Does the new TD IX T30 have better camo than when it was a heavy? The spotting spreadsheet at https://docs.google....RBVlJDSlE#gid=4 indicates that it really is not worhtwhile to run camo skills or a net, but I'm pretty sure that data was based on the Tier X heavy version.
I'm thinging of switching my repair to camo, and just wanted to see what others thought
Vad
T30 camo
Started by
VadVaro
, May 26 2012 - 22:21
9 replies to this topic
#2 Posted May 27 2012 - 05:12
-
- Players
- 7218 battles
-
1,279
-
Member since:
03-08-2011
Captain
I wouldn't, for two reasons.
First, camo is based off tank size, specifically height. Yes, you do get the TD bonus (1.3 or whatever it is) to "invisibility" on the T30. However, you're in a big honking tank, almost as big as the JT. So you're going to light up more or less like a JT, even though you have marginally better camo than back when T30 was a heavy.
Second, in terms of tactics, I prefer to let my T30 trail an attack group by a few dozen meters, jumping out to lob a shot at someone then popping back into cover. All of this entails being close enough to the enemy to be spotted regardless of whether I have the camouflage skill; basically, that skill is only helpful if you plan to sit at 300+ meters 80% of the time, preferably under a bush. The T30 can be played like that...I just don't think it's the most effective way of playing it.
So. I'd run whatever skill setup you'd run on a JT, basically treat this thing like a JT with a turret and bigger alpha (but weaker hull). So your choices are Repair, Brotherhood, or the 2xVision+Deadeye+Turn+Repair combo.
First, camo is based off tank size, specifically height. Yes, you do get the TD bonus (1.3 or whatever it is) to "invisibility" on the T30. However, you're in a big honking tank, almost as big as the JT. So you're going to light up more or less like a JT, even though you have marginally better camo than back when T30 was a heavy.
Second, in terms of tactics, I prefer to let my T30 trail an attack group by a few dozen meters, jumping out to lob a shot at someone then popping back into cover. All of this entails being close enough to the enemy to be spotted regardless of whether I have the camouflage skill; basically, that skill is only helpful if you plan to sit at 300+ meters 80% of the time, preferably under a bush. The T30 can be played like that...I just don't think it's the most effective way of playing it.
So. I'd run whatever skill setup you'd run on a JT, basically treat this thing like a JT with a turret and bigger alpha (but weaker hull). So your choices are Repair, Brotherhood, or the 2xVision+Deadeye+Turn+Repair combo.
#3 Posted May 27 2012 - 14:11
-
- Players
- 8672 battles
-
70
-
Member since:
03-13-2012
Corporal
Yeah, that's kind of what I figured. I'm having a little trouble with the T-30, usually by being too close to the action. The T-28P was actually better on the slugging maps like Himmelsdorf. Thanks for the info.
#4 Posted Jun 02 2012 - 06:03
-
- Players
- 16435 battles
-
146
-
Member since:
10-24-2011
Sergeant
Was wondering about this. Got my T30 today. 4 crew have 100% camo, and another close to it. Also have the net.
I didn't really think I'd be sitting in bushes, but wondered if it was worth it to keep all those camo skills and net.
Think I'm gonna redo the camo skills for BIA, maybe the next time there's an offer for half off skill retraining. I've got about 200% skills per crew to work with.
I didn't really think I'd be sitting in bushes, but wondered if it was worth it to keep all those camo skills and net.
Think I'm gonna redo the camo skills for BIA, maybe the next time there's an offer for half off skill retraining. I've got about 200% skills per crew to work with.
#5 Posted Jun 03 2012 - 00:48
-
- Players
- 7680 battles
-
11,145
-
Member since:
05-07-2011
Major
Won't matter, as they're increasing the dispersion of the T30 by about 50% in 7.4, and it will be like the T34, sitting in the open forever to get off an aimed shot.
#6 Posted Jun 11 2012 - 17:01
-
- Beta Testers
- 1990 battles
-
421
-
Member since:
11-20-2010
Staff sergeant
Kruzenshtern, on May 27 2012 - 05:12, said:
First, camo is based off tank size, specifically height. Yes, you do get the TD bonus (1.3 or whatever it is) to "invisibility" on the T30.
I am always curious about camo mechanics. Size does affect camo, but indirectly, because the smaller you are, the easier you can hide all your visibility checkpoints. I've never heard of any such TD bonus. The spotting formula takes no account whether you are a TD or not. I'm curious about that number, I feel like there's something I'm not aware of.
#7 Posted Jun 16 2012 - 08:37
-
- Players
- 10164 battles
-
755
-
Member since:
05-18-2011
First lieutenant
adjutant, on Jun 11 2012 - 17:01, said:
I am always curious about camo mechanics. Size does affect camo, but indirectly, because the smaller you are, the easier you can hide all your visibility checkpoints. I've never heard of any such TD bonus. The spotting formula takes no account whether you are a TD or not. I'm curious about that number, I feel like there's something I'm not aware of.
your not aware because wargamming is stupid and does not give out the real hard numbers. Forunately the russians have "broken the code" or at least done enough math/testing to figure out the forumlas. unforunately the russians dont write their guides in english, i have read a couple but there is nothing but gibberish and a graph and some math forumlas. Bascially what kruz said it correct, height is the primary determiner of camo value in this game.. so you get russian tanks that are low who have the best by FAR camo values. This is why their is a "russian bias". Because wargamming the "russian company" decided that height should determine camo values in the game, and knew that russian tanks are universally shorter than enemy tanks... well 2+2 does equal four normally. Anyway, if you have a jadgtiger and a tiger 2 which should be the "same" height and other specifications, yes the jadgtiger will be "stealthier" than the tiger 2, but the way the math works it, the difference is a few meters. Basically camo is a useless stat on everything tier 7 and above that is not russian, french (med) or the t-95 because what you get is at most 5-10 meters. I have been spotted at 500+ meters in tier 7 art with 100% camo many times it seems like. Anyway, if you search hard enough yu can find the camo co-efficients, which might help. But basically just realize that if the last tank is short as hell.. then you should expect to be shot once before you see the enemy.
#8 Posted Jun 16 2012 - 21:53
-
- Beta Testers
- 1990 battles
-
421
-
Member since:
11-20-2010
Staff sergeant
Prediator, on Jun 16 2012 - 08:37, said:
Anyway, if you search hard enough yu can find the camo co-efficients, which might help. But basically just realize that if the last tank is short as hell.. then you should expect to be shot once before you see the enemy.
The camo values from that one thread in the Russian forums are outdated. The latest values are listed here: https://docs.google....RBVlJDSlE#gid=2
The trend certainly does seem to be Russian tanks with better camo rating relative to other vehicles of their tier. I suppose camo bonus through short height is indicated implicitly in the calculated coefficients.
#9 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 19:03
-
- Players
- 7662 battles
-
11
-
Member since:
12-12-2011
Corporal
adjutant, on Jun 16 2012 - 21:53, said:
The camo values from that one thread in the Russian forums are outdated. The latest values are listed here: https://docs.google....RBVlJDSlE#gid=2
The trend certainly does seem to be Russian tanks with better camo rating relative to other vehicles of their tier. I suppose camo bonus through short height is indicated implicitly in the calculated coefficients.
The trend certainly does seem to be Russian tanks with better camo rating relative to other vehicles of their tier. I suppose camo bonus through short height is indicated implicitly in the calculated coefficients.
How do camo values even work? With 100% camo on crew would that mean my camo coeff is 100% more?
#10 Posted Jun 18 2012 - 03:55
-
- Players
- 7300 battles
-
639
-
Member since:
04-09-2011
First lieutenant
The dev's stated that height was the determining factor, but from what I've seen the smaller US tanks like the T20 have worse camo then larger tanks like the KV-IS. In general the US tanks have overall worse camo, but in recent patches the T110 was brought down to the IS7's level. Note that the Locust, the smallest tank in game, has the same camo value as the Object 704 which is two feet taller and much larger.
The reality is that with few exceptions most tanks range from 8' to 10', so there isn't much height difference to justify the large 50 m swing. Nor is it consistent. The Patton is 25 m worse then the T-54 and is a foot taller, while the M103 is about the same as the IS4 and is a foot taller.
Nor does it help that the tanks in game are not held to a consistent scale, with the advantage going to the ever shrinking russian line.
The reality is that with few exceptions most tanks range from 8' to 10', so there isn't much height difference to justify the large 50 m swing. Nor is it consistent. The Patton is 25 m worse then the T-54 and is a foot taller, while the M103 is about the same as the IS4 and is a foot taller.
Nor does it help that the tanks in game are not held to a consistent scale, with the advantage going to the ever shrinking russian line.
