Jump to content


Why is the STRV classified as a tank destroyer?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

RickEdwards #1 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 15:55

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25557 battles
  • 159
  • [NISHI] NISHI
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

Like, I get that various historical facts need to be changed for game balance purposes, but in the case of the STRV, the facts were changed for no real reason to create a "tank destroyer" that, if anything, is detrimental to game balance.

 

The STRV was not a tank destroyer; it was a main battle tank. It had an unsusal design, yes, but it had the same classification as other tanks, like the Leopard 1 and STB-1, as well as the same gun. Like, not just the same caliber, but the same gun. Yes, it was slightly longer, but not nearly enough to justify it having around 35-40 mm of extra penetration. And another thing, just by being classified as a "tank destroyer" tanks magically gets extra camo; like the T30 and T34; T30 has more camo despite being, well, actually a heavy tank, and also being identical in profile to the T34. Once again, STRV has a small profile, so it's camo should be pretty good, but atm, it's camo rating is better than everything, even tanks with far smaller profiles, like the T-100 LT and even the ELC Even 90.

 

Like, why though? There is really no reason for it... It could easily have been classified as a medium; it'd be a unique medium, yes, but if the Leo 1 and STB, or really any 105 mm medium in this game, are classified as a "medium" then the STRV should be as well and lose it's nonsensical camo rating and penetration.



General_Lee_Miserable #2 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 10012 battles
  • 2,298
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013
The STRV was designed to hold dug in positions. It's very much a TD and was always intended to be. 

Ortinoth #3 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:09

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 25993 battles
  • 609
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011
Good thing an Arcade game isn't historically accurate 

stubmw #4 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:14

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 23820 battles
  • 314
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012
I am guessing you got popped real hard by one in battle. lol

Devil666 #5 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:14

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 30578 battles
  • 153
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010
"Because it destroys tanks, Avi"

moogleslam #6 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 39672 battles
  • 4,206
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

View PostRickEdwards, on Nov 09 2018 - 10:55, said:

And another thing, just by being classified as a "tank destroyer" tanks magically gets extra camo; like the T30 and T34; T30 has more camo despite being, well, actually a heavy tank, and also being identical in profile to the T34. 

 

Slightly off topic, but just wanted to focus on this part because ever since the T30 was changed from a Heavy to a TD in game, everyone thinks they need to camp redline in it.  It still has heavy characteristics, just as much as the T34 that you mentioned.  Maybe we should reclassify all tanks as tanks so players don't think a triangle icon means camp in all cases, etc :)



OctavariumDT8 #7 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 47251 battles
  • 923
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    07-28-2012

View Postmoogleslam, on Nov 09 2018 - 17:21, said:

 

Slightly off topic, but just wanted to focus on this part because ever since the T30 was changed from a Heavy to a TD in game, everyone thinks they need to camp redline in it.  It still has heavy characteristics, just as much as the T34 that you mentioned.  Maybe we should reclassify all tanks as tanks so players don't think a triangle icon means camp in all cases, etc :)

 

Yeah, tank role isn't determined by its class alone. Some people still don't get it :)

AndrewSledge #8 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 17:08

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 31854 battles
  • 1,795
  • Member since:
    04-14-2014

Tank Destroyers were mostly phased out after WW2, with only a few being made after the war, such as the M56 Scorpion and Kanonenjagdpanzer. However, WG wants full lines to tier 10 of diffent tank types. That's why we have tank destroyers extending to tier 10, and heavy tanks extending to tier 10, even though heavy tanks were also largely phased out after the 1950s.

 

 

We have the IS-7 as a tier 10 Soviet heavy that was built in 1948, the tier 10 T92 HMC that was built in 1945, and these face the Leopard 1 from 1965 and the STRV 103 from 1967. While in-game the IS-7 and Maus are formidable opponents, in an actual battle, the Leopard 1 would be the winner.


 

This is an arcade game and not a simulator, so they move things around and stretch things out beyond historical realism in order to make a fun game. Don't spend too much time thinking about it.


Edited by AndrewSledge, Nov 09 2018 - 17:08.


RickEdwards #9 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 17:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25557 battles
  • 159
  • [NISHI] NISHI
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View PostAndrewSledge, on Nov 09 2018 - 17:08, said:

Tank Destroyers were mostly phased out after WW2, with only a few being made after the war, such as the M56 Scorpion and Kanonenjagdpanzer. However, WG wants full lines to tier 10 of diffent tank types. That's why we have tank destroyers extending to tier 10, and heavy tanks extending to tier 10, even though heavy tanks were also largely phased out after the 1950s.

 

 

We have the IS-7 as a tier 10 Soviet heavy that was built in 1948, the tier 10 T92 HMC that was built in 1945, and these face the Leopard 1 from 1965 and the STRV 103 from 1967. While in-game the IS-7 and Maus are formidable opponents, in an actual battle, the Leopard 1 would be the winner.


 

This is an arcade game and not a simulator, so they move things around and stretch things out beyond historical realism in order to make a fun game. Don't spend too much time thinking about it.

 

I understand that and agree it should not be realistic; but I also don't think they should just change tank characteristics on a whim as they seemingly often do.

View Poststubmw, on Nov 09 2018 - 16:14, said:

I am guessing you got popped real hard by one in battle. lol

 

Not really any one specific game, but it's dumb af how they can out-spot literally any other tank as well as shoot them and not get spotted most of the time. And I'm not talking low vr tanks, I'm talking like my Leo 1, with 503 m of vr and my RHM LT with a bit less than 500. Also, how they can often just sit in an open field and not get spotted from like 300 m. That makes no sense even in an arcade game.

Dockmaster #10 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 17:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 42840 battles
  • 5,308
  • [ACES] ACES
  • Member since:
    01-23-2011
I'd be more inclined to ask why the T30 is a TD.

RickEdwards #11 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 17:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25557 battles
  • 159
  • [NISHI] NISHI
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View PostDockmaster, on Nov 09 2018 - 17:33, said:

I'd be more inclined to ask why the T30 is a TD.

 

Same reason STRV is, I would guess...

Pipinghot #12 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 18:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,844
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostRickEdwards, on Nov 09 2018 - 09:55, said:

Like, I get that various historical facts need to be changed for game balance purposes, but in the case of the STRV, the facts were changed for no real reason to create a "tank destroyer" that, if anything, is detrimental to game balance.

 

The STRV was not a tank destroyer; it was a main battle tank. It had an unsusal design, yes, but it had the same classification as other tanks, like the Leopard 1 and STB-1, as well as the same gun. Like, not just the same caliber, but the same gun. Yes, it was slightly longer, but not nearly enough to justify it having around 35-40 mm of extra penetration. And another thing, just by being classified as a "tank destroyer" tanks magically gets extra camo; like the T30 and T34; T30 has more camo despite being, well, actually a heavy tank, and also being identical in profile to the T34. Once again, STRV has a small profile, so it's camo should be pretty good, but atm, it's camo rating is better than everything, even tanks with far smaller profiles, like the T-100 LT and even the ELC Even 90.

 

Like, why though? There is really no reason for it... It could easily have been classified as a medium; it'd be a unique medium, yes, but if the Leo 1 and STB, or really any 105 mm medium in this game, are classified as a "medium" then the STRV should be as well and lose it's nonsensical camo rating and penetration.

For a couple of reasons:

 

* Game play - WoT is designed to "look and feel" like WWII battles, and the game has 5 pre-defined classes and there was no such thing as an MBT during WWII. If you look at all of the other tanks in those 5 classes the STRV's do not play like medium tanks from any country so, in the context, of WoT, It makes no sense to classify the STRV as a medium.

 

* It has a fixed, forward-firing gun that is aimed by using the tracks and hull suspension. That type of vehicle has been describes as an "assault gun", a "tank destroyer" or a "self propelled gun" by various nations over time, MBT's don't exist in WoT. The STRV can't be a medium, therefore it has to be either a TD or an SPG.

 

* WG decided they wanted to add a TD line for the Swedish, just be glad they didn't want an arty line or the vehicle you like so much would be hated by every arty hater in the game. TD is the better of the two options.



tod914 #13 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 18:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 59220 battles
  • 4,311
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View Postmoogleslam, on Nov 09 2018 - 10:21, said:

 

Slightly off topic, but just wanted to focus on this part because ever since the T30 was changed from a Heavy to a TD in game, everyone thinks they need to camp redline in it.  It still has heavy characteristics, just as much as the T34 that you mentioned.  Maybe we should reclassify all tanks as tanks so players don't think a triangle icon means camp in all cases, etc :)

 

Reclassify Arty as Lights.  Might solve the problem.

Edited by tod914, Nov 09 2018 - 18:41.


RickEdwards #14 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 19:00

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25557 battles
  • 159
  • [NISHI] NISHI
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View PostPipinghot, on Nov 09 2018 - 18:05, said:

For a couple of reasons:

 

* Game play - WoT is designed to "look and feel" like WWII battles, and the game has 5 pre-defined classes and there was no such thing as an MBT during WWII. If you look at all of the other tanks in those 5 classes the STRV's do not play like medium tanks from any country so, in the context, of WoT, It makes no sense to classify the STRV as a medium.

 

* It has a fixed, forward-firing gun that is aimed by using the tracks and hull suspension. That type of vehicle has been describes as an "assault gun", a "tank destroyer" or a "self propelled gun" by various nations over time, MBT's don't exist in WoT. The STRV can't be a medium, therefore it has to be either a TD or an SPG.

 

* WG decided they wanted to add a TD line for the Swedish, just be glad they didn't want an arty line or the vehicle you like so much would be hated by every arty hater in the game. TD is the better of the two options.

 

Uhh, I don't like the STRV... and saying it is suppose to feel like WWII tank battles is idiotic when you have tanks made 20 years after WWII in it. Also, tank roles are rather ill defined; M3 lee is a medium tank by everyone's standards, yet it has it's main gun fixed forward, not in a turret. Just cause a tank is slightly different than the rest in a class does not mean that it cannot be in that class. T110E4 plays like a heavy (along with many other, fixed gun TDs); Obj. 430U plays like a heavy, and there are some medium tanks that play more like TDs, like the K-91. And really, when it comes down to it, not any other TD's play-style are really all that similar to the STRV at tier 10 as well. There is still no real reason for it to be a "tank destroyer."

Pipinghot #15 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 02:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,844
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostRickEdwards, on Nov 09 2018 - 13:00, said:

and saying it is suppose to feel like WWII tank battles is idiotic when you have tanks made 20 years after WWII in it.

You have that backwards. Having tanks made 20 years after WWII is idiotic for a game that is supposed to feel like WWII. But that idiotic choice doesn't change the basic facts, the whole concept of WoT has always been to look and feel like WWII in spite of the fact that they have later period tanks.

View PostRickEdwards, on Nov 09 2018 - 13:00, said:

Also, tank roles are rather ill defined

True, just like they were ill defined in the real world.

 

That's not WoT's fault, it's not a situation they created. And considering that different countries use different designations that's not surprising. What one country calls an "assault gun" another country might call a "tank destroyer" or a "self-propelled gun". So, WoT made the decision to have 5 categories because that's what they thought would work best for the game.

 

Since WoT is not modeled after any one, specific country they have chosen 5 categories for their game, and therefore all tanks in the game must fit into one of those categories.

View PostRickEdwards, on Nov 09 2018 - 13:00, said:

M3 lee is a medium tank by everyone's standards, yet it has it's main gun fixed forward, not in a turret.

That's true, but it's not a casemate gun and it doesn't engage the suspension as part of it's process for getting ready for combat. Those are significant differences between the M3 and the STRV. The M3 does have a fixed, forward gun, but in every other respect it's much more like a Medium tank than a TD, not to mention it is an actual WWII era tank and was classified as a medium in its time.

View PostRickEdwards, on Nov 09 2018 - 13:00, said:

Just cause a tank is slightly different than the rest in a class does not mean that it cannot be in that class.

Also true, but the STRV is not "slightly" different from medium tanks, it is significantly different from them. The way that the STRV behaves and functions is much more like TD's or SPG's than like mediums. The only classes that made sense for the STRV in the context of WoT were either TD or SPG.

View PostRickEdwards, on Nov 09 2018 - 13:00, said:

T110E4 plays like a heavy (along with many other, fixed gun TDs); Obj. 430U plays like a heavy, and there are some medium tanks that play more like TDs, like the K-91. And really, when it comes down to it, not any other TD's play-style are really all that similar to the STRV at tier 10 as well. There is still no real reason for it to be a "tank destroyer."

There is some validity to what you're saying, but even taking into account your points it's still not a Medium. If anything it's an "assault gun", but the problem is that WoT doesn't use assault gun as a classification. All of the historical assault guns are either classified as TD or SPG in this game, none of them are mediums in WoT, so really those are you only choices. The STRV is either a TD or and SPG, take your pick, but in the context of WoT it's definitely not a medium.



SpectreHD #16 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 03:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16592 battles
  • 16,800
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
WG could have made something different for the STRV and make a unique medium but they decided to go with the easy option. I guess gameplay wise making it a TD would make it easier for the playerbase as I am sure many would struggle if they decide to play it as a medium.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users