Jump to content


The New Future Chieftain Line

Chieftain

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

21Blackjack #1 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 18:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

Just read about the proposed Chieftain line and what tanks will be in it.

 

I'm pretty sure the idea was to literally find and model the absolute worst tanks in tank design history, and make them the precursor tanks in the line to the Chieftain, to make the grind so hair tearingly bad, you simply HAVE to free XP 7-8 tanks on the way to it.

 

This just 100% confirms what I always suspected, that some head honcho has a hate boner for British tanks, like British tanks killed their whole family kind of hate.  After the FV201, the AC1, the Caernavon, the Centurions, the old and new FV4202, and their "updates" to them, as well as the Soviet versions of the British tanks that are simply outright better than their British tech tree counterparts. The upcoming Swedish Cent 1 that will probably be more effective than the actual Cent 1. Hell you could apply this to most of the British tree. It probably took some arm twisting to get them to originally have the Cromwell to have a removed speed governor and Vickers HV gun, just so WG could make some money.

 

And I expect a MASSIVE nerf to the Chieftain about 6+ months into its appearance, since I know Russian players will be annoyed they can't instagib it with a frontal ammo rack. So yeah, nice try WG, I know what game you are playing.  Looks like the only British tanks that are worth a damn are the Russian and Swedish Premium versions of them, go figure.  Maybe I should ask WG for a British Lend Lease tree, so they can actually be competitive.

 



An_Innocent_Bystander #2 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 18:34

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 10212 battles
  • 3,734
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    05-09-2015
Well that was a totally logical and useful post...

TeaTimeWithKongou #3 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 18:37

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 8467 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    04-06-2016
Where did you hear this news?  Have they release a more info on the chieftain? 

21Blackjack #4 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 18:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View PostAn_Innocent_Bystander, on Feb 15 2017 - 18:34, said:

Well that was a totally logical and useful post...

 

Hey what can I say? Some of us like to call out WG when they think they are f**cking up, instead of acting like WG sh*ts gold bricks in every post.

 

View PostClassics4lyfe, on Feb 15 2017 - 18:37, said:

Where did you hear this news?  Have they release a more info on the chieftain? 

 

https://thearmoredpa...-the-chieftain/

 



Doc_Ebs #5 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 18:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18840 battles
  • 796
  • [MAWG] MAWG
  • Member since:
    04-30-2013
The ac1 is actually Australian

21Blackjack #6 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 18:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View PostDoc_Ebs, on Feb 15 2017 - 18:47, said:

The ac1 is actually Australian

 

It's in the British tree, it gets the British treatment.

_Bagheera_ #7 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 19:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 35338 battles
  • 5,560
  • [ICON-] ICON-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
Actually they can instajib it with a frontal ammo rack. it carries its ammo like the T110E3.

JA_Pinkerton #8 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 19:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 31780 battles
  • 4,449
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View Post21Blackjack, on Feb 15 2017 - 12:43, said:

 

Hey what can I say? Some of us like to call out WG when they think they are f**cking up, instead of acting like WG sh*ts gold bricks in every post.

 

If you dislike the like British tanks so much, why do you play them?  I have the Centurion AX, FV4202 (Prius) and FV215b and enjoyed the grind.  The only egregiously bad tank in the bunch was the Churchill VII.



An_Innocent_Bystander #9 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 19:09

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 10212 battles
  • 3,734
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    05-09-2015

View Post21Blackjack, on Feb 15 2017 - 18:43, said:

 

Hey what can I say? Some of us like to call out WG when they think they are f**cking up, instead of acting like WG sh*ts gold bricks in every post.

 

 

https://thearmoredpa...-the-chieftain/

 

So which Russian copy tanks outperform British tech tree versions? The Churchill 3 is crap unless you triple toon and get a decent map. The Churchill 1 is also crap but less so because dat gun. The Matilda IV is also crap. Worse than the Matilda in the British tree, which is way better and a tier lower. The Valentine 2 is also crap.



sovietdoc #10 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 19:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14832 battles
  • 1,605
  • [-PRO-] -PRO-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
^ something tells me you are just not a big fan of armored tanks with tiny little guns that have low alpha and high rof.  Btw, if you queue top tier in those and shoot gold, they kind of own.  Every time I am in a low tier, I see stat padders abuse the tanks you've mentioned.

21Blackjack #11 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 19:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View PostAn_Innocent_Bystander, on Feb 15 2017 - 19:09, said:

So which Russian copy tanks outperform British tech tree versions? The Churchill 3 is crap unless you triple toon and get a decent map. The Churchill 1 is also crap but less so because dat gun. The Matilda IV is also crap. Worse than the Matilda in the British tree, which is way better and a tier lower. The Valentine 2 is also crap.

 

lol you have no idea what you are talking about, and you barely play any British tanks at all, so I don't even know why you think you can say anything like that with any authority in the slightest.

xrays_ #12 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 20:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 50263 battles
  • 4,032
  • [FELOW] FELOW
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View Post21Blackjack, on Feb 15 2017 - 13:25, said:

lol you have no idea what you are talking about, and you barely play any British tanks at all, so I don't even know why you think you can say anything like that with any authority in the slightest.

 

This is the WoT Forums... Ask a question, get insulted.

 

FFS, try answering the question next time. You sound like a 10-yr old boy that just dropped his cupcake on the dog.

 

x.



Kamahl1234 #13 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 20:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 18393 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View Post21Blackjack, on Feb 15 2017 - 18:25, said:

 

lol you have no idea what you are talking about, and you barely play any British tanks at all, so I don't even know why you think you can say anything like that with any authority in the slightest.

 

I'm in agreement with Bystander, what tanks do you honestly feel are better in the lend leases than the tree tanks?

 

As the only argument could be the Churchill III, but that tank has pref due to poor relative performance in tier making it unsuitable for tier 7 battles, where the Churchill I is a better tank by all rights. 

 

 

Many of those tanks, who are noted for being bad designs, are bad for reasons not modeled in this game. Much as how the Tiger P doesn't spontaneously combust, and how the T-28 Russian tank is actually perfectly square. 

 

What do you have against the British tanks in-game? The only tanks you mention aren't generally "bad". Only the Centurion is viewed as needing more DPM to be a bit more competitive. Caern has god-like gun handling and a good turret. AC1 isn't surprising to perform this way, and the 207 is simply a mediocre arty with absolutely nothing special going for it. 

 

 



An_Innocent_Bystander #14 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 20:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 10212 battles
  • 3,734
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    05-09-2015

View Post21Blackjack, on Feb 15 2017 - 19:25, said:

 

lol you have no idea what you are talking about, and you barely play any British tanks at all, so I don't even know why you think you can say anything like that with any authority in the slightest.

So you won't answer the question, because you know what you said is full of bologne and now you are going to play the "oh you don't play them you have no clue" card.


Edited by An_Innocent_Bystander, Feb 15 2017 - 20:15.


Errants #15 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 20:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 54873 battles
  • 1,941
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostAn_Innocent_Bystander, on Feb 15 2017 - 12:09, said:

So which Russian copy tanks outperform British tech tree versions? The Churchill 3 is crap unless you triple toon and get a decent map. The Churchill 1 is also crap but less so because dat gun. The Matilda IV is also crap. Worse than the Matilda in the British tree, which is way better and a tier lower. The Valentine 2 is also crap.

 

Valentine II > Valentine - BT 4 MM only with usable APCR for hard opponents and armor that stays relevant since always top tier VS a BT 4-6 with mediocre gun options, low mobility, and armor only relevant to tier IV tanks and lower.

 

Matilda (UK) > Matilda LL > Matilda BP - Despite the tech tree Matilda being a tier lower with much less hitpoints, all three see BT 5-6 (Matilda UK BT 4-6).  The Little John adapter on the Matilda makes for a fantastic pew pew cannon, able to stay damage/pen relevant even against Tier VI's.  Matilda LL has the lowest pen, but largest gun out of them, and benefits from the higher HP, similar turret, and slightly noticeable alpha.  The Matilda BP is an abomination that needs to die... Churchill III turret and gun, with half the ammo capacity.  The hull is still armored, but everyone shoots for your turret face.

 

Churchill III = Churchill I - The higher DPM and pref MM help the LL Churchill, while the elite Churchill I gets solid pen and better alpha.  I'd call them about even.

 

Edit:  So, out of curiosity, I went and looked at my personal stats:

 

Valentine LL > Valentine

Matilda LL > Matilda BP > Matilda

Churchill LL > Churchill I

 

I partially attribute that to low games in the tech tree tanks, lack of liberal APCR use (my Valentine LL carries only APCR for that Tier II gun), and poor crews.  However, it is oddly telling that the premiums perform better for me than the tech tree regulars.  Though, comparing some other parallel premiums I have (Cromwell/Bromwell and USSR/CN IS-2) I'm performing better in those as well, though it also may be to my improvement as a player, as the premiums were all purchased after grinding through the tech tree tanks.



Speedy_DePalma #16 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 20:34

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3329 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    09-21-2011
So is this new line going to start of like the Japanese heavies with something craptacular like the A1E1?

Almighty_Johnson #17 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 20:41

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23933 battles
  • 2,206
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    11-10-2014
The Cromwell and it's line are Clan Wars standards.  I have the Action X and the FV and love the whole line.  I do very well in them.  Never played the heavies, but I'm grinding the SPGs now.  Aside from generally lighter armor, but great gun handling, the UK tanks are right on par.

21Blackjack #18 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 21:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View Post84Doc04, on Feb 15 2017 - 20:41, said:

The Cromwell and it's line are Clan Wars standards.  I have the Action X and the FV and love the whole line.  I do very well in them.  Never played the heavies, but I'm grinding the SPGs now.  Aside from generally lighter armor, but great gun handling, the UK tanks are right on par.

 

The Cromwell and it's line are clan wars standard?  The Cromwell is the only regular CW tank, simply because its the only tank worth a damn in the entire line.  The Cent AX is from what I've heard and read, a serviceable Tier X if you literally have nothing else.  But to call it standard is quite a stretch.  The FV is the only other tank in the entire British tree that people think is actually good.

 

On par?  Maybe if every other tree in the game is majority over par.



21Blackjack #19 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 21:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View PostSpeedy_DePalma, on Feb 15 2017 - 20:34, said:

So is this new line going to start of like the Japanese heavies with something craptacular like the A1E1?

 

The branch is said to contain two of these beautys

 

Block Quote

Valiant

 

Securing its place on our shortlist of worst tanks of all time, the A38 gained this title by having one of the shortest testing sessions in history. Indeed the sole prototype (of the three ordered) made its only test run in may 1945. After only a few miles, on a road, in a straight line, the officer in charge decided to terminate this experience. The war was over in Europe, but not in the Far East, where this tank was expected to fight. The A38 eventually became, after the war, a perfect example of how to do it all wrong by the School of Tank Technology. It is now displayed at the Bovington Tank Museum.

 

 



sovietdoc #20 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 22:50

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14832 battles
  • 1,605
  • [-PRO-] -PRO-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Postmuddypuddle, on Feb 15 2017 - 13:23, said:

You cant deny Russian bias when in real life the Centurion was more than a match for both the Patton and T-54 but in this game its not comparable 

 

In real life Soviet tanks were the best tanks, only with the German WWII tanks coming in second. (When they war started they were actually better, but then by the time IS tanks came out, they were completely outclassed).  The Soviet Union finished WWII with the best tanks in the world at the time.

The brits had absolutely no idea how to make good tanks all throughout the war, mostly said for Americans as well.  Actually the story goes, during the Sherman development, the SU handed over a full specification of the German Panther tank which the Soviets just started to encounter on the Eastern front.  People in the US looked at the data and said that a tank like this was impossible, and could not have existed.  They blamed inaccurate intelligence information gathered by the SU.  Original Shermans were no match for German tanks when they first fought in Africa, forcing US to the drawing board, and acknowledging the fact that Soviet intelligence was indeed accurate.  

 

All tanks that came after WWII just became irrelevant because they never saw a lot of action.  Just proxy conflicts with outdated technology from the SU in the Middle East.  There has never been a real modern face to face tank showdown, other than Tank Biathlon which guess what, none of the NATO bloc countries wanted to participate in with their outdated Abrams tanks, and Russia won 3 years in a row. 

 







Also tagged with Chieftain

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users