deal disproportional much module dmg (2x 75mm = 150mm) a Leopard can take 3 150mm hits before dieing a Panther can take 6 hits from 88mm (and those 6 88 will deal MUCH more module dmg as those 3 hits from a 150mm
 

TL:DR: on high tier, weakarmored tanks with ammorack problem WAR is worth it 

Same also, sort of, applies to CO2 (but only for tank with frontal mounted fuel tanks)
 

ps: and for those who know think im wrong, pls show me where im wrong, the mechanics work in the way i described, only statement from main developer has value (Serb, Storm, Overlord, Veider, thats about it, no PR bs or wiki crap, they know nothing about mechanics...)

 

There is not much point in balancing your gear to be able to withstand multiple hits from +150mm caliber guns. You can't take those hits anyway. the best you can do is to make sure they can't one-shot-kill you. And SS perk does just that, it gives you +12.5% HP on AR which makes you immune to one-shot-kills from 152mm guns.

That is all you really need because not even SS+WAR will protect you from multiple ammo-rack hits from those guns.

 

 

If you have SS, than WAR will only help you against hits from 105-150mm guns, and only if they hit you in the ammo rack zone and only if they pass a 30% RNG check to determine if that damage will actually be counted.

 

That is a lot of "IF"s to make it worth a valuable equipment slot on a tank that has the best tools to avoid taking fire. (speed, camo, view range, depression, accuracy)

 

GehakteMolen, on 12 May 2014 - 6:01 PM, said:

Vstab and rammer are essential on any tank, so its optics or WAR so depends on playstyle / annoyance of breaking ammoracks

However, the cent does face a lot of low tier stuff, with high rof guns, making WAR less effective, also the ammorack has less hp 230 or 240 or so, combined with the fact that Mk7 is either hull down or long range sniping, chance of getting broke ammoracks vs less viewrange i wouldnt pick WAR

On PTA however, it might be more usefull, but again, depends on how much it annoys you as player

 

 

Isn't that the prefered playing style for Leo 1 too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument is sound and even makes me consider running a WAR on the Centurion Mk. 7/1, which gets racked constantly. However, the thing that keeps me from doing it is that I have to give up another module that has even more benefit. Which should I get rid of, the VStab, rammer, or optics? IMO, they're all more useful than the WAR because it's fairly rare that I'll get racked after using my repair kit. That problem can be mitigated by bringing both repair kits and then I don't have to give up a part of the holy trinity of medium modules.

 

Vstab and rammer are essential on any tank, so its optics or WAR so depends on playstyle / annoyance of breaking ammoracks

 

However, the cent does face a lot of low tier stuff, with high rof guns, making WAR less effective, also the ammorack has less hp 230 or 240 or so, combined with the fact that Mk7 is either hull down or long range sniping, chance of getting broke ammoracks vs less viewrange i wouldnt pick WAR

 

On PTA however, it might be more usefull, but again, depends on how much it annoys you as player 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on cent i didnt run war because the speed often saved me from early encounters so most of my battling was done in hull down. Leo (both of them) with its big speed can often get in open knife fights with other speedy mediums and lights and losing an ammo rack (or a repair kit) that early on is a big problem.  The only other tank i would put war on would be the fv215 (but for entirely different reasons)

 

I wanted to take the third module instead, i really did, but after only few games it was "oh, so this will be the same as leoA" so i put war on and never regretted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leopards often lose ammo rack from frontal hits to the turret? I never heard that before, usually the crew and the turret or the gun are damaged. Ammo rack damage mostly comes from hits to the hull?

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...