Jump to content


- - - - -

[9.22] Soviet Vehicle/Tech Tree Changes


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

CabbageMechanic #1 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 21:17

    Senior Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 7632 battles
  • 339
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010
Hey Tankers,

Let us know what you think of the updates to the Soviet Tree:
 

Patch Notes

 

Soviet Tech Tree Changes

 

The following vehicles were added:

 

IS-M (Tier VIII)
Object 430U (replaces the Object 430 at Tier X)
Object 268 Version 4 (replaces Object 263 at Tier X)
Object 257 (Tier IX)
Object 263 (Tier IX)
Object 430 (Tier IX)
Object 705A (Tier IX)
Object 705 (Tier X)

 

Removed vehicles:

 

Object 263 (Tier X)
Object 430 (Tier Х)
SU-122-54 (Tier IX)

 

Changes to the technical characteristics of the following vehicles

 

T-54 first prototype

Changed the engine power of the V-44 engine from 520 h.p. to 760 h.p.

 

T-44-100

Decreased dispersion during movement by 40%

 

 

Decreased dispersion on hull traverse by 40%
Changed the reverse speed from 20 km/h to 23 km/h
Changed the engine power of the V-44 engine from 520 h.p. to 760 h.p.

 

T-44-100M
Changed the engine power of the V-44 engine from 520 h.p. to 760 h.p.

 

T-44-100 ®
Decreased dispersion during movement by 40%
Decreased dispersion on hull traverse by 40%
Changed the reverse speed from 20 km/h to 23 km/h
Changed the engine power of the V-44 engine from 520 h.p. to 760 h.p.

 

Т-44
Decreased dispersion during movement with the T-44 suspension by 20%
Decreased dispersion during movement with the T-44M suspension by 22%
Decreased dispersion on hull traverse with the T-44 suspension by 20%
Decreased dispersion on hull traverse with the T-44M suspension by 22%
Changed the reverse speed from 20 km/h to 23 km/h
Changed the engine power of the V-54-6 engine from 680 h.p. to 760 h.p.

 

SU-101
Replaced the 122mm D-25S mod. 1944 gun with the 122 mm D-25-SU-101 gun that features the following parameters:
gun elevation angle: 18.3 deg.
gun depression angle: 3 deg.
dispersion at 100 m: 0.44
reload time: 11.1 s
aiming time: 2.5 s

UBR-471: damage 390, penetration 210mm
BR-471D: damage 390, penetration 248mm
UOF-471: damage 530, penetration 64mm

Ammo rack capacity remained unchanged

Decreased dispersion during movement of the SU-101 suspension by 33%
Decreased dispersion during movement of the SU-102 suspension by 37%
Decreased dispersion on hull traverse of the SU-101 suspension by 33%
Decreased dispersion on hull traverse of the SU-102 suspension by 37%
Changed the traverse speed of the SU-101 suspension from 34 deg./s to 23 deg./s
Changed the traverse speed of the SU-102 suspension from 36 deg./s to 25 deg./s
Changed dispersion of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun from 0.35 m to 0.4 m
Changed dispersion of the 100 mm D-54S gun from 0.35 m to 0.39 m
Changed dispersion of the 122 mm M62-C2 gun from 0.37 m to 0.42 m
Increased dispersion on gun traverse of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun by 25%
Increased dispersion on gun traverse of the 100 mm D-54S gun by 25%
Decreased dispersion on gun traverse of the 122 mm M62-C2 gun by 25%
Changed the reload time of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun from 6.2 s to 7.1 s
Changed the reload time of the 100 mm D-54S gun from 6.7 s to 9.1 s
Changed the reload time of the 122 mm M62-C2 gun from 12 s to 12.6 s
Changed the aiming time of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun from 1.7 s to 2.3 s
Changed the aiming time of the 100 mm D-54S gun from 2.1 s to 2.3 s
Changed the aiming time of the 122 mm M62-C2 gun from 3.1 s to 2.5 s
Changed the view range from 380 m to 350 m
Changed the gun traverse speed from 44 deg./s to 26 deg./s
Improved hull armoring
Decreased the velocity of the UOF-472 shell for the 122 mm M62-C2 gun by 10%
Decreased the velocity of the BR-472 shell for the 122 mm M62-C2 gun by 10%
Decreased the velocity of the BK-9 shell for the 122 mm M62-C2 gun by 8%
Changed the gun depression angle of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun from 2.3 to 3 deg.
Changed the gun depression angle of the 100 mm D-54S gun from 2.3 to 3 deg.
Changed the gun depression angle of the 122 mm M62-C2 gun from 2.2 to 3 deg.
Changed the gun traverse angles of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 and 100 mm D-54S gun guns from -9.3 /9.3 to -10/12 deg.
Changed the gun traverse angles of the 122 mm M62-C2 gun from -7.3/7.3 to -10/12 deg.
Changed the reverse speed from 16 km/h to 18 km/h
Changed the vehicle durability from 990 to 1100 HPs

 

SU-100M1
Decreased dispersion during movement of the SU-100M1 suspension by 30%
Decreased dispersion during movement of the SU-100M1 Bis suspension by 33%
Decreased dispersion on hull traverse of the SU-100M1 suspension by 30%
Decreased dispersion on hull traverse of the SU-100M1 Bis suspension by 33%
Changed the traverse speed of the SU-100M1 suspension from 32 deg./s to 23 deg./s
Changed the traverse speed of the SU-100M1 Bis suspension from 34 deg./s to 25 deg./s
Changed dispersion of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun from 0.37 m to 0.42 m
Changed dispersion of the 100 mm LB-1C gun from 0.33 m to 0.41 m
Increased dispersion on gun traverse of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun by 25%
Decreased dispersion on gun traverse of the 100 mm LB-1C gun by 25%
Changed the reload time of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun from 7.3 s to 7.1 s
Changed the reload time of the 100 mm LB-1C gun from 5.9 s to 7.1 s
Changed the aiming time of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 gun from 2 s to 2.3 s
Changed the aiming time of the 100 mm LB-1C gun from 1.7 s to 2.3 s
Changed the view range from 360 m to 350 m
Changed the gun traverse speed from 44 deg./s to 26 deg./s
Improved hull armoring
Changed penetration of the UBR-412P shell for the 100 mm LB-1C gun from 235mm to 258mm
Changed penetration of the UBR-412 shell for the 100 mm LB-1С gun from 183mm to 212mm
Changed the gun traverse angles of the 100 mm D-10S mod. 1944 and 100mm LB-1С guns from -8 /8 to -12/12 deg.
Changed the top speed from 50 km/h to 54 km/h
Changed the reverse speed from 14 km/h to 16 km/h
Changed the vehicle durability from 830 to 850 HPs

 

 

Full Patch notes here.

riff_ #2 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 21:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 26562 battles
  • 9,340
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

Make sure that you make the Russian medium tanks perform better.  They are lacking behind some of the other Nationalities.  :hiding:



_Schneller_Heinz_ #3 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 21:38

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2029 battles
  • 1,336
  • [DV] DV
  • Member since:
    02-05-2015
Three words only on this topic...MORE RUSSIAN BIAS.

Yao_Wang #4 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 21:41

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 13045 battles
  • 1,152
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014
yes buff the chinese tanks give them all 122mm auto loader starting at tier I going to tier X

Dogsoldier6 #5 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 21:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 56154 battles
  • 2,762
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

Sorry but I liked my SU-122-54. Others got to keep their Death Stars and got the Badger too boot. I lose my SU-122-54, already had the 263, so lost and really got nothing for all the effort put into getting the SU-122-54.

 

Not Happy about it.



panzer716 #6 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 21:59

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12041 battles
  • 291
  • [FATE] FATE
  • Member since:
    12-01-2015
I was mad when I had both the SU-122-54 in my garage and the 263 and there wasn't any credit compensation for losing my 122-54. Basically I received the tier 9 263 twice but got no credits for the second one. That kind of ticked me off and I would have sold my 122-54 before the patch to get the extra credits had I known.

Edited by panzer716, Feb 07 2018 - 21:59.


mlinke #7 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 22:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 48240 battles
  • 662
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Give me my 122 54 as premium back. Compensate my lost time in gold or give me equivalent premium tank. Something like 907 is only one worth my time. You stole from me. Give it back. 

mlinke #8 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 22:07

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 48240 battles
  • 662
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
I will never play this game again till you give my td back. I know noone cares but once all players leave one by one you will. And I am not talkig about ones with 2k games trying game out. I am talking about people like me who lost too much time playing anyway. Gg wg.

dnaman #9 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 22:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28233 battles
  • 1,064
  • [_EOS_] _EOS_
  • Member since:
    06-09-2013
I also would have liked to keep the 122-54 as a special.  Kind of lame it just got taken away.  

OctavariumDT8 #10 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 22:44

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 42596 battles
  • 674
  • [SYNG2] SYNG2
  • Member since:
    07-28-2012
Object 268 Version 4 is so damn OP it makes me wanna stop all my grinds and play nothing but that. Hardcore Russian bias. 

madgiecool #11 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 22:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 50179 battles
  • 4,684
  • [4NZAB] 4NZAB
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011

WG makes a post about "what do you think of the new Ru tree".

 

 

I hope they're not surprised when they get few pages of 

 

"Bring back my SU-122-54"

 

and 

 

"UN-NURF the accuracy on the Obj 263"



Omega_Weapon #12 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 23:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 44686 battles
  • 1,543
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

Not happy to lose my SU-122-54. It should have remained as a special or premium vehicle. If it comes back as a premium later, previous owners should get it for free, or at least heavily discounted.

Not happy with the crappy gun accuracy nerfs to the line either. Tds are supposed to have superior accuracy to tanks with turrets (fewer moving components), so this change was completely unwarranted. OP armour is not an acceptable trade off for lower rate of fire and crap accuracy.



DFM #13 Posted Feb 07 2018 - 23:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 31408 battles
  • 342
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011

I love it.

 

Haven't seen this much Salt since I took a tour of the old Morton's factory in chicago.

 

 



Noivy #14 Posted Feb 08 2018 - 01:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 31455 battles
  • 1,370
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011
I want my 263 back. With its DPM, and accuracy. Not this half-arsed diluted long reload thing. 

Termitey #15 Posted Feb 08 2018 - 01:21

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 88969 battles
  • 630
  • [GOD_Z] GOD_Z
  • Member since:
    06-29-2012
Just more stuff nobody asked for GJ WG

Mikosah #16 Posted Feb 08 2018 - 01:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 17534 battles
  • 3,662
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

I have a very hard time finding anything redeeming about any of the 9.22 proposals. Every single pitch was entirely counterproductive. Even the most innocuous- the new rear turret heavies, now significantly threaten the IS-4 line's niche, and perhaps also the E100 as well. So now we have to talk about whether the rear turret heavies get nerfed or if the IS-4 line now needs to be reworked.

 

As of the 263 line, I've spoken in length on the subject in other threads but I'll reiterate that in spite of the 268v4's novelty, the rest of the line absolutely cannot imitate the same playstyle so the whole 'consistency' goal is a total farce. And as for the general comfort of the line between tiers 7 and 9, the new configuration is no more playable than before. They cannot rely upon their armor unless in very specific circumstances, their guns are underwhelming, the depression is still terrible, and they're blind. If the goal was to behave like a heavy tank, why not just play an actual heavy tank? Why would you sacrifice a fully rotating turret if it wasn't to receive a clear firepower advantage? And above all else, this situation was completely avoidable. WG could have just given better gun depression, gun sweeps, and shell velocity to the existing tanks and the 263 line would have worked just fine as conventional sniping TDs. Last I checked, the high alpha TD line were not conventional snipers so the two would have still been distinct from one another.

 

The T-10 swap was entirely needless. The T-10 itself is more appropriate to the IS-3 and IS-7 playstyle than the 257 is. And the 257 itself is eternally stuck between a rock and a hard place because of the hull shape. If the lower sides are any more than 40mm thick, they autobounce nearly every single gun in the whole game. If any less, then they're overmatched by most incoming fire. There's absolutely no middle-ground, so unless some other characteristic was changed this tank would be nigh impossible to properly balance. Why was it even included? Not as though the new tier 10 to follow is even ready yet. Very suspicious that such a dubious move would be made so hurriedly even in spite of the criticisms (and that statement applies to 9.22 as a whole).

 

The medium changes are less extreme, but just as questionable. The second medium line could have been left alone and the previous 430 could have been given an alternate gun. Besides that, now there's concerns that the 121's niche is being intruded on, and frankly no one gave a damn that the line was rear-turreted and then center-turreted again. Tomatoes are tomatoes not because adaptation to new tanks is too complicated, but because they were never taught how to properly play any of the roles in the first place.

 

And as of the buffs to the T-44, T-44-100, and Mod1, I do actually sympathize with the notion that tier 8 mediums are weak in general and suffer in the current MM. So why only buff these three? What about all the rest of them? Let alone the tier 8 light tanks, or frankly, light tanks of all tiers.



hiipanda #17 Posted Feb 08 2018 - 07:46

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 46340 battles
  • 815
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

 

Sold:
'Object 263' successfully sold. Received credits:  1,814,305. Spent gold:  20.



KaiserWilhelmShatner #18 Posted Feb 08 2018 - 07:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 15577 battles
  • 4,136
  • [F_O_G] F_O_G
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
I got 2 free tanks.   Cant complain about that part.

Isola_di_Fano #19 Posted Feb 08 2018 - 10:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 20922 battles
  • 3,210
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012
...

Edited by Isola_di_Fano, Feb 08 2018 - 11:49.


Avalon304 #20 Posted Feb 08 2018 - 11:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 17980 battles
  • 7,424
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012
Bad balance... bad balance EVERYWHERE in 9.22. How did it get out the door in this state? How? Its such an absolute train wreck.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users