13.7.2013

Posted on by

First and foremost, a reliable WG source confirmed that the “galaxy tech tree” is just a hoax, no such thing is planned.

- Sturmpanzer Bär is decribed in sources that are serious enough to use, according to SerB
- separate server for “boss fights” á la White Tiger is not planned (SS: some time ago there was an event where 15 T-34/85′s fought one White Tiger tank, controlled by a WG employee I think)
- theoretically there is enough material for 5 German TD branches, but that’s not planned for now
- SerB on War Thunder tanks: “I am interested in how you can make a mass-played hardcore simulator. And, yes, how much of the hardcoreness/historicity will remain in it in the end.”
- rear-turret Soviet tanks: A-44 (3 pieces), Object 416 and Shashmurin’s tank

SS: Shashmurin’s rear-turret tank was an IS-2 alternative project (“IS-2M”) by N.F.Shashmurin from 1944. It looked like this:

- no plans to introduce Panzer IV with sloped frontal armor wand with 88mm Panther Schmalturm, because SerB thinks they were apparently fake and states that “reconstructed” tanks will be used only to fill tree holes and that there are no tree holes around tier 6 in German medium tree (SS: actually, Panzer IV Ausf.K (Ausf.H with sloped frontal armor) from January 1943 is historical, you can find it in Panzer Tracts by Doyle):

01

- SerB states that the high damage of British hightier HE shells is intentional specific of the British tech tree
- the FV215b 183 HE shell penetration is lower than one would guess from its caliber, because “those are conventional marine shells”
- “no more than usual (on other tanks)” amount of players use gold shells on FV215b 183
- new awards? “when it’s done it’s done”
- developers are implementing roaming, because “it’s interesting to play ‘over the hill’ (SS: as in ‘on the other side’, somewhere else) for a while”
- rocket and flamethrower tanks will be implemented in the future
- SerB on amphibious tanks: “Performance-wise, amphibious tanks are generally inferior to regular tanks. Their only advantage is that they can cross bodies of water and attack at unexpected places. On 1x1km maps, this is practically useless – all the space is covered, so this feature is waiting for bigger maps.”
- there is an idea for a “thanks system” (SS: as in the opposite of ingame report system – you’d thank someone), but it’s not implemented yet, because it depends on other game features implementation
- SU-122A moves worse than SU-76, despite it being lighter and having more powerful engine, simply because it’s an arty (balance)
- WoT Blitz (for mobile devices), there might be an “improved” version for Ipad4 instead of Ipad2, too early to tell
- the accounts of WoT and WoT:B will definitely not be synchronized, it’s two different games
- another team than the one of WoT develops WoT:B
- WoT:B is now still in pre-alpha stage
- WoWp battles are very short, because SerB states that according to tests, prolonged battles in 3D space are tiring
- A-44 with 107mm can be considered a heavy (SS: if I understand this correctly), IS-2M (“Shashmurin”) however is not T10 material

One more piece of info: remember that mod, that disables the dynamic camera shaking after shooting? Well, in 8.7 test 2 (and therefore most likely in full 8.7 itself), Wargaming made some modification that disables this mod. It’s no longer possible to disable the dynamic camera shot shake.

88 thoughts on “13.7.2013”

  2. One more piece of info: remember that mod, that disables the dynamic camera shaking after shooting? Well, in 8.7 test 2 (and therefore most likely in full 8.7 itself), Wargaming made some modification that disables this mod. It’s no longer possible to disable the dynamic camera shot shake.

    Yea, force the player to use your dumb inovation just bcs you don’t want to feel bad how shitty you’ve implemented it. What a bunch of rednecks. But i’m pretty sure that modders will find a way to solve it quickly just like they did in 8.6.

      • Whats wrong with dynamic camera? I got used to it very quick and I like it. When I compare it to the old camera I don’t see any problems. Am I blind?

      • whats the actual advantage of dynamic camera over the normal one? didnt try it myself yet, thats why im asking

        • You don’t have to compensate for camera shacking when using sniping mode on the move.

      • I use dynamic camera (Though I modified the file “controlling” it, so the camera is completely stable. No more camera jerking in sniper/arcade mode when you’re moving over obstacles/getting hits etc) It’s like playing without dynamic camera, but only that your aim stays stable when moving in sniper mode etc. Made playing american meds so much more fun, I can aim easily on the move, without every single small rock making my aim go off the target.

        If someone wants to try it:
        http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/265529-86-swoopies-modpack/
        (It’s in the FAQ section, you dont need the whole modpack for it)

  5. - there is an idea for a “thanks system” (SS: as in the opposite of ingame report system – you’d thank someone), but it’s not implemented yet, because it depends on other game features implementation

    Earlier on I was thinking about it.. that players could vote in the game or make a suggestion for a player that will receive a reward medal for the actions he has done in the battle.. that’s kinda cool, to earn something like that..

    But.. from the other side, I saw all the begging and moaning “Please vote for me..” so.. I “erased” that from my memory :P

      • It would be trivially easy to prevent exploiting. Something along the lines of: you can only thank the player who was in a random battle with you in the last 24h – and wasn’t in a platoon with you at the same time.

  6. rocket and flamethrower tanks will be implemented in the future

    does that mean the sturmtiger. also the flammpanzer 2 “flamingo”

    also

    WoT:B is now still in pre-alpha stage

    whats that??

  7. I hope someone links SerB about the Panzer IV Ausf.K in Doyle because that thing looks really cool.

    Looks like the RBT-5 will be a go then. Maybe that means the KV-1K and Sherman Calliope have a chance too.

    • My guess was, SerB thinks Pz IV K WITH 88mm is fake.
      Because, well, Pz IV with 88 is fake, lets face it.
      But sloped front for Pz IV K would be really cool

      • And jet they make totally fake tanks by themshelves. Like GW Tiger P or T28 (wrong hull). Pz4 with sloped armor was historical project but pz4 with 88? Thats the first time I ever hear that.

  8. ” prolonged battles in 3D space are tiring”

    very funny, very funny indeed….
    after playing planes playing WoT is for Old people. everything is Slowww… and boring

  9. I doubt that there were enough tank projects for five (!!) German TD branches. I think that there will be not more than three (one Waffenträger line, ending with Waffenträger E-100 and one assault gun line, ending with Jagdmaus or Sturmtiger.

        • Actual line
          Waffentragers
          Porsche
          Sturmpanzers

          A fifth line is possible, although it would be using rather obscure stuff.
          They will likely make up the tier X as despite long research I couldn’t find one historically plausible.

          • Unless you mean tier X only.
            In which case I can easily predict:

            Jpz E-100 (historical)
            WT E-100 (fake, I’d replace it with Stug E-75)
            Sturmtiger (historical)
            Sturmpanzer Maus (historical)

  10. “WoWp battles are very short, because SerB states that according to tests, prolonged battles in 3D space are tiring”

    So true. So many information to process on your mind. As if 2D with tanks wasn’t hard enough to process all those situation and information lol.

      • SerB doesn’t care about nerds. There’s not enough of them to pay the bills. He wants the average casual gamer to plonk down a few bucks, that’s where the real money is (and why the “I’ve spend XXXXX and I demand my own gold chariot” threads will always be ignored).

  11. Lol, there are no marine shells for the L4. The 7.2″ how was only used by RA

    • They said “separate -server-” is not planned. That does not discount actual boss battles themselves on already existing regular servers ;)

  13. - SerB on War Thunder tanks: “I am interested in how you can make a mass-played hardcore simulator. And, yes, how much of the hardcoreness/historicity will remain in it in the end.”

    What about WoT? That game is mish-mash of so-called “historical accuracy” and totally fictional tanks made up by wargaming.

    • No tank in game is actually totally fictional, interpretation of some can be discussed however.

    • There are two rather diffrent kinds of historical accuracy. WoT and WoWp stretches the one about wich tanks and planes actually saw combat in WW2. WT stretches the one about actual performance of planes compared to reality rather a lot. A WT IL-2 turns like a real life biplane while a WT Biplane turns like an UFO.

      It is actually somewhat connected. WoT and WoWp has to add blueprint and prototypes to the tech trees as keeping the tanks and planes performance somewhat similar to historical values makes it impossible to just put any plane in any tier spot. Thus they need to fill in blank spots with dubious planes.

      WT gets around that by not really caring about accuracy of the planes behavior and that makes it easier to balance things and even possible to have the old biplanes beform decently well against high tier planes, those they would realisticly have to no chance against.

      • War Thunder has 3 different modes… That IL-2 only turns like that in one of them, Arcade mode, where every plane has a generous flight model. In the other two its not so much that way… in the other two, pulling maneuvers like those that can be pulled off in Arcade mode, can rip the planes wings off.

        I get the feeling that SerB has only played arcade mode.

        Gaijin care a great deal about the accuracy of the planes in War Thunder, including their performance. If a planes performed a certain way in real life, it does so in the game, (outside of Arcade mode)

        • But just about everyone that plays WT plays only arcade mode, so while there are other modes then arcade, so are they not very popular among the WT fans. It’s not very relevant to talk about modes that only a minority of the players ever use.

          • Historical is quite populated, actually real fans almost only play that game mode, and Clan Wars will be fought on that ‘difficulty’ level.
            Arcade mode is just there, brainless shoot to kill, when you are tired from the HB.

          • 80% of game population plays arcade mode only, about what “real fans” you talking about? LoL i can say same thing about any mode of any game – “real fans play only *** mode”. And pseudohistorical WT mode is unbalanced POS, on middle level it is populated by Dorafags who own everything that moves with their nazi ufos, and in high tier everything get destroyed by jets and especially OP mig15′s.

      • Look at release tech trees of japan and germany, they are full of paper planes and prototypes.

  15. “One more piece of info: remember that mod, that disables the dynamic camera shaking after shooting? Well, in 8.7 test 2 (and therefore most likely in full 8.7 itself), Wargaming made some modification that disables this mod. It’s no longer possible to disable the dynamic camera shot shake.”

    Just wait for the modders to get around it.

  16. “the accounts of WoT and WoT:B will definitely not be synchronized, it’s two different games”

    What’s WoT:B? Googled it and came up with nothing.

  17. Something about shashmurin’s tank:

    The plans for this project were lofty indeed: front armour impenetrable for Panther, Tiger, and Ferdinand guns at any range, side armour impenetrable at over 500 meters, an 800-1000 hp engine to get this massive armoured slab moving at 35 kph. Considering that the projected mass of the heavy tank would be 55 tons, that’s not even that unthinkable. The fighting compartment was located in the rear, with an engine compartment in the center. This layout allowed to make a gun with a very long barrel, accelerating the shell to 1000 m/s, without it getting in the way of maneuvers. The transmission could be electric or mechanical. One of Shashmurin’s projects was deemed viable, designated IS-2M, and began development. Unfortunately, the resources of the construction bureau tasked with the project were soon consumed by the IS-6. While the requirement for impenetrable front armour seems impossible, the IS-3 managed to pull it off in that same year.

  19. Though I’m very much excited about flamethrower and rocket tanks being included in the game for more variety, I have to wonder what the purpose of flamethrower tanks will be and how far up the lines they will go. AFAIK flamthrower tanks became obsolete quite quickly after WWII and were used to burn out soldiers out of enemy fortifications. What purpose could they serve against a tank?

    • I’m no historian but I suppose you could overheat a tanks engine, try and get their gas tanks to cook off, maybe really wreak some havoc on the crews inside. Maybe even blind them with flames in the optics? Then you have the open topped tanks, imagine what a little fire could do to them….

      • Both engines and crew require oxygen. Even ignoring the oxygen, high temperature makes it hard to breath as you need moisture in the air for you lungs to operate.

        The tank itself is made of metal which will rapidly conduct the heat inside, all the tank controls will rapidly become extremely hot, the metal will expand, twist and seize, any rubber seals will become useless and the tank crew is liable to panic. Plus the tank is full of thing that don’t react well to extreme heat.

        The flame jet isn’t a jet of flame but a high pressure jet of liquid (which is obviously aflame) which stick to anything it comes into contact with.

        Flamethrower tanks were upto Vietnam, although they were always intended to be a primary anti infantry weapon. The main reason they weren’t used is simply range, even infantry based AT weaponry could out range them never mind the normal tank guns whose effective range was in miles not meters.

        I hope we get crocodiles in WOT it be awesome firing jets of death over small hills and setting fire to the countryside lol.

    • Well a flamethrower is not just pure flame. Its a sticky, liquid substance that burns, even in water. Now spray that on lets say the engine deck, it will drip into the exhausts, ventilation slits and whatnot and start to burn inside the engine. Not really nice. Also, i dont think it would be nice for the crew to sit in a tank that is ablaze from the outside. Sure, thick steel takes some time to heat up, but it would be devastating to the tank. Thermodynamic tension would probably let a lot parts crack and break.

      My guess they will be short range dmg over time tanks. Like if you keep spraying an enemy tank, its just like it would have an engine fire, so it loses HP over time. That way you wouldnt do one alpha damage but continious damage over time. Could be very interesting on city maps actually.

      • Proper military flamethrowers – not the gas-torch thingys they use in movies and therefore only too many games – are basically high-pressure fluid pumps loaded with suitable petrochemical mixtures (usually gasoline or such with either some heavier oil or a gelling agent thrown in and thereby improve range and “sticking” characteristics). Given that after early war tanks were designed to no longer be vulnerable to incendiaries (primarily by improving the engine intakes so as to no let the burning gunk into the compartement) I’m deeply skeptical as to what the antitank utility of the buggers would be, beyond rather effectively blinding the target – but then you could as well shoot a smoke shell at him for that.

        As far as heating up the target vehicle goes, meh. A tank has a LOT of thick steel and metal conducts heat quite well – good luck inflicting metallurgically meaningful temperature changes when the heat just gets spread all over the hull. Fair enough on getting the stuff into the crew compartement, but the last I checked the hatches tended to be fairly tight-fitting, the vision ports and whatnots fitted with armoured glass, and the ventilators tending to be on the top of the hull and turret so good luck actually getting the flaming stuff at them – AFAIK ‘thrower jets were narrow and high-pressure enough that you’re not really going to “arc” them onto a tank very well and most would just glance off and land somewhere in the vicinity; compare pointing a fire hose at a wall.
        Open-toppers are ofc an entirely different thing…

        Then there’s the miiiiiiinor detail that most ‘thrower tanks had internal tankage – the massive fire hazard this presented in the case of penetration was one of the reasons the Crocodile had its fuel in an external trailer.

        • Given the widespread use of Molotov’s Cocktails especially in guerilla warfare especially near the end of the war(with the prime example of Warsaw Uprising coming to my mind) I am really doubtful about late war’s tanks’ so called immunity to external fire. Actually the point of throwing a Cocktail was to try to hit the engine by aiming at its ventilation gaps

          • That’ll asphyxiate it; actually setting it aflame like could be done with pre- and early-war tanks requires the incediary getting into the compartement proper where there tends to be all kinds of fumes and oils around. And tank designers had learned to design the air intakes to not allow that, thanks. They weren’t idiots.

            More to the point, Molotovs are thrown by hand in an arc and in urban combat can, like many infantry weapons, be thrown down from upper floors of buildings. That makes it FAR easier to actually get the incendiaries onto the topsides of AFVs where they’ll actually do some good, as opposed to spraying a high-pressure jet from more or less the same elevation and only too likely from the front…

          • But keep in mind the ammount of fuel too. Some burning drops from a molotov will probably not make it into the engine compartment, thats true, but if you pump it with a tank sized flame thrower it sure will be going inside the tank.

          • If you have ever used a water hose to water the garden, then you would know that it’s not exactly difficult to get a sprayed out liquid to land ontop of something. Sure, the pressure is greater, but it will still fall with distance.

          • Good luck with that from the front of the enemy. And from what I’ve seen of photos of flame-tanks in action even if you get an unobstructed shot at the engine deck the jet’ll be hitting it at a terribly shallow angle, ie. most of the stuff will simply bounce off.

            Seriously. Just accept that flamethrowers have marginal antitank utility at best. Even infantry normally promptly traded their petrol bombs for something explosive-based the second it became an option.

      • Panzer III/IV was based on on the so called Einheitsfahrgestell, which as already mentioned, was basically a updated combination of the PzKpfw III & IV chassis. A III/IV hybrid to replace both had already been discussed before the war had even started. Anyway the Hummel/Nashorn chassis was in fact a hybrid PzKpfw III/IV chassis and one was used as a testbed for the “real” Einheitsfahrgestell. In 1944 several variants were decided upon:

        Pz.Kpfw. III/IV (Pz.Kpfw. III and IV replacement)
        Panzer III/IV lang (E) (Panzer IV/70 (A) and (V) replacement)
        Stu.Gesch. III/IV (Stu.Gesch. III and IV replacement)
        Stu.H. III/IV (Stu.H. 42 replacement)
        Stu.Pz. III/IV (Stu.Pz. IV replacment)
        Flak-Pz. III/IV (Flak-Pz. IV replacement)
        le.Pz.H. III/IV (Wespe replacement)
        s.Pz.H. III/IV (Hummel replacement)

        Obviously nothing of that ever happend, although a single Panzer III/IV lang (E) was under construction in 1945.

        • okay thanks so the Panzer IV Ausf.K is a only a Panzer IV modification while the III/IV was going to use components from the Panzer III and Panzer IV.

          Would the Chassis be the same dimensions of a Panzer IV with Panzer III components such as road wheels and track length and possibly engine?

          • Apart from the slooped frontal and upper hull armor the chassis was similiar to the Pz.Kpfw. IV.
            Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM (Pz.Kpfw. IV)
            Transmission: SSG 77 (Pz.Kpfw. III)
            Steering gear, reinforced final drives and sprocket wheel were from the Pz.Kpfw. III, the real idler wheel was taken from the Pz.Kpfw. IV.
            The suspension was new (successfully tested on a Hummel in 1943/44):
            Six 660mm rubber-saving steel wheels with leaf springs. The track was a new 54cm wide one similiar to the ones used on the Tiger II.

            Source: PT 20-1

  21. If they do change their mind and implement rockets in WoT, I would REALLY like to see the Katyusha in a new Soviet SPG line.
    I wouldn’t really want to get it, I would just like it a lot to see it on the battlefield

  22. Well, it’s quite offtopic,

    but can somone put the following questions to the Q&A, or explain it to me right here;

    Where is the logic behind the camo value, that for example a JgdTiger has a better camo value than its heavy brother Tiger2? They have the same chassis, where the TD has an even bigger frontal shape, due to its “Turret” reaching up to the side of the hull… i know, Serb was promising the whine about TD’s, but i think it’s unfair, that those with that fucking fat guns which can oneshot you are invisible, too.
    Other example : the Obj. 704 has an orig. Height of 2.24m, the Leopard1 prot of 2.7m, which is a difference of 20%. Considering the data from wotinfo.net the camo values differ about 38%. where is the physical logic? because the one is called TD?

    other question: Is the map Mines in encounter mode going to be reworked? Winning from south is far impossible. the north is the first in city and the first on hill….

    • TD’s generally get a higher camo value. There is no logic behind that, its just that way.

    • TDs have ALWAYS had higher camo than their specific dimensions alone would mandate. Consider it compensation for their assorted other tradeoffs and a representation of the “ambush” role they tended to prefer IRL.