Jump to content


M60A1 & 2nd American Medium Branch Campaign HQ (NA)


  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

Life_In_Black #61 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 02:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

And again, I advocated making things historical wherever and whenever possible. I'm sorry I didn't spend hours responding to each and every point of yours, when it's obvious you want to make things unhistorical, only in different ways to the way things are now. At which point, I must reiterate, why bother making any changes at all if you're going to completely throw out any pretense of sticking to history? Just because there are other examples in-game of certain vehicles preceding earlier vehicles, doesn't make it right for the US tech tree, and doesn't help make the US tech tree any better whatsoever. Is it redundant to have an M46 and T42 in two different lines at the same tier? Sure. But does it make any sense to sandwich the T42 between two T95s just because you want to retain the current M46's unhistoricalness in some way, simply for the sake of gameplay? Not in a million years. Your point about the current T95E2 being at tier 8 doesn't make any sense either, since it currently uses the turret of a tier 10 medium, as does the recently introduced 59-Patton. As it stands, the T42 would be roughly 10 tons lighter than the M46, and as such would move that much faster. Does this outclass the M46E1? Maybe. But that's where soft stats come into play, and given the current tier 10 Soviet mediums, I fail to see why this is a problem. Also, if you had followed my complete tech tree rework I posted in the other thread you started on potential stats, you'd see that I mentioned making a historical T69 a tier 9 medium, with a historical ~220mm of penetration for its autoloading 90mm cannon, it would be a truly lethal dpm machine. By having the T42 at tier 8, it also allows for someone to play through the light line up through the M41 Walker Bulldog, and then transition over to the T42 and cross branches again to the T69, as there is a common technological link between them all. Your ideas would completely destroy any sense of cohesion and render such crossovers impossible, simply because you don't seem to care about holding the tech tree to any degree of historicalness, which is what got the US tech tree into the situation it is currently, namely Wargaming overbuffing and throwing things together merely to create a tech tree without any thought of whether it's historical. And that is most definitely not the answer to fixing the US tech tree's problems.

 

Here is the full rework, minus TDs and SPGs, of which the TDs need a bit of work and I don't feel like dealing with them at the moment:

 

As you can see, we're not just talking about a minor fix to bring in the M60A1 and add a T95 as a tier 10, we're talking a complete rework to not only fix the current issues in their entirety, but also bring in more mediums lines as well as establishing a second heavy line too. You would see something like this destroyed just so we could make a vehicle at tier 9 be just as unhistorical as the current M46 so as to keep its same playstyle.



CK16 #62 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 04:11

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9366 battles
  • 1,870
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

That tree is glorious man! I want it and want it now!

I would have a reason to get all 4 mediums then dear lord WG PLEASE LOOK HERE AND SEE THE LIGHT!



M4A3E8sherman #63 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 06:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18516 battles
  • 1,099
  • [KBEAR] KBEAR
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
******
 [content moderated - name and shame]
~Grimpoteuthis


Life_In_Black #64 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 06:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
******
 [content moderated - non-constructive post]
~Grimpoteuthis


CK16 #65 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 07:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9366 battles
  • 1,870
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Guys please keep the level of umm anger down a bit. I don't want anyone feeling like they lost here...I repeat we should all feel like winners if (and when ;)) these things change. Both of you have contributed time and I appreciate that the stats for some vehicles give us some good ideas on what we would see in game and how it honestly wouldn't be over powered. I am sorry mr.Sherman you feel this way. I hope maybe some time away from the forums and game might help you cool off a bit. 

 

Ok back to topic though #BringtheM60A1Already!



_Jayzilla #66 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 17:02

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 33768 battles
  • 1,286
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    09-05-2010

I would rather not have clones in separate trees, the player base enjoys specific quirks that each branch provides. The prospect of a overhauled US tree has been a pipe dream since the T30 was suggested to be replaced. The game will never be historically accurate, game play and balance will take precedence. I would much rather play M4A3E8Sherman's tree because it takes account for a much more reasonable trade off of historical accuracy and takes account of progressive ideas that Wargaming developers can implement. I share his perspective about the current US medium tree, that it is not as broken as it seems, and I have played through all of them.

 

I am hesitant about a total US tree overhaul because it would be too much to ask for of Wargaming. I would not want to discredit the years hard work their developers had to put in to balance of the current tanks for a brand new US tech tree. Adding onto to the current tech tree while adjusting the balance of the existing ones to keep with the power creep is much more manageable in my opinion. With newer games coming up, newer content becomes more demanding, so adding onto the current tree without too many changes I can support, M60A1 being the hallmark of one of the changes.



CK16 #67 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 18:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9366 battles
  • 1,870
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011
I understand people still want a M46-esk tank at Tier IX but having the T42 sandwiched between two T95's seems odd doesn't it? The T95E3 I feel would play great at tier IX and play something like the current M46 specially since the M46 height just got bumped up so the lower profile is gone anyway anymore. How would the T95E3/E7 at tier IX be that OP? Or why would it fit better at tier VIII? I understand you want something like the M46 is now, maybe like I said the T95E3 would have that feel to a degree just a different flavor of that play style is all. AS for those derp cannon trees that would be a joyful tree to play I rather enjoy derping in my T49 :D

RoyceMingYu #68 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 08:06

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 24 battles
  • 168
  • Member since:
    03-25-2014

View PostCK16, on Sep 17 2015 - 11:11, said:

That tree is glorious man! I want it and want it now!

I would have a reason to get all 4 mediums then dear lord WG PLEASE LOOK HERE AND SEE THE LIGHT!

 

Post this in the suggestions/feedback section.

Also, I feel that the tech tree that you're fangirling about would be perfect if the T57 Heavy and the T110E5 would be swapped around, as the M103 and T110E5 both have egg shaped turrets. Would be a shame to split the two.



Legiondude #69 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 08:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,193
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostRoyceMingYu, on Sep 18 2015 - 02:06, said:

 

Post this in the suggestions/feedback section.

Also, I feel that the tech tree that you're fangirling about would be perfect if the T57 Heavy and the T110E5 would be swapped around, as the M103 and T110E5 both have egg shaped turrets. Would be a shame to split the two.

The T57 is a M103 derivative, which is why it's placed there

 

The E5 should have a completely different shaped hull(straight edged, like a M60), it was chosen to give it one based on the M103 to give it competitive armor for a tier 10 heavy



Life_In_Black #70 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 11:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostRoyceMingYu, on Sep 18 2015 - 03:06, said:

 

Post this in the suggestions/feedback section.

Also, I feel that the tech tree that you're fangirling about would be perfect if the T57 Heavy and the T110E5 would be swapped around, as the M103 and T110E5 both have egg shaped turrets. Would be a shame to split the two.

 

Yeah, as Legiondude says, the T57 uses the T43 hull, which is what became the hull for the M103. While the T110E5 should have a hull more reminiscent of an M60 and isn't technically related to the T29/T30/T34, it makes a better cap tier 10 for that line if we use the T57 heavy to top off an actual heavy line. Since the T34 directly influenced the M103 historically, the tier 8 T29 could very well lead to both tier 9 heavies as well, since the T29 and T30 here would both get access to the T34's 120mm cannon.

HitMe_2015 #71 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 16:42

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10259 battles
  • 538
  • [BIBLE] BIBLE
  • Member since:
    04-03-2015

I would like to see a reworked American tree, especially with the mediums. I am with Life_in_Black on this though, I would rather have a historically accurate tree over a mostly fictional tree. On another note, can anyone come up with rework for the TD lines? I would like to see the T28, T28 Prototype, T25/2 and the T110E4 be replaced.



Life_In_Black #72 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 17:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostHitMe_2015, on Sep 18 2015 - 11:42, said:

I would like to see a reworked American tree, especially with the mediums. I am with Life_in_Black on this though, I would rather have a historically accurate tree over a mostly fictional tree. On another note, can anyone come up with rework for the TD lines? I would like to see the T28, T28 Prototype, T25/2 and the T110E4 be replaced.

 

I've dabbled with reworking the TD lines, but with the TDs, there aren't many practical solutions for replacing some of the vehicles. About the only two are are easily replaced at the moment are the T25/2 and the T28 Prototype, and I heard some grumblings about the T28 being replaced with an actual T28 prototype that's similar to the T95, but with only 8 inches of armor, which is what the original requirement was. The T25/2 can be replaced by the 90mm Hellcat, which would allow for the tier 6 M18 Hellcat to use just the 76mm cannons, but with better AP ammo (the British 76mm M1A1 uses a different AP round for its premium round, which has IIRC, 146mm of penetration) and APCR for its premium ammo. The T28 Prototype can be replaced by the T25E1 #13, which was a proposal for a T25 medium tank with an enlarged turret ring of 80 inches and a 105mm T5E1 cannon, like that of the T29. Given this is more or less the same cannon on the T95 currently, and would have much better stats, I think this could work as a tier 8 TD just fine, being similar to the Charioteer currently, although probably not as mobile but with slightly more armor to compensate. As for high tiers, no T110 project ever mounted a 155mm cannon, only the 120mm, but there were some predecessor projects that could work, some of which were a little outlandish, and others much more normal looking. But it's about the best bet for replacements. Here's some of them:

 

The TS-31 is what evolved into the T110 series. But yeah, the H3 had a 175mm cannon, not unlike the M107 and T162 SPGs, and there was a HEP (HESH) round developed for it too. If anything, it could be given a limited turret traverse in-game to help negate it's large amount of armor in the front. The H2, I believe was similar to the H1, but with a 155mm cannon. While the entire front is a lower glascis, that shot trap looks especially bad given the top armor on the hull is razer thin and the entire front is an ammo rack, so it could be balanced fairly well I'd think. The T110E3 is more problematic to fix, as it, like the T95 never mounted a 155mm cannon either, and the T95 never mounted the 120mm for that matter, only the 105mm. One solution would be to make the 105mm much more viable, and given the link between the T5 and T140 105mm cannons, giving the gun much better penetration and 390 alpha damage should work fine. I would also recommend moving it down to tier 8, where that armor is going to be overpowered, but the complete lack of speed and mobility will hamper the tank. We could then put maybe the TS-31 at tier 9 with the 120mm, and appropriate buffs to its armor (the armor isn't that great according to the above picture, and it is a paper design, so buffing the armor to work at tier 9 shouldn't be an issue), and then the tier 10 could remain with either a buffed 120mm cannon and amazing DPM sort of like the Tortoise (which while I'm at it, also never mounted or was planned to use the 120mm L1), or given the unhistorical 155mm simply for balance. As it stands currently with the US tech tree, the only non-artillery vehicle ever planned to mount a 155mm cannon, is the T30. Thinking about it, the actual T28 prototype with the 8 inches of armor and this new and improved 105mm cannon, might make for a pretty good tier 8 premium TD since I want to see the T95 at tier 8 as well. The current T25 AT is also wrong, as it wasn't a casemated design, but merely a gun mounted on top of the T23, but that's one of the least bad offenders. In any event, I'll draw up another tech tree like the one I posted before, detailing the TDs.



HitMe_2015 #73 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 17:34

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10259 battles
  • 538
  • [BIBLE] BIBLE
  • Member since:
    04-03-2015

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 18 2015 - 17:18, said:

 

I've dabbled with reworking the TD lines, but with the TDs, there aren't many practical solutions for replacing some of the vehicles. About the only two are are easily replaced at the moment are the T25/2 and the T28 Prototype, and I heard some grumblings about the T28 being replaced with an actual T28 prototype that's similar to the T95, but with only 8 inches of armor, which is what the original requirement was. The T25/2 can be replaced by the 90mm Hellcat, which would allow for the tier 6 M18 Hellcat to use just the 76mm cannons, but with better AP ammo (the British 76mm M1A1 uses a different AP round for its premium round, which has IIRC, 146mm of penetration) and APCR for its premium ammo. The T28 Prototype can be replaced by the T25E1 #13, which was a proposal for a T25 medium tank with an enlarged turret ring of 80 inches and a 105mm T5E1 cannon, like that of the T29. Given this is more or less the same cannon on the T95 currently, and would have much better stats, I think this could work as a tier 8 TD just fine, being similar to the Charioteer currently, although probably not as mobile but with slightly more armor to compensate. As for high tiers, no T110 project ever mounted a 155mm cannon, only the 120mm, but there were some predecessor projects that could work, some of which were a little outlandish, and others much more normal looking. But it's about the best bet for replacements. Here's some of them:

 

The TS-31 is what evolved into the T110 series. But yeah, the H3 had a 175mm cannon, not unlike the M107 and T162 SPGs, and there was a HEP (HESH) round developed for it too. If anything, it could be given a limited turret traverse in-game to help negate it's large amount of armor in the front. The H2, I believe was similar to the H1, but with a 155mm cannon. While the entire front is a lower glascis, that shot trap looks especially bad given the top armor on the hull is razer thin and the entire front is an ammo rack, so it could be balanced fairly well I'd think. The T110E3 is more problematic to fix, as it, like the T95 never mounted a 155mm cannon either, and the T95 never mounted the 120mm for that matter, only the 105mm. One solution would be to make the 105mm much more viable, and given the link between the T5 and T140 105mm cannons, giving the gun much better penetration and 390 alpha damage should work fine. I would also recommend moving it down to tier 8, where that armor is going to be overpowered, but the complete lack of speed and mobility will hamper the tank. We could then put maybe the TS-31 at tier 9 with the 120mm, and appropriate buffs to its armor (the armor isn't that great according to the above picture, and it is a paper design, so buffing the armor to work at tier 9 shouldn't be an issue), and then the tier 10 could remain with either a buffed 120mm cannon and amazing DPM sort of like the Tortoise (which while I'm at it, also never mounted or was planned to use the 120mm L1), or given the unhistorical 155mm simply for balance. As it stands currently with the US tech tree, the only non-artillery vehicle ever planned to mount a 155mm cannon, is the T30. Thinking about it, the actual T28 prototype with the 8 inches of armor and this new and improved 105mm cannon, might make for a pretty good tier 8 premium TD since I want to see the T95 at tier 8 as well. The current T25 AT is also wrong, as it wasn't a casemated design, but merely a gun mounted on top of the T23, but that's one of the least bad offenders. In any event, I'll draw up another tech tree like the one I posted before, detailing the TDs.

 

Ok thanks. I have seen the H2 proposed before, and I know the T110s only mounted the 120mm guns, that is one of the main reasons I would like the T110E4 replaced. Along with the fact that it is basically an American W-T E-100.

Edit: Just looked up the H3, it looks like a cross between the AMX-50B and the AMX-13.


Edited by HitMe_2015, Sep 18 2015 - 17:45.


Life_In_Black #74 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 17:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostHitMe_2015, on Sep 18 2015 - 12:34, said:

 

Ok thanks. I have seen the H2 proposed before, and I know the T110s only mounted the 120mm guns, that is one of the main reasons I would like the T110E4 replaced. Along with the fact that it is basically an American W-T E-100.

 

To be fair, it's not nearly as egregious as the WT E 100, as it least it isn't mating a 1940 AA gun project (the Gerät 50 project ended in 1940) with a 1944/45 heavy tank project, in complete defiance of what a Waffenträger actually is, namely a large gun mounted on a weakly armored chassis in order to maximize firepower on the cheap.

HitMe_2015 #75 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 17:51

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10259 battles
  • 538
  • [BIBLE] BIBLE
  • Member since:
    04-03-2015

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 18 2015 - 17:37, said:

 

To be fair, it's not nearly as egregious as the WT E 100, as it least it isn't mating a 1940 AA gun project (the Gerät 50 project ended in 1940) with a 1944/45 heavy tank project, in complete defiance of what a Waffenträger actually is, namely a large gun mounted on a weakly armored chassis in order to maximize firepower on the cheap.

 

Yeah I know, but still it is close. And I would also like to see the Hellcat with its historical mobility.

Life_In_Black #76 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 17:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostHitMe_2015, on Sep 18 2015 - 12:51, said:

 

Yeah I know, but still it is close. And I would also like to see the Hellcat with its historical mobility.

 

Yeah, by splitting them up like that, you could make them much more mobile rather than gimping their mobility simply because they're TDs.

CK16 #77 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 18:10

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9366 battles
  • 1,870
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011
I will say this with TD seem to fall under the same thing as Arty....for their tier according to WG it  has nothing to do with tanks but all about size of their guns to deem them high tier...which makes no sense to me. Why not change the flavor a bit with lower caliber, quick and agile and high ROF kinda like what the Britt recently got. I mean look at TD's in AW nothing (anymore) has some stupid huge gun lol.

Im_The_Seeker2 #78 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 18:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 38234 battles
  • 2,395
  • [BEANS] BEANS
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostM4A3E8sherman, on Sep 17 2015 - 00:25, said:

******
 [content moderated - name and shame]
~Grimpoteuthis

You're going to bring stats into this?  His tree proposal is better, I'll throw my weight behind it.



Life_In_Black #79 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 21:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostHitMe_2015, on Sep 18 2015 - 12:34, said:

 

Ok thanks. I have seen the H2 proposed before, and I know the T110s only mounted the 120mm guns, that is one of the main reasons I would like the T110E4 replaced. Along with the fact that it is basically an American W-T E-100.

Edit: Just looked up the H3, it looks like a cross between the AMX-50B and the AMX-13.

 

Here's my proposal. Two things of note, the T110E3 we have currently is really the T110E4 design, while the T110E4 we have is a fictionalized turreted version of that same design. So that's why the T110E4 is used, as it's really just our current T110E3. Second, there are enough American SPG designs to fill at least another artillery line, but I didn't feel like going through all of the various proposals and prototypes to put a second artillery line together.



CK16 #80 Posted Sep 20 2015 - 18:58

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9366 battles
  • 1,870
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

That isn't a bad proposal  at all! No idea where WG could start with this whole American tree the way it is. Seems like it could use alot of work xD though small steps to start if we can get some going *cough cough medium tree cough cough*

 

I wonder though if this whole topic has gained the eye of any one important yet but I feel like that answer is a no. Would be nice just to know what we are doing is worth something is all. We all are putting time and some of us money into this and other endeavors would be nice is all *cough WG take a look cough cough*






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users