26.8.2013

Posted on by

First, some info from Overlord:

- the bug where the vehicle says “not ready for battle” but in fact it IS read for battle on test server is a bug, it will be solved
- the Tiger buffs will make the Tiger more popular
- there will be no special XP/credit compensation for engines lost in 8.8
- if you sell your Superpershing, you will get no gold compensation for its gold ammo

Regular Q&A

- WG will compensate premium account only if the servers were down for more than 4 hours
- the new WG rating does not imply there will be a rating based MM
- there will be no “forsage” mode/consumable for Germans, as the 1200hp engines (E-50/75) were totally unhistorical, the “forsage” allowed the engine to temporarily operate at 1000hp and it was available only in the 60′s
- boiler plates of the same thickness are roughly two times less effective than armor plates, when it comes to resistance to shells. That’s one of the reasons more “layers” of Superpershing armor will not be modelled, it will stay as it is in 8.8
- the reason Leopard prototype has such a thin armor (50mm) is that by that time, all the countries used HEAT and subcaliber rounds en masse and the designers thought that no matter what they do, the armor will get penetrated anyway, so they might as well make it withstand only low caliber weapons fire from autocannons, while making the vehicle lighter and faster
- the German tanks didn’t have historical modules in the past, because “it was not possible to do it from the start” (SS: I guess it’s tied to the evolution of the branches, where vehicles were forced to fill other niches, f.e. +/-3 tier spread)
- SerB has a Moskvich 2141 from 1993 as his car
- Soviet 1200hp engines are historical, as it was basically two 600hp V-2 engines working in pair
- Q:”Will you make the commander’s copulas not damageable by shells?” A:”And what about a ‘make me invulnerable and kill all’ button?”
- reward tanks from missions will be hard to obtain
- SerB on how much historical WOT is: “We balance the historicity and the playability in such an extent we consider necessery”
- despite the fact tanks are being balanced around their top configuration, SerB states that no gun is considered to be “top” and thus the two guns for T-44 for example (D-25T and LB-1) are considered equal
- RU251 will not come in 8.9, as there are still some issues with obtaining some info from Münster
- the idea is that free experience should be shared between WoT, WoWp and WoWs, but the developers are still waiting for some technical solution on this
- Q: “You removed the unhistorical engine from E-75. How do you know what engine was historical, when the vehicle was never built and no engine was installed in it?” A: “No engine was installed in it in real life, so we’ll just remove all the engines from it”
- Object 139 won’t be introduced as a separate tank
- the entire German E-series rebalance is a compromise according to SerB
- Havoc server-side destruction physics will be implemented
- S-34 (the new coming KV-1S gun) is roughly equal to the 100mm D-10T, it’s a bit weaker in secondary parameters
- SerB is still fighting to keep the 122mm KV-1S
- 2nd German TD branch in 8.9? “It’s possible”
- 7/42 companies: “when it’s done it’s done”
- the fire extinguisher change is not actual ATM (SS: there was a plan to make all the fire extinguishers automatic, with the skill reducing the delay in which they activate)
- Q: “Why does not shooting allies who are capturing enemy base reset the capture counter like when you shoot enemies?” A: “So that retards – and you did try that, didn’t you? – don’t disrupt the capture while screaming ‘No cap!!!!!!’”

196 thoughts on “26.8.2013”

  2. Lol, love the last sentence by SerB, too true :D Plus, I understand why the whole weak armor on the Leopards can be a problem.. If the maps were a bit bigger, like 2×2 km or something like that, the weak armor could really be compensated by the speed of the tank since it would be harder to hit it on the larger scale.

          • Although i agree the k1s is totally OP, im not absolutely a fan of taking away the 122mm.
            Wouldnt it destroy another unique and original vehicle? (again)

            Maybe there is another possibility to balance it. Maybe by adjusting acc. aimtime, reload?

            i think SerB thinks the same

            • I think the issue around the KV-1S and its 122mm gun is a bit bigger. Have you people looked at the T-150? Heavier and slower, but the 107mm Zis gun is roughly equally effective having a good bit less alpha but more RoF but otherwise similar to the 122mm gun. What happens to that thing? That will be the next tank dominating the Tier 6 andom and company battles. Or maybe the ARL44 with its 90mm gun with 212mm penetration or the alternate 105mm?

              Just keep that in mind, in my opinion the KV-1S is still hopelessly overpowered at tier 6 since nothing except the KV-2 can match its alpha, and the KV-2 is crap at anything but alpha…

            • Not really. It’s not JUST the 122mm gun. It’s the fact that it’s mounted on a fast and well armored tank that is the problem. If T95 could go 40kph and turned on a dime, people would call it OP too.

      • They said they will not give any more “free-premium-tanks aka T34″

        And as for the kv1s and it’s OP standard.. I would just reduce the gun characteristics, like reload, aim time, accuracy a bit more.. to be much more worse than IS not like it just one tier lower :P

      • I seriously don’t see why he wouldn’t just make the KV-122 a premium tank. Enough people would buy the damned thing to more than make up for his own loss of enjoyment.

        Oh, right, it’s because it’s a tank that SerB uses, and any tanks he likes, he won’t let the nerfbat hit.

    • I like the idea of bringing it back as a t7 premium, somewhat similarly to what they did with the Schmalturm-Pz4. Oh well, we’ll see.

      • The real KV-1S had a crappy 76.2mm gun. Historical is the goal right? Like with E-75?

          • It was a prototype only, and there’s a reason it wasn’t on the production model. That’s the same case as the Panzer IV with the Schmallturm and L/70. If they wanna keep the 122 mm on the KV-1S, then there’s no reason at all for what they did to the Panzer IV.

            • Oh? And by your reasoning, the E75 would be removed from the game as nothing from that thing ever made it even to “prototype” stage…

              Cuts both ways matey.

        • Stop comparing apples and oranges, KV-1S equipped with 85mm got produced in limited (148) numbers; KV1-S equipped with 122mm gun got tested; E-75 was a little drawing on a piece of paper; do you see the difference, weharboo?

          • You are confusing 2 types of tanks. KV-1S had only 76mm gun and stock turret of the ingame KV-1S. Then came KV-85 tank which was actually KV-1S chassis and IS-1 (IS with 85mm) turret (because IS turret was ready before the chassis of the tank it was decided that early IS-1 turrets will be mounted on a KV-1S chassis). Finally IS-1 was put into production, with the 85mm gun, but then T-34/85 happened and it was decided that heavy tank carrying the same weapon as medium tank doesn’t make sense, so IS-1 was upgunned with 122mm gun, and IS-2 was born. Then, in 1944 one KV-85 was tested with 100mm gun, and one with 122mm gun. Neither entered service, which is pretty reasonable considering that IS-2 was in mass production.

            • I’m not confusing them, several tanks in this game have different, more or less well implemented, alternative configurations which turn them into namely different tanks.

            • Also one of the first KV-85, KV-85G currently in display at Kubinka, had a KV-1S turret with minimal modifications and equipped with S-31 85mm gun, if I understand correctly.

    • >Resistance is futile.
      Last famous words, it’s like Hitler stamping invitations for the celebration of Leningrad’s fall. Comrade SerB shall prevail in the end.

  4. Q: “Why does not shooting allies who are capturing enemy base reset the capture counter like when you shoot enemies?” A: “So that retards – and you did try that, didn’t you? – didn’t disrupt the capture while screaming ‘No cap!!!!!!’”

    I approve

    • Which is abuse of physics …. WG frowns upon that. As long as you are not afraid of someone submitting a video of you doing it …. you’re good.

      • As far as I know, monkeys have yet to grasp the phenomenon of video recording, nevertheless doing such complicated things like sending an email to a certain address containing intelligible words in it.

        • Dont spread lies! Only tank that got nerfed was e-75, all other tanks got compensated for nerfs, I very much like the 150mm on my e-50m, before we had lfp and ufp that that was easily penetrated by same tier guns, now we have a lfp that is still easy to penetrate but also super trolish ufp, that will bounce most tier x guns with just a slight angle…

          • Don’t bother, Paaranoja. Until every German tank has armor that could stop the Tsar Bomba, the speed and handling of an F1 car, and has a gun that shoots beams of pure Aryan energy that insta-kills every (non-German) enemy tank on the map, they will be eternally nerfed and underpowered by dirty commie WG.

            • “Until every German tank has armor that could stop the Tsar Bomba, the speed and handling of an F1 car, and has a gun that shoots beams of pure Aryan energy that insta-kills every (non-German) enemy tank on the map”

              So, you mean: “Until German tank are so good as Russian ones”.

          • Ok, but how is E-50 mobility? I suppose its gone to hell. Good luck climbing anything in it.

            • It still running like the old VK3601H, which is good enough for that armour.
              The only thing about the E-50 change which I will said it is a nerf is the chance of fire now 20%, nothing more.

  6. The lack of compensation for the E-series engines is one thing, another thing is that the E-75 wont share the engine with the E-50. Now the E-50 engine is the same top engine that is also the top engine in the AfkPanther, but the E-75 engine cannot be researched somewhere else.

    I would simply suggest to unify that 900hp engine for these three tanks, after that it would be fine, I really wouldnt need a big compensation then.

    I do think that you can sell the old engine in the next patch though if you have it right now

    -2nd German TD branch in 8.9 “its possible”
    Wasnt that planned to be in 8.9 to begin with??

      • So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Overlord’s answer implies that there might possibly be XP compensation for the removed engines on the E50 and the E75?

        Sorry, don’t know where to find Overlord’s Q/A and I can’t read it even if I did :P

        • Overlord’s Q/A is generally in english on his blog, overlord-wot.blogspot.com

          The above Q/A is from SerB, translated from Russian.

  7. I have one question. If i’ll sell SuperPershing for gold. It’s then possible to ask support for recover it’s back to my account for credits? As you can know support FAQ says that is possible to ask for one recover of Premium tank, which was deleted. (i don’t know if it depends if on purpose or not, and it’s working as it was tested by some players.) Thx

  8. So what is the parameters for selling the Super Pershing where you’ll still get gold for it? Is it a limited time deal?

  9. - 2nd German TD branch in 8.9? “It’s possible”

    Heh, it’s like every other time this line was promised. From absolutely, to it’s possible, to silence for a year and a half on it.

  10. “RU251 will not come in 8.9″

    O noez! ;(
    But was there ever chance it would appear in 8.9.?

  11. - there will be no special XP/credit compensation for engines lost in 8.8

    I expect there to be exceptions.

    - the reason Leopard prototype has such a thin armor (50mm) is that by that time, all the countries used HEAT and subcaliber rounds en masse and the designers thought that no matter what they do, the armor will get penetrated anyway, so they might as well make it withstand only low caliber weapons fire from autocannons, while making the vehicle lighter and faster

    They did still go with the A2 hull, so I don’t see why this question was asked.

    • Yeah the top engine of E-75 is 50k xp, I’ll be mad if they don’t give any compensation for that.

      • They did refund 17k free XP back in 7.5 when the SU-85′s unique 107mm AT gun was deleted from the game. But 50k? Doubtful.

        • Not to mention that was back in the Bronze Age. Economics has advanced since then. :P

  12. - RU251 will not come in 8.9, as there are still some issues with obtaining some info from Münster

    i don´t want to disturb but the city you mean is actually Munster not Münster ( two different citys )

  14. - there will be no “forsage” mode/consumable for Germans, as the 1200hp engines (E-50/75) were totally unhistorical, the “forsage” allowed the engine to temporarily operate at 1000hp and it was available only in the 60′s

    “Forsage” is “Forsazh”, correctly translated as “Boost”.

    • I heard that in the early E-50/E-75 tanks when introduced or in the test server, they had a “after burner” consumable, at allowed increase the engine power (1000hp for both tanks) to 10% more horsepower, but only for limited time (1 minute) and can be only used once. It might possibly even damage the engine in the process, I dont think that was the case.

      • It was taken away, and the E series were given a permanent increase in engine power (which is apparently being reversed this patch).

      • 10% for only one minute and single-use, I would want to put 105-octane onto my Es rather than this….

    • Boost is either Auftrieb, Erhohung or Verstarkung in German. I’m having trouble finding “Forsage” and “Forsazh” in any german dictionaries.

      • Because the word originates from Russian (translated post and all that), it can also be translated as ‘afterburner’ or whatever. The point is clear.

      • Boost = Verstärken is correct, Erholung = rest/recreation, Auftrieb = lift/uplift and the words “Forsage” and “Forsazh”are not german
        hope i coiuld help you :-)

          • If it’s actually written as “forsage” I’d say French etymology is virtually certain. The Russian upper classes (like most of their peers across Europe) for centuries mostly spoke French among themselves after all.

  15. - Q: “Why does not shooting allies who are capturing enemy base reset the capture counter like when you shoot enemies?” A: “So that retards – and you did try that, didn’t you? – don’t disrupt the capture while screaming ‘No cap!!!!!!’”

    The fact that people actually ask that question.

  16. Victory!
    Battle: Fjords 26.08.2013 19:12:28
    Vehicle: T92
    Experience received: 1.940 (x2 for the first victory each day)
    Credits received: 91.178

    Mission completed! Award:
    Slots added: 2
    Vehicles added: T-34-3, 112

  17. What “more layers” need to be modeled on SP? It historically had two layers of boiler plates, then the hull. Just like it will be in 8.8, and just like it is currently in 8.7, only with different angles.

    /confused

    • The front of the SP’s hull had two layers of boiler plate added as protection with a third smaller (not modeled) piece just above the MG port. They are saying that they only model a single thickness to compensate for the reduced strength of boiler plate compared to armour steel.
      This is WG contradicting themselves on the point about type of steel which they wont concede for other issues like armour plate types and cementing types, face hardening etc.
      It is also an error based on a misunderstanding on how multiple plates of a thinner material can actually be more effective than a single homogenous plate of the same combined thickness.
      for more information I suggest reading up on Whipple plates.

      • Not that I don’t believe you, Vollketten, but no matter what pictures I’m looking at, I can’t find one that shows the third plate. Can you please link some sources for that? Thank you!

          • And I see the issue now, I thought this was about the physical existence of layers on the model, not the modeling of the layering effect. A lot of people were saying that the devs removed one of the boiler plates, so I thought this post reflects the same problem. My bad.

            Anyhow, if they were so upset about the SP not being historically correct, it’s beyond me why don’t they just remove the ears (that are complete bollocks) and just model the two layer effect on the hull. Would be a give-and-take situation, less protection on the turret, more protection on the hull. Easy enough.

            • The “ears” are historical. They were added at a later point, after many photos were taken without them but before the Super Pershing was scrapped. I think Belton Cooper, who actually worked on the project (but is otherwise usually full of shit), said they were to counter-balance the weight of the 80mm Panther plate welded to the gun mantlet, however Hunnicutt only mentions that they were added for additional protection.

              Here is a photo of the “ear” armor on the Super Pershing at its final resting place in a dump near Kassel, Germany. You can also see additional armor covering the equilibrator spring tubes.
              http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/article_images/SZ24Jan08_014.jpg

              Source: “Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series” by R.P. Hunnicutt

            • Wow, I’ve read a few articles and documents about the SP, but I have never seen that picture. Thanks for sharing, I really thought they just made those ears up.

      • However, accurately modelling the SP armor with more, thinner plates would be a nerf except against HEAT. Remember, in game mechanics, a shell undergoes normalization for every layer of armor it hits. Last thing an SP driver wants is a shell undergoing normalization more times. I’m pretty sure you can’t just arbitrarily change shell mechanics depending on what tank they hit. So lets be honest, more accurate modelling with current game mechanics will screw the SP badly, while at the same time, making HEAT rounds utterly ineffective against it. For playability reasons, it’s easy to understand this decision.

    • Wasnt the boiler plate only the bit on the turret I thought the rest came from a panther.

  19. - SerB has a Moskvich 2141 from 1993 as his car

    as the 1200hp engines (E-50/75) were totally unhistorical

    - Soviet 1200hp engines are historical, as it was basically two 600hp V-2 engines working in pair

    - SerB on how much historical WOT is: “We balance the historicity and the playability in such an extent we consider necessery”

    - SerB is still fighting to keep the 122mm KV-1S

    Out of this you can make a nice novel about anti-nazi uber soviet bald prick commie hater.

    • You don’t know what power-to-weight ratio is and why the current top German engines’ is bullshit, do you?

      • Odd, i don’t remember you complaining about the E-series engines before… Did you decide they’re bullshit after WG took them away? Are you even capable of criticizing ANYTHING wg does?

        • Save for the -100 the E-series is pure “paper projects” anyway and the topic never came up so I didn’t bother, but as a matter of fact their fantastical (in both senses of the word) performance specs have long kind of annoyed me. Especially given how well the HL 295 *actually* worked in comparision.

        • On another note, on the testserver the Tier Tens – E-50M, E-100, JE-100 – *still* retain their ~Ahnenerbe*Magic~ bullshit engines. (No idea about the Maus one, given that thing’s weird power system.)

  21. - RU251 will not come in 8.9, as there are still some issues with obtaining some info from Münster

    I bet my left leg its meant to be Munster not Münster :P

  22. - reward tanks from missions will be hard to obtain

    I can bet it will be something like.. collect 1 500 000exp in one month period. ( 30x 50 000 ).

    YOU CAN’T?! Oh.. boo hoo hoo.. how terrible.. you should maybe buy a month of premium account instead? =)

    • More likely:
      RU collect 1 000 000 in one month
      NA collect 1 500 000 in one month
      EU collect 3 000 000 plus kill one of every tank in the game (including T-50-2) in one month

      • Nah, switch EU and NA around, since of all the servers, SerB seems to enjoy ruffling the feathers of NA’s players the most.

        • too bad serb doesnt control the missions on NA?

          wargaming america determines our specials and missions on the na server

  23. - Q: “Why does not shooting allies who are capturing enemy base reset the capture counter like when you shoot enemies?” A: “So that retards – and you did try that, didn’t you? – don’t disrupt the capture while screaming ‘No cap!!!!!!’”

    finally this idiot serb is damn right about something, he should’ve just banned the idiot who asked that

    • Wow. So many opportunities to shoot my friends once the game was already won and I skipped them so I didn’t disrupt cap. Needless to say, after this, I considering it my sacred duty to at least track any platoon mate when we’re capping.

    • While you still have arbitrary parameters like camo and track resistance, mechanics blatantly stacked in favor of Soviet vehicles such as the ten calibre rule, then no it won’t be the end.

    • The Great KV Rebalance of 2012 was a far larger blow to Soviet bias than this, and yet you still get people crying about dirty Russian communist WG more than a year later.

      Wehraboos won’t be satisfied until a Panzer I can ammo rack an IS-4 by just looking at it.

      • KV-1 is still ridiculously good. And with better matchmaking than the previous KV-1/2 of old, i think it actually came out better, cause it has less weakspots than before.

        • If I can murder a KV with a Churchie III from the front it can’t be all THAT good.

          • They’ll say that it’s because Churchill III is a Soviet premium tank… obviously it’s not like I’m making mincemeat of KV-1 with my Churchill I bought yesterday (lol, over 2000 of efficiency rating and I’m half done with it, I’ve either been really lucky or there are tons of noobs at tier V lately).

        • The current KV-1 is very good, but not OP. There isn’t any single thing it has that can absolutely dominate anything in its tier(as with the old KV and current KV-1s’ guns) while still being excellent elsewheere(old KV’s armour, current -1s’ mobility). Tier 5 games are no longer decided completely by which team has more KVs.

          And any temporary boost in MM it got(did the old KV get special matchmaking? I remember it getting into tier 9 matches but I forgot if other tiers 5 did too with the old MM.) was quickly nullified by the reduction of tier spread to +/- 2 which benefited ALL tanks.

          Also you forgot that Great KV Rebalance didn’t just affect the KV. Remember that back then, the KV-1S had very similar stats and the exact same gun selection as what it has now, yet no one played it because of how OP everything else the Russians had was.

        • “KV-1″ and “ridiculously good” in the same sentence? lmao
          Don’t get me wrong, it is a great tank, but the thing is my StuG and AT2 both eat KV-1 for breakfast.

      • Not quite. You see, there’s something that troubles me about this whole issue with the KV-1S:

        The Panzer IV used to have the L/70 and Schmallturm, which was removed and made into a premium tank. This was done on the basis, at least according to SerB, that it was never implemented on the vehicle in service. Well, neither was the 122 mm gun on the KV-1S; it was tested, then canceled because the IS-2 was available, plus various issues with the gun itself. If they can remove the Panzer IV’s L/70 (since the Panzer IV’s gun was more or less to balance against the KV, and later the KV-1, since Germany doesn’t have a tier V Heavy as of yet) and leave the 122 mm gun on the KV-1S, which has proven to be BLATANTLY OP compared to its piers, then that all but confirms a Pro-Russian Bias.

        • I say they should do the same solution as with the Panzer IV Schmalturm. Remove the 122mm gun from the KV-1S, touch the 122mm model up a bit, then release it as a tier 7 premium.

        • to be fair the reason that the Kv122 never happened was soviet military bureaucracy( there was also an actual prototype), unlike the PzIVS that never happened because, you know, the laws of physics.

          • Current KV-1 is OP in T5 battles….in T6 is still decent….in T7 slightly UP(bad penetration),,,,overall much better than any other T5…STILL

  25. - Q: “You removed the unhistorical engine from E-75. How do you know what engine was historical, when the vehicle was never built and no engine was installed in it?” A: “No engine was installed in it in real life, so we’ll just remove all the engines from it”

    imagine e-75 as a stationary “heavy”tank just staying in the middle of the spawn area and trying to snipe some lt-s coming for spgs lololol

  26. I have no idea why they have no plan on returning the old engines’ XP. Do anyone ask them the reasons behind these decisions?

  27. - SerB has a Moskvich 2141 from 1993 as his car.

    Yet everyone keeps whining how old my 1996 Civic is!

    • You should have seen the look on my friends’ faces when I bought a 1971 Opel Kadett.

      It’s still more reliable and fuel efficient than any of their modern cars.

  29. Yeah, like 700 hp IS engine is completely historical. Double standards, double standards everywhere!

    • So lets take it, remove a few weakspots on the IS, and improve its gun and mobility.

    • You don’t even understand what’s being talked about, Wehraboo. The IS-3 top engine gives 700 hp for 700 kg, an entirely credible 1:1 ratio. The current E-series Maybachs OTOH are pure Ahnenerbe bullshit; 1200 hp for 750 kg is 1.6:1 power-to-weight ratio, close to seriously hardcore aircraft engines such as the Wasp Major – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major.
      And I’m quite willing to bet the Maybachs were distinctly lacking in the lightweight alloys, turbo-superchargers and other expensive bells and whistles the aero-engines had.

      Not to mention that even after over a decade of further developement work with Maybach consultation the French never managed to coax more than ~850 hp or so (for a respectable 1.33:1 ratio) out of the HL 295 without the thing trying to take itself apart…

      • But honestly speaking that engine (V-2-54-IS) is weird, from the sound of the name it sounds like the T-54 engine which was effectively installed in some IS based vehicles in the 50s (like ISU-152K) but it has more horsepower than T-54′s (V-2-54) stock engine… game balancing?

        • *shrug* Was presumably further tweaked to be a better fit for a heavy tank or something, damned if I know.

  30. - SerB is still fighting to keep the 122mm KV-1S
    Seems like SerB is becoming more a spokesman than a developer, cause he is terrible at development.

    - the reason Leopard prototype has such a thin armor (50mm) is that by that time, all the countries used HEAT and subcaliber rounds en masse and the designers thought that no matter what they do, the armor will get penetrated anyway, so they might as well make it withstand only low caliber weapons fire from autocannons, while making the vehicle lighter and faster

    This makes no sense with respect to the game, again picking and choosing “historicity”. T-62A in particular and other medium tanks have effective armor versus HEAT in the game. I’m fine with the Leopards having poor armor but they should get huge buffs to soft stats to make up for this.

    • *shrug* Go whine at the (presumably now long since deceased) French and German engineers for opting for a “jeune école” design philosophy while their Soviet colleagues, well, didn’t.

      • Not really; it’s a tier VII tank, so it wouldn’t be TOO OP (it would probably be comparable to the SU-100′s gun a tier below, or the SU-100Y’s gun at the same tier)

  32. Pingback: 26.08.2013 | WoTRomania

  33. “- the fire extinguisher change is not actual ATM (SS: there was a plan to make all the fire extinguishers automatic, with the skill reducing the delay in which they activate)”

    What does this mean?

    • A while ago there was an idea bounced around by the devs to remove the current manual activation of fire extinguishers and instead tie the delay to the level of Firefighting skill among the crew. Apparently put on the back burner for now.
      IIRC it had something to do with some kind of cheat-y script activation shenanigan, but presumably other ways were found to deal with that.

  34. “You removed the unhistorical engine from E-75. How do you know what engine was historical, when the vehicle was never built and no engine was installed in it?” A: “No engine was installed in it in real life, so we’ll just remove all the engines from it”

    Sensing some hints about E-75 removal here… <8D

    • Nah, just SerB trolling idiots. The E series is mostly bullshit, E-50M in particular, but at this point I doubt they’ll remove it. Either way they should start fixing “their” T28/T95 and T25/2 before removing anything else.

  35. Frank, if i understand correctly, this “afterburner”/“forsage” is sth. like MW50 or GM-1 from German aircrafts and would work rather like removed governor in the game. Still, it’s a wild guess…

  36. The temporary engine boost was called Emergency War Power/Output. Was done by using a mixture of water-glycol injected into the engine’s cylinders which allowed more air per volume. Its a more comon feature with aero engines.

  37. ” – the reason Leopard prototype has such a thin armor (50mm) is that by that time, all the countries used HEAT and subcaliber rounds en masse and the designers thought that no matter what they do, the armor will get penetrated anyway, so they might as well make it withstand only low caliber weapons fire from autocannons, while making the vehicle lighter and faster”

    Oh hey, even back then they realized that speed>armor because people were going to save gold ammo JUST for them if they had armor to speak of anyway :v

    ” – boiler plates of the same thickness are roughly two times less effective than armor plates, when it comes to resistance to shells. That’s one of the reasons more “layers” of Superpershing armor will not be modelled, it will stay as it is in 8.8″

    Glad they’ve made the frontal armor and extra plates more realistic and historically accurate. Soooo how about slapping the historical gun into it too, since we’re doing that kind of stuff now.
    (I don’t actually have a Super P, so I don’t care all that much, it just amuses me to see WG being so picky about what they will and won’t make accurate on it, as if just making the whole thing accurate is going to make the tank into an OP beast)

    ” – Q:”Will you make the commander’s copulas not damageable by shells?” A:”And what about a ‘make me invulnerable and kill all’ button?””

    Yes, lets be an asshole instead of explaining why shooting a non-essential part of the tank SHOULD deal damage to the overall vehicle. I’d be curious to see the justification too, personally.

    • >Oh hey, even back then they realized that speed>armor because people were going to save gold ammo JUST for them if they had armor to speak of anyway :v
      Actually they were wrong, composite armour gave new life to armour like all tanks after T-64 showed.
      > Soooo how about slapping the historical gun into it too, since we’re doing that kind of stuff now.
      And what is historical exactly? With AP that gun apparently penetrates 132mm@30°@500 yards, while the KwK 43 L/71 penetrates 185mm@30°@500 meters; this changes in favour of Super Pershing when you look at APCR where the T15E1 penetrates 244mm@30°@500 yards while the KWK 43/L71 penetrates 217mm@30°@500 meters. Actually it’s possible that they buffed already the penetration of the AP… maybe we should really look at a mobility upgrade or even better just fuck it up and remove that damned spaced armour altogether ffs!
      > I’d be curious to see the justification too, personally.
      Shots at the cupola can ricochet inside the turret…

      • It is hard to model damage mechanics in an hp system . When a shell hits the hatch a lot of spalling occurs and can kill crew and damage equipment . Eg the challenger in the friendly fire incident was hit in the copula by a hesh shell which caused the ammo to ignite …. You wouldn’t like to get ammo racked by a shot to the copula would you ?

        • HESH is explosive ammo, though…that’s different.

          Somewhere around here, there’s an article showing HE blowing off pieces of tanks, notably a cupola. Tore the thing clear off, if I recall right.

          In any case, yes, I would be tempted to take potential spalling damage over receiving HP damage every hit. A tank with an injured crewmember or module is a tank that’s still in combat, unlike a tank which has mysteriously exploded from an arbitrary number of hits to non-main armor.

      • ” Actually they were wrong, composite armour gave new life to armour like all tanks after T-64 showed.”
        They were correct as far as plain steel armor went, though. Composite armor is an entirely different critter.

        >historical penetration stuff
        Penetration is a balancing mechanic in WoT, though. I was referring more to the model of gun equipped; the normal Pershing gets (a revision of) the gun that the Super P should have, and in their game, it’s a superior (albeit only slightly) gun.

        I would almost say “it would make a good tier 7 premium at this point”, but I guess it would actually be pretty overpowered against tier 6 guns, and definitely against most tier 5′s. Too strong for tier 7, bordering on too weak for tier 8…poor Super P’s in a pretty bad spot right now.

        ” Shots at the cupola can ricochet inside the turret…”
        Key word being “can”. Shots to the cupola damaging the overall structure *every single time* is bull. The damn thing’d fly off before spewing enough spall to make the tank inoperable, barring spall hitting something vital like fuel or ammo. It’s not like the roof armor it’s attached to is particularly strong, eh?

        My completely uneducated opinion, though, really; never been near a tank in my life. If I’m wrong, please, someone correct me. The above just makes more sense to me.

        • The HP damage system is what the problem is, where hits that penetrate and do not kill or disable the tank. In most cases if a tank was penetrated by a 50mm or larger shell it caused enough damage to kill crew or damage the vehicle enough to render it out of action (either by defect, crew bailing or retreating due to damage). There is not much space in a tank that does not have something vital located in it. The HP damage system is strictly there to add to the fun factor. Imagine if your tank is tracked you and have to use the real amount of time to repair it or if a hit jammed your turret or the crew bailed out after taking a penetrating hit to the engine. Not much fun.

          As for the cupola, the commander’s head is normally located up in that area so he can see to fight the tank. So besides the obvious dead commander problem ANY hit that pens there will cause pieces of metal to fly around inside the tank damaging things internally…Depending on the angle of the hit and the type of round, the penetrator could go into the crew compartment of pass through the turret into the engine or ammo. I have seen photos of tanks that had their cupolas blown off usually with significant damage to other parts of the tank because of the hit. Should it do as much damage as a hit to the LFP? Probably not but it is the HP damage model that causes that, a pen is a pen if the area is modeled.

      • “Actually they were wrong, composite armour gave new life to armour like all tanks after T-64 showed.”

        Composite armour wasn’t on the table when the Leo and AMX-30 were designed. Plus the 105mm’s seemed to do quite a number on mid-Cold War tanks *anyway*, judging by the Israeli experience.

    • Without the cuppola weakspot, the british AT series would become almost invulnerable.

      • Nevermind that they have multiple weak spots aside from that. The AT-2 is the only exception as far as frontal armor goes, and it’s easy to track and get around. Heck, track it and get out of its gun arc, and you can shoot the inner edge of the tips of its tracks…even low-penetration guns go straight through there.

  38. - the bug where the vehicle says “not ready for battle” but in fact it IS read for battle on test server is a bug

    In other news, SerB later confirmed that birds fly, and water is wet.

  39. In the Service Record section, the List of Tanks has broken roundings of Winrates.

    I have several tanks very hard brought to 50% – actually 49.7 or 49.8 or 49.9 winrates, and there I see that my tanks have 49% winrate, not 50%!

    Also all my tanks winrates were torn down 1 % by faulty roundings. I know this was mentioned before, but I don’t want to buy back 20 tanks in order to raise there winrates, cause WG rounded down.

    And my father says that is mathematic error.

    • Right, how terrible would it actually be if someone saw you had 49% instead of 50%, they’d probably think you’re a noob and ostracise the living shit out of you.

      • Sincerely it is about fairness:

        54.8 % is 55% and not 54%

        And yes, I din’t want to have in my tank list tanks below 50% winrate, so also the tanks I never liked I made efforts to bring at 50%, before selling them.

        Now I have the same tanks with 49% winrate.

        And yes, it is a problem.

        • It strikes me as odd to argue “fairness” when referring to a number that doesn’t actually *do* anything. Having 50% doesn’t give you an advantage over anyone, having 49% doesn’t give you any sort of disadvantage either. It is literally neither fair nor unfair.

          Also, as you pointed out, you were taking advantage of the system, using rounding to make it seem like you had 50% on those tanks, when you really didn’t…effectively, lying to anyone who looked at your service record. How is that more right than WG fixing their system so it rounds like it should have to begin with?

  40. “- the Tiger buffs will make the Tiger more popular”

    Buff, what buff? It’s a freaking nerf! WG took the only thing that keeps the Tiger I alive and pwning IS-3s, its maneuverability… There were no problems with its DPM…

    Thanks to those freaking Tiger I fagboys we have to deal with a sluggish Tiger I >_>

    • tiger 1 is a rebalance( 2100dpm for a t7 heavytank is almost too much),tiger 2 and e75 got serious buffs.. when the patch is released I buy the tiger 2 again in a second :)

      • We can be prestty sure that a lot of the statements we saw up to this point about buffs/nerfs in 8.8 simply are wrong… Regardless who strong the opinions on either side are, the Tiger for instance either will get a net buff or a net nerf, but not both. People look at an individual stats and state “OMG, the RoF is going up, Tiger will be OP” or “accelleration goes down, Tiger will be useless”. Which both is nonsense: a tank is more than an individual stat, and there have been changes to several stats at the same time.

        A tank has probably gotten a buff if its relative (!) winrate suddenly goes up. That is, if more people are able to influence wins in this tank in a lot of battles, there probably had been a change that made the tank better to handle for the majority. There might be individual players getting much worse result – but they do not count, the evidence is only in the numbers of a large set of players.

        The most accurate way this can be measured is IMHO the Noobmeter OP rating. If the Tiger I/II/E-75 goes up after 8.8 – Tiger I sits now pretty low in the Tier 7 Heavy list – the patch was indeed a buff. If not, the Tiger has been nerfed, regardless what our revered belarussian developpers, whose domination of the online tank playing world I applaud, intended.

        Thus, I will reserve my judgement on 8.8 to the time when >10.000 new battles on each tank show how the player base handles the changes.

        As for russian bias: since I played the SU-100 with 122mm and get a reliable >65% win in solo pubs, I can understand where Jagdpanzer 4 drivers can get that idea. I am, however, not yet without hope for WoT, especially as the KV-1s is now losing that 122mm that has no place on a Tier 6 heavy.

        GL&HF,

        ZaBong

        • The Tiger I maneuverability is worse than before. The E-75 has become a fire box now, 25 games on the test server and 31 fires with engine knocked out at a rate of almost 1.3 times per game. With the engine damaged it can’t climb most hills.

          • If you show your lowerplate it will be a firebox, if not you make other tanks fireboxes :) they play a bit different after the patch, but i believe its a netbuff.. they are now heavier, except for the e75, but its traverse buff is pretty nice, because good players will do better in the tank because of that :)

  41. Its MUnster ! not MÜnster ! Münster is also a german town , but has no real military function , whereas Munster is famous for that and has also a great tank museum . Munster !!!