Jump to content


A full Hungarian tree... stretch harder™

hungarian tree full

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
54 replies to this topic

Poll: A full Hungarian tree... stretch harder™ (33 members have cast votes)

Do you want to see Hungarian tanks in WoT?

  1. Yes, as their own tree (14 votes [42.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.42%

  2. Yes, in the Euro tree (10 votes [30.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.30%

  3. No, we have better things to do ATM (2 votes [6.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.06%

  4. Who cares? (1 vote [3.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.03%

  5. Bacon (6 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

Which would you rather see for tiers 8, 9, and 10?

  1. Soviet medium clones (11 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  2. Fantesy Tas tanks (6 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  3. Other(please say which) (5 votes [15.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.15%

  4. Nothing, just have the line stop at tier 7. (11 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Vote Hide poll

Life_In_Black #21 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 18:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostPanzer9Supertiger, on Jul 29 2013 - 13:17, said:

From a personal standpoint, I agree with you. But WG has this stupid program where they won't introduce a tree until it has all 10 tiers. Even now you have some stretches (Turan IV, Zrinyi III, Nimrod 80mm, etc). But it seems that the T-55AM WAS used by the Hungarians and isn't too modern, because FTR was considering it for a Czech tier 10. For tier 9, we know for a fact the Hungarians operated normal T-54s and T-55s. Tier 8 is a little difficult. We have a picture of a T-44 the Hungarians captured during the 1956 revolution, but that's a guessing game at best.

40mm Bofors would probably behave similar to the 30mm MK 103, but with more alpha and less pen. So ridiculous burst damage, but terrible reload. Also nore it would be semi-sluggish, have little camo and complete crap armor. Still, do want. The StuG COULD mount the L/70 irl, and the project was developed into the Jagdpanzer IV. but I see your point. However, I see no need why we would give the Hungarians ahistorical weapons when they don't need them. The Turan II's gun would perform much like the AMX 40's top gun, which would be good on the Turan, because it's not slow as crap. Turan II had 62mm of frontal armor. Crap by tier 5. And 95mm at tier 6 is still inferior to the VK 3601H. And we all know how crappy 105mm would be at tier 7...
This all said, I'm working on the Tier 8s, 9s and 10s as we speak, I hope they'll turn out OK

You don't want to give the Hungarians ahistorical weapons, yet you want to give them ahistorical tanks? With my way, you'd at least make it to Tier 7 without anything made up or rumored.

_Panzer9_ #22 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 19:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 23307 battles
  • 2,388
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Jul 29 2013 - 18:56, said:

You don't want to give the Hungarians ahistorical weapons, yet you want to give them ahistorical tanks? With my way, you'd at least make it to Tier 7 without anything made up or rumored.
I'm just saying, there's no need to give the Hungarians ahistorical weapons. The weapons they already have are just fine.

Life_In_Black #23 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostPanzer9Supertiger, on Jul 29 2013 - 19:50, said:

I'm just saying, there's no need to give the Hungarians ahistorical weapons. The weapons they already have are just fine.

But you're giving them ahistorical tanks. I would much rather see tanks mounting weapons they never could than tanks that aren't real. Like the Turan III having over 90mm of armor at Tier 5. That's more than every single Tier 5 medium tank in the game currently.

_Panzer9_ #24 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 23307 battles
  • 2,388
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012
Penetration table:
Note, these are with AP rounds, WG will have to figure out the HE, APCR, and HEAT.
8mm 34/37M:
Spoiler                     
20mm QF 36M Solothurn:
Spoiler                     
40mm 37M:
Spoiler                     
40 mm 36M Bofors:
Spoiler                     
40 mm 42M:
Spoiler                     
80mm Bofors:
Spoiler                     
75 mm 41M L/25:
Spoiler                     
75 mm 43M:
Spoiler                     
105 mm 40/43M:
Spoiler                     
Will edit and add on to for the guns of post 2 and 3, when I find the time to.
All foreign guns used are the same as their counterparts from the original nation. But here are 2 minor exceptions:
100 mm D-54 AM:
Spoiler                     
100 mm D-10T2C AM:
Spoiler                     
OK, module table is coming next

Edited by Panzer9Supertiger, Jul 30 2013 - 15:55.


_Panzer9_ #25 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 21:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 23307 battles
  • 2,388
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Jul 29 2013 - 20:45, said:

But you're giving them ahistorical tanks. I would much rather see tanks mounting weapons they never could than tanks that aren't real. Like the Turan III having over 90mm of armor at Tier 5. That's more than every single Tier 5 medium tank in the game currently.
Well, it doesn't have a 105mm derp, and the side and rear armor is even more crap then the Panzer IV's. Also, it's sluggish. I see it being flanked a lot. And historically, the Turan III would have had somewhere between 80mm and 105mm of frontal armor, so I split that into 2 tanks. And really, it's nothing worse the the "E-50M" thing WG pulled.

Life_In_Black #26 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 21:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostPanzer9Supertiger, on Jul 29 2013 - 21:02, said:

Well, it doesn't have a 105mm derp, and the side and rear armor is even more crap then the Panzer IV's. Also, it's sluggish. I see it being flanked a lot. And historically, the Turan III would have had somewhere between 80mm and 105mm of frontal armor, so I split that into 2 tanks. And really, it's nothing worse the the "E-50M" thing WG pulled.

The E-50M was taken from an actual concept the Germans had of making a rear-transmission variant of the E-series. So there is a factual basis for it. I'm not aware of any fictional basis for some of the tanks you're proposing.

_Panzer9_ #27 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 21:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 23307 battles
  • 2,388
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Jul 29 2013 - 21:06, said:

The E-50M was taken from an actual concept the Germans had of making a rear-transmission variant of the E-series. So there is a factual basis for it. I'm not aware of any fictional basis for some of the tanks you're proposing.
It was a "concept". Nothing more and nothing less. It is 90% made up. As I said, some sources say the Turan III had 105mm of frontal armor. The Zrinyi I was named by 1 source to have been planed to mount the L/70. Those I simply stretched out, and if it makes you happy any "Turan IV" probably couldn't have mounted the L/70 either, but I gave it to it for gameplay balance anyways. The 45M Tas II is admitably fictional, but game balance trumps historical accuracy. The other option would be to have an extra long grind from tier 7 to tier 9, but WG will never go for that.

Life_In_Black #28 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 21:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostPanzer9Supertiger, on Jul 29 2013 - 21:12, said:

It was a "concept". Nothing more and nothing less. It is 90% made up. As I said, some sources say the Turan III had 105mm of frontal armor. The Zrinyi I was named by 1 source to have been planed to mount the L/70. Those I simply stretched out, and if it makes you happy any "Turan IV" probably couldn't have mounted the L/70 either, but I gave it to it for gameplay balance anyways. The 45M Tas II is admitably fictional, but game balance trumps historical accuracy. The other option would be to have an extra long grind from tier 7 to tier 9, but WG will never go for that.

Why don't we compromise then? Use what I have as a base, and then what you have for the higher tiers? This way there are as few fictional vehicles as possible, and the tree still flows well.

And In case you haven't noticed, I'm opposed to fictional vehicles except where absolutely necessary. If the nation has enough vehicles that can be stretched reasonably to a higher tier, than there's no need for fictional vehicles. Which is my logic for my Italian medium line.

_Panzer9_ #29 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 21:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 23307 battles
  • 2,388
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Jul 29 2013 - 21:18, said:

Why don't we compromise then? Use what I have as a base, and then what you have for the higher tiers? This way there are as few fictional vehicles as possible, and the tree still flows well.

And In case you haven't noticed, I'm opposed to fictional vehicles except where absolutely necessary. If the nation has enough vehicles that can be stretched reasonably to a higher tier, than there's no need for fictional vehicles. Which is my logic for my Italian medium line.
If you wanted to do that, you could simply get rid of the Turan IV and Zrinyi III. But the Tas prototype did indeed exist, so tier 6 would kind of bottleneck there. However, that kind of screws the TD line, as they would have to merge back into the medium line for 1 tier. So perhaps the Zrinyi III might have to say... (and how about the Turan IV goes as a tier 5 premium, along with your T-20 TD as a tier 2)?

Life_In_Black #30 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 22:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostPanzer9Supertiger, on Jul 29 2013 - 21:34, said:

If you wanted to do that, you could simply get rid of the Turan IV and Zrinyi III. But the Tas prototype did indeed exist, so tier 6 would kind of bottleneck there. However, that kind of screws the TD line, as they would have to merge back into the medium line for 1 tier. So perhaps the Zrinyi III might have to say... (and how about the Turan IV goes as a tier 5 premium, along with your T-20 TD as a tier 2)?

Could work. Do you have another alternative for the T-20 at Tier 2 then? I think the Nimrod might be too powerful for Tier 2 because it has a turret and is a bigger vehicle. At Tier 3, I imagine it would play like a less armored and more maneuverable turreted version of the Valentine TD.

_Panzer9_ #31 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 23:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 23307 battles
  • 2,388
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012
The Nimrod would have 51mm of pen at close range, so I decided to compare this too the top guns of the tier 2 TDs. My results:
  • QF 2-pdr Mk IX, 64 pen (T18)
  • QF 2-pdr AT Gun Mk IX, 64 pen(UC 2-pdr)
  • QF 6-pdr 8 cwt AT Gun Mk. I, 57 pen(UC 2-pdr)
  • 5 cm PaK 39 L/60, 67 pen(Pzjger I)
  • 47 mm SA-L Mle.37, 66 pen(FT AC)
  • 57 mm ZiS-8S, 75 pen (AT-1)
So as we can see, the Nimrod would have the lowest penetration of all the tier 2 TDs. It would be quite difficult to handle at tier 3 IMO.

Edited by Panzer9Supertiger, Jul 29 2013 - 23:29.


Life_In_Black #32 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 23:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostPanzer9Supertiger, on Jul 29 2013 - 23:28, said:

The Nimrod would have 51mm of pen at close range, so I decided to compare this too the top guns of the tier 2 TDs. My results:
  • QF 2-pdr Mk IX, 64 pen (T18)
  • QF 2-pdr AT Gun Mk IX, 64 pen(UC 2-pdr)
  • QF 6-pdr 8 cwt AT Gun Mk. I, 57 pen(UC 2-pdr)
  • 5 cm PaK 39 L/60, 67 pen(Pzjger I)
  • 47 mm SA-L Mle.37, 66 pen(FT AC)
  • 57 mm ZiS-8S, 75 pen (AT-1)
So as we can see, the Nimrod would have the lowest penetration of all the tier 2 TDs. It would be quite difficult to handle at tier 3 IMO.
That would be with the stock gun though, and the top gun for the T-20. The Hungarians also used the Belgian 47mm C.47 F.R.C. Mod.31, as well as the 50mm L/60 PaK 38, both of which could be potential upgrades. Aside from the turret, I could envision the turret as well as the nature of the vehicle as a potential AA gun giving it a high rate of fire which would negate the weapons being somewhat lackluster for a Tier 3 TD. Don't forget that the Marder II in-game uses the Soviet 76.2mm gun, which was mounted on the Marder III in real life, not the Marder II.
EDIT: Belgian, not French.

Edited by Life_In_Black, Jul 29 2013 - 23:53.


_Panzer9_ #33 Posted Jul 30 2013 - 01:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 23307 battles
  • 2,388
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Jul 29 2013 - 23:50, said:

That would be with the stock gun though, and the top gun for the T-20. The Hungarians also used the Belgian 47mm C.47 F.R.C. Mod.31, as well as the 50mm L/60 PaK 38, both of which could be potential upgrades. Aside from the turret, I could envision the turret as well as the nature of the vehicle as a potential AA gun giving it a high rate of fire which would negate the weapons being somewhat lackluster for a Tier 3 TD. Don't forget that the Marder II in-game uses the Soviet 76.2mm gun, which was mounted on the Marder III in real life, not the Marder II.
EDIT: Belgian, not French.
Don't think the Hungarians ever planned to mount those guns in the Nimrod, but I see nothing wrong with 2 different tier 3 TDs, one being the Nimrod with said armament upgrades, the other would be the Toldi Marder. When you compare the Toldi Marder and Marder II, I really don't see anything to justify the Toldi Marder being bumped up to tier IV.

Life_In_Black #34 Posted Jul 30 2013 - 02:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostPanzer9Supertiger, on Jul 30 2013 - 01:28, said:

Don't think the Hungarians ever planned to mount those guns in the Nimrod, but I see nothing wrong with 2 different tier 3 TDs, one being the Nimrod with said armament upgrades, the other would be the Toldi Marder. When you compare the Toldi Marder and Marder II, I really don't see anything to justify the Toldi Marder being bumped up to tier IV.

Well, that's the mentality I went into the entire European tree I did with, that of making the vehicles I had to work with work at the tiers needed with the weapons available. As for the Toldi Marder, the Czech built 75mm L/50 cannon would be a reasonable upgrade from the German L/48, as would possibly the Russian 76.2mm that the Marder II currently uses. This way it can stay at Tier 4, and given that it's an open-topped mount, heavier weapons can be used.

And if you want another Tier 2 TD or so, there's always the German T-26 with the Pak 97/38 75mm cannon. While it would be a powerful weapon, it could be balanced by a longer reload time, sort of like the opposite of the T18, in this this would sacrifice armor for firepower. And Hungary operated both the PaK 97/38 (which they got from Germany who captured them in France and then modified them, as well as captured T-26s. So it's the same logic under which I implemented the T-20 TD.

Posted Image

Slash78 #35 Posted Jul 30 2013 - 06:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12020 battles
  • 1,613
  • Member since:
    03-17-2013
I voted yes to a Hungarian Tree even though I think that if you combine the Hungarians, Romanians, Spanish and Argentinians then you could get a decent tree (though you would still need some Soviet high Tier clones).  Though the last two could be thrown into the Italian Tree (as both had Axis leanings and Spain, like Italy ended up with US equipment after the war).

I could see...

Japanese Tree
Italian Tree
Swedish Tree
Czech/Polish Tree
Hungarian/Romanian Tree

Life_In_Black #36 Posted Jul 30 2013 - 07:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostSlash78, on Jul 30 2013 - 06:56, said:

I voted yes to a Hungarian Tree even though I think that if you combine the Hungarians, Romanians, Spanish and Argentinians then you could get a decent tree (though you would still need some Soviet high Tier clones).  Though the last two could be thrown into the Italian Tree (as both had Axis leanings and Spain, like Italy ended up with US equipment after the war).
I could see...
Japanese Tree
Italian Tree
Swedish Tree
Czech/Polish Tree
Hungarian/Romanian Tree
There's some bad blood between the Romanians and Hungarians. Not quite as bad as with the Polish and Czechoslovakians, but enough that combing the Hungarian and Romanian branches would not go over well. That, and Romania can make a TD branch from Tiers 2-5 without any trouble, so where they'd fit in is anybody's guess.
Now that being said, combining the Spanish and Romanian branches might work, as Spain has low tiers from Tier 1-3 that would work fine for serving as a basis for the Romanian TDs. Although again, I'm not sure how well things would go over. Then there's Finland which had the BT-42 and T-26E, both of which are unique enough to be included. So really, the whole European tree thing is a mess. My personal opinion, is that they'll figure out a way to stretch nations to a certain tier on their own, say about Tier 7 or so, and then from their find neutral vehicles (undoubtedly mediums) to fill in tiers 8-10. This way, people can grind through their preferred national tree (very important for a lot of European nationalities) without having to grind any other nations they don't like, and at the same time they have a line that stretches all the way to Tier 10.

Daigensui #37 Posted Jul 30 2013 - 09:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 30347 battles
  • 29,974
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Jul 30 2013 - 07:07, said:

There's some bad blood between the Romanians and Hungarians. Not quite as bad as with the Polish and Czechoslovakians,

You have no idea what it's like. I'll just say most of the time Eastern European rivalries/sentiments are worse than Japanese-Korean/Chinese relations. Only the Warsaw Pact, NATO, and EU are keeping things calm.

Life_In_Black #38 Posted Jul 30 2013 - 09:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,375
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Jul 30 2013 - 09:39, said:


You have no idea what it's like. I'll just say most of the time Eastern European rivalries/sentiments are worse than Japanese-Korean/Chinese relations. Only the Warsaw Pact, NATO, and EU are keeping things calm.

Yeah, I've come across a lot of that just by looking into Europe's history. I mean, the sheer number of border clashes and territorial disputes alone....

Vollketten #39 Posted Jul 30 2013 - 15:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32154 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View PostPanzer9Supertiger, on Jul 29 2013 - 23:28, said:

The Nimrod would have 51mm of pen at close range, so I decided to compare this too the top guns of the tier 2 TDs. My results:
  • QF 2-pdr Mk IX, 64 pen (T18)
  • QF 2-pdr AT Gun Mk IX, 64 pen(UC 2-pdr)
  • QF 6-pdr 8 cwt AT Gun Mk. I, 57 pen(UC 2-pdr)
  • 5 cm PaK 39 L/60, 67 pen(Pzjger I)
  • 47 mm SA-L Mle.37, 66 pen(FT AC)
  • 57 mm ZiS-8S, 75 pen (AT-1)
So as we can see, the Nimrod would have the lowest penetration of all the tier 2 TDs. It would be quite difficult to handle at tier 3 IMO.

Was the Nimrod not designed as an AA gun though? I imagine it would have a very good rate of fire. All these facts have to be taken into account as part of 'balance'. AA rounds tend to higher explosive power by weight than a standard HE shell as they have thinner casings.

_Panzer9_ #40 Posted Jul 30 2013 - 15:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 23307 battles
  • 2,388
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012

View PostVollketten, on Jul 30 2013 - 15:18, said:


Was the Nimrod not designed as an AA gun though? I imagine it would have a very good rate of fire. All these facts have to be taken into account as part of 'balance'. AA rounds tend to higher explosive power by weight than a standard HE shell as they have thinner casings.
It was first intended to fight tanks and aircraft, but the Hungarians realized that it was totally inadequate vs T-34s and KV-1s. In an anti-aircraft role it took a similar role to the German Flakpanzers, and it was very effective. Still, it WAS enough of a TD to have it on the tree





Also tagged with hungarian, tree, full

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users