- crews in historical battles will be just like in random mode (SS: as in, it’s possible to use your 6 perk crew in historical battles)
- (related to the question above) Q: “That’s unfair!” A: “In the beginning, in the name of Justice, we will make Soviets win in 100 percent of battles and if the battle is without Soviets – 100 percent draw!”
- SerB hardly has time to play, because he travels a lot
- apparently, one of the reasons there is no account-to-account gold transfer is country legislature
- Q: “Will there be material (solid) gun barrels?” A: “Want solid gun barrels? Join the army”

62 thoughts on “7.3.2014

  1. “Will there be material (solid) gun barrels?” A: “Want solid gun barrels? Join the army”

      • SerB always says the “Army” and never “Marine Corps” simply because here in Europe we only have Armies and not silly divisions. No one cares whether someone is a tanker, a boatman, or infantry. It’s all Military aka Army. There is no annoying pride like “I serve on the ship, we mariners are superior to other classes. Go marines! *insert incorrect American-style pronounciation of Latin words* “

        • …the people who actually did their national service in the Finnish military (and didn’t fag out into civilian positions like I did) tell me quite the opposite as far as the FDF is concerned, you know. Not entirely sure where *our* amphibious assault peeps (mainly oriented towards combat in the labyrinthine southern coastal archipelago) actually fall organisationally though.

          And just about every European state with a coastline and navy worth speaking of has some form of naval infantry as one of its oldest-established “specialist” infantry branches AFAIK. Hell, even the Greeks and Romans had combat infantry who mainly served on ships.

          Pretty sure most aren’t virtual self-contained mini-militaries like the USMC though.

  2. The crew skills in historical battles is actually a good question.
    I mean, how can historical battles be ok if there will be tanks with 3, 4 skills on their crew?

  3. - Q: “Will there be material (solid) gun barrels?” A: “Want solid gun barrels? Join the army”

    Just watch girls und panzer to see how shitty is that idea…

    • The first time this question popped up SerB said something like “we’ve tried it, the game was unplayable.”

        • You also lose 70% of city fighting/hill fighting ability.

          Imagine trying to turn in a city or forest and getting your barrel stuck on a building or tree, the imagine doing down a steep slope and getting your barrel stuck in the ground at the bottom.

          • Well, that is true of course. There were numerous reasons why tanks were not the best weapon to use in cities, forests or overly hilly terrain.

            With current, nearly randomly generated Mine Craft style, extreme hill maps driving a “real” tank would be quite frustrating experience I imagine.

            On the other hand I believe we could have in WoT balanced maps that are tank friendly, representing a terrain where tanks would be likely fighting in real war. Then features like solid barrels might work.

            • Tanks were used in all those and quite often enough too you know… up to and including full-on jungle. And mountains.
              Enemies having this annoying habit of not digging in where you’d like them to.

              • Yes, if the enemy has no proper at weapons even an armoured car would be an advantage as an infantry support. But we are talking about large scale tank battles. There were none I know of fought in jungles or in mountains.

                • 15 versus 15 isn’t “large scale”. And the last I checked tenks fought their opposite numbers where they found them, even if that was grandmother’s chicken coop.

                • 15 vs 15 is pretty large already considering the size of the maps.

                  Also I mean just because you can drive a tank to some places it doesn’t mean it is the best ground to fight at. Sure, it can be done and if the other side has nothing to pose a serious threat against tanks then you can use and abuse them anywhere. And even armoured car is a blessing where enemy has none.

                  But we are talking about tank vs tank combat. Tanks would have go around the forest or city and flank the enemy somewhere in the open. And the enemy would not allow his tanks just to wait to be encircled but send them out to prevent the said flanking. That’s how large tank battles were starting, not because some tanks assigned for infantry support role, ordered not to engage enemy tanks if possible, bumped into enemy infantry support tanks, ordered likewise, just because it was a city/forest/mountain and they could not see very well where they are going, and both sides somehow have lost their infantry cover to scout ahead for them.

                  It’s like making a game about battleships and forcing them to fight on a lake and disabling collisions because they could crash.

                • Can’t edit last post so I’ll reply here …

                  I am not saying having no collision on the barrel is wrong. It’s pretty functional with what maps we have to play on.
                  It is just the maps that are mostly retarded from the perspective of the armoured combat. If we had maps representing terrain that is more likely to be a place of tank battle (aka not a god damn middle of a jungle or a bottom of the great canyon) then perhaps there was no need to make barrels immaterial. That’s all.

                • Tanks fought each other in cities and woods often enough, I fail to see your point.

                  Where some arm *is supposed to* and *optimally should* fight has absolutely nothing at all to do with where it in practice *has had to*. People have built siege towers on ships, used mounted cavalry in street fighting, employed heavy artillery as ersatz infantry guns over open sights, dropped paratroopers smack into forests and dragged AFVs over swamps and mountains if that’s what it took.
                  And, yes, duked it out with tanks in built-up areas among other less than ideal choices of battleground.

                • Well, if you don’t see my point let me exaggerate to show what I mean:

                  I’m sure if a soldier was caught by enemy commandos by surprise in a shower he would start to fight for his life, naked and with whatever improvised weapon he could find near him.

                  Though there is no Call of Duty – Fresh out of Shower edition where you are forced to fight naked and whack other guys with a metal pipe.

                  Just because something is possible or even might have happened does not mean it is the best representation of the typical situation nor a good material for the game.

          • Not solid. As far as i know from YT Vids.

            - That reminds me, if anyone knows how the uberrealistic WT is doing it, solid or not?
            With the words of your almighty SerB.
            “If you don’t like it, don’t play it”

    • Yeah, am curious about this as well. I’m assuming it has something to do with the fact that we can actually purchase gold for real money, though.

      • I’m not entirely sure, but the way I see it, as long as you can get gold only from WG, it’s considered just service. But as soon as you can move it from account to account, since it has tangible monetary value it becomes a sort of quasi-currency, which might be eligible for additional taxes. I sort of remember an idea coming out from the US to put capital gains tax on eve online isk back in the day…

      • I think the reason (simplified) is this:

        If you buy gold for yourself, and use it yourself, it’s just a counter of how much “store credit” you have. If you buy a gift pack for someone else, the real-money traffic shows it as a gift according to local laws, and the online banks and credit card companies are responisble for the money traffic.

        If you buy gold, and then pass the gold onto someone else, and then that person uses it to buy something, the gold transfer inside the WoT system falls under financial laws of sending “money-equivalent tokens” (I don’t know what the correct English term is), in some countries. That would force WG to hire financial lawyers, get the necessary permissions, pay the appropriate taxes on gold transfers, hire accountants to write reports to tax agencies, etc. In short, it would cost them way more than they would profit from the increased gold sales.

    • I was wondering about gold transfer myself and made a post about it on the forum, asking why not.
      There was one particular answer that was quite spot on:

      - People would hoard invitation codes, make dummy accounts and then transfer the gold to the main account.

      Devs could of course make workarounds to prevent it but I guess there’s more work needed to make it fraud proof than it is worth it.

      I’m sure there are numerous other reasons but this one seems to be enough on it’s own right.

  4. SerB’s always makes me laugh with his “join the army” statements :)

  5. why is it that all the best world leaders are here @worldoftanks FTR chat and not making the world better irl?