Jump to content


T110`s Armor

Over 5000 pages of comfort!

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

GoldMountain #2381 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 21:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 41 battles
  • 7,796
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

View PostCmd_Storm, on Feb 13 2012 - 21:34, said:

IS7 is a Heavy Heavy with a rocket engine....Period. No ta hybrid at all, just used as one because its so damned fast for a 68t tank with 2 342mm plate armor and a 290mm upper glacis that bounces everything and more off its sides.

Yet it accelerates and turns like a brick...
120 pages...

I swear we've already discussed all this...
Spoiler                     


SpectreHD #2382 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 22:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17206 battles
  • 17,757
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostGoldMountain, on Feb 13 2012 - 21:54, said:

Yet it accelerates and turns like a brick...
120 pages...

I swear we've already discussed all this...
Spoiler                     

Turns a lot better than a T32. Hyuk hyuk.

Lostwingman #2383 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 22:32

    Major

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

View PostC_Menz, on Feb 13 2012 - 21:52, said:

I would be happy with a "super patton" with somewhat better armor.  I think a heavy/medium hybrid would be nice and I would be good for the game.  Might not be the cookie cutter tank people want, but if every tank was the same then the game would be pretty damn boring.
It's not about being "cookie cutter" or being a unique little butterfly. It's about being useful. "Somewhat better armor than a Patton" is not going to cut it unless you give this thing a godly gun (which it's not going to get) and amazing mobility (which I highly doubt).
It's been said soo many freaking times already that I'm getting tired of having this NEEDED to be said. A marginal increase in armor at tier 10 is not an increase in armor at all, it's an increase in weight. Unless this thing is solid frontally against other tier 10 guns the tank will be broken as a heavy and we will just have T30 v2.0 just without the troll cannon that trolls both target and gunner alike!

rotorian #2384 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 23:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15724 battles
  • 488
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostGoldMountain, on Feb 13 2012 - 21:54, said:

Yet it accelerates and turns like a brick...
120 pages...

I swear we've already discussed all this...
Spoiler                     

Is there a +/whack button?  'Cause I would hit it :).

Minds_Eye #2385 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 23:14

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15351 battles
  • 1,575
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010

View PostGoldMountain, on Feb 13 2012 - 21:54, said:

Yet it accelerates and turns like a brick...
120 pages...

I swear we've already discussed all this...
Spoiler                     

That's never stopped us before.

KnightFandragon #2386 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 23:29

    Major

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

View Postlostwingman, on Feb 13 2012 - 22:32, said:

It's not about being "cookie cutter" or being a unique little butterfly. It's about being useful. "Somewhat better armor than a Patton" is not going to cut it unless you give this thing a godly gun (which it's not going to get) and amazing mobility (which I highly doubt).
It's been said soo many freaking times already that I'm getting tired of having this NEEDED to be said. A marginal increase in armor at tier 10 is not an increase in armor at all, it's an increase in weight. Unless this thing is solid frontally against other tier 10 guns the tank will be broken as a heavy and we will just have T30 v2.0 just without the troll cannon that trolls both target and gunner alike!

I worry for the armor....I cant findthe thread where it was posted but it said something like "The T110 is designed to lose a 1 on 1 with another T10 Heavy"...I really worry for the armor...cuz if its "designed' to lose a 1 on 1 that means its armor will be piss poor as to not stop any shells so that it surely loses while the enemy is bouncing the T110s shells back into its own hull...Of course, I know there are other factors that go into a 1 on 1 dogfight besides armor but stopping incoming shells...well tahts a big key and to lose a 1 on 1 you have to run out of HP before the enemy and you do that with crap armor...so yeah, I worry for the armor..

FaustianQ #2387 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 02:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18727 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View PostMinds_Eye, on Feb 13 2012 - 20:51, said:

The IS-4 is a bad comparison, because it gains so much by angling

No, it doesn't. Angling an IS-4 simply exchanges one set of weakpoints for another.

SFC_Storm #2388 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 02:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostGoldMountain, on Feb 13 2012 - 21:54, said:

Yet it accelerates and turns like a brick...
120 pages...

I swear we've already discussed all this...
Spoiler                     


No it does not turn like a brick...A MAus does

You are drunk.

Lets say it wasnt as fast as a T34 or a little slower [WHich it is] It has 3x the Armor, Side Armor I have seen bounce godl IS7 rounds off of alot, and on top of it all is 68tons.

For its size and powerits the fastest tank evermade in WOT

To refute that is crazy.

Also I know you maybe drunk, but Isaid a rocket strapped to it, Rockets dont turn to well.....Bu once its pointd in right direction it sure moves with purpose and unless you track it, its turning isnt really that slow, COmpare Maus, E100, IS4, E75, T30 , T34

It is 100% faster than Maus, 70% faster than E100, 40% faster than IS4, 30% faster than E75, 20% slower than T30 and 30% slower than T34 [in which its fastest Heavy in game].....Pretty damned good with side Armor that can bounce E75+IS4+IS7+Maus+E100 rounds at a 25% rate, name one other that bounces 25% on its tracks. Also its Turret is simply God, iTs frontal Plates R and L pike are 342mm with upper at 290 lower at 240 and pike righ on nose only 2 shot widths is it 235. Maus has best frontal Armor in game bar none, lowet lower pan, God Trrt fro mall directions and frontal AVG of 298mm. With 220ish sides and with angle can get 260 easy, also Skirt protects another 20mm side Armor, and from Arty.

If T110 is literally 255 upper front 195 lower and literally half the rest of the Armor I wil be orgamic with its 3k DPM gun.

Id give that up for 300 DPM

SFC_Storm #2389 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 02:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostFaustianQ, on Feb 14 2012 - 02:05, said:

No, it doesn't. Angling an IS-4 simply exchanges one set of weakpoints for another.

It gains tons of side Armor angling...I mean TONS, a 90 degree shot= 190ish+20mm track if thy hit up high in the "Bluff Area" now angle it 25 degrees and there is always a plate that is almost no angle but idiots always go for side and at 25 degrees the side is massive like 200-240 ish range with track.

SFC_Storm #2390 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 02:56

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostGoldMountain, on Feb 13 2012 - 21:54, said:

Yet it accelerates and turns like a brick...
120 pages...

I swear we've already discussed all this...
Spoiler                     


Funny how we are beating thedead hoarse but right before you have to take the last swing at it...ROFL

Its like, ok guys fights over break it up, we are done here then the ref who acted "Mature" hits the one fighter in the face one last time then calls he fight again lol.



First Ill throw in my opinion one more time then show how redundant this topic is...ROLF

danbo11 #2391 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 03:03

    Private

  • Players
  • 25214 battles
  • 1
  • [TBW] TBW
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
Flat out ... the American line meeds a tank that can compete at the Clan War level.....the only thing that runs currently is the Arty and the occasional Patton...maybe a T30 (for a few secs).....all the tanks in the list have other counterparts that are far better and more survivable....I understand the need for speeed etc. - the French Tanks have filled that role currently ........ please give the American Line 1 good Brawler ...... just one.... T110 I am counting on you!!!!

KilljoyCutter #2392 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 04:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 28,522
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Someone posted a thought for an alternate US heavy tree that had the T29 with it's historic T5E2 gun and some other buffs at tier 8, the T32 as a crossover to/from the mediums also at tier 8, the T34/T30 at tier 9 with either gun as options, and a closer to history M103 at tier 10.  What I can't remember is what they slotted into tier 7.  

Does anyone else recall those posts?

SFC_Storm #2393 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 05:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
Posted Image

Come on guys this is the T95 with the 105mm turret.

Im sorry but The only reason steel only tanks was chosen was because production value, this is the exact hulk lwe deserve and need, maybe with 1 more wheel. But thisis 100% IMO the same damnd tank. The M60 was simply a T95 with a few minor changes and no glass Armor, even the guy who is a decent tank expert had a buddy as do I who said same thing mine did.

"T96/96 was only replaced because Glass was expensive and we thought or war wasgonan be 25k vs 50k tanks, also 1 Glass tank took 5x as long as a M60 because curing process ofArmor......SSOrry chief I have to disagree completely, they were all similiar tanks, with competitors or no they all used dsame hull design and turret, oher stuff was amount of Armor and biggest thing was engine choice etc.

We should be playing in game a 135mm@65 degree Glass Armored [30%] HE resist] and if not 120 then 105mm SB that had 560mm Pen lol.

Its so obvius that they were brother designs its ridiculous. WEDGE ALL THE WAY.

Even my buddy says, the T110 just didn thave the 5 yrs to complete it that it needed, if it had 5 rs and turned into TL-31, i woul have had Glass Armor probably MK2 similiar to K style but with diferent plates, would have had wither 120mm M58/105mm L7 or 105mm SB and all 3 would have been kings of the Field, also the H engine was given up because the T965 was scraped but it had 1100 HP, was 200 lbs lighter, had redundant oil cooloing lines wth multiple shutoffs incase of DMG, and had Waterjacketed eadsx 14 with over 250 water jackets making the engine the most cooled ever up to that point, lastly it had 2 radiators 1 on bottom of tank, looked like grif patern COpper coild and other normal one mounted angled with 2 electric fans, but main bottom coolant lines never would have been hit and where almost 100x the cooling power as a normal radiator.

Next its scope was 3x 6x 9x and 12x mag kust lik a rilfes and had multiple scopes with little blindspots, commanders gun had a 3 inch glacis [R2D2] just like the wedge picture, the cupola was "Quick connected" with a ejection like control so if the fire started yu it button and R2d2 flew off sucking flames out with it. Is Ammo rack was loaded from front or rear so as you said the loader always ad 18 rounds in "Sweet Spot"

120 had 221mm@ 960m
105 SB was 290 @ 960 with a 40mm Penetrator
90mm was 268@960 with a 30mm Penetrator

All was not 30 like we got test info from but 50 degrees simulating the very thick lower Glacis of RUS tanks, since there Ammo was ht by lower Glacis or Turret.

Also it was 345 BHN Steel.

Lastly GM`s T95e1,2,3 was a 90mm T18, a 90mm SB T140 and 3rd wasnt made a turre tas it was trying to figure out how to mount 120mm. E1 had 3.8 inches of equiv frontal with glass, e2 was steel at 3.8

Ford [Best BY FAR, Devs to scared to use i tas its numbers andd thoughts kick ass.] had the T95E4 was 90mm SB T140 with 2.8inches of glass+1.6 inches steel [280 BHN] E5 was 105mm SB and had AVDS1700 with 680 BHP@2300 with redline at 3k making it well over 700 but more important had Stump pulling power.
The T95E6 was designeddifferent from ground up knowing it needed to support 120, it had 4.8 Inches of glass[ instead of 3.8+1 which was alo heavier] 4.8inches+.75 or 3/4inch 380 BHn steel on the lower and upper weighing 1600 LBS, but smarter than that was Suspension was setup with stiffest shocks and struts made and used brand new at the time compressed gas rather than oil in the shocks, gave it alot more travel and could take DMG without throwing a track all the time hen hit 1 time, they could release air to repair then fill it back itc. They said they had to make spec fiting for Byrnetunnel have no idea hat that is?

Any ways lastly they instead of coolant linesand ol lines everywhere it as at bottom so ammo wasstoed in bins wit hbreak away compartments, so in fire you hit hatch off with sucked out fire then dropped bins an dumped ammo out as you escaped.

It had 5.8 inches of Armor in all with 5.01 and anothrlayer of Very hardebded German like steel because for was crazy about str...They really were the best designers in the world at the time. They made counter weight for 120mm and turret control etc but never mounted 120, test`s with 105 showed great on the move accuracy and if they dialed in 120 they said it would have beaten the M60 in everyway. It was reffered to as the bastard M60 project, Must have been frustrating being bette at everthing but losing because "THE RUSKIS RE COMING NOW"

Anyways Im sold, no one unless they have a report that says th T100 was much different can convince me they were alot different....They werent, look at M60a3, looks just like drawing of T95E6...I mean JUST LIEK IT, and T96 same thing and only diff n the Spe sheet was GM+Ford+Chrystler and all were withing .8 tons of eachother and same over al size etc.

From what Im gathering since The big 3 owned most US loobby then, T95 90mm SB was going Chevy, [Was a Light Medium] all in all was gonna be 41 tons. T95e4 and up to T96 was going Ford with 43 Ton Rex style Tank, 45.7 style 5.8 inch frontal Armor 105mm SB, with a 650 HP motor, and lasty fo ford T96 its pet project tat was gonna overtake all the major 3, I heard 6.3inch`s of glass on a 120mm Gun Frame with the massive weight savings of the H engine ford bought he rightd to, AOI + all its mounting tc was light but same exact weight as fords new Fat opposed 6x boxter engine, puting out 1100 HP in 10 CYL or 1300 in 12 or better yet for  true heavy 2950 HP with a 24cyl Engine thatstill is smaller than a PW double wasp in the Hellcat...LOL

So ford was gonna have a 120mm 6.2inch Glass+340 BHN Armor with 100 HP a redundant cooling system that is a closed loop so no dust or sand, optar IR that instead of lasers went right through enemy smoke grenades and turned high enough jammed enemy plnes radar and actually worked as AA just lke our F22`s now days. It also had 2,4,8,12 power scopes, and was one of first designs with Cupola ejectin seats to stop fires and 2 ejection racks for ammo fire.
Mix this with .7 ton counter wight for back of turret that had extensions for out riggers as to bury your tank and immediately rotate turret and the outriggers cleared dirt piles etc, they also worked great for towing and a whole mes of otherstuff....20 rs to soon and 2 yrs to late once kenedy wtalked dw n the cuban missile crisis the T96 was re evaluated but then vietnam came and Tanks were less important.

Im 100% sure Mopar and Ford since Macnamara and Lee Iacoca weregreat friends would have shared it all.


Posted Image
Poin is T95e6 would have been

52.2 Tons
120mm M58 with 38 AP and and [ Think] 22 HEP/HESH
5.4 Inches[+3/4 380 BHN]=6.1 inch`s plate after being able to brag the 10mm Soviet+10mm Recoiless rifle couldnt hurt it at any range anwhere from front.So thats 154mm plate but only on lower, and a 10x10 section on upper [TBF it covered most front the rest was 4,8 inches. It was 65 degrees though and remember out of 5.1 of SCA you have to subtract 10% that is purely Honeycomb CHob Armor that wouldnt stop and KE round, meaning 1/2 inch was uselss so front was 5.1-.5 inches+.75 inches because ford was great, and  vs Heat it twas invincible and HE+HESh also couldnt beat it, SCA Armor was so light i twas everywhere.

All in all it had 4.6 Glass/Steel [Which 3.8 stopped a 100mm Heat round 100 for 10 times :) ] so 4.6+.75 of hard 380 BHN=5.3 inches frontal Armor both lower and upper but upper was 65 degrees lower was IM not sure cant find out loks like 58ish from google sketch.

That is the tank we needto get with masssive documentation fro ma company who wasnt sold to a foriegn company in Mercedez, but same owners, etc also Im sure they have the T95456 and T96456.....They better giveus at least 5.3+ 750 HP and for upcoming suspension it better be simply great, its lightweight wasn tdue to armor but because t was short not tall and overall compact.

So
5.3 inches= 134.1@65 degrees= 262.....Perfect....40kmh top speed 420 DMG@7=3k DPM and bam we are set....Its actualy a solid tank, not op but relevant to CW and pubs and will still die very fast if it over extends.

Arzoo #2394 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 07:11

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,773
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
You keep posting that we should get that tank, but honestly I'm having trouble seeing it as balanced. Why in the world would I ever want an IS-7 if I could have the T95? Its frontal armor is just as good, it probably moves around as fast in most situations, and at anything close to 3k DPM the M58 would be way better than the S-70.

If the T110 is getting 127mm thick armor at 60 degrees then yeah, everything else about it better kick the crap out of the IS-7's stats, but at 260mm effective frontal armor you have to start looking for things about the tank that are worse than the IS-7... and if all you can come up with is a little lower top-speed and missing side armor and a bigger cupola then I'd give it a matter of days before you see nerfs on the order of magnitude of everything they did to the T29/T32 all at once.

KnightFandragon #2395 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 07:17

    Major

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

View PostArzoo, on Feb 14 2012 - 07:11, said:

You keep posting that we should get that tank, but honestly I'm having trouble seeing it as balanced. Why in the world would I ever want an IS-7 if I could have the T95? Its frontal armor is just as good, it probably moves around as fast in most situations, and at anything close to 3k DPM the M58 would be way better than the S-70.

If the T110 is getting 127mm thick armor at 60 degrees then yeah, everything else about it better kick the crap out of the IS-7's stats, but at 260mm effective frontal armor you have to start looking for things about the tank that are worse than the IS-7... and if all you can come up with is a little lower top-speed and missing side armor and a bigger cupola then I'd give it a matter of days before you see nerfs on the order of magnitude of everything they did to the T29/T32 all at once.

There it is again...it seems like the title of "the best" is reserved for Russian tanks only.."It would be way better then the S-70"...Ok? And the point being?  Poor IS7 got bested by a tank that is clearly better then it?  I really dont see the issue about there being another T10 Heavy tank not owned by the Russians in game that is better then the IS7.  Only reason I can see for there never being a tank like that is plain and simple Russian Bias, dont want their precious IS7 stats to go down at all....You say that "Why in the world would I want an IS-7 if I could have the T95?".  Well, why would any of us want a T30 or T110 when we can have an IS-7?  Do the Russians get all the best tanks while the other nations are stuck with mediocre or just "decent", or "just gotta know how to use it" types of tanks?

Arzoo #2396 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 07:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,773
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostKnightFandragon, on Feb 14 2012 - 07:17, said:

There it is again...it seems like the title of "the best" is reserved for Russian tanks only.."It would be way better then the S-70"...Ok? And the point being?  Poor IS7 got bested by a tank that is clearly better then it?  I really dont see the issue about there being another T10 Heavy tank not owned by the Russians in game that is better then the IS7.  Only reason I can see for there never being a tank like that is plain and simple Russian Bias, dont want their precious IS7 stats to go down at all....You say that "Why in the world would I want an IS-7 if I could have the T95?".  Well, why would any of us want a T30 or T110 when we can have an IS-7?  Do the Russians get all the best tanks while the other nations are stuck with mediocre or just "decent", or "just gotta know how to use it" types of tanks?

The T30 doesn't compete directly with the IS-7; you make clear trade-offs for a gun that is better in both pub and organized gameplay.

I'm not saying the T110 needs to be worse, I'm saying it needs to be approximately as good. Some aspects of it should certainly be better than the IS-7... but if ALL of them are then... surely you can see the problem? I can easily see an argument for it kicking the IS-7's ass in terms of both firepower and mobility if it has poor armor (and anything below 240mm is pretty poor as far as I'm concerned).

But if you want all that AND 260mm effective armor then I don't know what to say to you... it's like wanting the M60 to be our tier 9 medium, kick the T-54's ass because the M60 is simply a better tank, and then complaining that it's Russian Bias that we don't get the M60. No, it's not Russian bias that we don't get the tank, it's BALANCE that we don't get the tank.

LoooSeR78V #2397 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 07:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 6,099
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostGigaton, on Feb 12 2012 - 16:02, said:


Is the IS-7 at Kubinka same as the in-game one? I have seen sevral people claiming variety of model errors in IS-7 over the past year but it has usually been because they used wrong IS-7 variant for comparison.
In-game IS-7 have armor of IS-7 from Kubinka, so why not to make ingame model closer to it's RL prototype? Moreover, i think that IS-7 should have small weakspot at turret frontal armor, becouse of there is no other weakspot for relaible penetration on turret (optics eats shells periodically). Moreover, this weakspot was suggested by players, who measured this IS-7. But this is another topic.

View PostFaustianQ, on Feb 14 2012 - 02:05, said:

No, it doesn't. Angling an IS-4 simply exchanges one set of weakpoints for another.
Yeap, cheaks, armor behinde tracks... But  2 speciale angling technics for IS-4 exist now  ;)


View PostKnightFandragon, on Feb 14 2012 - 07:17, said:

I really dont see the issue about there being another T10 Heavy tank not owned by the Russians in game that is better then the IS7.
1) IS-7 have weak armor at sides.

2) IS-7 is not mobile, IS-3 is faster. T34 accselerate faster, than IS-7. IS-7's passability values for are much worse than passability of Maus :)  170 ton>>>68 ton in terms of WoT terrain passability...

3) IS-7 is not best Tier 10 heavy becouse we don't have other IS-7-like Tier 10 heavy for comparison. Maus is idiot-proof mobile bunker, T30 is TD, E-100 is KV-5 of tier 10.
IS-7 will burst in flames and die in first minutes of battle, if driver is noob, unlike Maus or E-100 for example.

4) IS-4 is owned by E-75, IS is owned by Tiger (P) and T29, KT>IS-3 for duels, so there is plenty of non-USSR tanks, that can own it's contreparts, but this is of course not German/American BS, it is balanced and all US/German tank should be able to roflpwn any USSR-made tank, i understand you right?

SFC_Storm #2398 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 07:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostArzoo, on Feb 14 2012 - 07:11, said:

You keep posting that we should get that tank, but honestly I'm having trouble seeing it as balanced. Why in the world would I ever want an IS-7 if I could have the T95? Its frontal armor is just as good, it probably moves around as fast in most situations, and at anything close to 3k DPM the M58 would be way better than the S-70.

If the T110 is getting 127mm thick armor at 60 degrees then yeah, everything else about it better kick the crap out of the IS-7's stats, but at 260mm effective frontal armor you have to start looking for things about the tank that are worse than the IS-7... and if all you can come up with is a little lower top-speed and missing side armor and a bigger cupola then I'd give it a matter of days before you see nerfs on the order of magnitude of everything they did to the T29/T32 all at once.


You obviously dont know an IS7 frontal Armor then. its 2 plates right and left og pike are 342mm, its upper is 289mm, its lower is 240ish and its seam/Nose is 217 and the size of a single DMGsticker.

You are nutz if you thin 250-260 is even in the same ball park....I is less thana E75 in both Higher and lower, and weak on sides, the other has frontal equal to amaus and moves at 38kmh.

Seriously what dont you get?

Also one has 220 at least sides when our T110 will have maybe 150.

Al for what? 550 DPM and a 400 DMG gun....Thats called balance, you have been starved for so long you thing scraps tase good and  good meal is to rich for your blood...

Armor is te major difference, the Devs aready said similiar speeds, but the Armor even with 260mm which is 135mm@65 degree BTW vs the IS7`s 150mm@60/65 and 2 plates at 70 degrees is gong to be almost as fast except with a 490 ALpga gun vs a 400 DMG gn.

Arty will still eat T110 alive...Seriously just because it has a good upper and decent lower that is benneath a E75 a T9 you think its OP?

Your way off IMO.

I just want a strongg front so I can apply DMG. at 260 upper ISti lget penned 50% of thetime...LOL on sides I get penned by T7 Meds.

All I want is a solid front, T34 speed mobility and its gun, that is not to much by any stretch and any les will make CW useless and wont ever even be used period.

SRY on IPHONE


BTW 127mm@60 is a puny 213mm Hul lArmo...ROFL....You wold be ok with a 400 DMG gun on a hull thats a T7 ....Think about it....260 is in between a IS4`s 245 snd E75`s 278, the Lower which i massive on the T110 een being 195mm is less then IS4 and 30 less than the E75....Sorry man thats just unreasonable anything below 255mm is totally a T9 heavy and might as well be called such.

When the T30 first came out it had 300+ DPM and 260+ ALPHA to compensate, now the weakest gun in game ALpha wise is gonna be our platform, Devs wont make it a 32-3400 GOD GUN and 213mm Hull is ok with you....Your ok with a E50`s front hull.....IM NOT

KnightFandragon #2399 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 07:57

    Major

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

View PostArzoo, on Feb 14 2012 - 07:46, said:

The T30 doesn't compete directly with the IS-7; you make clear trade-offs for a gun that is better in both pub and organized gameplay.

I'm not saying the T110 needs to be worse, I'm saying it needs to be approximately as good. Some aspects of it should certainly be better than the IS-7... but if ALL of them are then... surely you can see the problem? I can easily see an argument for it kicking the IS-7's ass in terms of both firepower and mobility if it has poor armor (and anything below 240mm is pretty poor as far as I'm concerned).

But if you want all that AND 260mm effective armor then I don't know what to say to you... it's like wanting the M60 to be our tier 9 medium, kick the T-54's ass because the M60 is simply a better tank, and then complaining that it's Russian Bias that we don't get the M60. No, it's not Russian bias that we don't get the tank, it's BALANCE that we don't get the tank.

Well, what are the tradeoffs the IS7 makes for all it's uberness?  It has 340mm effective frontal armor, its pretty fast as far as heavies are concerned...idk how it handles in the turns and all but it isnt a tub from what ive seen of it.  The gun has 260pen, 490dmg, .35 acc and the reload isnt terrible...it isnt by any means a poor gun.  The IS7 doesnt have any weaknesses that can be taken advantage of like other nations...(Ger: Lower hulls, US: Hulls period) yet it does get the advantages of the US of hulldown better then they can, it has like 6 degrees of Depression..sure its a lower tank and it cannot hull down behind as big of slopes and all but where it can, it is 10x better then any US Tank at doing what the US is supposed to be good at.  All in all it gets the perfect combo of Firepower, speed and armor yet its perfectly balanced.   While any time anyone even proposes a tank even similar to it, it is shot down as Imbalanced or something.  I am not looking for a modern tank that has all the bonuses of modern technology and all those gadgets in this game but why cant the other nations have a tank that really makes you shit your pants when it comes around a corner like the IS7 does.  Why cant the other nations get a tank that is truly good like the IS7?  We must all be stuck with a tank that is not good not poor but just plain meh...can be effective when used properly but doesnt really excel at any one thing...

Onyx #2400 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 08:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7303 battles
  • 3,360
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

View PostArzoo, on Feb 14 2012 - 07:46, said:

The T30 doesn't compete directly with the IS-7; you make clear trade-offs for a gun that is better in both pub and organized gameplay.

I'm not saying the T110 needs to be worse, I'm saying it needs to be approximately as good. Some aspects of it should certainly be better than the IS-7... but if ALL of them are then... surely you can see the problem? I can easily see an argument for it kicking the IS-7's ass in terms of both firepower and mobility if it has poor armor (and anything below 240mm is pretty poor as far as I'm concerned).

But if you want all that AND 260mm effective armor then I don't know what to say to you... it's like wanting the M60 to be our tier 9 medium, kick the T-54's ass because the M60 is simply a better tank, and then complaining that it's Russian Bias that we don't get the M60. No, it's not Russian bias that we don't get the tank, it's BALANCE that we don't get the tank.

Pretty much.  Firepower, Armor, Mobility.  Choose 2.  1 will be great, 1 will be decent, one will be terrible.

And then you get crazy conditionals such as alpha v dpm v penetration v accuracy, where 2 can be great, 1 good, the rest kinda blegh.  Or top speed v acceleration v turning.  And so on and so forth.  Some stats from one field, E.G. penetration, can be used to pay for stats from the other, E.G. turning speed and acceleration.

The T110 does have to be the best at something, and that something should be gun sustain and target acquisition with secondaries in maneuver.  Incidentally, these appear to be the same somethings the devs think it should have.




10 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users