Jump to content


Warhammer 40,000: Macragge's Thunder


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

TsurugiSama #41 Posted 14 October 2017 - 03:47 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 5882 battles
  • 3
  • [HALT]
  • Member since:
    10-27-2016

View PostChariot_Solace, on 14 October 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

This is completely retarded. Why does the Predator have an auto loader AND the highest DPM of all tier 7 heavies? Aren't auto-loading tanks supposed to have lower DPM to balance out their high burst damage? And you gave it 130mm of sloped frontal armor making it one of the toughest tanks to penetrate frontally in the tier? And the same story with the vindicator. Ridiculous armor from the front with a stupid shield to cover its drive wheels so you cant even shoot the tracks and go around it if it's facing you. And of course it will make it impervious to HEAT shells. These tanks are a joke and I'm disgusted with you guys for adding them to my favorite game. Whoever's idea this was at War Gaming needs to be demoted and stick to cleaning toilets for the rest of his time at the company. That way his surroundings will smell the same as his ideas.

 

THAT whiny rant is hilarious considering your signature line... 

GipsyDanger49 #42 Posted 14 October 2017 - 04:55 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 55855 battles
  • 654
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014

View PostNICKEL_AND_DIME, on 11 October 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

We are not amused.

It gets tedious having the most powerful tanks be complete fantasy unreal creations.  I started playing this because I like real tanks from 1916-1966 era, mostly WWII.  Now we have tanks from some other game???  Why does Blitz have to try to be some other game now?

This makes zero sense to me.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Design a fantasy tank game and get rid of all the stupid clown tanks we have. WG wants the best of all worlds IN ONE GAME. THEY WILL LOSE WE HISTORICAL GAMERS SOON. News flash WG we probably spend the most and dont want all the “other nation tanks” you keep putting in plus the noobstorm will be worse now in this event. Why cant we have WWII vs WWII tanking and Coldwar era vs Coldwar era. Its really comical seeing a Tiger I vs an IS6. Reason? RUBLES!!!! WG wants money and doesnt care how they destroy a great mobile game. I hope community manager reads this.this is your first warning, end of days has started


 

 

.                                    


Chariot_Solace #43 Posted 14 October 2017 - 04:59 PM

    Stug Life

  • Players
  • 17639 battles
  • 1,701
  • [IRD]
  • Member since:
    12-06-2016

View PostTsurugiSama, on 14 October 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

 

THAT whiny rant is hilarious considering your signature line... 

 

What a weak insult. Nice try. I don't care if you like cartoon tanks, but they don't belong in this game, and they certainly shouldn't be the most powerful machines in their tier. If you interpreted my signature to mean that one shouldn't stand up for themselves or against something they don't believe to be right, then I worry about you.

Edited by Chariot_Solace, 14 October 2017 - 08:05 PM.

"Let us conduct ourselves so that all men wish to be our friends, and all fear to be our enemies."

-Alexander The Great

Tier Xs; E100, E50M, JgPzE100, Maus. Lines I'm Grinding: Grille(IX), IS7(VIII), STB-1(VII), AMX50B(VIII) Favorite Tank: E75. Top 100 Tanks: AMX M4 45, ARL 44, IS-2Sh, Chi-To


Delta256 #44 Posted 14 October 2017 - 07:53 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9883 battles
  • 5,770
  • [IMPR]
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

Honestly I don't understand the complaining. Over half the tanks in this game are unhistorical napkin-drawing designs that probably wouldn't have functioned in the real world anyway. Indeed, the Space Marine tanks actually have more (fictional) history behind them than things like the E-50M, WZ-135, and utterly ridiculous designs like the IS-2Sh.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited because no one can recognize deadpan humor apparently.


Edited by Delta256, 16 October 2017 - 03:39 AM.

I sometimes drive Warships too.


Chariot_Solace #45 Posted 14 October 2017 - 08:02 PM

    Stug Life

  • Players
  • 17639 battles
  • 1,701
  • [IRD]
  • Member since:
    12-06-2016

View PostDelta256, on 14 October 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

Honestly I don't understand the complaining. Over half the tanks in this game are unhistorical napkin-drawing designs that probably wouldn't have functioned in the real world anyway. Indeed, the Space Marine tanks actually have more history behind them than things like the E-75, WZ-135, and utterly ridiculous designs like the IS-2Sh.

 

Do you have a mental disability? The E75 was the planned successor to the Tiger II: a simplified version to ease and increase production. Most of the "napkin drawing tanks" were much more than that, and they were drawn up by engineers who actually considered what would work in a design or not. The designs include actual weapons, engines, and general modules available to their countries at the time. They would have been completely feasible to build AND THEY BELONG TO A FRIGGIN COUNTRY FFS. The space tard tanks have zero history, and can't say any of the previous things for themselves. Like seriously? Do you hear yourself? How do you not see a difference?

"Let us conduct ourselves so that all men wish to be our friends, and all fear to be our enemies."

-Alexander The Great

Tier Xs; E100, E50M, JgPzE100, Maus. Lines I'm Grinding: Grille(IX), IS7(VIII), STB-1(VII), AMX50B(VIII) Favorite Tank: E75. Top 100 Tanks: AMX M4 45, ARL 44, IS-2Sh, Chi-To


SpartacusDiablo #46 Posted 14 October 2017 - 08:42 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10132 battles
  • 3,717
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014
Congratulations Wargaming. I don't think I've ever been less excited about an in game event. I have zero interest in these TonkaTanks and will make zero effort and spend zero gold to get them. Great job introducing something to the game that doesn't belong and further irritates a large portion of your playerbase. Your team seems to have a sixth sense for pissing your players off. Well done.

Edited by SpartacusDiablo, 14 October 2017 - 08:54 PM.

 PROUD MEMBER OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SPUD CLAN

​#FixTheFury 

I'm done with the forum for awhile. See ya in game.

 


Delta256 #47 Posted 14 October 2017 - 09:44 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9883 battles
  • 5,770
  • [IMPR]
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View PostChariot_Solace, on 14 October 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

 

Do you have a mental disability? The E75 was the planned successor to the Tiger II: a simplified version to ease and increase production. Most of the "napkin drawing tanks" were much more than that, and they were drawn up by engineers who actually considered what would work in a design or not. The designs include actual weapons, engines, and general modules available to their countries at the time. They would have been completely feasible to build AND THEY BELONG TO A FRIGGIN COUNTRY FFS. The space tard tanks have zero history, and can't say any of the previous things for themselves. Like seriously? Do you hear yourself? How do you not see a difference?

 

Haha, I love how the first thing you did was call me mentally disabled, especially since a large number of the prototanks in-game, besides the E-series, are extrapolated by WG and NOT designed by engineers.

 

The LTP is one of my favorite examples, since it was quite literally drawn on a piece of paper by some random lieutenant who wasn't even an engineer by trade. Tanks like the ENTIRE Chinese TDs PC are quite literally 100% made up by Wargaming. The Jagdpanzer E100 is extrapolated by WG because someone wrote on a document "maybe put 170mm gun on it..?" and wasn't even drawn up at all. The WTFE100 on PC was literally "lets stick a prototype AA gun on an E100 chassis because lol" and was never proposed in any German military documentation at any point ever.


Oh, and get this: The E50M is PATENTED by Wargaming. As in, they drew up a fictional version of the E50, walked up to a patent office, and got it patented. Don't believe me? Here's the patent documents: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/11/19/wargaming-patents-e-50m/

 

At least the fictional Space Marine tanks had fictional variants, fought in fictional divisions and have fictional wars they they saw fictional service in. That's a hell of a lot more than the E50m can say.


Edited by Delta256, 14 October 2017 - 09:51 PM.

I sometimes drive Warships too.


_The_Tactition_ #48 Posted 14 October 2017 - 11:55 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16511 battles
  • 1,070
  • [FOE]
  • Member since:
    02-06-2015

View PostChariot_Solace, on 14 October 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

This is completely retarded. Why does the Predator have an auto loader AND the highest DPM of all tier 7 heavies? Aren't auto-loading tanks supposed to have lower DPM to balance out their high burst damage? And you gave it 130mm of sloped frontal armor making it one of the toughest tanks to penetrate frontally in the tier? And the same story with the vindicator. Ridiculous armor from the front with a stupid shield to cover its drive wheels so you cant even shoot the tracks and go around it if it's facing you. And of course it will make it impervious to HEAT shells. These tanks are a joke and I'm disgusted with you guys for adding them to my favorite game. Whoever's idea this was at War Gaming needs to be demoted and stick to cleaning toilets for the rest of his time at the company. That way his surroundings will smell the same as his ideas.

 

Do you know the Vindicator has no gun arc? Every time it tracks a target it has to move. The Predator, on the other hand, seems fine with its slow speed.


It is always Hammer Time! 

Member of the Training Room Police Department

 

 

 


Chariot_Solace #49 Posted 15 October 2017 - 12:52 AM

    Stug Life

  • Players
  • 17639 battles
  • 1,701
  • [IRD]
  • Member since:
    12-06-2016

View PostDelta256, on 14 October 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

 

Haha, I love how the first thing you did was call me mentally disabled, especially since a large number of the prototanks in-game, besides the E-series, are extrapolated by WG and NOT designed by engineers.

 

The LTP is one of my favorite examples, since it was quite literally drawn on a piece of paper by some random lieutenant who wasn't even an engineer by trade. Tanks like the ENTIRE Chinese TDs PC are quite literally 100% made up by Wargaming. The Jagdpanzer E100 is extrapolated by WG because someone wrote on a document "maybe put 170mm gun on it..?" and wasn't even drawn up at all. The WTFE100 on PC was literally "lets stick a prototype AA gun on an E100 chassis because lol" and was never proposed in any German military documentation at any point ever.


Oh, and get this: The E50M is PATENTED by Wargaming. As in, they drew up a fictional version of the E50, walked up to a patent office, and got it patented. Don't believe me? Here's the patent documents: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/11/19/wargaming-patents-e-50m/

 

At least the fictional Space Marine tanks had fictional variants, fought in fictional divisions and have fictional wars they they saw fictional service in. That's a hell of a lot more than the E50m can say.

 

Yea, there are a handful of tanks completely made up by wargaming. Congratulations moron. I don't need to look at a stupid link dude. Everyone knows that. Way to point out the obvious. I never denied that. I said "most". And you know what? Even those tanks completely made up by WG fit into the game 1000x better than friggin space tard tanks from 40K years in the future from some cartoon sci-fi universe. It's not even debatable. Almost all of them use actual tank chassis, and or weapons and general modules from the same nations. The E50M is only a slightly altered version of the E50, a real design that was planned, so they didn't have to imagine much huh? Looks almost identical. You can tell it's German when you look at it. The space tard tanks look exactly like Tonka toys and don't even belong to a country. You don't know w t f it is when you look at it. They stick out like a sore thumb. Your primary example was flat out wrong and you tried to say that the space tard tanks have more history than the E75. What an absolute hysterical joke. You can't even try to play that one off. You made a total donkey of yourself. That is top three dumbest statements, perhaps even the dumbest statement I've encountered on these forums. The Jagdpanzer E100 is not 100% fictional either. They were three different design proposals, although they never got past the earliest stages (You know why? because they never got the chance to finish the friggin original E100 chassis. Had they been able to, you can bet they would have made more use of a powerful chassis like that with several different vehicles, as was their habit.) with different locations of the fighting compartment and armament, and you can't use the gun caliber as an example, as it has always been necessary for WG to mount incorrect weapons on tanks for balancing reasons. And you're still trying to convince people the space tard tanks have history. They're from a cartoon universe dude. They aren't tied to any real history at all. wthare you even saying? Are you joking? Do you know the meaning of the word history? I don't care if you like the cartoon tanks. Just say you like them. But don't try to justify their addition to the game with false statements and convoluted arguments.

Edited by Chariot_Solace, 15 October 2017 - 12:54 AM.

"Let us conduct ourselves so that all men wish to be our friends, and all fear to be our enemies."

-Alexander The Great

Tier Xs; E100, E50M, JgPzE100, Maus. Lines I'm Grinding: Grille(IX), IS7(VIII), STB-1(VII), AMX50B(VIII) Favorite Tank: E75. Top 100 Tanks: AMX M4 45, ARL 44, IS-2Sh, Chi-To


Delta256 #50 Posted 15 October 2017 - 04:35 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9883 battles
  • 5,770
  • [IMPR]
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

Alright, there's a lot here, so let's brake it down

 

 

Block Quote

  Your primary example was flat out wrong and you tried to say that the space tard tanks have more history than the E75. What an absolute hysterical joke. You can't even try to play that one off. You made a total donkey of yourself. 

 

I never said the Spess Mahreen tanks had more historical basis than the E-75* . I said they had more historical basis than the myriad of made up tanks WG's has added (read: zero) . It was a halfhearted joke, I'll admit, but I think it went over your head cuz of that.

 

*

 

 

Block Quote

 The E50M is only a slightly altered version of the E50, a real design that was planned, so they didn't have to imagine much huh? Looks almost identical.

 

 

Looks almost identical.

 

 Gonna have to use a quote of yours here, since I think it applies to the above statement nicely.

You made a total donkey of yourself. 

~Chariot_Solace, 2017

 

They (WG) redesigned the frontal armor profile of the tank (particularly the slope), gave it a made-up turret (the E-50 was to use the Panther F's Schmalturm), tried to shove a 10.5cm gun into it, and threw 1200hp powerplant into it through what I can only describe as Ultra German Uberscience. They also somehow managed to squeeze a rear-mounted transmission behind that monstrously fictional engine without making the tank any longer (apparently using a 'powerpack' design). 

 

And it weighs less than the Tiger II despite all that? Not what I would call a minor modification to the (relatively) sensible E50.

 

It was far enough removed from the E50 that it's now a registered US patent. Let that sink in.

 

 

Block Quote

 The Jagdpanzer E100 is not 100% fictional either.

 

My mistake, it's 96% fictional, I just rounded up.

 

IMO, someone writing that a theoretical TD variant of a tank that hasn't even been finished, should carry a theoretical 170mm gun, (despite no direct-fire 170mm AT existing), does not make the tank any less fictional. They didn't even have a mockup of it for cripes' sakes, WG pulled the whole design from the same place they pulled that abomination Tankenstein from.

 

Block Quote

 Had they been able to [complete the E100], you can bet they would have made more use of a powerful chassis like that with several different vehicles (as was their habit).

 

And I can bet the Soviets would have found a way to stick the 180mm guns from the Kirov class cruisers to an IS-2 chassis if they felt they needed to (they've done way nuttier things than that, try googling for crazy soviet prototypes for fun). But just because someone writes a huge gun down on a document, in the design phase for a future vehicle that hasn't even been mocked up yet, does not make it even remotely feasible. Remember, these are the guys who thought the P.1000 Ratte was a practical design that could go 40km/h.
 

 

  And you're still trying to convince people the space tard tanks have history.

 

No, is only joke like I said above comrade ))))

 

Block Quote

 They're from a cartoon universe dude.

 

Ahhhh don't let any Warhammer 40k fans hear that, lol

 

 

 

 

  Do you know the meaning of the word history?

 

I do actually, and if you think the JPE100 we have ingame is remotely historical (despite the Germans never even drawing a sketch of the thing), then I have a copy of Belton Cooper's Death Traps to sell you.

 

Block Quote

 I don't care if you like the cartoon tanks. Just say you like them

 

I don't actually, I kinda hate them. I was a closed-beta tester back in the day, and honestly I think the game jumped the shark when they introduced Tankenstein (and sold my M4A3E2 Beta tank for $15, grrr.). I just got over it after I realized WG was throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the game if it has tracks and a turret. It's just tiring seeing the whole "muh historically accurate WW2 game, RUINEDDDDDDD!" whenever a new event tank pops up.

 

Anyway, I don't disagree with you, I never expected to see Warhammer tanks in a game with primarily '40s and '50s tanks, but after seeing the Tankensteins, the Draculas, and the kawaii anime waifu tanks pop up everywhere, I just kinda learned to roll with it. If you'd like more thematically correct tank games, might I suggest the other WoT games on console or PC? They tend to be fantasy-free for the most part.

 

(I went back and removed a good 60% of the snarkiness this post was going to have, since honestly it's unproductive and just makes people upset. Would appreciate not being called mentally disabled over a joke though, thanks <3)

 


I sometimes drive Warships too.


Chariot_Solace #51 Posted 15 October 2017 - 02:25 PM

    Stug Life

  • Players
  • 17639 battles
  • 1,701
  • [IRD]
  • Member since:
    12-06-2016

View PostDelta256, on 14 October 2017 - 10:35 PM, said:

Alright, there's a lot here, so let's brake it down

 

 

 

I never said the Spess Mahreen tanks had more historical basis than the E-75* . I said they had more historical basis than the myriad of made up tanks WG's has added (read: zero) . It was a halfhearted joke, I'll admit, but I think it went over your head cuz of that.

 

 

They don't. The WG tanks use elements of real tank designs, hence they have some ties to history that way. You can tell their influence and what nation they belong to when you look at them. They are mostly believable. The cartoon tanks don't use elements of anything. They are completely independent unbelievable dreams nightmares. You don't w t f they are when you look at them. 

 

 

They (WG) redesigned the frontal armor profile of the tank (particularly the slope), gave it a made-up turret (the E-50 was to use the Panther F's Schmalturm), tried to shove a 10.5cm gun into it, and threw 1200hp powerplant into it through what I can only describe as Ultra German Uberscience. They also somehow managed to squeeze a rear-mounted transmission behind that monstrously fictional engine without making the tank any longer (apparently using a 'powerpack' design). 

 

And it weighs less than the Tiger II despite all that? Not what I would call a minor modification to the (relatively) sensible E50.

 

It was far enough removed from the E50 that it's now a registered US patent. Let that sink in.

 

 Yea, yea, yea, yea. They redesigned the E50. What I said. It's still very similar. And it fits into the game just fine. Someone who doesn't know much about history wouldn't have a clue it wasn't a real tank. Anyone with eyes knows immediately that the cartoon tanks are outrageously fake and don't fit in at all. I don't see how you could even attempt to argue this. The cartoon tanks are miles outside the theme of the game.

 

My mistake, it's 96% fictional, I just rounded up.

 

IMO, someone writing that a theoretical TD variant of a tank that hasn't even been finished, should carry a theoretical 170mm gun, (despite no direct-fire 170mm AT existing), does not make the tank any less fictional. They didn't even have a mockup of it for cripes' sakes, WG pulled the whole design from the same place they pulled that abomination Tankenstein from.

 

 

And I can bet the Soviets would have found a way to stick the 180mm guns from the Kirov class cruisers to an IS-2 chassis if they felt they needed to (they've done way nuttier things than that, try googling for crazy soviet prototypes for fun). But just because someone writes a huge gun down on a document, in the design phase for a future vehicle that hasn't even been mocked up yet, does not make it even remotely feasible. Remember, these are the guys who thought the P.1000 Ratte was a practical design that could go 40km/h.
 

96? That's quite high, but ok, you can pull whatever number you want out of your rear, the fact is, they didn't invent the idea for the tank themselves. No, there wasn't a direct fire 170mm weapon in service at the time, but repurposing weapons designed for a different roles as improvised AT guns was not uncommon in the war at all. Both the German and the Russians took the 88 or 85mm AA guns and placed them into AT roles directly without changing anything initially. (No, AA is not indirect fire, my point is repurposing role specific weapons). And they did have 170mm cannons. 17cm Kanone 18 was available. Even if they didn't change anything about the weapon at all, or it didn't have AP rounds available it would still be effective. If a tank gets hit with 170mm HE shell, it is NOT having a good day. Chances are, it will be knocked out, with plenty of module/crew damage/injuries/deaths. Go ask the SU-152. It didn't have to penetrate a tanks armor to take it out of the fight. Another good example is the Stugs (a tank destroyer) which were equipped with 105mm howitzers. StuH 42. It's not much of a stretch. Not to mention, all they had to do was manufacture HEAT rounds for the weapon, which were in wide use for a variety of their AT weapons at the time, and it's AT capabilities would be easily increased tenfold. On top of that, It wouldn't have taken long to tweak the design to increase armor penetration with a new model  and new AP rounds. And anyways, the engineers assigned to the E100 project did have plans for a 17cm StuK L/53. Look it up. There are plenty of sources on it.

View PostDelta256, on 14 October 2017 - 10:35 PM, said:

 

And I can bet the Soviets would have found a way to stick the 180mm guns from the Kirov class cruisers to an IS-2 chassis if they felt they needed to (they've done way nuttier things than that, try googling for crazy soviet prototypes for fun). But just because someone writes a huge gun down on a document, in the design phase for a future vehicle that hasn't even been mocked up yet, does not make it even remotely feasible. Remember, these are the guys who thought the P.1000 Ratte was a practical design that could go 40km/h.
 

Lol. Sure because that makes just as much sense. Just a quick few specs here. E100: 130 tons, 1344hp. IS-2: 46 tons, 600 hp. The IS-2 is not even half as heavy duty as the E100. The torsion bars would literally snap. Nice try. "you can bet". There were plans for several vehicles based on the E100 chassis. You can attack my word choice all you want, but it's true.

 

 

No, is only joke like I said above comrade ))))

 

 

 You can back pedal on your absurd erroneous claim all you want, but you made it, and you weren't joking. 

 

 

Ahhhh don't let any Warhammer 40k fans hear that, lol

 

 Screw WarDamper. I don't care who hears. If you like that game, cool. Go play it then.

 

I don't actually, I kinda hate them. I was a closed-beta tester back in the day, and honestly I think the game jumped the shark when they introduced Tankenstein (and sold my M4A3E2 Beta tank for $15, grrr.). I just got over it after I realized WG was throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the game if it has tracks and a turret. It's just tiring seeing the whole "muh historically accurate WW2 game, RUINEDDDDDDD!" whenever a new event tank pops up.

 

Anyway, I don't disagree with you, I never expected to see Warhammer tanks in a game with primarily '40s and '50s tanks, but after seeing the Tankensteins, the Draculas, and the kawaii anime waifu tanks pop up everywhere, I just kinda learned to roll with it. If you'd like more thematically correct tank games, might I suggest the other WoT games on console or PC? They tend to be fantasy-free for the most part.

 

(I went back and removed a good 60% of the snarkiness this post was going to have, since honestly it's unproductive and just makes people upset. Would appreciate not being called mentally disabled over a joke though, thanks <3)

 

 

Annnnnnnd. I never said the game was historically accurate. Stop putting words in my mouth. I corrected an outrageously false statement about the E series, and I said that even the WG invention tanks fit in better with the game's theme, which they do. I've been over that. I don't mind unhistorical tank designs as long as  they're somewhat believable. I do mind people twisting my words and spewing false convoluted rhetoric and falsities around. You hereby receive the reward for biggest asinine forum clown of the year sir. Congratulations.


Edited by Chariot_Solace, 15 October 2017 - 02:28 PM.

"Let us conduct ourselves so that all men wish to be our friends, and all fear to be our enemies."

-Alexander The Great

Tier Xs; E100, E50M, JgPzE100, Maus. Lines I'm Grinding: Grille(IX), IS7(VIII), STB-1(VII), AMX50B(VIII) Favorite Tank: E75. Top 100 Tanks: AMX M4 45, ARL 44, IS-2Sh, Chi-To


Delta256 #52 Posted 15 October 2017 - 03:42 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9883 battles
  • 5,770
  • [IMPR]
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View PostChariot_Solace, on 15 October 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

 

They don't. The WG tanks use elements of real tank designs, hence they have some ties to history that way. You can tell their influence and what nation they belong to when you look at them. They are mostly believable. The cartoon tanks don't use elements of anything. They are completely independent unbelievable dreams nightmares. You don't w t f they are when you look at them. 

 Yea, yea, yea, yea. They redesigned the E50. What I said. It's still very similar. And it fits into the game just fine. Someone who doesn't know much about history wouldn't have a clue it wasn't a real tank. Anyone with eyes knows immediately that the cartoon tanks are outrageously fake and don't fit in at all. I don't see how you could even attempt to argue this. The cartoon tanks are miles outside the theme of the game.

96? That's quite high, but ok, you can pull whatever number you want out of your rear, the fact is, they didn't invent the idea for the tank themselves. No, there wasn't a direct fire 170mm weapon in service at the time, but repurposing weapons designed for a different roles as improvised AT guns was not uncommon in the war at all. Both the German and the Russians took the 88 or 85mm AA guns and placed them into AT roles directly without changing anything initially. (No, AA is not indirect fire, my point is repurposing role specific weapons). And they did have 170mm cannons. 17cm Kanone 18 was available. Even if they didn't change anything about the weapon at all, or it didn't have AP rounds available it would still be effective. If a tank gets hit with 170mm HE shell, it is NOT having a good day. Chances are, it will be knocked out, with plenty of module/crew damage/injuries/deaths. Go ask the SU-152. It didn't have to penetrate a tanks armor to take it out of the fight. Another good example is the Stugs (a tank destroyer) which were equipped with 105mm howitzers. StuH 42. It's not much of a stretch. Not to mention, all they had to do was manufacture HEAT rounds for the weapon, which were in wide use for a variety of their AT weapons at the time, and it's AT capabilities would be easily increased tenfold. On top of that, It wouldn't have taken long to tweak the design to increase armor penetration with a new model  and new AP rounds. And anyways, the engineers assigned to the E100 project did have plans for a 17cm StuK L/53. Look it up. There are plenty of sources on it.

Lol. Sure because that makes just as much sense. Just a quick few specs here. E100: 130 tons, 1344hp. IS-2: 46 tons, 600 hp. The IS-2 is not even half as heavy duty as the E100. The torsion bars would literally snap. Nice try. "you can bet". There were plans for several vehicles based on the E100 chassis. You can attack my word choice all you want, but it's true.

 

 You can back pedal on your absurd erroneous claim all you want, but you made it, and you weren't joking. 

 

 Screw WarDamper. I don't care who hears. If you like that game, cool. Go play it then.

 

Annnnnnnd. I never said the game was historically accurate. Stop putting words in my mouth. I corrected an outrageously false statement about the E series, and I said that even the WG invention tanks fit in better with the game's theme, which they do. I've been over that. I don't mind unhistorical tank designs as long as  they're somewhat believable. I do mind people twisting my words and spewing false convoluted rhetoric and falsities around. You hereby receive the reward for biggest asinine forum clown of the year sir. Congratulations.

 

Honestly not gonna bother replying to most of this since the concept of being facetious seems to be lost on you, if you're taking my '96%' and 'IS-2 with cruiser guns' 100% seriously. I'll make sure I put an abundance of emojis in the future so that those with a broken humor meter don't misunderstand me.

 

 

 

But I will reply to these

 

 

  I never said the game was historically accurate.

 

Never said you did, but you DID say:

 

 

  Most of the "napkin drawing tanks" were much more than that, and they were drawn up by engineers who actually considered what would work in a design or not.

 

Which is patently false for tanks like the JPE100, the WZ135, the WTE100 (pc),  the LTP, and many other examples.

 

 

  You can back pedal on your absurd erroneous claim all you want, but you made it, and you weren't joking. 

 

Heh, and you claim that I'm putting words in your mouth? I can't honestly accept the idea that you can read my true intentions considering you've been tone-deaf up until this point.

 

 

 I corrected an outrageously false statement about the E series

 

Which false statement?

 

No seriously. I'm looking back at my posts, and I'm only bagging on the E50m and the JPE100, which are both WG ""extrapolations"" (Read: fabrications). I never said the Entwicklung series was fake. I never said the (Non WG) Entwicklung tanks were less historical than frigging Space Marine tanks. Methinks you should stop putting words into my mouth before accusing me of the same.

 

 

 

If it's a thematic problem you have with these event tanks, then just say that, but a tank "looking historical" and actually being historical is a pretty big difference. To be honest, that battle has been lost long ago

 

 

Pls WG let me design tenks 4 u plox

 


I sometimes drive Warships too.


MudkipAtWar #53 Posted 16 October 2017 - 02:56 AM

    T1 best heavy tank

  • Players
  • 9805 battles
  • 210
  • [FLEET]
  • Member since:
    10-30-2015

View PostDelta256, on 14 October 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

Honestly I don't understand the complaining. Over half the tanks in this game are unhistorical napkin-drawing designs that probably wouldn't have functioned in the real world anyway. Indeed, the Space Marine tanks actually have more history behind them than things like the E-50M, WZ-135, and utterly ridiculous designs like the IS-2Sh.

 

They may have more history in Harry Potter land, but not in real life

 

                                           ███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
                         ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
                        I███████████████████].
                ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤
 (╯°□°)╯                                                                                                              

___Chao___ #54 Posted 16 October 2017 - 02:22 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18775 battles
  • 272
  • [PLA]
  • Member since:
    12-09-2015
Does the 3 win reset at 8pm EST everyday?

Follow PLA Wotblitz on Youtube


The_Witch_K1ng_of_Angmar #55 Posted 16 October 2017 - 05:13 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18288 battles
  • 523
  • [T1GER]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2016

View PostRibbIeStripe, on 12 October 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

 

This is why we added a warning. We could't arrange large-scale testing - therefore adjustments are possible. No compensation planned.

 

These tanks look reasonably balanced to me.  Each has horrid penetration but good armor.  I don't know if WarGaming plans to continue their policy of leaving-no-tank-playable, but these vehicles look reasonable for how ridiculously hard to get they're going to be.  

wrecker1968 #56 Posted 16 October 2017 - 09:30 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20526 battles
  • 104
  • [HOUSE]
  • Member since:
    04-13-2016
sounds like another waste of time and effort for us average tankers.  another money grab?  and are the tanks worth it?          

Chariot_Solace #57 Posted 16 October 2017 - 09:38 PM

    Stug Life

  • Players
  • 17639 battles
  • 1,701
  • [IRD]
  • Member since:
    12-06-2016

View PostDelta256, on 15 October 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

 

Honestly not gonna bother replying to most of this since the concept of being facetious seems to be lost on you, if you're taking my '96%' and 'IS-2 with cruiser guns' 100% seriously. I'll make sure I put an abundance of emojis in the future so that those with a broken humor meter don't misunderstand me.

 

 

 

But I will reply to these

 

 

Never said you did, but you DID say:

 

 

Which is patently false for tanks like the JPE100, the WZ135, the WTE100 (pc),  the LTP, and many other examples.

 

 

Heh, and you claim that I'm putting words in your mouth? I can't honestly accept the idea that you can read my true intentions considering you've been tone-deaf up until this point.

 

 

Which false statement?

 

No seriously. I'm looking back at my posts, and I'm only bagging on the E50m and the JPE100, which are both WG ""extrapolations"" (Read: fabrications). I never said the Entwicklung series was fake. I never said the (Non WG) Entwicklung tanks were less historical than frigging Space Marine tanks. Methinks you should stop putting words into my mouth before accusing me of the same.

 

 

 

If it's a thematic problem you have with these event tanks, then just say that, but a tank "looking historical" and actually being historical is a pretty big difference. To be honest, that battle has been lost long ago

 

 

Pls WG let me design tenks 4 u plox

 

 

Joking? You were exaggerating in an effort to make some of the tech tree tanks look just as ridiculous as the War Damper tanks, but you failed. Keep back pedaling. 

"Let us conduct ourselves so that all men wish to be our friends, and all fear to be our enemies."

-Alexander The Great

Tier Xs; E100, E50M, JgPzE100, Maus. Lines I'm Grinding: Grille(IX), IS7(VIII), STB-1(VII), AMX50B(VIII) Favorite Tank: E75. Top 100 Tanks: AMX M4 45, ARL 44, IS-2Sh, Chi-To


Delta256 #58 Posted 17 October 2017 - 12:38 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9883 battles
  • 5,770
  • [IMPR]
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View PostChariot_Solace, on 16 October 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

 

Joking? You were exaggerating in an effort to make some of the tech tree tanks look just as ridiculous as the War Damper tanks, but you failed. Keep back pedaling. 

 

EDIT: No need, let's just drop this. We're obviously getting nowhere here.


Edited by Delta256, 17 October 2017 - 04:38 PM.

I sometimes drive Warships too.


RibbleStripe #59 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:33 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Administrator
  • 0 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    10-04-2017

View Post___Chao___, on 16 October 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Does the 3 win reset at 8pm EST everyday?

 

Exactly.

 

Chariot_Solace & Delta256, why don't you keep arguing in private messages? (if you guys want to, of course).



Dr_Shtainer #60 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:48 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 20444 battles
  • 27
  • [G0PRO]
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

Calculation time!

After playing handful of battles today, I see that I lack 10k060 Blue sigils. Getting them during loss is almost impossible, getting double per battle- super hard. So let’s consider it 15 sigils for the win and we have premium time all the way. Subtracting 6 missions per day (270 sigils from 6 missions)* (multiplied on 9 days), then dividing per 9 days=~ 58 wins per day, with average winrate of 50% it’s... what? 110 battles per day?! Whaaaat?! 110 battles * 5 min of average battle time= 550 min per day=~ 9 hours of pure battling per day, what??? Please tell me I missed something, because this is looking ridiculous so far.






4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users