Jump to content


Imaginary tanks


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

cowtapult1 #1 Posted 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 3625 battles
  • 163
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

WG claims this game have tanks made up  from 1930s to 1950s... yeah right.

WG claims it has historically accurate tanks.... yeah right.

WG claims tanks have right stats ... yeah right.

WG claims tanks have equipment as accurate as possible... yeah right.

WG claims it added physics in game... yeah right.

 

When will WG claim anything true about game?

Lets get straight with this [edited].

Tanks are from 1915-1970s.

So we have tanks from 1940s to fight tanks from 1960s or 1970s... its epic stupidity but WG finds it to be fair.

Tanks are not historically accurate as WG often change stats to make some more or less played (op). When u add there modifications that never existed or tanks which were never made as they were obsolete or impossible to manufacture (like British tds) u get root of all real problems with game (armor/pen fail especially ricochet shots going through - 10 degree angele shtos are ricochet by default but not in here..).

So last but not least [edited]i have seen is how retarded is armament of luchs- its pz2 which had a bit better turret and tracks/engine. In game it has armaments which he never had nor was intended to have. M103 and 5cm cannons would require bigger tank and it was light not med.

So fix [edited]or stop lies about game.



Cannes76 #2 Posted 09 June 2018 - 12:38 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 66626 battles
  • 1,731
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

What exactly is the point of this incoherent ramble?

I understand that you are not impressed by the historical accuracy... Ok fair enough.

You think WG's balancing department is failing... Ok fair enough

The rest of your post is... an incoherent jumble of sentences that barely make any sense on their own, let alone in the runon fashion you've presented them in.



Jigabachi #3 Posted 09 June 2018 - 12:40 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17927 battles
  • 19,070
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

Two questions:
1. Who the heck cares about historical accuracy in a game like this?
2. What was the historically correct damage value of a tVIII tank back then, when they fought all those random tanks that popped up at 100m distance? And how much HP did it have?

 

edit: Didn't even check OP's name. It's that guy again, doing what he is very good at: Posting nonsense.


Edited by Jigabachi, 09 June 2018 - 07:58 PM.


Isharial #4 Posted 09 June 2018 - 12:52 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19826 battles
  • 2,349
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

WG claims this game have tanks made up  from 1930s to 1950s... yeah right.

WG claims it has historically accurate tanks.... yeah right.

WG claims tanks have right stats ... yeah right.

WG claims tanks have equipment as accurate as possible... yeah right.

WG claims it added physics in game... yeah right.

 

When will WG claim anything true about game?

Lets get straight with this [edited].

Tanks are from 1915-1970s.

So we have tanks from 1940s to fight tanks from 1960s or 1970s... its epic stupidity but WG finds it to be fair.

Tanks are not historically accurate as WG often change stats to make some more or less played (op). When u add there modifications that never existed or tanks which were never made as they were obsolete or impossible to manufacture (like British tds) u get root of all real problems with game (armor/pen fail especially ricochet shots going through - 10 degree angele shtos are ricochet by default but not in here..).

So last but not least [edited]i have seen is how retarded is armament of luchs- its pz2 which had a bit better turret and tracks/engine. In game it has armaments which he never had nor was intended to have. M103 and 5cm cannons would require bigger tank and it was light not med.

So fix [edited]or stop lies about game.

 

1) it is, most of the tanks do fall between those dates, with only very low tier, and early tank designs, and T9/10 that fall outside it, which is understandable really

 

2) some are, some aren't. do remember that things such as the Tiger 1 would have faced a majority of what we have in T5/6, such as M4, T-34, M3 Lee, SU-100 etc..., whereas, within the game it also faces T9 such as the AMX 30 which came out much later

the Long 8.8cm gun is there for that reason. to help balance it against everything THE GAME makes it face.

 

3)stats such as speed, most likely are right. gun penetration wont be, nor will the guns alpha, since those are not applicable to reality

 

4) do you have any evidence that this is not true? apart from gut feeling ofcourse?

 

5) physics are one thing that does need modifying, but some of the tanks are ok.. so its again, a per tank basis that needs changing, and lights need abit of help so they don't roll over taking a right turn in the heat of battle

 

the rest of this? is just waffle... 

historically accurate means little in a game with HP bars, tracks that can be repaired and crew that can be revived.. engines never break down, tanks never fail to start and guns never fail to fire.... realism isn't the aim of the WG developers

arnaments are added for balance purposes, as noted with the Tiger 1 above. they have them so they are able to fight what tierage they will face

you can move them around in the tech tree, but Something has to take its place, and there's only so many tanks that wont be too broken to face 2 tiers lower, or too useless to face 2 tiers higher. a Tiger 1, even just raw armour thickness would be too powerful for a T5 tank. so it cant be put with things it would have faced in reality (100mm would make it one of the strongest armour tanks there)

 

there is more to WG decisions than you obviously believe....



unhappy_bunny #5 Posted 09 June 2018 - 01:17 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18161 battles
  • 2,690
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

Dear OP, Just had a look at some of your previous posts and I have to say this one is remarkably restrained compared to some. Well done. You are obviously maturing nicely. 

 

As to this topic, could you explain which tank in WoT was available in 1915? 



Balc0ra #6 Posted 09 June 2018 - 01:22 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66298 battles
  • 16,316
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

 

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

Tanks are from 1915-1970s.

 

Actually, it's 1916, FT was just an idea in Dec 1915. Even the Swedish tier X TD is from 1969. As tech tree variants are the prototypes vs active service variants to keep it within the era of late 60's. Leo 1 is from the late 50's if you want to go there then, vs it's first active service in the mid 60's. Then again WG never claimed to stop at the 50's.... unless we got back 4 years before you joined ofc. 

 

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

WG claims tanks have equipment as accurate as possible... yeah right.

 

When did they claim that? Balance comes before historical accuracy. WG never claimed differently. 

 

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

So last but not least [edited]i have seen is how retarded is armament of luchs- its pz2 which had a bit better turret and tracks/engine. In game it has armaments which he never had nor was intended to have. M103 and 5cm cannons would require bigger tank and it was light not med.

 

So keep the 20mm with 23 pen it actually had? Or the 40mm gold pen? I can see that working well vs... well nothing. Not even for the rear lower plate of the Matilda. 

 

 

 

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

So we have tanks from 1940s to fight tanks from 1960s or 1970s... its epic stupidity but WG finds it to be fair.

 

So you would rather your M4 fight the King Tiger? Just to make it "era correct"?  Or your Luchs with his 20mm gun with 23mm pen vs the Maus? Just to keep the 40's going? And sorting tiers by era.. would make different issues. As even your own earlier points contradict that if you really want to stay historical correct. Then again... if you played WOT back in 2011. You would have tier 6 tanks facing E100's. Like the 132mm pen VK 3601 when the game was mostly about the 40's and 50's. So you can kinda see why that's a bad idea for most of them? 

 

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

So fix [edited]or stop lies about game.

 

If you are that picky. Then don't play the game. It's not that hard. There are single player games that can give you that fix if you really want it that accurate. Even WT left that bandwagon ages ago. They are even in the late 90's now.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Balc0ra, 09 June 2018 - 01:24 AM.


gunslingerXXX #7 Posted 09 June 2018 - 05:26 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 11067 battles
  • 2,012
  • [GUNSL] GUNSL
  • Member since:
    11-16-2014
Yeah, the other thread was better.

Sherwood_Ankou #8 Posted 09 June 2018 - 05:56 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 73036 battles
  • 12
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
WG doesn't claim most of these points and have always said this is an arcade game not a simulator type game. If you want more realism go the WT

Pvt_Duffer #9 Posted 09 June 2018 - 06:16 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 16658 battles
  • 3,145
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

Virtual =/= imaginary true.

 

but the distinction is very thin.

 

 

They might as well give us a city map based on downtown Los Santos for all it matters.

 

 



DeadLecter #10 Posted 09 June 2018 - 07:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22978 battles
  • 508
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016

And where in history do tanks have HP ? or grind?

all we ask is not to screw the game by adding more and more OP tanks. We dont need or want historical accuracy



Isharial #11 Posted 09 June 2018 - 08:39 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19826 battles
  • 2,349
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View PostPvt_Duffer, on 09 June 2018 - 06:16 PM, said:

Virtual =/= imaginary true.

 

but the distinction is very thin.

 

 

They might as well give us a city map based on downtown Los Santos for all it matters.

 

 

 

hey, that wouldn't be that bad given the city maps we have already :hiding: 

LS has some large area's of open ground in the center of town, might make for a workable map :harp:

 



Bordhaw #12 Posted 09 June 2018 - 08:49 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 11553 battles
  • 2,526
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017
I had an imaginary tank friend once. He wasn't a very good player either. 

Edited by Bordhaw, 09 June 2018 - 08:49 PM.


Homer_J #13 Posted 09 June 2018 - 08:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28771 battles
  • 30,068
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

 

So we have tanks from 1940s to fight tanks from 1960s or 1970s... its epic stupidity but WG finds it to be fair.

 

If they were real tanks then you might have a point but they aren't, they are pixels.



vasilinhorulezz #14 Posted 10 June 2018 - 12:02 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22813 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

WG claims this game have tanks made up  from 1930s to 1950s... yeah right.

 

They pretty much are from that era.

 

WG claims it has historically accurate tanks.... yeah right.

 

No, a lot of the tanks are just blueprints and were never built.

 

WG claims tanks have right stats ... yeah right.

 

Tell me then, ow much HP has an E100 in real life?

 

WG claims tanks have equipment as accurate as possible... yeah right.

 

And you have the actuall blueprints to prove them wrong?

 

WG claims it added physics in game... yeah right.

 

They did add physics in the game.

 

 

 



TheComfyChair #15 Posted 10 June 2018 - 12:55 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7615 battles
  • 750
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-20-2017


cowtapult1 #16 Posted 10 June 2018 - 08:54 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 3625 battles
  • 163
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View PostBalc0ra, on 09 June 2018 - 01:22 AM, said:

 

 

Actually, it's 1916, FT was just an idea in Dec 1915. Even the Swedish tier X TD is from 1969. As tech tree variants are the prototypes vs active service variants to keep it within the era of late 60's. Leo 1 is from the late 50's if you want to go there then, vs it's first active service in the mid 60's. Then again WG never claimed to stop at the 50's.... unless we got back 4 years before you joined ofc. 

 

 

When did they claim that? Balance comes before historical accuracy. WG never claimed differently. 

 

 

So keep the 20mm with 23 pen it actually had? Or the 40mm gold pen? I can see that working well vs... well nothing. Not even for the rear lower plate of the Matilda. 

 

 

 

 

So you would rather your M4 fight the King Tiger? Just to make it "era correct"?  Or your Luchs with his 20mm gun with 23mm pen vs the Maus? Just to keep the 40's going? And sorting tiers by era.. would make different issues. As even your own earlier points contradict that if you really want to stay historical correct. Then again... if you played WOT back in 2011. You would have tier 6 tanks facing E100's. Like the 132mm pen VK 3601 when the game was mostly about the 40's and 50's. So you can kinda see why that's a bad idea for most of them? 

 

 

If you are that picky. Then don't play the game. It's not that hard. There are single player games that can give you that fix if you really want it that accurate. Even WT left that bandwagon ages ago. They are even in the late 90's now.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WG claims stuff which is obviously not true when its marketing game.

There is short list of things which made this game fraud in terms of international law.

They can claim whatever they want about their rights to change certain aspects of game - its not allowed by consumer law.

As much as they not like their game compared to Warthunder the fact is that in Warthunder u have in arcade mod working physics which are failing badly here. U have tanks more accurate in every possible aspect of game. If u have light tank which is armed with low pen gun it cant penetrate frontally heavy tank or medium unless really lucky shot in same tier. Why ? Cause light tank does not have gun for tank vs tank confrontation and it is called light tank cause it does not have armor. Here u have light tanks which have way bigger armor and way better guns and shells then they should to make them balanced?? U cant balance light tank and heavy tank. Its just epic stupidity. U can balance same type of tanks but not in way to make it pointless which one u play as they are all more or less same now. If u are incapable to learn how to play one tank its no reason to have it changed but to change tank u play. By doing obvious crapwe got most of players now sniping with light tanks and their role is not to snipe. But with incorrect guns u destroyed game mechanics. Lights sit and snipe and then ask u in td or ht to go spot for them !! So tehy can be more unicum ? Seriously?

In warthunder for example u cant pen tiger 2 frontally with most of tanks frontally as it was for real. But as i proved many times there u can wait him to fire a shell and flank him shoot his side or rear and say by by as he is to be burned down or ammo racked.  So there u have your skill in play and here its not. Here u can only hope u are not to face stupid op tanks which should be mediocre in fact.

I play warthunder have more fun there then here defo but i play this game much longer and remember how it was before all @new tanks/new mm/new rng/stats/etc@ were introduced. Most of things added to game are wrong in its core and go against all WG officially claims WoT is.



cowtapult1 #17 Posted 10 June 2018 - 09:06 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 3625 battles
  • 163
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 10 June 2018 - 12:02 AM, said:

 

 

Go check wiki for start. After u can dig deeper if u want to see how seriously wrong things are in this game.

And for physics - there is no real physics here. What they call physics is such travesty. 

U can sit next to house put gun next to it and have shell occasionally hit same house although its impossible, or hit ground while shooting point blank target . Why ? Cause they had no skill to code dispersion correctly. In game dispersion on 100/200/300 etc meters range starts at max value from gun itself instead increase steadily over range. And that is just one of many problems with physics. U can angle tank so u are shot on side in angles of 10-20 degrees and u still get penetrated although physics says its impossible. But its a long story.

As u guys wont read anything, have no basic knowledge of physics and other important stuff in game its pointless to pay attention to your responses which are with few exceptions trolling.

Making reply just for a counter is.... well same as sniping with light in Wot. Retarded. 



vasilinhorulezz #18 Posted 10 June 2018 - 09:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22813 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

Then teach us master.

Explain us how physics work!!!

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:



RinTin_NL #19 Posted 10 June 2018 - 09:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15239 battles
  • 710
  • Member since:
    08-08-2014

Just an unrealistic irritating arcade game... :trollface:

 

The only realistic thing on this game is the money they make...


Edited by RinTin_NL, 10 June 2018 - 09:48 PM.


Spurtung #20 Posted 11 June 2018 - 06:13 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 63775 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostBalc0ra, on 09 June 2018 - 02:22 AM, said:

View Postcowtapult1, on 09 June 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

So we have tanks from 1940s to fight tanks from 1960s or 1970s... its epic stupidity but WG finds it to be fair.

 

So you would rather your M4 fight the King Tiger? Just to make it "era correct"?  Or your Luchs with his 20mm gun with 23mm pen vs the Maus? Just to keep the 40's going? And sorting tiers by era.. would make different issues. As even your own earlier points contradict that if you really want to stay historical correct. Then again... if you played WOT back in 2011. You would have tier 6 tanks facing E100's. Like the 132mm pen VK 3601 when the game was mostly about the 40's and 50's. So you can kinda see why that's a bad idea for most of them?

 

I remember the historical battles. Everyone picking T-34s instead of SU-152, to help the MM, of course. Huge success.

 

 

 

View Postcowtapult1, on 10 June 2018 - 09:54 PM, said:

WG claims stuff which is obviously not true when its marketing game.

There is short list of things which made this game fraud in terms of international law.

They can claim whatever they want about their rights to change certain aspects of game - its not allowed by consumer law.

 

So can we expect you to bring that outrage to court? Or will you just throw words around?

 

 

 

View Postcowtapult1, on 10 June 2018 - 10:06 PM, said:

Go check wiki for start. After u can dig deeper if u want to see how seriously wrong things are in this game.

 

That's a brilliant argument! You do know how wikis work though, right?


Edited by Spurtung, 11 June 2018 - 06:21 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users