29 replies to this topic

[MalikCarr]

 NergiZed, on Apr 23 2012 - 00:08, said:

I think this should mirror the ARL 44. Make the first turret heavy as hell and turn agonizingly slow, but have much better armor. Have the second turret be a much lighter and turn much faster. The HP addition or not is more of a balance issue and isn't relevant in this historical discussion.

I think making the turrets sufficiently different will encourage turret diversity and I believe that is a wonderful thing.

I almost kinda hoped that they'd hook up repair costs to what turret you have, as some turrets were better but much more expensive to maintain due to the new tech within it.

The armor differences between turrets MT-1 and MT-2 isn't really that much. The thickness is identical - turret MT-1 is just larger because the front and rear is sloped compared to the totally flat MT-2.

Honestly, the way they have both turrets modeled and statted in game, with the exception of the weight issue, is done perfectly accurately. I just don't think the structurally-inferior MT-2 turret should give you extra HP to encourage people to use it. Make the two turrets equal in the Hit Point department and let people decide if they want superior turn speed and visibility over better-sloped armor. Turret diversity!

Also, the ARL 44 is a real mess too. The fact that WG decided to put the building-shaped turret from the 1940 FCM F1 on there is a real headscratcher...

[SVAT]

Wargaming Please dont ignore this Please I hope the devs will make something about this  

[hoom]

I agree the 2nd turret should be lighter & turn faster if that was the historical case.
So we'd have a slightly more mobile upgrade vs the slightly more bouncy slower stock turret.

I do think its an interesting proposal to actually have the stock turret have more hitpoints too.

[MalikCarr]

 hoom, on Apr 23 2012 - 09:18, said:

I agree the 2nd turret should be lighter & turn faster if that was the historical case.
So we'd have a slightly more mobile upgrade vs the slightly more bouncy slower stock turret.

I do think its an interesting proposal to actually have the stock turret have more hitpoints too.

Upgrading the turret shouldn't actually reduce hit points - structurally, both turrets were equally thick. The MT-1 just weighed epically more than the MT-2 because it was so much longer to accommodate the sloping panels. By making it a box instead of a trapezoid, the amount of material - and therefore total mass - is reduced substantially.

Except in WoT world where the MT-2 magically weighs more for some inscrutable reason...

But yes. Lighter, turns faster, and has better visibility thanks to the better positioning of the periscopes and vision blocks. The trade-off, of course, being that the square shape isn't quite as bouncy.

[SVAT]

 MalikCarr, on Apr 23 2012 - 10:36, said:

Upgrading the turret shouldn't actually reduce hit points - structurally, both turrets were equally thick. The MT-1 just weighed epically more than the MT-2 because it was so much longer to accommodate the sloping panels. By making it a box instead of a trapezoid, the amount of material - and therefore total mass - is reduced substantially.

Except in WoT world where the MT-2 magically weighs more for some inscrutable reason...

But yes. Lighter, turns faster, and has better visibility thanks to the better positioning of the periscopes and vision blocks. The trade-off, of course, being that the square shape isn't quite as bouncy.

Sorry One Question about the thickness in wikipedia they tell theres something about 110mm is that the truth or im just wrong ?

[MalikCarr]

 SVAT, on Apr 23 2012 - 15:38, said:

Sorry One Question about the thickness in wikipedia they tell theres something about 110mm is that the truth or im just wrong ?

I believe that's the thickness of the MT-1 turret front in the areas where the gun mantlet is bolted to it.

http://www.zorich.ru.../day9/kv2_8.jpg


The gun mantlet attaches to the turret with that giant plate that is obviously bolted to the turret face, at which point the effective area is about 110mm thick, or so I believe. While not explicitly considered "armor" per se - it's a structural feature, after all - this would make the lower front of turret MT-1 harder to penetrate with weaker guns, which is a problem the KV has in Tier 5 right now (something I've shot the shit out of in my Churchill before).

[NergiZed]

Guess the MT-1 also has the added benefit of having that sloped gun mantlet plate.

Would love to see this happen.

[UberTank01]

The biggest change from the 7.2 to 7.3 the Derpgun gets a little bit better RoF even though that doesn't include either turret since they are more or less the same just ones ugly and the other is less ugly.

2.38 rounds per minute in 7.2 and @ Tier 5. (Derpgun's level)
2.5 rounds per minute in 7.3 and @ Tier 6. (Derpgun's Level)

[MalikCarr]

If you like it, +1 it. Maybe it'll get someone's attention.

It's such a tiny change, really, and unlike some arbitrary things people would like (e.g. buff IS-4's front armor to 160mm, make E-75's lower plate thicker, etc etc etc...) this one doesn't even require fudging historical figures. They've done everything right, essentially, except for the weight issue (even though the "heavier" MT-2 turret turns faster anyway...) and the totally clueless addition of HP for using the "weaker" turret.

[Jewel_Thief]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.  
Will forward this on to the Devs.
~jewel_thief