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

Nishi_Kinuyo #21 Posted 24 May 2017 - 05:19 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9040 battles
  • 6,242
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostTarix819, on 24 May 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

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.

One of the reasons that it is not the 41cm cannon as you imply it is, is because those were housed in the turrets of: Nagato-class, Tosa-class, and Amagi-class Battleships. Specifically, eight Nagato-class turrets (twin-gun mount, four for Nagato, four for Mutsu), two Tosa-class turrets (twin-gun mount, one in Busan, Korean, one on Tsushima island), and one Amagi-class turret on Ikeshima island (also a twin gun mount).

 

And like the photograph I linked, the 14cm/50 3rd Year Type lacks the additional thickening at the base of the barrel that, for example, of the 15cm/45 41st Year Type (the derp) does have.

leggasiini

 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?

 Alright, this will be my final comment on it.



leggasiini #22 Posted 25 May 2017 - 01:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17175 battles
  • 6,395
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

Changed few things in regards of O-I III's gun depression with 10cm.

 

EDIT: Also made changes to Type 4/5 descriptions. I had to state that out, but i missed it. The in-game description is erronous.


Edited by leggasiini, 25 May 2017 - 01:14 PM.


arthurwellsley #23 Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:06 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 54060 battles
  • 4,018
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

@leggasiini

 

Very interesting reading. Excellent work. We can only hope that WG take notice of this. I like the idea of a tier VIII premium heavy, and I feel sure that WG would like your option to create one. However, the only issue would be the T34 and FV4202 (this one subject to some missions) precedent of providing a free premium to players who already owned the tech tree version. Any suggestions?



leggasiini #24 Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:45 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17175 battles
  • 6,395
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View Postarthurwellsley, on 25 May 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

@leggasiini

 

Very interesting reading. Excellent work. We can only hope that WG take notice of this. I like the idea of a tier VIII premium heavy, and I feel sure that WG would like your option to create one. However, the only issue would be the T34 and FV4202 (this one subject to some missions) precedent of providing a free premium to players who already owned the tech tree version. Any suggestions?

 

Probably mission like FV4202, but not sure on what thank it would be done.

Monkeymaddness #25 Posted 03 June 2017 - 05:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3973 battles
  • 998
  • Member since:
    10-27-2012

View Postleggasiini, on 24 May 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

...

 

 

 GREAT! I needed to see a forum like this. Mi-To (incomplete OI) can be tier 5 with half the armour not added and 105mm gun. there are 3 turret options - toplett turret, 30mm thick roof or 35mm thick roof. Also when WoT get multi-turret funtion and if the type97 isn't historically accurate we can have Mi-To without the main turret mounted. 

 

150mm oi in tier 6 as we do now

 

tier 7 105mm long barrel OI 

 

 

tier 8 - OI with the longer 105mm KAI gun and/or tray loader - Can tray loader for the 105mm long gun fit in the turret?

 

This is the most historically accurate version of the OI line I can think of. O-ho and O-ni are fake tanks But seeing the same OI tank time and time again in  the branch feels kind of off. 

 

Also might I suggest the chi-ri kai tier 8 to link the chi-ri with the type 4/5? they do seem to be part of the same family 



DorsVenabiIi #26 Posted 03 June 2017 - 11:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26473 battles
  • 1,189
  • [BIBLE] BIBLE
  • Member since:
    03-31-2015
 

 

 

 

Now WG will never hire you, because you are actually competent. 

CaptainThunderWalker #27 Posted 04 June 2017 - 12:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18937 battles
  • 1,297
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015

Great post.

 

The only thing I don't like about the proposal is the removal of the O-I Experimental, because it's fun to bumrush things in a fast superheavy.

 

Edit: I just realized the O-I probably doesn't need a weakspot at Tier VII. Let's face it - if you are in a moderately fast low tier tank, it is already much easier to flank it than to go for the cupola (if I drive my Ke-Ho, I rather face an O-I than any other Tier VI heavy actually). It is a problem for turretless TDs of which quite a few would need to spam premium ammo at it, though - except the Flakbus and probably the bathtub given a flat angle.

The weakspot would really only serve as frustration too - it is a small target and at long ranges you can't hit it, and if you are in a turretless TD you are screwed the moment you are spotted (and if you are NOT in a turretless TD, you are better off closing the distance and rushing to its side instead of standing still and trying to snipe for the cupola). Tier V heavies are screwed either way, but again they can't aim for the cupola. I don't think the illusion they can harm an O-I from the front should exist, and in the end, the flat parts of the armor are sufficient weakspots if the tank resides at Tier VII.

 

Also, I don't know if your proposal for the O-Ho's armor layout is what I would do, but it's definately a start. I would probably go full troll mode if I could freely change it, but to a point that knowing the ins and outs of the layout can definately be rewarded if you are in a Tier VI tank.


Edited by CaptainThunderWalker, 04 June 2017 - 09:06 PM.


Duvelske #28 Posted 21 June 2017 - 03:37 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17555 battles
  • 164
  • [TE5LA] TE5LA
  • Member since:
    01-25-2016

Man you are amusing leggasiini, since I was talking here about these possible changes in here I noticed after reading this topic that you actually own that OP tank called Defender OBJ 252? I guess you felt sad after facing a tank that you actually had problems with to penetrate? At least you know how a lot of people feel when they face a platoon of OBJ 252 and they have in their team tanks as is6/kv5 or some other prem mm tank. Man you made my day


​About the historical aspects, many are aware. But as WG stated many times before, WorldofTanks is not meant to be as an actual Tank simulator. The current line is in my eyes ok, ok it could always use a small boost here or there. But it is not bad as it is.

 


Edited by Duvelske, 21 June 2017 - 04:04 PM.


IncandescentGerbil #29 Posted 21 June 2017 - 05:03 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35775 battles
  • 1,546
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015
I have played a lot of games in Type 5. If you are playing a tier x only game, you are doomed, because you are slow and massive and can't hide from the relentless heat. In a 3,5,7 game you will kick mucho [edited], without trying. Either way, it's boring.
Ideal solution would be to remove all gold and modify every tank to give it a realistic vulnerability. But we all know WOT is more p2w than ever, so that will never happen.
Maus is a bigger problem.

Edited by IncandescentGerbil, 21 June 2017 - 05:04 PM.


HundeWurst #30 Posted 21 June 2017 - 05:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 75365 battles
  • 4,625
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Well I read it all and mostly agree.

 

Instead of adding some completly stupid "fake" weakspots somewhere which are first tiny and second not even weakspots (the armor thickness is still way to high), they should rework these tanks along the lines you proposed.

 

However is that going to happen? Unlikely. Wargaming has proven more than once that they dont want to balance tanks but use balance soloe to monetize the game as much as possible - aka milk that cow real good.

Great idea but its never going to happen as it stands against everything Wargaming wants to be but stay hidden from their customers.



250swb #31 Posted 21 June 2017 - 06:14 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23230 battles
  • 5,610
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

The ultimate irony is that if all tanks are perfectly balanced all the time the game would become very boring. So why bother grinding up the Japanese line only to find the top tank is perfectly balanced against any other line? WOT would become a game of ticking boxes, been there, seen it, done it, and you'd change tank lines based on how pretty the camo is. 

 

It is the slight variations in power creep that keep the game interesting and worthwhile. Working towards even a temporary advantage is a human condition, so don't bleat on about 'balance', but advocate democracy over time.


Edited by 250swb, 21 June 2017 - 06:19 PM.


CptBarney #32 Posted 21 June 2017 - 07:18 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 18996 battles
  • 4,026
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View Post250swb, on 21 June 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

The ultimate irony is that if all tanks are perfectly balanced all the time the game would become very boring. So why bother grinding up the Japanese line only to find the top tank is perfectly balanced against any other line? WOT would become a game of ticking boxes, been there, seen it, done it, and you'd change tank lines based on how pretty the camo is.

 

It is the slight variations in power creep that keep the game interesting and worthwhile. Working towards even a temporary advantage is a human condition, so don't bleat on about 'balance', but advocate democracy over time.

 

If you want a game to be competitive then you sacrifice diversity for balance. if you want a more 'unique' game then you sacrifice balance for diversity even though lets face it you do the exact same thing in every tank. shoot other tanks and drive your tank forward. Also I wouldn't call adding new tanks that make everything else obsolete, since in the end you just limit the game to a few tanks anyways, not exactly diverse is it.

 

Also democracy has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever. Plus you can stop whinging yourself.


Edited by CptBarney, 21 June 2017 - 07:19 PM.


brumbarr #33 Posted 21 June 2017 - 08:01 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View Post250swb, on 21 June 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

The ultimate irony is that if all tanks are perfectly balanced all the time the game would become very boring. So why bother grinding up the Japanese line only to find the top tank is perfectly balanced against any other line? WOT would become a game of ticking boxes, been there, seen it, done it, and you'd change tank lines based on how pretty the camo is. 

 

It is the slight variations in power creep that keep the game interesting and worthwhile. Working towards even a temporary advantage is a human condition, so don't bleat on about 'balance', but advocate democracy over time.

 

I dont see a reason why the game would be boring?

Each tank  will still ave its unique aspects and gameplay,  thats why you get new tanks, to have something different.



250swb #34 Posted 21 June 2017 - 09:48 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23230 battles
  • 5,610
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View Postbrumbarr, on 21 June 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

 

I dont see a reason why the game would be boring?

Each tank  will still ave its unique aspects and gameplay,  thats why you get new tanks, to have something different.

 

 

What unique aspects of gameplay? Gameplay for each tank would be balanced, so you end up neutral, uniqueness would only be an illusion. Four shots from a heavy autoloader would be the equivalent of one shot from a heavy single shot gun, and the reloads and accuracy would be the same. That is what balance is.


Edited by 250swb, 21 June 2017 - 09:51 PM.


Tulikukka #35 Posted 21 June 2017 - 10:27 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1741 battles
  • 76
  • Member since:
    01-14-2015
Read the whole thread but I think your added weak points are not enough. It has a ton of machine gun ports, those should be weak spots in world of tanks universe unless they're fake ports :sceptic:

Isharial #36 Posted 21 June 2017 - 11:22 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 23265 battles
  • 2,623
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Post250swb, on 21 June 2017 - 09:48 PM, said:

 

 

What unique aspects of gameplay? Gameplay for each tank would be balanced, so you end up neutral, uniqueness would only be an illusion. Four shots from a heavy autoloader would be the equivalent of one shot from a heavy single shot gun, and the reloads and accuracy would be the same. That is what balance is.

 

balance isn't all about the reload and accuracy, speed, mobility, HP and view range all play a part

not saying what you say isn't true, but there is more to it



brumbarr #37 Posted 21 June 2017 - 11:32 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View Post250swb, on 21 June 2017 - 09:48 PM, said:

 

 

What unique aspects of gameplay? Gameplay for each tank would be balanced, so you end up neutral, uniqueness would only be an illusion. Four shots from a heavy autoloader would be the equivalent of one shot from a heavy single shot gun, and the reloads and accuracy would be the same. That is what balance is.

 

So a 113 would nto be diferent from an E5 , from an E100?

Neyaru #38 Posted 27 June 2017 - 08:54 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 7928 battles
  • 160
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-22-2017

I think this model can be the premium for the line.

 

 

 

 

https://kampfgruppe1...tuo-kasten.html

 

I did not find the source of these images, but just discovered about it after HLJ added to their shop.

 

https://hlj.com/product/MTUAFV-057



leggasiini #39 Posted 27 June 2017 - 09:16 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17175 battles
  • 6,395
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostNeyaru, on 27 June 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

I think this model can be the premium for the line.

 

 

 

 

https://kampfgruppe1...tuo-kasten.html

 

I did not find the source of these images, but just discovered about it after HLJ added to their shop.

 

https://hlj.com/product/MTUAFV-057

 

Not necessary if you already do the changes and make O-Ni as premium tank.

 

Then again, both O-Ni and design you posted are just theorycrafting of O-I's design, and are both equally fictional designs, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

It is one option, though. There are quite a few other "theorycrafting" designs like that (most of them are quite similar to in-game O-Ho).


Edited by leggasiini, 27 June 2017 - 09:17 PM.


Japualtah #40 Posted 27 June 2017 - 09:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31788 battles
  • 1,319
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

Some derp tanks are needed to deal with stupid swedish or russian turrets.

 

It's either that or artillery?

Your call.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users