Comments on: British arty stats in 0.8.7

By: JayZee75XD

JayZee75XD — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:13:42 +0000

At first they look unique, but at higher tiers they just look like the russian SPG’s but just LOOK like the russians. I dont think i want to even GLANCE at their stats. Its just like WG just shot itself in the foot(i thought they ran out of feet to shoot when they added the chinese tanks and the 2nd russian TD line.) This will be the most underused tank line WG has made.

By: itsme

itsme — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 09:20:02 +0000

Nicely underpowered bullshit line just to keep these exceedingly painful noob quantidies in this game happy…

Why waste work in a branch everyone can ignore, if there is so much bug an bullshit to fix in this game?

-map selection in random battles
-noob butthurt function (hide stats)
-various technical bugs
-garage battles
-historical battles
-catastrophical performance (fps) considering the graphics are comparable to Far Cry
-tanks the players of the game want to have like Japs, 2nd ger TD, Sturmtiger

Apparently some mental dysfunctions from some of the most retarded WoT idiots, f.e. MajorDuckfield infected the developers as well.

By: Lavitz

Lavitz — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:57:49 +0000

T8 and T9 are utter crap, T10 is worth your while only if you have a good spacer between your chair and your tank.

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 00:48:22 +0000

NOBODY is very fond of either. :v

By: TitanLegion

TitanLegion — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 22:42:45 +0000

Cheers for. the stats… ^^

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:14:48 +0000

Pretty universal practice when building self-propelled gun mounts on tank chassis, really. Take a close look at virtually any directly tank-based SPG or TD in the game that has the fighting compartement at the rear – which are the easy majority of such.

Another benefit is reducing the amount of barrel overhang, which is primarily relevant to TD types carrying long-barreled guns – one reason the long 152mm was never adopted for the ISU (aside for there being no perceivable *need* for such a “super gun”) was specifically excessive overall lenght. Turretless vehicles can’t swing the gun around to make themselves easier to transport either, after all.

By: JimSan

JimSan — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:46:44 +0000

not really an obsession, just more efficent when using pre-designed chassis for other purposes (which cuts down development costs and time, quite important during war etc), since the tanks they are based off had rear engines, and SPGs not really needing to be anywhere near where they can be fired upon, the large gun going over the engine (keeping the centre of mass roughly in the middle of the tank) and using all the space at the front of the tank for crew, gun breech and ammo, it starts to make sense.

By: IRS

IRS — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:11:00 +0000

That was the whole reason of 0.8.6 – to sort out scumbags.

Thank you politely for confirmation, that it worked.

By: howterrible

howterrible — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 09:05:49 +0000

It’s an arty and it’s British – the two things WG is apparently not very fond of. Of course it’ll suck, just wait for chinese arty instead fellow artillerymen.

By: Sgt_Varik

Sgt_Varik — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:30:26 +0000

Wow….just wow. I sure as hell hope they plan on reworking this. By the looks of this, every piece will be extremely under performing compared to artillery pieces of their own tier, hell they will be underperforming compared to EVERY tank of their tier! The values on these TDs are an absolute joke! And 1.1 accuracy on the t10 with 1.03 rof…..what the hell were they thinking? The only way to justify that accuracy would be to give it a bigger splash than the freaking T92 (thus jumping that thing down into basic worthlessness……which would simply be retarded), and I really would dread to see a splash radius that is larger than the t92s…..

They should have gone with the high rof, very low damage (for an spg that is. I am talking damage about the same as a heavy, with the rof that would roughly match) with the low caliber guns. They could have easily ended the line with the autocannon version of the 183 simply turned SPG (hell, the FV 183 is basically a spg forced into a TD role….)

If this line is released even remotely similar to what is shown here……well I highly doubt anyone but sheer diehards for the British tanks (such as myself…but even then I doubt I could handle that punishment….god its the freakin Churchill Gun Carrier and its going to be like that grind the whole way…….) will even play it.