Jump to content


A Proposed Redesign of the US Tech Tree & Discussion

tech tree branch United States US Discussion US tech tree

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

ThatTrafficCone #1 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 22:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

Latest update: A bunch of Patton tanks

 

Sometimes I write about tanks.

 

For nearly a year now, I've been working on my own blog aimed at revising the US tech tree, making suggestions for additions and rebalances to the tech tree. I don't necessarily go in depth with any given tank's statistics, as anything I would offer is ultimately up to the discretion of Wargaming. Instead I just focus on the hard details such as armor and mobility, and place the tanks in the tech tree in a way that makes sense. My goal is to simply see as many tanks represented in the game as possible.

 

Being an English-speaking American, I figured I would start here. I've reached a milestone today where I'm now halfway through writing about some 350 armored vehicles, so I thought I'd do an impromptu Q&A session with anyone who cares. If you'd like, hop on over to my website and place a question there or here in this thread, and I'll do my best to answer them.

 

Here's an image of my revised US tech tree. Open it in a new tab for a full-sized version. For details on individual tanks, well, that's what the blog is for. :hiding:

 

 

Thanks for reading!


Edited by ThatTrafficCone, Jul 19 2018 - 03:09.


Blackhorse_One_ #2 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 22:39

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3463 battles
  • 1,387
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2017

What's an M36 TB ?



TwixOps #3 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 22:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 46388 battles
  • 4,293
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
You do realize you don't need to add every AFV an engineer ever dreamed of, right?

ThatTrafficCone #4 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 22:42

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostBlackhorse_One_, on Jun 22 2018 - 14:39, said:

What's an M36 TB ?

 

"TB" stands for Test Bed, so the M36 TB would be a combination of various tests and experiments at least considered for the M36, such as the installation of the long 90 mm Gun T15E2.

 

View PostTwixOps, on Jun 22 2018 - 14:39, said:

You do realize you don't need to add every AFV an engineer ever dreamed of, right?

 

Yes, but I think the game about tanks should have more tanks in it, don't you? I also hate myself.



Blackhorse_One_ #5 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 22:42

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3463 battles
  • 1,387
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2017
Yo, M36B1 ???

ThatTrafficCone #6 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 22:58

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostBlackhorse_One_, on Jun 22 2018 - 14:42, said:

Yo, M36B1 ???

 

I try to take into account alternate hulls. Some things you might not see are covered there. For instance, the M36B1 would serve as an alternate hull for the M36. This is something Wargaming has been discussing already, iirc.

Blackhorse_One_ #7 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 22:59

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3463 battles
  • 1,387
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2017

Block Quote

alternate hulls

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

That's okay - I'd rather see it as a Premium US TD anyway

 

+1 for the re-org ... Digesting ...


Edited by Blackhorse_One_, Jun 22 2018 - 23:33.


The_Iron_Bullet #8 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 23:09

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 15503 battles
  • 199
  • [ARKAM] ARKAM
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014

View PostTwixOps, on Jun 22 2018 - 16:39, said:

You do realize you don't need to add every AFV an engineer ever dreamed of, right?

 

Chinese Td's???

Legiondude #9 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 23:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 20223 battles
  • 23,126
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
Woo, finally posted

ThatTrafficCone #10 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 23:29

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostBlackhorse_One_, on Jun 22 2018 - 14:59, said:

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

That's okay - I'd rather see it as a Premium US TD anyway

 

Well, there is the M36B2 I offer as a premium/reward/special option.

 

View PostThe_Iron_Bullet, on Jun 22 2018 - 15:09, said:

 

Chinese Td's???

 

fwiw, I can at least provide information and sources on the tanks I'm suggesting. 

 

View PostLegiondude, on Jun 22 2018 - 15:12, said:

Woo, finally posted

 

I don't think forums like this offer the kind of flexibility these kind of proposals really need. It's cumbersome and annoying to tab through pages looking for something, repeating the same messages again and again, and it's all kind of clunky. Hence the blog format. I've just been waiting for a good opportunity to share what I'm working on here, and this milestone seemed like the best option. :)

IcedBroom #11 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 23:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 33178 battles
  • 5,486
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013
I would love to see another US Medium tank line but I have no damm idea what half of those tanks are, I think you need to explain them to us please.

ThatTrafficCone #12 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 23:52

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostIcedBroom, on Jun 22 2018 - 15:47, said:

I would love to see another US Medium tank line but I have no damm idea what half of those tanks are, I think you need to explain them to us please.

 

Check out my blog! I haven't written about all of them yet, but I've already gone through more than half of them over there. Use the search function if you'd like something specific, or simply search by tag to view all I've got so far.

ket101 #13 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 23:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,126
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
Not sure that including South American vehicles in the US tech tree is very diplomatic, but maybe that could be a good thing.  It would probably be easier if they were in some sort of composite tree that included other nations, though.

ThatTrafficCone #14 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 23:58

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View Postket101, on Jun 22 2018 - 15:53, said:

Not sure that including South American vehicles in the US tech tree is very diplomatic, but maybe that could be a good thing.  It would probably be easier if they were in some sort of composite tree that included other nations, though.

 

I understand it's really touchy to do that. But something I've discovered is that several nations that don't have complete branch options, such as Hungary or Argentina, have either only indigenous low-tier options or indigenous high-tier options—not both. If you were to make a pan-South American tree, for instance, the low tiers would all be more needless copies of Stuarts and Shermans. The relations between the countries involved is definitely something to consider, but I believe the relations between the South American countries is mostly amicable today. But I could be wrong. Regardless, this is just one way to get their tanks represented in the game beyond making all of them premium tanks, which is something I'm personally tired of.

Blackhorse_One_ #15 Posted Jun 23 2018 - 00:10

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3463 battles
  • 1,387
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2017
South America has had it's share of armed conflicts among the constituent nations

Edited by Blackhorse_One_, Jun 23 2018 - 00:11.


ThatTrafficCone #16 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 03:03

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

Hey everyone! I made a few posts today to wrap up my thoughts on the Patton series of tanks. I've still got two left to do, and then I plan on filling some holes I've allowed to develop. Check out my blog to see them!

 

Also, the tech tree went under a few revisions. They were mostly just renaming some tanks to be more accurate, such as turning the M46 Patton into the M47 Patton. Check that out below.

 



Avalon304 #17 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 03:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 18533 battles
  • 7,895
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

Advice: Drop the Israeli stuff... its a bit out of scope. (As is any Brazillian or other countries tanks). Also drop the Armored Cars and Half-tracks they dont have a place in this game.

 

Youd also never get the T95E6 admitted to the normal tech tree, not with it being a CW reward tank. (Nor would downtiering the M60 fly).

 

Im also not seeing how you get the M103A2 at tier 10, considering it was basically just an engine upgrade for all intents and purposes (atleast those relevant to this game). Leave the T110E5 after it, but properly model the T110E5.

 

You'll also never get the M60A3 in. The FCS is too advanced.

 

The M60A1E3 should just be rolled into the M60A2 as a separate gun.

 

Theres too much here... far too much and many things that either dont have a place or just dont need to be there. (Also too many SPGs...)



ket101 #18 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 05:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,126
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
Also, Ontos has been ruled out by WG pretty much every time they've addressed it.  They don't want to include recoilless guns.  A pity, since it also rules out things like Ardeer Aggie (a much longer ranged weapon than the Petard spigot mortar), even if it used a different kind of recoilless system.

ThatTrafficCone #19 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:29

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostAvalon304, on Jul 11 2018 - 19:45, said:

Advice: Drop the Israeli stuff... its a bit out of scope. (As is any Brazillian or other countries tanks). Also drop the Armored Cars and Half-tracks they dont have a place in this game.

 

Youd also never get the T95E6 admitted to the normal tech tree, not with it being a CW reward tank. (Nor would downtiering the M60 fly).

 

Im also not seeing how you get the M103A2 at tier 10, considering it was basically just an engine upgrade for all intents and purposes (atleast those relevant to this game). Leave the T110E5 after it, but properly model the T110E5.

 

You'll also never get the M60A3 in. The FCS is too advanced.

 

The M60A1E3 should just be rolled into the M60A2 as a separate gun.

 

Theres too much here... far too much and many things that either dont have a place or just dont need to be there. (Also too many SPGs...)

 

The reason for the incorporation of the Israeli (and North/South American) branches is that, by my own interpretation, these nations lack the ability to create their own unique full-fledged branches. The introduction of the Polish tree shows Wargaming wants to avoid clones and use only unique designs when possible. In this regard, the low-tier options for these nations are largely non-indigenous designs. The few indigenous designs I've seen, such as the M4 Sherman with the FL-11 turret (never mind the fact this is a French tank used only by Egypt), simply lack any potential module unlocks. It makes no sense to me to incorporate tanks into regular tech trees with no real unlocks available. If you remove such tanks, these nations fail to create even a single viable branch in my opinion. Hence, I've incorporated them here.

 

As I clearly state in my blog, my aim with this is to see as many tanks added to the game as possible. That's why I assume anything and everything is open for revision, including things like a tank's tier and even its premium status. This also goes for SPGs, simply because the US developed a lot of them. But this isn't 2015: having more arty to research isn't going to change the amount you see in a given match, since there's a cap on that now. I think arguments towards adding more SPGs to the game are unfounded in that regard.

 

As for the T110E5, I think it would do better at Tier IX with its historical model, as it would be impossible to depress the gun over the rear of the tank. I put the M103A2 in its place as a simple straight buff to the M103's gun handling, and maybe some ahistoric improvements to its turret armor. I do realize this is a video game so some leniency is allowed.

 

I never considered adding the M60A3 to the game. You might be misreading what I wrote at the M60E3. And the problem with the M60A1E3 is that I have the M60A2 at Tier IX. Giving that thing the 105 would be too overpowered in my opinion. So I made it its own reward tank. It would have a bit better turret than the M60A1, but probably worse gun characteristics. Ideally none of the on-the-move skills the M60A1 would have.

 

As for Armored Cars and Half-Tracks, my understanding is that Wargaming wants to add them, but simply lacks the ability to do so. But now with the 1.0 Encore engine, hopefully they're now capable to do so. Naturally Wargaming is rather glacial with new developments for the game, and their implementation is nothing more than hearsay, it's still something I'd like to see to give the game perhaps the most flavorful addition it's seen since the implementation of physics back in version 0.8.

 

View Postket101, on Jul 11 2018 - 21:27, said:

Also, Ontos has been ruled out by WG pretty much every time they've addressed it.  They don't want to include recoilless guns.  A pity, since it also rules out things like Ardeer Aggie (a much longer ranged weapon than the Petard spigot mortar), even if it used a different kind of recoilless system.

 

I haven't heard that reason before. I've only heard that they don't want to add the Ontos because they're not sure how to implement a tank with six guns. But now with the new 1.0 Encore engine, hopefully they'll find a way to do so? I'm very optimistic with this project, so I'd love to see them added. 



ket101 #20 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 02:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,126
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostThatTrafficCone, on Jul 13 2018 - 02:29, said:

 

The reason for the incorporation of the Israeli (and North/South American) branches is that, by my own interpretation, these nations lack the ability to create their own unique full-fledged branches. The introduction of the Polish tree shows Wargaming wants to avoid clones and use only unique designs when possible. In this regard, the low-tier options for these nations are largely non-indigenous designs. The few indigenous designs I've seen, such as the M4 Sherman with the FL-11 turret (never mind the fact this is a French tank used only by Egypt), simply lack any potential module unlocks. It makes no sense to me to incorporate tanks into regular tech trees with no real unlocks available. If you remove such tanks, these nations fail to create even a single viable branch in my opinion. Hence, I've incorporated them here.

 

As I clearly state in my blog, my aim with this is to see as many tanks added to the game as possible. That's why I assume anything and everything is open for revision, including things like a tank's tier and even its premium status. This also goes for SPGs, simply because the US developed a lot of them. But this isn't 2015: having more arty to research isn't going to change the amount you see in a given match, since there's a cap on that now. I think arguments towards adding more SPGs to the game are unfounded in that regard.

 

As for the T110E5, I think it would do better at Tier IX with its historical model, as it would be impossible to depress the gun over the rear of the tank. I put the M103A2 in its place as a simple straight buff to the M103's gun handling, and maybe some ahistoric improvements to its turret armor. I do realize this is a video game so some leniency is allowed.

 

I never considered adding the M60A3 to the game. You might be misreading what I wrote at the M60E3. And the problem with the M60A1E3 is that I have the M60A2 at Tier IX. Giving that thing the 105 would be too overpowered in my opinion. So I made it its own reward tank. It would have a bit better turret than the M60A1, but probably worse gun characteristics. Ideally none of the on-the-move skills the M60A1 would have.

 

As for Armored Cars and Half-Tracks, my understanding is that Wargaming wants to add them, but simply lacks the ability to do so. But now with the 1.0 Encore engine, hopefully they're now capable to do so. Naturally Wargaming is rather glacial with new developments for the game, and their implementation is nothing more than hearsay, it's still something I'd like to see to give the game perhaps the most flavorful addition it's seen since the implementation of physics back in version 0.8.

 

 

I haven't heard that reason before. I've only heard that they don't want to add the Ontos because they're not sure how to implement a tank with six guns. But now with the new 1.0 Encore engine, hopefully they'll find a way to do so? I'm very optimistic with this project, so I'd love to see them added. 

 

They actually figured out armoured cars a while ago.  Remember the WWI missions, escorting a Mk IV tank with Lanchester armoured cars?  (Lanchesters because the Russians operated them too, and it would also avoid upsetting whoever owns Rolls Royce these days.)

 

It would be interesting to see the recoil exhaust of the Burnie-style guns, and possibly even a game mechanic with Davis-style guns (light tank on your rear?  Fire the gun and see if the counterweight takes him out :)  )






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users