Jump to content


Research Results: Leopard 1


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

BP_OMowe #41 Posted 23 April 2013 - 07:38 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19455 battles
  • 1,587
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    01-08-2013

View PostRy0ken, on 23 April 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

What you need to keep in mind is that you are talking to some versed people here.
So thank you for your concern, but you got no point here really.

Obviously not well versed in neither multi-player gaming construction nor making condescending remarks. Whole point is that when there is a conflict between game-balance and reality, the latter is irrelevant. Depression is one of the soft stats WG uses to balance the game (how successful they are is another topic entirely, with a lot of things to say about it).

Ry0ken #42 Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12168 battles
  • 757
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostBP_OMowe, on 23 April 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Obviously not well versed in neither multi-player gaming construction nor making condescending remarks. Whole point is that when there is a conflict between game-balance and reality, the latter is irrelevant. Depression is one of the soft stats WG uses to balance the game (how successful they are is another topic entirely, with a lot of things to say about it).
More versed then you maybe. Tank designs and size as well as turret rotation arc AND gun depression are HARD facts! Soft facts can be suspension factors or something invisible. But to tell that the tanks geometric properties are softfacts is hilarious. Why not make the turret of the IS7 twice the size of the hull?

On another point no one states Panther1/2 as OP and surely they wont become OP with the correct gun depression. But it's nice seeing you talking stuff about a tank you have not played at all.

So the changes mentioned above would make the tanks historically correct and wont hurt the game balance. So what is your point?

BP_OMowe #43 Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:04 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19455 battles
  • 1,587
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    01-08-2013

View PostRy0ken, on 23 April 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

So the changes mentioned above would make the tanks historically correct and wont hurt the game balance. So what is your point?

The flaw in your argumentation. Changing depression alters the comparative strength of a tank, which in turn shifts game-balance, which in turn takes precedence of any historical facts. The Panther might need that particular buff, which happens to be historically correct, but the two arguments are unrelated when it comes to weigh and relevance. In short, you are far more likely to succeed if you argue from a gaming perspective than a historical one.

Ry0ken #44 Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:12 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12168 battles
  • 757
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostBP_OMowe, on 24 April 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

The flaw in your argumentation. Changing depression alters the comparative strength of a tank, which in turn shifts game-balance, which in turn takes precedence of any historical facts. The Panther might need that particular buff, which happens to be historically correct, but the two arguments are unrelated when it comes to weigh and relevance. In short, you are far more likely to succeed if you argue from a gaming perspective than a historical one.
The flaw must be in your reading skills. Here I highlighted it for you:

View PostRy0ken, on 29 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Thanx in real life where tank combat is more long distance it may not be that crucial. But with the game engine/map design forcing close quarters gun depression is absolutely essential for the German medium tank line because they can not circle the enemy and are forced to fight most enemys including heavy tanks up front. Hull down is a must. It's not that important for the brawlers like T44/T34-2/French because I do not need those few degrees more when I'm at the enemy tanks side or rear and his tank fills the whole screen. Plus T44/T34-2/French are way smaller so depression is not that improtant to them as for the taller Panther tanks. Due to bad agility, insufficient camo value, big silhoutte, weakspots, insufficient frontal armor and so on playing PI/PII is hard enough allready. I always think of the Panther tank as a very tall sniper guy, with a red jacked, no kevlar vest, who can not lower his gun, and has to hit his target between the eyes ten times...  :harp:

Yeah and the Panther also could not turn its turret when it stands on a sideslope of more then +/-5°! But the WG devs have etablished a very nice double standard in my eyes. Everything that "can" be treated in a bad way for the Germans will be implemented, good traits as suspension are not implemented. Same goes for the spaced armor doors of the PzIV - "Hey Heinz let the doors open so Ivan can shot us better!"  :tongue: Why not modell all hatches open on KV tanks to?
While on the other hand the IS tanks had two component round taking immense time to load - yet this is not reflected in the game. Also I would wonder about the loading capability in those crammed T44/54 turrets, can they load at any angle? Has anyone looked at crew exhaustion due to working in extremely limited room? I also bet Russian tanks had several flaws that got looked over! So at least the devs could make the Panther tanks FIRE at -8° to +18/20° and RELOAD at -6° to +18/20°.


UltimateVarro #45 Posted 26 April 2013 - 04:04 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 28886 battles
  • 2,840
  • [CAHU] CAHU
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostBlanchard, on 17 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

I do try to reply to as many questions as possible.
However, since I am not part of the design team, I cannot answer anything about game balance, or in-game mechanics.
All the same, I cannot reveal a number of confidential stuff. (like upcoming patches, tanks planned, specific dates...)


I think I answered everything I could here. Did I forgot something?

Just a little question to you:

Since we officially have the M48A1 in-game, it would make sense to add only the historical armament for it, in this case the 90mm M41. But since that would be completely irrational compared to the other Tier10 Med Guns, of course the M48 in-game needs to be fitted with the 105mm M68 - which was added in the A5 version.
So either way, in my opinion it would only make sense, since the M48A5 evolved out of the predecessor the M48A3, to re-design the M48 turret, since the A5 had a cupola way, way smaller than the A1 and A2 versions had. In my opinion it does not make sense to create a hybrid out of M48A1 (name and engine power), M48A3 (turret) and M48A5 (main gun).
Not to mention it wouldn't be balance-breaking if the M48 wouldve got its cupola reduced to like 10% the original height.

Also, as far as i know, the M48 had 10° gun depression, not sure wether they changed it or not, but as far as i know it was only -8° depression when the tier10 meds and tds came out.

WG wants to be historically accurate but also within certain game-balancing limits, but both the cupola and the depression wouldnt be game-breaking - the M48 would get a slightly better camo value (lower profile), better hulldown fighting capabilities (but srsly, penetrating the turret front right and left of the mantlet is far from hard.) and most of all, a better look. i hate tumors on my roof. even if the T110E5 without its tumor looks even more retarded.#

P.S.: I know this is not the "M48 discussion thread", but when im here already i might aswell ask here.

Edited by PrivateAli, 26 April 2013 - 04:05 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users