Jump to content


Why is Churchill GC still in tech tree?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

x_Night_Fury_x #1 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:39 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2144 battles
  • 2
  • [KNG-D] KNG-D
  • Member since:
    02-14-2018
I think much people know that, but, Wargaming should delete this tank, i dont see so much people play with it.

xx984 #2 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:43 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 54988 battles
  • 2,519
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
i dont see many people play arta compared to actual tanks. wg delete this too tnx :)

Penzijon3r_2017 #3 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:46 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5922 battles
  • 234
  • Member since:
    07-19-2017

View Postx_Night_Fury_x, on 07 July 2018 - 01:39 PM, said:

I think much people know that, but, Wargaming should delete this tank, i dont see so much people play with it.

 

I dont see you in the games a lot. WG should delete you.

Enforcer1975 #4 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,862
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostPenzijon3r_2017, on 07 July 2018 - 01:46 PM, said:

 

I dont see you in the games a lot. WG should delete you.

Delete WG. They aren't active either. 



x_Night_Fury_x #5 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:49 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2144 battles
  • 2
  • [KNG-D] KNG-D
  • Member since:
    02-14-2018
I was playing in America server, because everyone from America server are moving to europe server. And stop being so rude.

mpf1959 #6 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15708 battles
  • 783
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-29-2017

Leave it be, it is not hurting anyone of a reasonable mental stability, if just one person chooses to play it, then it deserves to exist and anyway variety is always the spice of life.

 

I say WG should always ignore such selfish and trivial requests.



xx984 #7 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:55 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 54988 battles
  • 2,519
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostPenzijon3r_2017, on 07 July 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

 

I dont see you in the games a lot. WG should delete you.

 

Touché

Balc0ra #8 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:56 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66286 battles
  • 16,286
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Well..... it's not even on the 50 least played tanks the last 4 weeks. So is it now? Just because you don't see it, don't mean anyone is not playing it either. 

 

 


Edited by Balc0ra, 07 July 2018 - 02:10 PM.


Sirebellus #9 Posted 07 July 2018 - 01:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19145 battles
  • 546
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016
I've got a 78.5% WR and a Kolabanov's medal in the Churchill Gun Carrier - it's an "interesting" tank to play!

Wrinkly #10 Posted 07 July 2018 - 02:00 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45411 battles
  • 264
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
Never seen x_Night_Fury_x either, so please add this one to the 'to be deleted' list also.

Edited by Wrinkly, 07 July 2018 - 02:01 PM.


PoIestar #11 Posted 07 July 2018 - 02:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31707 battles
  • 4,078
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013

While OP has a point, considering it's inbetween too lines, and too much of a hassle to use it as a "grind converter" (seriously, grinding the AT 7 via the AT-Line is better for your sanity than 50k exp in the Church I and then another bunch in the GC). And it's not exactly a great tank.

 

But you know, there are people on this forum who 3-marked it, whether that's for being a masochist or because they actually like it, it has a fanbase. A rather small one, but one nevertheless. 

 

Don't take away a tank with a fanbase when it doesn't do harm.



Bordhaw #12 Posted 07 July 2018 - 03:28 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 11548 battles
  • 2,499
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View PostPenzijon3r_2017, on 07 July 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

 

I dont see you in the games a lot. WG should delete you.

 

:medal:
 

View Postx_Night_Fury_x, on 07 July 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

I think much people know that, but, Wargaming should delete this tank, i dont see so much people play with it.

 

It's so youtubers can play it and get ace tanker games for doing relatively nothing and upload them as a display of how good they are. 
 

Alice_Shimada_Chan #13 Posted 07 July 2018 - 03:38 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28179 battles
  • 297
  • Member since:
    12-09-2012
QB plays it when fans troll him, and then It becomes Churchill game carrier.

RenamedUser_555746413 #14 Posted 07 July 2018 - 03:38 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3093 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    06-13-2018

a. its a historical tank so it needs to be in game and has a much better reason to be here than many many other vehicles

b.  its actually a bit of a pain as nothing carries on to next tank and you end up with a tier 5 gun which is boring



DracheimFlug #15 Posted 07 July 2018 - 03:47 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8957 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostFxxxWGpedos, on 07 July 2018 - 03:38 PM, said:

a. its a historical tank so it needs to be in game and has a much better reason to be here than many many other vehicles

b.  its actually a bit of a pain as nothing carries on to next tank and you end up with a tier 5 gun which is boring

 

a) It did exist and made it through testing but by the time approval came it was obsolete and therefore never saw full production nor service.

unhappy_bunny #16 Posted 07 July 2018 - 03:59 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18151 battles
  • 2,682
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View Postx_Night_Fury_x, on 07 July 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

I think much people know that, but, Wargaming should delete this tank, i dont see so much people play with it.

 

 

Ok, give us a valid reason for it to be removed. Other than you dont see many people playing it. That is not a reason. 



Balc0ra #17 Posted 07 July 2018 - 04:13 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66286 battles
  • 16,286
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostDracheimFlug, on 07 July 2018 - 03:47 PM, said:

 

a) It did exist and made it through testing but by the time approval came it was obsolete and therefore never saw full production nor service.

 

Still... it was made and tested. More then you can say about half the top tiers that was an idea on paper only. 

Bexleyheath #18 Posted 07 July 2018 - 04:15 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5241 battles
  • 320
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    01-07-2018

Removing it would be blasphemous as it is terrificly pretty. Though they should probably move it down a few tiers to actually make it useful to players without QB's skills

 



250swb #19 Posted 07 July 2018 - 06:03 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 22652 battles
  • 5,065
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015
It's in the tech tree so *edit who fancy their skills, or like to complain about WG and tank balancing, can prove how good they are by playing it and winning. Forever let it remain the 'last challenge' in the game.

Edited by Mlddim, 07 July 2018 - 06:40 PM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.


Browarszky #20 Posted 07 July 2018 - 08:29 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16096 battles
  • 3,734
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013
Dunno. Call the fire brigade or something. :P




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users