1687 replies to this topic

[Dan_Deerso]

SpartacusDiablo, on 19 April 2018 - 10:13 AM, said:

Squashing reds is fun.  The squasher taking the same damage as the tank being squashed is no fun.  If my tank is setting on top of a tank I should come through with far less damage then the guy getting squished.

 

Also "Death from Above" is an award on Console.  Any chance we could have it awarded here?  It is hands down my favorite way to kill a red.

 

Well, I'd assume the only reason the squish damage exists is because the ramming damage system gets stuck in a loop due to the simulated gravity. I'm not 100% on that one though, I may have to try mounting the anti-ram equipment in a training room.

 

TL-DR Squish damage might be a happy accident like super-aggro cops in GTA.

[reluctanttheist]

SpartacusDiablo, on 19 April 2018 - 06:13 AM, said:

Squashing reds is fun.  The squasher taking the same damage as the tank being squashed is no fun.  If my tank is setting on top of a tank I should come through with far less damage then the guy getting squished.

 

Also "Death from Above" is an award on Console.  Any chance we could have it awarded here?  It is hands down my favorite way to kill a red.

 

​I agree.  And in times past, Blitz allowed the tank on top to do dmg without taking it.

[anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2]

Eurodogofwar, on 18 April 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

Can you stop with the rigged games? They are a waste of time and way too obvious.

You rig the games.

Viper8757NC, on 18 April 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

 

THIS.  ^^^

 

Also, stop please stop using bot tanks to fill out battle rosters.  There is no way that real human beings could be as dumb as some of the 40% WR bots I consistently encounter in-game.

Bots are better than those players, stop insulting computers, they did nothing wrong.

therealrattler, on 18 April 2018 - 03:58 PM, said:

But then there'd be a competitive british tank that could give IS tanks a run for their money. Shame on you, you know we can't have that

Actually the Chieftain is a premium tank sold for cheap, so economically, it is better for WG not to engage in self destructive operations, by buffing what is mostly an event tank into top line competitiveness.

Also, it's the premiums that are "competitive" now. The tech tree one is cool, just not good enough.

 

Now I'd like to see you explain why the IS-3 IRL is frontally immune to 105mm L7 in 1967, but that would require you to disengage your double think and comprehend to situation logically.

 

 

Like for example, noticing the T-44-100 is missing:

30mm of UFP armor

60mm of turret front armor

60-30mm of turret side armor

5mm of hull side armor

 

In other words, a T-54 mod 1 version 2.0

 

In terms of real life it's missing:

31 millimeters of armor penetration with AP shells at 100 meters, 40 points of alpha damage (it's a really powerful gun).

The 100mm D-10T is capable of sending it's 15.6 kilogram shell at a muzzle velocity of 895 m/s. Or, with BR-412D, like any proper post war tank, it's 15.6 kg shell, at 915 m/s, but due to changes to the tip of the shell, it was able to achieve 236 millimeters of armor penetration at 100 meters. Meanwhile, the German 105mm L/52 achieves about 75 m/s less.

 

In exchange it gets:

1 round per minute higher, than average rate of fire from all ammunition racks, provided the crew is considered able to aim and fire the gun. Where it's NATO counterparts are getting the top end of their theoretical rate of fire because balance.

 

 

Where the Chieftain is missing:

Nothing

 

But it does have:

Rate of fire it could not possibly hope to sustain, and an engine that doesn't break down incredibly often.

[Ruby_Rose_]

Oicraftian, on 19 April 2018 - 11:45 AM, said:

You rig the games.

Bots are better than those players, stop insulting computers, they did nothing wrong.

Actually the Chieftain is a premium tank sold for cheap, so economically, it is better for WG not to engage in self destructive operations, by buffing what is mostly an event tank into top line competitiveness.

Also, it's the premiums that are "competitive" now. The tech tree one is cool, just not good enough.

 

Now I'd like to see you explain why the IS-3 IRL is frontally immune to 105mm L7 in 1967, but that would require you to disengage your double think and comprehend to situation logically.

 

 

Like for example, noticing the T-44-100 is missing:

30mm of UFP armor

60mm of turret front armor

60-30mm of turret side armor

5mm of hull side armor

 

In other words, a T-54 mod 1 version 2.0

 

In terms of real life it's missing:

31 millimeters of armor penetration with AP shells at 100 meters, 40 points of alpha damage (it's a really powerful gun).

The 100mm D-10T is capable of sending it's 15.6 kilogram shell at a muzzle velocity of 895 m/s. Or, with BR-412D, like any proper post war tank, it's 15.6 kg shell, at 915 m/s, but due to changes to the tip of the shell, it was able to achieve 236 millimeters of armor penetration at 100 meters. Meanwhile, the German 105mm L/52 achieves about 75 m/s less.

 

In exchange it gets:

1 round per minute higher, than average rate of fire from all ammunition racks, provided the crew is considered able to aim and fire the gun. Where it's NATO counterparts are getting the top end of their theoretical rate of fire because balance.

 

 

Where the Chieftain is missing:

Nothing

 

But it does have:

Rate of fire it could not possibly hope to sustain, and an engine that doesn't break down incredibly often.

 

[edited]
Just bombarding him with facts eh?

[Dan_Deerso]

Oicraftian, on 19 April 2018 - 11:45 AM, said:

You rig the games.

Bots are better than those players, stop insulting computers, they did nothing wrong.

Actually the Chieftain is a premium tank sold for cheap, so economically, it is better for WG not to engage in self destructive operations, by buffing what is mostly an event tank into top line competitiveness.

Also, it's the premiums that are "competitive" now. The tech tree one is cool, just not good enough.

 

Now I'd like to see you explain why the IS-3 IRL is frontally immune to 105mm L7 in 1967, but that would require you to disengage your double think and comprehend to situation logically.

 

 

Like for example, noticing the T-44-100 is missing:

30mm of UFP armor

60mm of turret front armor

60-30mm of turret side armor

5mm of hull side armor

 

In other words, a T-54 mod 1 version 2.0

 

In terms of real life it's missing:

31 millimeters of armor penetration with AP shells at 100 meters, 40 points of alpha damage (it's a really powerful gun).

The 100mm D-10T is capable of sending it's 15.6 kilogram shell at a muzzle velocity of 895 m/s. Or, with BR-412D, like any proper post war tank, it's 15.6 kg shell, at 915 m/s, but due to changes to the tip of the shell, it was able to achieve 236 millimeters of armor penetration at 100 meters. Meanwhile, the German 105mm L/52 achieves about 75 m/s less.

 

In exchange it gets:

1 round per minute higher, than average rate of fire from all ammunition racks, provided the crew is considered able to aim and fire the gun. Where it's NATO counterparts are getting the top end of their theoretical rate of fire because balance.

 

 

Where the Chieftain is missing:

Nothing

 

But it does have:

Rate of fire it could not possibly hope to sustain, and an engine that doesn't break down incredibly often.

 

Man, I love these anti- RO 105mm L7 posts, but could you please back it up with some sources? I personally prefer government documents, especially foreign if that helps you any.

[therealrattler]

Oicraftian, on 19 April 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

You rig the games.

Bots are better than those players, stop insulting computers, they did nothing wrong.

Actually the Chieftain is a premium tank sold for cheap, so economically, it is better for WG not to engage in self destructive operations, by buffing what is mostly an event tank into top line competitiveness.

Also, it's the premiums that are "competitive" now. The tech tree one is cool, just not good enough.

 

Now I'd like to see you explain why the IS-3 IRL is frontally immune to 105mm L7 in 1967, but that would require you to disengage your double think and comprehend to situation logically.

 

 

Like for example, noticing the T-44-100 is missing:

30mm of UFP armor

60mm of turret front armor

60-30mm of turret side armor

5mm of hull side armor

 

In other words, a T-54 mod 1 version 2.0

 

In terms of real life it's missing:

31 millimeters of armor penetration with AP shells at 100 meters, 40 points of alpha damage (it's a really powerful gun).

The 100mm D-10T is capable of sending it's 15.6 kilogram shell at a muzzle velocity of 895 m/s. Or, with BR-412D, like any proper post war tank, it's 15.6 kg shell, at 915 m/s, but due to changes to the tip of the shell, it was able to achieve 236 millimeters of armor penetration at 100 meters. Meanwhile, the German 105mm L/52 achieves about 75 m/s less.

 

In exchange it gets:

1 round per minute higher, than average rate of fire from all ammunition racks, provided the crew is considered able to aim and fire the gun. Where it's NATO counterparts are getting the top end of their theoretical rate of fire because balance.

 

 

Where the Chieftain is missing:

Nothing

 

But it does have:

Rate of fire it could not possibly hope to sustain, and an engine that doesn't break down incredibly often.

Yes but it's a game and while all the above historical facts are true, the tanks wouldn't be balanced whatsoever

[Strig_999ms_brain]

Literally go ask the PC devs if you can copypaste the PC T-44-100 stats and there you go.

[anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2]

Dan_Deerso, on 19 April 2018 - 04:49 PM, said:

 

Man, I love these anti- RO 105mm L7 posts, but could you please back it up with some sources? I personally prefer government documents, especially foreign if that helps you any.

It's not Anti Royal Ordinance L7 at all. It's a consequence of first generation APDS, which gets trolled by angled armor. Consider my source WWII ballistics and... Something. Against the T-54A (for example), it's like shooting 354mm of vertical armor. Ingame T-54? 424.8

Which the shell obviously can't pierce.

https://forum.warthu...lope-modifiers/

http://www.mediafire...and Gunnery.pdf

 

If we want to talk about the T-55 we'd have to bring in the 40mm of lead armor they stuck in as protection against nuclear bombs (for the crew, radiation protection), but god forbid a Soviet tank have it's true armor protection amirite? It's almost as if it acted as a spall liner. Or even part of the armor. Who knew?

 

While we're at it, may as well mention the Super Pershings "spaced armor" is actually mostly boiler plate, meaning it offers much less than what it's rated for ingame.

therealrattler, on 19 April 2018 - 09:12 PM, said:

Yes but it's a game and while all the above historical facts are true, the tanks wouldn't be balanced whatsoever

Well actually it means the Russian tech tree is theoretically undertiered, and could be rebalanced by up tiering in places. But in terms of current game balance, that would only work if you took away some gun handling.

Like a proper T-54B (1957) in tier 10, being an option. Or T-62A with historical gun depression, something resembling the power, and (-26mm turret) armor protection.

Technically the turret is a ~1970's model in protection, but is modeled as an 1960's version. While it's not half as bad as the late 1970's M48 Patton, at least an A5 model, but with a better cupola, it's still quite the transgression.

Granted, the alternative is to make the T-62A have the best firepower & tied for best shot effectiveness of any medium tank in tier 10, equaling the 140 in bloom (moved to 0.04/0.06/0.06), with 7* of gun depression, with the only downside being standard AP at 1015 m/s. So pick your poison~

 

Many other tanks would benefit however, like for example, German turret cheek armor would become virtually impregnable. The Sherman would gain substantial armor protection on the upper frontal plate. The Panther would also become substantially better armored. Let alone tier 10 examples like the M60, FV 4202, M48, and STB-1. IS-7 would have to be removed though...

Which by the way, is already discounting the incorrect armor pattern.

 

NATO tanks tend to have some issues in modelling, but the Soviet ones are... On their own level.

[specialist5]

Will the legendary camouflage be added back to the Lowe? Thanks. 

[anonym_VEIjQQSdxvEw]

Is there a legendary camouflage for the Lowe and will it be added in update?

[specialist5]

Wasn't the Lowe camo there then it was gone?? Will it be back?

[Dan_Deerso]

specialist5, on 21 April 2018 - 09:15 PM, said:

Wasn't the Lowe camo there then it was gone?? Will it be back?

 

Step 1: 

 

Step 2:

 

RibbleStripe, on 02 April 2018 - 03:51 AM, said:

mlacunza, on 29 March 2018 - 07:44 PM, said:

Hi Ribble,
Some questions:
- any date for the Lowe camo?
- when WG will going to improve the mobile version of the forums? I can't upload images o paste the link from imgur, I can't follow / unfollow topics

- I can't vote any post

 

- next update i guess;
- no improvements for mobile version planned so far;
- using full or mobile version?
 

mlacunza, on 31 March 2018 - 03:21 AM, said:

Ribble Lowe camo was removed from all servers? Today I watch a video from perfect_mind he was using the baned camo in battle today, so?

 

Yes, form all servers. I think perfect recorded video before that.

 

Go_tell_the_Spartans, on 31 March 2018 - 02:35 PM, said:

Will you (wargaming) fix the dag gone chat and settings buttons in battle so they AREN’T SO CLOSE.  It’s annoying to say they least!

 

​We will. Unfortunately it takes more time than we thought at first. 

 

​

[THE_Viajero]

Eurodogofwar, on 18 April 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

Can you stop with the rigged games? They are a waste of time and way too obvious.

 

Oicraftian, on 19 April 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

You rig the games.

 

+1,000,000,000

 

[therealrattler]

Anyone got 5.0 changes yet?

[therealrattler]

Ribble you guys close to releasing 5.0 changes?

[Dan_Deerso]

therealrattler, on 30 April 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

Ribble you guys close to releasing 5.0 changes?

 

Keep checking BlitzHangar, they get and publish Supertest changes somehow.

[Chariot_Solace]

therealrattler, on 30 April 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

Ribble you guys close to releasing 5.0 changes?

 

I’m sure they include something else that power creeps the Tiger II even more. 

[RibbleStripe]

Hey everyone!
There won't be any adjustments in 5.0 version. We are focused on low-tier changes at the moment. Stay tuned for further updates.
 

[Chariot_Solace]

RibbleStripe, on 02 May 2018 - 04:47 AM, said:

Hey everyone!
There won't be any adjustments in 5.0 version. We are focused on low-tier changes at the moment. Stay tuned for further updates.
 

 

I’m taking this as more confirmation of the incoming low tier tank purge.

[Motorbreath_]

RibbleStripe, on 02 May 2018 - 05:47 AM, said:

Hey everyone!
There won't be any adjustments in 5.0 version. We are focused on low-tier changes at the moment. Stay tuned for further updates.
 

 

Interesting. Will those changes be below Tier 7?

 

Are there any other details/hints for you to possibly disclose to us?