Check out Listy’s article from Indo-Pakistani war, if you are interested!

- the question, how the European tech tree crew nationality will work, was not decided yet
- wrong icons in today’s historical battles info are simply placeholders
- both teams in historical battles can have different amount of tanks
- the setups of vehicles in historical battles released today, are NOT final, they are just concepts, it’s too early for final setup versions according to the developers (SS: it was mentioned that for example the M10/Panther could appear in Ardennes campaign)
- Tiger in historical battles will not have the L/71, but the 88mm L/56
- historical battles will work like a different mode, they will not be a random battle mode like encounter, assault and confrontation
- according to Storm, 9.0 will bring two major features: updated (HD) tanks and historical battles
- 9.0 test will not come this week (SS: end of the month/beginning of April for now)
- apprently the “hotspot” of 9.0 will be the comparison between WG and War Thunder HD models

81 thoughts on “11.3.2014

  1. “Tiger in historical battles will not have the L/71, but the 88mm L/56″
    People’s knowledge about tanks is amazing…

  2. - Tiger in historical battles will not have the L/71, but the 88mm L/56

    when i see retards still asking this question i know why WoT is flooded with tomatoes…

  3. Tigers will have the 88 mm L/56…and the IS will have the D-25T, naturally. Well, so much for balance (if that was ever their intent, that is).

    • Seriously…it’s called historical battles, and you call for balance by making something unhistorical?

    • Actually… It probably won’t.
      The IS we know from WoT is a mashup from IS(with 100 mm gun if I remember) and an IS-2(with 122 mm D 25). So In some battles IS will have 100 mm and fight Tigers, and in other it will have 122 mm and fight Tiger II’s.

      • is (is-1) had 85mm gun aka stock gun

        d10t (100mm gun) had better penetration capability than d25t

        correct me if im wrong but is2 was mostly support (breakthrough) tank for infantry thats why it use 122mm gun not 100mm

          • No, the D-25 was picked because it had much wider use, specifically it was all about HE shells which were effective against infantry, buildings and fortifications and penetration of AP was completely sufficient against tanks it was fighting with + the sheer kinetic force was strong enough to cause spalling when it did not penetrated.

            The 100mm gun had only greater penetration to offer so it was not picked, simple.

            • I thought the *trollface* would be obvious enough, but stupidity strikes again: there is no alpha or Hp in reality, u know?

            • IIRC another practical reason was that an AFV modification of the 122mm was already available while the 100mm was still a bit WIP.

            • The BS-3 (what eventually became the D-10) gun was also in shorter supply when the Red Army was testing the two guns for the IS-2, which further put favour on the D-25 over the D-10. By the time the SU-100 was around BS-3/D-10 production was much more plentiful.

        • Both the D-25 and the D-10 also had much better penetration and accuracy than they do in game as well. Same with the 85mmZiS S-53. In game they are horribly nerfed from their real world characteristics.

      • IIRC there were only 100-150 IS-1/IS-85 tanks produced, compared to nearly 4k total, so the chance of them appearing in historical battles is low. Not impossible, of course.

  4. Balance in an historical battle is going to be interesting given that historically armies looked to get as much advantage as possible.

  5. - apprently the “hotspot” of 9.0 will be the comparison between WG and War Thunder HD models
    We so not compare ourselve with Gaijin. We don’t care about them. We are not forcing the HD models out because WT did it already. Keep that repeating and you might believe it. Healthy competition is one thing, being jealous is another.

      • You missed the point. I wouldn’t give a flying fuk about them measuring dicks with Gaijin, but what bothers me is their hypocrisy when they act like they don’t even know who Gaijin is, but constantly are mentioning them and comparing themselves with them. There is nothing wrong being aware about your competition on the market, but acting like you don’t care while you actually do is what makes you look unprofessional. They act like “If i cover my eyes you won’t see me neither” figuratively speaking. If we ignore(don’t mention) enough Gaijin no one will see that we actually watch what they do and act accordingly.

        • This is SerB Q&As. Are you *seriously* expecting him to not make the occasional “of COURSE our wangs are bigger than theirs” remark?

    • And sadly after the HD models WG will compare other things… and soon this game will become a WG-WT because they try to mimic everything. (i hope this won’t happen, but i saw it too many times)

  6. apprently the “hotspot” of 9.0 will be the comparison between WG and War Thunder HD models

    Wow. WoT has to make HD models…while WT had them from beginning. And they’re not even calling them HD, no need. Cause they are so good.

    Man, fuck big wolrd.

    • WarThunder, open beta 2014; World of Tanks, open beta 2009-2010. Yeah, totally, WoT should’ve had WT-esque models four years ago.

      WoT is an older game, hence it needs to update its graphics from time to time. WT will eventually have to update to their own ‘HD’ if you will models in the future (if it stays around). Just what happens in online games. Just happy WoT decided to update its models faster than WoW did =/

      • Imagine if Blizzard would update the character textures in every expansion. What would had happened in Shattrath or in Dalaran? Every person (even those which had NASA’s PCs) would have lagged to their death.

        Remember 1.10? (Gates of AQ)

        just sayin’.

    • WoT has HD models in 2010: Everyone cries that it’s unplayable.

      Yeah, sure. The optimization and other stuff got further over the years. AND Gaijin has a different starting position (for example they can see a lot of things that WG tried and didn’t work out, which is a HUGE advantage). Of course they will have an advantage – they see their competition before even starting and can decide how to take the first difference step.

    • Or they use a different marketing: “Earn more new customers, suck out their money ASAP and let them leave.”

      Easier and cheaper then “fixing”. :)

  7. “- according to Storm, 9.0 will bring two features ONLY : updated (HD) tanks and historical battles”
    —>fixd it for you

    who the hell gives a rat ass about historial battles -_-, this patch is getting horibly delayed and it’s losing features faster than rats of a sinking ship(essentially everything that was promised for 9.0 got pushed MONTHS from now).
    so a mode that hardly anyone will use and some models for shitty tanks only… rrright…. very useful patch, much stronk….

    • This is gonna be most disappointing “big” round numbered patch ever. Both 7.0 and 8.0 gave us some pretty cool stuff we didn’t usually got in regular patches, but 9.0 actually more and more looks like the opposite of what it should be. It’s gonna bring little to nothing new in the game while it was supposed to give us some significant changes. They might as well call it 8.12 and postpone the real 9.0 once more.

      • But the thing is, 9.0 will be a start of very similar line of updates – new HD models, fixes, optimization, interface stuff, physics stuff. Most of 9.X line will be like this, so it’s reasonable to number it 9.0, no matter how little features it will have.

        Or the other way around – 9.1 (new 9.0) would have the same little amount of stuff, probably, but people would ask: “If it has the same type of content as 8.12, why is it labeled as 9.0 and not 8.13?”

        The problem is – there isn’t always a “huge” patch available (like physics rehaul patch) – but would you rather wait two more months, so they have enough new stuff to call it a big patch? It’s a different focus of development now, that’s why the numbering changed, basically.

        • it’s crap, that’s what it is, the 9.0 patch is esentially empty yet it’s release is way off schedule (it should be 1 patch every 2 months or so, that’s the cadence so far, with maybe extra delay for big patches).
          this ISNT a big patch, it doesnt justify the horrid delay its having…

          even if it starts a new line of patches, its contents do not match previous overhauls, i’d rather them wait an extra month and put HALF the promised content in(HAVOK psst, i’m calling you)

  8. - apprently the “hotspot” of 9.0 will be the comparison between WG and War Thunder HD models

    And how about comparison between game optimalization in WoT and WT ? I will give you a hint, 30 FPS in WoT, 60 FPS in WT (both on lowest possible settings).

    Historical battles? Hmpf, no1 rly cares, and maniacs who do, will move to WT soon if they really care about realism and historical accuracy.

    • And I get like 40 to 60 FPS on my 3-4 years old budget rig on mostly max settings, except when there’s too much foliage on the screen which my GPU seems to hate.
      Just sayin’.

    • Mine’s averaging about 45-60fps on medium settings and I desperately need to upgrade my rig. Honestly WT chugged like a six dollar whore when I tried to run it. Didn’t like the game enough to benchmark settings to get it to work, might give it a try later but I was getting about 30-45fps on lower settings in WT.

  9. Is this a joke? All those teasers, all the waiting, suspense… and at the end, we will get new hd models (who cares) and new game mode (probably broken, based on the experience).
    Oh well, it’s time to move on.

  10. The mighty Sherman Jumbo will be nigh unstoppale with a good driver if equipped with the 76. Those Tiger Drivers will be quite sad that the short 88 is mostly ineffective against the front of it. -10 Depression and 180mm of mantlet. Yes. My WR will jump considerably. Those PZ IV’s will be crying tears of rage as even the gold bounces harmlessly off my turret.

    • Well it depends on how they want to represent the Jumbo, if they’ll represent the upgunned Jumbo’s with the 76mm or the manufactured Jumbo’s with the 75mm

  11. jumbos were field modifications. Cut from the hull armor of 2 M4A3′s. They were upgunned before bastogne. Where they received the 76mm M1A1. The other modules are there because they could be mounted. its still a sherman

      • There were also field modified Shermans as Jumbos, one of them had a Panther front hull over it’s normal armour ^_^

        • You sure you’re not getting things mixed up with the “Super Pershing”? Anyways such field modifications =/= serial M4A3E2s, which are the only “Jumbos” relevant to the game.

  12. Pingback: World of Tanks News 11 03 2014