Jump to content


T-62A experiences


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

Poll: Equipment (294 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

What equipment are you using on your T-62A?

  1. Improved Ventilation (229 votes [26.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.72%

  2. Gun Rammer (256 votes [29.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.87%

  3. Vertical Stabilizer (237 votes [27.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.65%

  4. CO2 Tanks (11 votes [1.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.28%

  5. Coated Optics (56 votes [6.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.53%

  6. Enhanced Gun Laying Drive (41 votes [4.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.78%

  7. Other (27 votes [3.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.15%

Vote Hide poll

Spahpanzer_Kommandant #41 Posted 04 August 2012 - 07:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39728 battles
  • 1,125
  • [321ST] 321ST
  • Member since:
    07-18-2011

View PostMike_Hammer, on 04 August 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I was unduly rude perhaps, and I apologize for the rudeness. But fact of the matter is you cannot maintain 70% winratio in randoms with a tier 10 doing 1900DpB. That's at least 30% too low.
No offense taken. :) I just posted a snapshot of my "so far" stats, since some are doing really badly in T62A right from the start. With my skill level I guess WR will settle somewhere between 53-60% on the long run.

I don't find the playstyle considerably different, IMO it's a T54+ (about same size, mobility, camo, bit less armor, epic gun).

mamlas #42 Posted 04 August 2012 - 08:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 14704 battles
  • 656
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View PostMike_Hammer, on 04 August 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I was unduly rude perhaps, and I apologize for the rudeness. But fact of the matter is you cannot maintain 70% winratio in randoms with a tier 10 doing 1900DpB. That's at least 30% too low. The only way you will be able to maintain 70% winratio with 1900DpB is as I stated previously, you're using it in company/cw or then you're carried by a platoon who are doing considerably more damage.

As for ESP that's a pretty silly argument, I share the sentiments of those who are disappointed in this tank, because I was disappointed in it. And I know full well why. It's a tank for 2nd line pussies, like P2 and to some extent E-50 which I'm also enjoying atm, not a tank for 1st line heroes, like T-54 was. A sniper, not a rusher.

Well, i have no clue ho he did it that dpb cant match that W/R. But 40 games have large margin of error if you tend to make stats.

I agree completely - its T10 reincarnation of Panther with long gun. If you stay behind like a "smart player"(read "silly coward that would be shot in certain historical country") you do good. If you try to play in-your-face game like you would with 54, you get completely obliterated. Autoaim is all you need to pen 62 :/. And those arty pens, fuel fires and ammo hits, oh boy.

On the other hand, i must correct myself about its mobility. It climbs slower sometimes and lack the speed, but it runs through marsh terrain like a hovercraft. Trade im not happy about, but can accept.

Legault #43 Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:01 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 14706 battles
  • 2,342
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010
Looking at his T-54 stats, I can imagine why he plays his T-62A like a T-54... it's far from optimal performance.

RavenDeBlade #44 Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 29449 battles
  • 658
  • Member since:
    01-23-2011
The T62A is a PIECE OF SHIT tank, worst medium i have ever played, and i have them ALL! Its armour is retardely weak, ANYTHING can penetrate it, and the turret armour is just as weak. It has a "good" gun but that is not balanced to all its other bad weaknesses.

Abael #45 Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:44 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 10692 battles
  • 12
  • [ROSIK] ROSIK
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
Because you're not supposed to rush-and-brawl.. Is a tier X.. Requires better skills to perform GREAT

Legault #46 Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:56 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 14706 battles
  • 2,342
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010

View PostAbael, on 04 August 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Because you're not supposed to rush-and-brawl.. Is a tier X.. Requires better skills to perform GREAT
Yes, lets all sit back and snipe or play peekaboo, makes for very exciting gameplay.


And then whine about artillery while giving them all day to aim.

Abael #47 Posted 04 August 2012 - 10:08 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 10692 battles
  • 12
  • [ROSIK] ROSIK
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
Then choose another tank!

But sentencing is crap is wrong.

Legault #48 Posted 04 August 2012 - 10:14 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 14706 battles
  • 2,342
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010

View PostAbael, on 04 August 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Then choose another tank!

But sentencing is crap is wrong.
After playing russian mediums for months I expected the tier 10 to be able to do the same as the other mediums... like most people I'm guessing. So finding out that the playing style randomly changed from a tank with character to a little b*tch that worries about tier 7 light tanks was rather disappointing.

Spahpanzer_Kommandant #49 Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:38 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39728 battles
  • 1,125
  • [321ST] 321ST
  • Member since:
    07-18-2011

View PostLegault, on 04 August 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Looking at his T-54 stats, I can imagine why he plays his T-62A like a T-54... it's far from optimal performance.

Nice to get "stat nazied" by a dude with PzII as his 3rd most played tank and who is doing quite badly in his first tier10 (which is the T62A by pure coincidence). :Smile_smile:

Personally, I find it hilarious how a few mm difference in hull armor, plus how an amazing gun turns a "tank with a character" into a "little bitch" which forces (!) you to sit back and snipe (!!)... True story, kids! :Smile_great:

i486DX #50 Posted 05 August 2012 - 01:57 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9 battles
  • 1,422
  • Member since:
    05-29-2012
45% W/R with 2500 Damage per game. Oh team mates, you're so funny.

Legault #51 Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:10 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 14706 battles
  • 2,342
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010

View PostSzlejer, on 05 August 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

Nice to get "stat nazied" by a dude with PzII as his 3rd most played tank and who is doing quite badly in his first tier10 (which is the T62A by pure coincidence). :Smile_smile:

Personally, I find it hilarious how a few mm difference in hull armor, plus how an amazing gun turns a "tank with a character" into a "little bitch" which forces (!) you to sit back and snipe (!!)... True story, kids! :Smile_great:
Wow lol. Some platoon warrior that has issues keeping his average experience over 800 in 95% of his tanks and doing under 1400 damage per battle in a T-54 is trying to undermine me. And before you bother bringing up CWs or other bs, please keep in mind that you played too many battles for that to make a significant difference. And platooning should more than compensate for bad matches. So yeah, that 1900 dmg req for PTS? You're 500 damage below after 604 battles.


Oh, and even your BT-2 stats aren't impresive, comparing to my Pz II. :Smile_trollface-3:


Let me know when you stop getting carried by players that are actually decent and try playing some matches solo, eh? Your winratre already dropped to 59% and your kills and dmg per match are still at a rather low 1.1 and 1913. It's kind of sad when a guy in his first tier 10 beats your damage per battle in all your tier 10s btw, so that wasn't a good point either. :Smile_sad:

Phooca #52 Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:45 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 281 battles
  • 1,311
  • Member since:
    08-05-2011
:Smile_popcorn1: :Smile_popcorn1: :Smile_popcorn1:

Legault #53 Posted 05 August 2012 - 09:59 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 14706 battles
  • 2,342
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010
http://mwreplays.com/replayimg/860592e6cfb72ce83c15de45065744a5.png


Finally a match where pushing paid off. Somewhat lucky, but at least it can be a b*tch if it wants to be.

Oldgrim #54 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:29 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5671 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011
I dont know, why there is so much hate for this tank going on.
I friggin love this tank. (Yes, I know the fuel tank / ammo rack problem in this tank very well myself)

The T62A is a very powerful version of the T44, which I loved to play. (T44 armor vs T8 - T9 tanks is like butter. No player with more intellect than an amoeba relies on the T44 armor to create reliable bounces)

Facehug E100 / E75 and Maus to the death with low to no dmg taken feels sometimes overpowered due to the very good armored turret armor.
And the accuracy on the move with a 121% crew and VS is so sweet.

Yes, the T62A is now more a sniper and 2nd line supporter and less a brawler like the T54. But lets be objective, how many good brawling situations do we have in the open field without arty pounding?
At best we get these brawling situations in a good wolf pack, or in the last third of a game to pick on the damaged and separated tanks.
And the T62A can brawl, but it is different.
I am at best an average player and I love this tank. In the hands of a pro player, this tank can be a destroyer 1st class.
At the moment I'm more concerned about coming nerfs for this tank.

My wishlist is only:

- Give the modules (especially the tracks) more HP.
- And move the fuel tank away from the front of the tank. Sometimes it feels like a fuel tank on tracks.

View PostLegault, on 05 August 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:


Finally a match where pushing paid off. Somewhat lucky, but at least it can be a b*tch if it wants to be.

Btw. nice replay and well played. Thats the T62A I know. :)

Edited by Oldgrim, 05 August 2012 - 12:16 PM.


Legault #55 Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:42 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 14706 battles
  • 2,342
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010
It's already worse than an M48 though... if they nerf the gun, which is the only thing making the tank decent, they make it useless. That very rare occasion where you can hug someone to death without being raped by their team is outweighed by the fact that every tier 7-9 can penetrate you by simply pointing and clicking. You'll realize when you're on a hill getting tracked and damaged by an invisible amx13 75.

Oldgrim #56 Posted 05 August 2012 - 01:52 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5671 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

View PostLegault, on 05 August 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

It's already worse than an M48 though... if they nerf the gun, which is the only thing making the tank decent, they make it useless. That very rare occasion where you can hug someone to death without being raped by their team is outweighed by the fact that every tier 7-9 can penetrate you by simply pointing and clicking. You'll realize when you're on a hill getting tracked and damaged by an invisible amx13 75.

True, and an amx light tank got me tracked with only one shot more than once, due to the low HP on the tracks. (Hill climbing should be at least on par with T54. So more HP for the T62A engine would be nice, but it is not mandatory)
And low tier tanks shot my T62A on fire more than once in a game.
But after all that, I like this tank and I see more potential, than in the T54.

I played the T44 as a tank with 0 armor / with the utmost caution and got along very well. The same is now the case with the T62A, where you have to be aware, that even T8 light tanks or T7 tanks can penetrate your front armor reliably.
Once again, a slight look on my stats will reveal, that I'm only an average player, but it takes no pro to realize, that you will get raped, if you play this tank like a T54.
Of all the T10 mediums, only the T62A requires an adaption to a new handling. M48 , E50M and even Bat Chat players will adapt very quickly, because their predecessors are fairly similar in the handling.

But does this make the T62A a bad tank? No, for me its a perfect tank and I can cope with the letdowns.

Edited by Oldgrim, 05 August 2012 - 01:56 PM.


Spahpanzer_Kommandant #57 Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39728 battles
  • 1,125
  • [321ST] 321ST
  • Member since:
    07-18-2011

View PostLegault, on 05 August 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Wow lol. Some platoon warrior
Yeah, my WR really suggests platoon whoring and getting carried by better team mates. Try something else for an insult, thanks! :Smile_veryhappy:

Despite all the crying and topic spamming over the magical one trick pony you didn't get when you bought the T62A, it's still a pretty good tank. The ridicoulus complaints about size and mobility were shot down. The gun is exceptional without a doubt. 120 vs 102 mm frontal armor still means nothing in 7.5 battles. Apart from different modul arrangement (anyone has the 3d model?) and maybe track repair time (?) there is no base for the technical argument that this tank must be played differently than the T54.

What is different is matchmaking and most of the whines are stemming from there.

Legault #58 Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:39 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 14706 battles
  • 2,342
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010

View PostSzlejer, on 05 August 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

120 vs 102 mm frontal armor still means nothing in 7.5 battles
I don't even

Mike_Hammer #59 Posted 05 August 2012 - 06:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 26771 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    09-14-2010

View PostSzlejer, on 05 August 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Yeah, my WR really suggests platoon whoring and getting carried by better team mates. Try something else for an insult, thanks! :Smile_veryhappy:

Despite all the crying and topic spamming over the magical one trick pony you didn't get when you bought the T62A, it's still a pretty good tank. The ridicoulus complaints about size and mobility were shot down. The gun is exceptional without a doubt. 120 vs 102 mm frontal armor still means nothing in 7.5 battles. Apart from different modul arrangement (anyone has the 3d model?) and maybe track repair time (?) there is no base for the technical argument that this tank must be played differently than the T54.

What is different is matchmaking and most of the whines are stemming from there.

Obviously it's not enough to be the same as T-54, being tier 10 it has to be more, to do similar things, like T-54 is an improvement of T-44 in every way. Instead T-62a is less, in many respects, mobility/agility being one, armor another, despite your claims, while also better in a few factors, mainly the gun.

I don't know why you're arguing here even, did you play the T-54 as a sniper perhaps? Well that's not playing T-54 to its strengths. Did you love the T-54? I'm guessing no, and that's why you don't see why others are disappointed.

Edited by Mike_Hammer, 05 August 2012 - 06:38 PM.


Hawker_gb #60 Posted 05 August 2012 - 07:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34605 battles
  • 774
  • [TESLA] TESLA
  • Member since:
    07-02-2011
I recently get T-62A and it feels better than E-50M and Patton..

At least for me.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users