Jump to content


T110`s Armor

Over 5000 pages of comfort!

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
109624 replies to this topic

Boo_the_Hamster #11321 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 15:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostBatosi, on Mar 28 2012 - 15:01, said:

-History and balance post-
First, we have to realise that having different tanks will inevitably lead to situation, where they will perform different roles with different effectiveness. Will e-100 or maus be effective on long-range or will they be able to redeploy when nessesary? Will is-7 work well as a damage sponge? All of them have their specialisations. Besides, this game has nothing to do with reality. Tanks in RL never done what you are doing in battles, and were never designed for that.

Your balance proposals are also strange. 420dmg and 280pen will make already fearsome cannon stupidly OP, so to balance it devs will be bound to decrease ROF? thus making it better suited for peek-a-boo, which is never a good idea, this play is stupid and in most cases, ineffective.

VirgilHilts #11322 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 16:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,347
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostBoo_the_Hamster, on Mar 28 2012 - 15:54, said:

First, we have to realise that having different tanks will inevitably lead to situation, where they will perform different roles with different effectiveness. Will e-100 or maus be effective on long-range or will they be able to redeploy when nessesary? Will is-7 work well as a damage sponge? All of them have their specialisations. Besides, this game has nothing to do with reality. Tanks in RL never done what you are doing in battles, and were never designed for that.

Your balance proposals are also strange. 420dmg and 280pen will make already fearsome cannon stupidly OP, so to balance it devs will be bound to decrease ROF? thus making it better suited for peek-a-boo, which is never a good idea, this play is stupid and in most cases, ineffective.

You are correct, this game has nothing to do with reality. Then why stick the cupola on the top of the T110 turret? Why choose that turret? Reality is a matter of convenience for the developers. Especially when you consider the IS-4 was left to rust, the few of them ever built. Yet, it is one of the most feared tanks in the game. You're correct, reality is quite subjective in this game. <_<

What fearsome cannon? Seriously? You're trying to tell us that, after having a 120MM cannon on the T34 since its inception, suddenly a 120MM with a decent rate of fire and 400 damage is somehow "fearsome"?  :facepalmic:

I'll take a decrease in rate of fire for 280 penetration and 420-450 damage. Because then, people in other tanks will think twice about charging a tank that is almost guaranteed to penetrate them with every shot, and do at least 330 damage, and as much as 560 per shot, even if that tank is relatively poorly armored.

redhairdave #11323 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 16:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 15881 battles
  • 2,036
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
if we do that, why not just get the mighty t30 back the way it is now. its that exactly. i wanted a real heavy tank. be it a sniper or a brawler. something with good frontal armour and good accuracy. otherwise the t30 as it was sounds better to me. that is just my opinion, no hate

The_Chieftain #11324 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 16:36

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17566 battles
  • 10,001
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostBatosi, on Mar 28 2012 - 14:21, said:

Chief at 6'5", how Comfortable are the US Tanks for you?

I can get away with it as the TC, since I spend all my time sticking my head out of the hatch. It gets a little less comfortable when buttoned up, especially for my gunner who gets to suffer my knees in his back. I don't fit too comfortably in the driver's hole, I'm a few inches too tall, and I'm also too tall to flip rounds in the loader's position, so I need to take the extra second to rotate them.

Tupinambis #11325 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 16:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 39258 battles
  • 15,753
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Mar 28 2012 - 16:28, said:

You are correct, this game has nothing to do with reality. Then why stick the cupola on the top of the T110 turret? Why choose that turret? Reality is a matter of convenience for the developers. Especially when you consider the IS-4 was left to rust, the few of them ever built. Yet, it is one of the most feared tanks in the game. You're correct, reality is quite subjective in this game. <_<

What fearsome cannon? Seriously? You're trying to tell us that, after having a 120MM cannon on the T34 since its inception, suddenly a 120MM with a decent rate of fire and 400 damage is somehow "fearsome"?  :facepalmic:

I'll take a decrease in rate of fire for 280 penetration and 420-450 damage. Because then, people in other tanks will think twice about charging a tank that is almost guaranteed to penetrate them with every shot, and do at least 330 damage, and as much as 560 per shot, even if that tank is relatively poorly armored.

I don't know if "fearsome" was the right word, but the increase in pen and accuracy certainly makes it a lot more respectable.

IronHenry #11326 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 16:42

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30764 battles
  • 796
  • Member since:
    01-03-2012

View Postlostwingman, on Mar 27 2012 - 08:07, said:

High school was bad but not THIS bad.
LOL, Horse ****.  But you knew that right?

JustCOVER__USELESS #11327 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 16:43

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 22933 battles
  • 24,252
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View PostBoo_the_Hamster, on Mar 28 2012 - 13:35, said:

You guys are just bitter. T110 will be a decent t10 heavy. It just drives differently and need more thought than typical peek-a-boo lemming style of play. It is incredibly rewarding if you apply sme thought in your ingame actions.
Great, that's great. A somewhat workable pub tank that doubles as a PoS for CW and organized battles. There are only so many ways for me to say "Go to hell" and I'm running out of them.

VirgilHilts #11328 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 16:46

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,347
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostTupinambis, on Mar 28 2012 - 16:38, said:

I don't know if "fearsome" was the right word, but the increase in pen and accuracy certainly makes it a lot more respectable.

Yeah. It would be nice, although outside the norm, to have a few attributes on tier VIII, tier IX, and tier X U.S. heavy tanks that were at least a little more respectable.

Mow_Mow #11329 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 16:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,857
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostForceX, on Mar 28 2012 - 15:24, said:

what kind of nimble vehicle has slower reverse than a maus, my friend ?


You know the Maus has the highest reverse speed that doesn't belong to a French tank or a light or medium tank, right? 15 kph reverse.

KnightFandragon #11330 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 17:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 4618 battles
  • 6,719
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Mar 28 2012 - 16:52, said:

You know the Maus has the highest reverse speed that doesn't belong to a French tank or a light or medium tank, right? 15 kph reverse.

I thought it was everything it could do to move it forward, screw reverse....

Mow_Mow #11331 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 17:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,857
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostKnightFandragon, on Mar 28 2012 - 17:01, said:

I thought it was everything it could do to move it forward, screw reverse....

You know the rules when it comes to historical accuracy and game balance. <_<

(Maus has 20 kph for "game balance" but T95 has 13 kph for "historical accuracy" when they both could only move at 13 kph historically)

KnightFandragon #11332 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 17:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 4618 battles
  • 6,719
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011
Lol, really its things like what WoT is doing that intrigues me to mod games....always find things like what they are doing that irks the shit outta me, I then go through, make my own mod and change things as i see fit....

StriplingWarrior #11333 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 17:26

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7812 battles
  • 616
  • [GRDL] GRDL
  • Member since:
    11-09-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Mar 28 2012 - 04:36, said:

A good sonic thickness tester can cost over $1K. Olympic's 35 series is good from 0.1MM to 635MM, and easily portable. Not sure of the price.
Unfortunately Olympic is too proud to put their pricing up for everyone to see.  I did email them asking for numbers.  Im guessing $4-5k for that particular model.

Kalinin #11334 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 17:45

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 13521 battles
  • 853
  • [PONYS] PONYS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2010

View PostShield_Aegis, on Mar 28 2012 - 09:05, said:

I wish chief could have access to some blueprints of 1950-1958 tanks that are better than T110.
Also isnt this the real T110? http://media.desura....74/t110_fin.jpg

View PostMow_Mow, on Mar 28 2012 - 09:16, said:

The devs threw it out because they think Chrysler's engineers weren't competent enough to carve curves on wood, so they gave the T110 a curved glacis plate. (As you can clearly see, the turret has curves and the hatch is curved by the glacis plate is not)

It's outright insults like that that irk me so much about Wargaming. I even posted a picture of the wooden mockup for the Sherman, which looked exactly like a Sherman except for fake tracks. Somehow that constituted 'Nationalistic comments'.

JustCOVER__USELESS #11335 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 18:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 22933 battles
  • 24,252
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View PostKalinin, on Mar 28 2012 - 17:45, said:

It's outright insults like that that irk me so much about Wargaming. I even posted a picture of the wooden mockup for the Sherman, which looked exactly like a Sherman except for fake tracks. Somehow that constituted 'Nationalistic comments'.

It's Nationalistic to assume that a nation's industry has competent engineers. Duh.

Boo_the_Hamster #11336 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 18:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostVirgilHilts, on Mar 28 2012 - 16:28, said:

You are correct, this game has nothing to do with reality. Then why stick the cupola on the top of the T110 turret? Why choose that turret? Reality is a matter of convenience for the developers. Especially when you consider the IS-4 was left to rust, the few of them ever built. Yet, it is one of the most feared tanks in the game. You're correct, reality is quite subjective in this game. <_<

What fearsome cannon? Seriously? You're trying to tell us that, after having a 120MM cannon on the T34 since its inception, suddenly a 120MM with a decent rate of fire and 400 damage is somehow "fearsome"?  :facepalmic:

I'll take a decrease in rate of fire for 280 penetration and 420-450 damage. Because then, people in other tanks will think twice about charging a tank that is almost guaranteed to penetrate them with every shot, and do at least 330 damage, and as much as 560 per shot, even if that tank is relatively poorly armored.
I do not remember if any of t110 was built, so there is some degree of free will in choosing between designs, but all of t110's plans featured a commander cupola. Is-4 was impractical and it's upkeep was too costly thus it was crap in RL. This was the fate of all post-war heavies, they outlived their usefulness. In-game it is feared only by low-levels, it's reliably damaged by 212+pen cannons. Its bugged sides are fascinating though, in 7.2 patton hits it hard while 7.1.1 i would rather penenetrate its front, not sides. Guess it's effect of standard FTP MMOs with constantly flipping balance to stimulate money expendure.

One of initial ideas behind this game was having tanks with historic armor. If you have forgotten, is-7 pre-0.6.7 could be penned by tigers from the front. Welding seam was 150mm thick and there was a dedicated group of users that many times went to Kubinka museum, where they gauged its armour thickness with that sonar device and led a forum war with devs.

So, isn't a cannon that has best Pen, RoF, Acc, Aim time and DpM amongst same-lv tanks fearsome? Alpha IS worse, but overall it is essentialy a railgun. Due to its accuracy, random no-dmg hits are rare, it often hits even on the move and penentrates surprisingly well. It is ready to fire in about 1.5-2 sec after stop with full accuracy, unlike that club-like s-70, which was constatly irritated me in CW.

darkterren #11337 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 18:13

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 4363 battles
  • 76
  • Member since:
    01-24-2011

View PostBoo_the_Hamster, on Mar 28 2012 - 18:08, said:

I do not remember if any of t110 was built, so there is some degree of free will in choosing between designs, but all of t110's plans featured a commander cupola. Is-4 was impractical and it's upkeep was too costly thus it was crap in RL. This was the fate of all post-war heavies, they outlived their usefulness. In-game it is feared only by low-levels, it's reliably damaged by 212+pen cannons. Its bugged sides are fascinating though, in 7.2 patton hits it hard while 7.1.1 i would rather penenetrate its front, not sides. Guess it's effect of standard FTP MMOs with constantly flipping balance to stimulate money expendure.

One of initial ideas behind this game was having tanks with historic armor. If you have forgotten, is-7 pre-0.6.7 could be penned by tigers from the front. Welding seam was 150mm thick and there was a dedicated group of users that many times went to Kubinka museum, where they gauged its armour thickness with that sonar device and led a forum war with devs.

So, isn't a cannon that has best Pen, RoF, Acc, Aim time and DpM amongst same-lv tanks fearsome? Alpha IS worse, but overall it is essentialy a railgun. Due to its accuracy, random no-dmg hits are rare, it often hits even on the move and penentrates surprisingly well. It is ready to fire in about 1.5-2 sec after stop with full accuracy, unlike that club-like s-70, which was constatly irritated me in CW.

Pen wouldn't be a prob if the loss over distance wasn't greater than is7

SpectreHD #11338 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 18:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17176 battles
  • 17,757
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostKalinin, on Mar 28 2012 - 17:45, said:

It's outright insults like that that irk me so much about Wargaming. I even posted a picture of the wooden mockup for the Sherman, which looked exactly like a Sherman except for fake tracks. Somehow that constituted 'Nationalistic comments'.

What!? How the hell? Where was this?

Batosi #11339 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 18:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 40521 battles
  • 2,811
  • [MUPS] MUPS
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostBoo_the_Hamster, on Mar 28 2012 - 18:08, said:

I do not remember if any of t110 was built, so there is some degree of free will in choosing between designs, but all of t110's plans featured a commander cupola. Is-4 was impractical and it's upkeep was too costly thus it was crap in RL. This was the fate of all post-war heavies, they outlived their usefulness. In-game it is feared only by low-levels, it's reliably damaged by 212+pen cannons. Its bugged sides are fascinating though, in 7.2 patton hits it hard while 7.1.1 i would rather penenetrate its front, not sides. Guess it's effect of standard FTP MMOs with constantly flipping balance to stimulate money expendure.

One of initial ideas behind this game was having tanks with historic armor. If you have forgotten, is-7 pre-0.6.7 could be penned by tigers from the front. Welding seam was 150mm thick and there was a dedicated group of users that many times went to Kubinka museum, where they gauged its armour thickness with that sonar device and led a forum war with devs.

So, isn't a cannon that has best Pen, RoF, Acc, Aim time and DpM amongst same-lv tanks fearsome? Alpha IS worse, but overall it is essentialy a railgun. Due to its accuracy, random no-dmg hits are rare, it often hits even on the move and penentrates surprisingly well. It is ready to fire in about 1.5-2 sec after stop with full accuracy, unlike that club-like s-70, which was constatly irritated me in CW.

The Copula is not the issue if modeled correctly, after the first shot ripping it off the Tank, there should be no further effect from a horizontal point of view.  If I shoot your head off your shoulders and keep firing at the same spot, am I really going to do more damage to something that isnt there?  Where as I could shoot a body in mulitpul locations and still keep doing damage.

And no, the "Rail Gun" is not enough if that "Rail Gun" is not as effective as it should be.  Adding 20 more damage by no means would make it a Alpha Tank or make it OP nor would upping the Pen.  It would just make it a feared mobil distance fighter it should be which will still suffer from being exposed longer then any other Tank for its damage out put.  And with the side armor, it makes it click and pen and therefor very ill suited as a brawler which will happen no matter how skilled you are at trying to avoid it.  So it has enough weakness to support the front being fixed and the Gun reaching more truer values.

As for free will, there is a difference between using it correctly and abusing it.

SpectreHD #11340 Posted Mar 28 2012 - 18:35

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17176 battles
  • 17,757
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostBatosi, on Mar 28 2012 - 18:28, said:

The Copula is not the issue if modeled correctly, after the first shot ripping it off the Tank, there should be no further effect from a horizontal point of view.  If I shoot your head off your shoulders and keep firing at the same spot, am I really going to do more damage to something that isnt there?  Where as I could shoot a body in mulitpul locations and still keep doing damage.

And no, the "Rail Gun" is not enough if that "Rail Gun" is not as effective as it should be.  Adding 20 more damage by no means would make it a Alpha Tank or make it OP nor would upping the Pen.  It would just make it a feared mobil distance fighter it should be which will still suffer from being exposed longer then any other Tank for its damage out put.  And with the side armor, it makes it click and pen and therefor very ill suited as a brawler which will happen no matter how skilled you are at trying to avoid it.  So it has enough weakness to support the front being fixed and the Gun reaching more truer values.

As for free will, there is a difference between using it correctly and abusing it.

Indeed, how can having sub par frontal armour and a gun that is literally the French 120mm but without the autoloader for the M103 and T110 be considered balanced when the side armour and rear does not even provide protection from Tier 4s. The lack of -10 degree on the T110 is also a major handicap considering its broken armour. The same with the M103 not getting the M103A3's speed despite the piss poor armour protection compared to its peers.

This tanks are balanced around a gun which only works if it had an autoloader and is mounted on a vehicle that can actually move like a medium with the appropriate speed.




54 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 54 guests, 0 anonymous users