3.4.2014

Posted on by

- for now, a hardcap on SU-152′s in Kursk battle has not been implemented
- this year, Chinese and Japanese TD’s and SPG’s will definitely not come
- Storm states that in order to implement historical battles like Korea and Middle East, you have to implement the crews of the nations, that fought there, it would look really strange to have Soviet crews in Yom Kippur or American crews in Indo-Pakistani conflict, that’s why Korean historical battles will likely not come for now
- collecting the info on new Chinese vehicles is going very, very slowly, WG is instead focusing on re-work of existing vehicles to HD
- it’s completely possible that the turret armor of other T-54-like vehicles (Chinese) will be reworked, when they are remodelled to HD
- Chaffee in test 3 has its old turret back, because the new one was put in accidentally and has many bugs (SS: Chaffee re-work is planned for the introduction of hightier US lights)
- Storm confirms: LT’s will be buffed and new tier 8 LT’s will be introduced
- tier 9 LT’s? Storm: “Hell if I know. For now, they are not being sought. We barely found tier 8″
- SK-105 Kurassier will definitely not fit WoT: it’s too modern

62 thoughts on “3.4.2014”

  1. - Chaffee in test 3 has its old turret back, because the new one was put in accidentally
    Called it.

    - that’s why Korean historical battles will likely not come for now
    Can’t we just use Type 58s?…

    • Type 58 and IS-2s, altrough the later was used in small numbers. Still, too few tanks for one side, the US side has a lot more.

    • The problem here is more about the crew nationality than anything. After all, it would be strange for Finnish StuGs to be crewed by Germans and Belgian tanks to be used by British crewed, wouldn’t they?

  2. The SK-105 kürassier looks like the AMX 50B, and it has a 105mm gun.
    It could be a tier 10 medium tank, even too modern (leopard 1 is modern too)

    • More of a AMX 13 105 + AMX 50B hybrid…it’s a pretty small tank compared to 50B and somewhat bigger than 13 105.

      Anyway, it could be a cool alternative to a BChat25t.

        • Because wargaming said long ago that french will get another heavy line, and maybe another medium one, and after a year and months, we still wait for it ^^

  3. - P. 1500 Monster will be implemented as soon as multi turret feature is done.

    HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!! FINALLY :DDDDDD

  4. “Storm confirms: LT’s will be buffed and new tier 8 LT’s will be introduced”

    Yey! I hope they all get a buff, especially the ELC AMX with faster ROF and less gun dispersion.

      • noo its not |(its god only if u have god crew i have 3.97 perk ;D ) but for rest guys its nightmare cos the have not even 100% crew most of them going suecide when they get higher than 7 tiers
        u played vs players like me and any tank with 3 perks is op

        • ELC needs no buff. Or nerf. It is perfectly fine as it is, and it’s the best fun you can have with your pants on. Please don’t touch ELC

    • In fact, there could be some interesting news for the ELC coming soon.
      For instance, there was a “90 mm D 914″ installed on some models. For information, the gun model IG is the 90 mm D 915. Can’t say yet what are the differences between the two, though …
      Also, there is the EVEN version of the tank which sows interesting opportunities. Think of an ELC, but with fully rotatable oscillating turret, a 90 mm gun (the D 915 btw), possibly autoloaded (i’d even say that it’s likely, given the shape and setup of the turret), and a top speed of 68 kph. Also existed in a 2×30 mm version …

      However, the biggest buff they could do this tank would be to finally give it its real name, the ELC-AMX Bis … The ELC-AMX was the first one and had a much more boxy shape, and carried this 90 D 914.

    • Please dont touch the Chaffee, it is ok to do any cosmetic changes, but the MM is fine, I’d love chasing tier X top tiers :-) … some more top speed will be good and a little more power will be welcome.
      But really, for the Chaffee, the only thing that is needed is to change the credit making, at the moment it costs money to run this tank.

  6. LT don’t need a buff, they need to be removed from game. Hightier mediums will always be better than LTs even at scouting.

    • That’s the point of the buff…. So that T5,6,7 and 8 Light tanks can compete with Mediums of their tier. Why would you remove one of the funnest classes in the game?

    • Actually if the T50-2 still existed it would be used. Nothing beat that with a good driver.

      All they have to do for a T8 Light to be useful is have light Armor and a 90mm gun for US with T9 Pen and 100mm for Rus.

      So think a M46 with less armor and less alpha but same DPM, that would be sooooo useful. It could use its 250Ish Gold pen to do some real DMG but mainly be a super fast harasser.

    • Actually imo I think they are the best tanks to drive, they are the ones that can really flank in this game at the moment because the map size issue, only with speed and stealth you can achieve effective flanking in some of the maps. And having a scout alive in the middle/end of the game doing spotting is a match winner.

  7. SK-105 First prototype was 1967. Good god these WG Minsk people are both anal and stupid to leave that out. The first Leopard 1 was delivered in 1965… idiots.

    • Lol I remember when they said that 60 was way to late and we could only have Pershing and no Patton/M60 then they realized the T54 was really a T55 and as it sat was made in 60`s.

      They have more uneven tanks than ever.

      T34-85/44 would be fighting Pershing
      T54 is really T55 and should be fighting the M48 and even M60
      T62A would be fighting M60A3

      Anyways US tanks get shit on by tiering the worst IMO. At least Germans have Leo

      WG just never figures out how to balance right. Hell by the Leo and STB1 and T62 clones the US had its final M60A3 that it needs in game to make up for the terribad camo rating.

      And not only does Rus 62 clones have advantage but WG gives players 3x the chances to use them in CW so other tanks are simply not viable.

  8. - Storm states that in order to implement historical battles like Korea and Middle East, you have to implement the crews of the nations, that fought there, it would look really strange to have Soviet crews in Yom Kippur or American crews in Indo-Pakistani conflict, that’s why Korean historical battles will likely not come for now

    The game is called World of Tanks, not World of Tank Crews. I could care less about the crews once training/skills are dealt with.

    In fact if they could have a 3rd option for tank voices: Standard, National, Short (or Succinct) – Where they just tell you something is broken or damaged, instead of telling me things like “we’ll have to hand crank the turret” or other unnecessary details, that’d be nice.

    • Yea, who cares who sits insde the tank. Actually, no one sits there in a first place. Dumb excuse.

    • It’s the weakest fucking excuse not to do work I’ve ever heard. The tank emblems have more bearing on the nationality of a tank ingame than the crew.

      But no, let’s just have 3 historical battles and never implement any more because WG is too lazy.

  9. - SK-105 Kurassier will definitely not fit WoT: it’s too modern

    I’d be mad about that if they didn’t use the same excuse for the AMX 13 105. At least they’re being a bit consistent. Some tanks are very borderline already, but at least they seem to be keeping a limit. That limit is very, very thin though, considering the AMX 13 90 is from 1966.

    • The limit is usually by tech used. Like smoothbore and rockets. Or if tank would make sense only if 1 very specific to it feature will be implemented (like aiming with suspension)

      • Problem with this is they are hellbent on “Real” armor. But then judge what tanks to use based on “Tech”

        This means US tanks that had not great Armor, but great accuracy, mobility, firecontrol and a few hundred more things like crew saftey and health etc are forced against tanks with superior armor layouts while they make “Paper guns” on those others.

        So they match a tank in 1948 the M48 patton matched vs a proto T54 in which it was to heavy and not nimble.

        Then they say they can be flexible on Engine, Gun and fire control but not on Armor.

        So basically the T54 gets better armor because t had better armor and then the things it lacked like a great gun great fire control and a 580 hp engine it gets upped.

        They have created these random rules to favor the SOviet way of tank design which was usually Armor first and foremost, then gun, then power, then reliability, then 10 points later ammo rack location then 10 points later crew comfort and crew safety.

        Also it makes tanks like the Nato tanks have to be matched with older models because there “Tech” was to advanced.

        So while M48 should be facing T54`s its facing the next gen models of tank and of course a 1948 design will get crushed by a 1960`s model.

        They just have way to much a random rule set.

        In reality US tanks were not as armored but made up for it in amazing firecontrol and ability to abuse terrain and since in RL crew is the most important thing a comfortable tank meant a way more effective one due to fatigue.

        But then when they get info on Glass Armor that was 300% mnore effective vs HEAT and 150ish% more effective vs KE they claim it to be to tech savy.

        So they either need to state a year or they need to lay down much clearer rules about specific tech. Because The T95 for instance used Glass as part of its thin 95mm hull on the fact Glass was much better at protecting and therefore if they want “Real Accuracy” they cant write it off as Glass=RHA.

        They simply pick and chose what they want and its similar to the ban mods list IMO until they get uber pressure to post what is and isnt ok they will cont to pick and chose. hell the 13- series was used tons in the 70`s and up as well.

        But they need to make a case by case as a T95 SB is ot the same as the 115mm or 125mm Rus one. ne was very advanced and the other a pioneer.

        • The T95 we’re getting has neither composite armour nor a smoothbore gun.

  10. - tier 9 LT’s? Storm: “Hell if I know. For now, they are not being sought. We barely found tier 8″

    Solution? Max scout is Tier 6. End of story.

    Not good enough? Another solution: Let in EVERY scout tanks even with smoothbore.

  11. - Storm states that in order to implement historical battles like Korea and Middle East, you have to implement the crews of the nations, that fought there, it would look really strange to have Soviet crews in Yom Kippur or American crews in Indo-Pakistani conflict, that’s why Korean historical battles will likely not come for now

    Well technically a korean would work if they used a late time period of the conflict when the chinese got involved

  12. “- Storm states that in order to implement historical battles like Korea and Middle East, you have to implement the crews of the nations, that fought there…that’s why Korean historical battles will likely not come for now”

    Bullshit.

    Have the Americans and British on one side and the Chinese on the other (the Chinese entered the conflict after the North Koreans were pushed back to the Yalu River). It’s that easy.

  13. Lights should get normal mm.. A luchs, or pz38 just useless on thr side of is3s and pershings with 400m viewrange… They get killed by faster tanks, oneshotted by anything, and with 500%crew/ equipment/perks will not reach the same vr as a stock t8 tank..
    Not speaking of tier6s who are eaten alive by 60kph armored mediums who doesnt even shoot at them just ram their paper body to death..

    • Is3 dont have 400m view range and even if it would have the it would get spotted more often due to worse camo factor than a scout. Scouts in the same tiers are OP as fuck.

  16. soo SK 105 is too modern but the leo 1 and american 10 tiers t110 are not? it cod be best tank replacement of bathat and bat shoud be stil 9 tier with gun from amx 50 100 like until 7.5

  17. ” – tier 9 LT’s? Storm: “Hell if I know. For now, they are not being sought. We barely found tier 8″ ”

    I like the guy and I feel sorry for saying this, but this is full of shit. And when I say full, it’s as in full of full.
    AMX-13 105 : everyone has heard about it
    AMX-10 PAC 90 (and, yes, the gun is rifled if someone wants to ask) : 2.7 m height, 65 kph, fired HEAT and APFSDS.

    Introduce wheeled tanks (and it shouldnt be hard, we already had the T7 CC, which was very borderline on the subject) and I give you the AMX-10 RC : 105 mm RIFLED (yes, again) gun firing HEAT and APFSDS, about 80 kph.
    Or the ERC-90 F1 Lynx (not the F4 Sagaie, because its gun is smoothbore, duh), still a 90, and I’m pretty sure its rifled.
    Or the VBC 90, or the AMX-EBR (75 or 90 version, with a FL-11 turret, the same that the 13 75 has), and on and on.

    And thats only for France. Even if you only want the Holy Track + Rifled duo, there are still your 2 missing tiers. Given the shitload of tank prototypes that the USSR or the US produced, it shouldn’t be hard either to find something for them.
    So, yes, as he says, it’s basically WANTING to look for them. Hell, I did this little homework at home, I didn’t even need to go to the Châtellerault’s archives. But, I understand. There were more pressing matters. Such as introducing a perfectly balanced new TD line, as if we lacked of TDs in games. Or a new Japanese line with 1970′s tanks.
    Meanwhile, the 38na facing a Borsig can keep trying to “scout” him …

        • You’re not entirely wrong, but not completely right :P

          In fact, “AMX-10″ is a chassis. Based on it were developed multiple variants. The same thing happened with the AMX-13, on which were developed at least 2 SPGs, a troop carrier, an engineering vehicle, a towing vehicle, a bridge layer, etc …
          Or also on the “current” (not couting the VBCI) French troop carrier, the VAB, which had a Command version, an AT version (“Mephisto”, with a big badass missile launcher on top of it), and so on.
          The AMX-10 had its 10P (Personnel) variant, IFV indeed; but take for instance the AMX-10 RC. Same chassis, but hardly an IFV ! Although the tracks are replaced by wheels on it.
          Also, now that I think of it, the Israeli Merkava can carry troops. Best concept ever by the way. However, you could hardly categorize a Merkava as an IFV.

          But I clearly see your point, you are far from wrong, and I totally agree with you on the fact that the status of this particular model is a bit “bastard” !

          • The problem with AMX-10RC is WG won’t consider to implement wheeled fighting vehicles until they ran out of ideas or some shit like that.

            And Merkava gun tank could carry troops… only if they left out all of ammunition they carry.

            • Yes, sad indeed. There are so many wonderful wheeled vehicles that could be awesome in-game. Although I understand the gameplay difficulty of having a crew trying to repair a road that has been sent flying 100 meters away by an explosion …

              About the Merkava, you taught me something here. I had no idea of this. Don’t they store some shells in the turret (n@@b question here) ? Anyway, thanks for the info !

  18. WG fear the 105 cause “same alpha of BC without magazine it’s a little too strong for them”
    Imagine the same or more DPM of some TD on a ligth/medium (3200dmg heat per minute)
    No amx30 ahead…( crying internaly)

    Sorry for poor english…

    • What? The Kürassier basically shares turret with the AMX-13/105, barillet autoloaders ahoy.

      And if it’s the AMX-30 you’re taling about, get real. 105mm is literally universal for all top-tier “western” tanks already.

  19. Lol they totally could do Korean war with real crews….Hell the US was fighting more Chinese than Koreans after the 3rd month anyways.