Jump to content


KV5 weakspot completely unorthadox


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
81 replies to this topic

hoom #21 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 12:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19186 battles
  • 5,297
  • [JRTB] JRTB
  • Member since:
    10-01-2010
The problems with removing R2D2 from hitbox are this:
  • Everyone else would demand their cupolas be removed too.
  • KV5 would become frankly OP because it takes a pretty big gun to reliably penetrate pretty much anywhere else.


sctank #22 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 12:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4510 battles
  • 420
  • [23RDB] 23RDB
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View Postkampfer91, on Jul 08 2012 - 11:11, said:

Pistol / machine gun bullet that is , does that count as ammo :/
Nomatter what ammo it is it must have gunpowder,gunpowder can and will be set on fire by a direct shell hit and most likely explode,and ignite the main ammo rack. At least that doesn't happen in game.

Reinmand #23 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 13:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 17350 battles
  • 3,029
  • [-DWA-] -DWA-
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
I think all tanks should have an R2D2 weak spot, somewhere on the tank.  It is awesome.

Love the drawing... would love if someone could make a mod with that as the skin for the KV-5.  Include the arrow and everything.

Edited by Reinmand, Jul 08 2012 - 13:10.


Garnett101st #24 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 13:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17623 battles
  • 2,192
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010

View Posthoom, on Jul 08 2012 - 12:19, said:

The problems with removing R2D2 from hitbox are this:
  • Everyone else would demand their cupolas be removed too.
  • KV5 would become frankly OP because it takes a pretty big gun to reliably penetrate pretty much anywhere else.

Lowe was supposed to have the gun and KV5 was supposed to have the armor, KV5 doesn't have the armor... If they dont feel like fixing R2D2 then give it a better gun ffs.

fink2011 #25 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 14:43

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14895 battles
  • 189
  • [MOTU] MOTU
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011
I think WG should remove the radio man from the KV-5.

Seems kind of sadistic to put him in the r2 d2 no?

Dominic_von_Bismarck #26 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 14:56

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4856 battles
  • 64
  • [TDC2] TDC2
  • Member since:
    08-31-2011
I dont own a kv5 but the hatch problem on the T95 is similer so i do understand where you're coming from. But then again if these problems were fixed.... what would the game become? :Smile_veryhappy:

C_Menz #27 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 14:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10979 battles
  • 1,931
  • [VAN] VAN
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011
Just angle yourself to hide the weak spot since the side and rear armor is still good enough to Bounce shots. You'll be surprised at how well a backwards angled KV-5 does.

Shaftronics #28 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 15:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5094 battles
  • 792
  • Member since:
    10-01-2011

View Posthoom, on Jul 08 2012 - 12:19, said:

The problems with removing R2D2 from hitbox are this:
  • Everyone else would demand their cupolas be removed too.
  • KV5 would become frankly OP because it takes a pretty big gun to reliably penetrate pretty much anywhere else.

Only the HULL Radioman copula doesn't make sense.

Keep the one on the turret for all I care. At least you have to aim for that.

Ubuntu #29 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 15:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23700 battles
  • 577
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    09-06-2011
Based on the illustration, it is clear that the KV-5 has a frontal transmission. WG should add a hit box there.

Tingjonki #30 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 16:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11586 battles
  • 215
  • Member since:
    01-16-2012
KV-5 is supposed to be strong to tier 5/6 tanks anyway all tier 6 mediums except the IDIOT gun will bounce on the R2D2 and on the rear armor if they remove r2d2 lower rear armor to atleast 120mm or lower

Cybergod #31 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 16:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18287 battles
  • 3,383
  • [DERP] DERP
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
Well seem legit if the tank shooting it is taller then it's shooting and who know where it goes once it starts bouncing inside the tank lol.

kadreal #32 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 16:42

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3387 battles
  • 412
  • [FGC] FGC
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011
Rounds enters machine gun hulling, shatters inside, bounces around injuring crew and damaging tank innards. Sure it probably wouldn't cause as much damage as a hull penetration, but it's not like that part of the tank is sealed off.

Konev #33 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 16:46

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22372 battles
  • 723
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View PostThe_Socialists, on Jul 08 2012 - 07:43, said:

The weakspot on the KV5 makes absolutely zero sense, How does shooting a little turret X amount of times, Cause a tank to blow up? Anyone who knows anything about ballistics will know that an AP shell breaks apart upon penetration of something. So can someone tell me how the KV5's weakspot even makes any logical sense?

I mean come on. I payed 40 bucks for this tank, the armor is great, the gun is crap. So does that justify an illogical weakspot?

Well even if the rounds were to as you say just "break up" inside, the turrets are just gaps in the tanks body. Its like a fun park you may have to pay to get in but once you in , well your in.  and at least penetrating shots don't contribute to failing structural strength in game.
What effects do you  think shooting a shotgun into a small metal room would have on the people inside?

Lowridah #34 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 16:48

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9756 battles
  • 518
  • [-UV-] -UV-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011
you could make the same arguement for any tank .. hit the fender enough times and the tank goes boom ... its only a fender

The_Socialists #35 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 16:51

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2182 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    03-04-2012
I'm demanding it be fixed, just buff up the weakspot so its slightly harder to penetrate or it causes less damage so people are forced to use tactics and team work to kill a KV5

lord_pillowpants #36 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 16:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11870 battles
  • 997
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011
don't feel badly about this....you could always quit the life of WoT and become an abstract artiste. :)


on a serious note...what about various track damage applied to tanks? I was moving at a left oblique in my Tiger II in relation to an enemy E-75. E-75 shot and damaged BOTH tracks. I am sure somewhere there is a logic string that says this is possible...but I am too lazy to look for it...simply for the fact that if this game pisses me off now I just go jump into my Atlas and have some fun. :Smile_glasses:

The_Socialists #37 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 16:55

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2182 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    03-04-2012
Seeing how my picture of the KV5 is so popular, heres a Maus and a hummel or something


http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/16/81/55/62/maus10.png

Aleskander #38 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 19:32

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4616 battles
  • 78
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011
Everyone knows that it was mandatory for bags of gunpowder and fuse wires to be randomly placed around tanks, that's why the R2D2 is weak. As for why most WWII tanks designers did this, historical documentation shows that they muttered something about "balance" and " for the lolz".

del1001295635 #39 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 19:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 13036 battles
  • 8,029
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011
It's not a very big weak spot as far as weak spots go.  Most people won't hit it if you just wiggle your tank in between shots.  So simple, so effective, and yet hardly anyone does it.

Reiter #40 Posted Jul 08 2012 - 20:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6657 battles
  • 597
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011

View Postkadreal, on Jul 08 2012 - 16:42, said:

Rounds enters machine gun hulling, shatters inside, bounces around injuring crew and damaging tank innards. Sure it probably wouldn't cause as much damage as a hull penetration, but it's not like that part of the tank is sealed off.
lol Non-damaging penetrating hits says hi, wonders if you will call back.  Its still wondering if it actually did something, other then wasting your time + probably about to get you killed and listening to some soviet BS about fake hitpoints on tracks that don't provide credits for the shell spent after firing  and spaced armor (even though it can happen on flat surfaces like the frontal armor).