Jump to content


Tanks Characteristics IRL & Characterization vs Ingame implementation


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

Guardianleopard #1 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 17:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12403 battles
  • 1,172
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

This topic is about comparing technical characteristics of real life tanks to what they have in WOT.

 

I'll start with some examples that are fairly prominent in my mind.

 

  1. Centurion Mk III (fully upgraded Cent 1) has a two axis gun stabilizer. I believe it ought to have the best gun handling in the tier, but WG is hardly that intuitive.
  2. Centurion Mk 7/1 has two axis stabs. Ingame it has 0.17/0.17/0.17 bloom. Give bloom not armor.
  3. M26 Pershing has no gun stabilizer. Why is it tier 8? Make M47 a tier 8?
    1. No gun stabilizer, good armor, and good cannon characteristics
  4. Why is T-43 in tier 7? T-44-85 would have just as easily sufficed. In fact, the Comet is the same; why not have just added the real Centurion 1 in the tech tree there?
  5. 100mm D-10T, LB-1, D-10T2C etc
    1. these guns have just over 6 MJ of muzzle kinetic energy. L7 & D-10T have almost equal performance of APDS; the only issue is that the D-10T's APDS shell is positively ancient by the time of its introduction, and so is the APFSDS. I believe they are more powerful than the Jagd Panther's 105mm L/52. Given that, you know, the real AP shell can slay a Maus through its turret front.
    2. My question is. How the [edited]did a Maus slayer get 250 alpha and 175mm of armor penetration? Its worst AP ammunition puts it head and shoulders above the 88/71.
  6. D-25T
    1. 8 MJ of muzzle kinetic energy. According to Soviet stats, sure, it can 'only penetrate 167'. Said Soviet stats also require 80/80 standard.
      1. Spoiler
    2. According to soviet stats, 88/71 only has 167 of penetration. Direct conversion to WOT; the penetration should be the same.
      1. So why does it have 175?
    3. STB-1's burst fire LAD, 4 rounds can be fired off in 4 second intervals. 
    4. D-54 has 8+ MJ of KE
    5. Arbitrarily less accurate guns?

 

When people talk about Soviet ROF figures, they have to remember that in Soviet figures, the gun is aimed and fired at targets, with the ammunition loaded from all ammunition racks. In NATO, it's just loading and firing. For instance, 4-7 RPM for T-54; that 4 RPM is cited in the T-54's manual as firing on the move. 

 

Do you really think you can aim and fire a 75mm Anti Tank gun at targets 1 kilometer away at 20 rounds per minute? This presuming you do not have a range finder, you are just eyeballing the elevation.

 

Though, there is a problem with what I am thinking, and that is, almost every gun becomes varying degrees of good. So gun power and accuracy inflation... Still better than armor inflation :D

 

 

my thinking is that, if a tank already has a gun stab IRL, it should have a boost to handling. Then adding a gun stab just makes that better. But if it does not have one, then it will not have that bonus.

 

 

I'll finish here.


Edited by Guardianleopard, Apr 08 2019 - 20:31.


Dockmaster #2 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 17:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 44311 battles
  • 5,938
  • [ACES] ACES
  • Member since:
    01-23-2011
Tier balancing throws reality right out the window.

Grugbug #3 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 18:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 25118 battles
  • 692
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
I hope you realize this is just a game.

Guardianleopard #4 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 18:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12403 battles
  • 1,172
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

View PostDockmaster, on Apr 08 2019 - 17:58, said:

Tier balancing throws reality right out the window.

I don't think you've realized the full scope and you are just making an ineffective comment.

View PostGrugbug, on Apr 08 2019 - 18:00, said:

I hope you realize this is just a game.

 

I do.

 

SU-100's 100mm gun is too weak for a TD, forcing you to use the 122.

The 100 being weak actually reduces the diversity in the tiers, and makes the T-44 very strange with its gun depression.

The problem carries into the SU-100M1's lack of alpha damage for a tank destroyer.

Then it carries into the 101.

They never needed more armor.

 

And yes, corridor meta, but since when was 320 inspired alpha damage compared to Object 416 which was better in every single way?

 

T-54 doesn't need mobility if it has a good gun

Object 140/T-62A can have reduced mobility in exchange for the alpha damage. They don't need more armor.

Leopard 1 and AMX 30B have more room to breathe when 140 & 62A mobility reduced.

 

Centurion line could have traded its good armor, for good gun handling. That is much more useful on almost every map; because its a feature that works in almost every situation, not just 1 trick. That is a general buff to their performance.

Give the tier 8 some upper frontal hull armor, (76--> 120) to slightly improve resistance against enemy snapshot.

That goes very well with its gun depression, and gun boom advantage.

 

M26 pershing being replaced by M47, and America losing the gun stabs, actually makes for a unique situation, where American mediums have strong armor, guns, etc, but no stabilizer, so surprisingly bad bloom. 

 

STB-1 DPM tank? Why not add a modified version of the 'historical autoloader'? First 2 shells are fired in 4 second interval, rest at 7 RPM, while gun handling is buffed. Though this is completely unnecessary.

 

Its different balance for the sake of better balanced game, with more diversity in gameplay. I'm just listing differences and pointing out balance possibilities, based on knowledge from the actual tanks.

 

In case you hadn't noticed current tanks are fairly dull, and many are 'samey'. AMX 30B and Leopard 1 are backed into a corner, because 140 & T-62A are so fast. While armored DPM hose, high mobility tanks Object 140, T-54, are able to bully lower tier tanks into oblivion without much resistance.


Edited by Guardianleopard, Apr 08 2019 - 18:18.


Dockmaster #5 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 18:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 44311 battles
  • 5,938
  • [ACES] ACES
  • Member since:
    01-23-2011

The OP expects historical specs in an arcade tank game.

 

If you want historical accuracy maybe WoT ain't for you. If you want to PM me I can tell you where to go.

 

 



Guardianleopard #6 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 18:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12403 battles
  • 1,172
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

View PostDockmaster, on Apr 08 2019 - 18:23, said:

The OP expects historical specs in an arcade tank game.

 

If you want historical accuracy maybe WoT ain't for you. If you want to PM me I can tell you where to go.

 

 

 

Did I ask for historical specs or did I say, 'this is real life', 'this is ingame', why not make it like this? And then I justify in gameplay.

 

That's something you would notice had you actually read, instead of 'oh he wants historical accuracy'.

 

It would be very easy to ask for historical specs.

 

 

 

EDIT:

Wow, I really didn't write Characterization, I updated the title to solve the issue. I thought you didn't even read the title. Though you seem to have at most read the title, but no further.

 


Edited by Guardianleopard, Apr 08 2019 - 20:47.


_Jayzilla #7 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 18:27

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 33484 battles
  • 1,283
  • Member since:
    09-05-2010
We are recently seeing some newer balancing parameters with tank guns in the game. Case in point being the T95/FV4201 with its 120mm having 440 damage alpha, unlike the seeming "standard" 400 damage alpha that the other 120mm guns have. Maybe we will see some interesting changes coming up with the ammo re-balance?

Guardianleopard #8 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 18:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12403 battles
  • 1,172
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

View Post_Jayzilla, on Apr 08 2019 - 18:27, said:

We are recently seeing some newer balancing parameters with tank guns in the game. Case in point being the T95/FV4201 with its 120mm having 440 damage alpha, unlike the seeming "standard" 400 damage alpha that the other 120mm guns have. Maybe we will see some interesting changes coming up with the ammo re-balance?

 

The question still remains if that is a good idea for the game. Like I said, its not for the sake of historical accuracy.

 

X tank has Y Characteristic IRL.

Because X tank has Y characteristic IRL, it can have Z in game, Z being the ingame balanced equivalent of Y characteric.

 

ie:

  1. Centurion tank gun good gun stabilizer. Improve on the move accuracy. Buffs the tank in general. Don't need the armor.

 

Otherwise, WG could make battle cubes with various stats and armor models. 



Pipinghot #9 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 20:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,335
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 08 2019 - 11:52, said:

This topic is about comparing technical characteristics of real life tanks to what they have in WOT.

When you can show me examples of real life crew constantly being resurrected from the dead during battles then I'll be interested whether the tanks are realistic enough.

 

Realism is a pointless discussion in an arcade game. You're playing a game with 15 minute battles, you have no right to expect realism.



Guardianleopard #10 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 20:29

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12403 battles
  • 1,172
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

Expectation of realism is different from talking about giving tanks buffs with a basis in realism when they need them, or reworking tanks based on real characteristics.

 

This is an arcade game. Had you actually read the thread itself you would know that I'm not talking about realism.

 

I'm using the real life tanks characteristics to talk about possibilities to alter current tanks to make gameplay better, without going down the route of complete and utter fantasy.

 

 

For instance, the addition of total fantasy armor values was not what 'should' happen, I think. The 'armor inflation' that is going on is not good. There were other avenues that could have been undertaken to improve the tanks combat characteristics.

 

Like I said. Centurion.

The turret armor buff won't solve most of the issues with the tank. The Cent 1 is an inflexible 1 trick pony. Use the turret to bounce shots, the gun depression to aim down, and shoot. Real life gives an avenue to fix this issue; buff gun handling with the justification it has a gun stabilizer.

Buff the gun handling, and reduce turret to pre buff levels, suddenly, it is much more powerful, and does not rely on armor. Add a little bit of hull armor for the UFP, which is different than having no weakspots, for the Cent would still have everything else as a weakpoint, and then it is better able to function on all terrain. Its armor forces the enemy to aim if their cannon is too weak, while the Centurion has a high penetration gun, that is, fortunately, also accurate on the move.


Edited by Guardianleopard, Apr 08 2019 - 20:54.


Grugbug #11 Posted Apr 08 2019 - 21:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 25118 battles
  • 692
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
:facepalm:

Pipinghot #12 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 04:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,335
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 08 2019 - 14:29, said:

Expectation of realism is different from talking about giving tanks buffs with a basis in realism when they need them, or reworking tanks based on real characteristics.

 

This is an arcade game. Had you actually read the thread itself you would know that I'm not talking about realism.

 

I'm using the real life tanks characteristics to talk about possibilities to alter current tanks to make gameplay better, without going down the route of complete and utter fantasy.

No matter how you try to avoid it, you're trying to use realism as the basis for your argument to change tanks. You can try to reframe however you like, but it's still fundamentally using the real world characteristics as the premise behind your argument, and that's a failed premise.

 

If a tank needs to be buffed, it needs to be buffed regardless of the real world characteristics of the tank.

If a tank needs to be nerfed, it needs to be nerfed regardless of the real world characteristics of the tank.

If a tank is performing just fine, then nothing real about the tank matters, that's all just a bunch of smoke and noise. If altering a tank will actually make game play better then the "real life tank characteristics" mean nothing, all that matters is game play.

 

As always, real life, and real life characteristics, are a moot point.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 09 2019 - 04:02.


Guardianleopard #13 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 15:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12403 battles
  • 1,172
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

I am pointing out the differences. If said tank needs a buff, or a lack of actual diversity is present, then it is better to change the tanks. It is best to do so with a basis in reality.

 

Name 1 fantasy change to balance that has so far gone over well.

 

Centurion got turret armor. Like I've said, gun handling and some more hull armor would have been not only better for the gameplay, but actually better for the tank itself.

 

T-44 was mediocre for a long time. Why not make the gun a strong suit?

 

Tier 10 medium tanks are too similar. 

 

T-43 is trash and it has been for a while. T-44-85 is easily balanced to replace it.

 

Comet is not special. And it does not belong in tier 7.

 

 

 

Realism isn't the center of my argument. Its my justification for the buff itself.

 

Oh, GG, I was arguing against a sub green recent player. Naturally their opinion is both in normal range, and wrong. 

Their inability to comprehend this is also within expectation.



Pipinghot #14 Posted Apr 10 2019 - 20:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,335
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 09 2019 - 09:34, said:

I am pointing out the differences. If said tank needs a buff, or a lack of actual diversity is present, then it is better to change the tanks. It is best to do so with a basis in reality.

That's not true, your own OP betrays you. You're trying to reframe your OP in a way that is not honest.

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 08 2019 - 11:52, said:

This topic is about comparing technical characteristics of real life tanks to what they have in WOT.

You started with RL and then tried to use RL as an argument to modify the tanks. No matter how you try to twist it that is not the same as beginning with game play and then looking at RL afterwards. What you said in your OP and what you're saying now are the opposite of each other, they are not the same thing.

 

If a tank needs to be buffed/nerfed in-game then it needs to be buffed/nerfed, RL mean nothing either way. The only argument that matters is how the tank performs in-game.

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 09 2019 - 09:34, said:

Oh, GG, I was arguing against a sub green recent player. Naturally their opinion is both in normal range, and wrong. 

Their inability to comprehend this is also within expectation.

That's hilarious and adorable, you're trying to use my stats to justify your bad logic and your dishonest attempt to move the goalposts on your own argument. Bad news, that gambit has also failed, GG.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 10 2019 - 20:44.


Guardianleopard #15 Posted Apr 15 2019 - 18:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12403 battles
  • 1,172
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 10 2019 - 20:44, said:

That's not true, your own OP betrays you. You're trying to reframe your OP in a way that is not honest.

its almost like every listed possible buff would have made said tanks better in intuitive ways.

You started with RL and then tried to use RL as an argument to modify the tanks. No matter how you try to twist it that is not the same as beginning with game play and then looking at RL afterwards. What you said in your OP and what you're saying now are the opposite of each other, they are not the same thing.

i started with certain tanks having stabs and then immediately moved to tanks that received buffs, and talked about alternate ones.

my OP never said anything otherwise.

i stated the intent, and I think its very obvious that the intent is to use historical characteristics to improve tank performance without resorting to fake armor and armor spam

If a tank needs to be buffed/nerfed in-game then it needs to be buffed/nerfed, RL mean nothing either way. The only argument that matters is how the tank performs in-game.

it does mean something. But your green player mind is too dull to understand anything.

That's hilarious and adorable, you're trying to use my stats to justify your bad logic and your dishonest attempt to move the goalposts on your own argument. Bad news, that gambit has also failed, GG.

no, I'm using stats to point out that you aren't smart enough to form a coherent argument, because you don't have the necessary understanding of gameplay, and apparently not reading comprehension either.

All you've done is taken parts of my post out of context without realizing that I've been talking about balance from start to finish.

 

Basically.

You're green player trash and almost any opinion you form is doubtless invalid even before I hear it. Hearing it also confirms that statement.

Because greens are bad on more than one level.

 

More evidence? Compare my reply to the first post to literally everything else you've yet posted.

 

"Alternate balance"



Pipinghot #16 Posted Apr 16 2019 - 22:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,335
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 15 2019 - 12:25, said:

All you've done is taken parts of my post out of context without realizing that I've been talking about balance from start to finish.

Still not true. You provided the context in your opening sentence and then continued that context through your OP.

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 08 2019 - 11:52, said:

This topic is about comparing technical characteristics of real life tanks to what they have in WOT.

You did not begin with game balance, and you especially did not talk about game balance "from start to finish". You provided the context of comparing real life tanks to WoT, that's not out of context in any way, that is exactly the context that you provided.

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 08 2019 - 11:52, said:

my thinking is that, if a tank already has a gun stab IRL, it should have a boost to handling. Then adding a gun stab just makes that better. But if it does not have one, then it will not have that bonus.

Your own thinking, your own context for the thread was based on logic like this, "...if a tank already has a gun stab IRL,,,". You made it clear multiple times that you started with RL, gave no thought to game balance, and simply wanted to use RL examples as reasons why they should make your pet changes to the game. You entire flow of logic went from RL to the game, it was not based on game balance in any way, much less "from start to finish". Your stats can't save you here, and repeating your failed arguments doesn't make them any better. You not going to get to move the goal posts here, that simply won't work.



m1a2tanker #17 Posted Apr 23 2019 - 00:56

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 1191 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostGrugbug, on Apr 08 2019 - 11:00, said:

I hope you realize this is just a game.

 

No crap it's a game BASED of the real tanks, The point is if you are gonna TRY and recreate something they should at least TRY and be somewhat accurate and NOT pick and choose how jacked up they want to replay HISTORY. As a USARMY 19k M1a2sep tank Gunner i see BS i call it and since the begin of this GAME it's been a soup sandwich. THANK goodness reality does not parallel this game other wise tank warfare would have been phased out 70 years ago. I see were they (dev) try to implement whats real then back off cause of Pvp cause if reality was put into the game all tiers wouldn't be reverential. Reality is KING!! safe play in a Pvp world saves the player base who don't know jack about real tanks or tank battle tactics. True it is a game but they should state that this is a fabrication based on FANTASY and the capabilities of these armored vehicles are based around the ideas of the Creators of this game and do not represent these amazing Vehicles as the REAL thing AT ALL.  

Edited by m1a2tanker, Apr 23 2019 - 01:01.


Guardianleopard #18 Posted Apr 25 2019 - 17:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12403 battles
  • 1,172
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 16 2019 - 22:48, said:

Still not true. You provided the context in your opening sentence and then continued that context through your OP.

You may have just ignored that the tanks specifically talked about have been, and or did require improvements to their performance. 

You did not begin with game balance, and you especially did not talk about game balance "from start to finish". You provided the context of comparing real life tanks to WoT, that's not out of context in any way, that is exactly the context that you provided.

Fixed green player way of thinking may have forgotten to take into account I have been talking about balance in every post including the OP. You are simply arguing to argue, ignoring any authorial intent. You do not want to listen to the topic. You want to be contrary.

You want to be a green player in all aspects.

Your own thinking, your own context for the thread was based on logic like this, "...if a tank already has a gun stab IRL,,,". You made it clear multiple times that you started with RL, gave no thought to game balance, and simply wanted to use RL examples as reasons why they should make your pet changes to the game. You entire flow of logic went from RL to the game, it was not based on game balance in any way, much less "from start to finish". Your stats can't save you here, and repeating your failed arguments doesn't make them any better. You not going to get to move the goal posts here, that simply won't work.

I definitely did start with real life to justify improving characteristics of underperforming tanks, or formerly underperforming tanks balanced in strange ways. I do not think it has dawned on you that every tank I have so far talked about has been talked about has been an underperforming vehicle, or formerly underperforming vehicle, only better because WarGaming armor spammed.

Failing arguments? It has been a futile effort for you to actually understand intent. It is actually very pathetic that it is so hard for you to understand, but you are, after all, a green, and think in very fixed & limited ways.

 



Pipinghot #19 Posted Apr 25 2019 - 18:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,335
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 25 2019 - 11:35, said:

View PostGuardianleopard, on Apr 25 2019 - 11:35, said:

Fixed green player way of thinking

Isn't that adorable, you're still trying to move the goalposts by talking about player stats. Never change, big guy, just keep vomiting up the same bad arguments, I'm sure eventually someone will fall for your nonsense.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 25 2019 - 18:32.


RedShocktrooper #20 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 20:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12082 battles
  • 2,672
  • Member since:
    08-02-2010

I'm late to this party, I know, but I figure I have something to add to the discussion.

 

This problem sprung up a couple years back when World of Tanks was a newer game, something which I myself fell victim too. Coming into World of Tanks, having watched History Channel or what have you and "knowing" the history of given tanks and how their reputations panned out can give you very unreasonable expectations of both what that tank is historically capable of, and what that tank is capable of in-game.

 

How do I know this? If you look back far enough through the archive of this site, you will find thread after thread after thread, complaining that Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger are severely underpowered compared to their "historical counterparts" (and conversely that any number of Allied tanks - T-34, M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing, M36 Jackson/Slugger, what have you, were overpowered compared to their historical counterparts). For one, the game being developed in Belarus (at the time) meant that the overwhelming majority of information pertaining to the tanks came from an Eastern source... and naturally most of the people on the forums were coming from Western sources that claimed the Tiger was a scary effective machine and was nearly immune to all allied attacks save for concentrated air bombardment, and that the Panther was a main battle tank that could stand toe to toe with vehicles from the 1960s if not later.

 

A reputation which pretty much didn't exist on the side of the iron curtain the Developers hailed from to the degree it existed in the West. These vehicles had their own, different, reputation in Soviet bloc countries, and this was the era when Sergei Berkitovsky (I have utterly butchered the spelling, and if this was 2013 I would probably be able to spell it), better known as SerB, was significantly more prominent in the World of Tanks community. To the Western minds, the likes of KV-1 weren't as commonly mentioned and was instead overshadowed by the comical (in appearance and lack of performance) KV-2, and T-34s were more associated with the late war "hordes" of tanks than the early war terror period where they seemed immune to German antitank weapon (even though they weren't). Accusations of Russian Bias were rampant at the time (even though a lot of workhorse German tanks that actually did a lot of the heavy historical lifting, such as PzIV and StuG III, flew under the radar for good players to pick up on and use, to the point where Marder II was overnerfed due to its popularity as a seal clubbing vehicle).

The thing with using reputation to balance vehicles is some vehicles have unreasonable reputations. Panther had a reputation (until a few years back) for being an incredibly powerful vehicle that could take all comers on the Western front. M4 Sherman until recently was considered a death trap that was a mistake to field (and depending on how educated the person you're talking to is, still has this reputation). Unless a vehicle is completely broken one way or the other it would not match its reputation. Sure, Centurion has a reputation for having a very good fire control suite, but Tiger is literally famous for being "unkillable". King Tiger's frontal armor was "never breached in combat" after all,  history channel said so! T-34 was only good because there were so many of them!

But you get the picture.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users