Jump to content


US Tech Tree Overhaul; 60+ New Tanks (I Didn't count the exact number)

USA New Tanks Tech Tree Buffs Nerfs Mechanics

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

64sherman #41 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 18:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 652
  • [MOZZY] MOZZY
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013

View PostBlackgunner, on Jan 21 2019 - 20:18, said:

It's a good pipe dream, but Wargaming is strictly against:

 

Smoothbores

Recoilless Rifles

Multiple Guns

Autoloaded 152mm +

Anything made to utterly decimate Russian tanks 

 

The only reason why smoothbores wernt intially added to the game was the shell velocity, an issue they've overcome.  

I have read nothing against recoiless rifles, and see no reason why they wouldn't be implemented at some point. 

We already have multy gun support in game. See: MTLS1G14

No reason why we can't have autoloading 155s.  We had the Foch 155 for a long time, and it's still in the game, plus its armor was absurd.  The T58 is doable.  

Only bit of truth you spoke was the bit about russians, the only exception being if they can make money off it.  



64sherman #42 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 18:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 652
  • [MOZZY] MOZZY
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on Jan 21 2019 - 23:47, said:

 

Why would you put the M103A2 at tier 10? The only functional difference between it and the M103/103A1 is the diesel V12 and a new rangefinder.

Soft stats can be buffed/nerfed to make the tanks different.  This is WoT after all and none of you care about historical accuracy anyway.  

 

The T30E1 can be combined with the T30 itself, no need for an entirely separate vehicle. The 155 also had assisted loading (shell rammer), so an autoreloader doesn't make sense.

That's like saying we don't need to have the Easy 8 in the game because we already have the M4.  It's assinine.  If it has a different designation, it warrants a seperate vehcile.  End of discussion.  Also, pretty much all auto loaders should function as auto reloaders ingame since in most tanks theres no reason to reload the ENTIRE magazine because you only fired 1 shot.  With that being said, if the vehicle doesn't have a magazine/carousel, it should just have an abnormally faster reload than usual, but perfrom like a normal tank in every other way.  

 

T23AT is already in the game as the T25AT.

Yeah Except it's not.  At all.  You can clearly see they are totally different vehicles.  The T25AT is wargaming fanfiction while the T23AT at least has some basis in history.  So if you actually care about the fact that these tanks are "the same" you would either be advocating that:

A: the T25AT gets replaced by the T23AT, or

B: the T25AT stays and the T23AT gets added.  

 



64sherman #43 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 18:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 652
  • [MOZZY] MOZZY
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013
As cool as all this is.  Until we fix the tiering system,(the game needs at least 15 battle ratings) a lot of these things could be too modern/good.  

PrimarchRogalDorn #44 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 19:48

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 1,699
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View Post64sherman, on Jan 23 2019 - 12:35, said:

Soft stats can be buffed/nerfed to make the tanks different.  This is WoT after all and none of you care about historical accuracy anyway.  

 

Or just offer the diesel as a module on the M103. No need for a separate tank.

Block Quote

 That's like saying we don't need to have the Easy 8 in the game because we already have the M4.  It's assinine.  If it has a different designation, it warrants a seperate vehcile.  End of discussion.  Also, pretty much all auto loaders should function as auto reloaders ingame since in most tanks theres no reason to reload the ENTIRE magazine because you only fired 1 shot.  With that being said, if the vehicle doesn't have a magazine/carousel, it should just have an abnormally faster reload than usual, but perfrom like a normal tank in every other way.  

 

The differences between a regular M4 and the E8 are far greater than the differences between the T30 and T30E1. The former has a different front hull, engine, suspension, turret, and gun while the latter has the same (albeit modified) turret, the same engine/powerpack, same hull, and the only difference between the T7 and T7E1 was the assisted loading and shell ejection mechanisms. That's it. Autoloaders act the way they do in-game for balance reasons, not because actual cassette autoloaders behave that way. Hunnicutt doesn't list the rate of fire for the T7E1, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be much quicker than the 2rpm of the T7.

 

Block Quote

 Yeah Except it's not.  At all.  You can clearly see they are totally different vehicles.  The T25AT is wargaming fanfiction while the T23AT at least has some basis in history.  So if you actually care about the fact that these tanks are "the same" you would either be advocating that:

 

" The in-game model appears different from the wooden model, presumably to make the chassis and suspension more resemble the T23 rather than the T1/M6 that it does in the wooden model.

  • The wooden model upon which the T25 AT is based was never named. The name T23 AT would have been more appropriate, as the vehicle is based on the T23 medium tank rather than the (American) T 25."

 



Havenard #45 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 20:48

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 40170 battles
  • 99
  • [GOFD] GOFD
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

Would be nice to see a historical reference to those proposed changes. For example, are those changes to tank names even backed by documents or they're just completely arbitrary?

 

I mean, a lot in here clearly is arbitrary, primarily about those stats change that sum up to "let's just buff everything American because reasons" even in tanks that are perfectly fine as they are like the Pershing. So if there's anything here that is backed by documents and facts you should put a reference, as you know we like our tanks as historically accurate as feasible.



latvius #46 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 21:42

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 31147 battles
  • 463
  • [-DIG-] -DIG-
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013

View PostHavenard, on Jan 23 2019 - 20:48, said:

Would be nice to see a historical reference to those proposed changes. For example, are those changes to tank names even backed by documents or they're just completely arbitrary?

 

I mean, a lot in here clearly is arbitrary, primarily about those stats change that sum up to "let's just buff everything American because reasons" even in tanks that are perfectly fine as they are like the Pershing. So if there's anything here that is backed by documents and facts you should put a reference, as you know we like our tanks as historically accurate as feasible.

 

OK you had me until the "perfectly fine Pershing"....It is a rare person that thinks the Pershing is something other than garbage. 

d3xdt3_IRL #47 Posted Jan 24 2019 - 22:10

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10230 battles
  • 28
  • [TOFC] TOFC
  • Member since:
    02-09-2017
The M53/55 definitely needs to be a tier 10 arty.  It's better in every way over the T92.  I could see keeping the T92 at t10, but put the t92 and m53/55 in different trees.  The m53/55 can be the quick reload/low alpha arty while the t92 can be the slow reload/high alpha arty.

Crabybaby #48 Posted Jan 25 2019 - 19:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 24986 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    01-18-2014

View PostHavenard, on Jan 23 2019 - 19:48, said:

Would be nice to see a historical reference to those proposed changes. For example, are those changes to tank names even backed by documents or they're just completely arbitrary?

 

I mean, a lot in here clearly is arbitrary, primarily about those stats change that sum up to "let's just buff everything American because reasons" even in tanks that are perfectly fine as they are like the Pershing. So if there's anything here that is backed by documents and facts you should put a reference, as you know we like our tanks as historically accurate as feasible.

 

Which changes are you referring to specifically?  I will say many of my suggested buffs/nerfs don't have much real historical basis for them, although most of the tier and classification changes are meant to make the tanks more historical.  Other than that, most of my changes are for gameplay/balance purposes, although I tried to keep them toned down as to keep the tanks more historically accurate than not, while also addressing some cases of power creep.

 

The tanks receiving armor buffs used to be extremely hard to penetrate, if not impenetrable, in many places, yet now they get penetrated extremely often, yet moving them down a tier wouldn't work either as their weak points would be harder to pen or their guns would be too strong, which would require nerfing them and removing their historical accuracy.  The best example of this is the T95, as its lower plate has become extremely easy to pen for equal tier tanks, despite the idea of even trying to shoot there being unheard of a few years ago, yet it's armor would be utterly ridiculous at tier 8.  While I am adding a historically accurate T28 at tier 8, it's strong front is offset by not having the benefit of an extra layer of tracks or the ability to mount a 155 millimeter gun (which was actually feasible for the T95, check the OTM link for details), leaving it with weaker sides and slower traverse speeds. 

 

The reasons for the gun buffs are kinda obvious, and are somewhat necessary, especially for the T69 which has utterly horrible gun stats at the moment.  The buffs to the Hellcat's 76mm gun is mostly just to please players who want a Hellcat that uses a more historical armament.

 

However if you were looking for a reference to the new tanks I'm introducing, I would recommend the link to Off-The-Marks Revamp listed in the OP.



64sherman #49 Posted Jan 25 2019 - 20:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 652
  • [MOZZY] MOZZY
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013

Plot twist.  

 

All the other tanks are a distraction from the fact that the M3 Lee was replaced by the T6.  

Well played.  



64sherman #50 Posted Jan 25 2019 - 20:20

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 652
  • [MOZZY] MOZZY
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013

View Postlatvius, on Jan 23 2019 - 14:42, said:

 

OK you had me until the "perfectly fine Pershing"....It is a rare person that thinks the Pershing is something other than garbage. 

 

Have to agree, pershing is trash.  Can confirm.  




4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users