Jump to content


3 Bulgarian tanks that could make it in WoT?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

davidblader #1 Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:23 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

Hello, I've found three candidates for Bulgaria, a very unspoken country when it comes to tanks for WoT. Bulgaria does of course not have enough tanks for a full line, so the only way to add these is adding them as premiums in other trees, adding Bulgaria as a premium country (like they did to France in WoWp) or add them into a combined tech tree (in February of this year, they actually said they might reconsider the EU tree. I don't know anything new on that).

So let's start.
Panzer IV with SU-76 gun

Imagini pentru su-76 pz iv bunker

The vehicle you're seeing above was actually a bunker. I haven't found any information on it, except it was suppossed to be a ''movable bunker'' (notice the wheels). This needs to be confirmed though. If it is true, it would probably be possible to add it to the game.

In game, the tank would be a worse version of the Panzer IV H: Its gun (ZiS-3) has gotten the same damage, higher reloading speed, but weaker penetration. Its profile would be higher than the one of the Pz IV, this being another disadvantage. It could be a tier 4 (premium most likely) or a weak tier 5.

 

T-34 with T-62 turret

IMG_0778.PNG

What you are seeing above is also a bunker, but again a movable one. And yeah, it's a freaking T-62 turret on a T-34 hull. I haven't found any info on the gun though. If it did have the gun of the T-62, it could probably be implemented as a TD, considering the gameplay would most likely be a TD gameplay (very weak hull armor, strong gun, strong turret that is not going to be very useful because of the low gun depression). It could be a tier 7-9 TD. The gun's reloading time would need to be nerfed though.

 

T-11

Imagini pentru t-11 tank

The T-11 is simply the Bulgarian Pz. 35t. In real life it was different from the Pz.35t, but it is actually already in the game (I think it's the stock tank with the 3rd gun). It would be a clone, but low tier clones are mostly not considered a problem. There's normally no reason for it to be added, but who knows how it could help.

 


Any opinions?


Edited by davidblader, 24 June 2017 - 03:26 PM.


Jigabachi #2 Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,583
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
In my opinion we already have enough copy&paste tanks in the game. No need for more.
Besides that, three tanks don't make a techtree-line... and calling them "Bulgarian tanks" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you agree?

Edited by Jigabachi, 24 June 2017 - 03:38 PM.


chakmarin #3 Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28019 battles
  • 260
  • Member since:
    12-15-2012
Theyshould create "Bulgarian-peasant" tank based on Majstora.

davidblader #4 Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:44 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 24 June 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

In my opinion we already have enough copy&paste tanks in the game. No need for more.
Besides that, three tanks don't make a techtree-line... and calling them "Bulgarian tanks" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you agree?

 

1. The only ''copy-paste tank'' in the topic is the T-11, which, as I said, should only be added if there is a reason for it. What's copy-paste about the T-34/T-62? It would be unique as heck.

2. I know what it's not enough for a tech tree, that's why I said that at the beginning of the topic. And it's not an overstatement, except for the T-11. The other ones were modifications created by the Bulgarians. Has anyone said the BT-42 isn't Finnish just because it uses the Soviet BT-7 hull? No.
 



Jigabachi #5 Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,583
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

Hmm. I simply don't see too much uniqueness in stuff that already exists. That also includes all the captured and reused tanks that already are in the game.


Edited by Jigabachi, 24 June 2017 - 03:54 PM.


davidblader #6 Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:01 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 24 June 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Hmm. I simply don't see too much uniqueness in stuff that already exists. That also includes all the captured and reused tanks that already are in the game.

 

A T34/T62 would be unique....imagine what strategies you could create with that. It has gotten many disadvantages, but many advantages on the other side

Edited by davidblader, 24 June 2017 - 04:02 PM.


Strappster #7 Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:23 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23695 battles
  • 8,929
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View Postdavidblader, on 24 June 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

What's copy-paste about the T-34/T-62?

 

There's a subtle clue in the question.

 

View Postdavidblader, on 24 June 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

It would be unique as heck.

 

T-34-1.



davidblader #8 Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:48 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostStrappster, on 24 June 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

 

There's a subtle clue in the question.

 

 

T-34-1.

 

Umm, no, that comparation is not good. 
First of all, the turret-hull armor difference is much bigger on the T34/T62 than on the T-34-1:
T-34/T-62: Turret - 240mm, hull - 45mm
T-34-1: Turret - 90mm, hull - 60mm

 

The T-34/T-62's turret is invulnerable for its tier (the frontal part), making it unique, giving it some unique strategies, but very few.

 

Your comparison is a complete failure.



Strappster #9 Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:52 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23695 battles
  • 8,929
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View Postdavidblader, on 24 June 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

Umm, no, that comparation is not good. 

First of all, the turret-hull armor difference is much bigger on the T34/T62 than on the T-34-1:
T-34/T-62: Turret - 240mm, hull - 45mm
T-34-1: Turret - 90mm, hull - 60mm

 

The T-34/T-62's turret is invulnerable for its tier (the frontal part), making it unique, giving it some unique strategies, but very few.

 

Your comparison is a complete failure.

 

Ok, WZ-120 but with a crappy hull and worse gun.

 

Good shout. :rolleyes:



FluffyRedFox #10 Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:54 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22627 battles
  • 8,130
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View Postdavidblader, on 24 June 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

T-34-1: Turret - 90mm,

Those are the stock values ffs...

T-34-1 is pretty much exactly what you're looking for and you don't need to faff around with a pointless premium tree in order to fit it in.

 



davidblader #11 Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:57 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View Postfishbob101, on 24 June 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

Those are the stock values ffs...

T-34-1 is pretty much exactly what you're looking for and you don't need to faff around with a pointless premium tree in order to fit it in.

 

Oh, I see now. The second turret is stronger. Yet, it doesn't mean that comparsion is good,

Do you really think the armor is everything that matters? Take a look at the gun

davidblader #12 Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:58 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostStrappster, on 24 June 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

 

Ok, WZ-120 but with a crappy hull and worse gun.

 

Good shout. :rolleyes:

 

Yeah, sure....Let's just give another example, but with ''a crappy hull''. Nope, it doesn't work like this,

FluffyRedFox #13 Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:04 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22627 battles
  • 8,130
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View Postdavidblader, on 24 June 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

Oh, I see now. The second turret is stronger. Yet, it doesn't mean that comparsion is good,

Do you really think the armor is everything that matters? Take a look at the gun

They're both 100mms

They've both got the post war hemispherical turret design

They're both on the T-34 chassis.



davidblader #14 Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:13 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View Postfishbob101, on 24 June 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

They're both 100mms

They've both got the post war hemispherical turret design

They're both on the T-34 chassis.

 

Yet in the game, the T-62's gun has gotten +100 on both the damage and the penetration, and a much higher reloading time.

See why the comparison fails?

The fact that the tanks look the same doesn't make the gameplay the same. Look at the Soviet Obj. 261 (SPG) and the Obj. 263 (TD). They look so similar, yet they aren't even of the same class. Lol.

Strappster #15 Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:19 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23695 battles
  • 8,929
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View Postdavidblader, on 24 June 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yeah, sure....Let's just give another example, but with ''a crappy hull''. Nope, it doesn't work like this,

 

You seem to be the one that's confused about how this works.

davidblader #16 Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:39 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostStrappster, on 24 June 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

 

You seem to be the one that's confused about how this works.

 

Confused? Why? Like this, why not say it's like a Maus with great mobility, weaker armor, a hemispherical turret, a different gun and a Soviet hull?

Edited by davidblader, 24 June 2017 - 05:40 PM.


Strappster #17 Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:48 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23695 battles
  • 8,929
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View Postdavidblader, on 24 June 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

Confused? Why? Like this, why not say it's like a Maus with great mobility, weaker armor, a hemispherical turret, a different gun and a Soviet hull?

 

Because that's the sort of argument a 12-year old would put forward. :rolleyes:

 

I understand that you want Bulgarian tanks in the game; what you need to understand is that there's nothing particularly special or unique about your proposals and the game's already got plenty of clone tanks. Your proposal for the T-34/T-62 is merely cloning elements from two different tanks to make a new one that's barely distinct from Chinese tanks that are already in the game.

 

If you want to sell the idea to us, you need to do more than insist that they're great new ideas. Tell us why we would want them instead of re-iterating that you want them. You're not going to get much support without strong reasoning (or unless WG's Marketing team identify a large untapped market in Bulgaria).

 

At the moment, you're essentially proposing some odd-looking clone tanks that might fit into a European tree, were one to be introduced to the game and there's nothing about it that I've seen which would make me think it'd be a worthwhile grind.



Long_Range_Sniper #18 Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:52 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 30702 battles
  • 8,298
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostStrappster, on 24 June 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

You seem to be the one that's confused about how this works.

 

Be thankful for small mercies. If Bulldog was here you could guarantee any thread about Bulgarian tanks wouldn't last long.......

 

Image result for cardboard tank

 

On topic : No thanks.



davidblader #19 Posted 24 June 2017 - 08:41 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6627 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostStrappster, on 24 June 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

 

Because that's the sort of argument a 12-year old would put forward. :rolleyes:

 

I understand that you want Bulgarian tanks in the game; what you need to understand is that there's nothing particularly special or unique about your proposals and the game's already got plenty of clone tanks. Your proposal for the T-34/T-62 is merely cloning elements from two different tanks to make a new one that's barely distinct from Chinese tanks that are already in the game.

 

If you want to sell the idea to us, you need to do more than insist that they're great new ideas. Tell us why we would want them instead of re-iterating that you want them. You're not going to get much support without strong reasoning (or unless WG's Marketing team identify a large untapped market in Bulgaria).

 

At the moment, you're essentially proposing some odd-looking clone tanks that might fit into a European tree, were one to be introduced to the game and there's nothing about it that I've seen which would make me think it'd be a worthwhile grind.

 

When did I say I want them in? I don't necessarely want them in, it's just an idea. You might be right about that bunker not being as unique as I described it, but I still belive there's a big difference between it and any Chinese tank.
As I said, just because it looks like a tank already in the game, or because it's a combination of two tanks already in the game, it doesn't mean the gameplay is the same.

Edited by davidblader, 24 June 2017 - 08:41 PM.


ilmavarvas #20 Posted 24 June 2017 - 08:44 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14764 battles
  • 402
  • [GURKO] GURKO
  • Member since:
    01-08-2014
Too much 3rd world countrys already, no need for more.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users