[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;37445927]Does the crew bail in WoT? Didn't think so, I'm not sure why you're trying to use that excuse[/QUOTE]
Of course it might be realistic for [i]only[/i] the commander's cupola (and his head) to be blown off, but it's also realistic that a crew would panic over their commander turned headless.
It's a gameplay mechanic for competitiveness and better gameplay, just like tanks fighting enemies they have never fought historically / never even existed in the first place. Without weakspots like that, a skill element would be removed from the game and higher tier tanks could just roll over lower tier ones that much easily.
Although I'd be all for it being in hardcore mode.
[QUOTE=C0MMUNIZT;37445945]The tanks in wot don't actually have crew, if the game was implying people it would be rated M.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see flying crewmen body parts when some HE shell hits an open turret tank.
[QUOTE=NuclearDwarf;37445846]how is the T-62a compared to the other tier x mediums?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much the easy eight of tier 10, and it's glorious.
[thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WaJsLHiyof0/UAnj7AxW7aI/AAAAAAAABUc/nepxgmOlFLM/s1600/shot_119.jpg[/thumb]
[thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VKB0mDr-xmE/UDqWc9lQoXI/AAAAAAAAACM/GYIMRQpsw8I/s1600/shot_183.jpg[/thumb]
goddamn there's some good modelers out there
[QUOTE=Bumgall;37446316]
[thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VKB0mDr-xmE/UDqWc9lQoXI/AAAAAAAAACM/GYIMRQpsw8I/s1600/shot_183.jpg[/thumb]
goddamn there's some good modelers out there[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't want to change the internal tracks if one of them broke.
What equipments should I put on the T29?
Rammer, Layer and Stabilizer?
[QUOTE=Azaz3l;37446355]I wouldn't want to change the internal tracks if one of them broke.[/QUOTE]
You'd change it the same way you'd do any other track I'd assume. Pull the track out by hooking it up to a vehicle, then replace it as you would normally.
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
then again how the shit would you get spare tracks for something like that or even tow it from the battlefield
[QUOTE=Bumgall;37446558]You'd change it the same way you'd do any other track I'd assume. Pull the track out by hooking it up to a vehicle, then replace it as you would normally.
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
then again how the shit would you get spare tracks for something like that or even tow it from the battlefield[/QUOTE]
What if an internal road wheel broke? Or any other component of the probably overloaded suspension?
There's a reason why you can separate the outer T95 tracks. They're also self-sprung meaning you can detach them and roll them off into the sunset. It's mostly for transport though, the T95 towed its outer tracks for transport on narrow roads.
That modeller kinda forgot about that, but considering he used WG's model as a base they probably fucked it up too.
I'm still amazed WG got away with passing the T28/T95 off as different tanks
and the T1 and M6
rip.
[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;37445794]I'm sorry if that's how tanks are supposed to be.[/QUOTE]
Go play a realistic tank game then, plenty exist
I mean, Im not blind to the faults of the system, but having it be completely realistic wouldn't be fun either especially considering the number of paper tanks in the game
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;37447302]Go play a realistic tank game then, plenty exist
I mean, Im not blind to the faults of the system, but having it be completely realistic wouldn't be fun either especially considering the number of paper tanks in the game[/QUOTE]
but but but but but but but but tigeww shuwd be inedstwuctibwuuuhhh :'C
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;37447302]Go play a realistic tank game then, plenty exist
I mean, Im not blind to the faults of the system, but having it be completely realistic wouldn't be fun either especially considering the number of paper tanks in the game[/QUOTE]
You people would argue that you're not supposed to do anything in a match if you're a certain kind of tank and you met certain tanks on the battlefield. And yet you say it's bad to let tanks not be able to do anything to each other because it wouldn't make sense realistically to damage them in "weakspots". He's not talking about complete realism. He's talking about how nonsensical being shot in rangefinders, in cupolas, or in useless pieces of metal damages your tank.
I honestly don't think it matters that much, but it's just one more thing to become completely shat on for (EG: 155mm AP nicking the back corner of your hull). What they need to work on are the penetrations for no damage that SHOULD do damage, such as the entire side of some hulls being considered tracks. Things like that.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;37447605]You people would argue that you're not supposed to do anything in a match if you're a certain kind of tank and you met certain tanks on the battlefield. And yet you say it's bad to let tanks not be able to do anything to each other because it wouldn't make sense realistically to damage them in "weakspots". He's not talking about complete realism. He's talking about how nonsensical being shot in rangefinders, in cupolas, or in useless pieces of metal damages your tank.
I honestly don't think it matters that much, but it's just one more thing to become completely shat on for (EG: 155mm AP nicking the back corner of your hull). What they need to work on are the penetrations for no damage that SHOULD do damage, such as the entire side of some hulls being considered tracks. Things like that.[/QUOTE]
Tanks [I]should[/I] have weakspots for gameplay reasons - increase in skill ceiling, more opportunities for lower tier tanks, higher tank diversity. Commanders cupola makes more sense than drilling a random hole into the hull.
[editline]29th August 2012[/editline]
I completely agree with the nicking hull thing, tho.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37447664]Tanks [I]should[/I] have weakspots for gameplay reasons - increase in skill ceiling, more opportunities for lower tier tanks, higher tank diversity. Commanders cupola makes more sense than drilling a random hole into the hull.
[editline]29th August 2012[/editline]
I completely agree with the nicking hull thing, tho.[/QUOTE]
Sure, again, I don't really care about it myself and it is nice now and again to be able to beat someone out of skill when it would otherwise be a neck and neck war of attrition.
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
Really makes me wonder if it could be solved by having two hitboxes: The external one and a new internal one. Internal one encompasses all modules and internal crewmembers, in addition to any space inside the tanks' cabin itself (For instance: space inbetween gunner and driver, anywhere inside the turret basket, etc). If a shell hits any part of the outer hull, penetrates, and the shell would pass through via a laser-line anywhere in the inner hull, then damage can be dealt. If it rolls to penetrate part of the outer hull, but doesn't touch the inner-hull hitbox (which to clarify, requires 0 penetration to penetrate, it's not a second armor roll. Obviously, but you know...) then the shell would do no damage, and standard visual effect where there's a penetration mark, the commander yells penetration, and yet the marker flashes black.
I don't really know what could go wrong with that, aside from slightly higher server strain. If they implemented this and fixed other pointless no-damage penetrations by other means, then the game would make 200% more sense.
two KV-1S in this match gets top tier / tank
only T6 tanks in the match
decides to sit back in our base to "protect arty"
we fucking lose because the enemies smash everyone else
they get assaulted by 7+ tanks, blame us for "not being able to hold back the enemy"
wtf are you doing
[QUOTE=Mbbird;37447904]Sure, again, I don't really care about it myself and it is nice now and again to be able to beat someone out of skill when it would otherwise be a neck and neck war of attrition.
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
Really makes me wonder if it could be solved by having two hitboxes: The external one and a new internal one. Internal one encompasses all modules and internal crewmembers, in addition to any space inside the tanks' cabin itself (For instance: space inbetween gunner and driver, anywhere inside the turret basket, etc). If a shell hits any part of the outer hull, penetrates, and the shell would pass through via a laser-line anywhere in the inner hull, then damage can be dealt. If it rolls to penetrate part of the outer hull, but doesn't touch the inner-hull hitbox (which to clarify, requires 0 penetration to penetrate, it's not a second armor roll. Obviously, but you know...) then the shell would do no damage, and standard visual effect where there's a penetration mark, the commander yells penetration, and yet the marker flashes black.
[/QUOTE]
Isnt that how it works right now?
Like looking at those 3dmodels pictures that seems like thats how its set up
So did anyone else have their clanicons break with the latest XVM update?
[QUOTE=Bumgall;37446910]I'm still amazed WG got away with passing the T28/T95 off as different tanks[/QUOTE]
Let's not forget going full-retard fantasy with the T28 by adding a chin, playing with the gun mantlet, messing with armor values, slowing it and the actual T95 down by an assload and so on and so forth.
:v:
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;37448271]Isnt that how it works right now?
Like looking at those 3dmodels pictures that seems like thats how its set up[/QUOTE]
no. a 152mm ap skimming the rear most rear of your hull in some corner where it'd literally slice a small chunk of metal off does full damage.
they need proper scaled damage depending on where the tank is hit
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;37448271]Isnt that how it works right now?
Like looking at those 3dmodels pictures that seems like thats how its set up[/QUOTE]
Well it isn't. Because that's merely for nodule damage, unless in practice it's a completely useless feature, because I have a boatload of anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise.
to illustrate: [img]http://puu.sh/ZOhx[/img]
the red can 'penetrate' and do as much damage as the game decides, while the green can penetrate and get the lowest damage roll possible.
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
it makes no sense
So, the day has come. I can only pick one for my next grind.
VK4502P Ausf B.
Reason: I like the 128mm, it seems unusual, higher frontal armor values over E-75, [b]I want the fucking Maus for 8.0[/b]
Ferdinand
Reason: A stepping stone towards the Jagdpanzer E-100 ship destroyer. I already have the engines, so all I need is the suspension and 128mm.
T32
Reason: Amazing turret armor, I hear the T110E5's dependable if you know how to use it.
M26 Pershing
Reason: Stepping stone to the Patton and Patton III; no interest in the Pershing itself. Already have top engine.
T32.
[QUOTE=Doom14;37448675]So, the day has come. I can only pick one for my next grind.
VK4502P Ausf B.
Reason: I like the 128mm, it seems unusual, higher frontal armor values over E-75, [b]I want the fucking Maus for 8.0[/b]
Ferdinand
Reason: A stepping stone towards the Jagdpanzer E-100 ship destroyer. I already have the engines, so all I need is the suspension and 128mm.
T32
Reason: Amazing turret armor, I hear the T110E5's dependable if you know how to use it.
M26 Pershing
Reason: Stepping stone to the Patton and Patton III; no interest in the Pershing itself. Already have top engine.[/QUOTE]
if you get the pershing you will become interested
T32 might not be the most batshit crazy tank out there, but it's pretty fucking reliable.
[QUOTE=cccino;37448802]T32 might not be the most batshit crazy tank out there, but it's pretty fucking reliable.[/QUOTE]
This is what I've noticed fighting them. The hull can bounce up to 200-225 effective on the right angle and day - the turret is fucking insane and the whole thing seems just well rounded. The only thing that looks really disappointing is the low penetration, but I'm use to 200, so 198 isn't bad.
[QUOTE=Doom14;37448816]This is what I've noticed fighting them. The hull can bounce up to 200-225 effective on the right angle and day - the turret is fucking insane and the whole thing seems just well rounded. The only thing that looks really disappointing is the low penetration, but I'm use to 200, so 198 isn't bad.[/QUOTE]
The pen on that tank seems like a god damn god send. I'm used to 170 penetration from the kv-5 and the super pershing :l
[QUOTE=Sir Spicy Buns;37448834]The pen on that tank seems like a god damn god send. I'm used to 170 penetration from the kv-5 and the super pershing :l[/QUOTE]
I'm use to all the other VIII heavies, at 225-227. The only exception is the T32 (198) and the VK4502A (200)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
