Panthers have the excellent, super-accurate German guns available to the...the Germans. Though I don't think the Panther I has the almost-terrifying 105 mm the Jagdpanther does, just a shorter, weaker one.
And, unfortunately, they're boxy as all hell. Especially from the side. Very easy to seriously mess up from the side, at least in the beta. All mediums have this problem, but it is particularly bad on the Panther.
True. I actually remember watching an interview with a Tiger I crew commander (I think he was the commander), when he was first introduced to his new tank. He had a lot of praise for how tough it was (I think he was on the Western Front, so yeah, it would have been tough as hell, and not much softer in the East), and the handling and comfort of his crew, but he distinctly remembered being disappointed at how boxy it was when he saw it, especially since they knew the Soviets in the east had practically every single operation tank with slanted surfaces (and that was where 4/5 of the army was going to be anyway).
My KV-3 crew has hit 100%, so I can choose secondary skills for them. What skills should I choose?
I'm also just about to jump into an IS which will probably be my main tank from now on. Should I move my crew to the new tank or not (I'll keep the KV-3)?
Yeah my highest tier at the moment is 6, and I only get about 10-15k credits per match. Gonna wait till I'm getting 100k per match to go on a tank shopping spree!
FYI, only the Lowe (and maybe KV-5? I dunno) makes that kind of money. No non-premium tank will ever bring in 100k profit. Maybe once or twice in a thousand matches if you do extremely well and are incredibly lucky, and have a premium account.
Per-match profitability actually peaks around tier 5/6. From tier 7 on up, operating costs generally increase faster than income, to the point that you will probably start losing money on average without a premium account. This is intentional, and meant to force you to pay for premium (or a Lowe or KV-5) if you want to continuously play high-tier tanks. Otherwise you have to mix in a few matches in your lower-tier tanks to pay for repairs and ammo on your higher-tier vehicles.
What do you want out of medium tanks? This is an important question to ask yourself before you choose a medium line. From experience, Panthers are regulated to long range snipers (to do well) and perform poorly when under attack (especially close range attack). They're fairly slow (for a medium) have the worst hull armor and a huge turret with next to no armor (120 armor huge turret). Though Panthers are good snipers, i didn't sign up to snipe with mine but after awhle you find out thats all they're good at and stick to it.
Where as from what I've seen both US and Russian mediums play more like mediums. They're fast can bounce a good amount of shtos (they have good sloped armor) and are very low profile. They're manuverable and quick. If you want a flanking, shot bouncing, front line, hard hitting medium, russian/US is the way to go. If you want to play support sniper then Panthers are fine at that.
With the caveat that I've never driven one, I've always had the impression (from fighting alongside and against it) that the Panther is OK as a dogfighter, especially when working in a group with other mediums. Its top speed and maneuverability are mediocre, but it does have a great HP/weight ratio for good acceleration and the long 88 has a pretty good damage output. Definitely more at home as a sniper though, no doubt about it.
Between the Russian and US mediums, the Russians are really the only ones that can expect to bounce many hits (and even they are far from impenetrable). The US armor is just too thin and insufficiently sloped to rely on. The US meds are the fastest, though, and have the best damage output, so they make for good glass cannons - they can dogfight in some situations, or flank to hit distracted enemies and withdraw before taking return fire. The Russians are more jacks of all trades, decent for trading shots on an equal footing with some enemies or flanking/dogfighting others, but without the sheer damage-output capability of the US mediums or the long-range accuracy of the Germans.
It'll be interesting to see how the German and US medium line updates affect the balance of power. I assume the E-50 and Patton will both be more durable than the current tier 9s, and the shifting-down of the Pershing, Panther II, and Panther will probably result in net buffs to the upper tiers of both trees.
My KV-3 crew has hit 100%, so I can choose secondary skills for them. What skills should I choose?
I'm also just about to jump into an IS which will probably be my main tank from now on. Should I move my crew to the new tank or not (I'll keep the KV-3)?
Repair's always good, I find. Camo if your tactics involve a lot of hiding, but in a KV-3, I would imagine not (could very well be wrong though).
Panthers have the excellent, super-accurate German guns available to the...the Germans. Though I don't think the Panther I has the almost-terrifying 105 mm the Jagdpanther does, just a shorter, weaker one.
And, unfortunately, they're boxy as all hell. Especially from the side. Very easy to seriously mess up from the side, at least in the beta. All mediums have this problem, but it is particularly bad on the Panther.
Ughh The German guns are undermodeled: T34-85 85mm gun has penetration of shell hitting a vertical 0 deg plate. the panther kwk42 has the penetration based on shells striking a plate set back at 30 deg from vertical
85mm gun should be 97mm penetration at 30 deg angle (in game 0 deg is 120mm pen)
75mm kwk 42 should be 138mm at 30 deg angle (in game 0 deg 138mm pen. . . )
no wonder people have been complaining about panther shells bouncing. All german guns have the 30deg real world figure used as the 0 deg in game figure.
The reason why soviets had to go for larger and larger calibres is becasue their guns were worse than the Germans charge for charge. The 8,5cm gun was about as effective as the M1 76.2 USA or the KwK/StuK 40 in the PIV and StuG's and not anywhere near comparable to 17pdr or Panther's KwK42. The 12,2cm guns penetrated less than the German long 8,8cm KwK 43 L/71 gun
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
lets be honest, if they balanced correctly, German tanks would just be Better in a battle situation. From my understanding of history, German tanks were easily superior to their US counterparts, and somewhat superior to the Russian tanks, but were hard to keep running due to complexity and logistics issues.
lets be honest, if they balanced correctly, German tanks would just be Better in a battle situation. From my understanding of history, German tanks were easily superior to their US counterparts, and somewhat superior to the Russian tanks, but were hard to keep running due to complexity and logistics issues.
Other way around Sherman had thicker frontal armour and eventually a better gun (US) than even the T34-85. The british 17pdr much better and was as effective as the panther's gun, a gun which would kill T34's at 3000m ranges. . . Shermans with wet stowage would not burn like PIV or explode like T-34s either. You can see this in Korea when 3inch gun Shermans sodomised North Korean equipped T34-85 units
They've made it so the T44/IS2 is pretty proof against the Panther's 7,5cm when both should be killable from turret hits at around 1000-800m.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
My KV-3 crew has hit 100%, so I can choose secondary skills for them. What skills should I choose?
I'm also just about to jump into an IS which will probably be my main tank from now on. Should I move my crew to the new tank or not (I'll keep the KV-3)?
Repair's always good, I find. Camo if your tactics involve a lot of hiding, but in a KV-3, I would imagine not (could very well be wrong though).
Camo might actually be useful if the crew is going to be moved over to an IS-series later. Those tanks have good camo ratings for their size, IIRC.
Before we move into the mechanics, a bit of explanation about the penetration values used in World of Tanks. Germans and Russians tested their guns in different manners. Both used different armor, armor densities, and angle of attack. Also, the Russians required a higher standard of guaranteed shell penetration. Here is what Overlord says about penetration values.
”{Abbreviations expanded and spelling corrected}
"In-game, we use the Soviet penetration system with 0 (90) degree armor slope and 75% guaranteed shell penetration (which is more than the 50% guaranteed penetration used in German penetration system). That's why German guns have, as you say, deflated stats in-game.”
75% guaranteed shell penetration is defined as “75% of shell splinters behind the test target”.
“The way we calculate pen data for German guns is the following:”
German penetration data - 30 degree penetration data (the most common) is converted into 0 degree German penetration data.
0 degree German penetration data is converted into Soviet 0 degree data.
the outcome is usually quite close to 30 degree German penetration data.
This means: in general, German 30 degree armor slope penetration data is equal to 0 degree Soviet penetration data (because of guaranteed penetration gap).
The main difference lies in guaranteed penetration coefficients, which are lower in German systems.
NOTE: There are also a few minor game balancing tweaks, so not every conversion is perfect.
Personally, I don't give two shits about real-world vs. in-game penetration stats, or exact historical armor thicknesses, or any of the rest of the "OMG not historically accurate, where's my realism!" nonsense. WoT is an arcadey tank game with sim elements to add some depth, not a hardcore tank simulator. For Christ's sake, your crew can repair a destroyed track from inside the tank in 15 seconds.
I acknowledge that different people would prefer different points on the sim-to-arcade spectrum, but at some point you may be better served by looking for a different game than complaining about how WoT in particular doesn't meet your desires.
Supraluminal on
0
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Before we move into the mechanics, a bit of explanation about the penetration values used in World of Tanks. Germans and Russians tested their guns in different manners. Both used different armor, armor densities, and angle of attack. Also, the Russians required a higher standard of guaranteed shell penetration. Here is what Overlord says about penetration values.
”{Abbreviations expanded and spelling corrected}
"In-game, we use the Soviet penetration system with 0 (90) degree armor slope and 75% guaranteed shell penetration (which is more than the 50% guaranteed penetration used in German penetration system). That's why German guns have, as you say, deflated stats in-game.”
75% guaranteed shell penetration is defined as “75% of shell splinters behind the test target”.
“The way we calculate pen data for German guns is the following:”
German penetration data - 30 degree penetration data (the most common) is converted into 0 degree German penetration data.
0 degree German penetration data is converted into Soviet 0 degree data.
the outcome is usually quite close to 30 degree German penetration data.
This means: in general, German 30 degree armor slope penetration data is equal to 0 degree Soviet penetration data (because of guaranteed penetration gap).
The main difference lies in guaranteed penetration coefficients, which are lower in German systems.
NOTE: There are also a few minor game balancing tweaks, so not every conversion is perfect.
Personally, I don't give two shits about real-world vs. in-game penetration stats, or exact historical armor thicknesses, or any of the rest of the "OMG not historically accurate, where's my realism!" nonsense. WoT is an arcadey tank game with sim elements to add some depth, not a hardcore tank simulator. For Christ's sake, your crew can repair a destroyed track from inside the tank in 15 seconds.
I acknowledge that different people would prefer different points on the sim-to-arcade spectrum, but at some point you may be better served by looking for a different game than complaining about how WoT in particular doesn't meet your desires.
People complaining about historical accuracy in a game where German, Russian, and American tanks are all on the same side makes my head hurt.
Bull shit as Soviet armour and shells were of worse quality than even shitty late war German or even early war US armour. They've just decided to bend figures and hand wave better soviet performance post war. If German guns were as bad as they've got in game the effectiveness of PIV and StuG's would have been hopeless against Soviet Armoured Corps, and they would not have been hurriedly up armouring IS series turret armour from 10cm all the way up to 12cm in mid production IS 2 then 16cm in IS-3. Soviet wartime designers were locked into armouring against Panthers and Tiger II by 44/45.
That it's an arcade game where Soviet equipment is calculated as better cool, I can dig that but that cannot be squared by their above wiki entry where they say they recalculated based on I presume ignoring the high brinnel hardness of Soviet shells shattering against even poor quality German armour because of better soviet tests.
German is 100% penetration (the full shell has gone through the armour) but 50% or 66% of shells fired need to go completely through before a fig is printed up (depending on if you use Livingston or Jentz as a german gun source).
So the Germans and the British tested for shell has punched through where as the soviets were ok with only 75% of the shell peeking through the armour. . . and that's the basis for poorer Gun performance.
an arcade game with biase and now at least I know why you have to shoot at weakpoints, for balance. . .
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Bull shit as Soviet armour and shells were of worse quality than even shitty late war German or even early war US armour. They've just decided to bend figures and hand wave better soviet performance post war. If German guns were as bad as they've got in game the effectiveness of PIV and StuG's would have been hopeless against Soviet Armoured Corps, and they would not have been hurriedly up armouring IS series turret armour from 10cm all the way up to 12cm in mid production IS 2 then 16cm in IS-3. Soviet wartime designers were locked into armouring against Panthers and Tiger II by 44/45.
That it's an arcade game where Soviet equipment is calculated as better cool, I can dig that but that cannot be squared by their above wiki entry where they say they recalculated based on I presume ignoring the high brinnel hardness of Soviet shells shattering against even poor quality German armour because of better soviet tests.
But you're missing my whole point, which is who fucking cares. It's a game. If the current German penetration stats work well for game balance, that's what's important. If they don't, then they should be adjusted.
I probably shouldn't have even included that quote from the wiki, because again, I don't care how they converted the real-world penetration data or what the source of that data was or anything else. All I care about is whether or not the game is fun.
Sorry if I'm a bit touchy about this subject - it has a tendency to run rampant on the official WoT forums and lead to ridiculous, interminable, unimportant arguments that never accomplish anything.
I know the game is an arcade game there is no way a 8,8cm gun can be fitted on a panther, and no way a 7,5cm smallturret can be fitted to a PIV chassis or the silly long 2cm guns on PII's. Except for line drawings and hitler/designer phantasy such things are impossible. All the experimental tanks and failed development lines are utterly silly and skews it more to a arcade game. But the developers are sitting their saying : no really we know german stuff is crap because we used realism in caluating gun penetration in our arcade game. . .
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
My KV-3 crew has hit 100%, so I can choose secondary skills for them. What skills should I choose?
I'm also just about to jump into an IS which will probably be my main tank from now on. Should I move my crew to the new tank or not (I'll keep the KV-3)?
Repair's always good, I find. Camo if your tactics involve a lot of hiding, but in a KV-3, I would imagine not (could very well be wrong though).
Yup, you should definitely start with either repair or camo. I personally tend to choose camo, since not being seen and hence not getting shot in the first place is preferable to getting shot and then repairing the damage quickly. It does depend on the tank and your personal playstyle, though.
Firefighting is kinda useless if you carry a fire extinguisher, which you should be doing (they'll save your ass on a regular basis).
I know the game is an arcade game there is no way a 8,8cm gun can be fitted on a panther, and no way a 7,5cm smallturret can be fitted to a PIV chassis or the silly long 2cm guns on PII's. Except for line drawings and hitler/designer phantasy such things are impossible. All the experimental tanks and failed development lines are utterly silly and skews it more to a arcade game. But the developers are sitting their saying : no really we know german stuff is crap because we used realism in caluating gun penetration in our arcade game. . .
Fair enough, I guess. My personal solution to that bit of inconsistency is to just ignore it. As long as the game is fun to play, I don't care how they go about justifying their in-game stats to the history buffs and simulation fanatics. I'll complain as loudly as anyone else when I see real problems with the game mechanics, though.
I feel the same way. All this argument about how the tanks are wrong as compared to how they were in real battles, so ridiculous. What I love most of all are the posts in the WoT forums that go "THIS GAME IS SO UNREALISTIC I QUIT THIS SUCKS SCREW YOU DEVS"
Its not so much that its that russian tanks are being given some pretty big advantages.
Or were, at least.
That's really a separate, though equally contentious, issue. I don't mind people complaining about perceived imbalances as long as they're doing it within the context of the game instead of using overly-specific historical arguments.
I might as well clarify that I do appreciate the historical/realistic aspects of the game insofar as they contribute a sense of atmosphere and immersion. It's been interesting hitting up Wikipedia for more information on the various vehicles in the game, and all that. To the extent that Wargaming can maintain historical accuracy without hurting the gameplay, I'm all for it - but when it comes down to fun vs. realism, I'll choose fun every time.
If we're talking about realism, half these tanks wouldn't even exist, many would break down after 2 minutes of driving, or as soon as they hit uneven ground; they would run out of fuel; crews would abandon them even before they were fully destroyed, etc etc.
I only want so much realism in a game, really.
Think I'm gonna buy a Lowe tonight - tired of grinding credits and XP :P
I'm going to do the same. It was pretty easy to make money with the KV-3 but after I upgraded to the IS, it's harder. Shells that cost 1025 silver per shot cuts into my profits rather badly.
So my premium just expired...anyone have suggestions? Some people mentioned waiting until the tech tree shakedowns are done, do we have a firm ETA on that?
So the VK3601 is a great tank. If you just angle yourself towards your enemy (left or right front corner of your tank is facing them) you can bounce ridiculous shots. I bounced a lowe and an Obj601 shot today one after another. it was hilarious. I guess I may not be used to bouncing shots since i majored in German Medium tanks (up to Panther 1 atm) so I have little experience with any armor value over 80.
So my premium just expired...anyone have suggestions? Some people mentioned waiting until the tech tree shakedowns are done, do we have a firm ETA on that?
Americans are getting new tanks sometime this month, so wait until that.
If we're talking about realism, half these tanks wouldn't even exist, many would break down after 2 minutes of driving, or as soon as they hit uneven ground; they would run out of fuel; crews would abandon them even before they were fully destroyed, etc etc.
I only want so much realism in a game, really.
Hence the reason tanks like the Maus or Tiger II never break down in game, or Shermans don't get stuck in the mud or snow due to having shitty, narrow tracks.
Shooting physics would include, I imagine, ballistics that aren't currently modeled--that would obviously require gun-specific sights (which appear in some of the preview videos) to inform the player of the necessary mechanics and adjustments to make (some tanks could obviously share sights, seeing how some of them use the same guns). I'd like to see those.
Driving physics, though....I think Sherman and Panzer IV drivers have it tough enough, without having to worry about their shitty narrow tracks sinking into mud or snow or both on ever map with mud or snow or both, while Soviet tanks charge on cheerfully and the Tiger II laughs at them with its wide tracks. :P
And then you've got the Maus, which can't cross some of those bridges....
I know a hardcore mode was talked about a few pages back, and wasn't planned at this time, but man I'd love to try one out. Like forced cockpit/sniper view, no tank outlines or class indicators floating above the tanks, but to lessen the sting of that, all tanks are visible at all times. (Though the arty mechanics would have to be reworked for that, maybe something akin to the BF1942 artillery spotting mechanics).
True. I'd love interior views, even though I acknowledge they'd be mostly cosmetic unless enforced. And SPGs would be tough.
On the other hand, I actually do like watching the beauty and detail of the outside of a tank, the parts turning and so forth, and that'd only get better with more detail.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
So the VK3601 is a great tank. If you just angle yourself towards your enemy (left or right front corner of your tank is facing them) you can bounce ridiculous shots. I bounced a lowe and an Obj601 shot today one after another. it was hilarious. I guess I may not be used to bouncing shots since i majored in German Medium tanks (up to Panther 1 atm) so I have little experience with any armor value over 80.
But I'm liking this higher armor value thing.
Wait, if you have a Panther how are you not familiar with the bounce machine that is the 3002? It crushes the 3601 in terms of bounces and survivability for its tier.
This game is frustrating and fun in equal amounts.
I am convinced that the aiming and damage modelling is broken. It seems so random at times. Driving round in a Lowe, using premium ammo, I get shots which are downright ridiculous.
On Hill, I managed to get into a position where I was looking down onto the top of a Russian TD. He was literally 30 yards away, and the entire rear/top of his tank filled my aiming reticule. It indicated green likely penetration result. I estimate the angle from barrel to tank was probably 45 degrees (I was looking almost right down at him and had to drive my tank over the edge of a cliff to get the barrel to depress).
I fired, got a message saying "one more like that will finish them", and he'd lost a massive 2% dmg, from 100% to 98%.
Another battle, I put a premium shell into the belly of a PzIV from point blank range after he crested a hill in front of me. 5% dmg taken off... no more than that.
I've also noticed a lot of people deliberately exploiting the hit boxes on tanks. More than 1 player has driven into my Lowe and tried to drive me backwards at point blank range, putting their gunbarrel inside my turret. I dont know if this is particular for Lowes but it's hard to do damage to people that do that.
As for SPGs, I think the Devs couldn't be bothered to work out a real way to implement long range arty shooting, so just slapped in something that is sort of ok. As for realism? Well, it's totally unrealistic, so they should take it out in my opinion.
For all the negatives, you sometimes get a game where there will be 4 or 5 of you left, vs 6 or 7 enemy, and somehow, with organisation, you manage to get the win. Those games are amazing, but the majority of players seem to play with no brains.
Posts
But I'm glad to hear that Russian mediums behave like mediums! I'm on a T-34-85 right now, with 34k xp. Anxiously waiting for my T-43.
BF3 Battlelog | Twitter | World of Warships | World of Tanks | Wishlist
And, unfortunately, they're boxy as all hell. Especially from the side. Very easy to seriously mess up from the side, at least in the beta. All mediums have this problem, but it is particularly bad on the Panther.
I'm also just about to jump into an IS which will probably be my main tank from now on. Should I move my crew to the new tank or not (I'll keep the KV-3)?
FYI, only the Lowe (and maybe KV-5? I dunno) makes that kind of money. No non-premium tank will ever bring in 100k profit. Maybe once or twice in a thousand matches if you do extremely well and are incredibly lucky, and have a premium account.
Per-match profitability actually peaks around tier 5/6. From tier 7 on up, operating costs generally increase faster than income, to the point that you will probably start losing money on average without a premium account. This is intentional, and meant to force you to pay for premium (or a Lowe or KV-5) if you want to continuously play high-tier tanks. Otherwise you have to mix in a few matches in your lower-tier tanks to pay for repairs and ammo on your higher-tier vehicles.
With the caveat that I've never driven one, I've always had the impression (from fighting alongside and against it) that the Panther is OK as a dogfighter, especially when working in a group with other mediums. Its top speed and maneuverability are mediocre, but it does have a great HP/weight ratio for good acceleration and the long 88 has a pretty good damage output. Definitely more at home as a sniper though, no doubt about it.
Between the Russian and US mediums, the Russians are really the only ones that can expect to bounce many hits (and even they are far from impenetrable). The US armor is just too thin and insufficiently sloped to rely on. The US meds are the fastest, though, and have the best damage output, so they make for good glass cannons - they can dogfight in some situations, or flank to hit distracted enemies and withdraw before taking return fire. The Russians are more jacks of all trades, decent for trading shots on an equal footing with some enemies or flanking/dogfighting others, but without the sheer damage-output capability of the US mediums or the long-range accuracy of the Germans.
It'll be interesting to see how the German and US medium line updates affect the balance of power. I assume the E-50 and Patton will both be more durable than the current tier 9s, and the shifting-down of the Pershing, Panther II, and Panther will probably result in net buffs to the upper tiers of both trees.
Repair's always good, I find. Camo if your tactics involve a lot of hiding, but in a KV-3, I would imagine not (could very well be wrong though).
Ughh The German guns are undermodeled: T34-85 85mm gun has penetration of shell hitting a vertical 0 deg plate. the panther kwk42 has the penetration based on shells striking a plate set back at 30 deg from vertical
85mm gun should be 97mm penetration at 30 deg angle (in game 0 deg is 120mm pen)
75mm kwk 42 should be 138mm at 30 deg angle (in game 0 deg 138mm pen. . . )
no wonder people have been complaining about panther shells bouncing. All german guns have the 30deg real world figure used as the 0 deg in game figure.
The reason why soviets had to go for larger and larger calibres is becasue their guns were worse than the Germans charge for charge. The 8,5cm gun was about as effective as the M1 76.2 USA or the KwK/StuK 40 in the PIV and StuG's and not anywhere near comparable to 17pdr or Panther's KwK42. The 12,2cm guns penetrated less than the German long 8,8cm KwK 43 L/71 gun
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Other way around Sherman had thicker frontal armour and eventually a better gun (US) than even the T34-85. The british 17pdr much better and was as effective as the panther's gun, a gun which would kill T34's at 3000m ranges. . . Shermans with wet stowage would not burn like PIV or explode like T-34s either. You can see this in Korea when 3inch gun Shermans sodomised North Korean equipped T34-85 units
They've made it so the T44/IS2 is pretty proof against the Panther's 7,5cm when both should be killable from turret hits at around 1000-800m.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Camo might actually be useful if the crew is going to be moved over to an IS-series later. Those tanks have good camo ratings for their size, IIRC.
Personally, I don't give two shits about real-world vs. in-game penetration stats, or exact historical armor thicknesses, or any of the rest of the "OMG not historically accurate, where's my realism!" nonsense. WoT is an arcadey tank game with sim elements to add some depth, not a hardcore tank simulator. For Christ's sake, your crew can repair a destroyed track from inside the tank in 15 seconds.
I acknowledge that different people would prefer different points on the sim-to-arcade spectrum, but at some point you may be better served by looking for a different game than complaining about how WoT in particular doesn't meet your desires.
People complaining about historical accuracy in a game where German, Russian, and American tanks are all on the same side makes my head hurt.
That it's an arcade game where Soviet equipment is calculated as better cool, I can dig that but that cannot be squared by their above wiki entry where they say they recalculated based on I presume ignoring the high brinnel hardness of Soviet shells shattering against even poor quality German armour because of better soviet tests.
German is 100% penetration (the full shell has gone through the armour) but 50% or 66% of shells fired need to go completely through before a fig is printed up (depending on if you use Livingston or Jentz as a german gun source).
So the Germans and the British tested for shell has punched through where as the soviets were ok with only 75% of the shell peeking through the armour. . . and that's the basis for poorer Gun performance.
an arcade game with biase and now at least I know why you have to shoot at weakpoints, for balance. . .
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
But you're missing my whole point, which is who fucking cares. It's a game. If the current German penetration stats work well for game balance, that's what's important. If they don't, then they should be adjusted.
I probably shouldn't have even included that quote from the wiki, because again, I don't care how they converted the real-world penetration data or what the source of that data was or anything else. All I care about is whether or not the game is fun.
Sorry if I'm a bit touchy about this subject - it has a tendency to run rampant on the official WoT forums and lead to ridiculous, interminable, unimportant arguments that never accomplish anything.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Yup, you should definitely start with either repair or camo. I personally tend to choose camo, since not being seen and hence not getting shot in the first place is preferable to getting shot and then repairing the damage quickly. It does depend on the tank and your personal playstyle, though.
Firefighting is kinda useless if you carry a fire extinguisher, which you should be doing (they'll save your ass on a regular basis).
Fair enough, I guess. My personal solution to that bit of inconsistency is to just ignore it. As long as the game is fun to play, I don't care how they go about justifying their in-game stats to the history buffs and simulation fanatics. I'll complain as loudly as anyone else when I see real problems with the game mechanics, though.
BF3 Battlelog | Twitter | World of Warships | World of Tanks | Wishlist
Or were, at least.
That's really a separate, though equally contentious, issue. I don't mind people complaining about perceived imbalances as long as they're doing it within the context of the game instead of using overly-specific historical arguments.
I might as well clarify that I do appreciate the historical/realistic aspects of the game insofar as they contribute a sense of atmosphere and immersion. It's been interesting hitting up Wikipedia for more information on the various vehicles in the game, and all that. To the extent that Wargaming can maintain historical accuracy without hurting the gameplay, I'm all for it - but when it comes down to fun vs. realism, I'll choose fun every time.
I only want so much realism in a game, really.
BF3 Battlelog | Twitter | World of Warships | World of Tanks | Wishlist
I'm going to do the same. It was pretty easy to make money with the KV-3 but after I upgraded to the IS, it's harder. Shells that cost 1025 silver per shot cuts into my profits rather badly.
But I'm liking this higher armor value thing.
Americans are getting new tanks sometime this month, so wait until that.
Hence the reason tanks like the Maus or Tiger II never break down in game, or Shermans don't get stuck in the mud or snow due to having shitty, narrow tracks.
Driving physics, though....I think Sherman and Panzer IV drivers have it tough enough, without having to worry about their shitty narrow tracks sinking into mud or snow or both on ever map with mud or snow or both, while Soviet tanks charge on cheerfully and the Tiger II laughs at them with its wide tracks. :P
And then you've got the Maus, which can't cross some of those bridges....
On the other hand, I actually do like watching the beauty and detail of the outside of a tank, the parts turning and so forth, and that'd only get better with more detail.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Swim across with snorkels?
Ignoring the issue of set-up time for snorkeling, it'd suck for the levels with impassable rivers.
Then again, I'd love to see more destructible and deformable terrain, including bridges, except for the aforementioned problem.
Wait, if you have a Panther how are you not familiar with the bounce machine that is the 3002? It crushes the 3601 in terms of bounces and survivability for its tier.
I am convinced that the aiming and damage modelling is broken. It seems so random at times. Driving round in a Lowe, using premium ammo, I get shots which are downright ridiculous.
On Hill, I managed to get into a position where I was looking down onto the top of a Russian TD. He was literally 30 yards away, and the entire rear/top of his tank filled my aiming reticule. It indicated green likely penetration result. I estimate the angle from barrel to tank was probably 45 degrees (I was looking almost right down at him and had to drive my tank over the edge of a cliff to get the barrel to depress).
I fired, got a message saying "one more like that will finish them", and he'd lost a massive 2% dmg, from 100% to 98%.
Another battle, I put a premium shell into the belly of a PzIV from point blank range after he crested a hill in front of me. 5% dmg taken off... no more than that.
I've also noticed a lot of people deliberately exploiting the hit boxes on tanks. More than 1 player has driven into my Lowe and tried to drive me backwards at point blank range, putting their gunbarrel inside my turret. I dont know if this is particular for Lowes but it's hard to do damage to people that do that.
As for SPGs, I think the Devs couldn't be bothered to work out a real way to implement long range arty shooting, so just slapped in something that is sort of ok. As for realism? Well, it's totally unrealistic, so they should take it out in my opinion.
For all the negatives, you sometimes get a game where there will be 4 or 5 of you left, vs 6 or 7 enemy, and somehow, with organisation, you manage to get the win. Those games are amazing, but the majority of players seem to play with no brains.