Source: http://world-of-kwg.livejournal.com/211850.html

Hello everyone,

this was posted on the Russian developer blog. Basically, Wargaming crew (along with Yuri Pasholok) went to this meeting+reenactment, called “Engines of War 2013”

Normally, I wouldn’t bother with such a thing, but there are some really great pictures in the post of some very interesting machines:

Let’s start with a classic T-34

White Scout Car

Japanese Ha-Go light tank

T-38 amphibious tank (more like a tankette)

Yuri Pasholok personally in the T-60 turret

Renault UE (yes, the ingame TD is built on this tiny chassis)

And finally, something for the wehraboos :)

For MANY more pictures visit the original link, I won’t copy everything here :)

And a video:

Hello everyone,

lots of people were asking about the new upcoming tier 8 heavy tank, the “112″, especially in relationship with another tier 8 heavy, the IS-6, because both fill the same niche (relatively mobile, decently armored tank with relatively worse armor). Let’s have a look at the both of them then. Keep however in mind that the 112 data are based on 0.8.6 test server and might (and most likely will) change to some extent.

Armor

Here’s a comparative picture of both the vehicles in question (as posted by Twistoon (EU forums) here)

You can click on the picture to make it bigger of course.

Let’s start with the turret. There is no doubt about it, while both turrets are relatively well armored, when facing this vehicle up front, the 112 has a clear advantage here. The turret is well rounded and despite not being as thick on the sides on the paper, the side armor is approximately of the same thickness. Frontal turret armor however is much thicker on the 112 (compare the 240mm to IS-6′s 150mm). The mantlet of the 112 is also much thicker (240mm, compared to the 150mm one). Both have a relatively big gap behind the mantlet, but 112 has it thicker (not that it matters that much, when considering the mantlet thickness). Both vehicles have comparable weakspots (periscopes, hatches), but there is the matter of the 112′s upper turret 100mm plate. As a conclusion, 112′s turret is better, but not as much as you’d think, as the upper turret weakness can (and will) be exploited.

While the upper frontal hull armor is better on the 112 again (20-40mm thicker), lower frontal armor is 112′s weakspot. 80mm with roughly the same slope as the one of the IS-6, the protection is lower. If the lower frontal armor gets exposed, some serious angling will be required. Side hull armor is definitely thinner on the 112, which also has a bigger 30mm spaced armor strip covering a part of the tracks, improving the anti-HEAT effect, as well as acting as a second spaced armor layer. That gives the IS-6 an advantage. Generally speaking, I’d say it will be difficult to angle the hull of the 112 without creating the “IS-3″ effect (being penetrated thru the frontal part of the tracks into the hull). Here, IS-6 has a clear advantage.

Overall, despite the fact that both tanks have different armor layouts, I do believe that in head to head combat, IS-6 driver would have an advantage, as the hull armor of the 112 offers several spots to exploit. On the other hand, there is the visible IS-6 frontal weakspots.

Verdict
Both vehicles have relative good armor, but the 112 is better. If played defensively and with its lower place hidden behind an obstacle, the advantage becomes even bigger.

Gun

When considering the data from gamemodels3d:

112 is equipped with the Chinese copy of the D-25, the D-25TA, while the IS-6 carries the D-30 field gun.

Accuracy – 0,46 for both (a ties) (it’s worth noting that moving accuracy dispersion is better for 112, by roughly 10 percent)
Rate of fire – 5 for 112, 5,13 for IS-6 (IS-6 wins, but slightly, the difference between reload times is 0,3s)
Damage – 390 for both
Penetration – 175 for both
Gold penetration – 217 for IS-6, 300 for 112

The 112 gold ammo is probably the best feature of the vehicle, making it instantly a better choice than the IS-6, despite the slightly lower rate of fire. 300 penetration for a limited matchmaker is brutal and there is a danger that when spamming gold shells, this vehicle will become overpowered.

Aim time – 3,4 for IS-6, 3,1 for 112 (a clear 112 advantage)
Both vehicles have the same aim circle dispersion after a shot. Gun depression is also the same (-6), while IS-6 has a slightly better elevation (20, compared to 17 of 112). One minor issue is very low gun depression of 112, when the turret is facing backward, but that can be easily avoided.

One last factor is the shell velocity. While the regular shells of the IS-6 fly slower than those of the 112 (790 vs 900), gold shells of IS-6 fly faster (988 to 720). It might not seem like it, but this is an advantage for the 112. When do you need shell velocity? When sniping. Both guns are quite inaccurate, but with current accuracy buff across the board, the distance of engagement increased in general. Thus, in mid-to-long range combat, 112 has a clear advantage, while lower velocity for the 112 gold shells doesn’t matter that much, since gold shells are not used for “lucky” shots across the map, but when you are in danger. Plus, the IS-6 gold shells are subcaliber, while the 112 gold shells are HEAT, which makes them not lose penetration with distance.

It is also worth noting that 112 turret rotates slightly faster (26 deg/s to 24 deg/s)

Verdict
Clear victory for the 112. Its gun will be its trademark.

Mobility

First, the obvious: Hp/ton. While both vehicles have roughly equal level of protection, the 112 is actually cca 5,5 tons lighter (48,822 compared to 43,327 tons). However, while the IS-6 has a 700hp engine (14,34 hp/t), 112 only has 580hp (13,38 hp/t). This implies that the 112 will be slightly less mobile. The 112 engine has a lower fire chance, but that’s about the only advantage it has.

However, the speed limits are something else: 112 will be able to reach 45 km/h, while the IS-6 can only reach 35 km/h. In other words, if given time to accelerate, 112 will be faster. Also, thanks to better terrain resistance (for bad and medium terrain 20 percent!), 112 will be more maneuverable in terrain. Both vehicles have the same hull traverse speed – 26 degrees per second, so if you want to know how 112 turns, you can check out the IS-6 (if you have it, that is).

Verdict
One could argue yet another victory for the 112, but not a decisive one, as acceleration will most likely be worse than that of the IS-6. On the other hand, the ability to reach higher speeds will make this vehicle quite useful.

Other factors

Both vehicles have a 4 man crew with the same roles (radioman is the commander, then there’s driver, loader and gunner). 112 however can see further (380 viewrange, IS-6 has 350) and has longer radio range (600, compared to 440 of 112). Both vehicles have the same limited MM planned (eg. neither will meet tier 10′s in battle).

Complete verdict

I do believe that for an average tanker, especially for a wallet warrior, 112 will be a better vehicle. Its decisive factor are the 300 shells, which – compared with the 0.8.6 improved accuracy – are destined to HURT. While the IS-6 is mediocre in most respects (but not totally hopeless in any), 112 has some clearcut advantages over it, such as the gun and the speed.

Personally, I believe that even without the 300 pen shells, 112 would be a relatively decent vehicle, but the gold shells give it an edge even over regular vehicles. Therefore it is my believe that some factors (possibly the gold shells penetration) will be nerfed for the 0.8.7 general test. Without such nerf, there is a danger of 112 becoming another Type 59, flooding the tier 7-9 battles. I am not sure we or WG need that.

Hello everyone,

just so you know: it is now legal for you to post links to this site on WG EU forums, it’s officially confirmed.

Also, if you have a Facebook account and prefer to use Facebook for your news updates, you can go to the For the Record FB group and get your news there. I sometimes post extra news, comments or videos there (relax, you are NOT missing out on anything, those “news” are usually just my personal comments or offtopic videos).

This article is the continuation of the first part.

Summary: Player KingAlphyn from US server was caught rigging a contest. After a shitstorm of moderate magnitude on US forums, he logged on and confessed he did it – not only that, he confessed to do it successfuly in the past. See for yourself:

With that being out of the table, I am sure he will face some sort of punishment by Wargaming. In the aftermath of this confession, questions were raised about other clans doing the same thing by other US forumgoers. Looks like US server gets its competition scandal after all. But that is really not the problem.

The problem is: how can we trust any Wargaming competition after this? I am not referring to some Wargaming-organized rigs, no. Simple negligence to check whether the results were in order by demanding to see replays from the winners.

Since the mechanism of the competition is the same on US and EU server, we might also assume some of the results in the EU competitions were also rigged this way. It’s logical after all – unless you are stupid and submit an obviously rigged result (like 15 kills in a tier 10 vehicle or something), there is no way they can catch you, unless they specifically check the replays. This automatic XP reward system BEGS to be exploited and it’s only natural some players take advantage of it. This is not in any way excusing the culprits – of course cheaters should be punished! But it is the nature of some people to try to exploit the system, this is inevitable.

This fail doesn’t only fall on the head of the cheaters, but on Wargaming. Sure, you might say “hey, but they are so nice, they give us the chance to win something – and you are being ungrateful!” No. What they are giving us is the illusion of a winning chance – and that’s lame. If I was to take this argument to absurd conclusions, they might as well distribute the prizes to random big clans, the result would probably be similar.

What can be done about this?

Two things.

First – and the most obvious one – would be to return to the old system, where replays had to be submitted. That would obviously eliminate most of such attempts, because even if they weren’t ALL thoroughly checked: would you really take that chance?

Second – cancel this type of competitions altogether. Instead, make the prizes lot smaller, but permanent. For example: 50 gold for – let’s say – 1000+ raw XP battle (depending on tier, this would have to be tested). How many of those do average players have? 1-2 per month? This would make checking for cheating easier. Statistically, various winrate categories have various amounts of such battles. If a player consistently gains more gold than he’s supposed to for his winrate, it would trigger the alarm and that player would get scrutinized (WG employees can pull out virtually any data from their database). If found cheating, he (and his accomplices!) would be banned (let’s say for a week during first offense, two months during second offense and permabanned during third).

Just a thought, anyway.

So, remember how I told you a few days back about competition rigging and how to do it?

To recap quickly: basically, if you want to rig a competition, you make as many platoons of you and your friends and possible, log in during low population hours – and there is a really good chance that all those platoons will end up in one game, especially on not-so-populated lower tiers (although technically lower tiers are the most populated tiers in the game, they are played thru the day, because only “hardcore” people play deep in the night – and those actually play high tiers only).

Few weeks ago, US server (just like EU and RU servers) hosted an XP competition. You know, the “have the most XP on new vehicles and get rewards” one. That one the concerned the new Soviet light tanks plus the German tanks.

Long story short, a player named KingAlphyn (clan leader of PUPEH) fixed the competition, using the method described above.

First, he logged into battle with many platoons of his clanmembers:

Then, he and his squad of goons fixed the battle so that he gets to kill everyone:

In the battle, he “scored” 12 kills:

Here, the results of the battle (notice the XP amount he got):

And… voila! Instant competition victory (same XP amount, so this battle was used to win):

So, KingAlphyn gets to enjoy the top prize (Type 59 or 5000g, I can’t remember). Makes you wonder… since the WG folks don’t check even the overall winning replays, what ELSE is rigged? And does it even make sense to participate in such events, when it’s so easy to do this and if not for the “detective” work of several players, he’d have gotten away with it?

I really hope he gets banned…

Hello everyone,

you might have noticed I have put up a new poll. We’ll get to that in a second. The results of the one I just closed were actually better than I expected, very few people consider this new interface to be outright bad. TBH, while the start had some small issues (the comments for example) and I do miss certain functions from the blogspot (the look was easier to modify and there was the function to see exactly the page where the visitors are coming from – google analytics doesn’t have that, as far as I can see, only the general source), I do believe everything is working pretty smoothly right now. So – thanks everyone for your continued support :)

To the new poll: it is confirmed that the next tree to appear in World of Tanks will be the Japanese tanks (possibly very late 2013 or early 2014, given the fact that WG ran into some problems when gathering sources, the latter is more probable). Apparently, two branches (19 tanks) will initially be implemented: a light/medium mix and a heavy branch.

What are your thoughts about that? Are you looking forward to it?

Thanks to Applesaucebandit (US) for finding this. This is the new upcoming “112″ tank footage. Enjoy!