Jump to content


Lets help the Devs, light tanks!


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

Listy #1 Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:31 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,548
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011
The following came from SilentStalkers Q&A thread for today:

Quote

- regarding the fact that the British don't have a hightier scout: "complete symmetry of branches was never intended"

Now to me, that can be read as "We're having a spot of difficulty finding suitable vehicles."

So lets throw together a Scout tank tree to help the dev's.

Obvious place to start is the Vickers Light tank at tier II. It has similar guns to other tier two tanks, such as .50 cal and the 15mm.

Tier three is also easy, The Harry Hopkins Light tank. Designed as a bigger and beefier Tetrarch, and as the Tet is Tier II, it makes sense to make the Harry Hopkins Tier three.

Now comes a problem. Tier IV. The Problem is for the later years of the war the British tended to use Armoured cars for recce or the Stuart (which will be making an appearance in the Lend lease tree). Of course a Stuart Jalopy would be a very unique vehicle...
The other candidate is the Vickers A45 (no not the Centurion, the other A45). It was later re-built as the FV-301, however at this point it looks a bit too powerful for Tier five. 77mm gun and quite a bit of armour, leaves it squarely in the Tier 5 bracket.

Tier five and Six abound with designs. The aforementioned A45/FV301, TV-15000 (Not a Scorpion!), the TV-10000 Rhino (with a dash of imagination and fudging) or the Prodigal light tank project (Although looking at weapons its almost defiantly in the Tier 6 bracket!).

I suppose chronologically (and from a weapons POV) the TV-10000 Rhino could be a Tier IV derp light, and not break the game.

Mko #2 Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16137 battles
  • 1,188
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010
lets put a meteor engine in the crusader :D

saml6131 #3 Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:13 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8583 battles
  • 3,808
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostMko, on 10 January 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

lets put a meteor engine in the crusader :D

As fun as that would be, it would only go at 44km/h anyway. Slower than the Chaffee and most end tier mediums.

BossTroll #4 Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:56 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27010 battles
  • 129
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010

View Postsaml6131, on 10 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

As fun as that would be, it would only go at 44km/h anyway. Slower than the Chaffee and most end tier mediums.
But imagine the accelaration  :Smile_Default:

saml6131 #5 Posted 10 January 2013 - 11:59 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8583 battles
  • 3,808
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostBossTroll, on 10 January 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

But imagine the accelaration  :Smile_Default:

Well you could just buy the BT-2

Top speed of 55km/h and a hp/tonne ratio of 42. That's what happens when you stick a 450hp engine on an 11 tonne vehicle.

mr3awsome #6 Posted 11 January 2013 - 08:27 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 17455 battles
  • 3,049
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011
Its the A46/FV301.

Nebulosa #7 Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:41 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 39246 battles
  • 615
  • [-LOA-] -LOA-
  • Member since:
    12-28-2010

View PostListy, on 10 January 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

The following came from SilentStalkers Q&A thread for today:


Now to me, that can be read as "We're having a spot of difficulty finding suitable vehicles."

Can be, but probably shouldn't be. It's a princple of game design for games that offer multiple paths of progress that are not mutually exclusive: Those paths are as different as possible within the boundaries of balance to ensure variety, which prolongs the entertainment gained through trying out new things, meaning the player will stay in the game longer. Only games with mutually exclusive paths of progress have to be strict in keeping these paths somewhat similar to avoid imbalance and player disgruntlement.

For example in the MMORPG Pardus that I play, you have to pick one of the frequently warring factions or one of two syndicates. You can leave that faction at any time, but then you have to regain rank in your new faction, which can be tedious. But while the factions do have strengths and weaknesses (and of course players exaggerate them because that is what gamers do :P ), you won't find yourself in a situation where you are completely unable to do something that the other factions can because you picked the wrong path of advance.
In WOT, there are no warring factions and no restrictions on how many nations you play at a time, and Clans are not restricted in their setup of nations. So the tech trees can vary considerably, because when you do not like what you get in one tree, you can always play another one.

On the other hand side, what would happen if Wargaming would make the tech trees more similar? Players would feel much less desire to play on after having completed one tree. This was for example pointed out in this thread: http://forum.worldof...ot-please-read/ :

View PostPanzerCancer, on 23 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Tanks are not different enough between classes and nations
I feel this is the second biggest problem with the game. In the last year, a lot of tanks have been introduced. As a consequence, WAY too many tanks feel exactly the same to play. There was a time where you could really feel the difference between driving the Soviet brawlers with great alpha damage vs the more heavily armoured, sniping German tanks. I don’t feel any of that today. I think it has finally become apparent that the tanks are essentially just reskins of each other, which takes less time to make and makes Wargaming more money. But the French tanks with autoloading system shows that Wargaming can do better. You actually have to adapt to new tactics both when using and facing autoloader tanks, which makes the game more exciting! As opposed to lately: “You should play this tank, which has SLIGHTLY more armour and speed but less penetration than the tanks you already have.” No thanks game, I’m good. Just give me something that PLAYS differently, not just has different stats. Shotgun tanks with SPG cannons anyone? Also, tank classes seem to have lost any meaning. Lights that play like meds, meds that play like heavies, heavies that play like meds.

If WG just made them all rather similar, you would have a lot players stopping to play when in the middle of their second tree - because they would find out there's not really much new to be had.

builder396 #8 Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10336 battles
  • 745
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
How about this:

Tier II: Light Tank Mk VI

Tier III: Tetrarch (goes on to the Light tank series)

Tier III: Vickers 6-ton (crossover to the Vickers medium Mk III)

Tier IV: Harry Hopkins

Tier V: I honestly dont know, unless we add in wheeled scout cars, I know there was once which has upgraded to a 6 pounder gun once, so it would be competetive.

Listy #9 Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:42 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,548
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View Postbuilder396, on 12 January 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

How about this:

Tier II: Light Tank Mk VI

Tier III: Tetrarch (goes on to the Light tank series)

Tier III: Vickers 6-ton (crossover to the Vickers medium Mk III)

Tier IV: Harry Hopkins

Tier V: I honestly dont know, unless we add in wheeled scout cars, I know there was once which has upgraded to a 6 pounder gun once, so it would be competetive.

Tier V and VI are easy. FV-301 (tier V) and FV-4401 project based lunacy, or the Vickers 12t light tank (tier VI). The vickers six ton is in the Chinesse tree, and I hope it will get used in a re-make of the main tech tree, of course this is probabbly a fallorn hope.

I had a sixth sense moment earlier today (You know, a "Ding" followed by a light bulb). I've found another tank that can fit in the tree. Its just Where in the tree it'd go, and what effect It'd have on the rest of the tree.

The Universal Carrier.
**waits for the laughing to stop**

Seriosuly, its fully tracked, is small (Very good camo), light and fast. It was used as a scout in recce units through out the war. It has a huge range of weapons mounted. Everything from a .50 cal or a boys rifle as stock, through PAK-36's, Flak-38's and 2Pdr's all the way up to a PIAT as top gun. Personally I'd be mad enough to take a PIAT armed Universal carrier as a Tier IV tank (Using the insane Camo, Ninja up behind a Tiger, Boing! "SURPRISE!"). But thats just me.

The only reason I can see not to have it at Tier IV is the armour, which is crap, but will remain Crap even at Tier II. So you have to balance its survivability by other factors, such as speed, low height and very good camo.
Equally you have to select the weapons, I suppose a hull mount would work, with about 270 degrees of traverse. That could mount all the weapons I listed above. However you might get some technical issues with having the guns mounted on the engine Vs weapons normally mounted on the Gunners point or hand held.. So to keep it a "British" vechile it'd surely be sensible to limit the weapon load out too: .50 cal, Boys rifle and a PIAT. If you drop the .50 Cal you could have a 360 degree arc of fire (as the Gunner is holding the weapon in his hands), with a very, very good gun depression.

mr3awsome #10 Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:07 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 17455 battles
  • 3,049
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011
I think it would make a good vehicle, if not tier 4 material.

Bravo_two_six #11 Posted 02 February 2013 - 06:29 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31677 battles
  • 373
  • [351SL] 351SL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2011
Would the FV101 not fit the catagory as a tier 5 scout/ light tank? if not higher?

http://forum.worldof...v-101-scorpion/

UKOGBN #12 Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:42 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 4805 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostListy, on 13 January 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

r's all the way up to a PIAT as top gun. Personally I'd be mad enough to take a PIAT armed Universal carrier as a Tier IV tank

I think a UC with a PIAT is pushing it abit as Tier IV would be funny going up against a tiger with a drain pipe , elastic band and a grenade  :Smile_harp:

Listy #13 Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:53 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,548
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostUKOGBN, on 10 February 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I think a UC with a PIAT is pushing it abit as Tier IV would be funny going up against a tiger with a drain pipe , elastic band and a grenade  :Smile_harp:

True, but you're a damn more mobile than the Infantry who did the same. Plus you can abuse WG's Spotting and Camo system unlike the people who had to do it for real.

UKOGBN #14 Posted 10 February 2013 - 03:18 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 4805 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostListy, on 10 February 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

True, but you're a damn more mobile than the Infantry who did the same.

Yes but there arn't any infantry in WOT, you are more mobile but a UC is not really a tank and a PIAT wouldn't be attached to the UC as its an infantry weapon, if they did use somthing like that they may as well put half-tracks and armourd cars in the game

Kyphe #15 Posted 10 February 2013 - 03:39 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,023
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostUKOGBN, on 10 February 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

Yes but there arn't any infantry in WOT, you are more mobile but a UC is not really a tank and a PIAT wouldn't be attached to the UC as its an infantry weapon, if they did use somthing like that they may as well put half-tracks and armourd cars in the game

Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users