Jump to content


Cant take WOT reality..


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

ECA #1 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 08:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

http://wiki.wargamin...08_Ikv_65_Alt_2

This is a lovely TD..

Its based on a APC frame from the 60's and still used today...with a few mods..

It has a very strange gun on it...its called a Recoil-less rifle..  and its a very neat weapon..

90mm, abit heavy for 1 man, but can be mounted on Just about anything, because it has NO RECOIL, and can be aimed quickly, even by 2 men sitting on the ground..

https://www.youtube....XyBnfoKJk&t=97s

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=sPKq_jFBZ1w

https://youtu.be/BjkWgek6UXU?t=1534

 

This is a very light vehicle...at around 19 tons..Designed for fighting in Sweden, in snow and soft soils..

60kph is pretty good, but do you think it should be quick to turn??  NOT in this game.

Think a person inside a TD with a good amount of room, and ammo sitting near and around them, can Aim/load/fire in less then 8-10 seconds??  This is not a REAL tank round. with a full casing and soforth.  It dont weight 40-50pounds, about 20kg..

 

What should the accuracy be like???  a small team can aim it with Basic 7.62 sights, and ranged at <1000m(1k)...

Go try it out...see how this handles and tell me If I should higher a team of 5 to run around on foot and shoot tanks..

Cause this tanks can REALLY suck...and it hates reverse and turning from stand still..

 

I think WOT considers this BALANCE..

Good luck people..I cant take this reality any more..



cKy_ #2 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 08:44

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 4329 battles
  • 2,292
  • [PUBBY] PUBBY
  • Member since:
    09-29-2018

It took you 11,000 battles to figure out that WoT isn't historically accurate? Wowza my dude. 

 

And yes, it is perfectly balanced. I do hope your last statement means that you are quitting WoT...



ket101 #3 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 09:43

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,399
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
Gun in the game is not recoilless.  Could you imagine the inside of the vehicle if a recoilless gun was fired inside?  Not great for the crew, or the ammunition, or anything else.  WG doesn't want recoilless guns in the game (at present), which is why the Ontos doesn't appear.  Yet.

WeSayNotToday #4 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 10:30

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23414 battles
  • 1,074
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

IKV 65 is a good TD, and with a good crew it can really perform.  Train your driver for manueverability, and you might be happy with the results.

 

Good enough, and good luck.



Pipinghot #5 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 11:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,296
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostECA, on Feb 12 2019 - 02:33, said:

Good luck people..I cant take this reality any more..

So you're fine with magically resurrecting crew from the dead, and repairing your tracks in 5 seconds, during combat, with people actively shooting at you, but some how that tank is just to "unrealistic" for you. Reality must mean something different in the special world you've created for yourself.


Edited by Pipinghot, Feb 12 2019 - 11:13.


dunniteowl #6 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 17:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 30744 battles
  • 7,735
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

Not to be 'nit-picky,' mind you, however a 20 Kg round does, in all point of fact, weigh 40-50 pounds.  At 2.2 pounds per kilogram, 20 kilograms comes in at 44 pounds.  I'm going to have to stand on the concept that such a weight is well within the 40-50 pound range.  So, yes, it does weigh 40 to 50 pounds.

 

Beyond this, you DO know how a recoillesss rifle works, right?  

 

From Wikipedia, just so you know I'm using Real World information and not talking out my backside:

 

recoilless riflerecoilless launcher or recoilless gun, sometimes abbreviated "RR" or "RCL" (for ReCoilLess)[1] is a type of lightweight artillery system or man-portable shell launcher that is designed to eject some form of countermass such as propellant gas from the rear of the weapon at the moment of firing, creating forward thrust that counteracts most of the weapon's recoil. This allows for the elimination of much of the heavy and bulky recoil-counteracting equipment of a conventional cannon as well as a thinner-walled barrel, and thus the launch of a relatively large projectile from a platform that would not be capable of handling the weight or recoil of a conventional gun of the same size. Technically, only devices that use spin-stabilized projectiles fired from a rifled barrel are recoilless rifles, while smoothbore variants (which can be fin-stabilized or unstabilized) are recoilless guns. This distinction is often lost, and both are often called recoilless rifles.[2]

 

(boldface and underlined section is me HIGHLIGHTING the Primary Point of what you seem to be missing)

 

A "rifle" operating in this manner inside a closed turret/casemate system is going to KILL THE CREW!!  Why do you think the rifle is recoilless?  Because it EJECTS something out the [edited]-end of the rifle so that the barrel does not have to pop backwards -- or recoil -- from launching the shell out its tube.  Where do you think all that ejecta goes when the gun fires?  In a closed turret or casemate unit, it would immediately fill up the crew compartment, suffocating and/or burning the crew stuck inside with said gun's ejecta from firing.

 

Real world or not, I'm pretty sure any tanker would consider this "A Very Bad Thing"™.

 

And for those of you that cannot visualize what I'm talking about, here:

 

 

Please take note how EVERYONE steps away from the back of the gun before firing.  Where is a compartmented crew going to go?  How much ventilation would you need to prevent that backblast (like using a bazooka or LAW Rocket (Lightweight Anti-tank Weapon)) from filling the compartment and killing the crew?  I don't think Improved Ventilation is going to cut it.

 

 

So, if you want this game to be more Real World oriented, you would NOT be asking why they aren't using a recoilless rifle inside a compartmented tank system.

 

Just saying.

 

 

GL, HF & HSYBF!

OvO

 


Edited by dunniteowl, Feb 12 2019 - 17:36.


ECA #7 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 23:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

"Of all these companies, Landsverk was the most experienced, having produced virtually every Swedish tank design from the 1930s to the 1950s. Landsverk had however fallen on hard times lately after losing the contract for the army’s new APC to Hägglunds, but it was decided to make a last ditch effort to keep the military part of the company going and five different designs were submitted for the new Ikv project. The first proposal was essentially a rebuilt Ikv 103 with a bigger superstructure and bigger engine. The main armament, shared between all the proposals, was a Bofors 90mm L/54 low pressure gun, developed from the Pvpj1110 recoilless rifle. There was however a number of versions of this gun considered (although not directly by Landsverk)."

 

AND the final release would not be until the 1970's of a vehicle.... and IKV 91..

https://www.youtube....otsDr7F-pg&t=5s

goto 3:10 for firing..

Tell me how much that shell weights..

for you other reader I SAID... "It dont weight 40-50pounds, about 20kg.."

 

 


Edited by ECA, Feb 12 2019 - 23:17.


ECA #8 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 23:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

Now lets get serious..

 

 

VI 9 cm Bofors L/43 155/230/45 240/240/320 6.59 0.36 2.1   600 72000
VII 9 cm Bofors L/53 180/230/45 240/240/320 6.19 0.34 1.9

 

See that 0.36 and 0.34...on a map 1000m...at long range you can miss your aim point by???  3.6m  abit over 10 feet.

At 2 squares and 200m MAX you might miss by 0.72m or 2.?? feet..

show me HOW your Aiming needs to be SLOW..and the Flare of the gun is going to be ??????? (where the F' did that shot go??)  While fully aimed.

 

This tank should have better acceleration, and not miss at 1-2 Squares(100-200 m.) Im also saying this for other tanks also..  Even if not fully aimed it should HIT the target.  unless its a REALLY small tank..

 

This isnt Balance, its a full fledged nerf, even according to the wiki..THEY posted.

 

and I have 4 females Fully trained and going to their 4th upgrade..


Edited by ECA, Feb 12 2019 - 23:32.


WeSayNotToday #9 Posted Feb 12 2019 - 23:27

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23414 battles
  • 1,074
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

View PostECA, on Feb 12 2019 - 23:16, said:

 

Tell me how much that shell weights..

for you other reader I SAID... "It dont weight 40-50pounds, about 20kg.."

 

 

 

Speaking of reality, what does this quote, above, mean?

 

20 kg IS 40 to 50 lbs.

 

One kg ~ 2.2 lbs., 20 kgs ~ 44 lbs.



ECA #10 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 01:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostWeSayNotToday, on Feb 12 2019 - 15:27, said:

 

Speaking of reality, what does this quote, above, mean?

 

20 kg IS 40 to 50 lbs.

 

One kg ~ 2.2 lbs., 20 kgs ~ 44 lbs.

 

did you perchance watch the video...  someone complained the same thing..

its that the ammo being used ISNT 40 pounds..

 

Im not having problems with pen or damage..its as if, a special gun, has to load and operate LIKE other tanks...this tank has a special gun.  Its not a WWII tank...its 25 years later.

Anyone have problem with Sniper mode and going to wide angle and looking at the sky??  its weird this tank Cant keep the gun focused..



Echo_Saber #11 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 02:11

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22159 battles
  • 2,555
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    03-17-2015
This is an arcade game, not a simulator.  You must be lost OP.

ECA #12 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 04:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostEcho_Saber, on Feb 12 2019 - 18:11, said:

This is an arcade game, not a simulator.  You must be lost OP.

 

nice quote..

Love the reality of it and the wiki...with history of the tanks and so forth..then creating a version that has nothing to DO with the original...

It nice But more interesting if we could make our own, or if WOT created imaginary tanks..use all the genre, and create their own..

Why use all the info including history of REAL/Paper tanks...then Not use the true spec...at least TRY...



dunniteowl #13 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 05:26

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 30744 battles
  • 7,735
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

Am now firmly convinced OP has lost touch with not only Game Reality, he is also out of touch with Consensual Reality.

 

Can no longer entertain someone seriously who does not understand that his quote of a shell weighing 20 Kg equals a shell weighing 'about 40-50 pounds' when the conversion from kilograms to pounds is: Kilograms X 2.2, making a 20 kilo shell weight equal to 44 pounds.

 

Hello?  Are you paying attention?

 

 

OvO



Pipinghot #14 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 05:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,296
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostECA, on Feb 12 2019 - 22:18, said:

View PostEcho_Saber, on Feb 12 2019 - 18:11, said:

This is an arcade game, not a simulator.  You must be lost OP.

nice quote..

It's not just a nice quote, it's a concise explanation of why you're complaining about historical accuracy is misguided. This is not a tank simulator, no one wants to play a tank simulator, including you. If you wanted realism you wouldn't be playing WoT in the first place. The truth is you're just complaining about a specific tank because you're trying to find arguments for why they should buff you pet tank, and that's not going to work.

 

You've been playing since 2011, you've had 8 years to go find a tank simulator but the truth is that's not what you want. If you did you wouldn't still be here.

View PostECA, on Feb 12 2019 - 22:18, said:

Why use all the info including history of REAL/Paper tanks...then Not use the true spec...at least TRY...

You already know the answer, because using the real specs would make an awful game. Good games are not based on truly simulating reality, game play is always the most important consideration.



ECA #15 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 07:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View Postdunniteowl, on Feb 12 2019 - 21:26, said:

Am now firmly convinced OP has lost touch with not only Game Reality, he is also out of touch with Consensual Reality.

 

Can no longer entertain someone seriously who does not understand that his quote of a shell weighing 20 Kg equals a shell weighing 'about 40-50 pounds' when the conversion from kilograms to pounds is: Kilograms X 2.2, making a 20 kilo shell weight equal to 44 pounds.

 

Hello?  Are you paying attention?

 

 

OvO

 

Which conversation??

yours or mine...

MY comment said...

"can Aim/load/fire in less then 8-10 seconds??  This is not a REAL tank round. with a full casing and soforth.  It dont weight 40-50pounds, about 20kg.."

I agree'd that 40-50lbs IS 20kg...whats your problem??  CANT READ??  Comprehend??

 

The round being shot ISNT 50lbs..1 person can lift it with 1 hand...even the video, shows a women in the tank, loading the ammo....

If you wish to instigate...go ahead..



ECA #16 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 07:48

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Feb 12 2019 - 21:44, said:

It's not just a nice quote, it's a concise explanation of why you're complaining about historical accuracy is misguided. This is not a tank simulator, no one wants to play a tank simulator, including you. If you wanted realism you wouldn't be playing WoT in the first place. The truth is you're just complaining about a specific tank because you're trying to find arguments for why they should buff you pet tank, and that's not going to work.

 

You've been playing since 2011, you've had 8 years to go find a tank simulator but the truth is that's not what you want. If you did you wouldn't still be here.

You already know the answer, because using the real specs would make an awful game. Good games are not based on truly simulating reality, game play is always the most important consideration.

 

Lets see...Iv played more tank games then you may think. and more of them in the 80's and 90's had better reality then this one..  so go suck a what..

I quit playing for about 2 years, to play other tank games..War thunder is pretty neat, that they setup each tank can Shoot other tanks, is a concession to NOT reality...but the tanks DO work better.. and larger maps... ANd it has 3 formats of play..  Including arcade and RED NAMES above your head...the other formats YOU need to spot the tank YOURSELF..

I dont like the tire system in it, but can play with planes and tanks and Both at the same time, and they added boats..

Armored warfare is Current tanks is pretty good and very real, and the maps are detailed, but not large...

 

So if you want to criticize keep it up...remember 1 thing at 60 years old, i started playing video games WITH PONG, and hunt the Wumpus..  And I figure Iv played Abit over 2000 different games..on at lest 5 different hard configs,  from the Com64/vic20/128 the Amiga, then 386/486/Pentium/P3/Celeron/P4/and Now Amd...  And a few others you aint heard of..IBM 360/30 would fill your front room..



ECA #17 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 07:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

i dont need it to be simulator, I can play those elsewhere...

I need it to Match what their wiki says, and abit of history, and abit of logic....Stick to any logic format and I dont mind..

Tell me a Swedish tanks isnt designed to go over Loose soil and SNOW at a good pace, and i will debate it with you..

They Made this reality...tell me Swedish people live in areas without Rough conditions..made a tank that Cant handle abit of rough terrain, in a map designed as a city...

That a tank built 30 years AFTER WWII, has an engine that cant TURN it fairly quickly..

That it has a bofors Cannon, and cant fire it fast enough to protect itself..

Tell me how Having camo rated over 50% and I can be spotted 3 squares away..

Which reality do you like??

 

How about tanks fighting Head on in small groups in an area smaller then MID RANGE to real tanks..

Only big tank battles during WWII were in Africa...In the EU it wasnt as easy to find a WIDE plain to do much, except get hit by arty if you were that stupid

 


Edited by ECA, Feb 13 2019 - 07:56.


dunniteowl #18 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 08:32

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 30744 battles
  • 7,735
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

ECA, you negate your own statements, prove mine and then say you agreed with me.  Please send me one ounce of what you're smoking.

 

 

OvO



ket101 #19 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 09:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,399
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostECA, on Feb 13 2019 - 08:16, said:

"Of all these companies, Landsverk was the most experienced, having produced virtually every Swedish tank design from the 1930s to the 1950s. Landsverk had however fallen on hard times lately after losing the contract for the army’s new APC to Hägglunds, but it was decided to make a last ditch effort to keep the military part of the company going and five different designs were submitted for the new Ikv project. The first proposal was essentially a rebuilt Ikv 103 with a bigger superstructure and bigger engine. The main armament, shared between all the proposals, was a Bofors 90mm L/54 low pressure gun, developed from the Pvpj1110 recoilless rifle. There was however a number of versions of this gun considered (although not directly by Landsverk)."

 

AND the final release would not be until the 1970's of a vehicle.... and IKV 91..

https://www.youtube....otsDr7F-pg&t=5s

goto 3:10 for firing..

Tell me how much that shell weights..

for you other reader I SAID... "It dont weight 40-50pounds, about 20kg.."

 

 

 

"Low pressure gun".  Low pressure guns aren't recoilless.  The gun may have been developed from a recoilless gun, but low pressure guns themselves are not recoilless.  The Germans pretty much invented low pressure guns, see here: https://en.wikipedia...ki/8_cm_PAW_600

 



Pipinghot #20 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 13:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,296
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostECA, on Feb 13 2019 - 01:48, said:

So if you want to criticize keep it up...remember 1 thing at 60 years old, i started playing video games WITH PONG, and hunt the Wumpus..  And I figure Iv played Abit over 2000 different games..on at lest 5 different hard configs,  from the Com64/vic20/128 the Amiga, then 386/486/Pentium/P3/Celeron/P4/and Now Amd...  And a few others you aint heard of..IBM 360/30 would fill your front room..

Big deal, that's nothing special here. There are lots of us older players in WoT who cut their teeth on video games before cartridges even existed in home systems, played old games on mainframes, and have played on multiple home computer platforms since long before the internet existed, not to mention many hours on old board wargames from the likes of Avalon Hill and SPI. There may well be more grognards per square inch in WoT than nearly any other online game.

 

And frankly, none of that has anything to do with your post or your arguments or this thread. It doesn't matter whether you've played 10 different games or 10,000 different games. Your attempt to portray yourself as a gaming silverback is meaningless, you're still making fundamentally flawed arguments.

 

WoT is not a simulator and was never intended as such. Practically nothing about it is truly realistic and that's how it's been since the very beginning. Any argument based on realism is doomed before it starts because no computer game is truly realistic to begin with. They are all models that make compromises with realism because game play is more important than realism every time. There are at most just a couple of realistic elements in the game, with the rest of it being built on a "look and feel" that tank enthusiasts can enjoy, just like every other tank game in existence.

 

This thread all comes down to one thing, you want WG to buff your pet tank and you're hiding behind "realism" as your argument.


Edited by Pipinghot, Feb 14 2019 - 00:52.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users