World of Tanks

In which server are you? I'm in EU.

I know this ain't WOT related... but hey, it's another (supposedly) free to play MMO about tank combat, and this time it features the modern stuff and a better graphics engine!

It's called Armored Warfare. Not much info out about it so far aside from a preview trailer, some images, an interview and an invitation to be an early beta tester, so keep in mind that it might be awhile before anything solid regarding a release date surfaces. Here's to hoping that it meets with some success...

No, he is a bad person because he's an arrogant ass.

He is a bad person because he is dumb enough to swallow the SS/Wehrmacht "red hordes" propaganda and then, rather than admit he's wrong, double down on his stupidity in an offensive way.

edited 28th Oct '14 1:34:43 PM by Achaemenid

No contest, he's worse than Starscream.

So anyways, check this out, TL:DR we fight bots, autoclickers and convoys in a massive PvE map.

And why I love arty is because they let me drink the unicums' milkshakes.◊

edited 28th Oct '14 3:55:37 PM by RabidTanker

What.

rabid: So if I read that right there is test for some sort of PVE mode?

Pretty much.

And by the way, the "I will drink your milkshake!" meme means that I have pwned someone better than me and they don't even realize it until it's too late.

@des oh, shame. NA servers here.

@'every key macroed to fire my gun'-.That guy is amazing. Best response possible

Garbad's an asshole and a dumbass who's bought hook line and sinker into the "Glorious Wehrmact Military Machine" propaganda nonsense, but he's not wrong about artillery in this game being hilariously ahistorical.

Firing WWII era howitzers at individual targets within rifle range (most nation's standard issue rifles had effective ranges of > 1000m) is more than just wrong. These are medium to heavy field guns we're talking about, designed to be fired in volleys against large fronts at ranges of over 10 miles (The sFH 18 that you get on the Hummel, for instance, had an effective range of over 15 miles, and that was one of the lower ranges). They would be completely ineffective in the role they play in this game.

Whether or not this is something that bothers you will be a YMMV, obviously. Real tanks don't have hitpoints either. Just pointing out that that's one thing he's not wrong about.

edited 28th Oct '14 5:41:27 PM by xivxav

The guns in the game as a whole are hilariously inaccurate, many of the tanks are upgunned or outright fictional, you can give your commander limited ESP, tanks have cloaking devices. Realistic this game ain't.

Yeah, I agree. That tier X German Gatling Gun? I'm filing filler for the impossible-to-balance Sturm Tiger. Tiger H, King Tiger, and the IS-7 had to be watered down to keep the game balanced. And it only took 1 penetrating shot to destroy tank (by engine/fuel fire, detonated ammo).

Rabid; Sometimes it only took one shot. Sometimes it took several. Depended on what was hitting the tank, location hit, and angle of the shot. But be that as it may there would be more crew deaths and matches would be a lot shorter if we played it ultra realistically.

Actually nearly all the rifles used in WWII only had about 500m effective range and for a good reason. It is really hard to see further and accurately without optical aide. That limits effective ranges of the rifles notably.

The artillery guns themselves and systems certainly existed in many cases. As for use artillery can and has fired on single targets in both the past and the present. There never has been in existence a rule or law saying they can't or won't individual targets. One of the uses of artillery was to attack tanks that has been true since WWI when they first rolled out and is still true today. Artillery was a noted effective method for targeting and taking out tanks especially tanks in the open. But as noted they frequently involved several guns firing on the formation which could be 3-4 tanks or a battalion rolling along.

The answer to his shaky historical claim is to make the artillery use more historically accurate and have more self propelled howitzers per match to form a proper battery and give them their most effective armor busting shells. You think he got pissed before just wait until he is dealing with a full battery.

But nearly all of that is moot. The game is not historically accurate and never really has been. They fudge the lines a lot for the sake of gameplay and gameplay balance. What's more Garbad knows it and chooses to complain because it is not the way he wants it. That is all it really is.

edited 28th Oct '14 6:33:35 PM by TuefelHundenIV

And I wonder why the official forums debate the historical aspects of the game ad nauseum. Besides if the game went with only vehicles that were built, we would lose most of Germany's high-end vehicles an France would be capped at tiers 5 or 6.

Right. The better wording would have been maximum range. The guns could fire 1000m +, the user's ability to hit anything at that range tended to be the limiting factor.

Wargaming's relationship with "Historical Accuracy" is rather complicated. While World of Tanks is unabashedly an arcade game that sacrifices realism in the name of gameplay, Wargaming has used "Historical Accuracy" as a justification for nerfs, buffs, removing vehicles (poor T-50-2), and so on.

Depends on what you mean by "built". If you mean "mass produced", then that would be partially true. But, for example, in the case of the French, the AMX-50 and its derivatives (Such as the Foch tank destroyer) were built, just in limited numbers. The AMX-13, on the other hand, was mass produced and exported all around the world, to boot. The French tree would remain pretty dang healthy.

edited 28th Oct '14 7:43:22 PM by xivxav

@xiv: There's a lot of ahistorical things in Wo T. The Stug III is not a tank destroyer, it's technically an SPG. The Marders are just the same as the Grille and the Hummel. The Ferdinand is not a tank destroyer either (hence the missing "Jagd" appellation) because it's simply the Porsche Tiger chassis without a turret and instead a casemate. The SU-152 isn't a tank destroyer too (like most of the USSR T Ds; they were all "assault guns", usually supporting infantry). In essence only the USA and Germany have actual tank destroyers, as they have the "doctrine". The AT British tanks are "breakthrough tanks", similar to the T95; they are designed for fortifications. Just like the Sturms of Germany (which is doubtful to be featured in the game).

edited 28th Oct '14 8:20:02 PM by entropy13

Its best to say and accept that WoT is an arcade tank sim based off of vehicles that have existed historically on the battlefield including experimental and paper projects. The AMX-13 for example never saw the fields of battle in WWII. They were designed at the end of the war.

edited 28th Oct '14 8:36:26 PM by TuefelHundenIV

"Lack of historicity" is always a curious (not necessarily bad, but curious) ground to change WoT on since it is ridiculously ahistorical anyway, and has only become more so since the introduction of fantasy machines like the WT E-100 (annoyingly, there is a more awesome and historical candidate for TX German TD - the 17cm SturmGeschütz auf Fahrgestell Maus).

Ironically enough, the most historical aspect of arty play at the moment is shotgunning enemies in "TD mode".

edited 29th Oct '14 4:10:33 AM by Achaemenid

Wargaming has actually stated that WWII is not the historical limitation of Wo T, hence why we see vehicles like the Leopard 1 which came about over a decade later. The limit is technological rather than a certain time period, namely Wargaming will never implement a vehicle that A) Uses a smoothbore gun to fire more... "exotic" ammunition types like APFSDS or B) has anything other than rolled homogeneous armor protecting it. No composites.

While many of the vehicles designated "Tank Destroyers" in game were designed to be some manner of assault gun, in actual combat the line tended to blur significantly. The SU-152, for example, earned the nickname "Zveroboy" or, roughly, "Beast killer" for it's proficiency at knocking out the heavier German vehicles with those beefy 152mm rounds.

Either way, though, I'm certainly not arguing Wo T is historically accurate, just that historical accuracy has been used in the past as a justification for making changes to the game, so you can't immediately count it out as a reason to change artillery.

I finally got the hang of heavy tanks. Both the Tiger II and the TOG II are fun to play and very succesful so far. And the T29 shapes up to be the same.

The TOG even has the highest winrate of all my tanks.

The T29, while a bit situational, is an awesome tank. Even if you just have the 90mm and you're basically stock, go hulldown and the only thing you need to fear is arty.

The T-29 is kind of unique in its tier, as it can punch it out in tier 9s via its invulnerable turret. Situational, sure, but in flank with a good hull-down position? Really hard to dislodge, particularly in pubs where MOST people don't know where to aim at.

And given that Wargaming has recently been Nerfing the previously thought untouchables (the T67, the Hellcat, the Super Pershing, FV 304, etc) it's only a matter of time before she receives a nerf as well, unfortunately.

The SP is the odd one out among those though, because it's already not good even before the nerf.

Well at least they added some more armor to the front and a better Glacis plate in compensation for the other nerfs. Beginning to wonder why the hell did Wargaming hit the Hellcat so hard with the nerfbat though, it's gotten to the point where the Jackson is pretty much the superior option in almost all ways since the excellent speed it once had is no longer a means of protection and the guns are identical.

BTW, how do I kill a hull-down T29 (aside from 'shoot its hull')?
@Jackson and Hellcat: the Jackson's gun is actually better now; it fires faster, for one.