Jump to content


Add the Chieftain


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

Poll: The Chieftain (89 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should the Chieftain be added to the British tech tree?

  1. Yes, as a replacement to the S. Conqueror. (12 votes [13.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.48%

  2. Yes, as a new, small branch at tier X. (65 votes [73.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.03%

  3. No, I don't want that thing anywhere near the British tech tree. (12 votes [13.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.48%

Vote Hide poll

friedeggnchips #1 Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:52 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

 

Just wanted everyone's opinion.

If not, why?


Edited by friedeggnchips, 19 May 2019 - 01:47 PM.


Signal11th #2 Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:57 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 42477 battles
  • 6,338
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

View Postfriedeggnchips, on 18 May 2019 - 11:52 PM, said:

 

Just wanted everyone's opinion.

 

 

The problem is if they even make it 50% historical values it would still be vastly OP basically because it was such a tank ahead of its time so two problems with this.. WG main player base is Russian and they don't really live in the same world as the rest of us because according to them lot anything Russian, goes faster, higher, has more guns, more reliable, can go to mars on one tank of gas and seemingly have lots of lawyers and journalists die in accidental muggings.. and they would have to gimp it drastically to make it on par with the rest of the tanks. Plus its a little out of the date range for the tanks in the game.

Edited by Signal11th, 19 May 2019 - 11:14 AM.


barison1 #3 Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:58 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41903 battles
  • 1,651
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

"no, i dont want that thing anywhere the brit tech tree" so yer saying it can be added to the russian tree instead? :trollface::trollface::trollface::trollface::trollface::trollface:

 

think best would be as a seperate line coming from BP for example with chieftain earlier versions/prototypes or so(needs nerfed turret armor tho). replacing sconq looks kinda unnecessary to me, altough it could do with certain rebalances.

 

 


Edited by barison1, 19 May 2019 - 12:59 AM.


friedeggnchips #4 Posted 19 May 2019 - 01:12 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View PostSignal11th, on 18 May 2019 - 11:57 PM, said:

 

The problem is if they even make it 50% historical values it would still be vastly OP basically because it was such a tank ahead of its time so two problems with this.. WG main player base is Russian and they don't really live in the same world as the rest of us because according to them lot anything Russian, goes faster, higher, has more guns, more reliable, can go to mars on one tank of gas  and they would have to gimp it drastically to make it on par with the rest of the tanks. Plus its a little out of the date range for the tanks in the game.

 

Damn, better tell Elon Musk he has some competition :izmena:

 

As for the balancing and date range, It would not be hard to balance, just like the other tanks really. Seeing as this tank was invented before the discovery of Chobham armour, it's not an impossibility. The tank entered service in 1966, a year before the Stridsvagn 103 in 1967. Also date range isnt really a thing, I mean to a certain extent anyway. The Conqueror entered service in 1966 and German tanks developed 12 years before are faced against it. 


Edited by friedeggnchips, 20 May 2019 - 07:01 PM.


Eyesan #5 Posted 19 May 2019 - 08:44 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 73122 battles
  • 182
  • Member since:
    09-21-2014

I want one.

 

I'm not bothered if WG take liberties with historical armour attributes, I just want the model, the name, & a tank with a pretty much impervious upper front plate & front turret, & almighty gun :) 

 

There are already tanks that are invulnerable, pretty much, when hull down.  There are already tanks considered OP. 

 

They could slap a weak point on it somewhere if they want a fig leaf for game balance.

 



Dava_117 #6 Posted 19 May 2019 - 10:13 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21743 battles
  • 4,366
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

I would prefer the Chieftain mk6 as a sobstitute of the SConqueror.

Just change the standard APCR with a 258 pen AP and nerf base reload time to 9s and you're ok.

It has a turret weackspot that can't be completely hided with full gun depression, it has some small area that in the same position are sub 250mm in the turret and the sides are so thin that any 128mm+ gun can overmatch them behind the track and any 152mm+ gun everywhere.

UFP is in the HEAT pen realm too. Feel quite balanced and far less game breaking than the SConqueror is at the moment.


Edited by Dava_117, 19 May 2019 - 10:14 AM.


friedeggnchips #7 Posted 19 May 2019 - 10:49 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View PostDava_117, on 19 May 2019 - 09:13 AM, said:

I would prefer the Chieftain mk6 as a sobstitute of the SConqueror.

Just change the standard APCR with a 258 pen AP and nerf base reload time to 9s and you're ok.

It has a turret weackspot that can't be completely hided with full gun depression, it has some small area that in the same position are sub 250mm in the turret and the sides are so thin that any 128mm+ gun can overmatch them behind the track and any 152mm+ gun everywhere.

UFP is in the HEAT pen realm too. Feel quite balanced and far less game breaking than the SConqueror is at the moment.

 

Yeah, I do agree the S.Conq seems a bit broken atm. 

9 sec reload is around the sweet spot, although removing the APCR might not be so good.

 

 



Dava_117 #8 Posted 19 May 2019 - 11:01 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21743 battles
  • 4,366
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Postfriedeggnchips, on 19 May 2019 - 10:49 AM, said:

 

Yeah, I do agree the S.Conq seems a bit broken atm. 

9 sec reload is around the sweet spot, although removing the APCR might not be so good.

 

 

 

As standard round APCR have basically more disadvantage than advantage. A 260pen AP is better than a 270pen APCR due to the bettter normalization. Premium would stay a 310 pen APCR in my idea. :)

friedeggnchips #9 Posted 19 May 2019 - 11:08 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View PostDava_117, on 19 May 2019 - 10:01 AM, said:

 

As standard round APCR have basically more disadvantage than advantage. A 260pen AP is better than a 270pen APCR due to the bettter normalization. Premium would stay a 310 pen APCR in my idea. :)

 

Ah ok, thought you were leaning toward having just HESH as premium rounds, suppose APCR suits the 105 more than the 120

Blubba #10 Posted 19 May 2019 - 11:14 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 58650 battles
  • 2,248
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

Should the Chieftain be added to the British tech tree?

Sadly, I think not. WG would do it a great disservice and that would spoil it for me.



friedeggnchips #11 Posted 19 May 2019 - 01:56 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View PostBlubba, on 19 May 2019 - 10:14 AM, said:

Should the Chieftain be added to the British tech tree?

Sadly, I think not. WG would do it a great disservice and that would spoil it for me.

 

Well, it would still be cool to see it in the game, you have to admit.

 



WindSplitter1 #12 Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:01 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18833 battles
  • 3,212
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

50mm of side hull armour.

 

Outside the front, even LTs can pen it with HE.

It's just the titanlike gunstats that would make it "OP". The only issue here is how iconic the tank is.

 

Date range is not at all relevant since you can alter some stats to make the tank fit in.



friedeggnchips #13 Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:06 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View PostWindSplitter1, on 19 May 2019 - 01:01 PM, said:

50mm of side hull armour.

 

Outside the front, even LTs can pen it with HE.

It's just the titanlike gunstats that would make it "OP". The only issue here is how iconic the tank is.

 

Date range is not at all relevant since you can alter some stats to make the tank fit in.

 

50mm is way to low imo as a heavy should have at least 80mm side and 60 rear

arthurwellsley #14 Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:21 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53680 battles
  • 3,891
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

1. Chieftain mk.VI has been in the game files for along time now.

 

2. There have been any number of threads on EU forums asking for the Chieftain mk.VI to be implemented over the years and it has not happened.

 

3. If you want to play the Chieftain mk.VI in World of Tanks you have two options. First play on console where it has been implemented. Or Second make an account on a CN server (operated by Kongzhong) and buy one for real money, they used to cost £1,600 or so, which makes it (i) the most expensive tank sold on the CN servers (where you can buy anything in the game files) and (ii) gives you somekind of idea how OP the Chieftain mk.VI in the files is given it is the most expensive one to buy.

 

4. Earlier Chieftain threads;

2017 = (includes mini tech tree to place it) http://forum.worldof...stions/#topmost

2015 = http://forum.worldof...liance-starter/

 

5. Signature to put in your forum profile (you can see from the date that this campaign was not effective) =

 

 

And an alternative forum signature;

 



friedeggnchips #15 Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:36 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View Postarthurwellsley, on 19 May 2019 - 01:21 PM, said:

1. Chieftain mk.VI has been in the game files for along time now.

 

2. There have been any number of threads on EU forums asking for the Chieftain mk.VI to be implemented over the years and it has not happened.

 

 

 

Yes but it never hurt to try. Also the last post was in 2017. Its now 2 years on and there are many tanks that players would not have thought would be added; The entirety of the Swedish tier 8-10 TDs and Mediums were developed during the same time as the Chieftain. The reason I assume WG have not added it in is that it just did not fit the meta at the time. Now, with the introduction of the Hydro suspension, armoured cars etc it seems like a good time to ask again.

 

Hopefully, if enough people vote I will be able to make a new post with the poll linked suggesting stats, although that is only if there are enough votes.

 



arthurwellsley #16 Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:49 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53680 battles
  • 3,891
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postfriedeggnchips, on 19 May 2019 - 01:36 PM, said:

 

 

Yes but it never hurt to try. Also the last post was in 2017. Its now 2 years on and there are many tanks that players would not have thought would be added; The entirety of the Swedish tier 8-10 TDs and Mediums were developed during the same time as the Chieftain. The reason I assume WG have not added it in is that it just did not fit the meta at the time. Now, with the introduction of the Hydro suspension, armoured cars etc it seems like a good time to ask again.

 

Hopefully, if enough people vote I will be able to make a new post with the poll linked suggesting stats, although that is only if there are enough votes.

 

 

1. Good luck.

 

2. Chieftain mk.VI was a very good tank for it's time in respect of two of the three requirements for an armoured fighting vehicle. The trilogy is gun, armour, manoeurvability. The Chieftain at the time was excellent for gun and armour compared to it's contemporary rivals, and completely let down by it's unreliable power pack. Thus ingame the Chieftain mk.VI is OP as being unreliable is not modelled into World of Tanks gameplay.

 

3. Sadly even if lots of players on EU voted for the Chieftain mk.VI to be implemented ingame in your poll it would not have much effect. The only votes that count are polls on the RU forums. WG listens to the RU forums carefully, because the RU servers have the majority of their paying players. EU, NA, and SEA are merely after thoughts to the main WG market.



friedeggnchips #17 Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:59 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View Postarthurwellsley, on 19 May 2019 - 01:49 PM, said:

 

1. Good luck.

 

2. Chieftain mk.VI was a very good tank for it's time in respect of two of the three requirements for an armoured fighting vehicle. The trilogy is gun, armour, manoeurvability. The Chieftain at the time was excellent for gun and armour compared to it's contemporary rivals, and completely let down by it's unreliable power pack. Thus ingame the Chieftain mk.VI is OP as being unreliable is not modelled into World of Tanks gameplay.

 

3. Sadly even if lots of players on EU voted for the Chieftain mk.VI to be implemented ingame in your poll it would not have much effect. The only votes that count are polls on the RU forums. WG listens to the RU forums carefully, because the RU servers have the majority of their paying players. EU, NA, and SEA are merely after thoughts to the main WG market.

 

1. Thanks a lot.

 

2. Balancing has never been a problem in World of Tanks. If the Maus was true to its real-life counterpart, then it would spend most of its time sinking into concrete and destroying bridges. Not to mention its armour was extremely thick all round, much more so than in game, so good luck penning it at all. The Tiger would be unkillable by basically any tier V, the Centurion would be able to aim directly at a target moving at 50km/h from across the map and destroy it completely. 

High explosive has been developed in World of Tanks for use against other tanks, whereas it was used only for infantry in real life.

 

3. This has been said a lot, but i have to disagree. If you ever read the Russian forums, you can see they do not favour Russian tanks, not any more than NA, EU and SEA countries favour their own.



WindSplitter1 #18 Posted 19 May 2019 - 03:03 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18833 battles
  • 3,212
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postfriedeggnchips, on 19 May 2019 - 01:59 PM, said:

 

3. This has been said a lot, but i have to disagree. If you ever read the Russian forums, you can see they do not favour Russian tanks, not any more than NA, EU and SEA countries favour their own.

 

I tried to explain this at least two times. One guy even made a full proposal of ITA WVs which was very much welcomed (so if you hate them, tough break, you might see them soon ™.

 

A lot of people, the majority, doesn't even read RU forums to reach that conclusion. There is where an opinion matters the most, though.


Edited by WindSplitter1, 19 May 2019 - 03:05 PM.


friedeggnchips #19 Posted 19 May 2019 - 03:16 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2556 battles
  • 255
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View PostWindSplitter1, on 19 May 2019 - 02:03 PM, said:

 

I tried to explain this at least two times. One guy even made a full proposal of ITA WVs which was very much welcomed (so if you hate them, tough break, you might see them soon ™.

 

A lot of people, the majority, doesn't even read RU forums to reach that conclusion. There is where an opinion matters the most, though.

 

Exactly. I will agree some Russian tanks do seem oddly overpowered but so do other countries tanks. Take the FV4005 for example, or the FV215b even. WT E100, Type 5, Type 4. You get the point.

WindSplitter1 #20 Posted 19 May 2019 - 03:29 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18833 battles
  • 3,212
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postfriedeggnchips, on 19 May 2019 - 02:16 PM, said:

 

Exactly. I will agree some Russian tanks do seem oddly overpowered but so do other countries tanks. Take the FV4005 for example, or the FV215b even. WT E100, Type 5, Type 4. You get the point.

 

Those are the Iconic tanks I was referring to before.

 

WTF E100 and the Types for being extremes, Stage II because it was buffed and became a standard, FV215b not so sure. It wasn't very popular until it got removed.

 

You have to be careful on how you add iconic tanks (for the sake of the conversation let's say... Chieftain 6, M60A1 and T-72):

 

  • CW Reward - People will be very upset as only a few will be able to get them
  • Underpowered - People will complain that their state is not a match with their historical service record
  • Overpowered - Two Battle Tiers will become ruined for months
  • Gold/Premium - Complaints about it being behind a paywall

 

And so on and so forth.

 

Meaning, their implementation has to be considered. Like 907s, T95/Chieftain, VK 72, etc. Those can be somewhat better than their Tech Tree equivalents because only a "lucky few" are able to get them and they only come up once a year. So, it's not that damaging and there's already a crowd control system.

 

Underpowered vehicles make it easier to adjust them in the future but it will get people to rage because their performance is so poor while in real life they owned the battlefield and dictated each and every engagement.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if WG put them behind a paywall as a failsafe mechanism to control their influx, while being able to make them better than Tier X vehicles you can research - since that's now the standard - but if they do, wallet warriors will make sure the MM will break even if it costs 60 - 95 - 120 Euros, instead of the current 40 - 60 - 100 Euros. Not to mention there's a number of issues that arise from selling Tier X premium vehicles (both from gameplay and financial perspectives).

 

 

So, WG prefers not to add the vehicle at all. swipe everything under the rug and let it all slide while the community drowns on a poorly moderated forum... and not having to deal with it.

 

Eventually, the devs will have to throw us a bone and pamper Europeans. They know this and know how. How late they are planning to do that is the $1M question.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users