Jump to content


T55A needs some love

T55A

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

Zinomov #1 Posted 16 February 2018 - 09:27 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 18672 battles
  • 120
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

good day people

as we all already know the T-55A is lagging behind compared to it's competition

and defently requires a slight buff

not only cuz it is slightly weaker compared to other tier 9 meds, but also cuz it is a reward tank that we all strugled to have, and there are still ppl who are stuck in its missions

 

we have two options here:

option 1 : give the turret 240 mm of frontal armor just like the T54 and improve the mobility, but keep the same gun parametres

option 2 : 240 mm of frontal turret armor keep the mobility but improving the gun penetration to something like 220 mm of pen or even 230

 

more ideas will be welcome


Edited by Zinomov, 16 February 2018 - 09:31 AM.


Simeon85 #2 Posted 16 February 2018 - 09:33 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,410
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Should get the turret buff the T-54 got.

 

Also the T-54, 430 v2, T-55A, E50 and M46 Patton all need a penetration buff IMO, to at least the 230-240 AP range. You could then also nerf the T-54/T-55A/430v2 HEAT rounds to around 290-300. 



TankkiPoju #3 Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:00 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19663 battles
  • 6,090
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

I think there is nothing wrong with T-55A's armor.

 

Instead it needs the same engine as T-54, and worse ground resistances to balance that a bit. I would much rather have mobility than more armor.



pathed91 #4 Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:06 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17425 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014
please no more armor buffs, it's gotten pretty old by now with all turrets you need gold to pen. just buff the AP pen to 220 and call it a day.

Enforcer1975 #5 Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:48 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 18462 battles
  • 9,852
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Nerf all other tanks to it's level. That's way better than the endless buff that leads to more buffs.

Aikl #6 Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:48 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,042
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostTankkiPoju, on 16 February 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

I think there is nothing wrong with T-55A's armor.

 

Instead it needs the same engine as T-54, and worse ground resistances to balance that a bit. I would much rather have mobility than more armor.

 

Please stop suggesting sensible buffs that won't break the game.

 

What's next? Improving soft stats for T5-7 tanks to make them more relevant against higher tiers without ruining balancing completely? Come on, man.


Edited by Aikl, 16 February 2018 - 10:48 AM.


Simeon85 #7 Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:57 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,410
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostTankkiPoju, on 16 February 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

I think there is nothing wrong with T-55A's armor.

 

Instead it needs the same engine as T-54, and worse ground resistances to balance that a bit. I would much rather have mobility than more armor.

 

The buff to the T-54's turret armour basically combats penetration power creep and pretty much puts it back where it used to be.

 

Back in the day, the T-54 turret was strong because most tier 8s had less than 200 pen, most of the tier 9 meds it faced were like the E50 and M46 Patton with 220 pen, you had less tier 9 mediums with tier 10 guns (only really the Cent 7/1 back then), you didn't have many tier 8 TDs with 260 or even 280-290 pen like you do now. We now have loads of tier 8 meds with 212 pen, loads of tier 8 premiums with 230-240 pen etc. so the T-54's old turret doesn't stand up to it. 

 

It's much like the Cent 7/1, back in the day the Cent 7/1 turret worked against a lot of the guns it faced, it then got nerfed in HD and is now finally at a similar level where it will bounce a lot of guns it faces but not higher pen guns.  

 

I think the T-54 is well balanced currently so don't think the T-55A would be too strong or OP with the buffed turret and wouldn't really powercreep anything. You can still pen the T-54 turret frontally with tier 10 guns if you aim carefully. 



TankkiPoju #8 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:14 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19663 battles
  • 6,090
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostSimeon85, on 16 February 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

Back in the day, the T-54 turret was strong because most tier 8s had less than 200 pen, most of the tier 9 meds it faced were like the E50 and M46 Patton with 220 pen, you had less tier 9 mediums with tier 10 guns (only really the Cent 7/1 back then), you didn't have many tier 8 TDs with 260 or even 280-290 pen like you do now. We now have loads of tier 8 meds with 212 pen, loads of tier 8 premiums with 230-240 pen etc. so the T-54's old turret doesn't stand up to it. 

 

The T-54 turret is now back where it used to be BEFORE WG nerfed it when T-54 got it's HD model.

 

T-54s turret wasn't power creeped by high penetration guns like you suggest, it was flat out nerfed by WG few years ago.

 

Personally I think the Russian medium meta is retarded anyway: I don't think a medium tank should be able to sit hull down and bounce everything.

 

No more "moar armor" madness, please.

 


Edited by TankkiPoju, 16 February 2018 - 11:17 AM.


Synopsis0 #9 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:14 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37232 battles
  • 210
  • Member since:
    11-23-2012
They wont change it becouse on statistic this tank looks good ,its not played by 40%winrate smartguys.They should change it when they changed the t54 but they dont play their own game and they dunno that both tanks with minor stuff were similar.Looked the statistic ohh t54 went down ,oh t55 look prety good , one was played by monkeys too , the t55 was played by avarage and good players thats why they manage to do the missions.Wg logic anyway is flawless as usual.

Edited by Synopsis0, 16 February 2018 - 11:17 AM.


TankkiPoju #10 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:23 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19663 battles
  • 6,090
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostAikl, on 16 February 2018 - 10:48 AM, said:

 

Please stop suggesting sensible buffs that won't break the game.

 

What's next? Improving soft stats for T5-7 tanks to make them more relevant against higher tiers without ruining balancing completely? Come on, man.

 

I know, the idea of medium tanks being able to actually flank the enemies with speed is just ludicrous! :)

 

Some medium tanks have even now just stupid amount of armor for their mobility like M48 or Russian meds.

 

Now some high tier meds don't even have turret weakspots. WTF is up with that? Why should a MEDIUM TANK have 300+mm turret armor all around like 430U. Oh wait, its Russian.

 



Simeon85 #11 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:25 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,410
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostTankkiPoju, on 16 February 2018 - 11:14 AM, said:

Personally I think the Russian medium meta is retarded anyway: I don't think a medium tank should be able to sit hull down and bounce everything.

 

 

Well the T-54 is not able to do that, you need about 250-260 pen to go through the front and you have two cupolas to shoot at. Don't really see much problem with that as long as the tank trades some other abilities for that turret armour. 

 

Silly turret armour on a med is the Obj. 430U, 300 effective at it's worse with 300 effective cupolas. 



Aikl #12 Posted 16 February 2018 - 12:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,042
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostTankkiPoju, on 16 February 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

 

(...)

 

Some medium tanks have even now just stupid amount of armor for their mobility like M48 or Russian meds.

 

Now some high tier meds don't even have turret weakspots. WTF is up with that? Why should a MEDIUM TANK have 300+mm turret armor all around like 430U. Oh wait, its Russian.

 

 

They do indeed. It's also extremely uninteresting that tanks tend to have no serious drawbacks - while still having standout features. 'Generalist' tanks are a fair approach. Centurion AX is a good tank, without anything in particular going for it. Using that tank as sort of a baseline for a medium tank would make sense to me (ideally an even more 'MT archetype' would be used, but you get the idea).

 

More armour? Nerf the DPM and/or 'agility' (hello E50M).

A 'sniper-oriented' tank with great accuracy and penetration? Trade it for armor and rebalance the soft stats (higher dispersion, faster aimtime) (hello, Leopard 

Want to ruin the game? Give a tank one or two standout features while trading it for effectively nothing relevant (hello, 430U).



Simeon85 #13 Posted 16 February 2018 - 12:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,410
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostAikl, on 16 February 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:

 

They do indeed. It's also extremely uninteresting that tanks tend to have no serious drawbacks - while still having standout features. 'Generalist' tanks are a fair approach. Centurion AX is a good tank, without anything in particular going for it. Using that tank as sort of a baseline for a medium tank would make sense to me (ideally an even more 'MT archetype' would be used, but you get the idea).

 

More armour? Nerf the DPM and/or 'agility' (hello E50M).

A 'sniper-oriented' tank with great accuracy and penetration? Trade it for armor and rebalance the soft stats (higher dispersion, faster aimtime) (hello, Leopard 

Want to ruin the game? Give a tank one or two standout features while trading it for effectively nothing relevant (hello, 430U).

 

One of the few things I think they got right on the early editions of the sandbox server was their re-balancing of the Russian meds.

 

They basically gave them -

 

+ High DPM

+ High agility

+ Very good soft stats on the gun (dispersion)

- Lower alpha

- Worse aim times

- Worse accuracy

- Worse view range.

- slower shell velocity

- more pen drop off at range. 

 

So you have these tanks with troll armour, good turrets, not great gun depression that are good at close range combat, but at medium to longer ranges with the longer aim times, poor accuracy and poor view range they are not so good.

 

Then in contrast you'd have your Patton's, Cent AX's, STB-1s etc. pretty much as they are now, decent gun handling, decent accuracy, higher alpha, good gun depression, some turret armour, good view range, your more general purpose mediums for mid range fighting, jack of all trades, master of none type tanks. 

 

You could then have your Leopard type tanks, similar to how DrOolen has suggested them, with higher alpha (so like 420 or 440), higher pen 9280 APCR), very fast aim times, very high accuracy (more like 0.2 not 0.3 they have now), poorer dispersion on movement (similar to what they have now) and fast shell velocity.  So that would contrast your russian meds, they'd be paper but very good at long range combat. 

 

Sadly we just seems to have mediums pretty much good at everything with no real drawbacks like the 907 and 430U, buffed 140 etc. 



Balc0ra #14 Posted 16 February 2018 - 12:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62839 battles
  • 14,443
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

T-55A unlike the T-54 still has the "luxury" of 0.33 dispersion and 2.1 second aiming time with good dpm. T-54 has to choose between aim time and dispersion, or dpm. Sure the hull and turret armor is weaker on it, and the engine is 220 HP lower. But as most T-54's have 0.39 dispersion and 2.5 second aiming time as they use the brawling gun. Armor and mobility makes sense vs it.

 

Sure the turret could use an armor buff. Could use mobility buff to. But IMO not both. Not with that hybrid gun vs the T-54.   



TankkiPoju #15 Posted 16 February 2018 - 01:05 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19663 battles
  • 6,090
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 16 February 2018 - 12:52 PM, said:

T-55A unlike the T-54 still has the "luxury" of 0.33 dispersion and 2.1 second aiming time with good dpm. T-54 has to choose between aim time and dispersion, or dpm. Sure the hull and turret armor is weaker on it, and the engine is 220 HP lower. But as most T-54's have 0.39 dispersion and 2.5 second aiming time as they use the brawling gun. Armor and mobility makes sense vs it.

 

Sure the turret could use an armor buff. Could use mobility buff to. But IMO not both. Not with that hybrid gun vs the T-54.   

 

T-55A gun feels really, really nice. It has very good gun handling, aim time and DPM. Most penetration issues can be solved by tapping the extra skill button.

 

If T-54 had the same gun, it would be the perfect tier 9 medium tank.

 



Simeon85 #16 Posted 16 February 2018 - 01:07 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,410
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostBalc0ra, on 16 February 2018 - 12:52 PM, said:

T-55A unlike the T-54 still has the "luxury" of 0.33 dispersion and 2.1 second aiming time with good dpm. T-54 has to choose between aim time and dispersion, or dpm. Sure the hull and turret armor is weaker on it, and the engine is 220 HP lower. But as most T-54's have 0.39 dispersion and 2.5 second aiming time as they use the brawling gun. Armor and mobility makes sense vs it.

 

Sure the turret could use an armor buff. Could use mobility buff to. But IMO not both. Not with that hybrid gun vs the T-54.   

 

DPM difference between the T-55A and the T-54 with the more accurate gun is only 240, plus the T-54 gets the higher base pen with that gun, plus the better armour, plus the better mobility, plus better shell velocity. Both then have very similar gun handling and the same accuracy.

 

That is quite a lot to trade for 9% better DPM. 



Rati_Festa #17 Posted 16 February 2018 - 01:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 40210 battles
  • 808
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View PostTankkiPoju, on 16 February 2018 - 11:23 AM, said:

 

I know, the idea of medium tanks being able to actually flank the enemies with speed is just ludicrous! :)

 

Some medium tanks have even now just stupid amount of armor for their mobility like M48 or Russian meds.

 

Now some high tier meds don't even have turret weakspots. WTF is up with that? Why should a MEDIUM TANK have 300+mm turret armor all around like 430U. Oh wait, its Russian.

 

 

I couldn't agree with you more on that point. I was playing my t44 100 last night, its new engine now allows it to flank at speed, I then switch to the Obj 430u and the speed difference was noticeable straight away. I want my meds to be able to abuse holes in enemy defences not trade shots with heavies.

 

T55 needs more speed imo not armour.


Edited by Rati_Festa, 16 February 2018 - 01:24 PM.


Hammerhead20 #18 Posted 16 February 2018 - 03:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25252 battles
  • 1,630
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

T-55A armour is fine (atleast I think so).

 

I don't have this tank yet, so it's just my opinion.

 

What it needs, it's more speed and maybe more penetration for main cannon.



Simeon85 #19 Posted 16 February 2018 - 03:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,410
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostRati_Festa, on 16 February 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

 

I couldn't agree with you more on that point. I was playing my t44 100 last night, its new engine now allows it to flank at speed, I then switch to the Obj 430u and the speed difference was noticeable straight away. I want my meds to be able to abuse holes in enemy defences not trade shots with heavies.

 

T55 needs more speed imo not armour.

 

Play PTA or AMX 30 if you want more speed, Russian meds should be more like brawling meds. 

Tr0gledyte #20 Posted 16 February 2018 - 07:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18508 battles
  • 1,220
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011
Give it a mobility buff. Then it's fine. There's still no actual reason to play it because it bleeds credits and there are better Soviet crewtrainers but at least the tank would be balanced.





Also tagged with T55A

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users