Jump to content


Supertest News: The T54E2


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Actinid #1 Posted 14 June 2019 - 10:07 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 19841 battles
  • 1,385
  • Member since:
    03-08-2013

Hello tankers!

 

supertest-T54E2_EN.jpg

A newcomer is about to enter the Supertest. This heavy American dude isn’t into formalities; not having a proper name, it’s fine with being addressed by an index: T54E2.

 

Pictures :

 

If it had a name still, that would be “Mr. Versatility” as this Yank’s weak sides are balanced by the strong ones.

For example, its gun has a dispersion of 0.4 which is far from ideal.

But with an armor penetration of 226 mm (with a basic shell) the operator of the T54E2 won’t have to thoroughly aim at the weakest points of enemy vehicles.

Penetrating opponents of the same tier won’t be a problem at all. Sure, the combination of an alpha strike of 390 points and 14-second reload time isn’t outstanding.

But the sheer ability to dish out stable amounts of damage with basic rounds is worth much.

 

As for the survivability, the average hull protection of the T54E2 (150 mm at the front) is compensated for by its thick (up to 240 mm) turret armor. Even though the turret still has a weak spot (the commander’s cupola), the gun depression of -10 degrees allows for more ways of hiding it.

T54E2 is reasonably fast, with a top speed of 45 km/h and a specific power of more than 16 hp per ton of weight.

 

This lets it take key positions and benefit from its armor penetration and gun depression angle. This tank is a well-rounded fighter, being a jack of all trades but a master of none. It may assist attacking allies or bolster its side’s defenses, being sheer Versatility on tracks.



tomolone #2 Posted 14 June 2019 - 02:50 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19035 battles
  • 55
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-10-2013
This should be a decent allrounder. Looking forward to seeing it ingame. Sadly it being a heavy means the cost will be 40+ euros.

MrEdweird #3 Posted 14 June 2019 - 03:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22590 battles
  • 443
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011
Okay, great. Now it would be even greater if we could have the proper T54 and T95 medium tank lines in the tech tree.

Edited by MrEdweird, 14 June 2019 - 03:09 PM.


KanonenVogel19 #4 Posted 14 June 2019 - 03:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

I can already tell you that the turret armor will be completely useless. That cupola is huge, and any decent player will shoot at it rather than the turret itself. Going hulldown in this tank will still be an RNG gamble at best, and we should remember that players will not depend on armor that doesn't work. Either make the cupola not a weakspot even for premium ammo or you might aswell change the turret armor for gun handling instead.

 

And now brace yourselves for the incoming storm of armor haters that want 100% penetration chance against even targets that are better strategically positioned than themselves.


Edited by KanonenVogel19, 14 June 2019 - 03:53 PM.


tankistetigre #5 Posted 14 June 2019 - 11:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38248 battles
  • 680
  • [T0AD] T0AD
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 14 June 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

I can already tell you that the turret armor will be completely useless. That cupola is huge, and any decent player will shoot at it rather than the turret itself. Going hulldown in this tank will still be an RNG gamble at best, and we should remember that players will not depend on armor that doesn't work. Either make the cupola not a weakspot even for premium ammo or you might aswell change the turret armor for gun handling instead.

 

And now brace yourselves for the incoming storm of armor haters that want 100% penetration chance against even targets that are better strategically positioned than themselves.

 

Yes make the turret unpennetrable like t95FV. Seriously... Also give it T110E5 gun...



KanonenVogel19 #6 Posted 15 June 2019 - 09:18 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View Posttankistetigre, on 14 June 2019 - 11:24 PM, said:

Yes make the turret unpennetrable like t95FV. Seriously...

 

I don't see the problem that you're trying to create here? If someone positions himself strategically correct, why should he still get easily penetrated from the front of the turret? That makes it completely pointless to position yourself strategically correct in the first place. I assume that you're one of these players that expects to be able to penetrate anyone, anywhere, regardless how they've outplayed you in terms of strategy and positioning?

 

You need to understand that he can't bring his cover with him. So if he's in a better position than you, instead of complaining that his turret is inpenetratable, then either attack him from another angle, or attack another target until he turns his turret or leaves his position. Simple. But for some reason some players want this game to be about clicking on pixels rather than thinking strategically.



LandserSkin #7 Posted 15 June 2019 - 12:42 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32956 battles
  • 242
  • [HTKL] HTKL
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011
remember this? https://world-of-tanks-leaks.fandom.com/wiki/T54E2

tankistetigre #8 Posted 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38248 battles
  • 680
  • [T0AD] T0AD
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 15 June 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:

If someone positions himself strategically correct, why should he still get easily penetrated from the front of the turret? That makes it completely pointless to position yourself strategically correct in the first place. I assume that you're one of these players that expects to be able to penetrate anyone, anywhere, regardless how they've outplayed you in terms of strategy and positioning?

 

He should get penetrated if he gets hit in his weakspot. The role of armor is  actually to force your opponents to aim at your ws and not autolock or snap you. The role of armor is not to laugh at everybody bouncing on you because your armor is OP.

Maybe it's your definition of "outplayed" ...Haha, I 'm in a defender, I outplayed you panther II... :facepalm:

 

I only expect to pen where I should be able to. 

 

Just a quick reminder : What happenned when WG made the T110E5 coupola unpenetrable? It became one of the most op tank at Tier X, so much it actually get nerfed back.

 

Just another point on the "strategically positionned", If you had played ranked battle this season, wich I doubt, what was happenning when both team had hulldown position with weakspotless turrets, everybody was shooting HE in the turret, trying to grind his way through the ennemy team HP. So fun ! And if 1 team didn't had OP hulldown tanks, they were getting stomped.

 

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 15 June 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:

You need to understand that he can't bring his cover with him. 

 

Ok, so as hulldown tank cannot be hulldown on flat ground, does Wg also needs to give it OP hull armor ?

 

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 15 June 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:

So if he's in a better position than you, instead of complaining that his turret is inpenetratable, then either attack him from another angle, or attack another target until he turns his turret or leaves his position. Simple. But for some reason some players want this game to be about clicking on pixels rather than thinking strategically.

 

Oh the old "simply go away or flank him". That argument is so stupid I won't extend on that.

 

The truth is some players want to buy OP premium tank because they suck... this is why we have op premium like defender.


Edited by tankistetigre, 15 June 2019 - 05:14 PM.


KanonenVogel19 #9 Posted 15 June 2019 - 05:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM, said:

He should get penetrated if he gets hit in his weakspot. The role of armor is  actually to force your opponents to aim at your ws and not autolock or snap you. The role of armor is not to laugh at everybody bouncing on you because your armor is OP.

 

I kind of expect a player that understands the game mechanics to also understand why this won't work. It seems you don't, so then I will have to explain it to you instead. On close distances, these weakspots become easy enough to penetrate reliably which will make the armor completely useless. On longer distances, these weakspots will come down to RNG if they will hit or not, which will make armor dependant on RNG. In both cases, it will make armor less dependant on the players strategical positioning, which is a bad thing. This should be a tactical tank game, not a "click on my pixels" game.

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM, said:

Maybe it's your definition of "outplayed" ...

 

When I wrote "outplayed", I meant players that are in a worse strategical position that their opponent, yet they whine that they can't take him out anyway. Do you understand the concept of strategy? The entire point is not to click on each other, but to make decisions that will give you an advantage over your opponent. One example can be to position yourself in a way that gives you an advantage when it comes to armor. If that advantage can be neglected by someone just clicking on a magical spot on your turret, then that will completely defeat the entire point of you making an effort to position yourself advantageously.

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM, said:

Haha, I 'm in a defender, I outplayed you panther II...

 

That's a very exaggerated example. Did you pick it just to strengthen your weak argument?

 

The Defender is not OP because it lacks turret weakspots, but because it has too thick all-round armor and even lacks a weakspot on the lower front plate. And as if that wasn't enough, it combines all that with good mobility and firepower. That's why it's OP.

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM, said:

I only expect to pen where I should be able to. 

 

Then stop expecting that you "should" penetrate someone that's presenting his strongest armor to you, and the problem is solved. Seriusly, do you complain that you can't penetrate a hulldown IS-7 or sidescraping Maus aswell? Maybe you want them to fabricate a fake weakspot extension on the models of the IS-7 and Maus just so that you can penetrate these tanks even when these players have strategically outplayed you?

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM, said:

What happenned when WG made the T110E5 coupola unpenetrable?

 

And should I remind you that the T110E5 also had a next to nonexistant lower front plate weakspot? It seems you only remember what you want to remember. Next time remember the entire story, not only the part that favours your.

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM, said:

Just another point on the "strategically positionned", If you had played ranked battle this season, wich I doubt, what was happenning when both team had hulldown position with weakspotless turrets, everybody was shooting HE in the turret, trying to grind his way through the ennemy team HP. So fun ! And if 1 team didn't had OP hulldown tanks, the other team was getting stomped.

 

I did play ranked battles. Wonder why you doubt that...

 

Now you're talking about the symptoms and not the causes. The reason people started throwing HE at each other is not because of the lack of weakspots, but because of the bad maps that doesn't allow them to attack the enemy from another angle. If we had better maps in this game, people would attack the targets from another angle instead from which they should penetrate with armor piercing rounds. Personally I'd much rather see WG put in time and effort to make proper maps rather than ruining all of the tanks that have some kind of armor that actually works.

 

I assume you also think the IS-7 is OP because it has no turret weakspots?

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM, said:

Ok, so as hulldown tank cannot be hulldown on flat ground, does Wg also needs to give it OP hull armor ?

 

You don't understand the concept of strategy and positioning, do you?

 

First of all, there is not such thing as a "hulldown tank". All tanks can be hulldown, but it's their turret armor that decides how big advantage they will get in that position. Having good turret armor usually comes at the cost of having worse hull armor, in order to not make the tank too heavy. That means, when the tank is not hulldown, it will be easier to penetrate its hull. If a player isn't using his thick turret armor to his advantage, that player has made a strategical misplay.

 

The problem here is that you either want a tank to be penetrated in every single position it positions itself in, or you give me an example of how it should be OP and not penetrated anywhere. Do you understand that the same tank can be unpenetratable in specific positions and angles, while it's easy to penetrate in other positions and angles? That's what creates interesting and strategic gameplay.

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM, said:

Oh the old "simply go away or flank him". That argument is so stupid I won't extend on that.

 

It's very easy to claim that something is stupid, but it's much more difficult to explain why.

 

Falling back and flank the target is not stupid, it has been used in military combat for centuries. That's kind of the problem with todays game. People play it, for tens of thousands of games, and then I encounter people that write stuff like this. Not long ago a person claimed that APCR shells are heavier than AP shells. No you're here claiming that flanking is stupid. One could expect people to learn a bit or two when playing a game about tanks.

 

So no, flanking is not stupid. What's stupid is the corridor maps that we currently have in the game.



tankistetigre #10 Posted 15 June 2019 - 08:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38248 battles
  • 680
  • [T0AD] T0AD
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 15 June 2019 - 05:21 PM, said:

 

I kind of expect a player that understands the game mechanics to also understand why this won't work. It seems you don't, so then I will have to explain it to you instead. On close distances, these weakspots become easy enough to penetrate reliably which will make the armor completely useless. On longer distances, these weakspots will come down to RNG if they will hit or not, which will make armor dependant on RNG. In both cases, it will make armor less dependant on the players strategical positioning, which is a bad thing. This should be a tactical tank game, not a "click on my pixels" game.

 

 

When I wrote "outplayed", I meant players that are in a worse strategical position that their opponent, yet they whine that they can't take him out anyway. Do you understand the concept of strategy? The entire point is not to click on each other, but to make decisions that will give you an advantage over your opponent. One example can be to position yourself in a way that gives you an advantage when it comes to armor. If that advantage can be neglected by someone just clicking on a magical spot on your turret, then that will completely defeat the entire point of you making an effort to position yourself advantageously.

 

 

That's a very exaggerated example. Did you pick it just to strengthen your weak argument?

 

The Defender is not OP because it lacks turret weakspots, but because it has too thick all-round armor and even lacks a weakspot on the lower front plate. And as if that wasn't enough, it combines all that with good mobility and firepower. That's why it's OP.

 

 

Then stop expecting that you "should" penetrate someone that's presenting his strongest armor to you, and the problem is solved. Seriusly, do you complain that you can't penetrate a hulldown IS-7 or sidescraping Maus aswell? Maybe you want them to fabricate a fake weakspot extension on the models of the IS-7 and Maus just so that you can penetrate these tanks even when these players have strategically outplayed you?

 

 

And should I remind you that the T110E5 also had a next to nonexistant lower front plate weakspot? It seems you only remember what you want to remember. Next time remember the entire story, not only the part that favours your.

 

 

I did play ranked battles. Wonder why you doubt that...

 

Now you're talking about the symptoms and not the causes. The reason people started throwing HE at each other is not because of the lack of weakspots, but because of the bad maps that doesn't allow them to attack the enemy from another angle. If we had better maps in this game, people would attack the targets from another angle instead from which they should penetrate with armor piercing rounds. Personally I'd much rather see WG put in time and effort to make proper maps rather than ruining all of the tanks that have some kind of armor that actually works.

 

I assume you also think the IS-7 is OP because it has no turret weakspots?

 

 

You don't understand the concept of strategy and positioning, do you?

 

First of all, there is not such thing as a "hulldown tank". All tanks can be hulldown, but it's their turret armor that decides how big advantage they will get in that position. Having good turret armor usually comes at the cost of having worse hull armor, in order to not make the tank too heavy. That means, when the tank is not hulldown, it will be easier to penetrate its hull. If a player isn't using his thick turret armor to his advantage, that player has made a strategical misplay.

 

The problem here is that you either want a tank to be penetrated in every single position it positions itself in, or you give me an example of how it should be OP and not penetrated anywhere. Do you understand that the same tank can be unpenetratable in specific positions and angles, while it's easy to penetrate in other positions and angles? That's what creates interesting and strategic gameplay.

 

 

It's very easy to claim that something is stupid, but it's much more difficult to explain why.

 

Falling back and flank the target is not stupid, it has been used in military combat for centuries. That's kind of the problem with todays game. People play it, for tens of thousands of games, and then I encounter people that write stuff like this. Not long ago a person claimed that APCR shells are heavier than AP shells. No you're here claiming that flanking is stupid. One could expect people to learn a bit or two when playing a game about tanks.

 

So no, flanking is not stupid. What's stupid is the corridor maps that we currently have in the game.

 

I won't answer to all points you raised because you either are bad faith or you don't anderstand the game. All your arguments are fallacious and you even contradict yourself by saying that players should flank but cannot do it because of stupid corridor map we have ingame...

 

I would add that the presence of a WS on the turret is a balancing factor, and if you don't anderstand that with its current stats, the T54E2 is already well behond the competition at T8 you clearly has to think again. No need an unpenetrable coupola.



KanonenVogel19 #11 Posted 15 June 2019 - 09:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 08:49 PM, said:

I won't answer to all points you raised because you either are bad faith or you don't anderstand the game.

 

Of course you won't, it's much easier to just blame me for not understanding the game instead of actually bringing good counter arguments.

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 08:49 PM, said:

contradict yourself by saying that players should flank but cannot do it because of stupid corridor map we have ingame...

 

That's not a contradiction, since I openly admit that they currently can't do it. If you had actually read what I wrote to you, you would have noticed that I wrote that I would prefer them to spend development time on making maps where we can flank, rather than going through plenty of tanks and adding illogical and unrealistic weakspots. That's a lazy mans approach to a bigger underlaying issue and those kind of solutions rarely work out good in the long term.

 

View Posttankistetigre, on 15 June 2019 - 08:49 PM, said:

the T54E2 is already well behond the competition at T8 you clearly has to think again. No need an unpenetrable coupola.

 

Look, this conversation is obviously not leading anywhere, so let me put it like this to you.

 

First of all, you should think back about your T110E5 example that brought up before, and which you didn't even bother to reply back to from my previous comment. When the T110E5s cupola was not a weakspot, a lot of people complained that it was OP and the tank was played a lot. When they turned the cupola into a weakspot, you hardly see the tank anymore. That's how much a turret cupola can affect the same tank. 

 

Secondly, if you think that this tanks turret armor will work, I highly suggest you to purchase it when it's released, and while you try to get the turret armor to work, I will happily enjoy farming your HP through the weakspot that you insist is so important to make this tank balanced. In the end it should be a win for us both, you get your cupola that you insist is so important, and the rest of us gets to farm easy damage.

 

Quite an easy solution to the problem, rather than us sitting here and arguing back and forth :)



sokolicc #12 Posted 17 June 2019 - 08:38 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 30923 battles
  • 338
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    04-14-2016
I'm sad it wont be tier 9 medium, baby T95E6 cw reward... :(

Geno1isme #13 Posted 17 June 2019 - 09:36 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48107 battles
  • 10,223
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013
Why do we need yet another high-alpha med at T8?

Geno1isme #14 Posted 17 June 2019 - 09:50 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48107 battles
  • 10,223
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 15 June 2019 - 06:21 PM, said:

I assume you also think the IS-7 is OP because it has no turret weakspots?

 

IS-7 is a good example: While it has an almost impenetrable turret it pays for that with rather bad mobility, a potato gun with mediocre DPM, and due to limited gun-depression it can't exploit it's turret nearly as much as a T95 Chieftain.

If you have sth like a T110E3 or a badger you have a point about strategic positioning, as they pay for their armor with crappy mobility. But when you have a good gun and good mobility you definitely should not get an invulnerable turret on top.

 

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 15 June 2019 - 10:53 PM, said:

First of all, you should think back about your T110E5 example that brought up before, and which you didn't even bother to reply back to from my previous comment. When the T110E5s cupola was not a weakspot, a lot of people complained that it was OP and the tank was played a lot. When they turned the cupola into a weakspot, you hardly see the tank anymore. That's how much a turret cupola can affect the same tank.

 

Well, that's only half the truth. The downfall of the E5 had several reasons, not the least the introduction of the Wz-5A, the buffs of the 113 and IS-7 and esp. the introduction of the Super-Conqueror which is just flat-out better in almost every aspect. Which in turn has now itself been obsoleted by the T95 Chieftain, as that has even better (turret) armor combined with vastly better mobility (which was the key weakness of the S-Conq).



feies_vlad #15 Posted 18 June 2019 - 11:03 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12929 battles
  • 257
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    09-05-2015

View PostGeno1isme, on 17 June 2019 - 09:36 AM, said:

Why do we need yet another high-alpha med at T8?

 

It's a heavy not a med...

undutchable80 #16 Posted 18 June 2019 - 12:36 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 11642 battles
  • 3,830
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014

Couple of things on my mind regarding this tank: 

- The T54E2 numerically sounds like the successor of the T54E1, so you would expect it to be the T10 replacement of the T57 Heavy (to make the line more balanced since going LT-MT-MT-HT definitely isn't). However, it is placed at Tier 8 and with a HT designation as well? In some important areas it is better than its bigger brother! My OCD cant handle that kind of schizophrenia. 

- What is up with that 226 pen? Compare that to the Pershing (I know, its an MT but still): 190, the T54E1: 210 and (most importantly) the T32: 198!!! Please tell me the US HT line is going to get some TLC sometime soon??

- The T54E2 will become the 5th T8 US premium heavy tank in the game, with only 1 regular tech tree variant. I am no tankopedia, but couldnt you have started to have a think on adding a second HT line to the US tech tree...?

 



bgjudge #17 Posted 19 June 2019 - 06:48 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29544 battles
  • 224
  • Member since:
    02-11-2012

View Postundutchable80, on 18 June 2019 - 11:36 AM, said:

Couple of things on my mind regarding this tank: 

- The T54E2 numerically sounds like the successor of the T54E1, so you would expect it to be the T10 replacement of the T57 Heavy (to make the line more balanced since going LT-MT-MT-HT definitely isn't). However, it is placed at Tier 8 and with a HT designation as well? In some important areas it is better than its bigger brother! My OCD cant handle that kind of schizophrenia. 

- What is up with that 226 pen? Compare that to the Pershing (I know, its an MT but still): 190, the T54E1: 210 and (most importantly) the T32: 198!!! Please tell me the US HT line is going to get some TLC sometime soon??

- The T54E2 will become the 5th T8 US premium heavy tank in the game, with only 1 regular tech tree variant. I am no tankopedia, but couldnt you have started to have a think on adding a second HT line to the US tech tree...?

 

 

Tech tree tanks dont earn money...

But yep...they have more than enough material to make something new..sadly WG LOVES cash.

WoWs has more premium ships, than standard one at high tier...I stopped grinding the tech tree to the lack of interest, but WG are introducing premium ship after premium ship...They can have more than twice their tech tree...

Sad story, but true.



Geno1isme #18 Posted 19 June 2019 - 11:02 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48107 battles
  • 10,223
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View Postfeies_vlad, on 18 June 2019 - 12:03 PM, said:

 

It's a heavy not a med...

 

Ah thanks, so confusing with all those T54xyz variations that so far have all been mediums, and the posted stats also fit more to a medium than a heavy. Looks rather powercreepy still, only the gunhandling seems to be somewhat lackluster.

 



NoobySkooby #19 Posted 29 August 2019 - 12:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16975 battles
  • 4,977
  • [D3NK] D3NK
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

Will this be any better than the T 34?

 



tankistetigre #20 Posted 30 August 2019 - 03:04 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38248 battles
  • 680
  • [T0AD] T0AD
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

View PostNoobySkooby, on 29 August 2019 - 12:07 PM, said:

Will this be any better than the T 34?

 

 

Too early to say as we don't have enough infos.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users