Jump to content


"Easy Eight" Sherman, incorrect mantlet armour.


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

Peasant_wot #1 Posted 10 July 2020 - 07:04 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5143 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

Okay, what the hell is this? I thought WG balanced tanks only by changing the soft stats, while keeping the armour values close to historical? I dont mind them giving their own napkin designs 400mm of armour, but leave the real life vehicles as they were.

 

 


Edited by Peasant_wot, 10 July 2020 - 07:05 PM.


DaniulSims #2 Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11477 battles
  • 1,199
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

...what's wrong with it? 

 

The upgraded turret in game is that of the Jumbo - hence the 177mm of armor. It's not an uncommon thing in WoT to have certain tanks use turrets, guns or engines that were used only as prototypes. You know - game balance and such.

 

Remember - a lot of times, the armor values indicated by the game do not account for addon armor, turret mantlets or spaced armor.


Edited by DaniulSims, 10 July 2020 - 08:29 PM.


_Asti_ #3 Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:41 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 28866 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    09-14-2011

View PostPeasant_wot, on 10 July 2020 - 07:04 PM, said:

I thought WG balanced tanks only by changing the soft stats, while keeping the armour values close to historical?

 

You are righ...oh wait, it's not 2013 anymore. my bad.



Peasant_wot #4 Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:43 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5143 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostDaniulSims, on 10 July 2020 - 08:28 PM, said:

...what's wrong with it? 

 

The upgraded turret in game is that of the Jumbo - hence the 177mm of armor. It's not an uncommon thing in WoT to have certain tanks use turrets, guns or engines that were used only as prototypes. You know - game balance and such.

 

Remember - a lot of times, the armor values indicated by the game do not account for addon armor, turret mantlets or spaced armor.

 

The matter is that this is not Jumbo's turret, it still has the original 63,5mm of all around armour. Check the visual model too, its clearly the late Sherman mantlet.

 

If they want to put Jumbo's turret on normal Sherman, thats fine by me, but this is not.

 

Tanks.gg does account for spaced armour though. It indicates the base armour + X mm SP, for spaced armour.


Edited by Peasant_wot, 10 July 2020 - 08:43 PM.


NekoPuffer_PPP #5 Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:51 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37293 battles
  • 5,547
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

Err....all Shermans at tier 6 have that same mantlet, and it's the same thickness on all of them?

 

Is there an issue somewhere?... Because you are not clear on what exactly the problem you're trying to point out is.



Peasant_wot #6 Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5143 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 10 July 2020 - 08:51 PM, said:

Err....all Shermans at tier 6 have that same mantlet, and it's the same thickness on all of them?

 

Is there an issue somewhere?... Because you are not clear on what exactly the problem you're trying to point out is.

 

Sorry, sometimes I forget that not everybody knows armour layouts of ww2 vehicles by heart. :) It's supposed to be 88.9mm thick with 25.4mm mild steel plate some distance behind it.


Edited by Peasant_wot, 10 July 2020 - 08:54 PM.


DaniulSims #7 Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11477 battles
  • 1,199
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View PostPeasant_wot, on 10 July 2020 - 09:43 PM, said:

 

The matter is that this is not Jumbo's turret, it still has the original 63,5mm of all around armour. Check the visual model too, its clearly the late Sherman mantlet.

 

If they want to put Jumbo's turret on normal Sherman, thats fine by me, but this is not.

 

Tanks.gg does account for spaced armour though. It indicates the base armour + X mm SP, for spaced armour.

as far as I know, the  M4A3E2 Jumbo and M4A3E8 both have the same turret - with only the hull configuration changing.

 

Even assuming I am wrong and you're not accepting my previous explanation, why is it a problem? WG and, by extension WoT, has not tried to be historically accurate for a hot minute.



NekoPuffer_PPP #8 Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:58 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37293 battles
  • 5,547
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostPeasant_wot, on 10 July 2020 - 08:54 PM, said:

Sorry, sometimes I forget that not everybody knows armour layouts of ww2 vehicles by heart. :) It's supposed to be 88.9mm thick with 25.4mm mild steel plate some distance behind it.

 

They're like that on tier 5 though.

 

If they were that thin at tier 6, the tanks would be a lot crappier tbh. It's for balancing purposes.

 

The first thing you should know when playing WoT - historical accuracy is a type of cheese. :P

 

View PostDaniulSims, on 10 July 2020 - 08:55 PM, said:

as far as I know, the  M4A3E2 Jumbo and M4A3E8 both have the same turret - with only the hull configuration changing.

 

Their "top" turrets are the same. However, the Jumbo's stock turret is far superior as it is 152mm thick all-round.


Edited by NekoPuffer_PPP, 10 July 2020 - 09:00 PM.


Peasant_wot #9 Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:01 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5143 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostDaniulSims, on 10 July 2020 - 08:55 PM, said:

as far as I know, the  M4A3E2 Jumbo and M4A3E8 both have the same turret - with only the hull configuration changing.

 

Even assuming I am wrong and you're not accepting my previous explanation, why is it a problem? WG and, by extension WoT, has not tried to be historically accurate for a hot minute.

 

Depends on whether or not you're using the stock turret on Jumbo. It's considerably different in its armour layout.

 

"Not tied"? Ahhh that explains why 90% of the vehicles in the game have the armour and pen values almost exactly matching the historical ones. Clearly WG was not actually trying to get them as close as possible, its all just a coincidence. :D



Bulldog_Drummond #10 Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:04 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36476 battles
  • 12,490
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

Anyone looking for precise historical accuracy in WoT has come to the wrong place

This is, after all, the place where you just press a button to resurrect dead crewmen or instantly replace your destroyed tracks

It does, however, give a reasonable illusion of accuracy, which is the best anyone can expect in a wargame.

 



Peasant_wot #11 Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:09 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5143 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 10 July 2020 - 09:04 PM, said:

Anyone looking for precise historical accuracy in WoT has come to the wrong place

This is, after all, the place where you just press a button to resurrect dead crewmen or instantly replace your destroyed tracks

It does, however, give a reasonable illusion of accuracy, which is the best anyone can expect in a wargame.

 

 

I know this. But doubling the armour thickness (literally, from 3.5" to 7" ) of a tank, might quality as "breaking the illusion" a bit, wont you say? 


Edited by Peasant_wot, 10 July 2020 - 09:09 PM.


Bulldog_Drummond #12 Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36476 battles
  • 12,490
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostPeasant_wot, on 10 July 2020 - 08:09 PM, said:

 

I know this. But doubling the armour thickness (literally, from 3.5" to 7" ) of a tank, might quality as "breaking the illusion" a bit, wont you say? 

 

I honestly doubt that anyone would even notice.

I'm a long-standing tank buff, going back 50 years of interest in that, and from an historical angle the game is so ridiculous that it beggars belief

But I play it anyway for entertainment



Balc0ra #13 Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:39 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 77944 battles
  • 23,776
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostPeasant_wot, on 10 July 2020 - 08:54 PM, said:

 

Sorry, sometimes I forget that not everybody knows armour layouts of ww2 vehicles by heart. :) It's supposed to be 88.9mm thick with 25.4mm mild steel plate some distance behind it.

 

Balance always goes before historical values. Be it pen, module or armor. As that balance idea died years ago as it proved not to work too well. And even more so in the failed historical mode with mostly stock tier 6 tanks vs a Tiger II. Why? Because of two factors. One is that most mid to low tier tanks, inc the US meds were designed with infantry support in mind also, vs pure anti-tank fighting. It's why most had a 75mm, as they were more suited for such a role. As only a handful of E2's etc got a 76 upgrade. That and they also face armor and guns they never did face, or were designed to face in this game. It's why the Tiger I is not living up to his reputation facing a T29 or even an IS-3 vs T-34 and Shermans that are two tiers lower. 

 

Now ofc you can say "down tier them". But that's not always gonna make it work either as the Tiger I showed. But a bit better with the King Tiger that had the more historical setup, vs a proposed one. 


Edited by Balc0ra, 10 July 2020 - 09:40 PM.


Desyatnik_Pansy #14 Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:39 PM

    Bartender

  • Moderator
  • 19840 battles
  • 28,010
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostPeasant_wot, on 10 July 2020 - 09:09 PM, said:

I know this. But doubling the armour thickness (literally, from 3.5" to 7" ) of a tank, might quality as "breaking the illusion" a bit, wont you say? 

 

 I think the health bars, casually repairing tracks outside the tank and healing crew with a button-press, viewrange/camo mechanics, fake tanks and so on do a whole lot more "breaking the illusion" than the armour on a specific part of a specific tank. 

 



The_Naa #15 Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:45 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12881 battles
  • 2,613
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

View PostDesyatnik_Pansy, on 10 July 2020 - 09:39 PM, said:

 

 I think the health bars, casually repairing tracks outside the tank and healing crew with a button-press, viewrange/camo mechanics, fake tanks and so on do a whole lot more "breaking the illusion" than the armour on a specific part of a specific tank. 

 


oh and dont forget the Loader that has determined to keep up that reload exactly at 3.01 seconds (my Panther) even tho your tank can be spinning in air, crashing all over the place. the contract says that the tanks Reload must be 3.01 seconds at every moment so the loader keeps that reload at 3.01 no matter what is happening to the tank. 


Edited by The_Naa, 10 July 2020 - 11:28 PM.


Bulldog_Drummond #16 Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:46 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36476 battles
  • 12,490
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostDesyatnik_Pansy, on 10 July 2020 - 08:39 PM, said:

 

 I think the health bars, casually repairing tracks outside the tank and healing crew with a button-press, viewrange/camo mechanics, fake tanks and so on do a whole lot more "breaking the illusion" than the armour on a specific part of a specific tank. 

 

 

Also the hilarious idea of hit points.  Barring a miracle any tank that was penned in reality was dead.  Tank combat was not Dungeons & Dragons.

And as Balcora points out most tanks were not actually designed for tank v tank combat

Tank v tank combat was fairly unusual.  

That said anything that destroys the illusion (and this is a very personal thing) pops the bubble

I have played Market Garden games which aim to get all the detail right yet the Glider Pilot Regiment troops can be sent back to base by flak while their glider troops land okay.  That is the sort of thing that would stop me even bothering to play the game, but for others it wouldn't matter at all


Edited by Bulldog_Drummond, 10 July 2020 - 09:53 PM.


Peasant_wot #17 Posted 10 July 2020 - 10:08 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5143 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostBalc0ra, on 10 July 2020 - 09:39 PM, said:

 

Balance always goes before historical values. Be it pen, module or armor. As that balance idea died years ago as it proved not to work too well. And even more so in the failed historical mode with mostly stock tier 6 tanks vs a Tiger II. Why? Because of two factors. One is that most mid to low tier tanks, inc the US meds were designed with infantry support in mind also, vs pure anti-tank fighting. It's why most had a 75mm, as they were more suited for such a role. As only a handful of E2's etc got a 76 upgrade. That and they also face armor and guns they never did face, or were designed to face in this game. It's why the Tiger I is not living up to his reputation facing a T29 or even an IS-3 vs T-34 and Shermans that are two tiers lower. 

 

Now ofc you can say "down tier them". But that's not always gonna make it work either as the Tiger I showed. But a bit better with the King Tiger that had the more historical setup, vs a proposed one. 

 

Why not? There are no balance issues with with Tiger 131/Heavy No. 6 at Tier VI, as far as I know? US made a shitton of medium tanks prototypes during/after WW2, one of them (or a combination of turret from one, hull from another and the gun from yet another one) could make a workable replacement for E8, while keeping with the overall theme of strong hulldown vehicles.

 

View PostDesyatnik_Pansy, on 10 July 2020 - 09:39 PM, said:

 I think the health bars, casually repairing tracks outside the tank and healing crew with a button-press, viewrange/camo mechanics, fake tanks and so on do a whole lot more "breaking the illusion" than the armour on a specific part of a specific tank. 

 

Its not the same. We all accept that those are necessary to create  a fun gameplay experience. Changing the hard stats of historical vehicles or, as you've put it, parts of historical vehicles, should not be required to balance the game. 

 


Edited by Peasant_wot, 10 July 2020 - 10:15 PM.


DaniulSims #18 Posted 10 July 2020 - 11:23 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11477 battles
  • 1,199
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View PostPeasant_wot, on 10 July 2020 - 11:08 PM, said:

Its not the same. We all accept that those are necessary to create  a fun gameplay experience. Changing the hard stats of historical vehicles or, as you've put it, parts of historical vehicles, should not be required to balance the game. 

WG thought this too, up until about 3-4 years ago. 

 

Then WG, maybe a bit later than others, realized that history doesn't care about balance.



Nishi_Kinuyo #19 Posted 10 July 2020 - 11:24 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11290 battles
  • 7,590
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
So basically, you want to make the Sherman even more crap?

Kdingo #20 Posted 10 July 2020 - 11:31 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33415 battles
  • 9,086
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011
Last night i had a dream....
a dream about an e8 with pref mm, to never have to worry about 128 pen in tier 8 matches ever again.... it was a wet dream.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users