Re: Royal Equestrian Armored Division

[CamoBadger]

WANT

[CamoBadger]

[Fuzzy]

I am a bit of a regular to World of Tanks upon the EU servers, should there be anyone needing a tank by your flank.

Tanks owned:

(Tier 4)
Matilda

(Tier 5)
AT-2

(Tier 6)
Cromwell
VK3601 (H)
M36 Jackson

(Tier 7)
Black Prince
Comet
Tiger (H)

(Tier 8)
Very soon to have a Caernarvon and Centurion Mk 1

Personal impressions on the game, I find it a leap between immensely satisfying and unbearably frustrating, especially when rolling British tanks. Which, aside from the Cromwell and the TD's from the AT-2 onward, are pretty much balanced about half a tier too lowly in comparison and have a wealth of glitches and historically inaccurate elements that any British enthusiast will spot immediately! All the same, they are the tanks I love and I've never been someone simply to pursue the "easy route" to gain success. (AKA - Russian tanks)

I am not looking forward to Tier 8. By all accounts I've heard it becomes almost impossible to make a profit on the British line when you're spending up to 680 credits per shot on a gun that does extremely low damage. But I'm at least going to give it a go, if only to see how the legendary Centurion handles in game for myself.

So if you're on EU and you're up for a game, lemme know. Can always use people on the team who don't simply suiscout, overcamp or ignore where they need to go!

Username - TheFuzzyOne

[Vergil]

The Centurion is balanced by the absolutely insane pen of the 20 lbr- you should not ever bounce with that gun if you know your stuff. Naturally, the same goes for the Cent 7 once you get the L7 on it. I got that far and parked myself on it, I don't need anything else on that line.

[Fuzzy]

The closest it has in penetration is the Panther 2's L71 88mm gun.

Panther 2:
- 203 Pen
- 240 Damage
- 252 Credits

Centurion 1:
- 226 Pen
- 230 Damage
- 680 Credits

I can buy that it has to be more expensive than the Panther 2's due to the penetration, but just short of three times as much is just crazy. If they were 300-350 I could buy it, but 680 is way more than is needed. But it's also worth noting that the Centurion has the added problem of its ammo rack being in the factually incorrect place upon the model and WG forgetting to add the internal armour plates the British designed around the ammo storage inside it. As a result, the feedback I've heard denotes just how regularly it loses its rate of fire to that ammo rack problem.

[Vergil]

All you have to do is angle your front left away, presenting the front right of your armor towards the enemy. Problem solved.

The difference with the pen in this situation is actually well worth the cost- 226 pen will go right through the lower glacis of everything up to the E75 while the Panther will struggle with a Tiger's armor if it's angled properly.

[RoboRed]

I am a bit of a regular to World of Tanks upon the EU servers, should there be anyone needing a tank by your flank.

Why, oh WHY can we not have all our stuff be transferable between servers!? I wanna play with some of you guys!

My current garage:
2:
T18

3:
Panzer I Ausf.C
Panzer III Ausf. A

4:
M8A1
Alecto
Panzer III
Grille

5:
T49
StuGIII

6:
JagdPanzer IV

I really should have started with American TDs instead of German TDs. I'd have a Hellcat, possibly a T25/2 by now, and I'd be enjoying myself a bit more. I bloody HATE my JagdPanzer.

[Vergil]

Get the Jagdpanther. I know how painful it is to get that far, but you will never doubt your decision once you have it.

[RoboRed]

I've heard it's good, and I am saving every speck of free xp for it. But most of my games now are centered around my T49 and Alecto.

[Fuzzy]

All you have to do is angle your front left away, presenting the front right of your armor towards the enemy. Problem solved.

The difference with the pen in this situation is actually well worth the cost- 226 pen will go right through the lower glacis of everything up to the E75 while the Panther will struggle with a Tiger's armor if it's angled properly.

Well I'm going to have to wait and see for myself. Angling to hide the ammo rack may be very well and good but the Centurion shouldn't have an ammo rack there at all. WG's track record with British information has been atrocious thus far and the Centurion is only one of the offenders of them not actually doing any research on the tanks before they make them in the game. Aside from the ammo rack being in the wrong place and being far weaker than it should be, they've also made the Centurion way way too big. If you put a Stuart (Which is the right scale) beside one and compare their M2's on the turret rings you'll notice the Centurion is perhaps 20% too large than what it should be.

The Churchill's are one of the worst offenders (not the worst though...that's below) with their glitched tracks. Shoot a Churchill in the track from the side and it does HP damage...despite not holding anything but thin air between there and the other side of the tank! WG already tried to claim it's the track assembly that takes the hit but anyone who has seen a Churchill for real can point out to them that the track assembly only comes up to about the height of the lower glacis on the front mudguards, anything higher is just spaced armour for the sake of more armour and nothing to actually hit underneath it. Given WoT has a policy of "if nothing to hit is under it, no damage is taken" this stands out as a very strange glitch that any enthusiast could have informed them of. Also of note, they have not included the Churchill's legendary hill climbing ability nor enhanced crew endurance in it (despite it being the safest tank for any crew in the entire war in the event of taking penetrating hits).

The real offender though is the abomination that is the FV215b. What's wrong with it? It doesn't exist.

WG decided they needed a Tier 10 tank and apparently only briefly glanced at Wikipedia, because that's the only place where the FV215b is referred to as a Conqueror with a rear mounted turret. In reality (and something any historion at Bovington would denote) the FV215b was a 183mm mounted TD designed to counter any surprise Soviet Heavy Tanks NATO didn't know about. Despite masses of evidence (and photos) of said tank, WG went ahead and just made up a tank instead without ever bothering to actually do any research or consult any historians that anyone with a google might have located. The result is that the Brits now have a Tier 10 tank that never existed.

There was such an outcry, it's finally been brought in now as the Tier 10 TD. But do they replace the FV215b in the Heavy line with something more appropriate like the Chieftain? Do they heck. Last I heard they said the Chieftain was from "too late a time period" despite it being in production in 1962 from Alvis Vickers (and prototypes for years before that which are now present in Bovington Tank Museum) and the game already containing the T-62A (which entered around the same time frame), the Leopard 1 that entered service in 1965 and the fact that their T-54 has a gun that it never had until the 1970's. So the whole "too modern" thing is absolutely rubbish.

It also furthers that the Tier 10 medium, the FV4202 isn't even a battlefield tank. It was just a demonstrator to test some technology and was never actually intended to be used, hence why it doesn't have any proper armour on it. A better Tier 10 would have been the Vickers MBT, a direct successor to the Centurion intended to act as a cheaper alternative to countries who couldn't afford the massively expensive Chieftain. The Vickers debuted in 1965, so it's well within the time frame as well.

In short. WG doesn't know a thing about British tanks, their capabilities or their history...and it really shows.

Personally, I just can't wait till they finally remember to add the Sherman Firefly. That thing is iconic. Seems it's coming in a year or so's time as part of the Lend Lease line with the M3 Honey, M3 Grant, M10 Achilles and the M4 Grizzly. Shoulda been there from the start, leaving out the Firefly is like leaving out the T34, it's that iconic to the UK. Hopefully it'll show up along with the Challenger, Avenger, Archer, Charioteer and Valiant before long.

[Vergil]

I think my reaction to not being able to log in right now (staring despondently at the screen while clicking "connect" repeatedly) is a pretty strong indicator that I play this game too much.

[Vergil]

Yeah, I'm well aware of WG's take on "historical accuracy," and to be honest despite being a history nut myself I do my best to just ignore it and remind myself I'm playing a game. That said, I do agree that their version of most brit vehicles are atrocious, especially considering how long they made us wait for them.

I wouldn't complain about prototype tanks though, we'd lose a hell of of a lot of vehicles if those weren't included.

[RoboRed]

Personally, I just can't wait till they finally remember to add the Sherman Firefly. That thing is iconic. Seems it's coming in a year or so's time as part of the Lend Lease line with the M3 Honey, M3 Grant, M10 Achilles and the M4 Grizzly. Shoulda been there from the start, leaving out the Firefly is like leaving out the T34, it's that iconic to the UK. Hopefully it'll show up along with the Challenger, Avenger, Archer, Charioteer and Valiant before long.

Agreed. I remember watching an ep of Girls und Panzer, saw that tank, looked at the list of tanks in WoT and was like, "I can't believe that they don't have that thing in there".

I don't know about those other tanks, but British artillery seem to be in the works. A Sexton was caught on a test server.

[Fuzzy]

Ahaaa, I didn't say "prototype", I said "demonstrator." ;)

Demonstrators are just a stripped down bit of tech to test one specific thing. In the FV4202's case it was primarily the new battlefield connectivity concepts (something WoT doesn't incorporate past radio range) and some spring suspension alongside the practicalities of having a more aggressively sloped frontal glacis. It wasn't an armoured glacis at all.

In essense, it was never intended to ever even be a prototype. It was just a...thing. Imagine taking a Ford Fiesta and putting a new CD player in it that barely fitted and jutted out but just to test if it could connect to the battery properly. That's all the FV4202 was. Not of any real interest at all, not even a proper prototype. Something like the Vickers would have been way more interesting, way more competitive and actually had a part in tank history given it was a very popular tank at the time. I'm surprised they missed it, frankly...

I don't know about those other tanks, but British artillery seem to be in the works. A Sexton was caught on a test server.

You know WG originally thought the Sexton was an American SPG? Shows how much they really know about history! :p

I think they said the SPG's for the British would be in 0.8.6 alongside the new Tier 10 SPG's.

[Vergil]

Okay, I think you've got me on that one, though I'm fairly certain there are at least a few other tanks currently ingame that fit the same bill as the 4202.

The problem with the firefly is the problem that existed with British tanks- WG caters mainly to a Russian audience that does not care about British vehicles. Everyone I've talked to who plays tanks has been/ is dying for the Firefly, including me.

As for patches, my understanding currently is 0.8.5 is the Leo 1 / T60/70/80, 0.8.6 is Havok physics as well as Brit + T9/10 arty and the general arty rebalance. Dunno about 8.7-9, but 0.9.0 is at least going to include the camo rework. Additionally we supposedly can expect the AMX 30 and Japanese tanks this year.

[Vergil]

Well this is frustrating.

[Ketchup]

The Ram tank is an American premium vehicle in WoT... it's actually Canadian, was used only for training, and should be with the British vehicles. In the same boat are the Grizzly and Sexton.
Canada used Fireflies as well, and I've been looking forward to having it in the game. It'll probably be premium, though, knowing them.

[Fuzzy]

The Ram tank is an American premium vehicle in WoT... it's actually Canadian, was used only for training, and should be with the British vehicles. In the same boat are the Grizzly and Sexton.
Canada used Fireflies as well, and I've been looking forward to having it in the game. It'll probably be premium, though, knowing them.

They have confirmed it is a Tier 6 Medium Tank that will not be Premium.

Also, 17 pounder at Tier 6? Oh yes.

Now if only they hadn't absolutely destroyed the legend of the 17 pounder gun...

[Vergil]

Well in all fairness they destroyed the long 88 also.

But yes, even the current iteration of the 17 at T6 is completely absurd.

[Fuzzy]

Well in all fairness they destroyed the long 88 also.

But yes, even the current iteration of the 17 at T6 is completely absurd.

I'm actually very close on selling my Tiger (H) really. Aside from the Long 88 being weirdly bouncy on anything it shoots for the best AT gun of the entire war I'm finding it strangely light on armour. You'd almost not think is was the tank by which armour was compared for the best part of the 40's and 50's for being so ahead of its time in terms of resistance.

Thing is, yes it's only 100mm thick in real life. But that's 100mm of German steel. That stuff was easily one a bit times stronger than any steel the Russians ever put out. WoT suffers a lot in this regard, it doesn't take changes in material into account. 100mm on a Tiger is a lot more than 100mm on an IS for example. Thats why the Centurion's so underarmoured, it may look thin but that was Sheffield Steel in that construction, some of the best steel in the world. Leopard 1 seems to have the same problem. It's horrible really, under-representing legendary tanks simply to fit their not so hidden bias.

Of course, if I may put on my theorist hat, it's easy to see why it was designed this way. Russia has always valued thickness over steel quality. So of course it would make Russian tanks seem better armoured because the game only takes thickness into account. This may seem circumstancial, but in fact every aspect of the game is tailored to Russian tank design mentalities.

Engine power only calculates horsepower, not torque. Funnily enough, Russian tanks always had terrible torque.

Penetration distance and damage only calculates from size of projectile. Russian guns used bigger projectiles to compensate for atrocious shell velocity. (The L7 105mm has a shell velocity seven times that of what the T-62 carries, for example)

Camo rating only gauges from size and not from noise. Russian tanks were very low and easy to hide yes, but they were also very loud and belched smoke all over the place due to their unrefined materials and fuels in a way other nations didn't.

Acceleration only considers hp to ton. Russian tanks had awful gearboxes (The T-34's gearbox had to be changed with a mallet! I kid ye not!) and their acceleration was artificially constrained by such things.

The list goes on, really. I don't think it's exactly hidden knowledge that WoT is massively Russian slanted by this point by its very design. If any more proof was needed, "For the Record" (a behind the scenes leak blog) noted that in the next patch the IS-7 (already considered the best tank in the game by a wide margin) is getting a speed buff by an extra 9km/h to its max speed to be "historically correct."

Meanwhile, they still like to say the Conqueror in game has 130mm of armour and not the historical value of 180mm it has been measure on in real life. Why? "Game balance" they say. Funny how their tone changes between nations when considering what to buff and what to not...

[Vergil]

I'm actually very close on selling my Tiger (H) really. Aside from the Long 88 being weirdly bouncy on anything it shoots for the best AT gun of the entire war I'm finding it strangely light on armour. You'd almost not think is was the tank by which armour was compared for the best part of the 40's and 50's for being so ahead of its time in terms of resistance.

Honestly the German heavy lines are not worth the trouble at all.

Thing is, yes it's only 100mm thick in real life. But that's 100mm of German steel. That stuff was easily one a bit times stronger than any steel the Russians ever put out. WoT suffers a lot in this regard, it doesn't take changes in material into account. 100mm on a Tiger is a lot more than 100mm on an IS for example. Thats why the Centurion's so underarmoured, it may look thin but that was Sheffield Steel in that construction, some of the best steel in the world. Leopard 1 seems to have the same problem. It's horrible really, under-representing legendary tanks simply to fit their not so hidden bias.

Of course, if I may put on my theorist hat, it's easy to see why it was designed this way. Russia has always valued thickness over steel quality. So of course it would make Russian tanks seem better armoured because the game only takes thickness into account. This may seem circumstancial, but in fact every aspect of the game is tailored to Russian tank design mentalities.

Engine power only calculates horsepower, not torque. Funnily enough, Russian tanks always had terrible torque.

Penetration distance and damage only calculates from size of projectile. Russian guns used bigger projectiles to compensate for atrocious shell velocity. (The L7 105mm has a shell velocity seven times that of what the T-62 carries, for example)

Camo rating only gauges from size and not from noise. Russian tanks were very low and easy to hide yes, but they were also very loud and belched smoke all over the place due to their unrefined materials and fuels in a way other nations didn't.

Acceleration only considers hp to ton. Russian tanks had awful gearboxes (The T-34's gearbox had to be changed with a mallet! I kid ye not!) and their acceleration was artificially constrained by such things.

The list goes on, really. I don't think it's exactly hidden knowledge that WoT is massively Russian slanted by this point by its very design. If any more proof was needed, "For the Record" (a behind the scenes leak blog) noted that in the next patch the IS-7 (already considered the best tank in the game by a wide margin) is getting a speed buff by an extra 9km/h to its max speed to be "historically correct."

Meanwhile, they still like to say the Conqueror in game has 130mm of armour and not the historical value of 180mm it has been measure on in real life. Why? "Game balance" they say. Funny how their tone changes between nations when considering what to buff and what to not...

Fair, and you didn't even mention the M103/T110E5

[Fuzzy]

Fair, and you didn't even mention the M103/T110E5

In all honesty I've not done a large amount of personal research into the M103 to know what was different or not from the real life varient, so I couldn't really comment there. :p

[Vergil]

There was something to the effect of a 100+ page thread on the subject around this time last year. Something about spaced armor, I don't even truly remember to be honest (I didn't get one until fairly recently)

[Vergil]

Guess I'll try reinstalling tanks to see if that fixes whatever went wrong.

I will also say I am probably way more excited for the Leopard 1 than I should be.

[Ketchup]

I play American heavy and medium vehicles, and the armor and gun statistics are simply too low to keep balance, in my opinion. The M46, for example, has a gun that has penetration that can't handle tier 8 heavies or other tier 9 mediums. Armor is paper-thin, too. Being slower than the other T9 mediums doesn't help, though it's maneuverability is amazing but not enough to protect it from much. The T32 has the weakest gun in it's tier for heavies with some rather decent armor.

Funfact on the Sherman's armor is that it was made of steel that wasn't necessarily the strongest, but it had a tendency not to produce much spall, resulting in fewer casualties among Sherman crews compared to T-34 crews when the tanks were hit, despite being less resistant to shellfire in the first place.

[Vergil]

Honestly the American stuff is some of the most brokenly good in the game. All you have to do with the M46 (and M26/T29/T32 for that matter) is abuse hills and facehug when you can't and you win.

The M46's gun is no issue because you're supposed to hit people in the flank with it or snipe their weakspots. If it or the T32 had a better gun they'd be horribly overpowered.

[Ketchup]

I suppose things always look greener on the other side of the fence. Facehugging with American mediums doesn't work, too thin. Gun isn't accurate enough to hit weakspots from decent ranges and flanking to hit the sides is a lot harder than it sounds when everyone looks at you like you're made of paper mache and an easy target. Not only that, sometimes it still doesn't go through.

[Fuzzy]

Around hills, the T29 is just king. That turret armour man...that turret armour. T34 is even more insane for that. Its frontal turret is basically impenetrable. 279mm...

[Vergil]

I suppose things always look greener on the other side of the fence. Facehugging with American mediums doesn't work, too thin. Gun isn't accurate enough to hit weakspots from decent ranges and flanking to hit the sides is a lot harder than it sounds when everyone looks at you like you're made of paper mache and an easy target. Not only that, sometimes it still doesn't go through.

Sorry, I meant sidehug with mediums, not facehug

[hawkeye92]

Wasn't there another brony clan on the NA server?

I'm in the European version of READ which has been around for a while. In fact it got so big we had to start putting minimum requirements for new members and kicking inactive ones. Now there's READ 2 and a shared chat channel 'read all the books'.
The material evaluation is interesting. WG treating mmage as the be all and end all of protection is silly. I read a gunnery report from not too long ago where some Americans got some German steel delivered (admittedly not too long ago) and they couldn't believe how good it was for how much was there.
Same with a complaint from a german tank commander complaining about the Czechoslovakian tanks and their armour being too inflexible and brittle compared to the stuff the Germans were using.
Russia had such huge production that what they were making their tanks out of varied wildly. Aparrently one factory started making T-34s with armour made out of pig iron.

Despite its flaws, I do enjoy WoT, but I certainly wouldn't treat it as the holy grail of tank knowledge. The Chinese tree looks especially odd to me, with the high tier medium line being completely ridiculous and making heavy tanks completely obsolete (their tier 9 has the classic bouncy russian style turret, low profile and the gun from their tier 10 heavy tank whilst losing little reload speed).
I'm also glad that someone else in the world is also going for the Centurion. I know its not historically accurate and it has some serious ingame flaws (the nerfed frontal armour followed up by the spaced sidearmour deflecting high angle shots INTO your paper thin side making angling completely pointless is one such gripe), but it was a really nice tank in real life and I really want to play with it.
I've played with it on the test server and it can be a very enjoyable sniper- WG modelled the suspension well at least so it can be very mobile when it wants to.

[Sponsored content]