Jump to content


British Heavy Updates (SUPER CONQUEROR AHOY)

Super Test

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

indoctrinated #41 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 15:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 20171 battles
  • 2,063
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Aug 12 2017 - 06:05, said:

 

 

"Tanks need to be evaluated across varying circumstances, not ideal cherry picked ones".

 

Thats hilarious considering you cherry pick tier 10 TD gold rounds to evaluate armor. But even then, by that logic the tier 8 premiums in question are all either OP or broken.

 

I selected that circumstance in particular because I'm seeing growing numbers of Tier X TDs and I figure I need to at least have some ability to outplay them, with hulldown being one possibility. I get a ton of gold thrown at me regardless of the tank I play too. When I put two and two together, being able to resist the strongest gold shells is a huge benefit. I place a large premium on tanks with good survivability whether it be a combination of great soft stats and armor, or unique weapons that can reduce exposure to these weapons.
 

View PostJarms48, on Aug 12 2017 - 00:31, said:

 

Oh nice. I withdraw my prior comment. Still would have liked to see the Improved Ballistic Shaped Turret that Listy found as the tier X, we can dream. 

It's using the proposed improved turret. Observe the following:

Notice the turret front has a different shape. Also note the different shape of the Commander's cupola, which looks just like that proposed turret.
 



Avalon304 #42 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 16563 battles
  • 6,268
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 12 2017 - 07:03, said:

I selected that circumstance in particular because I'm seeing growing numbers of Tier X TDs and I figure I need to at least have some ability to outplay them, with hulldown being one possibility. I get a ton of gold thrown at me regardless of the tank I play too. When I put two and two together, being able to resist the strongest gold shells is a huge benefit. I place a large premium on tanks with good survivability whether it be a combination of great soft stats and armor, or unique weapons that can reduce exposure to these weapons.

 

Playing hull down is not "outplaying" anyone.

 

The best way to ensure your survival is to kill the enemy first. The most important thing for a tank to be is mobile and have a good gun. Slow, armored heavies are easily outplayed, because theyre slow and inflexible. Armor is easily made less relevant (or even made completely irrelevant). Its a passive mechanic that relies on the enemy either being bad, or unwilling to press 2. Armor is there to save you from mistakes in positioning, not bounce every shot. Tanks should be played to not get hit and hit others in return, not bouncing incoming fire.

 

But more importantly... you cant say "Dont cherry pick things" and then cherry pick things in your own example. Your reasoning for cherry picking doesnt matter.



stalkervision #43 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 49907 battles
  • 7,846
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
please give the Black Prince a little love too. :(

Jarms48 #44 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:29

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 117 battles
  • 1,257
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

Why are you removing the 20-Pdr from the Caernarvon, WG? It's a historical gun.

 

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 13 2017 - 00:03, said:

Notice the turret front has a different shape. Also note the different shape of the Commander's cupola, which looks just like that proposed turret.

 

It might look like it, but it's got the wrong armour thickness. 

http://overlord-wot....paper-work.html

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by Jarms48, Aug 12 2017 - 22:36.


Avalon304 #45 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 16563 battles
  • 6,268
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostJarms48, on Aug 12 2017 - 14:29, said:

Why are you removing the 20-Pdr from the Caernarvon, WG? It's a historical gun.

 

 

It might look like it, but it's got the wrong armour thickness. 

http://overlord-wot....paper-work.html

 

Spoiler

 

 

I would agree that the Caernarvon should keep one of the 20-pdrs as an intermediate gun between the 17-pdr and the top turret with the 32-pdr, as a way to ease the grind through the tank.

indoctrinated #46 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 23:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 20171 battles
  • 2,063
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Aug 12 2017 - 21:07, said:

 

Playing hull down is not "outplaying" anyone.

 

The best way to ensure your survival is to kill the enemy first. The most important thing for a tank to be is mobile and have a good gun. Slow, armored heavies are easily outplayed, because theyre slow and inflexible. Armor is easily made less relevant (or even made completely irrelevant). Its a passive mechanic that relies on the enemy either being bad, or unwilling to press 2. Armor is there to save you from mistakes in positioning, not bounce every shot. Tanks should be played to not get hit and hit others in return, not bouncing incoming fire.

 

But more importantly... you cant say "Dont cherry pick things" and then cherry pick things in your own example. Your reasoning for cherry picking doesnt matter.

If slow, heavy tanks are easy to outplay, how come my Japanese Super-Heavies win 60%+ (from Tier 7 onwards) of their games with solid average damage figures (I also have 3 marks on my O-Ho, O-I)? My Brit AT TDs also did okay. Why should tanks even bother carrying armor if armor is of little value? Fast mediums and lights are not all sunshine and rainbows. Why not strip the Centurion 7/1 back to having a 76mm glacis and the original turret thickness (the original Centurion 1 turret from 1945) to give it more power/weight ratio?

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 12 2017 - 22:19, said:

please give the Black Prince a little love too. :(

It really should get the 20-pdr but who knows what WG will do. Furthermore these high tier buffs are going to simply let all Tier 8-10 tanks faceroll T6, T7 tanks who aren't getting touched at all. Caernarvon especially is going to evicerate Tier 6-7 tanks who literally can't do anything to it once its lower glacis is covered up.

View PostJarms48, on Aug 12 2017 - 22:29, said:

Why are you removing the 20-Pdr from the Caernarvon, WG? It's a historical gun.

 

 

It might look like it, but it's got the wrong armour thickness. 

http://overlord-wot....paper-work.html

 

Spoiler

Rather odd choice to discontinue use of the 20-pdr on the Caern. 
Turret geometry looks correct. Was that paper specifying LOS or raw nominal thickness? The turret would probably become frontally invincible if it were raw nominal thickness- could be quite imbalanced.



thandiflight #47 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 23:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 71073 battles
  • 3,817
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    07-10-2011

Ok so at least this "super Conqueror" existed - if only for testing purposes. However I don't think that this offered significant improvements to the Conqueror to suddenly justify this being a tier X - it didn't justify its adoption by the British Army.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a474293.pdf

 

Stop d*cking around Wargaming and GIVE US THE CHIEFTAIN



bockscar43 #48 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 23:40

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 24953 battles
  • 987
  • [PL1AR] PL1AR
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015
Have no fear troop, Mother will give you all that you want. Momma's gonna keep you right under her wing....Hush now troop, don't you cry....Momma's gonna think for you....Thank you Mother.

thandiflight #49 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 23:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 71073 battles
  • 3,817
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    07-10-2011

View Postbockscar43, on Aug 12 2017 - 22:40, said:

Have no fear troop, Mother will give you all that you want. Momma's gonna keep you right under her wing....Hush now troop, don't you cry....Momma's gonna think for you....Thank you Mother.

 



Avalon304 #50 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 23:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 16563 battles
  • 6,268
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 12 2017 - 15:07, said:

If slow, heavy tanks are easy to outplay, how come my Japanese Super-Heavies win 60%+ (from Tier 7 onwards) of their games with solid average damage figures (I also have 3 marks on my O-Ho, O-I)? My Brit AT TDs also did okay. Why should tanks even bother carrying armor if armor is of little value? Fast mediums and lights are not all sunshine and rainbows. Why not strip the Centurion 7/1 back to having a 76mm glacis and the original turret thickness (the original Centurion 1 turret from 1945) to give it more power/weight ratio?

 

Because people are stupid. Again... have you actually played this game?

 

Armor is easily made less relevant in this game. Thats an objective fact.

 

I mean, we could strip the 7/1 back to 76mm and give it the original Centurion turret thickness... but then it wouldnt be a 7/1... it would be a Mk. 1. Like... the Centurions and Leopard came around at a time, in the world, where armies were realizing that armor wasnt the way to go. Penetration of anti-tank rounds was greatly out pacing the thickness of tank armor, and tank armor was too heavy to provide adequate protection. Theres a reason why the heavy tank fell out of favor. It was only with the advent of composite armor that it started coming back (things like Chobam on the Challenger or even the Stillbrew armor for the Chieftain turret). And even then modern anti-tank armor penetration is so high that it isnt a guarantee of blocking shots. The best way to protect yourself is to not be hit in the first place, and have the bare minimum of armor needed for protection in an emergency. (Ive bolded that because it also applies to WoT).

 

But bringing the Centurions into this is silly, because, right now, they have the armor they had in real life. The 7/1 had the hull armor it has, and the turret armor it had. (Youll note Im ALSO against the turret armor buffs they are getting too. And I was also against the speed buffs they received).

 

Fast, mobile tanks are the important tanks in this game. Even looking at heavies. Tanks like the WZ 5A, 113, T110E5, the AMX 50 B. Like even when you look at heavy tanks the preferred (and balanced) ones are the more mobile tanks with less armor and good guns. Heavily armored tanks reward the exact wrong type of play for this game. People only play the Maus because its OP. Bad players are drawn to the anime heavies because they have noob proof armor and gun that you dont have to aim to do damage. Look at tier 8... all those premiums you brought up before: the Patriot, the Chrysler K, the Defender. OP or broken tanks. The Patriot has replaced the T32 for every competitive function where a T32 was used, as its both more mobile, has a better gun and has comparable armor. The Defender is an IS-7 at tier 8. And the Chrysler is purely designed to force gold usage (both as a shooter and a target). The tanks are like this because idiots expect armor to block everything for them, and at the end of the day, even with the tanks like this, the armor doesnt block everything because everyone has a tool in their tool box that makes it less relevant. So they end up stock in slow tanks, with irrelevant armor, terrible guns and they still complain. Where having more mobility and better guns would allow them to get out of those situations with more reliability.



Jarms48 #51 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 03:17

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 117 battles
  • 1,257
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

Just going to paste DeadArashi's content over here, because he brings up some good points. 

 

View PostDeadArashi, on 13 August 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

Could I also draw peoples attention to the fact that the "Super Conqueror" isn't actually using the turret that Listy found. It bears a lot of similarities to it but ultimately could be classed as a WG fabrication. Seems to be a hybrid of the standard Conqueror turret and the Listy turret

 

Just to point out the obvious differences between the two turrets excluding armor thickness:

  • Turret in game has a small out cropping on the side of the turret that isn't present in this drawing
  • Turret roof clearly slops upwards before flattening out, this isn't present on the in-game model
  • Slight difference to the armor sloping on the cupola to the viewing device
  • Gun mantlet is clearly different between the two turrets

 

Really all I'd have liked WG to do is:

- make the current Conqueror turret the stock turret

- place the Conqueror turret with additional (and historical) 14mm burster plates as the new elite turret

 

Done, no need to change stats, it's one of the better tier IX heavies at the moment. With the tier X they could have just used the historical armour thickness of the Improved Ballistic Shaped Turret, with or without the historical 14mm burster plates as the actual thickness was good enough. The proposed tier X hull is fine. 


Edited by Jarms48, Aug 13 2017 - 03:25.


Fat_Bob_1 #52 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 10:08

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 8792 battles
  • 50
  • [WCSA] WCSA
  • Member since:
    12-06-2016

View Postmlinke, on Aug 11 2017 - 14:34, said:

They should introduce drug testing in wot labs. Just saying...

 

Or give them better ones.

ImABadTealREEEE #53 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:34

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 8559 battles
  • 79
  • [-PP-] -PP-
  • Member since:
    12-13-2014
Nobody wants a crap tank  just give us the chieftain already okay thank you look its already on console and pc tanks has been out WAY longer stop slacking

Edited by ImABadTealREEEE, Aug 13 2017 - 15:35.


Mad_Dog_Seabee #54 Posted Aug 14 2017 - 16:14

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 8672 battles
  • 1,124
  • [-RG--] -RG--
  • Member since:
    10-07-2015

As Claus Kellerman once said "When ya play British tanks, you feel importnt because it's a British tank, even if the tank sucks."

 

So I will play my British TDs but the other lines are garbage in my opinion, as compared to other tank lines.



50cal2 #55 Posted Aug 17 2017 - 18:05

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 71586 battles
  • 16
  • [-DIG-] -DIG-
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012
Why did the German TD's get treated so bad. Get tier 10 TD, nerf, nerf, remove, get new TD, nerf. Well its just a game. 

WarhammerYYC #56 Posted Aug 21 2017 - 16:58

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3308 battles
  • 86
  • [-LHN-] -LHN-
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013
If you already have the 20lb gun on the Caenarvon do you get the 32? I don't have the top gun, I've been waiting for a buff on this tank. 

Finnegan_Gromyko #57 Posted Aug 21 2017 - 19:29

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 8975 battles
  • 524
  • [DHO4] DHO4
  • Member since:
    10-05-2015

View PostAvalon304, on Aug 12 2017 - 23:57, said:

 

Because people are stupid. Again... have you actually played this game?

 

Armor is easily made less relevant in this game. Thats an objective fact.

 

I mean, we could strip the 7/1 back to 76mm and give it the original Centurion turret thickness... but then it wouldnt be a 7/1... it would be a Mk. 1. Like... the Centurions and Leopard came around at a time, in the world, where armies were realizing that armor wasnt the way to go. Penetration of anti-tank rounds was greatly out pacing the thickness of tank armor, and tank armor was too heavy to provide adequate protection. Theres a reason why the heavy tank fell out of favor. It was only with the advent of composite armor that it started coming back (things like Chobam on the Challenger or even the Stillbrew armor for the Chieftain turret). And even then modern anti-tank armor penetration is so high that it isnt a guarantee of blocking shots. The best way to protect yourself is to not be hit in the first place, and have the bare minimum of armor needed for protection in an emergency. (Ive bolded that because it also applies to WoT).

 

But bringing the Centurions into this is silly, because, right now, they have the armor they had in real life. The 7/1 had the hull armor it has, and the turret armor it had. (Youll note Im ALSO against the turret armor buffs they are getting too. And I was also against the speed buffs they received).

 

Fast, mobile tanks are the important tanks in this game. Even looking at heavies. Tanks like the WZ 5A, 113, T110E5, the AMX 50 B. Like even when you look at heavy tanks the preferred (and balanced) ones are the more mobile tanks with less armor and good guns. Heavily armored tanks reward the exact wrong type of play for this game. People only play the Maus because its OP. Bad players are drawn to the anime heavies because they have noob proof armor and gun that you dont have to aim to do damage. Look at tier 8... all those premiums you brought up before: the Patriot, the Chrysler K, the Defender. OP or broken tanks. The Patriot has replaced the T32 for every competitive function where a T32 was used, as its both more mobile, has a better gun and has comparable armor. The Defender is an IS-7 at tier 8. And the Chrysler is purely designed to force gold usage (both as a shooter and a target). The tanks are like this because idiots expect armor to block everything for them, and at the end of the day, even with the tanks like this, the armor doesnt block everything because everyone has a tool in their tool box that makes it less relevant. So they end up stock in slow tanks, with irrelevant armor, terrible guns and they still complain. Where having more mobility and better guns would allow them to get out of those situations with more reliability.

 

I would have agreed a year or year and a half ago, but changes to maps and armour have made the heavies more dominant. They have higher win rates and damage, in general, then lighter more mobile tanks. The Maus is a great example. Any tomato can do 55 per cent win rate in that tank. VB Addict stats show very clearly the trend toward heavies or heavily armoured TDs becoming dominant. An outlier is the Swedish 103B TD, but even that is misleading, because the heavily sloped frontal armour is very difficult to penetrate making it more like a heavily armoured tank. 

 

Right now armour rules, because WG wants to make more money (fair enough I guess), and forcing more people to press the 2 key makes more money. 

 

I say this as someone preferring faster and more mobile tanks ... but the fact is, heavier and better armoured tanks are increasingly dominant in WoT. 



Finnegan_Gromyko #58 Posted Aug 21 2017 - 19:32

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 8975 battles
  • 524
  • [DHO4] DHO4
  • Member since:
    10-05-2015

I think it's pretty obvious everyone in the game who knows about the Chieftain on Console WoT wants a Chieftain. 

 

If there was a Chieftain in the game, I would definitely grind that line ... but putting a souped up Conqueror at Tier X just ain't gonna do it for me. 

 

WG's reluctance to add this superb and already designed tank to the game is baffling. I would love to hear the reason for it. 



WarhammerYYC #59 Posted Aug 29 2017 - 18:41

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3308 battles
  • 86
  • [-LHN-] -LHN-
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013
How far out are are super-test changes? I'm curious cause the gun isn't in the 9.20 Common Test. Just curious when we might see the upgraded gun for the Caernarvon

Beornotns #60 Posted Aug 29 2017 - 19:11

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20211 battles
  • 1,669
  • [-SCA-] -SCA-
  • Member since:
    08-07-2014

If the frigging CONSOLE gets the Chieftain...  Why in the name of god's green corn don't WE get the damn tank?!?!

 

~B







Also tagged with Super Test

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users