Jump to content


Historical Validity Tech Trees Part Deux


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

Legiondude #41 Posted Jul 12 2015 - 11:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,038
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

Since it seems like modules would be an indicator to the tanks identity, how about we wait until the test server launches before reclassifying them?

 

As for the asterisk, I'm mulling over the idea. Since the charts are meant to bring some clarity to WoT's material I do enjoy the sentiment I'm just not sure if it has a place, unless there's a need for it among the other trees as well. How would you express definition of a "very definitive source" to a passerby player?

 



SoukouDragon #42 Posted Jul 12 2015 - 12:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 13943 battles
  • 3,480
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 12 2015 - 11:40, said:

Since it seems like modules would be an indicator to the tanks identity, how about we wait until the test server launches before reclassifying them?

 

That's fine, no rush.

 

Block Quote

As for the asterisk, I'm mulling over the idea. Since the charts are meant to bring some clarity to WoT's material I do enjoy the sentiment I'm just not sure if it has a place, unless there's a need for it among the other trees as well. How would you express definition of a "very definitive source" to a passerby player?

 

Directly indicated, or at least clearly implied, by a credible source.

 

The Russian reports aren't credible enough nor is the turret picture. They are just pieces of information. The Mi-To 150 drawings give no indication of date. And the drawings are the only thing that show a 15cm cannon thus no correlation with anything published as everything published so far state a 105mm cannon and no mention of a 15cm (or any other caliber). Therefore it's difficult to think that the Mi-To with the 15cm was the vehicle that performed driving testing. I'm sort of expecting Suzuki (as he owns the drawing collection for Mi-To 150) to eventually publish something explaining the cannon as he, or anyone else that he has shown, must have noticed the cannon is not the Type 92 105mm or any other 105mm but much like the Type 96 150mm cannon.

 

My concern for bringing up the idea is that anyone that is making references to these graphs may fall under the false impression that the color coded indications are all well grounded. So then as the same people making reference to the graphs later discover that some of the color coding (i.e. some of the Japanese heavies) are not necessarily well grounded, they may feel less confident in the graphs as a whole. The integrity of the whole project would be damaged. But by distinguishing what is well grounded and what is on the on the level of, at best, "probably", the integrity of the whole thing won't be harmed.


Edited by SoukouDragon, Jul 12 2015 - 12:26.


Tied #43 Posted Jul 12 2015 - 12:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 5027 battles
  • 4,190
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013
Indulge me, why wouldnt Russian sources be credible? 

SoukouDragon #44 Posted Jul 12 2015 - 12:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 13943 battles
  • 3,480
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostTied, on Jul 12 2015 - 12:38, said:

Indulge me, why wouldnt Russian sources be credible? 

 

Specifically, it's a Russian report about a top secret Japanese project and no Japanese documents were attached to the Russian report.

StrelaCarbon #45 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 05:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19914 battles
  • 1,775
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

+1, these seriously need to be pinned! :great:

 

Anyways, I noticed the 113 was listed as a functioning prototype. What's the story behind that?  



Legiondude #46 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 06:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,038
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

I'm trying to find out how or why that was ranked that way, I'm not sure. Google Drive stores the revisions and at least since August 14, 2014 it was labeled as such

 

Chinese tanks aren't my field, IIRC if I needed some info I'd peruse sparse FTR info or ask Dominatus


Edited by Legiondude, Jul 13 2015 - 06:08.


Daigensui #47 Posted Aug 14 2015 - 08:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 27491 battles
  • 29,601
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

From Listy:

 

Loyd GC = Model Concept (side note: "WG modified" according to others)
UC 2PDr = Functioning prototype
Alecto = Functioning prototype
Crusader 5.5 = functioning prototype
VIC = Limited production



Chi_Ri #48 Posted Aug 14 2015 - 08:52

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 119 battles
  • 190
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

View PostTied, on Jul 12 2015 - 12:38, said:

Indulge me, why wouldnt Russian sources be credible? 

 

Because Japan doesn't hold a single report or a documention on another superheavy plan. But somehow WG can miraculously come up with it (from soviet records of all things)? It's very shady. More so when the outline of the Type5 is very abnormal. 

 

View PostSoukouDragon, on Jul 12 2015 - 10:44, said:

 

 

 

 

100t - A conceptual,  went beyond just a "native paper" idea.

120t - It was not a functional prototype. 

Type95 - I would not call this limited production. A set of near 5 prototypes (some unfinished or deviated from the original design) isn't production standard. 


Edited by Chi_Ri, Aug 14 2015 - 08:56.


Daigensui #49 Posted Aug 14 2015 - 08:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 27491 battles
  • 29,601
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
You mean like those British archive material? Same thing.

Chi_Ri #50 Posted Aug 14 2015 - 09:00

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 119 battles
  • 190
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

View PostDaigensui, on Aug 14 2015 - 08:57, said:

You mean like those British archive material? Same thing.

 

Multiple reports of the vehicles are completely different than a random paper of a SHT. 



Dominatus #51 Posted Aug 14 2015 - 15:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
UC 2pdr is more limited production than prototype. It was never a combat vehicle.

Legiondude #52 Posted Aug 14 2015 - 17:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,038
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Aug 14 2015 - 02:50, said:

From Listy:

 

Loyd GC = Model Concept (side note: "WG modified" according to others)
UC 2PDr = Functioning prototype
Alecto = Functioning prototype
Crusader 5.5 = functioning prototype
VIC = Limited production

????

 

I already had those all set

 

Also need to download the test server and then we can discuss Japanese heavies like Soukou asked. And I'm considering changing the Model/Concept designation to "Formation" to better provide an overarching title for what happens between a semi formal paper concept and the start of prototyping, thoughts?

 

 



LordCommanderMilitant #53 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 03:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 8537 battles
  • 3,061
  • [KURO] KURO
  • Member since:
    01-20-2014

Didn't we place orders for the T92 GMC?

 

I remember reading somewhere that a few were delivered, but didn't make it to battle. 

 

Edit: Wikipedia says 5 were delivered. I thought it was like 7 or something. I don't remember what book I saw that in [I think I looked it up when researching the US 8"+ guns for a project [several scenarios my gaming group did for Panzer Leader] a few years ago. I didn't keep sources, since it was for an extra-curricular thing.]. The internet is unhelpful in this regard, since all but 3 links are about WoT :P.

 

Also, wouldn't the T28 be black? After all, T28 and T95 were alternate designations for the same vehicle [which is included in game]. The T28 has a incorrect front too, so it's not even "T95 going into battle without its tracks". It seems akin to the WTE100 or the GWE100.


Edited by LordCommanderMilitant, Aug 19 2015 - 03:46.


Twinkinator #54 Posted Sep 28 2015 - 19:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14381 battles
  • 41
  • [AMX40] AMX40
  • Member since:
    03-07-2012

View PostLordCommanderMilitant, on Aug 19 2015 - 03:28, said:

Didn't we place orders for the T92 GMC?

 

I remember reading somewhere that a few were delivered, but didn't make it to battle. 

 

Edit: Wikipedia says 5 were delivered. I thought it was like 7 or something. I don't remember what book I saw that in [I think I looked it up when researching the US 8"+ guns for a project [several scenarios my gaming group did for Panzer Leader] a few years ago. I didn't keep sources, since it was for an extra-curricular thing.]. The internet is unhelpful in this regard, since all but 3 links are about WoT :P.

 

Also, wouldn't the T28 be black? After all, T28 and T95 were alternate designations for the same vehicle [which is included in game]. The T28 has a incorrect front too, so it's not even "T95 going into battle without its tracks". It seems akin to the WTE100 or the GWE100.

 

The T28 is actually a T95 with the outside tracks taken off. They actually had a way to remove the outside sets of tracks on that tank as well as the side panels so that they could transport it. just look up T28 Single Track on google and you will find some pictures of it. the T28 in game however is changed on the front and has been given an extended front end where on the T95 the tracks stick out in front of the front plate. you could say that the T95 has 4 sets of tracks and the T28 has 2.

Legiondude #55 Posted Nov 17 2015 - 05:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,038
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
Checking out WG's new picture of the Panzer 58 pushed me to review my definition of the Promotional tag today, and then I realized I haven't updated the main post in ages(and haven't listed what exactly a Promotional vehicle is for the general audience)

Legiondude #56 Posted Jul 11 2016 - 15:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,038
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

Finally got around to digging up a script which counts cells based on their background color, which means I've automated the accounting sections. Keeping an eye on the refresh rate on them though, not sure if they do that faster than opening the document. Might be able to finally get around to procedurally generate colorblind spreadsheets now.

 

Also turns out I had a minor error in a summation function I had on the US tree to manually count cells, and I missed the entire top line of tanks. So now the US tree has "jumped" 10 tanks without any new content.

 

And I noticed the ASIA server is a running one of those grind contests for a different T-44-100. Featuring.....slightly different equipment and a wrapped camo tarp on the back. Way to go WG. Well now the Soviets are tied with the US for most promotional tanks, along with having a bajillion non researchable tier 8s



KarikaEU #57 Posted Mar 16 2017 - 13:27

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 22 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    06-21-2014

A little correction:

The Turán III proto in the DE tree should be Non Functioning Prototype instead of Functioning one. The tank in game represents an early variant which only had a wooden turret and a mock-up gun.



Legiondude #58 Posted Mar 16 2017 - 15:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,038
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

I don't suppose this has anything to do with my spreadsheet suddenly getting 13 unique viewers huh?

 

The change is done



KarikaEU #59 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 13:50

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 22 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    06-21-2014
Just mentioned the spreadsheet in an argument about WoT authenticy on a different forum :)

blueribbon #60 Posted Mar 29 2017 - 08:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 197
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013

Regarding the Japanese heavies, has there been any more confirmation about which of the vehicles are fake or real? From what I've read since it was last discussed in this topic a year and a half ago, the only versions of the O-I were the 96 ton turretless prototype that underwent mobility tests (which I think is represented by the tier 5 O-I Exp.?) and the complete 150 ton O-I with the turret and bolted-on armor. The other two versions in WoT, the O-Ho and the O-Ni, were just taken from the book  "Imperial Japanese Army Ground Weapon Guide 1872-1945".

 

At the same time, the tier 5 O-I is way different from the turretless prototype, specifically with how it is way smaller than it should be and has a different mini-turret design compared to the blueprints so I'm not sure if the tank should be considered a Native Paper Concept or a Modified Native Idea. The tier 6 O-I should probably stay a functioning prototype though, since it does accurately represent the "finished" form of the prototype. As for the tiers 7 and 8 though, there aren't any official blueprints or documents about them, so they probably didn't exist and should be Modified Native Idea or Heavily Modified Idea, although in this case they weren't invented by Wargaming.

 

For the tier 9 and 10, I'm pretty sure no new information has come out about them - all we know about the 2604/2605 is from Soviet archives and that one picture of the turret, so they can stay the same. Incidentally, does anyone know where that photo comes from? I know there are lots of people claiming it as a fake but I've also heard that the picture has been around for far longer than World of Tanks has been around.

 

I'm referencing this from the Sensha blog by Eun Ae Sun, though the article about the O-I was posted in a few other places earlier.

http://sensha-manual...-start_16.html\

https://sensha-manua...hard-place.html

 

Anyways, I'm probably wrong on some stuff I've said here so please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Also, this is the first time posting here so sorry if I've done this incorrectly.


Edited by blueribbon, Mar 29 2017 - 08:32.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users