Jump to content


New USSR Vehicles (К-91, Object 277)

1.0.2

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
115 replies to this topic

vuque #1 Posted 23 May 2018 - 06:34 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 17252 battles
  • 2,502
  • [YOQ] YOQ
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010

Commanders,

 

Please share your feedback regarding the New USSR Vehicles (К-91, Object 277) on this topic.

 

Thanks!



papageo_cy #2 Posted 25 May 2018 - 09:39 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 61448 battles
  • 154
  • [RSX] RSX
  • Member since:
    08-28-2013
It is kind of early, but if anyone has downloaded the test server could you write how much xp is needed to unlock each of the new tanks?

leggasiini #3 Posted 25 May 2018 - 10:13 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12349 battles
  • 6,071
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View Postpapageo_cy, on 25 May 2018 - 10:39 AM, said:

It is kind of early, but if anyone has downloaded the test server could you write how much xp is needed to unlock each of the new tanks?

 

It's not up yet; should be up in like 1-2 hours

ares354 #4 Posted 25 May 2018 - 02:55 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 73403 battles
  • 3,037
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
Tell me, what the poitn of having IS 7 ? 

IF Obj 277 get 490 alpha with 265 AP pen...

K91 will almost have t100 camo...so yea. GL spoting him. And ofc withj 276 APCR pen and dpm of 907

But e50m is good and balanced Comrades.

Edited by ares354, 25 May 2018 - 02:55 PM.


leggasiini #5 Posted 25 May 2018 - 04:49 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12349 battles
  • 6,071
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

Need to play more to fully judge, but so far:

 

I think the Object 277, as much as I love it already, is a bit too powerful, mostly because it has too much armor for the gun and mobility it has. The T-10's hull is generally poor, only slightly better than that of mediums. The 277 already has amazing mobility and most probably the best HT gun in the entire game. It doesnt need the armor. Make the armor weak enough to the point that the frontal armor won't really bounce anything else than lower tiers; it should be semi-reliably penetrable by same tier vehicles. Another thing you could change is to replace the APCR with HEAT. 350 APCR is kinda...weird, especially when the T-10 has HEAT. 350 APCR also goes through everything fairly easily, so...

 

Just dont nerf the gun otherwise, it's so comfortable and enjoyable to play because of the gun. Just drop the armor until it's balanced. I honestly wouldn't care if the hull armor was completely useless on the 277, I would still love it because of the gun + mobility + turret armor. The T-10 practically doesnt have meaningful hull armor, either.

 

K-91 is kinda weak, though. I feel like that the accuracy, premium pen and DPM could be increased further. It has worse armor than other Russian mediums, has rear mounted turret without full traverse, and poor HP pool. With those facts factored, the gun doesn't feel like it's good enough to compensate all the drawbacks. That, or instead of increasing the DPM, give it a fully traverseable turret.


Edited by leggasiini, 25 May 2018 - 04:50 PM.


Combinatie #6 Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:55 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25142 battles
  • 2
  • [RANGR] RANGR
  • Member since:
    01-20-2014
252.700 xp needed for k-91. guess thats a lot?! what make this tank so special that its necesarry to cost that much  xp...

Celution #7 Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 26153 battles
  • 1,678
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010

Object 277 (tier X)

Initial thoughts are that the tank is overperforming, with too favourable statistics. It also makes the 113, WZ-111 5A, and to some extent the IS-7 redundant. The combination of best-in-class firepower, reliable armour, incredible mobility without any drawbacks is just too much. Yes, we wanted a worthy successor to the T-10, but this is too strong. While he 265 AP pen is already incredible, 350 APCR pen is just silly. Likewise, the 1800 m/s shell velocity on the APCR shell must be tuned down significantly.

 

Some suggestions:

 

  • Decrease the penetration of the 130mm AP Composite-Rigid 3BM (experimental) from 350 to 318 mm. Alternatively, exchange it for a HEAT round with 340 mm penetration.
  • Decrease the shell velocity of the 130mm AP Composite-Rigid 3BM (experimental) from 1800 to 1350 m/s.
  • Decrease the rate of fire from the 130 mm M-65 from 5.22 to 5 rounds/min. This leaves the best-in-class DPM on the Chinese heavies with a margin.
  • Decrease the engine power of the M-850 from 950 to 850 h.p., decreasing the power-to-weight from 17.2 to 15.4.
  • Increase the aim time from 2.5 to 2.6 s, still very respectible for such a high-alpha gun.
  • Increase the dispersion at 100 m from 0.35 to 0.37.
  • Decrease the top speed from 55 to 50 km/h.

 

K-91 (tier X)

Initial thoughts are that the tank is very average at everything. Not too mobile, gun is alright but doesn't feel that special, semi-decent armour. The semi-turret is awkward, but that's a trademark of the branch. I honestly would have liked to see a gun that varied a bit more from the other 100 mm guns featured on its cousins. Besides, it trades a lot to gain that 276 APCR pen compared to the Object 140, 907 and even the T-62A, which all get the same HEAT round if 264 APCR isn't enough.

 

Some ideas would include:

  • Increase the alpha damage from 320 to 340, but reduce the rate of fire to compensate (same DPM as on the current build).
  • Increase the penetration of the 100mm High-Explosive Anti-Tank 3UBK (LM) from 330 to 350 mm, to enhance the fact that it also has higher penetration on the APCR shell.
  • Increase the engine power of the V-64 from 500 to 750 h.p., increasing the power-to-weight from a mediocre 11.04 to a more reasonable 16.56. It really feels too sluggish right now.

 


Edited by Celution, 29 May 2018 - 08:39 AM.


_Jergo_ #8 Posted 25 May 2018 - 06:18 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 40187 battles
  • 91
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    07-08-2011

View PostCelution, on 25 May 2018 - 05:58 PM, said:

 

 

 

I mostly agree with this, however I don't think the 277 mobility should be touched, it is powerful now but balancing should be done by nerfing accuracy and maybe the upper hull armor.

 

The changes to the K-91 listed here are imo a must because the tank is not only mediocre now its unenjoyable to play. I would also propose a fully traversable turret to make it comfortable to play because a medium tank should not be combat ineffective if double tracked in an awkward position.



leggasiini #9 Posted 25 May 2018 - 06:52 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12349 battles
  • 6,071
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostCelution, on 25 May 2018 - 06:58 PM, said:

 

 

 

I'd personally rather nerf the hull armor instead of nerfing the gun. The T-10 has borderline useless frontal hull armor, this thing should be kinda similar in that regard. The gun is still very good and the mobility is great. The tank is very, very comfortable to play, but I do agree it's kinda too powerful.

 

Here are my proposed changes:

 

Object 277

  • Reduce the spaced armor on upper side armor; it's far too strong, it absorbs shots when almost completely unangled. It should not be as strong as on the IS-7; in fact, the spaced side armor is probably stronger than on the IS-7
  • Reduce the upper plate armor to the point where same tier HTs will semi-reliable penetrate it, and only lower tier vehicles can bounce it.
  • Reduce rate of fire from 5.22 to 5 to further differentiate from the 5A and make the DPM advantage of it a bit more relevant
  • Change the APCR to HEAT with 350 penetration

 

 

With these changes, you have the Obj 277 and WZ 111 5A with different flavors:

 

Obj 277 has better...

 

  • accuracy
  • penetration
  • straight line speed

 

WZ 111 5A has better...

 

  • DPM
  • gun depression
  • agility

 

Rather similar tanks with their own flavors. Right now, the Obj 277 also has clear armor advantage and the WZ 111 5A's DPM advantage is not good enough. Among with that, the armor of the 277 also could potentially make the IS-7 obsolete. That is another good reason to nerf the hull armor of the 277 before nerfing the gun significantly. 350 mm pen is too much for APCR. Simple change is just to change it to HEAT; the T-10 also has HEAT, so the change is logical.

 

The accuracy is very good, but in the end, it isn't THAT significant and honestly just makes the tank more comfortable to play. I guess nerfing the accuracy to 0.37 or so would be fine, IF the nerfs I proposed are not enough, though.

 


Edited by leggasiini, 25 May 2018 - 06:59 PM.


Objec7 #10 Posted 25 May 2018 - 07:28 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9258 battles
  • 11
  • [ASOSX] ASOSX
  • Member since:
    03-25-2017
I haven't tried those tanks myself but according to gameplays I watched, I would suggest to keep Obj. 277 about the same. If it's overperforming, possibly nerf it's dispersion from 0.35 to 0.36-0.37 and aim time from 2.5 s to 2.6 s. You could also nerf it's AP penetration from 265 to 255 and replace APCR with HEAT. There is also possibilities in nerfing it's DPM and soft stats. I don't suggest you to change the armor or mobility at all because they seem to be pretty balanced out with other mobile tier X tanks.

tomolone #11 Posted 25 May 2018 - 07:37 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17068 battles
  • 27
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-10-2013

View PostCombinatie, on 25 May 2018 - 05:55 PM, said:

252.700 xp needed for k-91. guess thats a lot?! what make this tank so special that its necesarry to cost that much  xp...

 

No unlocks needed to unlock the k-91 I believe.

Celution #12 Posted 25 May 2018 - 07:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 26153 battles
  • 1,678
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010
The K91 has its 1700 m/s shell velocity on APCR, although HEAT and HE are still 950 and 800 m/s respectively. HOWEVER, the Object 277 apparently has 1800 m/s shell velocity on that APCR shell with 350 mm penetration.. To put that into perspective, the best APCR shells currently in the game cap around 1500-1570 m/s. Absolutely ridiculous.

Flavortown #13 Posted 25 May 2018 - 08:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16141 battles
  • 800
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    02-15-2015

View Post_Jergo_, on 25 May 2018 - 06:18 PM, said:

 

The changes to the K-91 listed here are imo a must because the tank is not only mediocre now its unenjoyable to play. I would also propose a fully traversable turret to make it comfortable to play because a medium tank should not be combat ineffective if double tracked in an awkward position.

Couldnt agree with you more, both 430 2 and/or atleast the k-91 NEED fully traversable turret.
Not becouse of the tracks. but horizontal stabilisation doesnt work without the turret turning full 360.



leggasiini #14 Posted 25 May 2018 - 08:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12349 battles
  • 6,071
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostCelution, on 25 May 2018 - 08:58 PM, said:

The K91 has its 1700 m/s shell velocity on APCR, although HEAT and HE are still 950 and 800 m/s respectively. HOWEVER, the Object 277 apparently has 1800 m/s shell velocity on that APCR shell with 350 mm penetration.. To put that into perspective, the best APCR shells currently in the game cap around 1500-1570 m/s. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

I also recently found out the ridiculous velocity as well, which is indeed really overkill. Just change it to HEAT with a bit worse velocity than the AP.

SlyMeerkat #15 Posted 25 May 2018 - 09:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15823 battles
  • 1,946
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
Interesting new additions 

Combinatie #16 Posted 25 May 2018 - 09:09 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25142 battles
  • 2
  • [RANGR] RANGR
  • Member since:
    01-20-2014

View Posttomolone, on 25 May 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

 

No unlocks needed to unlock the k-91 I believe.

if you already have the tier IX fully researched. the object 140 and t62 a is 200k.



Tinbawx #17 Posted 26 May 2018 - 11:43 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14747 battles
  • 1,251
  • [SNOB] SNOB
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011
Shell velocities whell within the parameters of modern APFSDS rounds, gud tonks, legit Wargamistan designs. NATO should hire wargaming advisors for kinetic munitions development.

Chopesz #18 Posted 26 May 2018 - 01:04 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 36235 battles
  • 16
  • [-RLY-] -RLY-
  • Member since:
    10-20-2011
K-91 is a big dissappointment. I was expecting obj 430 II sidescrape playstyle with better gun and maybe better turret armour.

Brodie_ #19 Posted 26 May 2018 - 01:10 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 77610 battles
  • 486
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013
How much experience is required to unlock the Obj 277 upon the test server please? 

Deprival #20 Posted 26 May 2018 - 01:14 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 22296 battles
  • 29
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2012

Object 277

 

The DPM is too high. Please add one second to the reload, making it 4.8 rounds/ min stock. I'd advise not going too far below this to stay competitive with Chinese heavies.

The mobility feels very comfortable, maybe a little too good. Change the engine power to 900 might make you feel like the engine is working hard.
The armour makes no sense to me. I find it really easy to pen shooting at it, however, when I'm in the tank I block significant amounts. However, I haven't played enough games to have significant data.

 

The model looks great. Unfortunately, paints do not shine through on transparent winter camo.


Edited by Deprival, 26 May 2018 - 01:20 PM.






Also tagged with 1.0.2

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users