Jump to content


The great rework of Japanese heavy line - it is possible and how?

rework japanese heavy japan jap o-i type 5 buff nerf

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

Poll: Japanese heavy rework (336 members have cast votes)

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

Does Japanese heavy line need rework in your opinion (note - not necessarily a nerf or buff)

  1. Yes (249 votes [74.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 74.11%

  2. No (65 votes [19.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.35%

  3. Cant say/dont care/etc. (22 votes [6.55%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.55%

Would this proposal help atleast somehow fix the line?

  1. Yes (209 votes [62.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.02%

  2. No (65 votes [19.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.29%

  3. Cant say/dont care/etc. (63 votes [18.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.69%

Vote Hide poll

leggasiini #1 Posted 24 May 2017 - 01:29 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17229 battles
  • 6,397
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

*
POPULAR

>>While the general concept won't change, many details are outdated as of 28.9.2017. More detailed, updated and better version AKA rework proposal V2.0 is on the plans, but will not come anytime soon. ETA: Q1/Q2 2018 <<

 

WARNING: WALL OF TEXT AHEAD!

 

The Japanese heavies. One of the most controversial tanks in the game after artillery. Both hated and loved, maybe more hated. Very common subject to talk, discuss and obviously, whine. But why?

 

Japanese heavies are very, very unique vehicles. Multiturretted, some of the biggest tanks in the game with very odd designs and huge guns. There are no such vehicles in the game, not neither design-wise or gameplay-wise. The French super-heavies, which almost got introduced in 2016 as part of 2nd French heavy-line, would have been close, but they didnt come.

 

That being said, these are main reasons what cause controversiality among Japanese heavies:

 

1) derp guns

2) armor with no weakspots (that becomes weak as long as gold start get slunged and worse yet, they lack ability to angle for most part expect for Type 5 Heavy after 9.17.1)

3) historical accuracy (ERMAHGERD JAPANESE TANKS SUCKED @SS IRL, NO WAI JAPS DESIGNED SUPER-HEAVIES, WHY THEY INTRODUCED STUPID NAPKIN TANKS!!!!!11)

4) other things (like ammorack problems, arty magnet, gold magnet, O-Ho's 10cm or Type 4/5 being poor, unfun to play etc. before buffs)

 

If we want to fix the line in first place, we have to take a look at these problems. The point 2 is not uncommon thing these days. However, the actual concept of so called "retard-proof armor" was debuted with introducion of Japanese heavy tanks in 2015. Before this, lets jump back in time and take a look at brief history:

 

History: Japanese tech tree introducion, heavy tank rumors, introducion etc.

 

Japanese tech tree arrived in patch 8.10 back in late 2013. Lots of confusion and maybe dissapointment was caused, as it contained only one tank line (and minibranch of lowtier light tanks). Up to this point, when a new tech tree was introduced, it contained medium and heavy tank lines, so naturally it was expected that Japanese tech tree would also have heavy tank line. However, it didnt. And for good reason.

 

Heavy tank line was expected to contain variants of O-Is. O-I WAS known back then, but funnily enough, no one practically knew about the actual true O-I (aka the 150 ton O-I with 150mm howitzer). O-I was obviously very interesting tank design - multi-turretted super-heavy. There were lots of misconceptions, false rumors and simply ideas of "what O-I would have looked like", which eventually formed into a book Imperial Japanese Army Ground Weapon Guide 1872-1945. This book contained quite lot of "information" and "drawings about O-I", basically stuff like this:

 

 

Those designs are what eventually evolved into O-I 100 and O-I 120 in-game, later O-Ni and O-Ho.

 

So, it was thought that from O-I variants it would be possible to build a line. Basically...this is practically a list of Japanese super-heavies that was thought to exist in 2013:

 

"Iwakuro 1", or "Mi-To 1" - this is the actual O-I with only 75mm armor; however, design typically related to this was stuff that resembled O-I 100 or O-Ni designs, and instead of 150mm howitzer, it was thought to have 105mm gun. "Mi-To" is actually historical designation for the true O-I. That was "secret" name was used before the official designation, "O-I" (first super-heavy, with "O" meaning super-heavy and "I" first).

 

Iwakuro 2, or "Mi-To 2" - basically thing above with another 75mm armor plates bolted on - also 105mm gun

 

O-I 100t - basically what we know as "O-Ni" in-game

 

O-I 120t - basically what we know as "O-Ho" in-game

 

Then we had crazy stuff like O-I 120 with 120mm gun or even O-I 140t with basically no evidence of them existing.

 

There wasnt a proper tier 10 candidate. However, in around new year of 2013, things changed with Type 2604/2605, which eventually came into the game as form of Type 4 and Type 5, were found from Russian archives. "Russian" archives caused lots of controversiality, as one would expect.

 

http://ftr.wot-news....-japanese-tank/

 

Spoiler

 

These pics contains engine, transmission and cooling system, and rough drawings of tank itself. Not much was known, apart from the fact it had very, very big gun (back then estimated to be 150 - 200 mm!) and was even bigger than Maus.

 

I was already fan of Japanese super-heavy designs, so i did make a line proposal back in 2013, still containing now mostly "fake" designs of O-Is and "Type 2604" as tier 10 vehicle. Oh boy, it is so cringeworthy for me to read it.

 

http://forum.worldof...look-like-this/

 

But after 2013, almost nothing was heard about Jap heavies. Lets just jump straight into 2015, when Japanese heavy line got introduced. This is where information of actual O-I design started to finally appear. That design was used at tier 6, and for some extend, tier 5 (which is 95% fake as it goes). However, back then it was still thought that there were additional O-I designs, so "O-I 100" and "O-I 120" still got into the game. The Type 4/5 were split into two tanks to fill tier 9 and 10 holes. Good thing, because it would have been probable that O-I 140t, which is faker than fake, would have been used at tier 9.

 

However, Eun Ae Sun, also known as Mai_Waffentrager, who now has done lots of research when it comes to War Thunder's Japanese ground forces tech tree, got access to true O-I blueprints and was allowed to publish it.

 

https://forum.warthu...per-heavy-tank/

 

It was suddendly confirmed that O-I 100 and O-I 120 never existed. What this means, O-Ni and O-Ho are now practically as fake as WT E100 or FV215b is. This is also one problem.

 

And thats where we are now, after few balance changes of cource.

 

Historical accuracy:

 

One very controversial topic is thus historical accuracy of the line. There are stuff like "FAKEST LINE EVER", "WG IMAGINATION LINE" or "NAPKIN LINE". How true are those? Actually, both true and false.

 

Here is chart of historical accuracy of Japanese tech tree:

 

Medium line is probably one of the most historically accurate lines in the game. However, heavy tank line...not so much.

 

Okay, here is explaination for these:

 

Tier 2-4. All built, and pics exists. Wont go there deeper.

 

O-I Experimental: This one is fake, but it has some basis (think T28 prototype). The O-I was built, and when it didnt have turrets and full armor (aka additional 75mm armor plates), its weight was around 97 tons. Due to very powerful engines, it was able to reach 40kph top speed on road. The lesser armor and greater speed was enough for WG to create a tank to fill otherwise unfillable (back then) tier 5 hole. They took random guns to fit into tier 5, changed miniturret designs...to something that resembles Ha-Go turrets, changed size a bit, and ta-daa, a different tank to fill out tier 5 hole.

 

O-I: This one is basically completely historical, and the true O-I. It was build and tested, but later scrapped. Until very recently it was widely known that no footage of the prototype exists, but i got to know yesterday from reading WT forums that there actually is film footage of tank's testings still in this day, but it is kept private as O-I's documents are bought by some kind of company or something. Who knows, maybe we someday see it.

 

O-Ni: Originally known as O-I 100, WG changed name to O-Ni (which doesnt make sense at all, btw, as O-Ni would mean 4th super-heavy), this tank already got covered and its fake. However, we cannot blame WG for it, because it was legitimately thought back then that this was one of the variants of O-I. The built prototype of O-I, which was rounded 100 tons heavy, caused likely even more confusion.

 

O-Ho: Originally known as O-I 120, again, WG changed name to O-Ho (again, doesnt make sense either, it means 5th super-heavy). Just like O-Ni, O-Ho is fake and never existed in any form.

 

Type 4: According to Eun's reddit post https://www.reddit.c...per_heavy_tank/ ,the Type 4 was second super-heavy design, continued from O-I that was rejected in 1943. At least turret was built, and apparently a unfunctional hull was built as well. Nothing is really known about it expect i was shipped into Manchuria. A remains of tank and turret were found by Soviets after war, and they were blown up. However, due to lack of information, WG has made hull up as well as armor, so technically it also could fall for "modified design".

 

Type 5: Proposed upgrade to Type 4, main difference being just the lower engine department likely to save weight. Only in drawings and like Type 4, WG modified the hull shape and armor values.

 

So, apart from O-Ni and O-Ho (again, we cant blame WG for that), the line has atleast some historical basis, but lots of historical errors. However, this is possible to make a bit better with changing of few things.

 

Historical accuracy is not the main problem, however. Historical accuracy is important, but WoT is not similutaor, but an arcade. We always have to keep that on mind, and gameplay is priority over historical accuracy.

 

The main problem is armor layout and guns.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

The line rework proposal

 

With all the stuff in my mind, here is what Japanese heavy tank line would look after reworks:

 

Spoiler

 

Shortly:

 

- O-Ho and O-Ni are fake, but they stay. There are no suitable tier 8 heavy tank to the line, expect maybe the Chi-Se (which was classified as medium anyways), but better save that for potential 2nd medium line. O-Ni on other hand, while again, its fake, it can take a slot as Japanese tier 8 premium as there are no other candidates. O-Ho and O-Ni are sitll better than any random fake because they have "history" in that regard of what we thought about O-I in past. Both of them get renamed to "O-I II" and "O-I III" to respecent the idea of "upgrading" O-I. I will discuss more about them when we specifically talk about each tank.

 

- O-I goes up a tier and gets buffed.

 

- O-I Exp gets removed, unless none of the new heavies fit tier 6. If thats the case, O-I Exp gets buffed and becomes tier 6.

 

- Type 91, Type 95 gets downtiered. Type 95 gets its historical designation, AKA Type 95 Ro-Go. They are overtiered, anyways. Type 91 might be okay with Chi-Ha's top gun at tier 3, but with historical confiquration, it has no business in tier 3. Type 95 is even after major buffs so poor in tier 4 that it is widely considered to be one of the worst tanks in the game.

 

- Otsu gets removed and replaced by I-Go that gets significant DPM nerfs to fit tier 1. This removes situation of broken tier 2 with overkill DPM, aswell as tier 1 having another Renault FT clone. 

 

- New heavy-tanks are added to tier 4-6. Currently no information available to public. David Lister, or Listy, will feature them on book that features lots of obscure tank designs. Until then, we can just hope they fit to tier 4-6.

 

But no worries. The rework could be "still" done without new heavies. Thats why i have "placeholder variant", which is the version 2.

 

On version 2...

 

- tier 7-10 changes and tier 1-3 changes are exactly the same as on main variant

- Ro-Go leads to Chi-He

- Chi-He now leads to new tank, which is Chi-Ha with 120 mm howitzer. 

Spoiler

 

The Chi-Ha 120 was chosen, because it shares similarities with Japanese heavies in that regard it has pretty big gun. It is "link" between mediums and heavies. 

 

- Chi-Ha 120 leads to O-I Exp, which is tier 6

 

But this is just tier changes. We still havent adressed the main problems, armor and guns. Now, we take look at each tank specifically.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Lowtiers

Lowtier changes are quite simple and straightforward, so i put them into one package.

 

I-Go has poor mobility, poor armor, poor shell velocity, penetration and accuracy. All in all, it is pretty much tier 1 material. Think bit similar to Medium I: big gun on otherwise poor platform. However, it was balanced on tier 2. What WG did was that they gave I-Go brutal - i mean really brutal rate of fire. The tank has over 2000 DPM at tier 2 with 75 alpha gun. Yes, this thing fires practically as fast as T-34 and does about as much damage, and T-34 is already known to have brutal base DPM for tier 5. It can basically 2-3 shot tier 2s and kill them in few seconds. Of course, its tier 2 and its full of guns that can kill in few seconds. I-Go would be perfectly fine tier 1. Just decrease the DPM considerably and HP, and you got fine tier 1 vehicle. Think bit like Medium I.

 

Type 91 and Type 95 are commonly stated to be underperforming, especially latter. Their historical weapons is basically the 75 mm gun. For Type 91, keep just that gun, remove the 57 mm gun and downtier it into tier 2, and balance it. You basically now have tier 2 KV-2: very powerful HE shells but everything else is mediocre. Type 95 in return can keep the current top gun - just reduce the DPM and HP pool. Think slower, less armored M2 Medium with somewhat strong AP shells for its tier. Also, rename the tank into Type 95 Ro-Go, which was the historical designation of the tank.

 

New heavies & O-I Experimental

There were more Japanese heavy tank designs; these being:

- Type 96

- Type 97

- Mitsu 104

- Ishi 108

 

The information is extremely limited. The only image available in public is this sketch of Type 97:

 

DSCF2758.jpg

And that is just sketch and it very well might be inaccurate. Design-wise, it seems to be lot like Type 95 but with single-turret and two guns in front and back of turret. I assume this or Type 96 would fit into tier 4 slot.

 

I dont have any idea what kind of tanks Mitsu 104 and Ishi 108 are. From what i heard Japan did have "normal" heavy tank (30-50 tonne design), which probably would fit into tier 5-6.

 

Like i said, Listy's book will feature information of these tanks. They are currently in archives. We can only hope we can see these tanks as soon as possible.

 

As for O-I Experimental, it is hard to balance conceptually and practically WG creation. If these heavies fit into tier 6, O-I Experimental has no place and it will be removed. However, if these tanks doesnt happen to anyhow fit into tier 6, we can just use O-I Experimental to fit the hole. As for tier 6 O-I Experimental, my idea is to simply give it pre-nerf stats, increase penetration to about same that O-I has now with 10 cm, and buff health to 950.

 

O-I 

The true O-I, the 150 ton giant housing 150 mm howitzer with 150 mm armor. One of the most controversial tanks ever introduced. Having 150mm armor immune to lowtiers, and if they try to attack from behind, they are surprised by 150mm rear armor, and then they get oneshotted by 150mm howitzer. It was essentially KV-2 with better gun handling and super-heavy armor. Unsurprisingly, it got nerfed, but it still has this armor and this derp gun. Wouldnt an solution just to give it weakspots? Or just remove 150mm gun? Well...it is not that simple.

 

Despite all the talk about "105mm" guns on O-I, the one and only armament proposed for O-I, among with the smaller caliber guns in miniturrets, was the 15cm Type 96 Howitzer. Its the historical armament, and it should stay. Its not really that big of a problem...KV-2 already has it on tier 6, right? But O-I has loads of armor. KV-2 really doesnt.

 

Unfortunately, O-I's armor is actually historical:

 

The O-I's armor layout is big problem, and thats where WG got liberation to all higher tier Japanese super-heavies. One would nerf it, but its quite hard, actually. O-I's turret shapes, poor side armor etc. means that it really cant angle the armor effectively at all. It cant even angle the front from corners without exposing a flat, 150 mm armor zone. So after certain penetration, O-I can say goodbye to its armor. 

 

Historically speaking, KV-2 is faster in-game than what it was in real life, while O-I is actually probably bit slower due to nerfed terrain resists and traverse speed. This means that O-I is more or less KV-2 with noticeably thicker armor. This alone is good indication that O-I should be on different tier.

 

And thats why i propose idea of moving O-I to tier 7. Armor certainly doesnt sound that amazing on tier 7, doesnt it? Well, we can buff other attributes instead. 

 

Compared to O-Ni, O-I has worse armor obviously, so it has to make up for having better other statistics. One option is giving an engine upgrade to O-I - there reportely was wooden mockup of O-I that had 12 cylinder Daimler Benz diesel engine instead of current twin engines it has now. This would be potential (and historical) upgrade. The top speed was estimated to be 30-35 with full weight, so there is that as well.

 

HP and gun stats should be buffed to around same level as O-Ni. The 15cm howitzer is historical, so it stays as stock gun. As for gun stats, it should be somewhat similar to O-Ni. As for other guns, O-I receives (albeit unhistorical) 10cm gun just like O-Ni, but with bit better DPM and gun handling. 

 

Lastly, the armor is still "immune" to lowtiers, so to give them just a slight chance, cupola armor of miniturrets and turret gets nerfed to 120mm from 150mm. They are very small, however, so they are still unreliable weakspot at most distances. It is unhistorical...but it does change things a bit.

 

After changes, O-I is different vehicle. It is very heavy, carries lots of health and strong gun. The armor starts to become somewhat okay, but it isnt particurarly amazing. O-I's survivability relies on health and gun. Its like Tiger I with more alpha damage and bit thicker armor, but its 2x bigger and is bit slower. Derp gun is still an option, and still an option to derp around, but O-I with derp gun is overall worse than current O-Ni with derp gun.

 

O-Ho (O-I III)

 

O-Ho, or O-I 120, never existed. There are no other viable tier 8 replacements - expect O-Ni, which equally never existed. However, this comes up with advantage - the armor can be manipulated into anything to balance the vehicle into tier 8.

 

First changes is that O-Ho gets renamed. O-Ho sounds funny and as it is my favorite tank in the game, it is quite iconic name and even after name change i would still call it as O-Ho. However, as name, it makes absolutely no sense. "O-Ho" means "fifth" super-heavy...what? Where is the second and third, then? The name was made up by WG, so there is that. The O-Ho and O-Ni wont get renamed into "second" and "third" super-heavies. The "true" second super-heavy is Type 4/5. Lets just assume O-Ni and O-Ho were just "ideas" of upgrading O-I. Thats why, they will be renamed into O-I II and O-I III. Somewhat dull names, but whatever.

 

The description also gets reworked into something like this:

 

One of the ideas of improving O-I. One of these ideas was O-I III, which had considerably thicker armor and different guns. However, all of these ideas cancelled in favor of Type 4 super-heavy tank. This tank actually never existed.

 

This tank actually never existed is already being used on some of the Chinese TDs, which, atleast some of them, are creations of Kongzhong, company that runs Chinese World of Tanks server. Similarly, such description should be used on O-I III.

 

As for O-Ho (im just referring the tanks with their original names to make sure what i am talking about), it is probably most balanced Japanese heavy tank. It has thick armor but that is actually penetratable by same tier heavies, especially if they aim a bit, derp gun doesnt do excessive damage like tier 6/9/10, and it has major flaw with gun depression. However, O-Ho is not perfect - it still has armor layout that is immune to lowtiers and many same tier tanks - and against higher penetration, O-Ho has low capabilities to defend itself, though bit better than other Japanese heavies as the armor has lots of trollish autobounce angles thanks to miniturrets and angled upper plate.

 

Just do simple change: nerf LFP armor, and buff upper frontal stripe + cheeks to like this:

 

As you can see, i adjusted the armor so that the armor strip on front is now 230 instead of 200, but LFP has been nerfed notably to around ~180 effective. Mantle has been significnatly buffed to 270 - aka dont shoot me here zone. Cheeks are 230 instead of 200 to increase sidescraping capabilities. Cupola has been nerfed significantly - however, it is tiny and hard to hit.

 

Overall, while O-Ho gains bit angleability, and enemies have to aim bit more, the overall armor is nerfed. However, there is still problem which is that derp is drastically better than other guns. 

 

Firstly, 15cm becomes stock gun just like on O-I. Stock 10cm gun gets removed. As true top gun option, i propose the 127mm naval gun from Type 4 Heavy:

 

 

At 450 alpha and 230 penetration, this gun would be scary for tier 8 super-heavy. The accuracy would be moderate, but as trade-off, DPM would be very low to compensate otherwise almost TD-level of parameters. Due to not having huge additional mantle like 10cm or that breech below gun like 15cm, the O-Ho would be able to depress the 127mm gun more than other two guns.

 

The current 10cm stays, but gets moved so researching it is optional. The 127mm gun takes its place before Type 4 Heavy. The 10cm gets premium ammo with 240 mm penetration, and the gun depression is also improved in 10cm so that -3 areas becomes -5. However, the 127 mm still has overall better gun depression.

 

O-Ho has now 3 gun options. However, the 127mm is overall the "best" and preferred gun option. The 10cm is just there if one hates its DPM, while derp gun stays just so O-Ho can derp around.

 

With these changes, O-Ho changes considerably. It has to be bit more careful when it comes to its armor, as lower plate is huge and relatively weak. However, it gains new gun with alpha and penetration being among best in class/tier, at cost of having long reload. Think VK 100 with less armor but bit more mobility, more alpha and penetration. The 127mm also doesnt have too limited gun depression unlike 10cm and 15cm.

 

The derp gun stays as option; however, if one opts to use 15cm, the tank no longer can just go from corners with its front due to lower plate while still having to deal with depression. While you dont need to "aim" at weakspots, it still requires brains to play as you need to position it carefully as sidescraping and hiding LFP is very hard with limited depression. 10cm is an option if one hates the low DPM of 127 mm gun. Having two now atleast as viable gun as derp will mean that its significancy will be lot lesser.

 

O-Ni (O-I II)

Soo...if O-Ho stays at tier 8, O-I becomes tier 7, Types also stays in their tiers - why does O-Ni, that never existed just like O-Ho still stay on the game? Simple - it becomes tier 7 or 8 premium tank, as there are no other candidates as higher tier heavy-tank premium (and i wont count those anime abominations that will be SEA server exclusive, anyways). And i would like to see something else that isn't just stock Tiger I tier lower.

 

Just like O-Ho, O-Ni gets renamed into "O-I II". O-Ni's descprition will be also changed similarly to O-Ho's:

 

One of the ideas of improving O-I. One of these ideas was O-I II, which had thicker armor and different guns. However, all of these were cancelled in favor of Type 4 super-heavy tank. This tank actually never existed.

 

So there are two options. Either keeping O-Ni at tier 7, or making it tier 8. 

 

Tier 7 O-Ni is much simpler to balance. Just take the fully upgraded O-Ni, make it heavier (100 tons doesnt make any sense for such tank) and nerf armor of miniturrets and cupola, but buff the side armor to 105 so it can actually angle properly. And there you have it, a premium japanese super-heavy. Compared to O-I, it has better armor, but worse mobility and miniturrets are weakspots like on KV-5, but they are hideable when sidescraping. 

 

Alternatively, O-Ni also can be buffed into tier 8 premium. With this change, a similar concept should be kept, expect frontal hull armor should be increased considerably. However, keep the concept of having weak miniturrets. The gun shall be 10cm from O-Ho with good DPM. HP increased to around 1700 - 1800. Just like at tier 7, the side becomes bit thicker and tank gains weight. Compared to O-Ho, tier 8 O-Ni has better overall armor, but is bit more sluggish and doesnt carry powerful 127mm gun.

 

Type 4 Heavy (O-Ro) and Type 5 Heavy (O-Ro Kai / O-Ro II)

 

And finally, we get into top tier Japanese super-heavies and now, especially Type 5, being quite hot topic due to recent (over)buffs. I handle them together because changes i propose for them are overall very similar. 

 

There is certain problems with the model. The turret is known to exist at photos; as Russians did take a photo from the bunker with Type 4 turret:

 

Spoiler

 

The only known drawing of Type 5 (Type 4 is more or less this with higher engine deck, going on straight line among with hull below turret like Chi-To or Chi-Ri):

 

Note the hull shape. It differs actually quite majorly from in-game model:

 

- hull front shape is clearly different - it looks like its divided on UFP and LFP

- no hull cheeks

- upper hull doesnt extend in front of turret

 

And other things, though keep on mind the sketch is likely not very accurate either, as the turret is bit different from the picture (but similar enough to see that its supposed to be the same). However, the current hull isnt any more historically accurate, as there are no existing accurate pictures of what Type 4/5 hull actually looked like.

 

There is one thing on the sketch, though - it has LFP and UFP divided. And no hull cheeks. Conclusion? Just use the actual design from sketch for Type 4/5, and rework the LFP armor so its actually weakspot. However, with removal of hull cheeks, the tank is now capable of sidescraping actually properly and hiding that LFP. The upper flat front plate will get buffed to ~300 on both tanks. Front turret gets nerfed on Type 5 to 260, and side armor gets reverted to 140. Cupola becomes smaller but much weaker, now being around 200 effective at centre (still trollish at sides) but is bit smaller target than it is now.

 

Type 4's armor:

 

Spoiler

 

Type 5's armor:

 

Spoiler

 

Now their UFP and upper flat armor plate are roughly equal to upper plate armor of similar tier German heavies. Cupola is weakspot, mantle is much tougher and spaced (aka dont shoot here zone), but turret cheeks are slightly weaker.

 

Type 4 and 5 generally has quite similar armor layout. Type 5's LFP is bit stronger and turret is slightly stronger. Apart from that, their armor is mostly the same. However, Type 5 makes up for other things - its bit lighter and thus marginally more mobility, and has more health. Thats not enough worthy upgrade for tier 10, isnt it?

 

As for guns, the derp gun will get just removed. Currently its obviously broken, and would be fixed with removal of gold rounds in terms of being pay to win, but id rather see it being completely removed. The concept of the line should not be full derp gun line, even if many of them would have derp guns as options. Also, i think that tier 9-10 should be kept for most part derp-free, apart from some expections like T49/sheridan.

 

On Type 4, the 14cm gets better accuracy, pen and bit better gun handling. Accuracy gets increased from 0.42 to 0.39, and pen gets buffed to 258.

 

To truly differiate Type 5 from Type 4 and make it actually worthy upgrade over Type 4, i propose of giving "Kai" version of the 14cm. Accuracy gets increased to 0.37. Like 10cm on O-Ho, the "Kai" uses gold round as standard round - and gets gold round with 310mm penetration. New penetration is 282 / 310mm. This makes Type 5 unique vehicle - the gun is almost like mix between TD and heavy guns. DPM is on low side, though. As another advantage, the tanks have great depression and high HP pool. 

 

Compared to Maus, Type 5 has worse armor, is bigger and has worse DPM and gun handling, but has better gun depression, slightly better mobility, higher penetration and higher alpha. With the changes, it would be interesting vehicle. Think mid-tier Japanese medium tank with improved armor on steroids. Lots of steroids.

 

And my balance changes might not be the perfect, but hopefully you get the idea what i am trying to achieve. Of course, if necessary, WG would change other stats like DPM, HP and bloom statistics to balance these tanks further.

 

And lastly, since Type 4 and 5 were the "second" super-heavy design, designation "O-Ro" would be logical. Type 4 would be named as "Type 4 O-Ro", while Type 5, as improved version, would be named either as "Type 5 O-Ro Kai" or "Type 5 O-Ro II". However, neither of these names were known to be used, so its not necessary. The in-game description is also inaccurate:

 

The Type 4, also known as the Type 2604, is a variant of the superheavy O-I tank that was developed during World War II. The vehicle was designed for breakthrough attacks on enemy fortifications as well as for coastal defense.

 

Type 4/5 are not variants of O-I, they are hteir own tank design.

 

Rather, the description should look somewhat like this:

 

Type 4:

 

Type 4 super-heavy tank was developed during the end of WW2. The design was meant to fix some faults of O-I shown in the tests of the vehicle; such as single-turret design. The turret of vehicle was used in bunker at Koto defences. After the war, Red Army destroyed the abandoned turret.

 

Type 5:

 

Type 5 was a proposed upgrade to improve the Type 4 super-heavy tank. Compared to Type 4, the Type 5 has lower rear part of the vehicle to save weight. A prototype was never built. Existed only in drawings.

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Conclusion

 

This change tries to fix these problems:

 

1) retardproof armor

2) derp guns dominating when it comes to gun choices

3) historical accuracy

4) frustating to play

 

These changes gives the tanks weakspots, but also bit more usable armor, stronger non-derp guns, tries to improve historical accuracy a bit (or, atleast make them look more logical) and make the tanks bit more comfortable to play.

 

As for lines, first tiers contains heavies with poor mobility, low armor but strong, high caliber guns. At midtiers situation is mystery, but i expect strong guns and average-ish armor, basically heavy-versions of medium tanks in the tiers. Tier 7 is mix between past and future, and at tier 8-10, we have super-heavies which speciality is high-alpha guns with best penetration in their class, high HP and pretty good armor, but being larger than their German counterparts and having worse DPM and either worse armor or mobility, depending on which tank (E 100 or Maus) is being compared.

 

Thank you for reading this proposal. I dont think this is absolutely perfect rework - but im sure it would atleast help the situation a bit. I just want to improve this game - and i am sure there is possibility for that.

 

Cheers,

 

leggasiini

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR for those lazy f*cks who dont want to read:

 

- I-Go, Type 91 and Type 95 gets all downtiered; Type 95 gets renamed to Type 95 Ro-Go

- O-I Experimental gets removed

- O-I becomes tier 7 with mobility, health and gun buffs

- New heavies are added at tier 4-6

- O-Ni gets renamed to O-I II and becomes premium at either tier 7 or 8, gains buffed side armor but nerfed mobility and miniturrets become weakspots

- O-Ho gets renamed to O-I III, gets 127mm gun, 10cm gets gold ammo, gets some strong spots at armor but receives weakspots

- Type 4 gets reworked armor with addition of weakspots, but cheeks are removed, derp gun is removed and 14cm accuracy is buffed

- Type 5 gets reworked armor with addition of weakspots, cheeks are removed, derp gun is removed and 14cm penetration is considerably buffed aswell as accuracy

 

TL;DR of TL;DR:

 

Generally addition of weakspots, armor becoming bit more usable with sidescraping etc., non-derp guns becoming much more viable, derp guns removed from tier 9-10

 

fml for writing this +4 hours straiht even though everything was planned D:

 

 

 


Edited by leggasiini, 24 November 2017 - 02:23 PM.


clixor #2 Posted 24 May 2017 - 01:43 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 54605 battles
  • 3,167
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

Nice post! You obviously put a lot of effort into this :)

 

I'm grinding the jap line myself (currently at the O-Ho) and i don't really think they are that OP, or to rephrase that, that they are overperforming. And although i'm not a real fan of HE derp guns, i do think they add a bit of diversity in the gameplay. And in way, they are like the old arty, you bring a weapon to hulldown tanks. 

 

The onyl thing what's really urgent imo is the removal of the tier10 gold ammo advantage, that's just silly and needs to go.



Nishi_Kinuyo #3 Posted 24 May 2017 - 02:46 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9062 battles
  • 6,252
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Postclixor, on 24 May 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

The onyl thing what's really urgent imo is the removal of the tier10 gold ammo advantage, that's just silly and needs to go.

I disagree; premium derp shouldn't be the most viable option, ever.

But as it currently stands, the 14cm isn't all that viable either, and non-premium derp is just... meh.

And with some 1350-ish battles in the Japanese Heavy line I've come to realise: I don't like derps all that much.

They're too unreliable/broken; find something with armour and you're close to useless due to HE mechanics and reload; find something paper and you're close to being OP if you can actually hit it due to crap accuracy and generally crap gun handling. I can accept the KV-2 having it because that's a well-documented heavy tank designed around the 152mm (and even there I prefer the 107mm ZiS-6 which was also tested on it); for the Japanese heavies, I do not feel that it should be their main weapon except for the O-I which was designed for it (and even there I'd prefer a regular cannon).

 

Another possibly fix for the 15cm on the Type 2604/2605 Heavies would be giving it an AP shell like it historically had; that would make it hopefully less appealing to spam the (premium) HE while keeping it as an option for hulldown/sidescraping tier 9/10 HTs that you cannot deal with using AP.

 

By and far, I like the changes, although I'd really like more information about the Type 96, Type 96, Mitsu and Ishi.

As for the O-Ho: the retarded miniturret gun depression at the front is there to stay then?

 

But as mentioned, those are currently limited to archives (GL getting in) and an upcoming book that I am certain to buy.

One reason I like the book already is simply because there's barely any decent books in english about the Japanese tanks that I know of.

The one decent book I do know of is, afaik, only available in Japanese (I'm not weeb enough to be able to read that), and one further book dedicated to the O-I tank, also Japanese-only.

 

PS. The company leggasiini was refering to is, afaik; finemolds: a military scale model kit company, known for producing many excellent kits of Japanese tanks, including the O-I (currently only in 1/72 scale, to my knowledge). I'd dearly love for that O-I model to be upscaled to 1/35 to fit along with the rest of their product range (and my collection).


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 24 May 2017 - 02:56 PM.


leggasiini #4 Posted 24 May 2017 - 03:00 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17229 battles
  • 6,397
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 24 May 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

As for the O-Ho: the retarded miniturret gun depression at the front is there to stay then?

 

Only with derp gun.

 

Not with 12,7 cm. I said that gun doesnt have breech below it so it should be able to depress it the full -10 atleast in some areas, and should have more than -5 on any spot.

 

10 cm gun actually has less limited depression than derp already. I think i should edit it so that -3 areas become -5 or something.



Tarix819 #5 Posted 24 May 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15743 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

@Leggasiini

 

Related image

 

I believe this is a different view of the 'Type 2604 Turret' which in the Russian image was mounted on a bunker at Koto Fortress. I don't think the image was fake, but I don't believe it was the Type 4's turret either, I think it was this, or a similar version/modification to this turret. The turret shown in the Russian photo had a 41cm Howitzer mounted in it, which was a gun used on Koto Fortress and 41cm shells have been found around the site.

 

In short: That Russian photo was actually just a normal 41cm Howitzer turret, not a tank turret.

 

Either way, I completely agree with you on the balancing ideas, and well done for all the effort you made in this topic.

 

 


Edited by Tarix819, 24 May 2017 - 03:35 PM.


Bucifel #6 Posted 24 May 2017 - 03:35 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35899 battles
  • 1,600
  • [FUS2D] FUS2D
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

Yes please...WEAKPOINTS are absolutely necessary (and of course, gold ammo rebalance..)

Rests are ok...can be reworked like this entire line, or can be simply reworked all existing tanks without any change on tiers / new tanks.

Its same thing to me...all what is important is to balance them with weakpoints and make rest of armor usefull (goldammo nerf)



ExclamationMark #7 Posted 24 May 2017 - 03:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16788 battles
  • 4,415
  • [IDEAD] IDEAD
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

If you think I'm reading that, you are delusional. 

 

All that needs to be done is remove the derp gun from Type 4 and 5. Give it back the gun it had before but just improve it FFS. That's all the gun needed - IMPROVEMENTS. Better reload, pen, gun handling, and it'd be fine. Armour buff was overboard but I could deal with that. The armour buff + retarded derp gun, no, I cannot deal with that. It's just such a dumb tank, broken, noobfriendly tank.

 

Saw the TLDR, my bad. Your proposals seem fine. Type 5 armour is just so, so dumb. A weakspot should be a weakspot. Not something that is tiny and generally needs gold to be penned reliably. 


Edited by ExclamationMark, 24 May 2017 - 03:38 PM.


leggasiini #8 Posted 24 May 2017 - 03:57 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17229 battles
  • 6,397
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostTarix819, on 24 May 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

@Leggasiini

 

Related image

 

I believe this is a different view of the 'Type 2604 Turret' which in the Russian image was mounted on a bunker at Koto Fortress. I don't think the image was fake, but I don't believe it was the Type 4's turret either, I think it was this, or a similar version/modification to this turret. The turret shown in the Russian photo had a 41cm Howitzer mounted in it, which was a gun used on Koto Fortress and 41cm shells have been found around the site.

 

In short: That Russian photo was actually just a normal 41cm Howitzer turret, not a tank turret.

 

Either way, I completely agree with you on the balancing ideas, and well done for all the effort you made in this topic.

 

 

 

Its definitely not the same turret i showed up.

 

First of all, the Type 4 is clearly mounted on either tank or concrete bunker (much more likely latter). This one is directly on ground. This one also has different gun (looks smaller) and has muzzle break unlike Type 4 turret. Cupola also look different.



Nishi_Kinuyo #9 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:07 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9062 battles
  • 6,252
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostTarix819, on 24 May 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

@Leggasiini

 

Related image

 

I believe this is a different view of the 'Type 2604 Turret' which in the Russian image was mounted on a bunker at Koto Fortress. I don't think the image was fake, but I don't believe it was the Type 4's turret either, I think it was this, or a similar version/modification to this turret. The turret shown in the Russian photo had a 41cm Howitzer mounted in it, which was a gun used on Koto Fortress and 41cm shells have been found around the site.

 

In short: That Russian photo was actually just a normal 41cm Howitzer turret, not a tank turret.

 

Either way, I completely agree with you on the balancing ideas, and well done for all the effort you made in this topic.

 

 

I strongly disagree on that notion:

For one; the size of the turret is too small for that; or the cupola far too big to be logical; not to mention the periscopes.

Additionally, the 41cm/45 3rd Year Type, the cannon you're probably referring to, has a thickening near the base of the cannon which should've been visible if it were so.

Spoiler

Meanwhile, the 14cm/50 3rd Year Type does not have such a thickening near the base.

Spoiler

So by those assumptions, the suggestion it is a 41cm/45 3rd Year Type is simply ludicrous.

From what I can see; basically all Japanese naval cannons of 15cm and larger have such a thickening; as well as various cannons below that calibre with the exception of the 14cm/50 3rd Year Type.

 

Going by the scale of things in the photo you posted, I'm almost inclined to say that it is a 10cm cannon; or even a 7.5cm due to the muzzle brake.

And if the latter, quite likely the Type 90 7.5cm Field Gun: (The one the Type 3 Tank Gun is based off)

Spoiler

 


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 24 May 2017 - 04:38 PM.


Tarix819 #10 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15743 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 24 May 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

I strongly disagree on that notion:

For one; the size of the turret is too small for that; or the cupola far too big to be logical; not to mention the periscopes.

Additionally, the 41cm/45 3rd Year Type, the cannon you're probably referring to, has a thickening near the base of the cannon which should've been visible if it were so.

Spoiler

Meanwhile, the 14cm/50 3rd Year Type does not have such a thickening near the base.

Spoiler

So by those assumptions, the suggestion it is a 41cm/45 3rd Year Type is simply ludicrous.

From what I can see; basically all Japanese naval cannons of 15cm and larger have such a thickening; as well as various cannons below that calibre with the exception of the 14cm/50 3rd Year Type.

 

You misunderstood me, but I also terribly worded it.

 

The 41cm gun is fitted in this photo at Koto Fortress:

 

Image result for koto fortress

 

The photo below has a different gun but I was assuming that the turret in the photo above was mounting one of the 41cm guns at Koto Fortress, whereas the image below shows one of the smaller turrets mounting a smaller gun, also used at Koto Fortress.

 

Related image


Edited by Tarix819, 24 May 2017 - 04:21 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #11 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9062 battles
  • 6,252
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostTarix819, on 24 May 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

 

You misunderstood me, but I also terribly worded it.

 

The 41cm gun is fitted in this photo at Koto Fortress:

 

Image result for koto fortress

 

The photo below has a different gun but I was assuming that the turret in the photo above was mounting one of the 41cm guns at Koto Fortress, whereas the image below shows one of the smaller turrets mounting a smaller gun, also used at Koto Fortress.

 

Related image

Read my edited post; it is exactly as I described above.

The Koto Fortress one having a 14cm/50 3rd Year Type and the one you posted being either a Type 90 7.5cm Field Cannon or a Type 3 Tank Gun due to the existance of a muzzle brake (afaik, only the two 7.5cm cannons had them).


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 24 May 2017 - 04:38 PM.


OdysseusKrieg #12 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:27 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 13233 battles
  • 153
  • Member since:
    12-24-2016
another whining thread about op Japanese heavies,and btw this game has nothing to do with historical accuracy :popcorn:

Desyatnik_Pansy #13 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:28 PM

    Bartender

  • Player
  • 18115 battles
  • 26,648
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostOdysseusKrieg, on 24 May 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

another whining thread about op Japanese heavies,and btw this game has nothing to do with historical accuracy :popcorn:

 

If that is all you got out of this, I'm inclined to believe you read nothing more than "Japanese Heavy" in the title and assumed the rest.

brumbarr #14 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:30 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostOdysseusKrieg, on 24 May 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

another whining thread about op Japanese heavies,and btw this game has nothing to do with historical accuracy :popcorn:

When you call of the best written and most constructive posts in the last year whining. You can [edited]off.



leggasiini #15 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17229 battles
  • 6,397
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostOdysseusKrieg, on 24 May 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

another whining thread about op Japanese heavies,and btw this game has nothing to do with historical accuracy :popcorn:

 

And you didnt read a single word about the topic, didnt you? :facepalm:

 

Dude, i have +7000 battles with Japanese heavies. Do you think i would go in and make a whine topic about them? Think again.

 

They are not very well designed in this game. I dont mean them being either OP or UP, but i stated they would get reworked into better. 

 

The historical accuracy is just side thing in this rework. Funnily enough, making this line more historical would make it both more fun to play with and against, and its not only line with that as case (Swedish heavies are another tanks that falls on that category).



Tarix819 #16 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:48 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15743 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 24 May 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

Read my edited post; it is exactly as I described above.

The Koto Fortress one having a 14cm/50 3rd Year Type and the one you posted being either a Type 90 7.5cm Field Cannon or a Type 3 Tank Gun due to the existance of a muzzle break (afaik, only the two 7.5cm cannons had them).

 

I was suggesting that the 'Type 2604 turret' was not a tank turret at all, but was just defence turret used to house the 41cm Howitzer.

 

Never mentioned anything about a 14cm.

 



Nishi_Kinuyo #17 Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:55 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9062 battles
  • 6,252
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostTarix819, on 24 May 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

 

I was suggesting that the 'Type 2604 turret' was not a tank turret at all, but was just defence turret used to house the 41cm Howitzer.

 

Never mentioned anything about a 14cm.

 

Scaling for it would still be wrong.

As would the details of the cannon as shown in the photograph, which is without a doubt the 14cm/50 3rd Year Type.

 

Also, there is no such thing as [sic] "41cm Howitzer" in the IJA Arsenal. (Or IJN arsenal for that matter)

Japan had, afaik, only one cannon with a diametre of 41cm, and that being the 41cm/45 3rd Year Type used on the Nagato-class.

Not to mention that their use is well-documented.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 24 May 2017 - 05:04 PM.


leggasiini #18 Posted 24 May 2017 - 05:03 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17229 battles
  • 6,397
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

Its not 41cm for sure, that gun is gigantic.

 

Looking at the Type 4 turret (it looks like exactly the same as the turret on Type 4/5), the gun is likely 14cm on that, just like Nishi stated. Even the 14cm/50 3rd year type is already a very big gun, not maybe in caliber but as gun size itself.

 

Quite useless to argue any further as the armament havent been actually confirmed, even if 14cm would very well be the right gun, nor what the turret itself is, so can we stay on topic?


Edited by leggasiini, 24 May 2017 - 05:06 PM.


Tarix819 #19 Posted 24 May 2017 - 05:05 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15743 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 24 May 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

Scaling for it would still be wrong.

As would the details of the cannon as shown in the photograph, which is without a doubt the 14cm/50 3rd Year Type.

 

Also, there is no such thing as [sic] "41cm Howitzer" in the IJA Arsenal.

 

How can you tell that it is the 14cm? There is no other photo that I can find of the turret, it is hard to see how large the turret is, and we cannot see most of the gun. 

 

But anyway, that is going off topic as Leggasiini said, so I will stop  commenting about it now. Still, an interesting image to talk about.


Edited by Tarix819, 24 May 2017 - 05:07 PM.


FluffyRedFox #20 Posted 24 May 2017 - 05:06 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 25286 battles
  • 9,138
  • [FLOOF] FLOOF
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View PostOdysseusKrieg, on 24 May 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

another whining thread about op Japanese heavies,and btw this game has nothing to do with historical accuracy :popcorn:

Reading is hard






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users