Jump to content


T34 and T29 the same based Hulls but different camo, why ?

T34 camo T29

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

MoebeIwagen #1 Posted 12 February 2018 - 12:50 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15185 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    07-03-2014

t34.jpg

Comparsion is set to 100% crews, camoflage skill, brothers in arms and camoflaged tanks + ventilation.

 

Am i the only one who wonders about why the same tank hull has two different camo factors between T34 and T29?

I mean, the different calibers should clearly missmatch when they shoot but why different camo factors at stationary and on the move? Not to say that the T30 scatters remarkable far ahead of the T34, even if its an tank destroyer.

 

I think it's time to bring the T34 up at the current "new" meta level, like the Loewe once recieved some useful buffs back in the days. What clearly would be more than the correction of the T34's camo factor. But i guess that would be a good base to revamp the old lady and bring her back on business.

 



_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #2 Posted 12 February 2018 - 02:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31431 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015
As if Cammo is a factor with the T34 or T29.
Elephants paint their toe nails red so they can hide in cherry trees, don't you know!

dimethylcadmium #3 Posted 12 February 2018 - 02:28 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6274 battles
  • 770
  • [WGL-A] WGL-A
  • Member since:
    11-24-2017
It doesn't really matter, camo is the last thing you need on a heavy like T34, it's a viable option on some low profile HTs if you have no other skills to train

Balc0ra #4 Posted 12 February 2018 - 02:41 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66299 battles
  • 16,328
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Just because it's the same hull, don't mean the camo will be the same. Tier difference is a factor here to. As if not the KV-220 and KV-3 would be the same. As the 220 on tier 5 has the KV-3 hull. T30 has the TD class bonus. Tho not as big as it once was. It's still better then any HT.

ZlatanArKung #5 Posted 12 February 2018 - 09:34 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostBalc0ra, on 12 February 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

Just because it's the same hull, don't mean the camo will be the same. Tier difference is a factor here to. As if not the KV-220 and KV-3 would be the same. As the 220 on tier 5 has the KV-3 hull. T30 has the TD class bonus. Tho not as big as it once was. It's still better then any HT.

If camouflage followed a logic pattern, they would have same camo.

 

But this is WG, so...



MoebeIwagen #6 Posted 12 February 2018 - 11:28 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15185 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    07-03-2014

View PostBalc0ra, on 12 February 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

Just because it's the same hull, don't mean the camo will be the same. Tier difference is a factor here to. As if not the KV-220 and KV-3 would be the same. As the 220 on tier 5 has the KV-3 hull. T30 has the TD class bonus. Tho not as big as it once was. It's still better then any HT.

 

Yep, and that is excactly the reason why. The 220 with a lower turret profile has a better camo than the KV-3.

But the T29 and the T34 are absolute identical in length, width and height. The main differences are the additional armor plate on the back of the T34 turret and the range finding "mickey mouse ears" of the T29, which aren't influenting in any ways the hull outlines of the spotting beaons on both vehicles.



CptBarney #7 Posted 12 February 2018 - 12:33 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18996 battles
  • 3,978
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

Because logic.

 

probably another reason why the amx 65 t only goes 30kph because i guess wargaming thinks the tank is too op



MoebeIwagen #8 Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:03 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15185 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    07-03-2014

View PostCptBarney, on 12 February 2018 - 12:33 PM, said:

Because logic.

 

probably another reason why the amx 65 t only goes 30kph because i guess wargaming thinks the tank is too op

 

But which logic follows it to make the same tank hulls with different camo rating?

And don't start to argue about spotting, the T34 has to struggle against much better scouts in its tier than the T29. :amazed:



Shaade_Silentpaw #9 Posted 15 February 2018 - 01:52 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22696 battles
  • 377
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015
T29 has special exhaust pipes that bend light. :hiding:

250swb #10 Posted 15 February 2018 - 09:24 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 22687 battles
  • 5,077
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015
I know it isn't modeled (yet) in WOT but you could presume a TD would be carrying extra branches etc. for camo in a real life situation. Not that the T30 is anything to do with real life, being a heavy tank and not a TD, and never seeing service, but if it's role had been a TD wouldn't it have been equipped with the basic extras to be sneakier than a yolo forward main battle tank?

Simeon85 #11 Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:33 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,025
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Er 120mm gun vs 105mm gun.  Bigger and fatter gun, plus IIRC the T34 had to have extra weight put on the back of the turret to balance out the weight of the bigger gun. 

 

But as others have said camo is meaningless on heavies, only worth it if you have gone through pretty much every other skill. 



MoebeIwagen #12 Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:29 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15185 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    07-03-2014

View PostSimeon85, on 15 February 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

Er 120mm gun vs 105mm gun.  Bigger and fatter gun, plus IIRC the T34 had to have extra weight put on the back of the turret to balance out the weight of the bigger gun. 

 

But as others have said camo is meaningless on heavies, only worth it if you have gone through pretty much every other skill. 

 

The gun is only relevant if they shoot, and even if the gun would have a spot-beacon at its end(what guns don't have), it would be nearly the same length on both tanks. That couldn't be the reason for diffrence of over 1.6% camo. Which would end up that the T34 would be spotted a whole tank length earlier than the T29. Open field with average spot range of 450m. This gap spreads even further with more spotting range against their camo.

 

And yes i know, the most people are convinced a heavy didn't need camo. These are the same people who cried out loud for long enough to force Wargaming to rework the maps into a kind of close combat situations. And if that wasn't enough Wargaming had to nerf the arties and put them into a support role. You have to thank these people who aren't able or never intend to understand game mechanics. These are the people who bring us those wondeful new close combat 15vs15 maps.

 

But this went too far off topic. The point still is, the T34 and T29 have the same hull, so they must have the same spot-beacons on their hulls. What should end up in the same camo ratings. Anything else wouldn't make any sense.


Edited by MoebeIwagen, 15 February 2018 - 11:58 PM.


MoebeIwagen #13 Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:53 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15185 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    07-03-2014

View Post250swb, on 15 February 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

I know it isn't modeled (yet) in WOT but you could presume a TD would be carrying extra branches etc. for camo in a real life situation. Not that the T30 is anything to do with real life, being a heavy tank and not a TD, and never seeing service, but if it's role had been a TD wouldn't it have been equipped with the basic extras to be sneakier than a yolo forward main battle tank?

 

The T30 were only mentioned cause it shares the hull with both. Side note, once the T30 was the tier 10 top heavy tank after the T34 which was at tier 9 before it become a tier 8 premium tank.

 

And no, i don't want a sneeky heavy tank, especially not at the size of an T34 or kind a like those. What i want is, to push a objective discussion about the baseless differentials between two basically same tanks at their camo ratings. Not to say, even if the T34 would share the 11.09% camo with the T29 at this setting. The T34 have to struggle with higher tiered tanks, with better crews and stats.

 

In additional the T34 has become "old". If you check it out on Vbaddict.net, the T34 shifts between the last three spots of all tier 8 premium heavies since months. The gun handling(especially the soft stats 0.27-0.27-0.21) is the same crap as the KV-2's(0.27-0.27-0.15 > the lower the better) with the 152mm howitzer. A tier 6 howitzer tank has the same "good" gun handling like an tier 8 tank. Even if the T34 is premium tank, this is ridiculous.


Edited by MoebeIwagen, 16 February 2018 - 12:00 AM.


CptBarney #14 Posted 16 February 2018 - 07:58 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18996 battles
  • 3,978
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View PostMoebeIwagen, on 14 February 2018 - 10:03 PM, said:

 

But which logic follows it to make the same tank hulls with different camo rating?

And don't start to argue about spotting, the T34 has to struggle against much better scouts in its tier than the T29. :amazed:

 

it's called sarcasm, i suggest you learn it.

VarzA #15 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:27 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20676 battles
  • 1,390
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011

View PostMoebeIwagen, on 12 February 2018 - 12:50 AM, said:

t34.jpg

Comparsion is set to 100% crews, camoflage skill, brothers in arms and camoflaged tanks + ventilation.

 

Am i the only one who wonders about why the same tank hull has two different camo factors between T34 and T29?

I mean, the different calibers should clearly missmatch when they shoot but why different camo factors at stationary and on the move? Not to say that the T30 scatters remarkable far ahead of the T34, even if its an tank destroyer.

 

I think it's time to bring the T34 up at the current "new" meta level, like the Loewe once recieved some useful buffs back in the days. What clearly would be more than the correction of the T34's camo factor. But i guess that would be a good base to revamp the old lady and bring her back on business.

 

 

Probably because of the bigger gun on the T34 which has a 120mm vs the 105mm of the T29.

VarzA #16 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:29 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20676 battles
  • 1,390
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011

View PostMoebeIwagen, on 15 February 2018 - 11:53 PM, said:

 

The T30 were only mentioned cause it shares the hull with both. Side note, once the T30 was the tier 10 top heavy tank after the T34 which was at tier 9 before it become a tier 8 premium tank.

 

And no, i don't want a sneeky heavy tank, especially not at the size of an T34 or kind a like those. What i want is, to push a objective discussion about the baseless differentials between two basically same tanks at their camo ratings. Not to say, even if the T34 would share the 11.09% camo with the T29 at this setting. The T34 have to struggle with higher tiered tanks, with better crews and stats.

 

In additional the T34 has become "old". If you check it out on Vbaddict.net, the T34 shifts between the last three spots of all tier 8 premium heavies since months. The gun handling(especially the soft stats 0.27-0.27-0.21) is the same crap as the KV-2's(0.27-0.27-0.15 > the lower the better) with the 152mm howitzer. A tier 6 howitzer tank has the same "good" gun handling like an tier 8 tank. Even if the T34 is premium tank, this is ridiculous.

 

T30 gets on the same hull, and with a bigger gun (155mm), the TD camo bonus.

It has camo in the same way the Jagdtiger has camo ... few use it, but they are shocked to see what it can do with full camo on (though with T30, using and abusing the camo only works well with the 120mm ... not the 155mm).



MoebeIwagen #17 Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:47 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15185 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    07-03-2014

View PostVarzA, on 16 February 2018 - 11:29 AM, said:

 

T30 gets on the same hull, and with a bigger gun (155mm), the TD camo bonus.

It has camo in the same way the Jagdtiger has camo ... few use it, but they are shocked to see what it can do with full camo on (though with T30, using and abusing the camo only works well with the 120mm ... not the 155mm).

 

You that you contradict your previous post. You said the difference between T34 and T29 are the guns but in your following post you say that the 120mm on the T30 is better in its camo values than the 155mm. Well the last part is correct so far. But only if you fire the guns, and there is a much bigger gap between the T34 with the 120mm and the T29 with 105mm. The 120 of the T34 drops the camo value more than 30% further down than the 105 of the T29.

What i was talking about was the camo values on the move and stationary. When the gun calibers don't matter to the camo. At that point are both tanks, the T34 and the T29 are basically the same.


Edited by MoebeIwagen, 16 February 2018 - 10:50 PM.


WaifuRacer #18 Posted 17 February 2018 - 05:43 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20974 battles
  • 93
  • [BLNC] BLNC
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
Noone cares about the camo on a heavy like this... The gun should be buffed finally, cause its a pain in the [edited]

MoebeIwagen #19 Posted 18 February 2018 - 01:00 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15185 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    07-03-2014

View PostCzaganymatyas, on 17 February 2018 - 05:43 AM, said:

Noone cares about the camo on a heavy like this... The gun should be buffed finally, cause its a pain in the [edited]

 

True...as i said, this discussion should go on and lead into the direction that the T34 get nothing more than 20m viewrange back as "buff" and the Loewe, its old mate, got very well revamped and back on into the current meta.

Not talking about to change the T34 fundamentally but the gunhandling is pretty much worse in its state now. I thought off a slightly drop of roundabout -0.03 on the soft stats(like 0.24-0.24-0.18 instead of its current 0.27-0.27-0.21) and a decrease of the aim time from 3.4sec down to 2.9secs. 380m viewrange is good enought with brothers in arms and sub-perks. Maybe a half to one hp/t better power to weight ratio. But nothing what would change the entire slow driving style of the T-series. But what i am still clingy with is, that the 29 and 34 should share their base camo. Cause it follows "logic" and it should even follow logic for wargamming.

 

So please gentlemen, write down your opinions and suggestion for a buff which the T34 really needs. More and more premium medium and light enemy tanks enter newly into the meta. Not to forgot the tech-tree expansions over the years, which made and makes it much more difficult for the T34 to perform acceptable against.


Edited by MoebeIwagen, 18 February 2018 - 01:05 AM.






Also tagged with T34, camo, T29

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users