Jump to content


- - - - -

[9.21] British TD Revision + Badger!


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

CabbageMechanic #1 Posted Dec 13 2017 - 19:55

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 7423 battles
  • 265
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010
Hey Tankers,  

Let us know what you think of the changes to the British Casemated TD line!  You can find the full list of 9.21 notes here.
 

Patch Notes

 

U.K.

Vehicles added:

  • FV217 Badger

Changes to the technical characteristics of the following vehicles:

  • Tortoise
    • Changed the reload time of OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 5 s to 5.6 s
    • Changed penetration of the APDS Mk. 2T shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 246 mm to 252 mm
    • Changed penetration of the AP Mk. 1 shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 214 mm to 220 mm
    • Changed damage of the HE Mk. 1A shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 330 to 370
    • Changed damage of the APDS Mk. 2T shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 250 to 280
    • Changed damage of the AP Mk. 1 shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 250 to 280
    • Increased hull armoring
  •  
  • Churchill Gun Carrier
    • Changed the reload time of OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 8.5 s to 9.5 s
    • Changed penetration of the APDS Mk. 2T shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 246 mm to 252 mm
    • Changed penetration of the AP Mk. 1 shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 214 mm to 220 mm
    • Changed damage of the HE Mk. 1A shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 330 to 370
    • Changed damage of the APDS Mk. 2T shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 250 to 280
    • Changed damage of the AP Mk. 1 shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 250 to 280
  •  
  • FV215b (183)
    • The vehicle is transferred to the special category
    • Increased the ammo rack capacity from 12 to 20 shells
    • The cost of sale is 5 gold
  •  
  • AT 15
    • Changed the reload time of OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 5.9 s to 6.6 s
    • Changed penetration of the APDS Mk. 2T shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 246 mm to 252 mm
    • Changed penetration of the AP Mk. 1 shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 214 mm to 220 mm
    • Changed damage of the HE Mk. 1A shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 330 to 370
    • Changed damage of the APDS Mk. 2T shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 250 to 280
    • Changed damage of the AP Mk. 1 shell for OQF 32-pdr AT Gun from 250 to 280
    • Increased hull armoring
  •  
  • AT 2
    • Decreased hull armoring
  •  
  • AT 8
    • Increased hull armoring
  •  
  • AT 7
    • Increased hull armoring

 


Edited by CabbageMechanic, Dec 13 2017 - 19:55.


Bootknife #2 Posted Dec 13 2017 - 20:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 37074 battles
  • 347
  • [WDA] WDA
  • Member since:
    03-02-2012
Perhaps if we built a large wooden badger...

enjineer #3 Posted Dec 13 2017 - 23:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 42796 battles
  • 2,471
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-07-2010
Kind of BS that you replace a TD with 5 crew members with a TD with 6 crew members, not to mention reset my entire 183 crew.

Mikosah #4 Posted Dec 14 2017 - 00:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 17532 battles
  • 3,314
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

The Badger is a nice tank, but removing the 183 simply for the sake of 'consistency' is highly questionable. As for the changes to the rest of the line (and to some extent the Badger as well) I'll restate my previous comment that increased frontal armor and the removal of weakspots really only does one thing- encourage code 22 spam. And that's no fun for either party. Whenever premium shells do their job and defeat the armor, then relying on the armor is a fool's errand. Whenever the premium shells cannot defeat the armor, then the armor is game-breaking, particularly to the lower tiers. Here's two potential solutions to avoid this-

1: Undo the cupola buffs, let the cupola remain a frontal weakspot.

2: Undo all the armor buffs and instead improve this line's view range and hull traverse. 

 

This is basically a case-in-point of why heavy armor is harmful for gameplay, supposing the current shell mechanics remain the same that is. If premium ammo was re-worked then this may no longer be an issue. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. Not to mention that being tied to drawbacks like terrible mobility needlessly slows the pace of a match. Besides that, the reason I suggested buffing hull traverse and view range just now is because this would give slow, clumsy TDs like these more autonomy. No point in sugar-coating things, team-dependence is about as fun as getting teeth pulled. And being situational is no better. If we could choose which maps to play, the situation would be different, but alas. 



Agentt_Orange #5 Posted Dec 14 2017 - 03:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22292 battles
  • 297
  • [F_B_P] F_B_P
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013
Haven't tried my new Badger, yet.  There were so many of them on this morning, I didn't want to run it yet.  (There was one battle where there was 10 TD's-- 7 were Badgers, 3 were Death Stars.  Fortunately, I was in my Death Star with a 'toon buddy.  Our team won.)  Like the above post states, I wish the 6th crew member could be swapped out, trained up to the level of the other, former FV215b 183 crew but there is no radio operator in the FV215b 183.  Also, I sent in a ticket to Support as one of my emblems was taken off (there were two) my Death Star and disappeared.  As far as I can see, no compensation was given. And I got the standard form letter.... sorry for that tanker.. See you on the battlefield.    Oh well... Situation Normal All Fouled Up. 

Edited by Agentt_Orange, Dec 14 2017 - 03:17.


CabbageMechanic #6 Posted Dec 14 2017 - 03:26

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 7423 battles
  • 265
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010

View Postenjineer, on Dec 13 2017 - 14:48, said:

Kind of BS that you replace a TD with 5 crew members with a TD with 6 crew members, not to mention reset my entire 183 crew.

 


The resets should be trainable to the same level they were before (something that usually costs gold), and you should have received a free 100% crew member to fill the new Radio Operator slot.

Edited by CabbageMechanic, Dec 14 2017 - 03:27.


enjineer #7 Posted Dec 14 2017 - 05:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 42796 battles
  • 2,471
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-07-2010

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Dec 13 2017 - 21:26, said:

 


The resets should be trainable to the same level they were before (something that usually costs gold), and you should have received a free 100% crew member to fill the new Radio Operator slot.

 

While this is true, it cost me BIA in the process.

Tahllol #8 Posted Dec 14 2017 - 07:02

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 8291 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    01-31-2016
Either nerf the crap out of the cmdr hatch so you can actually pen the british line or cut the rate of fire and damage per shot by at least 50%. Super armor, rate of fire, accuracy, and damage per shot is just seriously OP. 

Altwar #9 Posted Dec 14 2017 - 07:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 51623 battles
  • 2,524
  • [A-F] A-F
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postenjineer, on Dec 13 2017 - 20:04, said:

 

While this is true, it cost me BIA in the process.

 

If you didn't skip past the AT7, AT8, At15, Tortoise, you are likely to have picked up a British TD trained radioman along the way to crew those tanks.  I did and still have him trained in BIA, so that worked out just fine for me as I just had to pick him out of the barracks and assign him the Badger as his current tank. 

Tahllol #10 Posted Dec 14 2017 - 07:05

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 8291 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    01-31-2016

View PostMikosah, on Dec 14 2017 - 00:35, said:

The Badger is a nice tank, but removing the 183 simply for the sake of 'consistency' is highly questionable. As for the changes to the rest of the line (and to some extent the Badger as well) I'll restate my previous comment that increased frontal armor and the removal of weakspots really only does one thing- encourage code 22 spam. And that's no fun for either party. Whenever premium shells do their job and defeat the armor, then relying on the armor is a fool's errand. Whenever the premium shells cannot defeat the armor, then the armor is game-breaking, particularly to the lower tiers. Here's two potential solutions to avoid this-

1: Undo the cupola buffs, let the cupola remain a frontal weakspot.

2: Undo all the armor buffs and instead improve this line's view range and hull traverse. 

 

This is basically a case-in-point of why heavy armor is harmful for gameplay, supposing the current shell mechanics remain the same that is. If premium ammo was re-worked then this may no longer be an issue. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. Not to mention that being tied to drawbacks like terrible mobility needlessly slows the pace of a match. Besides that, the reason I suggested buffing hull traverse and view range just now is because this would give slow, clumsy TDs like these more autonomy. No point in sugar-coating things, team-dependence is about as fun as getting teeth pulled. And being situational is no better. If we could choose which maps to play, the situation would be different, but alas. 

 

actually increase the cost of premium rounds to 10x the current cost. They were the rarest ammo during this time period with exception of the 8.8 German guns.

 

But I do agree with the armor issue, they just made super tanks as they aren't even slow anymore include transverse.



Mikosah #11 Posted Dec 14 2017 - 20:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 17532 battles
  • 3,314
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostTahllol, on Dec 14 2017 - 00:05, said:

 

actually increase the cost of premium rounds to 10x the current cost. They were the rarest ammo during this time period with exception of the 8.8 German guns.

 

But I do agree with the armor issue, they just made super tanks as they aren't even slow anymore include transverse.

 

Unfotunately, if the cost of code 22 was increased then it would just be a burden for the bottom tiers, low-pen guns, et cetera. And even disregarding that problem, the inherent crisis of excessive armor (and the lack of weakspots) wouldn't be addressed. At least for the time being, the simple solution is to let there be at least one accessible frontal weakspot (in this case, the cupolas will do nicely) and to balance performance around the idea that the tank isn't supposed to be frontally invincible, even when top-tier. 

ToothDecay #12 Posted Dec 15 2017 - 03:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 25464 battles
  • 5,720
  • [NARC] NARC
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

Weakspots, it still has em.

 



Tahllol #13 Posted Dec 15 2017 - 06:59

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 8291 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    01-31-2016

View PostMikosah, on Dec 14 2017 - 20:36, said:

 

Unfotunately, if the cost of code 22 was increased then it would just be a burden for the bottom tiers, low-pen guns, et cetera. And even disregarding that problem, the inherent crisis of excessive armor (and the lack of weakspots) wouldn't be addressed. At least for the time being, the simple solution is to let there be at least one accessible frontal weakspot (in this case, the cupolas will do nicely) and to balance performance around the idea that the tank isn't supposed to be frontally invincible, even when top-tier. 

 

the constant increase in armor is due to the excessively cheap 2 key. Besides it would stop more of the loser seal clubbers from going down and spamming 2 in lower tiers like they constantly do. 

BeastsOfBattle #14 Posted Dec 15 2017 - 07:39

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9995 battles
  • 430
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    12-08-2016
All the badgers have been good for my arty grind, they are soft on top.

Mikosah #15 Posted Dec 15 2017 - 15:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 17532 battles
  • 3,314
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostTahllol, on Dec 14 2017 - 23:59, said:

 

the constant increase in armor is due to the excessively cheap 2 key. Besides it would stop more of the loser seal clubbers from going down and spamming 2 in lower tiers like they constantly do. 

 

All the more reason to emphasize frontal weakspots. If you don't need premium ammo to deal damage, then premium ammo becomes irrelevant. 



DVK9 #16 Posted Dec 15 2017 - 19:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23696 battles
  • 409
  • [-TX-] -TX-
  • Member since:
    05-15-2013

Wow I had an almost fully perked 183 crew and what you give me is a perk. You know it sucks, I know it, so does all the rest.

Why couldnt you just leave my crew in the 183 and give me just a 100% no perk crew in the 217?

Make me work for those perks like I had to in the 183.

But no you had to play with it thinking that no one will care.

Most of your player base are not 13 year old kids.

 



TLWiz #17 Posted Dec 15 2017 - 23:19

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18368 battles
  • 8,992
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014

View PostDVK9, on Dec 15 2017 - 19:52, said:

Wow I had an almost fully perked 183 crew and what you give me is a perk. You know it sucks, I know it, so does all the rest.

Why couldnt you just leave my crew in the 183 and give me just a 100% no perk crew in the 217?

Make me work for those perks like I had to in the 183.

But no you had to play with it thinking that no one will care.

Most of your player base are not 13 year old kids.

 

 

You could just continue to play your 183 with the same crew (it is a Premium now so they all still work as they did before) and ignore the fact that you received a free tier X TD and it would be as if nothing changed. 

XCER #18 Posted Dec 16 2017 - 01:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 69172 battles
  • 267
  • [BGPSN] BGPSN
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012
good job WoT the new noob "badger" tank is great for beginners, cant wait till you nerf it, its more OP than the WTE-100 so i guess your gonna remove the badger soon? or are you gonna give me my WTE-100 back? as long as they keep the lower plate hidden no amount of gold pens the anything unless your 183ing or 17ing, all a badger noob has to do is drive up with heavies and absorb shells. fix asap you WoT kiddies, its no longer fun to play the game with noob tanks running wild 6 per side. what the heck were you smoking when you designed that WoT? to those who like the badger, yeah any noob would like it, what a shocker...not....bye, felicia!!!!!

ArcticTankHunter #19 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 04:46

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10654 battles
  • 425
  • [OSU-V] OSU-V
  • Member since:
    05-22-2014
Very disappointed with the 280mm+ front left and right slope removal on AT15. It used to be able to bounce shots. They are nothing but huge weak spots now for T9+T10. Also T8 TDs. They should not have been removed first place. The whole front is like Tiger 2 but even more flat.

Edited by ArcticTankHunter, Jan 12 2018 - 04:46.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users