Re: Royal Equestrian Armored Division

[Fuzzy]

It was a theory, but nothing to say it won't be updated with multi-gun support at the same time as the B1, Churchill I and Maus.

[Vergil]

[RoboRed]

Don't suppose you have a link so I may view the vid on mi telefono?

[Fuzzy]

I'm pretty sure that bubbling sound is WoT being completely sunk in terms of technology in game. Graphics, sound, physics, way better.

To be hoenst, the only thing making me iffy is that WT doesn't seem to bring in the prototypes as much and a lot of my enjoyment is getting to see these obscure prototypes given their chances to shine.

[Vergil]

Don't suppose you have a link so I may view the vid on mi telefono?

Sorry, I was traveling. Here you go, boss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=hKBRxYiOyH4

[Harmony Ltd.]

The Stug 3 doing aerobatics and landing on its floor (edit:) roof before exploding had me cheering internally.

The "call in artillery fire" function is also extremely interesting I feel. It will make for far more dynamic games, I think, especially combined with the absence of hit points and the damage model seemingly based on "critical hits", so to speak.

[RoboRed]

My, that certainly is pretty...

[Fuzzy]

Bit of info, I stumbled across this link that details all of the AT series, from 1 through to 18.

I'll summarise. Bear in mind I group some of them by armament alone as I don't know the visual design of every one of them yet. They could be entirely different shapes until I find more info.

AT1 - 45 tonnes vehicle with 360 mounted 75mm gun or 95mm Howitzer. This sounds epic for a low tier vehicle that'd be damn near unkillable with a traversing turret. No wonder WG didn't use it, it'd be broken as all hell.

AT2/AT3 - This is interesting, the site lists it as only having two MG turrets on it and weighing 36 tonnes. No 2-Pdr. Even stranger is the site used the same blueprint sources that Listy on the EU forum sent to WG for the line to be implemented. Now I trust Listy implicitly and he's not mentioned anything wrong about the AT-2 so I imagine that this is simply an error on the website typing up, especially as it's exactly the same as the AT3 after it.

AT4/AT5 - Two MG turrets, a flamethrower and a 152mm derpgun! AT4 was 38 tonnes, AT5 saved some weight at 36 tonnes.

AT6/AT7 - Two MG turrets, flamethrower, 20mm Polsten and an autoloading 6-Pdr Gun. This is correct to the in game version if it were put in its "historical" loadout. Only change is the AT7 is half a ton heavier than AT6. I'd imagine these two looked quite alike.

AT8/AT9/AT10 - Two MG turrets, flamethrower, 20mm Polsten and a 6-Pdr. This is again accurate to the game, putting aside the bigger unrealistic guns. This also neatly explains why the AT7 is above it in the tree, historically, the AT7 was better than it due to that autoloader which the AT8 lacked. AT9 is the same as the AT8 just with no flamethrower. AT10 exchanges the flamethrower for two additional MGs

AT13 - 63 tonnes, so this is a bigger chassis. This was the one that made a leap in design changes as detailed on the site. Mounts a 17-Pdr, 20mm Polsten, an MG turret and 2 co-axial MGs. This sounds like one hell of a "dakka tank" if you ask me. I'd be interested to see how it looked. Given the Polsten probably like a bigger varient of the AT8 or AT7. This may be part of the reason why the bigger guns exist for those tanks in game.

AT14 - As we saw, this tank was a much expanded AT7 hull. I noted this above, only that it seems I was wrong. It wasn't a 20-Pdr it had, it was a 17-Pdr. Still, not impossible to see that update as a plausable gun. I'd still love to see this.

AT15A/AT15 - Same as always, just their historical armament was intended to be the 17-Pdr. Oddly, the AT15A is 5 tonnes heavier. Might be the heavier mantlet.

AT16 - AT16 is the Tortoise by another name.

AT17/AT18 - Heavy flamethrower Tortoise chassis! But here it states they had two flameguns each. Oh my.

But interestingly at the bottom, it confirmed something I've felt for a while. That the 32-Pdr should be totally different from how it is in game. Less of a DPM alternative to the 20-Pdr and more of a heavier sniper gun like how the L7 105mm is. Page gives this quote:

"The observation of shot was said to be better than that of the Centurion and the performance of 32-pdr APCBC being considered better than that of 20-pdr APDS."

Straight up. 32-Pdr being rebalanced to fire slower but hit much harder seems like a good idea to me. Helps give the Churchill GC a lethal gun too given it has nothing else. It'd also make the AT-15 have a gun that could be considered an alternative rather than just redundant to the 20-Pdr being the better DPM.

Overall, looking from here I'd like to see the AT1 (Early turreted TD!), AT4/AT5 (Derpgun TD!) and AT14 (The BIG AT7) at minimum, possibly also the AT13 too. They could all fit in nicely. I gotta go change my tables now...

[RoboRed]

Thanks a lot for the info, Fuzzy. I've been extremely curious about the AT line ever since I found out that there were 18 different designs drafted.

[Fuzzy]

And a mere five minutes after I post that I managed to track down some more schematics!

The AT-1 - This thing looks like a right beast! 155mm on front, 100mm on sides with a fully rotating 75mm turret gun that would likely be a tier 5. Oh yes! That cupola looks rather...nastily big though.


The AT-13 - This thing is effectively an alternately designed large AT-7 style vehicle. Notice the receeded guns rather than an external mantlet. Also note the cannon and Polsten have coax MGs now too. As I thought above, this tank has some serious dakka. This, again, could quite easily work too given the 228mm on frontal armour! Also a tech spec. And a model.

[Valikdu]

When I looked at pictures of WT and read about how it plays awesomely, I was very impressed.

Then I read about how it's Pay2Win in degrees that are... well, sadly, what I've come to expect from our developers.
For example, highest skill levels for the crew are only for real money (as in, not obtainable by normal means).
Yeah, it's an old Russian tradition that goes back to Fight Club. And I hate it.

And then I decided to never touch WT.

[RoboRed]

Someone gave Phontoman's friend a lovely gift.

I lol'd hard.

[RoboRed]

Got my turret for my T29. I love this goddamn tank.

Spoiler:

Also, got 1st class mastery in my AMX.

le frenchbucket:

[Fuzzy]

- Q: “Why are French tanks so delayed?” A:”Because other tanks have higher priority”

There have been at least 3 fantasy Soviet branches since the French last got a non-universal change tank.

Wow, Serb. Just...wow.

[hawkeye92]

I'm honestly not surprised.
It would be interesting to see how popular the different tech trees are overall though and see if that relates to how many new changes they get. The info is out there but I can't be bothered to do the number crunching, I might do if I find myself with nothing to do.

I'm sorta worried about the bias in War Thunder, because Gaijin recently lost all of their non-russian plane dev team due to underhand tinkering and 'secret soviet intelligence documents' showing that russian stuff is better than everything else.

There are the famous russian wooden bombers that are almost indestructible in the game while the Wellington of 'I can have a side of my fuselage entirely ripped away and not care' fame goes down like it's nothing because it's covered in doped canvas and not soviet so therefore must be crap.

The tanks I fear are also going to be skewed. The demo wasn't promising with balance. The stug with anti gravity motors and the KV with an autoloader didn't look good.
Sure, you could argue that it's the first gameplay we've seen so it isn't going to look like the finished product, but they said it'll be availible by the time the PS4 hits the market which is only about a month away.

I'll probably prefer world of tanks to this anyway for my arcadey fix because Warthunder random instant death will probably be the name of the game wheras WoT where the amount of damage you recieve from whatever is more or less constant the games it adds another dynamic and is often forgiving if you make one mistake over the course of a whole game.

It doesn't work so well for planes but it's a different kettle of fish althogether. We'll have to see how ships pan out but from the world of warships dev blog it looks like it's going to be pretty darn good, with attention payed to realistic ship and shell handling, some features of which I didn't know of like the lag time between setting rudder straight and the ship stopping turning under momentum (which makes obvious sense really). It'll be interesting to see how a HP system works vs a non HP system there.

Although WT's historical mode is probably going to be a lot of fun for more serious tanks though.

[Harmony Ltd.]

At a guess, I'd say in term of games played the most popular tech trees would be :

1 - Soviet
2 - German (almost ex aequo)
3 - American (a bit further, but still reasonably close)
4 - French
5 - British
6 - Chinese

with Soviet and German so close as to be able to exchange places depending on the weeks.

Regarding the French and British, I'm not entirely sure. The ranks may be swapped, I dunno : I originally went with French after British, but then I remembered the number of French heavies I've seen used compared to british tanks in general.

[RoboRed]

I still want this thing eventually, even if it is neutered until the day WG finally pulls their heads out of their collective asses. It's a sexy tank.

[Fuzzy]

At a guess, I'd say in term of games played the most popular tech trees would be :

1 - Soviet
2 - German (almost ex aequo)
3 - American (a bit further, but still reasonably close)
4 - French
5 - British
6 - Chinese

with Soviet and German so close as to be able to exchange places depending on the weeks.

Regarding the French and British, I'm not entirely sure. The ranks may be swapped, I dunno : I originally went with French after British, but then I remembered the number of French heavies I've seen used compared to british tanks in general.

WG has said that the Chinese tree is most definitely the least used, although given it has no TD's, SPG's or many other tree elements that's not surprise as it's losing 2 fifths of the player preferences. The French are way above the British in terms of useage simply due to the high tier TD's that are incredibly popular simply on account of being unthinkably broken. The Foch 155 can literally kill anything in the game (even a Maus) with one go of its autoloader and premium shells while their own frontal armour is nigh-impenetrable on a very mobile chassis to boot. It's already confirmed the Foch and Foch 155 are getting nerfed (Along with the American T57 Heavy), but the high tier French tanks are very very popular, as are their light branch for having the most punch of any light tank in the game.

What I'd imagine they are seeing is

Russian tree = Lots of players because it's unquestionably the most powerful/has most players in home country base/requires little skill to play = More money spent = Popularity = More money etc etc

British tree = Few players because it's high skill level tanks/smaller home market = Less money spent on tree = Less popular = Don't support.

In essence, it's a catch 22. It gets no attention (same goes for French outside the "elite" group) because it isn't a high money maker. They support their money makers which I can't generally blame them for...if it weren't for that WG clearly has no need of making short term gain and could right now gain a larger long term if they refocussed on their weaker earning ones and actually figured out why, instead of just assuming it was a failure. It's like they think they can do no wrong.

However, they did say the Churchill VII would get a "small buff" in 8.9. Here's to see what...

I still want this thing eventually, even if it is neutered until the day WG finally pulls their heads out of their collective asses. It's a sexy tank.

I'll be honest, I've given up watching Quickybaby now personally. I just find him insufferably arrogant and 'try hard MLG pro 360 no-scope' really. It makes me wince when I see his influence creeping in and making Jingles start acting like him now.

I find it quite hilarious that he calls the FV4202 the "all rounder" when it in fact is worse than the T-62A (And by proxy, the Object 140) in literally every way. It's slower, has less firepower, much worse armour, worse camo, worse accuracy and worse module health and is riddled with inaccuracy. Anything it can do, another tank can do better.

[Harmony Ltd.]

By the way, what the heck does "MLG" stands for ?

[Fuzzy]

Major League Gaming, pro gaming in competitions for money.

[Ketchup]

Major League Gaming, pro gaming in competitions for money.

...
Am I the only one that thinks that gaming should be more about having fun than being the best? All too competitive these days...

[Harmony Ltd.]

I didn't have any interest in League of Legend or DotA at first

and then I heard about the kind of ingame ambiance there is in these games and thought I was justified in my disinerest.

from what I heard, they would make WoT seems like a friendly place by comparison.

[Fuzzy]

Major League Gaming, pro gaming in competitions for money.

...
Am I the only one that thinks that gaming should be more about having fun than being the best? All too competitive these days...

In general I love the idea of MLG, watching the WCS (Starcraft 2) championships can be an absolute joy and the Evo fighting game matches are a real rush to see if you've got the crowd spirit going. The genuine professional stuff can be epic to watch for the sheer skill involved.

However, I am highly disliking the "wannabe" MLG elements kicking up of people trying to be "competitive" in just average play. While I am always about "play how you want" it's becoming an increasingly annoying thing when meta builds matter more than picking what you feel is cool. Or when you find youtubers acting like they're some sort of pro-leaguer because they're a bit better than most folks and insisting upon "pro" terminology and hardline try-harding instead of just playing for fun.

It's not really helped by the mass of support publishers do for this. Activision actively encourages this over competitive behaviour in their COD marketing, as does WG lately along with most MOBAs.

[Fuzzy]

- smoothbore guns won’t be implemented, because they have too much penetration

Royal Ordnance would like a word with you, Serb.

- roughly 12 man-months are needed to implement one tank into the game: this includes historical research, modelling, textures, other effects, sound and balance (SS: later, SerB explains that the “sound” part is matching the correct (standard) sound to the vehicle)

Either WG is unthinkably incompetant or they are just trolling here. There's no way it takes that long.

- when the researchable hulls come, tier 1 British Vickers Mk.I might be replaced by 1921 Vickers Light Tank and merged with Vickers Mk.II (SS: here I am not totally sure with the translation)

I'm with SilentStalker on this one. I don't get it. I think what they mean is merging the Medium MkI in with the Medium MkII as a Tier 2 medium and replacing the British Tier 1 with a Vickers Light Tank. But which one? The earliest that could work was the Vickers Light MkV and that one has to be the Tier 2 Light for the Tetrarch to be the Tier 3. This seems to imply they want to put a Tetrarch at Tier 2 and just ignore its historical armament entirely. Typical rubbish. Either that or a Vickers 6-Ton at Tier 2.


- national battles (only German vs only Americans for example) won’t be implemented for now

Because they know how bad it would break their idea of "balance" in Russian favour beyond all doubt.

- SerB personally is satisfied with the Encounter on Mountain Pass, it will be changed only “when necessery” and apparently it doesn’t have bad statistics

Very funny Serb.

[hawkeye92]

I thought smoothbore guns were also less accurate, so isn't there a tradeoff there?
Or are w talking about the gun which replaced the L7 on the Abrams? Because yeah that would be silly.

For all you Esports fans the new game mode in WoT is looking to mimick it as closely as possible with team layout. The matchmaker also groups people of the same skill level together and against similar skill teams.

You can of course make a team of clan mates but you'll be matched against similar skill teams of your average. We'll have to see how this mode works out. For bigger maps the smaller number of players could be interesting. I would like to see a replay from a 40% winrate commander who starts a random team though. The sheer amount of derp and randomness would be funny to watch. Or excruciatingly painful.


Speaking of which was it just me or was a lot of Jinges' video on capping difficult to watch? Yeah he made valid points on how you should approach base capture, but just ripping into that bad player like he did was awkward to watch. At least he blanked out the name of the guy.

Especially because I know someone with that skill level and its' through no fault of their own. They don't have a lot of time to dedicate to tanks at a stretch and they play on a toaster which I really, really struggle to play on at all let alone win.

[Vergil]

Sorry I haven't been around lately Robo, been visiting the family and still haven't left. No real reason to go anywhere with the furlough.

[RoboRed]

It's fine, I've been too busy to play with anyone this weekend, and this week. Been working on a paper due Wednesday. Only been playing late at night at a point where you're definitely already asleep. And even then, only long enough to get my x2 for a few tanks.

Anyways, since my last post, I got radio for my Type T-34, got my gun for my AMX 12t, got my first engine for my T29, and 1st class and, in quite an amazing match, Ace mastery for my Crusader.

Man, when I do good in that thing, I do good: http://www.mediafire.com/?n4zw449t00kz6wn
Also, I had another death dance, this time using my Jumbo: http://www.mediafire.com/?9aff5c33q7a1wbi

Spoiler:

[RoboRed]

Ka-derp.

[Fuzzy]

I thought smoothbore guns were also less accurate, so isn't there a tradeoff there?
Or are w talking about the gun which replaced the L7 on the Abrams? Because yeah that would be silly.

It's sort of an "old thing" that smoothbore = more power less accuracy and rifling = less power more accuracy. It's also a very hazy thing, some guns do just as well or just as badly no matter what it is. However the "smoothbore is just better" thing is a Cold War element that the Russians, Germans and Americans claimed to market their smoothbore guns over the dominating British guns of the time that were all rifled. As such, it's become a hardline SMOOTHBORE IS EPIC BETTER THAN RIFLING belief amongst people in both East and West and generally anywhere that isn't the UK despite it being about as true as BLAST PROCESSING GUYZ.

In theory smoothbores have more power. But in practice they really don't. The real advantage of smoothbore back in the day was that they were vastly cheaper to make and operate for minimal loss of accuracy. As time went on, the differences between smoothbore and rifling became so little that there's really nothing separating them now. Unfortunately, you still get people going OMG CHALLENGER HAS A WEAK GUN STILL RIFLED SO OLD simply because of this buzzword marketing that implies smoothbore guns are some nuclear bomb of tank guns in comparison to a rifled one.

All the while anyone with any real knowledge of tank guns sits at the side and shakes their head, or in this case sighs as WG looks set to hurt their own game just to keep up the LOL DUMB BRITISH standpoint of smoothbore's being "just better" despite no evidence to the contray. (Especially in the modern day)

Ka-derp.

I find it rather interesting that the AVRE has no real "muzzle flare." I wonder if WG would integrate that into the game and remove the camo penalty for shooting it given the AVRE had no real indication that it fired other than a dull "pomf!" sound.

[RoboRed]

I spy with my little eye, something French and for 8.9 supertesters: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/10/08/new-8-9-742-interface-new-vehicles/

[Sponsored content]