<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 19.2.2014</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:08:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ramp4ge</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-120519</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ramp4ge]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:56:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-120519</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, M26 was more of a 1943 design, if not earlier. T26s were combat-ready by 1944.

But that doesn&#039;t really matter. By that same note, Comet should not be tier 7 because it was an advanced design and it influenced British tank design for decades to come.

The M26&#039;s glacis isn&#039;t all that great. It&#039;s not even really &quot;decently&quot; angled. It&#039;s 101.6mm@46*. That would make it substantially weaker than the T29&#039;s glacis which is globally known for being paper to anything at it&#039;s tier and most anything a tier lower.

The justification for 2 M60s is really apparent when you compare the capabilities of the M60A1 to the vanilla M60. The M60A1 had a thicker glacis and a much better turret. The M60A1 also stayed in service with the USMC for damn near 30 years. Denying it a spot on the tree is just...ridiculous. It&#039;s probably one of the US&#039;s longest-active tanks and it&#039;s nowhere to be seen.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, M26 was more of a 1943 design, if not earlier. T26s were combat-ready by 1944.</p>
<p>But that doesn&#8217;t really matter. By that same note, Comet should not be tier 7 because it was an advanced design and it influenced British tank design for decades to come.</p>
<p>The M26&#8242;s glacis isn&#8217;t all that great. It&#8217;s not even really &#8220;decently&#8221; angled. It&#8217;s 101.6mm@46*. That would make it substantially weaker than the T29&#8242;s glacis which is globally known for being paper to anything at it&#8217;s tier and most anything a tier lower.</p>
<p>The justification for 2 M60s is really apparent when you compare the capabilities of the M60A1 to the vanilla M60. The M60A1 had a thicker glacis and a much better turret. The M60A1 also stayed in service with the USMC for damn near 30 years. Denying it a spot on the tree is just&#8230;ridiculous. It&#8217;s probably one of the US&#8217;s longest-active tanks and it&#8217;s nowhere to be seen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UnFriendly83</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-120241</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[UnFriendly83]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-120241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[T-54 is not OP, the super human Russian midgets that crew it are OP!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>T-54 is not OP, the super human Russian midgets that crew it are OP!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UnFriendly83</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-120240</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[UnFriendly83]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-120240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indeed, all I read about the T-55&#039;s improvements was a better engine, longer cruising range and two-plane stabilization of the main gun rather than vertical stabilization only, also 43 rounds of ammo rather than 34 on the T-54.

I would love to know why the T-54 in game has 120 mm thick hull armour, when all production T-54/55 had 100 mm. But that&#039;s wargaming for you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed, all I read about the T-55&#8242;s improvements was a better engine, longer cruising range and two-plane stabilization of the main gun rather than vertical stabilization only, also 43 rounds of ammo rather than 34 on the T-54.</p>
<p>I would love to know why the T-54 in game has 120 mm thick hull armour, when all production T-54/55 had 100 mm. But that&#8217;s wargaming for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noticias del 19 y 20 de Febrero. &#124; Wot y Leaks</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-120028</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Noticias del 19 y 20 de Febrero. &#124; Wot y Leaks]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-120028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] FTR [1] y [2] , contrastado siempre con el currazo del señor wgtraductor en su [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] FTR [1] y [2] , contrastado siempre con el currazo del señor wgtraductor en su [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ramp4ge</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-119931</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ramp4ge]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-119931</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was, of course, referring to premium tanks that were available to the general public, not status symbol e-peen stroking devices.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was, of course, referring to premium tanks that were available to the general public, not status symbol e-peen stroking devices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 23r0_NA</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-119834</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[23r0_NA]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:58:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-119834</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[- E25 is not OP

I can support this one.  They&#039;re annoying as hell when driven by competent players, but far from being OP unless the player is just THAT good to begin with (or is platooned with two other competent E-25 drivers and are top tier, in which case they&#039;re quite a menace).  No, I don&#039;t own an E-25, though I&#039;ve considered getting one on a few occasions.


Now, the M18, on the other hand...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>- E25 is not OP</p>
<p>I can support this one.  They&#8217;re annoying as hell when driven by competent players, but far from being OP unless the player is just THAT good to begin with (or is platooned with two other competent E-25 drivers and are top tier, in which case they&#8217;re quite a menace).  No, I don&#8217;t own an E-25, though I&#8217;ve considered getting one on a few occasions.</p>
<p>Now, the M18, on the other hand&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Infernal969</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-119812</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Infernal969]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-119812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[- T-55 Model 1958 is not in the game, because it’s too OP
And T-54 is totally balanced.

- E25 is not OP
Oh, and on another note, pigs can fly. But yeah, there&#039;s only denial left when you introduce OP as hell hightier premium tank.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>- T-55 Model 1958 is not in the game, because it’s too OP<br />
And T-54 is totally balanced.</p>
<p>- E25 is not OP<br />
Oh, and on another note, pigs can fly. But yeah, there&#8217;s only denial left when you introduce OP as hell hightier premium tank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dUG1</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-119790</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dUG1]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-119790</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pershing at tier 7?
Even if we put aside its &quot;historical&quot; position (1945 advanced design that influenced all US post-war tanks, among 1941-1942 technology - Tiger, Panther, IS) how exactly could it work without nerfing the Pershing to the ground in all soft stats and making it not fun to play anymore?
103mm frontal decently angled armor + imba turret that gives hell to most tier 8/9 tanks that dont aim accurately would be broken on tier 7 medium, imo.

Maybe something like this:
Tier 6: Drop T20 like you suggested, with historical 76 mm gun (alternative to E8)
Tier 7: T25 (basically a Pershing prototype) with 90mm M3
Tier 8: M26 inlucing M46 upgrades with upcoming suspension/hull options in its elite configuration, retaining recognizable Pershing silhouette/visual appearance. 
Tier 9: M47 with M48 upgrades regarding the hull/turret in its elite configuration.
Starting with M36 as stock gun, researchable high velocity 90mm gun as an intermediate on both stock and elite turret, and M68 as top gun on upgraded turret.
Basically you would get M48 you have now on tier 9, with lower RoF and soft stats.
Tier 10: M60A1 with actual M60A1 production turret and decent protection, making it competitive to the new tier X meds like Leo 1 and STB.

But the question is - do we really need 2 M60&#039;s in the game, one being crap and ugly looking, and one being the real deal?

Generally speaking, they completely fucked up giving away M60 with M48 turret as a CW-only reward tank.
Its butt-ugly and generally an underperforming tank.
The only way they can fix it without it is by replacing current M60 with the upcoming T95E6.

P.S. M47 with 105mm gun should be kept for Italian/EU tree.
After all, US army didnt use them in that configuration, so I dont see a single good reason to intruduce another &quot;unhistorical&quot; tank just cause they can.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pershing at tier 7?<br />
Even if we put aside its &#8220;historical&#8221; position (1945 advanced design that influenced all US post-war tanks, among 1941-1942 technology &#8211; Tiger, Panther, IS) how exactly could it work without nerfing the Pershing to the ground in all soft stats and making it not fun to play anymore?<br />
103mm frontal decently angled armor + imba turret that gives hell to most tier 8/9 tanks that dont aim accurately would be broken on tier 7 medium, imo.</p>
<p>Maybe something like this:<br />
Tier 6: Drop T20 like you suggested, with historical 76 mm gun (alternative to E8)<br />
Tier 7: T25 (basically a Pershing prototype) with 90mm M3<br />
Tier 8: M26 inlucing M46 upgrades with upcoming suspension/hull options in its elite configuration, retaining recognizable Pershing silhouette/visual appearance.<br />
Tier 9: M47 with M48 upgrades regarding the hull/turret in its elite configuration.<br />
Starting with M36 as stock gun, researchable high velocity 90mm gun as an intermediate on both stock and elite turret, and M68 as top gun on upgraded turret.<br />
Basically you would get M48 you have now on tier 9, with lower RoF and soft stats.<br />
Tier 10: M60A1 with actual M60A1 production turret and decent protection, making it competitive to the new tier X meds like Leo 1 and STB.</p>
<p>But the question is &#8211; do we really need 2 M60&#8242;s in the game, one being crap and ugly looking, and one being the real deal?</p>
<p>Generally speaking, they completely fucked up giving away M60 with M48 turret as a CW-only reward tank.<br />
Its butt-ugly and generally an underperforming tank.<br />
The only way they can fix it without it is by replacing current M60 with the upcoming T95E6.</p>
<p>P.S. M47 with 105mm gun should be kept for Italian/EU tree.<br />
After all, US army didnt use them in that configuration, so I dont see a single good reason to intruduce another &#8220;unhistorical&#8221; tank just cause they can.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: j338u5</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-119780</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[j338u5]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-119780</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[However the US never wanted to replace the 90 with the L7, at least as far as I know. I have 2 major issues with this being added as a optional hull to the M46:
1) The M46 is doing fine without it and doing so would change the vehicles playing style
2) It means that the vehicle can&#039;t be used in the EU tree which aside from this and the Swiss Pz 61 doesn&#039;t really have any unique top tier mediums AFAIK.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>However the US never wanted to replace the 90 with the L7, at least as far as I know. I have 2 major issues with this being added as a optional hull to the M46:<br />
1) The M46 is doing fine without it and doing so would change the vehicles playing style<br />
2) It means that the vehicle can&#8217;t be used in the EU tree which aside from this and the Swiss Pz 61 doesn&#8217;t really have any unique top tier mediums AFAIK.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ViktorKitov</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/19-2-2014/#comment-119764</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ViktorKitov]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 05:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8581#comment-119764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The tanks feel slow because you are running a Power Point presentantion and not because of the FOV.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The tanks feel slow because you are running a Power Point presentantion and not because of the FOV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
