Jump to content


Artillery needs to be adjusted

Arty Artillery

  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

Kenshin2kx #121 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 18:31

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17041 battles
  • 5,420
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postrogueluke, on Apr 16 2018 - 07:23, said:

 

i had a gunner accidentally fire a 25mm cannon while 3 of us were cleaning the spent casings off the deck. 

the flame out of the barrel was about 3 long and in diameter and singed all of us.

tanks produced even more flames than that, oftentimes shooting out a fireball almost as big as they are.

there was no plant life near any of the M1A1 tank firing positions lol they had burned it all away.

 

 

 

Yes! I can imagine that ... so poor shrubbery in front of something like an SU-152 ... with side blast as well due to muzzle break.  Granted some things should be relatively indestructable ... but IMO, plant life in this context should NOT be one of them ... now back on smoke ... that also bring up strategic and random weather phenomena ... say smoke was used, but there is a prominent and gusty wind?  i.e. randomized weather to a limited extent.

 

Now that you mention it ... I do recall seeing still images of an Abrams firing ... yes, the emitted fireball was as you describe - close to the size of the tank!   


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Apr 16 2018 - 18:34.


rogueluke #122 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 18:36

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14454 battles
  • 66
  • [MAG7] MAG7
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 16 2018 - 16:34, said:

 

... I like that idea ... the literal 'fog of war' ... add to this, destructable foliage when firing ... so say that any tank, td or even artillery, if they actuall fire through trees or shrubbery ... it would take appropriate damage (as it logical should - in receiving a very high velocity stream/shock wave of hot spent gas) 

 

lol also the fog of war is no joke.

i would see the tanks diving backwards i knew i was about to be blinded by smoke lol.

those jet engines can produce a thick white smoke screen that was impossible to see though.

the turret would guide me with the inferred sight which the smoke did not show up in at all.

imagine a map like mines with zero visibility being told where to go by someone else.



Kenshin2kx #123 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 18:47

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17041 battles
  • 5,420
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postrogueluke, on Apr 16 2018 - 07:36, said:

 

lol also the fog of war is no joke.

i would see the tanks diving backwards i knew i was about to be blinded by smoke lol.

those jet engines can produce a thick white smoke screen that was impossible to see though.

the turret would guide me with the inferred sight which the smoke did not show up in at all.

imagine a map like mines with zero visibility being told where to go by someone else.

 

Okay, gaming contrivance ... but unpredictable, but strong and gusty ... this would minimize the chance of a perpetual fog for too long ... after all, the majority of the tanks in the game were operative before infrared sighting was available ... which means ... enough smoke, and you could have two tanks within literal meters ... pass by with no practical sighting for a shot ... at best, stereoscopic directionality of sound, or flashes of cannon fire.  So I would agree, controllable amounts - really good, too much ... a detriment.



rogueluke #124 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 18:49

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14454 battles
  • 66
  • [MAG7] MAG7
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 16 2018 - 17:31, said:

 

Yes! I can imagine that ... so poor shrubbery in front of something like an SU-152 ... with side blast as well due to muzzle break.  Granted some things should be relatively indestructable ... but IMO, plant life in this context should NOT be one of them ... now back on smoke ... that also bring up strategic and random weather phenomena ... say smoke was used, but there is a prominent and gusty wind?  i.e. randomized weather to a limited extent.

 

Now that you mention it ... I do recall seeing still images of an Abrams firing ... yes, the emitted fireball was as you describe - close to the size of the tank!   

 

most smoke was produced from the exhaust, in the case of mine it came out the right front exhaust and was diesel fuel that produced a huge volume of smoke depending on wind we would form in a shape that the first vehicle covered the next in smoke and each after them.

Tanks on the other hand would blast the smoke out though the jet engine, covering a wide area behind them (why they drove backwards laying smoke.)

also on many of the turrets on the higher tier vehicles you will see these groups of tubes set around the turret in batches of 4-6 tubes those are smoke launchers  that would instantly blast out and explode covering the vehicle in a cloud of smoke.



Kenshin2kx #125 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 18:52

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17041 battles
  • 5,420
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postrogueluke, on Apr 16 2018 - 07:49, said:

 

most smoke was produced from the exhaust, in the case of mine it came out the right front exhaust and was diesel fuel that produced a huge volume of smoke depending on wind we would form in a shape that the first vehicle covered the next in smoke and each after them.

Tanks on the other hand would blast the smoke out though the jet engine, covering a wide area behind them (why they drove backwards laying smoke.)

also on many of the turrets on the higher tier vehicles you will see these groups of tubes set around the turret in batches of 4-6 tubes those are smoke launchers  that would instantly blast out and explode covering the vehicle in a cloud of smoke.

 

Yes, haha, I see them in the modeling, but as of now, cosmetic.  Like the recoil blades on artillery, there for modeling, but never deployed or considered for use and operational implication.

 

Actually I stand corrected ... infrared devices were actually concieved of before the 2nd world war! ... found this ... so, hmmmmmmmmm .... 

 

The first military night vision devices were introduced by the German Army as early as 1939, and wereused in World War II. AEG started developing the first devices in 1935. In mid-1943, the Army began thefirst tests with infrared night-vision (Nachtjäger) devices and telescopic rangefinders mounted on Panther tanks.

 

https://en.wikipedia...t_vision_device


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Apr 16 2018 - 18:54.


ket101 #126 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 00:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 8,956
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 17 2018 - 03:52, said:

 

Yes, haha, I see them in the modeling, but as of now, cosmetic.  Like the recoil blades on artillery, there for modeling, but never deployed or considered for use and operational implication.

 

Actually I stand corrected ... infrared devices were actually concieved of before the 2nd world war! ... found this ... so, hmmmmmmmmm .... 

 

The first military night vision devices were introduced by the German Army as early as 1939, and wereused in World War II. AEG started developing the first devices in 1935. In mid-1943, the Army began thefirst tests with infrared night-vision (Nachtjäger) devices and telescopic rangefinders mounted on Panther tanks.

 

https://en.wikipedia...t_vision_device

 

The Brits had done some infrared research, but weren't nearly as advanced as the Germans in this regard.  But they convinced the Germans that they had all this infrared tech.  Dr R.V. Jones, author of "Most Secret War" and head of British Scientific Intelligence during WWII, related how the Germans went to great lengths to try and protect things from being observed in infrared.  The paint for U-boats was one case.  A grey painted ship shows up as grey against a black sea in infrared, which makes it stand out.  So the Germans painted the U-Boats black, then covered the black with a clear varnish with glass suspended in it (I think that's how it was explained).  That made it appear grey to normal sight, and the infrared went straight through the varnish and only saw the black behind it.  Quite a bit of effort spent that wasn't really rewarded, since that wasn't how the Brits were spotting U-boats.

DoNutDestroyer #127 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 02:11

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14529 battles
  • 132
  • [TRED] TRED
  • Member since:
    07-20-2015

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 16 2018 - 18:47, said:

 

Okay, gaming contrivance ... but unpredictable, but strong and gusty ... this would minimize the chance of a perpetual fog for too long ... after all, the majority of the tanks in the game were operative before infrared sighting was available ... which means ... enough smoke, and you could have two tanks within literal meters ... pass by with no practical sighting for a shot ... at best, stereoscopic directionality of sound, or flashes of cannon fire.  So I would agree, controllable amounts - really good, too much ... a detriment.

 

World of Warships (which I really enjoy playing) has smoke generators on most of the destroyers and some of the cruisers.  They generate smoke for about 20 or so seconds and the screen usually lasts for a little over a minute or so.  You won't run into another ship without seeing it, but it is effective for screening.

Kenshin2kx #128 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 02:32

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17041 battles
  • 5,420
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostDoNutDestroyer, on Apr 16 2018 - 15:11, said:

 

World of Warships (which I really enjoy playing) has smoke generators on most of the destroyers and some of the cruisers.  They generate smoke for about 20 or so seconds and the screen usually lasts for a little over a minute or so.  You won't run into another ship without seeing it, but it is effective for screening.

 

Nice ... hopefully a trickle down effect will bring up the possibility for WoT ... lot of potential (that seems to have been already demonstrated in WoWs ...)  

rogueluke #129 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 02:38

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14454 battles
  • 66
  • [MAG7] MAG7
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014

View PostDoNutDestroyer, on Apr 17 2018 - 01:11, said:

 

World of Warships (which I really enjoy playing) has smoke generators on most of the destroyers and some of the cruisers.  They generate smoke for about 20 or so seconds and the screen usually lasts for a little over a minute or so.  You won't run into another ship without seeing it, but it is effective for screening.

 

the application of it was hit and miss for a bit, but when they set it where ships firing in it would dissipate it faster that helped a lot.

been awhile since i played but the only cruiser that had smoke was the alpha tester prem ship.

beta testers got the battleship lol 

 



albonnie #130 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 19:26

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 39529 battles
  • 4
  • [L13TH] L13TH
  • Member since:
    01-04-2011
First of all let me say I've played arty a lot starting in closed beta, I own all of the tier 10 arty, but I play it very seldom now because of the recent changes, Put arty back to the way it was and get rid of the idiotic stun

Kenshin2kx #131 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 19:29

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17041 battles
  • 5,420
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postalbonnie, on Apr 17 2018 - 08:26, said:

First of all let me say I've played arty a lot starting in closed beta, I own all of the tier 10 arty, but I play it very seldom now because of the recent changes, Put arty back to the way it was and get rid of the idiotic stun

 

WG painted themselves into an operative corner ... the stun was in response to the fact that arty was imbalanced in that it was either too accurate or too powerful as a combo ... thus either accuracy or power had to be adjusted ... WG chose to reduce power.

Edited by Kenshin2kx, Apr 17 2018 - 19:30.


mworthy #132 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 03:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10136 battles
  • 776
  • [941ST] 941ST
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011

View PostM0nkE, on Apr 15 2018 - 20:00, said:

Removal, obviously.

 

Perhaps the reason people don't complain as much about the KV-2 is because they feel it's more balanced and hurts gameplay less than artillery? The counterplay to tanks that can delete half or more of your hp at once is to not poke where they're likely to be, and (when they don't have [edited]HE-based guns, which should also be changed/removed) to use your armor. The counterplay to arty is to stay behind rocks and stick to bushes and trees, which drags the game out and prevents aggressive play. While it would still be obnoxious, it would certainly be less blatantly broken if more counters were added, such as buffing counterbattery fire to where it's actually worthwhile and common.

They shouldn't remove arty for the sole reason .that the next line to go would be tds pretty much anything that isn't population would go because God forbid something hurts your big bad heavy



Kenshin2kx #133 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 03:40

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17041 battles
  • 5,420
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postmworthy, on Apr 17 2018 - 16:37, said:

They shouldn't remove arty for the sole reason .that the next line to go would be tds pretty much anything that isn't population would go because God forbid something hurts your big bad heavy

 

I'd agree to this in principle ... given the fact that every class has it's share of those who hate it or wished it changed in one way or another ... so, the fairest and least likely to cause a civil war and or massive paranoia ... is to keep all classes AND to treat them all as equal partners in the game.

Iron_Soul_Stealer #134 Posted Apr 19 2018 - 05:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 3163 battles
  • 9,304
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
 

The best way to not rock the boat here: "I agree with everyone!".

 

 

 



Kenshin2kx #135 Posted Apr 19 2018 - 06:38

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17041 battles
  • 5,420
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Apr 18 2018 - 18:27, said:

 

The best way to not rock the boat here: "I agree with everyone!".

 

 

 

 

Well, as noble as that would be ... what happens when you encounter two points that diametrically oppose each other?  Unfortunately it would not be possible to agree with both since they mutually negate or oppose the other point ...

 

This leaves the unfortunate, but sometimes necessary point of defining your personal view regardless of whether it is agreeable or not ... the point being that it represents you and your idea(s).  



rogueluke #136 Posted Apr 19 2018 - 16:03

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14454 battles
  • 66
  • [MAG7] MAG7
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014

To be blunt i had a game yesterday where my T95 got focused by 2 tier 9 spg's.

They did not do enough damage to stop me from scouting 4 enemy TD's and lighting them up for my side to engage.

Granted i run a spall liner which reduces splash damage.

SPG's should be able to hit a 20kph TD. (think my true speed in that game was closer to 15kph)

a Tier 7 light tank has the ability to do more damage than those 2 SPG's did to my TD. (esp the autoloaders)

The TD's started shooting HE at me, their HE did more damage than the SPG's HE.

Even the stuns were minimal due to the spall liner and large first aid consumable (-15% stun duration) and fact they were not hitting close enough for a full stun.

 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #137 Posted Apr 24 2018 - 21:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 3163 battles
  • 9,304
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 19 2018 - 00:38, said:

 

Well, as noble as that would be ... what happens when you encounter two points that diametrically oppose each other?  Unfortunately it would not be possible to agree with both since they mutually negate or oppose the other point ...

 

This leaves the unfortunate, but sometimes necessary point of defining your personal view regardless of whether it is agreeable or not ... the point being that it represents you and your idea(s).  

 

Ken, you are much too civilized and polite for the internet. You are starting to give the world wide web a confusingly bad reputation...:D

 

 

 

 



fristzz #138 Posted Apr 24 2018 - 22:44

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15168 battles
  • 112
  • Member since:
    03-11-2012

After returning to the game after a long break I think arty is much better now than before.  Stuns are much better than the majority of your health and crew being wiped out like it was before. Out of your ideas I think limiting the amount of arty to a max of two would be a nice change.  Too many allows them as a whole to cover to many angles and getting into cover tough.  Reducing there range is another option.  The FV305 was at one time very short range for arty, but super fun. It was accurate and had a high rate of fire.  Damage was low, but it could keep folks pretty much perma tracked so being on the receiving end could suck.  I think it has since been nerfed quite a bit, but it was my favorite arty to play back in the day.  To make this work they would need to increase the arch on arty shots so they can still hit things. 

 

Another game had it where arty was made visible to other arty after shooting. It would ping the map so you knew were the shot came from and the duration of exposure and the ping on the map got smaller with time if you didn't move.  This basically forced you to move or you would be easily countered by other arty.  Was a great system that made them more interesting to play.  Quicker aim times would be need to offset the more mobile game play.  They also had smoke and flare shots.  Smoke could help hide your team.  Flare shots would help reveal enemies to them.  This allowed arty to support their team without completely annoying the other team with rain from above.  Many ways to improve it, I just don't think WOT is willing to make the effort. 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #139 Posted Apr 25 2018 - 09:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 24752 battles
  • 3,040
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostKilIingblow, on Apr 03 2018 - 13:24, said:

First off let me say 1.0 is awesome. Love the music, love the new maps, love the physics, you almost hit this out of the park but one thing is left to adjust in my opinion....Artillery...

 

I just watched my son try artillery today and I was surprised at how well they can see and shoot without having to reposition during a game.

 

I want to maneuver with strategy not worry about getting triple shot from above by something I cannot see or stop. As a tanker we have to move, pivot, scrape, aim, wait, pull back, and then reposition constantly but as an artillery player you can sit still most of the game and fire without fear on all the tanks in the field. until the very end of course if you lose. This makes me stay away from artillery as much as possible.

 

I have several suggestions:

 

  • Only allow the arty to see Hvy, Md, Lt, At, and tank location with a symbol.
  • Don't allow arty to shoot outside its line of sight (yellow line) and only allow artillery to target "lighted tanks" 
  • The new fire mode is way to powerful. Allow sniper mode only (arial mode).
  • Or make the arty have to close the distance if it wants to fire in the new fire mode.
  • Do not allow more than (1 or 2) arty in a game. (3) is just over the top and can be a hindrance depending on how the game rolls.
  • Have an option for arty to switch to a light or medium back-up tank on city maps. 

 

I have only played a small handful of artillery games. I don't mind arty but too much is too much. Something needs to be adjusted to balance the fun of the game from the tanker perspective.

 

Thanks for any consideration,

Steve H.

Aka: KillingBlow - an below average tanker but still has lots of fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hate to break it to you, but WG has said

1. The arty discussion is over

2. It will never be removed

3. It will never be lowered from it's current limit of 3 per game.

 

It has already been nerfed a few times and the last one was the worst, they do very little damage compared to pre 9.18.  It's been here from the start and isn't going away.







Also tagged with Arty, Artillery

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users