Jump to content


The Definitive Thread about World Of Tanks 2.0 - Cold War to Present Day


This topic has been archived.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

Harnisfechten #1 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 05:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5,927
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012
Hello everyone.

Yes, I am aware of the search function. Yes I am aware that this has been suggested countless times.

The point of this thread is to fully flesh out the plans for a World of Tanks game with tanks from the Cold War to the present day, and not just make some derp suggestion "hurrr they should add a tier 20 M1 Abrams to WoT durr". We will discuss ideas, suggestions, things that will be the same as WoT, things that will be different, the biggest challenges, we can even start to build some preliminary tech trees.

I will start:

The basic idea is the same as WoT. The game would feature tracked armored vehicles from the early cold war years up until the present day, with a similar tier structure as WoT.

Vehicle Types:

There obviously wont be any heavy tank/medium tank thing, instead replaced with the MBT. There will still be Tank Destroyers, Light Tanks, and SPG's.

Gameplay: with the arcade elements of WoT, it is already as if the tanks have gyro-stabilized guns, thermal imaging (the red outlines you see of enemy tanks, even through bushes and such), GPS maps, etc.

Engagement Range: Many say that engagement ranges are much longer in modern tanks, so it won't work in game.
In WWII, Tigers were nailing Allied tanks at 2km. In game, that shrinks to maybe 600m. An M1A2 Abrams MBT can hit targets up to approximately 4km away. That's only double the distance. That distance is limited by terrain anyways. I think the game would only need slightly bigger maps , gun ranges, and view ranges, on the order of 1.5x or 2x the current ranges, to stay proportional to WoT.

modern Fire Control Systems: WoT already has autoaim, gyrostabilized guns (in arcade view at least), etc. A WoT 2.0 wouldn't need to be much different. Maybe make the most modern tanks have higher accuracy on the move.

Armor Simulation: here's one of the main challenges. Modern tank armor is much more complex than WWII and early cold war tanks. I suppose they could make it really easy and just use equivalent mm of steel for the value. For example, an M1A2 has the equivalent of approximately 1060mm of steel armor on the turret, and approximately 80mm on the hull. The HEAT rounds from a T-90's gun have approximately the equivalent of 800mm of penetration of steel armor. I think this would be the easiest way to do it, and just come up with clever ways to simulate various ammo types.

AT missiles: many russian tanks and many IFV's and other armored vehicles carry Anti-Tank Missiles. These would need to be implemented properly.

SPG accuracy: WoT arty is already accurate enough and has high-tech GPS targetting systems. Would work almost the same in a WoT 2.0.



Tech trees:

For light tanks (low tiers and scouts) you would have various IFV's, APC's, LAV's (maybe lift the no-wheels rule that WG has), amphibious and airborne tanks, etc.

For Tank Destroyers you would have vehicles like the Bradley IFV or the russian BMP series. Vehicles with lighter armor, but powerful AT missiles. You would also have strange tanks like the swedish turretless tank, or gun platforms like the american Stryker MGS (wheels, I know). I'm sure you could find plenty of tanks and armored vehicles that could fit the TD category.

For SPG's, it's pretty easy. Modern SPG's are pretty common.

For mediums/heavies, you would have various MBT trees, starting with cold war tanks and ending with the modern MBT's.

Some examples of tanks from different trees:

Light tanks:

The M41 Walker Bulldog, American Light Tank. Possibly a tier 1-2
http://en.wikipedia...._Walker_Bulldog

the M551 Sheridan, American recon/airborne tank. maybe tier 2-3?
http://en.wikipedia....i/M551_Sheridan

the PT-76, russian amphibious light tank, tier 2?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-76

the BMD1, BMD2, BMD3, russian IFV's, maybe tiers 1-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMD-1

the FV101 Scorpion, British recon vehicle, maybe tier 4? the Scimitar would be the british tier 5 light tank?
http://en.wikipedia..../FV101_Scorpion

There are many more light tanks, even prototypes or experimental ones, I just chose some examples of ones that were mass-produced and/or are more well-known. I also left out any wheeled ones (most notably the american LAV and Stryker).

SPG's:

M109 Paladin, American SPG
http://en.wikipedia....i/M109_howitzer

Tier 10 german arty
http://en.wikipedia....erhaubitze_2000

Again, many more, but most are similar to each other anyways, so it's boring to list them out :Smile-tongue:

Tank Destroyers:

Charioteer, British low-tier TD
http://en.wikipedia...._tank_destroyer

M901, US AT Missile vehicle based on the M113. Maybe tier 3-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M901_ITV

Many vehicles that would be considered TD's are wheeled, like the russian BRDM, or the US Stryker MGS

MBT's:

pretty obvious here:

M1 Abrams series, could be the american tier 9-10 (maybe even 8-10) MBT.

T-62/T-64 could be a russian mid-tier MBT, maybe tier 5, at the same tier as the M60.

T-72's and T-80's could be tier 6-8 russian MBT, with the T-90 for the tier 9-10

The german leopard series and british Chieftain and Challenger series would be mid/high tier MBT's.


In conclusion, thanks to anyone who made it this far. Thanks for your time, and let's make this a constructive thread that can actually possibly help WG make this game that all tank lovers should want. I mean, who doesn't want to have T-90's and Leopards and Abrams and Challengers duking it out on modern battlefields, WoT-style? Only trolls and party-poopers, that's who

Edited by Harnisfechten, Oct 16 2012 - 05:54.


Mantisman630 #2 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,991
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
If you have watched any of their videos, they make the same thought over and over again...yes, the idea is simple, but to actually put together a game is a hard task...you can tell them to make a game about robots or helicopters...yes, you can tell them. But the action to make the game itself is beyond what we players can judge.

Harnisfechten #3 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5,927
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostMantisman630, on Oct 16 2012 - 06:00, said:

If you have watched any of their videos, they make the same thought over and over again...yes, the idea is simple, but to actually put together a game is a hard task...you can tell them to make a game about robots or helicopters...yes, you can tell them. But the action to make the game itself is beyond what we players can judge.

You're right, but one problem: tanks are still tanks. Helicopters and robots would be insanely different. Actually, they are making WoWP and WoB, which are both very different from tanks, so that's not even that much of an issue. Compared to WoWP or WoB, making a WoT 2.0 would be relatively easy.

I know what kind of hard work goes into a video game. I've never seen a well thought-out suggestion for modern tanks though, you only ever see off-hand remarks about how they should make one.

Do you have anything to say about the actual idea besides naysaying? Suggestions? Comments?

AuraDesru #4 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,376
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011
I like modern tanks
me gusta
T-90 in BF BC2 is fav <3

Crazyloki #5 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:23

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 558
  • Member since:
    07-11-2012
Nice avatar mantisman60.

Or we could just put the abrams, Leopard 2, T-90, leclerc, and Challenger 2 as tier 13 tanks...
As that would be much easier then making WoT Modern Warfare  :Smile_amazed:

None the less though, it is an interesting idea

Edited by Crazyloki, Oct 16 2012 - 06:24.


W_E_S_T_E_R_N_S_T_A_R #6 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
I love your idea of a modern WoT. I've been suggesting and suggesting it over and over but nooone did listen. I hope they will try to keep that thread alive intead of killing it with bad commment and some. Anyways i wish thebest for that topic . Never Never give up!!! :Smile-izmena:

Celebrim #7 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,426
  • Member since:
    10-04-2012
There is really only two generations (roughly) of tanks after Tier 10.  

Tier 11 is M-60 and equivalent, what's commonly known as 'second generation main battle tanks'.

Tier 12 is interesting in one respect because half the world now (it seems) has a respectable modern MBT - Merkava, M1A2, Leapord II, Challenger, T-90MS, LeClerc, K2, Type 99.   Lots of amazing tanks out there right now.

Tier's 11 and 12 sorta break down into half tiers, but more the way that a stock Tier vehicle is not nearly as capable as a fully upgraded one.  There are some variants of the now venerable T-72 that are pushing into Tier 12 (though as something of a 'lighter tank').

The generations between tanks are getting further and further apart.  We might not see a Tier 13 until 2040 (barring a major outbreak of war in the 1st world).

As for gaming at tier 11 and 12, I don't see it as being as interesting or at least as simple.  While there is some variation between the MBT designs of various nations, there really isn't the diversity in armored vehicles that makes WoT work.   IFV's are not nearly the same as TD's (in fact, they generally try to avoid TD's).    APC's aren't generally designed for armored engagements, and modelling dismounts from either would be difficult.  The IFV's and APC's generally have armor and firepower equivalent to a Tier 3-5 tank, and so wouldn't at all be fun facing a Tier 10-12 MBT.   Attack helicopters are the modern equivalent of TD's, and they'd just be wierd on a WoT style battlefield - you'd start wanting to implement SAM batteries to counter them.

Tank50us #8 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:40

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    07-16-2011
the problem with adding modern AFVs is that many countries have the exact armor composition of their tanks classified, especially main battle tanks. Also, if you've noticed, the maps are only about 1km by 1km, and tanks like the M1 Abrams can shoot out to SEVERAL klicks, with pin point accuracy, WHILE MOVING AT FULL SPEED. Sure, ATGMs could be added, and easy to balance, but they'd quickly break the game at the same time. Honestly, I'd just be happy with them increasing the number of Light Tanks in the game so that some of the out-balanced lights can stop getting thrown into super-high tier matches where their guns don't have a prayer of doing anything more then scratching the paint of the next highest tank. But, for the Americans, the only logical tanks to add are the M41 Walker Bulldog, and the M551 Sheridan. The latter can use ATGMs in real life, which means it can quickly break the game at such a tier.

I'd also like to see rocket artillery get added, but few examples even exist, so odds are, they'll never see the game anyway.

Also, on the tiers, the M1 Abrams would only be about two, maybe three tiers above the M48 (M60, MAYBE the MBT70, and then the Abrams). Since the invention of the MBT, the Light, Medium, and Heavy designations have fallen by the way side.

Cleric2145 #9 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:53

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 151
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostHarnisfechten, on Oct 16 2012 - 05:51, said:

Armor Simulation: here's one of the main challenges. Modern tank armor is much more complex than WWII and early cold war tanks. I suppose they could make it really easy and just use equivalent mm of steel for the value. For example, an M1A2 has the equivalent of approximately 1060mm of steel armor on the turret, and approximately 80mm on the hull.


The frontal hull armor of the M1A2 is closer to 610mm, the 80mm you are referring to is the "topfront" of the hull, which is nearly flat at 82* angle.

csp0811 #10 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 06:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 296
  • Member since:
    02-11-2012
It sounds fun. OFC, you should note that the M60 has only slightly better armor than the M48, with the same gun. It would get demolished by many high tier tanks from 1.0, such as the T110e5. In fact, you could place many Cold War MBTs into WoT 8.0. and they wouldn't be too different from the current tier 10s. For example, the AMX 30 and the Leopard 1 barely have armor (which makes sense. No tank could afford to carry the armor necessary to defeat heat rounds until composite armor was developed), and the M60 wasn't all that much better. It's not until you reach the M1 Abrams (first model) and the T-72 that you begin to see MBT's that are overwhelmingly better than our current TIer 10s.

In addition, the arcade style of WoT obscures the real advantage of American tanks - the electronics and FCS. It really was point and shoot like this game when you shot with an M60 or M1 (or T80/90), but not so with the tanks like the T55, the T64, or the T72. With those advantages nullified by the arcade style, most western MBT's would get obliterated by (individually) inferior Russian counterparts.

One scenario I can imagine with modern tanks is to have something similar to Navyfield's monsterships, in which a mod would play a nearly indestructible and overpowered ship vs an entire enemy team.
I could forsee a special sheriff game where it's 15 tier 10s vs 1 M1A2 Abrams or a T90MS. Now that would be simple to implement  and fun to play.

Harnisfechten #11 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 07:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5,927
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012
I love how nobody read the OP.

View PostCelebrim, on Oct 16 2012 - 06:38, said:

There is really only two generations (roughly) of tanks after Tier 10.  
implying that 1 tier = 1 generation???
You are thinking of adding tiers to the current game. WG has said they will never do that, and I think it would be a terrible idea. The topic here is about making a new game, tier 1-10, completely separate from the current WoT.


Quote

Tier 11 is M-60 and equivalent, what's commonly known as 'second generation main battle tanks'.
Tier 12 is interesting in one respect because half the world now (it seems) has a respectable modern MBT - Merkava, M1A2, Leapord II, Challenger, T-90MS, LeClerc, K2, Type 99.   Lots of amazing tanks out there right now.
Tier's 11 and 12 sorta break down into half tiers, but more the way that a stock Tier vehicle is not nearly as capable as a fully upgraded one.  There are some variants of the now venerable T-72 that are pushing into Tier 12 (though as something of a 'lighter tank').

This is just plain wrong. You mean to tell me that you think that it should just be one jump from the M60 to the M1A2 Abrams? That the jump from M60 to Abrams is like going from a stock tank to a fully upgraded one? That's absurd. Or you think that there aren't huge differences between the T-72 and the most modern versions of the T-90?
Again though, you're thinking in terms on adding tiers to WoT. If they made a new game, they could easily have the T-62 as a tier 5, early T-72 as a tier 6, upgraded T-72 as a tier 7, T-80 as a tier 8, T-90 as a tier 9, and whatever ultra modern T-90 version the russians have cooked up as a tier 10.
Or even the british tanks. They have the conqueror, the chieftain, the challenger 1, and the challenger 2. It's not simply a jump from the conqueror to the Challenger 2

Quote

IFV's are not nearly the same as TD's (in fact, they generally try to avoid TD's). APC's aren't generally designed for armored engagements, and modelling dismounts from either would be difficult.  The IFV's and APC's generally have armor and firepower equivalent to a Tier 3-5 tank, and so wouldn't at all be fun facing a Tier 10-12 MBT.   Attack helicopters are the modern equivalent of TD's, and they'd just be wierd on a WoT style battlefield - you'd start wanting to implement SAM batteries to counter them.
You are talking nonsense. Nobody said anything about dismounted infantry, helicopters, SAM tanks, etc. This is WoT 2.0 we're talking about. Do you realize that in WoT, the SPG's and scout tanks are used in unrealistic ways too? the light tanks wouldnt be on the battlefield with the heavies, they would have done recon way before the battle. SPG's would be way off the map. I don't see a problem with having an IFV that is armed with powerful AT missiles fill a similar role as TDs in WoT. As for low firepower, well, light tanks in WoT have low firepower, they do just fine in tier 10 battles. I don't see why the British Scimitar couldn't fill the same role in WoT 2.0 as the Chaffee does in WoT.



View PostTank50us, on Oct 16 2012 - 06:40, said:

the problem with adding modern AFVs is that many countries have the exact armor composition of their tanks classified, especially main battle tanks.
If they can make up reasonable guesses for all the blueprint tanks in WoT, they can get by using approximate data for modern tanks.

Quote

Also, if you've noticed, the maps are only about 1km by 1km, and tanks like the M1 Abrams can shoot out to SEVERAL klicks, with pin point accuracy, WHILE MOVING AT FULL SPEED.
I already addressed this. Did you read the OP completely? Maps could be made slightly bigger, and the accuracy of modern tanks would just be something you need to adapt to in the game (the WWII tanks already have unrealistic gun stabilization on the move and autoaim). You'd need to use cover better, and stay moving, and detect the enemy early. Not so different from the current game now that I list it out like that.

Quote

Sure, ATGMs could be added, and easy to balance, but they'd quickly break the game at the same time.
If they're balanced, that means they don't break the game.

Quote

I'd also like to see rocket artillery get added, but few examples even exist, so odds are, they'll never see the game anyway.
Rocket arty existed in WWII as well (although it had a very different role). Can be added or not, doesn't make a difference.

Quote

Also, on the tiers, the M1 Abrams would only be about two, maybe three tiers above the M48 (M60, MAYBE the MBT70, and then the Abrams). Since the invention of the MBT, the Light, Medium, and Heavy designations have fallen by the way side.
Already addressed in the OP. I already mentioned that mediums and heavies would be replaced by MBTs. I also pointed out that many armored vehicles exist that can be classified as light tanks. I listed a few examples in the OP, and there are many more. Just because the militaries TECHNICALLY don't use the heavy/medium/light classification, doesn't mean that there are no light tanks anymore.
And like I replied to above, there could easily be more than one tier between the M60 and the most modern Abrams variant. Throw in some cancelled/blueprint tanks, and it would be easy to fill in the tech trees.


edit: I don't see why I'm getting negative rep on this comment. If you don't like what I said, respond in the comments. Dont hide behind a red thumbs down.

Edited by Harnisfechten, Oct 16 2012 - 15:17.


Harnisfechten #12 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 07:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5,927
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostCleric2145, on Oct 16 2012 - 06:53, said:

The frontal hull armor of the M1A2 is closer to 610mm, the 80mm you are referring to is the "topfront" of the hull, which is nearly flat at 82* angle.
sorry, typo, I meant to say 800mm, which is for the M1A2. the earlier Abrams had 610mm I think. Either way.


csp0811 said:

In addition, the arcade style of WoT obscures the real advantage of American tanks - the electronics and FCS. It really was point and shoot like this game when you shot with an M60 or M1 (or T80/90), but not so with the tanks like the T55, the T64, or the T72. With those advantages nullified by the arcade style, most western MBT's would get obliterated by (individually) inferior Russian counterparts.

You mean like the arcade style of the current game obscures the real-life advantages of german WWII tanks? Yet somehow, the game still functions.

I don't see why western MBT's would get beat by inferior russian counterparts. the most modern T-90 variants are as modern as any MBT in the western countries, and not "inferior". They probably even have comparable FCS. Besides, you're also comparing a tier 5-6 tank (the T-64, T-72) to the tier 10 M1A2 or Leopard 2, you don't think that IRL an Abrams would beat the stuffing out of a T-64, even at brawling range?

As for the idea that all modern tank battles are fought at huge ranges:
http://en.wikipedia....ting_and_beyond

Strikeroflife #13 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 07:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 777
  • Member since:
    06-18-2011

View PostCrazyloki, on Oct 16 2012 - 06:23, said:

Nice avatar mantisman60.

Or we could just put the abrams, Leopard 2, T-90, leclerc, and Challenger 2 as tier 13 tanks...
As that would be much easier then making WoT Modern Warfare  :Smile_amazed:

None the less though, it is an interesting idea
WG rules for tanks being valid for WoT
No smooth Bore guns (oh look all those tanks have that)
1920's-1960's tanks only.
also What the hell other then other tier 13's could even hope to stand a chance against them??

Tank50us #14 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 08:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    07-16-2011

View PostHarnisfechten, on Oct 16 2012 - 07:08, said:

I love how nobody read the OP.


implying that 1 tier = 1 generation???
You are thinking of adding tiers to the current game. WG has said they will never do that, and I think it would be a terrible idea. The topic here is about making a new game, tier 1-10, completely separate from the current WoT.




This is just plain wrong. You mean to tell me that you think that it should just be one jump from the M60 to the M1A2 Abrams? That the jump from M60 to Abrams is like going from a stock tank to a fully upgraded one? That's absurd. Or you think that there aren't huge differences between the T-72 and the most modern versions of the T-90?
Again though, you're thinking in terms on adding tiers to WoT. If they made a new game, they could easily have the T-62 as a tier 5, early T-72 as a tier 6, upgraded T-72 as a tier 7, T-80 as a tier 8, T-90 as a tier 9, and whatever ultra modern T-90 version the russians have cooked up as a tier 10.
Or even the british tanks. They have the conqueror, the chieftain, the challenger 1, and the challenger 2. It's not simply a jump from the conqueror to the Challenger 2


You are talking nonsense. Nobody said anything about dismounted infantry, helicopters, SAM tanks, etc. This is WoT 2.0 we're talking about. Do you realize that in WoT, the SPG's and scout tanks are used in unrealistic ways too? the light tanks wouldnt be on the battlefield with the heavies, they would have done recon way before the battle. SPG's would be way off the map. I don't see a problem with having an IFV that is armed with powerful AT missiles fill a similar role as TDs in WoT. As for low firepower, well, light tanks in WoT have low firepower, they do just fine in tier 10 battles. I don't see why the British Scimitar couldn't fill the same role in WoT 2.0 as the Chaffee does in WoT.




If they can make up reasonable guesses for all the blueprint tanks in WoT, they can get by using approximate data for modern tanks.


I already addressed this. Did you read the OP completely? Maps could be made slightly bigger, and the accuracy of modern tanks would just be something you need to adapt to in the game (the WWII tanks already have unrealistic gun stabilization on the move and autoaim). You'd need to use cover better, and stay moving, and detect the enemy early. Not so different from the current game now that I list it out like that.


If they're balanced, that means they don't break the game.


Rocket arty existed in WWII as well (although it had a very different role). Can be added or not, doesn't make a difference.


Already addressed in the OP. I already mentioned that mediums and heavies would be replaced by MBTs. I also pointed out that many armored vehicles exist that can be classified as light tanks. I listed a few examples in the OP, and there are many more. Just because the militaries TECHNICALLY don't use the heavy/medium/light classification, doesn't mean that there are no light tanks anymore.
And like I replied to above, there could easily be more than one tier between the M60 and the most modern Abrams variant. Throw in some cancelled/blueprint tanks, and it would be easy to fill in the tech trees.

For one, Although I've only been playing the game for a short while (little over a year), I've heard quite a few people saying the same thing, and have seen a few forum posts regarding the topic. So, while I admit, no, I did not read the original post (I wish people would spell this... since OP often refers to 'over powered'), what is there to convince me to the fact that modern tanks would not break the game as it is?

While I love the idea of an Abrams zipping through the maps at 60kph, blasting targets beyond visual range to pieces with a single shot. I still cannot wrap my head around their place in this game, even if someone can come up with the magic wand that enables a T-90 to square off against an M103 or T110 and the latter even have a PRAYER of beating the former. Which is the problem. The Armor Piercing, Fin-Stabilized,Discarding Sabot round fired by the Abrams can punch through (if memory serves) five-ten FEET of Rolled Hormongous Steel armor. And it virtually ignores the Reactive Armor deployed on modern Russian tanks.

Also, what I mean by ATGMs being broken is that eventually, people will figure out how to pull 'trick shots' with the things, making cover virtually useless, ergo, turning the game into the slugfest Call of Duty has become. And since the Russians are the big users of them (find a tank that DOESN'T fit the AT-11 Sniper), while only a handful of Western tanks can even USE ATGMs, that's gonna make the Russians VERY over powered as every tank they use in the game will be able to shoot at western built tanks and have a very slim chance of missing. This is something that is seen in Wargame European Escalation if you've ever heard of it. The Soviet tanks in that game can engage the NATO tanks from WELL outside the range of the best NATO Tanks, something that would be reflected quickly in WoT if implimented.

As for the canceled prototypes argument to fill the void... the problem is that up until the 80s, most designed tanks entered service, and only a small handful were rejected. And those that entered service are still in service to this day, since there has be very little need to even design new tanks in the west as our needs have gone from preparing to fight the red-giant that was the Soviet Union, to the total cowards/murders that make up terrorist groups in the mid east, and tanks are just a big honking target for RPGs and smaller Anti-tank missiles. As a result most new tank designs are either upgrades to old tanks (like the Leopard 2), while the rest are Chinese and Russian attempts to catch up to the extreme advantage the western tanks have over them.

So I say again, they won't be able to go up much further then tier 13, or 14.

Harnisfechten #15 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 15:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5,927
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostTank50us, on Oct 16 2012 - 08:09, said:

For one, Although I've only been playing the game for a short while (little over a year), I've heard quite a few people saying the same thing, and have seen a few forum posts regarding the topic. So, while I admit, no, I did not read the original post (I wish people would spell this... since OP often refers to 'over powered'), what is there to convince me to the fact that modern tanks would not break the game as it is?
Please stop commenting until you read the original post. You're just spouting irrelevent comments until you read the original post.

View PostTank50us, on Oct 16 2012 - 08:09, said:

While I love the idea of an Abrams zipping through the maps at 60kph, blasting targets beyond visual range to pieces with a single shot. I still cannot wrap my head around their place in this game, even if someone can come up with the magic wand that enables a T-90 to square off against an M103 or T110 and the latter even have a PRAYER of beating the former. Which is the problem. The Armor Piercing, Fin-Stabilized,Discarding Sabot round fired by the Abrams can punch through (if memory serves) five-ten FEET of Rolled Hormongous Steel armor. And it virtually ignores the Reactive Armor deployed on modern Russian tanks.
Nobody here is proposing we add modern tanks into the current WoT game. READ THE ORIGINAL POST. Also, fact check: an Abrams cannot fire beyond visual range. An Abrams has an effective range of about 4km, well within visual range. Oh and why would they kill in a single shot? If a Tiger takes multiple shots to kill an IS, then an Abrams can be made to take multiple shots to kill a T-90. Second fact check: An early model APFSDS (the M829A1) from an Abrams' 120mm gun can pen 620mm equivalent of steel (which is 2 feet. Nowhere near the 5-10 feet you mentioned) at 1000m range. The earlier armor on a T-90 is approximately 700-800mm. That means the Abrams firing these earlier APFSDS would have a hard time penning a T-90 from the front, and would need to hit weakspots or the sides and rear.

View PostTank50us, on Oct 16 2012 - 08:09, said:

Also, what I mean by ATGMs being broken is that eventually, people will figure out how to pull 'trick shots' with the things, making cover virtually useless, ergo, turning the game into the slugfest Call of Duty has become. And since the Russians are the big users of them (find a tank that DOESN'T fit the AT-11 Sniper), while only a handful of Western tanks can even USE ATGMs, that's gonna make the Russians VERY over powered as every tank they use in the game will be able to shoot at western built tanks and have a very slim chance of missing. This is something that is seen in Wargame European Escalation if you've ever heard of it. The Soviet tanks in that game can engage the NATO tanks from WELL outside the range of the best NATO Tanks, something that would be reflected quickly in WoT if implimented.
Gameplay > Realism. You are saying that an unimplemented feature in a non-existant game would be broken.
They could balance AT missiles (whether from tanks' cannons or from launchers on AT vehicles), I'm sure of it. They could play around with missile speed (a lot less than an APFSDS. It takes the AT-11 11.7 seconds to travel 4km, while it would only take an APFSDS less than 3 seconds.), damage (many tanks have armor that is good at defeating AT missiles, and even the AT-11 only has 750-950mm of pen), reload time, etc. Also, I imagine that AT missiles for russian MBT's would be like gold rounds. They would cost tons of credits (or gold), and would never be the main loadout.
Interesting note, the Israelis have developped a cannon-fired AT missile, and NATO countries are looking at it with much interest, and some already use it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAHAT

View PostTank50us, on Oct 16 2012 - 08:09, said:

As for the canceled prototypes argument to fill the void... the problem is that up until the 80s, most designed tanks entered service, and only a small handful were rejected. And those that entered service are still in service to this day, since there has be very little need to even design new tanks in the west as our needs have gone from preparing to fight the red-giant that was the Soviet Union, to the total cowards/murders that make up terrorist groups in the mid east, and tanks are just a big honking target for RPGs and smaller Anti-tank missiles. As a result most new tank designs are either upgrades to old tanks (like the Leopard 2), while the rest are Chinese and Russian attempts to catch up to the extreme advantage the western tanks have over them.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that tanks haven't advanced much in the past 50 years. Short answer is: THEY HAVE. You also seem to believe the mostly false stereotype about russian stuff being inferior. The T-90M is most likely an equal to the Challenger 2, the M1A2, the Leopard 2, etc.
The reason why it seems like russian stuff is inferior is that the only time western countries have fought russian tanks is when fighting some other country using old russian stuff. Iraq was throwing T-62's (50's-60's technology, probably tier 5) at American M1A1 (80's tech, probably tier 8-9).

View PostTank50us, on Oct 16 2012 - 08:09, said:

So I say again, they won't be able to go up much further then tier 13, or 14.
So I say again, read the original post.

SeanPwnery #16 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 15:39

    Major

  • Veteran Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 7,295
  • Member since:
    08-27-2011
World of Tanks - 21st Century WarfareTM

It's not a "bad" idea but I don't think WG is interested in it yet. They're still enjoying the "Classic period" of warfare.

If they could be bothered with it, I wouldn't doubt if this was something they'd consider 4 or 5 years down the road.

Harnisfechten #17 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 16:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5,927
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostSeanPwnery, on Oct 16 2012 - 15:39, said:

World of Tanks - 21st Century WarfareTM

It's not a "bad" idea but I don't think WG is interested in it yet. They're still enjoying the "Classic period" of warfare.

If they could be bothered with it, I wouldn't doubt if this was something they'd consider 4 or 5 years down the road.

Here's the sneaky bit: if lots of us keep talking about how we want it, then they'll see that there's lots of interest, and money in it for them, and maybe it would happen sooner  :Smile_blinky:

There's also no competition for them with a modern tanks game. They should hurry and make one before some other company gets a great idea and makes it before WG does

W_E_S_T_E_R_N_S_T_A_R #18 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 17:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
I'm hardly for the introduction of modern tanks in WoT!! :Smile-izmena:

Strikeroflife #19 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 18:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 777
  • Member since:
    06-18-2011
Why would the modern tanks be any more fun then the once in Wot most of them are almost all the same, no variance or almost none, Russian/Chinese tanks and the merkiva aside all modern MBT's almost have the same characteristics and weight personalty i find there are few interesting things in MBT's.

Harnisfechten #20 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 20:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5,927
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostStrikeroflife, on Oct 16 2012 - 18:53, said:

Why would the modern tanks be any more fun then the once in Wot most of them are almost all the same, no variance or almost none, Russian/Chinese tanks and the merkiva aside all modern MBT's almost have the same characteristics and weight personalty i find there are few interesting things in MBT's.

That's your opinion. If you don't find modern tanks interesting (and think they all have the same characteristics, which they don't really. Not any more similar than a PzIV, Sherman, and T-34), then that's your opinion. You don't need to play it if you dont like modern tanks, just like you wouldnt play WoBattleships if you dont like WWII naval combat.

I think the majority of people here like modern tanks and think they're cool.