Jump to content


Arty is Exactly How it is Supposed to be... and that's why some people don't like it


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

Poll: Arty Preference (129 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 100 battles in order to participate this poll.

Which arty do you prefer?

  1. Old Arty (97 votes [75.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 75.19%

  2. New Arty (32 votes [24.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.81%

Vote Hide poll

Knagar #81 Posted Feb 11 2019 - 12:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21408 battles
  • 1,681
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011
Well it's not how it's supposed to be. Arty is an indirect fire support, that means it has no line of sight on the target. While being somewhat accurate it's generally done with a few vehicles to pepper an area with shells, an area usually called in by a forward observation team.

They dont do damage through solid rock, they dont stun tanks, and they dont have top down views, sure newer ones have maps and drones, but this isn't modern day.

It's a broken class with broken mechanics that does the opposite of what WG says it's supposed to do. It ruins good games and frustrates people to no end.

But its here and we deal. So I would rather the old style, sure you can get nuked, but it happened far less often than the peppering you get today. That and none of this spastic stun mechanic junk.

I_QQ_4_U #82 Posted Feb 11 2019 - 14:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19728 battles
  • 4,517
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View PostKnagar, on Feb 11 2019 - 12:53, said:

Well it's not how it's supposed to be. Arty is an indirect fire support, that means it has no line of sight on the target. While being somewhat accurate it's generally done with a few vehicles to pepper an area with shells, an area usually called in by a forward observation team.

They dont do damage through solid rock, they dont stun tanks, and they dont have top down views, sure newer ones have maps and drones, but this isn't modern day.

 

Welcome to a video game where tanks have hit points, incorporeal gun barrels, resurrections, instant repairs and dune buggy physics but for some reason SPG's should be realistic?

ProfessionalFinn #83 Posted Feb 11 2019 - 15:02

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23547 battles
  • 1,428
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

Some of the anti-arty types have no connection to what is real or true. 
For example, at the start of a Frontline battle today, an SPG driver asked via chat for advice.

A heavy-tank teammate snarked back with "drive a real tank."

 

 

 



sergeantmine09 #84 Posted Feb 11 2019 - 16:12

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 13007 battles
  • 955
  • [VIXEN] VIXEN
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View PostProfessionalFinn, on Feb 11 2019 - 08:02, said:

Some of the anti-arty types have no connection to what is real or true. 
For example, at the start of a Frontline battle today, an SPG driver asked via chat for advice.

A heavy-tank teammate snarked back with "drive a real tank."

 

 

 

 

Should I start saying this to Wheelie Mobiley drivers too? The new wheeled boys are Armored Cars, not Tanks. Wanna start rehashing the "This is World of Tanks not World of Armored Vehicles" argument?

Deputy276 #85 Posted Feb 11 2019 - 16:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 19399 battles
  • 5,563
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

I always thought arty was in the game because the Russians owed their win against Germany to it. The massive Russian arty barrages broke up a ton of German armored advances. The way arty is implemented in the game is strictly a gaming compromise. No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2, unless they were about to be overrun and had no choice. Artillery in WW2 was used mainly against infantry, except for the Russian barrage method. A single artillery piece in WW2 simply didn't have the accuracy to take out a tank. It was an area weapon, not a point-to-point weapon. A single artillery piece engaging a single tank didn't happen until very recently when the US Copperhead weapon was used against Saddam's forces.  

https://en.wikipedia...M712_Copperhead

 

And as others have mentioned, artillery is not a tank. The game is called World of TANKS. To include arty (and armored cars), it should be called World of Armored Vehicles. I can't speak for anyone else, but I lost count of the number of times I was in a game, and when everyone noticed there was no arty present, shouts of joy rang out in chat. Plus those are usually the best games to play. Since the 3rd choice is missing, I can't vote in the poll.


Edited by Deputy276, Feb 12 2019 - 20:14.


ProfessionalFinn #86 Posted Feb 11 2019 - 17:20

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23547 battles
  • 1,428
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

View PostDeputy276, on Feb 11 2019 - 07:41, said:

I always thought arty was in the game because the Russians owed their win against Germany to it. The massive Russian arty barrages broke up a ton of German armored advances. The way arty is implemented in the game is strictly a gaming compromise. No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2, unless they were about to be overrun and had no choice. Artillery in WW2 was used mainly against infantry, except for the Russian barrage method. A single artillery piece in WW2 simply didn't have the accuracy to take out a tank. It was an area weapon, not a point-to-point weapon. A single artillery piece engaging a single tank didn't happen until very recently when the US Copperhead weapon was used against Saddam's forces.  

https://en.wikipedia...M712_Copperhead

 

And as others have mentioned, artillery is not a tank. The game is called World of TANKS. To include arty (and armored cars), it should be called World of Armored Vehicles. I can't speak for anyone else, but I lost count of the number of times I was in a game and when everyone noticed there was no arty present, shouts of joy rang out in chat. Plus those are usually the best games to play. Since the 3rd choice is missing, I can't vote in the poll.

 

You are right.  And you are wrong.

You are right.  The US Army premise pre-WWII and early on was artillery would be the primary defense against attacking tanks.  This premise was disproved In practice, in North Africa and form intelligence gathered from our Allies.  And in theory discredited during the 1940 and 1941 Louisiana Maneuvers. 

 

You are wrong.  Don't look at tanks as stand-alone by themselves fighters.  Look at WWII armored combat as a team of combined arms. Armor needs infantry needs artillery needs supply needs engineers.... ...need armor.....

Diminish the strength of infantry and tanks effectiveness is likewise reduced.  Arty is quite effective against infantry.  And against anti-tank guns.  And against enemy artillery.  Its like a football team in the sense of needing each other to succeed.

 

Final wrong:  "No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2" is patently false. Ever heard of the German 88? The general purpose 88 artillery piece was quite effective against armor from start to end.  The 88 was employed in the direct fire mode against tanks.  And in indirect fire and anti-aircraft missions. Ditto the Soviet 76mm field gun (excepting anti-aircraft role)  Further, at  Anzio and at Kasserine Pass,  American field artillery was pressed into anti-tank roles.  And bore-sighted at German armor.

 

Finally,   WoT is not a combat simulator, it is a fantasy game.  



I_QQ_4_U #87 Posted Feb 11 2019 - 17:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19728 battles
  • 4,517
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View PostDeputy276, on Feb 11 2019 - 16:41, said:

 No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2,

 

And as others have mentioned, artillery is not a tank. The game is called World of TANKS.

 

You are wrong, there were lots of instances where SPG's used direct fire against tanks, likely towed artillery as well. There are even more instances of artillery being used against tank formations to great effect.

 

 You irrationalists are reading too much into a name. It's marketing, nothing more.



ProfessionalFinn #88 Posted Feb 11 2019 - 19:35

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23547 battles
  • 1,428
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

View PostDeputy276, on Feb 11 2019 - 07:41, said:

I always thought arty was in the game because the Russians owed their win against Germany to it. The massive Russian arty barrages broke up a ton of German armored advances. The way arty is implemented in the game is strictly a gaming compromise. No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2, unless they were about to be overrun and had no choice. Artillery in WW2 was used mainly against infantry, except for the Russian barrage method. A single artillery piece in WW2 simply didn't have the accuracy to take out a tank. It was an area weapon, not a point-to-point weapon. A single artillery piece engaging a single tank didn't happen until very recently when the US Copperhead weapon was used against Saddam's forces.  

https://en.wikipedia...M712_Copperhead

 

And as others have mentioned, artillery is not a tank. The game is called World of TANKS. To include arty (and armored cars), it should be called World of Armored Vehicles. I can't speak for anyone else, but I lost count of the number of times I was in a game and when everyone noticed there was no arty present, shouts of joy rang out in chat. Plus those are usually the best games to play. Since the 3rd choice is missing, I can't vote in the poll.

The Premise: "No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2"  = nonsense. 

The following is first-rate credible documented proof that indirect fire from field artillery was effectively deployed against armor in WW2.  

Source, the book  "The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge"

Author: Hugh Cole 

Chapter XXV - "Epilogue"

page 654

"The success of field artillery as an antidote to the tank is difficult to assess quantitatively. American and German doctrine taught that long-range artillery could be used to break up tank concentrations before these reached the infantry zone. In the Ardennes, however, American artillery groupments not only performed this interdiction role but on numerous occasions stopped the tank assault right at the rifle line. Surprisingly enough, in several of those battles where causative agents in tank kills could be determined by postmortem possession of the battle area, the high explosives fired by American field artillery accounted for a large share of the kills made, although the actual damage inflicted may have been no more than a broken track or sprocket wheel." 

 

https://www.ibiblio....rdennes-25.html

 

Just to clarify:  WoT is a fantasy game. 

A fantasy game where the dead come back to life  

& armor enjoys a 115 degree clear view  

& 15X sniper capability is available to pre-WW2 armor 

& where damaged components fix themselves.

 

To demand your version of false reality for SPGs is silly.



awildseaking #89 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 03:40

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11725 battles
  • 790
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

View PostProfessionalFinn, on Feb 10 2019 - 12:00, said:

Post 9.17 (that means now) the T92's alpha  was dramatically decreased by 58% (From 2,250 to 1300), the option to use AP removed, module damage reduced 50% and a 37.5% reduction in DPM (table below).

 

Is this what you call a buff?

 

It's funny how after someone gets called out for being factually incorrect about the general increases to RoF, you come to his aid by shifting the goalposts and using a relativist fallacy. You're the sort of fool who sees a bigger number and thinks its better while ignoring the fact the old T92 had significantly worse dispersion and aim time. 2600 DPM is purely theoretical on a hit or miss arty and that's why the T92 (and old arty in general) had higher damage due to the meta centering around penning slow tanks for significant damage. If you only looked at the raw numbers you would think arty were nerfed, but the combined damage is about the same and the impact is significantly greater as arty can now reliably target highly mobile tanks and still pen/one shot them. Worst case scenario, arty hampers light and med mobility and royally screws their chances since they're more dependent upon crews and sensitive to loss of modules. Only campers and predictable noobs got hit by arty in highly mobile tanks before 9.18. Then there's the addition of stun, increased module/crew damage due to increased blast radius, increased RoF, reduced dispersion, and reduced aim time, etc. Instead of seeing 10k dmg games, we're seeing 10k combined games (still 7-8k dmg) with significantly more kill secures and base exp.

 

The real question at this point is why you believe arty shifting towards focusing lights and meds isn't a buff when all arty could really do before 9.18 is farm heavies.


Edited by awildseaking, Feb 12 2019 - 03:42.


ProfessionalFinn #90 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 03:43

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23547 battles
  • 1,428
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

View Postawildseaking, on Feb 11 2019 - 18:40, said:

 

It's funny how after someone gets called out for being factually incorrect about the general increases to RoF, you come to his aid by shifting the goalposts and using a relativist fallacy. You're the sort of fool who sees a bigger number and thinks its better while ignoring the fact the old T92 had significantly worse dispersion and aim time. 2600 DPM is purely theoretical on a hit or miss arty and that's why the T92 (and old arty in general) had higher damage due to the meta centering around penning slow tanks for significant damage. If you only looked at the raw numbers you would think arty were nerfed, but the combined damage is about the same and the impact is significantly greater as arty can now reliably target highly mobile tanks and still pen/one shot them. Worst case scenario, hamper their mobility and royally screw their chances. Only campers and predictable noobs got hit by arty in highly mobile tanks before 9.18. Then there's the addition of stun, increased module/crew damage due to increased blast radius, increased RoF, reduced dispersion, and reduced aim time, etc. Instead of seeing 10k dmg games, we're seeing 10k combined games with significantly more kill secures and base exp.

 

The real question at this point is why you believe arty shifting towards focusing lights and meds isn't a buff when all arty could really do before 9.18 is farm heavies.

 

The question remains unanswered...where the alpha  was dramatically decreased by 58% (From 2,250 to 1300), the option to use AP removed, module damage reduced 50% and a 37.5% reduction in DPM,

is this a buff?  Tanks!

 



Heart_of_Steel #91 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 08:00

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15016 battles
  • 103
  • [INVA] INVA
  • Member since:
    09-23-2013
Yea because having something in the game that gives people a negative experience is great for a company. And thats how its supposed to be Wot 2019 15k players peak hours lol

scHnuuudle_bop #92 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 08:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18980 battles
  • 3,355
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

View PostHeart_of_Steel, on Feb 12 2019 - 08:00, said:

Yea because having something in the game that gives people a negative experience is great for a company. And thats how its supposed to be Wot 2019 15k players peak hours lol

 

Good thing your negative thoughts are a minority view.

To be as wildly successful and long lasting as this franchise, is outstanding proof that millions upon millions find no negative experiences at all.

 

Just because you choose to view parts of an arcade game "negative" , does not detract from the view of the majority that all the challenges entailed in the game make it enjoyable.

Rising to each challenge is the entertainment, not something negative.



Heart_of_Steel #93 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 09:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15016 battles
  • 103
  • [INVA] INVA
  • Member since:
    09-23-2013

View PostscHnuuudle_bop, on Feb 12 2019 - 02:30, said:

 

Good thing your negative thoughts are a minority view.

To be as wildly successful and long lasting as this franchise, is outstanding proof that millions upon millions find no negative experiences at all.

 

Just because you choose to view parts of an arcade game "negative" , does not detract from the view of the majority that all the challenges entailed in the game make it enjoyable.

Rising to each challenge is the entertainment, not something negative.

 

With more than 150 million americans playing video games, {Google 2019} having 15k players at peak hours is laughable especially with a huge event like frontlines coming  up. So APPARENTLY my "Negative thoughts" are not just a minority but an overwhelming majority. But hey keep plugging your ears and humming your favorite song while ignoring the [edited]obvious. :facepalm:

LuckyStarr #94 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 10:08

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 7042 battles
  • 1,125
  • [AMOX] AMOX
  • Member since:
    10-20-2014

View PostNeroGermanicus, on Feb 07 2019 - 00:19, said:

No, we are pissed that shells that still cost the same but do half the damage. If you remember when you shot AP you "might" hit one out of 5 shots and then had a chance of a bounce. One shots were rather rare. The increased splash has made it to where there is little cover as I can blap someone for 150-200 when they are behind a building. Put arty back the way it was.

How about all the players you make suffer rage-quit the game, and you're left with no one to shoot at all?

F. you, arty players.

 

On topic: I'm not sure the current damage + stun mechanics is better than the old straight up damage. Now even near splash can render you pretty much useless for 10-20 seconds until your stun wears out. This is hugely annoying and I'm not sure it's a good and balanced mechanic.



slayer6 #95 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 10:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14110 battles
  • 448
  • [CYB3R] CYB3R
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011

Well...  GW Tiger (P) with a 21cm gun fired 1.14rpm initially... 

 

So, if it put on just AP shells it could do 2000 damage a shot with (I think 370 penetration)... 

 

Now picture all the Type 4's and 5's driving around, and a Tier 8 21cm Morser AP shell hits one of them square on in the centre of that blocky mass...

 

Now change the map to Himmelsdorf, and picture that 21cm monster AP sitting just around a corner, locked and loaded and ready to fire on the first tank to come around the corner...

 

Right now you have a debuff, and maybe a oneshot if you get hit in your cupola - before, the shell could damn well go right through your mantlet...



_Xi #96 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 10:48

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19336 battles
  • 676
  • [FUSON] FUSON
  • Member since:
    12-11-2012
Get one shot once every 25 games or be stunned every game?

FPGT72 #97 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 17:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 40037 battles
  • 212
  • [FYYFF] FYYFF
  • Member since:
    03-02-2012

you do not have a pic for no arty, flaw in your poll

 

Not voting as both are broken as all hell.



Deputy276 #98 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 20:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 19399 battles
  • 5,563
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostProfessionalFinn, on Feb 11 2019 - 10:20, said:

 

You are right.  And you are wrong.

You are right.  The US Army premise pre-WWII and early on was artillery would be the primary defense against attacking tanks.  This premise was disproved In practice, in North Africa and form intelligence gathered from our Allies.  And in theory discredited during the 1940 and 1941 Louisiana Maneuvers. 

 

You are wrong.  Don't look at tanks as stand-alone by themselves fighters.  Look at WWII armored combat as a team of combined arms. Armor needs infantry needs artillery needs supply needs engineers.... ...need armor.....

Diminish the strength of infantry and tanks effectiveness is likewise reduced.  Arty is quite effective against infantry.  And against anti-tank guns.  And against enemy artillery.  Its like a football team in the sense of needing each other to succeed.

 

Final wrong:  "No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2" is patently false. Ever heard of the German 88? The general purpose 88 artillery piece was quite effective against armor from start to end.  The 88 was employed in the direct fire mode against tanks.  And in indirect fire and anti-aircraft missions. Ditto the Soviet 76mm field gun (excepting anti-aircraft role)  Further, at  Anzio and at Kasserine Pass,  American field artillery was pressed into anti-tank roles.  And bore-sighted at German armor.

 

Finally,   WoT is not a combat simulator, it is a fantasy game.  

 

Sorry, but YOU are wrong. The 88MM guns were NOT "artillery". Artillery are INDIRECT fire weapons. The 88MM gun was a converted, DIRECT FIRE, anti-aircraft gun. It was manned by Luftwaffe personnel. 

 

I guess you missed my comment "No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2, unless they were about to be overrun and had no choice." 

 

And your final comment...it should say "WOT is not a SIMULATION". A tank simulator is a VERY different piece of equipment requiring a huge amount of money from the purchaser to obtain. THIS is a SIMULATOR:

https://www.youtube....h?v=33O_FOVtz8s

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=Jm6_Hi1ZCM0

 

Never said WOT was a combat SIMULATION. But there is a limit to how much fantasy is acceptable in the game. If people want full fantasy, you will have hover tanks, photon torpedoes, and laser canon. Is that what you are endorsing? I doubt it. WG has to walk a fine line between fantasy and reality. So compromises have to be made. But the current compromise of artillery is disliked by the majority of players. The game is called World of Tanks. It should remain tanks. No artillery, no armored cars, no infantry. JUST TANKS.


Edited by Deputy276, Feb 12 2019 - 20:41.


Deputy276 #99 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 20:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 19399 battles
  • 5,563
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostProfessionalFinn, on Feb 11 2019 - 12:35, said:

The Premise: "No single artillery piece fired against a single tank in WW2"  = nonsense. 

The following is first-rate credible documented proof that indirect fire from field artillery was effectively deployed against armor in WW2.  

Source, the book  "The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge"

Author: Hugh Cole 

Chapter XXV - "Epilogue"

page 654

"The success of field artillery as an antidote to the tank is difficult to assess quantitatively. American and German doctrine taught that long-range artillery could be used to break up tank concentrations before these reached the infantry zone. In the Ardennes, however, American artillery groupments not only performed this interdiction role but on numerous occasions stopped the tank assault right at the rifle line. Surprisingly enough, in several of those battles where causative agents in tank kills could be determined by postmortem possession of the battle area, the high explosives fired by American field artillery accounted for a large share of the kills made, although the actual damage inflicted may have been no more than a broken track or sprocket wheel." 

 

https://www.ibiblio....rdennes-25.html

 

Just to clarify:  WoT is a fantasy game. 

A fantasy game where the dead come back to life  

& armor enjoys a 115 degree clear view  

& 15X sniper capability is available to pre-WW2 armor 

& where damaged components fix themselves.

 

To demand your version of false reality for SPGs is silly.

 

Which proves nothing. I said SINGLE ARTILLERY PIECES, not a barrage. SINGLE ARTILLERY PIECES were never called upon to engage SINGLE TANKS as it is modelled in WOT. And stop saying this is a fantasy game. I don't want to see Peter Pan manning the next tank released by WG.

Edited by Deputy276, Feb 12 2019 - 20:40.


Flarvin #100 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 20:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 52999 battles
  • 14,584
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostDeputy276, on Feb 12 2019 - 14:36, said:

 

Sorry, but YOU are wrong. The 88MM guns were NOT "artillery". Artillery are INDIRECT fire weapons. The 88MM gun was a converted, DIRECT FIRE, anti-aircraft gun. It was manned by Luftwaffe personnel. 

 

 

 

Quite easy to prove that wrong. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41






4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users