Jump to content


How WG should change the British Tech Tree

British Tanks

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

Tarix819 #1 Posted 16 September 2017 - 12:24 PM

    Corporal

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

I've been a bit triggered about how WG are using the FV205 (Which they wrongly think is called the FV217) as a replacement for the FV215b (183) even though the FV217 is a terrible choice for the tier X after the Tortoise.

 

As such, I put together a tech tree of how each tank would be placed, as well as new tanks which should be added, take a look:

 

Ultimate British Tank Tree.png

 

Any questions on how a specific tank would play and/or the stats, just ask.

 

Please leave your thoughts in the comments

 

P.S, FV215b (183) has been renamed to FV215 for historical reasons, and all fake tanks in the tree have been replaced with historical ones. I also did a few class changes, for example, I turned the Matilda into a Heavy Tank


Edited by Tarix819, 16 September 2017 - 12:33 PM.


leggasiini #2 Posted 16 September 2017 - 12:37 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12446 battles
  • 6,082
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

IMO make the Conway lead to the FV215 instead of the Tortoise. It isnt much more logical but it still fits there more. It gives you two flavors of 183s after the Conway.

 

Also tbh when you factor playstyle the Black Prince should lead to the Caern and co. while the others (which are more heaviums anyway) should lead to Chieftains, because Chieftains are also more a heaviums than proper heavies. FV201 is already a premium, and AFAIK there was another candidate to tier 7 slot as well.

 

Also how is Abbot gonna work as tier 10 SPG? Replace it with FV3806 (essentially the FV3805 in its top confiq, however you could just improve its soft stats and so on; not first time WG adds in very similar T10 as T9).

 

EDIT: I would personally swap Valentine AT and Sexton II with each other, and then swap Archer and Crusader 17pdr. The Valentine AT could lead to another Valentine-based TD, while the Crusader 17pdr seems to be stronger than Archer tbh (better mobility) and generally is IMO more logical option for a tier 5


Edited by leggasiini, 16 September 2017 - 12:46 PM.


Tarix819 #3 Posted 16 September 2017 - 12:47 PM

    Corporal

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

View Postleggasiini, on 16 September 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

IMO make the Conway lead to the FV215 instead of the Tortoise leading to it. It isnt much more logical but it still fits there more. It gives you two flavors of 183s after the branch.

 

Also tbh when you factor playstyle the Black Prince should lead to the Caern and co. while the others (which are more heaviums anyway) should lead to Chieftains, because Chieftains are also more a heaviums than proper heavies. FV201 is already a premium, and AFAIK there was another candidate to tier 7 slot as well.

 

Also how is Abbot gonna work as tier 10 SPG? Replace it with FV3806 (essentially the FV3805 in its top confiq, however you could just improve its soft stats and so on; not first time WG adds in very similar T10 as T9).

 

 

Yeah, I agree in that perhaps the Conway should lead to the FV215.

 

I made the BP lead to the Chieftain instead of the Caernarvon because the FV201 IMO is a far better choice to go before the Caernarvon as it is basically the origins of the Conqueror, which the high tiers of that line are all about. It may not make sense for the heavily armoured Churchill Tanks to go before the fast and lightly armoured Chieftains, but the UK basically has no high tier Churchill-like tanks and no low tier Chieftain-like tanks so it makes more sense to put them together. Besides, in WoWS the British BBs from tier III to VI are slow and heavily armoured, whereas tiers VII to X are fast and have low detection, so it might work in WoT too.

 

The reason I put the Abbot at tier X is because the FV3806 is just basically a fully upgraded FV3805, so there isn't much point putting it at tier X. I though the Abbot could have high accuracy, high RoF and high penetration (for arty) HESH rounds, although much lower alpha damage, splash radius, and little to no stun, to balance it at tier X. On top of that it would be pretty quick and have a turret.



leggasiini #4 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:02 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12446 battles
  • 6,082
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostTarix819, on 16 September 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

I made the BP lead to the Chieftain instead of the Caernarvon because the FV201 IMO is a far better choice to go before the Caernarvon as it is basically the origins of the Conqueror, which the high tiers of that line are all about. It may not make sense for the heavily armoured Churchill Tanks to go before the fast and lightly armoured Chieftains, but the UK basically has no high tier Churchill-like tanks and no low tier Chieftain-like tanks so it makes more sense to put them together. Besides, in WoWS the British BBs from tier III to VI are slow and heavily armoured, whereas tiers VII to X are fast and have low detection, so it might work in WoT too.

 

FV201 is already a premium, which is a problem. I believe there was some other candidate, like this (the tank in the bottom):

 

Spoiler

 

I belive its an uparmored Excelsior with a 17 pdr gun, which could possibly work at tier 7. Given it would be quite mobile for heavy, have a good depression and gun stats, it would be somewhat logical transition to the Chieftains, and basically play like a fat medium. The current tier 8-10 HTs are getting uparmored anyways and even without that the Churchills/BP make more sense to lead there, though I guess its up to you. 

 

View PostTarix819, on 16 September 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

The reason I put the Abbot at tier X is because the FV3806 is just basically a fully upgraded FV3805, so there isn't much point putting it at tier X. I though the Abbot could have high accuracy, high RoF and high penetration (for arty) HESH rounds, although much lower alpha damage, splash radius, and little to no stun, to balance it at tier X. On top of that it would be pretty quick and have a turret.

 

  1. Higher pen than other arties, very good accuracy, high accuracy and a turret and mobility. A turretted version of old FV304 expect it probably would have some stun. Yeah, please no. It would be extremely bad for the game and nightmare to balance at tier 10.
  2. You could always rework the FV3805 by removing the top gun and keeping the intermediate gun (besides I heard that people prefers the intermediate 152 mm gun over the top gun these days, anyways) and then give the FV3806 the current top of gun of the FV3805, with better gun stats, of course. It would be basically like slower Object 261 but it would have way wider gun arc.

Edited by leggasiini, 16 September 2017 - 01:05 PM.


ajay3672 #5 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:08 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 26482 battles
  • 83
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013
I would say, give the charioteer some actual gun depression, make the duffield line of tds a little quicker, and hope that wg do not go ahead and get rid of the deathstar.

Balc0ra #6 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:12 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64443 battles
  • 15,457
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

The era of removing fake tanks is gone "not that they got far with it". Now for the new people at WOT, the focus has shifted on having a tier X tank that fits the rest of the line vs making sense historically. And I kinda agree on both tbh. WOT was never a historical tank sim anyway. 

 

And I thought the AT-18 was just proposed lighter variant of the Tortoise with a flamethrower? And IMO, we don't need a 2nd tier 9/X being mostly the same with the UK HT's already doing it next patch. And yeah, I've always thought the Matilda should be designated as a HT, to reduce confusion for new players that is as for it's play style. As it leads to a tier 5 HT anyway currently. So why not? Then again they are planning a 2nd HT line for the British. But for now we have no idea what tanks they are planning to add to it. Or how many. All we know is that the Chieftan will end with it.

 

And as for the 183 name? The current FV215b HT will still be in the game, even tho it will begone from the tech tree with that name to. So reducing the name for it would only make it as confusing as the Chinese WZ tanks.

 

View Postleggasiini, on 16 September 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

 

FV201 is already a premium, which is a problem. I believe there was some other candidate, like this (the tank in the bottom):

 

Never did stop anyone before. As we have premiums that are more or less the same as a normal tank in the tree. Like the Matilda IV that has a different gun vs the normal Matilda one tier down. Or any of the Sherman premiums. Give it a bigger gun, or put it on a different tier.

Edited by Balc0ra, 16 September 2017 - 01:15 PM.


Grand_Moff_Tano #7 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:16 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1534 battles
  • 10,595
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

To be honest I think the FV205 fits the line a lot more than the FV215b, besides, it does look quite sexy :P



Tarix819 #8 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:18 PM

    Corporal

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

View PostChipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 16 September 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

To be honest I think the FV205 fits the line a lot more than the FV215b, besides, it does look quite sexy :P

 

I put the FV205 at tier VIII since it would be slow and weakly armoured, and then the FV217 at Tier X.

leggasiini #9 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:19 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12446 battles
  • 6,082
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostBalc0ra, on 16 September 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

 

And as for the 183 name? The current FV215b HT will still be in the game, even tho it will begone from the tech tree with that name to. So reducing the name for it would only make it as confusing as the Chinese WZ tanks.

 

 

FV215b (183) -> FV215

FV215b -> FV215b (120)

 

Should be like that, IMO



Tarix819 #10 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:21 PM

    Corporal

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

View Postleggasiini, on 16 September 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

 

FV215b (183) -> FV215

FV215b -> FV215b (120)

 

Should be like that, IMO

 

Or 'Conqueror Transport Mode'

 

Image result for COnqueror Tank transport



leggasiini #11 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:27 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12446 battles
  • 6,082
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostTarix819, on 16 September 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

 

Or 'Conqueror Transport Mode'

 

Image result for COnqueror Tank transport

 

:trollface:

 



Tarix819 #12 Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:28 PM

    Corporal

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

View PostBalc0ra, on 16 September 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

And I thought the AT-18 was just proposed lighter variant of the Tortoise with a flamethrower? And IMO, we don't need a 2nd tier 9/X being mostly the same with the UK HT's already doing it 

 

Replace flamethrower on AT 18 with a 120mm gun and you get a Tortoise at Tier X with a 30km/h top speed, 27 degrees of gun arc on either side (Even more than the AT 15) and ultra-high DPM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users