Jump to content


Hello, Kitty


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

Zergling #61 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 06:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,484
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011
Interesting reading the references to 100mm penetration at 30 degrees at 1000 meters range requirement for the 75mm and 88mm guns for the Tiger.

See, with the 132mm pen for the 88mm L/56, the 1000 meter penetration would be only 112mm against 0 degree slope.

Against 30 degree slope, that 112mm would drop to about 90mm; well below the 100mm penetration requirement... so that's more proof of the unhistorically low penetration of the 88mm L/56 in WoT.

EDIT: -2 wtf?

Edited by Zergling, Jun 05 2012 - 08:30.


gristle #62 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 07:21

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 15214 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    11-13-2010

Skitz, on Jun 04 2012 - 22:04, said:

In game developer jargon: "Gameplay > Realism"

It's something I've had to live by for about 20 years.

Of course Gameplay > Realism ... this is a GAME not a simulator.  I have played almost every tank and I think they have done a very good job balancing things to make this a fun GAME to play.

1Shot1KillTiger205 #63 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 07:23

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4485 battles
  • 506
  • Member since:
    02-04-2012
Sure its all well and good if you can make the Tiger look the part, but maybe its performance isn't exactly "Historically Correct" in my opinion (and my others), you have indeed nerfed most german tanks to concerning extremes and something must be done to give this legend the greatness it aquired during thw war!

Admiral85_NF #64 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 10:21

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 17298 battles
  • 48
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
i dont know why complaining all time of legendary Tiger tank, if u want good games u have to know how u using ur tiger tank and not complain others if u get kill few minutes even not u have yet shoot enemy tank its always be how used ur tank in game for me i like tiger tank and know angle ur chasses when u see enemy tank that her shot bounce and not get hit ur hitpoints.. if u cant or know use ur tiger tank go practice with ur friends or clan its best way get ace for that tank.. thank you

Xyrothryu #65 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 10:40

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16961 battles
  • 469
  • [WOLF] WOLF
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
Well, i already knew this, but thanks for the info none the less.

So here's a new question, why doesn't my E-100 have armour like an E100? lol

Zergling, on Jun 05 2012 - 06:24, said:

Interesting reading the references to 100mm penetration at 30 degrees at 1000 meters range requirement for the 75mm and 88mm guns for the Tiger.

See, with the 132mm pen for the 88mm L/56, the 1000 meter penetration would be only 112mm against 0 degree slope.

Against 30 degree slope, that 112mm would drop to about 90mm; well below the 100mm penetration requirement... so that's more proof of the unhistorically low penetration of the 88mm L/56 in WoT.

EDIT: -2 wtf?

Yes, like most guns in WoT, the German ones are nerfed, and the Russian ones are heroicly buffed beyond anything close to what they should be.

But, as SerB would say, Posted Image

Edited by Xyrothryu, Jun 05 2012 - 10:46.


TlGERACE #66 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 15:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 34504 battles
  • 2,050
  • [-S-A] -S-A
  • Member since:
    07-06-2011
I am sure most tankers agree with me on this:

The Tiger must be moved to tier 6 , Then when that is done all players will use it on daily bases

Best regards

Tiger Ace

djuice1701 #67 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 16:14

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8149 battles
  • 887
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
Well sorry to post in this thread, but what happened to Operation Think Tank? Thought there was suppose to be a watch online video to be released back in May, now that it's June, I've not heard anything about it since the last posting back in early May...

Sorry for it been OT, but I would appreciate it if it's answered.

theshiyal #68 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 16:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7829 battles
  • 1,436
  • Member since:
    03-21-2011
Good read, thanks chief.

btw.  About the Tiger's speed...  According to the Haynes workshop manual I have, drivers who got 1,000km outta the engine and transmission ( I think, I'll have to double check )  where granted a weeks leave.

Of course it also stated more responsibilities for the radioman than catching enemy rounds.  They were generally the cook for the crew as well as the guy who kept the interior clean.  One commander said his radioman always kept his tank spotless inside, he even wanted them to take their shoes off when they got in.  Pretty proud of his Tiger I'd say.  :Smile_Default:

TlGERACE, on Jun 05 2012 - 15:05, said:

I am sure most tankers agree with me on this:

The Tiger must be moved to tier 6 , Then when that is done all players will use it on daily bases

Best regards

Tiger Ace

^^ Yes but don't change anything on it.  :Smile_veryhappy:

Edited by theshiyal, Jun 05 2012 - 16:17.


Tishr #69 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 16:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15680 battles
  • 936
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
I never understood the argument that the tiger isn't historically powerful isn't tiering the tiger up with tanks designed in some cases specifically to engage it a admission of how powerful the Tiger I was?

Simon_EZ8 #70 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 18:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6060 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011

therowman, on Jun 05 2012 - 02:48, said:

No In the End you see the Tiger Fighting tanks that were build to fight the King Tiger.
Yeah. You also see the IS fighting tanks that were built to fight the IS-3 (top tier French and American tanks).

The real problem with the Tiger is that the Tiger... enthusiasts expect it to be placed as a top tier tank because in Western Europe (and much of the time on the Eastern front) it WAS "placed as a top tier tank:" it was fighting Shermans and T-34s and the tank destroyers built on those chassis. And it was doing this instead of getting nuked by 8" self propelled guns or trampled into the mud by 105mm gun-armed American heavy tanks which the US never actually fielded, which is what often happens to Tigers in play.

This creates a sort of myth of the Tiger's invincibility and superiority, which comes in large part from the fact that so often it was a 55-ton tank fighting 30-ton tanks, and a tank which took six thousand men a week to build (300000 man-hours is the Tigerfibel's figure, no?) fighting tanks which took six hundred men a week to build. (I'm having trouble pinning down exact figures for the Sherman and T-34, but it ran to something like 20-30000 man-hours as I recall).

So to have the Tiger brought down into the dirt with other, merely mortal vehicles is somewhat humiliating from the point of view of those who want it to be invincible.

Zergling, on Jun 05 2012 - 06:24, said:

Interesting reading the references to 100mm penetration at 30 degrees at 1000 meters range requirement for the 75mm and 88mm guns for the Tiger.

See, with the 132mm pen for the 88mm L/56, the 1000 meter penetration would be only 112mm against 0 degree slope.

Against 30 degree slope, that 112mm would drop to about 90mm; well below the 100mm penetration requirement... so that's more proof of the unhistorically low penetration of the 88mm L/56 in WoT.

EDIT: -2 wtf?
You can't even SEE enemy tanks at a thousand meters in this game, and in a lot of the game maps it would be physically impossible to shoot at any targets a thousand meters off because there's a mountain in the way. Typical WoT combat ranges are more like 200-400 meters in the open field, and a large proportion of all fighting is at total point blank range in villages where you're often hitting tanks that are facehugging up against you at distances so short that your gun barrel would have crumpled up or broken off against their turret if this were happening in real life.

So what this really tells us is that in order to make armor more effective against long range fire (which benefits all tanks; Tigers would be a lot easier to kill if random Soviet 57mm shots aimed at them from 400 meters away penetrated reliably), WoT artificially cranked up the rate at which shell penetration declines with distance. Which affects everyone, although it's a bit more significant for 'sniping' tanks which, admittedly, the Tiger is.

You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen... In Tankhalla, the atmosphere is three times denser! :D

1Shot1KillTiger205, on Jun 05 2012 - 07:23, said:

Sure its all well and good if you can make the Tiger look the part, but maybe its performance isn't exactly "Historically Correct" in my opinion (and my others), you have indeed nerfed most german tanks to concerning extremes and something must be done to give this legend the greatness it aquired during thw war!
If that's the goal, the logical thing to do is to write the matchmaker so that each Tiger gets paired off alone, or possibly with a PzIV or two for company, against eight or ten Shermans. The Tiger-lovers can point to the Tiger's superior German kill ratio, while the American fans can point to the Tigers predictably getting blasted to pieces by half a dozen 105mm howitzers. :D

Heck, let me buy my Sherman back; I'll play...

Tishr, on Jun 05 2012 - 16:35, said:

I never understood the argument that the tiger isn't historically powerful isn't tiering the tiger up with tanks designed in some cases specifically to engage it a admission of how powerful the Tiger I was?
For a number of reasons, the Germans chose to build a 55-ton breakthrough tank before anyone else. Their 55-ton breakthrough tank turned out to be a lot better than most people's 30-ton medium tanks and 45-ton heavy tanks: go figure.

The one thing that's really inexcusable is that their 55-ton breakthrough tank was superior to the American's 55-ton M6... which isn't much of a surprise, seeing as how the Germans were basing the design on combat experience and the Americans weren't.

However, unless we go for the aforementioned "10 Shermans vs. 1 Tiger" matchmaker plan, it's really only fair that the Tiger be matched up against other countries' 55-ton breakthrough tanks, instead of their 30-ton mediums.

The_Chieftain #71 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 19:24

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

djuice1701, on Jun 05 2012 - 16:14, said:

Well sorry to post in this thread, but what happened to Operation Think Tank? Thought there was suppose to be a watch online video to be released back in May, now that it's June, I've not heard anything about it since the last posting back in early May...

Sorry for it been OT, but I would appreciate it if it's answered.

E3 bumped it back.

Figure mid-June now.

FaustianQ #72 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 19:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18727 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

Simon_EZ8, on Jun 05 2012 - 18:07, said:

However, unless we go for the aforementioned "10 Shermans vs. 1 Tiger" matchmaker plan, it's really only fair that the Tiger be matched up against other countries' 55-ton breakthrough tanks, instead of their 30-ton mediums.

You mean comparing the Tiger vs an IS-3 or T32? :D

Killertomato #73 Posted Jun 05 2012 - 23:58

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 4500 battles
  • 772
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

1Shot1KillTiger205, on Jun 05 2012 - 07:23, said:

Sure its all well and good if you can make the Tiger look the part, but maybe its performance isn't exactly "Historically Correct" in my opinion (and my others), you have indeed nerfed most german tanks to concerning extremes and something must be done to give this legend the greatness it aquired during thw war!

It's not "historically correct" because you're fighting ISs and T29s, not stock Shermans and T-34s, and because the game uses hitpoints instead of making any penetration of the armor a bail-out event.

KittenKattBarr #74 Posted Jun 06 2012 - 04:09

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6795 battles
  • 35
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

The_Chieftain, on Jun 04 2012 - 18:27, said:

Hello, Kitty

Hello, Chieftain

Edited by KittenKattBarr, Jun 06 2012 - 04:09.


Zergling #75 Posted Jun 06 2012 - 07:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,484
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

Simon_EZ8, on Jun 05 2012 - 18:07, said:

You can't even SEE enemy tanks at a thousand meters in this game, and in a lot of the game maps it would be physically impossible to shoot at any targets a thousand meters off because there's a mountain in the way. Typical WoT combat ranges are more like 200-400 meters in the open field, and a large proportion of all fighting is at total point blank range in villages where you're often hitting tanks that are facehugging up against you at distances so short that your gun barrel would have crumpled up or broken off against their turret if this were happening in real life.

So what this really tells us is that in order to make armor more effective against long range fire (which benefits all tanks; Tigers would be a lot easier to kill if random Soviet 57mm shots aimed at them from 400 meters away penetrated reliably), WoT artificially cranked up the rate at which shell penetration declines with distance. Which affects everyone, although it's a bit more significant for 'sniping' tanks which, admittedly, the Tiger is.

You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen... In Tankhalla, the atmosphere is three times denser! :D

You sort of missed my point; the 88mm L/56 has deflated 100 meter penetration ingame.
If 132mm was the IRL penetration value at 100 meters, it would have been incapable of achieving the required 1000 penetration that it actually WAS capable of achieving IRL.

Most USA, Russian and the couple UK guns have accurate 100 meter penetration values in WoT; it is just the German guns that seem to have been shafted.

A_Flock_of_Seagulls #76 Posted Jun 06 2012 - 08:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20331 battles
  • 965
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
Very interesting article. Just like anything, I have some disagreements.

Kristine #77 Posted Jun 06 2012 - 09:12

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 25946 battles
  • 1,443
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
I still prefer the Tiger H to start with the early type Porsche turret because the VK3601H turret is just plain horrible to start out ingame.

Not only that, the VK3601H turret mounted on the tiger has way horrible stats than the one actually mounted on the VK3601H. (lolwat)

autorev #78 Posted Jun 06 2012 - 13:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14414 battles
  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011

Zergling, on Jun 06 2012 - 07:20, said:

You sort of missed my point; the 88mm L/56 has deflated 100 meter penetration ingame.
If 132mm was the IRL penetration value at 100 meters, it would have been incapable of achieving the required 1000 penetration that it actually WAS capable of achieving IRL.

Most USA, Russian and the couple UK guns have accurate 100 meter penetration values in WoT; it is just the German guns that seem to have been shafted.

Okay, look.  Here's the problem.  Your argument essentially centers on a conversion from German penetration stats to other countries' penetration stats.  You and/or other people who feel that the 88mm L/56 is underrepresented in this game want a 25%-30% increase in penetration to somewhere between 160 and 170.  But what does this mean?  If the L/56 has a penetration of 160, that implies that the L/71, rated at 203 penetration, ought to have a penetration of 250.  There is absolutely no chance that they will let a tier 7 vehicle mount a 250 penetration gun, meaning you'll be stuck with the 88mm L/56; in practical terms, what you are asking for is a NERF to the Tiger's maximum penetration (from 203 to somewhere between 160 and 170).  The Panzer IV would have to go back down to the L/48 and be left with roughly the same penetration as before.  All the tier 6 mediums would use the 75mm L/70 or 88mm L/56, but they'd almost certainly get ROF nerfed.  This is honestly not that good of a deal for them, since they perform quite well already under the existing playstyle.

It'd help the Jagdpanzer IV, though.

Social_really_heckin #79 Posted Jun 06 2012 - 14:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 48719 battles
  • 2,319
  • [SUX] SUX
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011

autorev, on Jun 06 2012 - 13:05, said:

Okay, look.  Here's the problem.  Your argument essentially centers on a conversion from German penetration stats to other countries' penetration stats.  You and/or other people who feel that the 88mm L/56 is underrepresented in this game want a 25%-30% increase in penetration to somewhere between 160 and 170.  But what does this mean?  If the L/56 has a penetration of 160, that implies that the L/71, rated at 203 penetration, ought to have a penetration of 250.  There is absolutely no chance that they will let a tier 7 vehicle mount a 250 penetration gun, meaning you'll be stuck with the 88mm L/56; in practical terms, what you are asking for is a NERF to the Tiger's maximum penetration (from 203 to somewhere between 160 and 170).  The Panzer IV would have to go back down to the L/48 and be left with roughly the same penetration as before.  All the tier 6 mediums would use the 75mm L/70 or 88mm L/56, but they'd almost certainly get ROF nerfed.  This is honestly not that good of a deal for them, since they perform quite well already under the existing playstyle.

It'd help the Jagdpanzer IV, though.
I don't think that's the point here. Historical accuracy is ignored for balance and balance is ignored for historical accuracy at times when it suits a particular country.. I, for one, think the short 88 needs a buff for balance and historical reasons, and they can leave the long 88 alone for pure balance reasons.

autorev #80 Posted Jun 06 2012 - 14:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14414 battles
  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011

SocialFlaws, on Jun 06 2012 - 14:03, said:

I don't think that's the point here. Historical accuracy is ignored for balance and balance is ignored for historical accuracy at times when it suits a particular country.. I, for one, think the short 88 needs a buff for balance and historical reasons, and they can leave the long 88 alone for pure balance reasons.

Having argued that the short 88 should be buffed on the basis of a different conversion of penetration figures, to argue that the same should not be done for the long 88 is to make a complete mockery of your own argument.  If you want it buffed for gameplay reasons, stick to gameplay reasons.  If you're saying that Wargaming doesn't always keep their rationales clean and that therefore they should adopt your viewpoint which also does not keep its rationales clean, well, that argument is more than a little unconvincing.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users