Jump to content


How come AT 8 is before AT 7?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

Chryckan #1 Posted 20 February 2018 - 01:24 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3160 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016

Explain this to me.

 

Both are fantasy tanks that only existed on paper on a designer's drawing board. Which one is superior or what characteristics differ between them is just a game mechanical construct made up by WG.

 

So how come 8 comes before 7 in the tech tree?



dimethylcadmium #2 Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7769 battles
  • 770
  • [WGL-A] WGL-A
  • Member since:
    11-24-2017

 Balancing factor maybe?

 

I don't think AT 8 hull would be very effective in Tier 7. AT 7 has a 200mm MG port partially blocking the commanders hatch and it can mount a 20 pounder, adequate for Tier 7 MM.


Edited by dimethylcadmium, 20 February 2018 - 02:13 PM.


thestaggy #3 Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:08 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15538 battles
  • 1,987
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

The Soviet IS-3 and IS-4 were developed simultaneously, but the IS-3 sits at tier 8 and the IS-4 sits at tier 10. The T-10 (IS-8) was the final development of the IS-series of tanks yet it sits at tier 9, below both the IS-7 and IS-4.

 

Game balance. Later design =/= fit for a higher tier. 



thestaggy #4 Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:13 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15538 battles
  • 1,987
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

View Postdimethylcadmium, on 20 February 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

I don't think the numbers 8 or 7 represent the development numbers. They probably stand for something else. You'll find similar examples in the soviet tree: T-50 is tier 5, while T-80 is tier 4. T-46 is tier 3, and its successor T-28 is tier 4. 

 

The T-70/T-80 was indeed a successor to the T-50.

 

Game balance.


Edited by thestaggy, 20 February 2018 - 02:13 PM.


Hedgehog1963 #5 Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 51647 battles
  • 7,637
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

Give the state of the British tank design/building programme I'm not surprised by something like this.



Baldrickk #6 Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:31 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30566 battles
  • 14,691
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013
All of the AT series vehicles were competing designs at the same time.

The only one that went to the prototype stage was the Tortoise

VsUK #7 Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012
There's many tanks that are more powerful than they should be. Like the Japanese type 4/5s. They we're basically upside down skips with a turret. Completely useless & we're only effective against troops. But WG has turned them into beasts in this game, purely for the sake of having a Tier 9/10 Japanese line. 

Take the Action x, or it's correct name. Centurion MK3. It had superior armour technology, so it could use thinner armour that was equally effective as thicker armoured tanks. I read it somewhere a while ago the comparison. I may be off a few mm. But the turret had the same armour on the sides of the turret as it had on the front. Those wing box's are detachable from the turret, not part of the turret & contained supplies of various nature. Usually Ammo for the mounted machine gun. But WG have put them fixed to the turret & made them the weak spots of the turret you can hit both frontal & sides. Also, the armour used a primitive version of the Chobham. Which was superior to any other tanks armour up until the early 70's. When the armour was refined to the Chobham armour British tanks use now, which is superior armour to any other tank. But the primitive version armour meant you could have 100mm armour & it is as effective as having around 130mm armour, give or take a few mm. The MK3 is a superior tank in every way to most tanks in this game. And yet, you get tier 8 tanks penning it as if its made of paper. 

I truly believe that what the tank stats claim to have in armour, isn't represented within the game. There's no mod or anything that will tell you how thick the armour is that your aiming at & at what angle. So there's no way of proving that, for example the Badgers 355mm upper front armour actually has 355mm armour within the game. Especially when I've been penned by Tier 9 tanks on the upper armour that they shouldn't be able to pen, even with premium ammo. 

Sorry, went on a bit there. But don't take things literally with tanks in this game. They're only realistic in looks only. 

_Sensation_ #8 Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7874 battles
  • 598
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    01-10-2017
They say there is no such thing as stupid questions.. We'll... You've done it ma man

VsUK #9 Posted 20 February 2018 - 03:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012

View Post_Sensation_, on 20 February 2018 - 01:57 PM, said:

They say there is no such thing as stupid questions.. We'll... You've done it ma man

 

I hope you don't have children if that's your attitude to stupid questions. Tell them its a stupid question. 

No question is stupid. A question is a form of information gathering. You don't ask people questions that you already know the answer to. You ask because you don't know. So no question is a stupid question. Just because you know the answer & obvious to you, doesn't mean it is to others. Just like I know stuff that would blow your mind trying to understand & I'm sure you know stuff I have no idea about. 

Lord_Edge #10 Posted 20 February 2018 - 03:42 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5991 battles
  • 834
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View Postthestaggy, on 20 February 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

The Soviet IS-3 and IS-4 were developed simultaneously, but the IS-3 sits at tier 8 and the IS-4 sits at tier 10. The T-10 (IS-8) was the final development of the IS-series of tanks yet it sits at tier 9, below both the IS-7 and IS-4.

 

Game balance. Later design =/= fit for a higher tier. 

 

Just a couple of notes:

 

1: The IS-3/4 were developed simultaneously but the IS-4 was actually intended to be an inferior yet cheaper alternative to the IS-3 (it was basically a buffed IS-2), hence why the IS-4 at tier-X has a non-historical gun (taken from the T-10) in order for it to deal any damage.  If it were balanced historically it would actually be a tier 7.5 tank in game terms.

2: The T-10 was a better tank than the IS-4/7 (arguably the best HT ever built) and would wreck either in combat, the fact it is gimped in game while both of those are overtuned is somewhat comical.



Baldrickk #11 Posted 20 February 2018 - 04:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30566 battles
  • 14,691
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostVsUK, on 20 February 2018 - 02:52 PM, said:

There's many tanks that are more powerful than they should be. Like the Japanese type 4/5s. They we're basically upside down skips with a turret. Completely useless & we're only effective against troops. But WG has turned them into beasts in this game, purely for the sake of having a Tier 9/10 Japanese line. 

Take the Action x, or it's correct name. Centurion MK3. It had superior armour technology, so it could use thinner armour that was equally effective as thicker armoured tanks. I read it somewhere a while ago the comparison. I may be off a few mm. But the turret had the same armour on the sides of the turret as it had on the front. Those wing box's are detachable from the turret, not part of the turret & contained supplies of various nature. Usually Ammo for the mounted machine gun. But WG have put them fixed to the turret & made them the weak spots of the turret you can hit both frontal & sides. Also, the armour used a primitive version of the Chobham. Which was superior to any other tanks armour up until the early 70's. When the armour was refined to the Chobham armour British tanks use now, which is superior armour to any other tank. But the primitive version armour meant you could have 100mm armour & it is as effective as having around 130mm armour, give or take a few mm. The MK3 is a superior tank in every way to most tanks in this game. And yet, you get tier 8 tanks penning it as if its made of paper. 

I truly believe that what the tank stats claim to have in armour, isn't represented within the game. There's no mod or anything that will tell you how thick the armour is that your aiming at & at what angle. So there's no way of proving that, for example the Badgers 355mm upper front armour actually has 355mm armour within the game. Especially when I've been penned by Tier 9 tanks on the upper armour that they shouldn't be able to pen, even with premium ammo. 

Sorry, went on a bit there. But don't take things literally with tanks in this game. They're only realistic in looks only. 

Erm... this is the Mk3:

Posted Image

What is the Mk3?

Well they gave it the 20pdr gun and mounting for two track links on the hull.

 

What is the action X?

http://ritastatusrep...e-action-x.html

 

FV4202 should have the same turret...



BP_OMowe #12 Posted 22 February 2018 - 12:49 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 24764 battles
  • 2,047
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    01-08-2013

View PostVsUK, on 20 February 2018 - 03:22 PM, said:

I hope you don't have children if that's your attitude to stupid questions. Tell them its a stupid question. 


No question is stupid. A question is a form of information gathering. You don't ask people questions that you already know the answer to. You ask because you don't know. So no question is a stupid question. Just because you know the answer & obvious to you, doesn't mean it is to others. Just like I know stuff that would blow your mind trying to understand & I'm sure you know stuff I have no idea about. 

 

Since there are no stupid questions, how is your aimbot working?

250swb #13 Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:20 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23160 battles
  • 5,272
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View PostVsUK, on 20 February 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

 

 A question is a form of information gathering. 

 

Your aimbot information gathering 'question' turned out to be pretty stupid didn't it? 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users