<?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: Swedish Tanks Special: Branch/Tree for WoT</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/</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: Draxynnic</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213608</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Draxynnic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eh, missed the engines, due to there being two #3s. From what I&#039;ve read, one engine was used to boost the other, so a &#039;damaged engine&#039; result could represent one being knocked out while the other is fine. The engine probably should be given a lot of health to account for the redundancy, though.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eh, missed the engines, due to there being two #3s. From what I&#8217;ve read, one engine was used to boost the other, so a &#8216;damaged engine&#8217; result could represent one being knocked out while the other is fine. The engine probably should be given a lot of health to account for the redundancy, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Draxynnic</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213601</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Draxynnic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:51:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213601</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hrrrmn. Let&#039;s see...

1) would probably be a matter of treating it as a normal reload, since a magazine of that size isn&#039;t going to be exhausted. ROF may be dropped - currently, the tanks packing L7 or copies therof normally range from under 7 to 7.5 on medium tanks, so above 10 is possible as compensation for the difficulty of keeping the gun trained on a target. Depending on how strict they are about #4, it could even be given the high theoretical DPM on the basis that it&#039;s not going to be able to keep the gun trained on target enough to keep that DPM.
2) Maybe? It could be seen as compensation for thin if well-sloped armour, low alpha by TD standards, and possibly poor soft stats on the gun as well thanks to #4. (Frankly, I&#039;m waiting to see what they do with the Archer, if in fact they try to take that on at all - the British TD that has a 17-pounder mounted BACKWARDS, and thus for gameplay purposes will effectively have a higher reverse than forward speed)
3) It may be theoretically driveable by one crewmember, but multiple crewmembers does spread the load (similar to how the one-man turrets in some French and Russian tanks was a disadvantage). So losing crew will still hurt. It&#039;s probably reasonable to say that each crew member is the best at doing their job among the crew, so losing the driver leads to lower agility (the commander or radioman can drive, but they&#039;re not as good as the main driver), losing the commander means you lose firing accuracy as well as spotting (the driver and radioman aren&#039;t as good at aiming) and so on. If anything, the system is too forgiving for most tanks and actually fits the Strv 103.
4) What they could do is allow for a certain amount of traversal without it counting as traversing. Visually, the tank might turn slightly (or the amount of traverse might simply be small enough that they can get away with not having movement at all), but such small movement doesn&#039;t reset camouflage, reticle bloom, or binoculars. From a gameplay perspective... Anyone who&#039;s had their turret jammed probably knows how hard it is to line up a target through the imprecise driving controls, so I&#039;d imagine it would have enough &#039;gun traverse&#039; to span half a second or so of hull traverse.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hrrrmn. Let&#8217;s see&#8230;</p>
<p>1) would probably be a matter of treating it as a normal reload, since a magazine of that size isn&#8217;t going to be exhausted. ROF may be dropped &#8211; currently, the tanks packing L7 or copies therof normally range from under 7 to 7.5 on medium tanks, so above 10 is possible as compensation for the difficulty of keeping the gun trained on a target. Depending on how strict they are about #4, it could even be given the high theoretical DPM on the basis that it&#8217;s not going to be able to keep the gun trained on target enough to keep that DPM.<br />
2) Maybe? It could be seen as compensation for thin if well-sloped armour, low alpha by TD standards, and possibly poor soft stats on the gun as well thanks to #4. (Frankly, I&#8217;m waiting to see what they do with the Archer, if in fact they try to take that on at all &#8211; the British TD that has a 17-pounder mounted BACKWARDS, and thus for gameplay purposes will effectively have a higher reverse than forward speed)<br />
3) It may be theoretically driveable by one crewmember, but multiple crewmembers does spread the load (similar to how the one-man turrets in some French and Russian tanks was a disadvantage). So losing crew will still hurt. It&#8217;s probably reasonable to say that each crew member is the best at doing their job among the crew, so losing the driver leads to lower agility (the commander or radioman can drive, but they&#8217;re not as good as the main driver), losing the commander means you lose firing accuracy as well as spotting (the driver and radioman aren&#8217;t as good at aiming) and so on. If anything, the system is too forgiving for most tanks and actually fits the Strv 103.<br />
4) What they could do is allow for a certain amount of traversal without it counting as traversing. Visually, the tank might turn slightly (or the amount of traverse might simply be small enough that they can get away with not having movement at all), but such small movement doesn&#8217;t reset camouflage, reticle bloom, or binoculars. From a gameplay perspective&#8230; Anyone who&#8217;s had their turret jammed probably knows how hard it is to line up a target through the imprecise driving controls, so I&#8217;d imagine it would have enough &#8216;gun traverse&#8217; to span half a second or so of hull traverse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Draxynnic</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213599</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Draxynnic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213599</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Japanese line also has significance as one of the major belligerents of WW2, even if tanks weren&#039;t exactly a strong point for them, and also has the advantage of having its own designs. Wargaming did say while the Japanese line was being developed that one of the reasons for it was for historical battles.

At the bottom line, though, there are some countries that have enough nationalistic pride that their not playing the game unless their country is represented is a significant concern, and which are large enough markets for such nationalistic players to be worth going for. Sweden is probably neither, which on the first count is probably a good thing overall apart from in this specific context.

Personally, I&#039;d love to see something like this implemented. Sweden may have maintained its neutrality since the invention of tanks, but in the process they&#039;ve made some interesting designs, and interesting designs are certainly a drawcard.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Japanese line also has significance as one of the major belligerents of WW2, even if tanks weren&#8217;t exactly a strong point for them, and also has the advantage of having its own designs. Wargaming did say while the Japanese line was being developed that one of the reasons for it was for historical battles.</p>
<p>At the bottom line, though, there are some countries that have enough nationalistic pride that their not playing the game unless their country is represented is a significant concern, and which are large enough markets for such nationalistic players to be worth going for. Sweden is probably neither, which on the first count is probably a good thing overall apart from in this specific context.</p>
<p>Personally, I&#8217;d love to see something like this implemented. Sweden may have maintained its neutrality since the invention of tanks, but in the process they&#8217;ve made some interesting designs, and interesting designs are certainly a drawcard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Draxynnic</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213596</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Draxynnic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:06:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Didn&#039;t lose, which is more than can be said for anyone but the USA and USSR, and the latter only until they lost the Cold War. (Britain and France may have been on the winning side, but they failed to achieve their strategic goals.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t lose, which is more than can be said for anyone but the USA and USSR, and the latter only until they lost the Cold War. (Britain and France may have been on the winning side, but they failed to achieve their strategic goals.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: red_warning</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213454</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[red_warning]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2014 15:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[All tanks in the game are already abstracted in many ways, Strv 103 would be no different. Basically all the tanks with autoloaders in world of tanks are very different from how they are IRL with smaller magazines, higher rate of fire between shots, unrealistic long reload times etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All tanks in the game are already abstracted in many ways, Strv 103 would be no different. Basically all the tanks with autoloaders in world of tanks are very different from how they are IRL with smaller magazines, higher rate of fire between shots, unrealistic long reload times etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kilari</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213452</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kilari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2014 14:39:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[well, 
1) the auto loader is a headache, 50 round magazine/clip (whatever you call it). 15 rounds per minute, with my math that&#039;s one shell every 4 seconds, dpm 6300 ? just not  going to happen in WoT.
2) reverse speed of 50km/h. guessing that would get nerfed to oblivion
3) 2 engines, how would that work in game? i have no idea.. one engine goes down and the tank stops moving completely ?
3) crew. One crew member can drive/shoot this tank as the driver/gunner and commander both have the same controllers and in real life the commander can take over anytime he wants.
in wot&#039;s rules, driver gets killed, the tank moves slower. the gunner goes down, the aim suffers and so on. Finding the balance might be tricky ?
4) the barrel itself which is fixed on the hull.  every turret less tank in wot has a gun that moves to some degree. How/what would the aiming mechanics be for this tank? or would they make the gun movable? 

all these little changes to this tank would make the tank something its not. In my opinion at least.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well,<br />
1) the auto loader is a headache, 50 round magazine/clip (whatever you call it). 15 rounds per minute, with my math that&#8217;s one shell every 4 seconds, dpm 6300 ? just not  going to happen in WoT.<br />
2) reverse speed of 50km/h. guessing that would get nerfed to oblivion<br />
3) 2 engines, how would that work in game? i have no idea.. one engine goes down and the tank stops moving completely ?<br />
3) crew. One crew member can drive/shoot this tank as the driver/gunner and commander both have the same controllers and in real life the commander can take over anytime he wants.<br />
in wot&#8217;s rules, driver gets killed, the tank moves slower. the gunner goes down, the aim suffers and so on. Finding the balance might be tricky ?<br />
4) the barrel itself which is fixed on the hull.  every turret less tank in wot has a gun that moves to some degree. How/what would the aiming mechanics be for this tank? or would they make the gun movable? </p>
<p>all these little changes to this tank would make the tank something its not. In my opinion at least.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: red_warning</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213436</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[red_warning]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What kind of &quot;fantasy stat&quot; would Strv 103 need to be in the game?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What kind of &#8220;fantasy stat&#8221; would Strv 103 need to be in the game?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kilari</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213406</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kilari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213406</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[i would rather not see Strv-103 in game, if they(WG) cant keep it authentic (i highly doubt they can). 

- Tanks gun doesn&#039;t move an inch, its fixed to the hull. the aiming is done by moving the tank itself using automated transmission and suspension system. 

- The gun is variant from L7 Royal Ordnance, with 50 round &quot;mag&quot; with rate of fire of 15 rounds/min. As far as i can tell, all L7 variants in WoT do about 400 dmg per round. 

- Tank has two engines (turbine), one is used for reversing, the tank is famous of its clutch and break maneuver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsz1rSQTAfA

- tanks top speed is 50km/h (both reverse and forward), not sure on what kind of terrain, im guessing on roads.

- Tank has only 3 crew members, driver/gunner, commander and rear driver

- according to all mighty all knowing Wikipedia, the tank is classified as Amphibious Main battle tank, so it&#039;s not a Tank Destroyer like usually turretless tanks are.

- Tank was mostly designed for defence mostly because its hard to hit low profile and ability dug itself in. http://sariel.pl/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/zzz.jpg 

-  Armor is from 90 to 100mm, not taking note of the angles and whatnot.


I just don&#039;t see this kind of tank coming into the game, without major changes to it and i honestly don&#039;t want WG adding some fantasy stats and whatnot, so that it could be in the game.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i would rather not see Strv-103 in game, if they(WG) cant keep it authentic (i highly doubt they can). </p>
<p>- Tanks gun doesn&#8217;t move an inch, its fixed to the hull. the aiming is done by moving the tank itself using automated transmission and suspension system. </p>
<p>- The gun is variant from L7 Royal Ordnance, with 50 round &#8220;mag&#8221; with rate of fire of 15 rounds/min. As far as i can tell, all L7 variants in WoT do about 400 dmg per round. </p>
<p>- Tank has two engines (turbine), one is used for reversing, the tank is famous of its clutch and break maneuver. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsz1rSQTAfA" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsz1rSQTAfA</a></p>
<p>- tanks top speed is 50km/h (both reverse and forward), not sure on what kind of terrain, im guessing on roads.</p>
<p>- Tank has only 3 crew members, driver/gunner, commander and rear driver</p>
<p>- according to all mighty all knowing Wikipedia, the tank is classified as Amphibious Main battle tank, so it&#8217;s not a Tank Destroyer like usually turretless tanks are.</p>
<p>- Tank was mostly designed for defence mostly because its hard to hit low profile and ability dug itself in. <a href="http://sariel.pl/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/zzz.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://sariel.pl/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/zzz.jpg</a> </p>
<p>-  Armor is from 90 to 100mm, not taking note of the angles and whatnot.</p>
<p>I just don&#8217;t see this kind of tank coming into the game, without major changes to it and i honestly don&#8217;t want WG adding some fantasy stats and whatnot, so that it could be in the game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sp15</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213381</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sp15]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2014 10:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[you know there are such things as clanwars reward tanks that are tecnically counted as premiums and are tier 10&#039;s]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you know there are such things as clanwars reward tanks that are tecnically counted as premiums and are tier 10&#8242;s</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kui_blader</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/10/24/swedish-tanks-special-branchtree-for-wot/#comment-213297</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kui_blader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2014 04:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=18516#comment-213297</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;small market&quot; y&#039;know what WG? i forgot about the huge market the japaneese have.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;small market&#8221; y&#8217;know what WG? i forgot about the huge market the japaneese have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
