- SerB states that the point where you stop earning and your gain/spend ratio is balanced in WoT is tier 7-8 without the premium account (depends how good the player is), earlier, for premium account it was tier 9, but now (SS: post 0.8.6) it’s tier 10, for non-premium tanks the best farming tiers are 5-6
- not even 50 percent of German SPG’s Wargaming knows about have been implemented into the game
- the impulse to introduce the 0.8.6 shell dispersion in aim circle were relatively often cases of shells flying to the aim circle boundaries
Q: (paraphrased) “It is a known fact that diesel electric engines such as Porsche system, can go with the same speed forward and backward, why is it not implemented into the game?”
A: “Take your car. Now remove the rear mirror. Cover the rear glass and leave only a small slit. On the rear seat, put your mother in law (she won’t be missed that much) so that she covers the small slit. And now drive cross crountry at full speed backwards, while obeying your mother-in-law’s commands. And don’t forget to include a wish in your testament so that your widow sends us the video of the whole event.”
- SerB states that he is not convinced that garage battles are necessery for WoT, especially when he recieves bad feedback on them from other projects
- apparently the current punishment for non-active players (no XP and credits) is enough
- after the 0.8.6 introduction there was no additional change in accuracy
- SerB on noobs: “Every noob (with few reasonable exceptions) thinks of himself as a megaskilled player, who doesn’t rightfully pwn everyone only as a result of Wargaming conspiracy.”
- the new accuracy does increase the load of WG servers, but not much
- there will be more miniquests on the servers, they are planned to happen on regular basis
- module tiers are arbitrary numbers, a tier 9 module can have just the same parameters as a tier 10 module theoretically
- sold crew recovery (for example after account theft) will be realized somehow
- the 0.8.8 patch with Soviet mediums was somewhat confirmed, it is already decided from which tank will the branch start, but Storm will tell in a couple of months
- 0.8.9 will bring 2nd German TD branch, everything was already decided, Storm will also tell later
- 0.8.8 tier 10 alternative Soviet tank will be the Object 430, the introduction of this branch does not mean there will be changes in current branches
- 0.8.8 will bring 5 new vehicles along with the Object 430, but other than that, Storm states that it’s too early to talk about it, wait until August/September
- French LeFH arty decreased gun accuracy doesn’t count as combat characteristic change or a nerf (SS: it’s a compensation since arties did get increased accuracy spread too)
- Tiger texture changes (the way VK1602 Leopard was changed) are not planned
- Q: “Do you realize that you created a bunch of junkies, addicted to your game? Don’t you feel ashamed?” A: “*puts away his bread with caviar* I realize that. I feel ashamed. *sadface*”
- “not many things” are planned for 0.8.7
the “testing” of miniquests on RU server successfully continues :) There is an interesting even from 26th to 29th of June, that includes two new miniquests, amongst other things.
First: A player, that wins 15 battles in any vehicle in one day (not in a row, just so) recieves one day free premium account. The counter resets around 4 AM.
Second: A player, that deals more than 3000 damage per battle, gets twice XP for that battle. Again, on any machine.
Not sure how about you, but I deal over 3k pretty often on my Ferdinand. And what is the EU server getting? Oh, that’s right. No miniquests for you, western capitalists!
as you have probably read already, the Object 430 will be most likely the top tank of the Soviet tier 10 branch (unless Evilly screwed something up and SerB will debunk this). Let’s have a look at this interesting vehicle together.
History
Object 430 is an experimental Soviet tank. After the war, the T-54 medium tank became the standard tank for the Soviet army, but as the 50′s came and went, it became more and more clear that its original armament, maneuverability and armor configuration started lagging behind the western world trends and that the T-54′s will have more and more trouble dealing with contemporary western tanks. Therefore, several tank development programs were started with the goal of creating a vehicle, that would outperform anything it could meet on the battlefield.
In the Kharkov mechanical plant (ZIM, Factory named after V.A.Malischev – a Stalin-era politician), a new department (KB-60M) was created specially for this purpose, it was led by the plant chief designers J.I.Baran and A.A.Morozov. In 1953, this department finished a preliminary project idea for the new tank, designated “T-64″, which was approved by the army. The project was officially started in April 1954 and recieved the designation “Object 430″. The sketches were ready by the end of 1954 and in May 1955, work began on the technical project itself. This all was finished by June 1955 and a wooden mockup was made.
First two prototypes were made in 1957 and they recieved the designations “Object 430-1*Z” and “Object 430-2*Z” (Z here means “trial” apparently). These protypes were tested by the factory and also trialed against another experimental Soviet tank, Object 140. A number of defects (especially regarding the engine) were revealed during the trials, but overall the tests were considered successful. By June 1958, the plant was ordered to build 3 more prototypes for the military to test on polygons. These were designated “Object 430-1*P, 430-2*P and 430-3*P”. These prototypes were ready in December 1959 and were tested thoroughly in two stages from March 1960 to May 1961.
In the end, based on the trial results, the Object 430-2*Z and 430-3*P were selected for development and mass production recieved new designations of “Object 430M-1, Object 430M-2″. That was, however, not meant to be.
The result of the testing committee was, that while all the development program goals were met and Object 430 is essentially ready for serial production, it does not represent much of an improvement over the T-54. Furthermore, other experimental tanks (Object 165 and Object 166 – otherwise known as T-62A and T-62) also passed the tests by that time, but their advantage was that some of their parts were unified with the T-54. Therefore, since there was such a reserve in T-54 improvement potential and since Object 430 didn’t represent that much of an upgrade over the T-54, the project was cancelled on 17.2.1961. The intended “T-64″ designation was then passed to Object 432.
Characteristics
We will compare this tank to the T-62A, its direct tier 10 competitor (data in brackets will belong to T-62A).
Crew: both vehicles have 4 man crew.
Weight: 35,5 (37)
Engine: 5TD, 600hp (580hp V-55) – as a “fun fact”, Object 430 had a new cooling system, that led to numerous breakdowns
Power to weight ratio: 16,9 hp/t (15,68 hp/t)
Maximum speed: 55 km/h (50 km/h)
Hull armor: 120mm (60 degrees)/ 50mm (50 degrees)/ 40mm (30 degrees) (102/75/45 for T-62A)
Turret armor: 248mm/185mm/63mm (240/161/65 for T-62A)
Gun: 100mm D-54TS (same gun as the T-62A), or U-8TS (experimental rifled gun, roughly matching the British L7)
Verdict
Object 430 seems to be better on the paper in most respects than the T-62A, so I assume we can expect some nerfs in the game, compared to its real life characteristics. When talking about this vehicle in the past, SerB mentioned a horribly unreliable “one hitpoint” engine, so I assume we can expect something like that to be the vehicle’s weakspot. Either way, this tank will probably play much like the T-62A – why the developers would decided to implement yet another such tank, I have no idea.
Now the Americans already have one don’t they? Well, by playstyle the T26E4 doesn’t really fit the stereotypical medium role does it? So are there any other vehicles that could be introduced to fit in a tier 8 premium medium spot? Yes, a lot actually.
Lets start off with the more logical choices. The T42 might be the easiest vehile to implement. Historically the T42 was based off the T37 light tank and was to be better armored than the M46 while keeping approximately the same firepower. The T42′s turret was used in the M46E1(upgraded M46) and the M47 Patton. The chassis is already ingame as the T69′s chassis while the turret and gun are represented by the M46′s upgraded turret and the 90 mm gun M36. The T42 would have 4 crew members and could achieve speeds of 51 km/h (with 13.3 hp/t).
Another choice is the M47 Patton itself. The M47 used a hull based off the M46 Patton but featured better sloping so the protection would be equal to the T42 hull. The gun is the same as the T42(the M36). The M47 had a top speed of 48 km/h while having 15.9 hp/t. The M47 should be superior to the T42 in mobility besides top speed, also you get to train 5 crew members in it. I’d be happy with an M47 premium but I’d like to have the M47 as a researchable tank at tier 9 and have the M26 and M46 combined as a single tier 8 tank, we could see it in the Euro Tree too.
You could have the M47 as a German Premium too…
The T25 and the T25E1 were modified T23s that were fitted with the 90 mm gun T7(aka M3) in a new turret. The T25E1 used a more conventional transmission because the original T23 Electric transmission(used in the T25) couldn’t deal with the weight being added. The T25E1 would be a better choice than the original T25 in my honest opinion. The T25E1′s turret was 76 mm thick with an 89 mm thick mantlet. The frontal armor is 76 mm thick at a 46 degree slope to protect the crew of 5. The T25E1 could reach speeds of 56 km/h but only in short spurts, its sustained top speed was 48 km/h and had 12.9 hp/t. the T25E1 would be the most sluggish and weakest armed and armored out of these 3 vehicles and would need good “soft” stats for compensation.
Now for some prototype/conceptual vehicles. In 1952, the first Questionmark conference was held. Out of this conference the M-1, M-4/M-5, and the M-7 could be viable tier 8 mediums.
The M-1 was the most conventional out of these vehicles, being similar to the M48 Patton. It had 102 mm of frontal armor sloped back at 60 degress and had a powerful 500 hp engine(AOS-895, used in the Walker Bulldog). The M-1 was armed with the 90 mm T139 gun(which in all practicality is the 90 mm M41 gun). I would think this would be a little too much out of a premium, the M-2 design armed with the 105 mm T140 gun could make a good tier 9 tank with the M-1 being stock.
The M-4 and the M-5 only differed in powerplant, the M-4 was to use a failed engine(AX-1100) while the M-5 was to use the AOS-895 and would have good mobility(13 hp/t). They had 102 mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees to protect the 4 crew members. The turret for these designs was placed in the rear to minimize overhang of the gun which was the 90 mm T139 gun. The M-5 should still get a good deal of comfort(which all these other tanks have an exceptional amount of comfortable gun depression). I think the M-5 would be a good choice as it unique and it isn’t over/underpowering.
The M-7 is a strange vehicle. It has the same chassis as the M-5 as above but the turret is a pod with an autoloaded 90 mm T139 gun. The weight of the M-7 was only 32 tons and would have 15.6 hp/t. There was to be no dangers of gun fumes or recoil but this arrangement also made vision more difficult for the crew of 3. The M-7′s autoloader would have access to many more rounds and for this reason it would be near impossible to balance as a tier 8 unless it is extremely nerfed, however the M-6(37 tons) was armed with a 105 mm T140 making the M-6/M-7 a tier IX candidate.
This is actually the M-7 with the 105 mm gun.
Now the last vehicle that I would endorse will come from the third Questionmark conference. Here many medium tanks were proposed but most either had composite armor or a smooth bore 90 mm gun so that only leaves one vehicle from the conference available, the TS-3. the TS-3 was a 40 ton vehicle armed crewed by 4 tankers and was armed with the 90 mm T139 . The armor was 96.5 mm thick and sloped back at 60 degrees; overall the TS-3 had less overall armor than the M48. The hp/t ratio would be ~14 hp/t giving the TS-3 good mobility with the 560 hp AOI-1195 engine. The TS-3 could be an effective premium if balanced properly.
There are more concepts from the US which could fill this position but most of the ones not here didn’t receive a proper designation and are pretty boring to be honest. I don’t want to talk about the “90 mm Gun Tank Proposal” or the “Lightweight Medium Tank” and you really don’t need to know, but they do exist.
Basically, there was a community meeting between the developers and gamers in Odessa on 15.6.2013 and one player did write down the developer answers. The responding person was Evilly, Russian chief community manager.
You’re going to like this…
Here goes:
- players from 80 countries play WoT
- King of Jordan plays on EU server
- Evilly states that while the M40/43 shell is flying, he has time to have a cup of tea
- 0.8.7 will come by the end of July or beginning of August and will bring British arty and the Chinese premium 112
- 0.8.8 will bring 2nd branch of Soviet medium tanks with Object 430
- Superpershing will recieve a new gun (current M26 Pershing’s top gun) and its maneuverability will be improved
- current IS-7 ingame armor is thicker than it was in real life, but it will stay as it is
- tanks don’t roll over on their backs, because the game is unplayable that way
- 2nd German TD line will be after 0.8.8, it’s top vehicles will be the Waffentragers, tier 10 will have a 4-round autoloader (SS: I WAS RIGHT! Damn, I really was :) 4 rounds and not 3… that means 128mm FlaK 45 I think, expect amazing accuracy and brutal penetration, but low alpha)
- until Fall 2013, the economic model in the game (prices etc.) won’t be reworked
- Type 59 was removed from shops because there were too many of them and because there will be another tier 8 Chinese premium MT
- multiturret mechanism won’t come anytime soon, there are higher priority tasks
- hourly premium account is not profitable from economic point of view
- no details are known, but there WILL be special tier 10 tanks (like M60, VK7201 and Object) available for random battle players
- in the future, Germans will shoot more accurately on extreme distances
- in the future, all 3 of WG projects will be somewhat compatible, but not as much as those of Gaijin
- Evilly doesn’t like the AMX40, but likes to own in E50M
- this year will also bring a premium medium French tank
- Chinese tree has a TD branch upcoming, either by the end of 2013, or in 2014
- it is yet not decided whether Sturmtiger will come as TD or artillery, if it becomes an arty, it will have a very short range, it won’t come in 2013
- there might come an event analogical to the White Tiger event (SS: as a partnership advertisement of the Russian White Tiger movie, a special Tiger P was implemented into the game and in a special mode it was fighting against 15 T-34/85′s)
- Clanwars implemented into the client will come either until the end of the year, or in 1st quarter of 2014
- roaming test is planned for autumn, it will be released around New year
- vehicle velocity doesn’t depend on full/empty ammo rack
- there will be an option to switch whole chat off
- game engine won’t change, but it will be improved
- national crew voices will come
- during WG’s birthday event, players will recieve a free lowtier tank
- Soviet premium medium tank (early T-44 with 85mm gun) will come this Fall
- WG is working on an official mod portal
- there will be massive changes in graphics – weather and night battles will come, as well as turrets being ripped off by explosions and pieces of armor flying off when hit
- garage battles are really complicated to do in randoms, so they will be done in CW’s/companies, possibly this year
- historical battles won’t come in 2013, there are problems in balance
- Type 59 will never return to the shops, ever
- skill MM will never come to randoms
- 30 vs 30 battles have been postponed, the stress on client computers is way too big
- AMX ELC didn’t recieve a fully rotating turret, because it’s not a turret and the head of the crewman is sticking out
- minefields will come to clanwars, they will work as consumables
- Xbox and PC WoT won’t be unified
- no premium T9-T10 tanks
- combat missions aka “miniquests”, awarding top 3 damage dealers of the team, will come apparently again during the WG birthday event
Gotta give it to WG NA – they take action fast. First, they issued a statement about it. Long story short:
- the culprit (KingAlphyn) and his friends who helped him are permanently banned from participating in any WG competitions
- prizes have been revoked
- according to his own words, KingAlphyn recieved a one week ban on his account
Sounds good to me. Let’s hope that the competition results are checked more closely – but somehow, I think they will.
- SerB confirmed the work is finishing on ingame model re-work, including bigger polygon count for models and the possibility of shells knocking down/destroying various stuff that’s lying on the tank (tools, boxes etc), increasing the number of optional turrets and making various suspension/hull types visually distinctive – the ETA is as always “when it’s done it’s done”
- SerB considers Redshire to be a normal map, it won’t be reworked (“You’d only whine about another map, so what’s the point in doing that”)
- AFK tanks won’t be transferred to other players to control in the battle (SS: yes, someone actually asked, whether he could control tanks that are AFK for some time)
- “anti-medals” for fighting 5-10 battles in a row without dealing damage won’t be introduced: “No, we won’t implement retarded medals – because some “special” people would actually farm them”
- SerB commenting on the recent “Bagration” event on RU server (SS: where Russian players gained insane amounts of gold thanks to the “miniquests” implemented and started asking for more): “Well, I think that x20 bonus to credit and XP event would be even better. True, after that the game would die rather quickly, but whatever.”
- Q: “T10 Foch with camo net and camo skills is totally invisible!” A: “Well, then start playing it”
- Q: “Arty is overnerfed, a lot of people did quit playing it, what about that?” A: “Then don’t play arty. That’s why we did it.”
- it is possible to hit the enemy gun module without damaging it, as the gun does have the module saving throw (see here)
- generally the developers are happy about the way the amount of arty in battles was reduced in 0.8.6
- SerB states that if according to 0.8.6 statistics there were too few arties left, they’d be buffed “if needed”
- 7/42 format won’t be changed in connection with the 0.8.6 arty re-work
- when considering penetration of (let’s say) 150mm penetration shell and 150mm thick armor, in order to penetrate the armor (to cause damage) 150mm penetration is enough, it doesn’t have to be MORE than 150mm
- T34 armor model was not changed
- SerB responding to another arty whining player: “The rebalance of arty was done so that the amount of noobs playing it would be come lower. And judging from your whining, the goal was met.”
- the amount of arty became unwanted about a year ago and 3 months ago, the situation forced a solution, that’s why 0.8.6 nerf happened
- VK3601H transfer to heavy tank – “when it’s done it’s done”, it was delayed in the past, because some issues connected to the tanks tied with 3601H had to be dealt with
- one of the (less important) reasons for increased accuracy were upcoming bigger maps
- Q: “Does massive whining of playerbase correspond with your statistics?” A: “50/50 – either it does or it doesn’t”
- devs are still deciding what to do with the “top 3 tanks get credit/XP bonus” event miniquest, they will check the credit inflation and will take measures
- there are no problems with tank or TD amounts (SS: as in, TD amounts aren’t a problem)
- visual camo net module? devs want it, but it’s complicated to implement, won’t be anytime soon
- Komarin will return “when it’s done”
- Walker Bulldog will come “when it’s done”
- SerB states that before 0.8.6, it was a lot easier for a bad player to play tier 10 arty than tier 10 other classes
- SerB also states that the structure of WoT audience (players) changed gradually, but won’t give out any details
- SerB doesn’t think the autoloader tanks were seriously damaged by the shell changes
- SerB explains, why actions that give out too many credits (such as the last weekend on RU server) are bad: “Inflation can also be hidden – notice the example of late USSR. Virtual world has its own specifics (for example, because of the increased profitability of tanks, people buy too many premium shells and armor starts to lose importance), but credit emission control is also necessery in it.”
- the Westfield assault mode that had the bridge repaired still has the minimap displaying a broken bridge, this is not an oversight
- SerB considers top tiers to be “high-skill content”, because only good players can play them without losing credits
- such events with miniquests won’t appear permanently
this was posted on the Russian developer blog. Basically, Wargaming crew (along with Yuri Pasholok) went to this meeting+reenactment, called “Engines of War 2013”
Normally, I wouldn’t bother with such a thing, but there are some really great pictures in the post of some very interesting machines:
Let’s start with a classic T-34
White Scout Car
Japanese Ha-Go light tank
T-38 amphibious tank (more like a tankette)
Yuri Pasholok personally in the T-60 turret
Renault UE (yes, the ingame TD is built on this tiny chassis)
And finally, something for the wehraboos :)
For MANY more pictures visit the original link, I won’t copy everything here :)
lots of people were asking about the new upcoming tier 8 heavy tank, the “112″, especially in relationship with another tier 8 heavy, the IS-6, because both fill the same niche (relatively mobile, decently armored tank with relatively worse armor). Let’s have a look at the both of them then. Keep however in mind that the 112 data are based on 0.8.6 test server and might (and most likely will) change to some extent.
Armor
Here’s a comparative picture of both the vehicles in question (as posted by Twistoon (EU forums) here)
You can click on the picture to make it bigger of course.
Let’s start with the turret. There is no doubt about it, while both turrets are relatively well armored, when facing this vehicle up front, the 112 has a clear advantage here. The turret is well rounded and despite not being as thick on the sides on the paper, the side armor is approximately of the same thickness. Frontal turret armor however is much thicker on the 112 (compare the 240mm to IS-6′s 150mm). The mantlet of the 112 is also much thicker (240mm, compared to the 150mm one). Both have a relatively big gap behind the mantlet, but 112 has it thicker (not that it matters that much, when considering the mantlet thickness). Both vehicles have comparable weakspots (periscopes, hatches), but there is the matter of the 112′s upper turret 100mm plate. As a conclusion, 112′s turret is better, but not as much as you’d think, as the upper turret weakness can (and will) be exploited.
While the upper frontal hull armor is better on the 112 again (20-40mm thicker), lower frontal armor is 112′s weakspot. 80mm with roughly the same slope as the one of the IS-6, the protection is lower. If the lower frontal armor gets exposed, some serious angling will be required. Side hull armor is definitely thinner on the 112, which also has a bigger 30mm spaced armor strip covering a part of the tracks, improving the anti-HEAT effect, as well as acting as a second spaced armor layer. That gives the IS-6 an advantage. Generally speaking, I’d say it will be difficult to angle the hull of the 112 without creating the “IS-3″ effect (being penetrated thru the frontal part of the tracks into the hull). Here, IS-6 has a clear advantage.
Overall, despite the fact that both tanks have different armor layouts, I do believe that in head to head combat, IS-6 driver would have an advantage, as the hull armor of the 112 offers several spots to exploit. On the other hand, there is the visible IS-6 frontal weakspots.
Verdict
Both vehicles have relative good armor, but the 112 is better. If played defensively and with its lower place hidden behind an obstacle, the advantage becomes even bigger.
Gun
When considering the data from gamemodels3d:
112 is equipped with the Chinese copy of the D-25, the D-25TA, while the IS-6 carries the D-30 field gun.
Accuracy – 0,46 for both (a ties) (it’s worth noting that moving accuracy dispersion is better for 112, by roughly 10 percent)
Rate of fire – 5 for 112, 5,13 for IS-6 (IS-6 wins, but slightly, the difference between reload times is 0,3s)
Damage – 390 for both
Penetration – 175 for both
Gold penetration – 217 for IS-6, 300 for 112
The 112 gold ammo is probably the best feature of the vehicle, making it instantly a better choice than the IS-6, despite the slightly lower rate of fire. 300 penetration for a limited matchmaker is brutal and there is a danger that when spamming gold shells, this vehicle will become overpowered.
Aim time – 3,4 for IS-6, 3,1 for 112 (a clear 112 advantage)
Both vehicles have the same aim circle dispersion after a shot. Gun depression is also the same (-6), while IS-6 has a slightly better elevation (20, compared to 17 of 112). One minor issue is very low gun depression of 112, when the turret is facing backward, but that can be easily avoided.
One last factor is the shell velocity. While the regular shells of the IS-6 fly slower than those of the 112 (790 vs 900), gold shells of IS-6 fly faster (988 to 720). It might not seem like it, but this is an advantage for the 112. When do you need shell velocity? When sniping. Both guns are quite inaccurate, but with current accuracy buff across the board, the distance of engagement increased in general. Thus, in mid-to-long range combat, 112 has a clear advantage, while lower velocity for the 112 gold shells doesn’t matter that much, since gold shells are not used for “lucky” shots across the map, but when you are in danger. Plus, the IS-6 gold shells are subcaliber, while the 112 gold shells are HEAT, which makes them not lose penetration with distance.
It is also worth noting that 112 turret rotates slightly faster (26 deg/s to 24 deg/s)
Verdict
Clear victory for the 112. Its gun will be its trademark.
Mobility
First, the obvious: Hp/ton. While both vehicles have roughly equal level of protection, the 112 is actually cca 5,5 tons lighter (48,822 compared to 43,327 tons). However, while the IS-6 has a 700hp engine (14,34 hp/t), 112 only has 580hp (13,38 hp/t). This implies that the 112 will be slightly less mobile. The 112 engine has a lower fire chance, but that’s about the only advantage it has.
However, the speed limits are something else: 112 will be able to reach 45 km/h, while the IS-6 can only reach 35 km/h. In other words, if given time to accelerate, 112 will be faster. Also, thanks to better terrain resistance (for bad and medium terrain 20 percent!), 112 will be more maneuverable in terrain. Both vehicles have the same hull traverse speed – 26 degrees per second, so if you want to know how 112 turns, you can check out the IS-6 (if you have it, that is).
Verdict
One could argue yet another victory for the 112, but not a decisive one, as acceleration will most likely be worse than that of the IS-6. On the other hand, the ability to reach higher speeds will make this vehicle quite useful.
Other factors
Both vehicles have a 4 man crew with the same roles (radioman is the commander, then there’s driver, loader and gunner). 112 however can see further (380 viewrange, IS-6 has 350) and has longer radio range (600, compared to 440 of 112). Both vehicles have the same limited MM planned (eg. neither will meet tier 10′s in battle).
Complete verdict
I do believe that for an average tanker, especially for a wallet warrior, 112 will be a better vehicle. Its decisive factor are the 300 shells, which – compared with the 0.8.6 improved accuracy – are destined to HURT. While the IS-6 is mediocre in most respects (but not totally hopeless in any), 112 has some clearcut advantages over it, such as the gun and the speed.
Personally, I believe that even without the 300 pen shells, 112 would be a relatively decent vehicle, but the gold shells give it an edge even over regular vehicles. Therefore it is my believe that some factors (possibly the gold shells penetration) will be nerfed for the 0.8.7 general test. Without such nerf, there is a danger of 112 becoming another Type 59, flooding the tier 7-9 battles. I am not sure we or WG need that.
just so you know: it is now legal for you to post links to this site on WG EU forums, it’s officially confirmed.
Also, if you have a Facebook account and prefer to use Facebook for your news updates, you can go to the For the Record FB group and get your news there. I sometimes post extra news, comments or videos there (relax, you are NOT missing out on anything, those “news” are usually just my personal comments or offtopic videos).
