I think you're going to have a hard time finding a netbook that runs WoT on low when my Core2Duo, 9700M GT laptop had trouble accomplishing that
world of resources not being good enough
I still don't understand what kind of play style the new TD line is going to offer (disregard object 263 being OP as fuck), are they going to be large soviet guns but with accuracy?
[QUOTE=Super2Donny;37613442]I still don't understand what kind of play style the new TD line is going to offer (disregard object 263 being OP as fuck), are they going to be large soviet guns but with accuracy?[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
Very strong guns on armorless hulls with good speed, camo value, and really strong although generally low-alpha guns.
[editline]10th September 2012[/editline]
I would say they will probably have low skill floor and high skill ceiling.
Do it wrong and you get murdered by 3 tiers lower tanks because you have no armor. Do it right and you get 5 kills without getting damaged once because nobody spots you/dies before he can take a shot at you.
What I don't understand about the decals update:
Wargaming can afford to spend the time, money and effort into making all the tank models intricately detailed, all of the icons unique, all of the crew (hundreds of possible crew) well-drawn, and even weekly updates have beautiful images like so:
[img]http://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/news/prototype_weekend/banner.png[/img]
[img]http://worldoftanks.ru/dcont/fb/news/big_title_new/molbert_newsb.jpg[/img]
But the ingame logos are comic sans with a photoshop glow filter slapped on:
[QUOTE=Goblin_5;37611972]
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/fuvef.jpg[/IMG]
It's so... neat[/QUOTE]
You have to realize the problem is each tank has different amount of space and differently shaped, too, plus I guess they are shy of getting too "personal", as in, that the tanks should, even with various signatures, still look somewhat uniform.
Lets hope they will get a bit more creative with them, later.
[QUOTE=boboerror;37612550]That depends. I'm sitting at this and I cant play it on highest: (copypastea from xfire)
Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2720QM CPU @ 2.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.2GHz
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Hard Drive: 5,733 TB Total
Video Card: 3GB NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M Nvidia 3D Vision
Monitor: 17.3in FHD 3D WLED TL (1920X1080) 1080p with 2.0 Mega Pixel Integrated Camera
Sound Card: Headset (SB Tactic(3D) Wrath Wireless)
Speakers/Headphones: Creative Soundblaster Tactic 3D Wrath Wireless
Keyboard: Integrated XPS
Mouse: Logitech Optical Gaming Mouse G400
Mouse Surface: Qpad CT Large "Grin"
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.120503-2030)
Computer Case: XPS17
[editline]10th September 2012[/editline]
Wot is not in the list but this site might be able to help you out with what kinda of gcards are good.
[url]http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html[/url][/QUOTE]
My school laptop run it mediocre on medium, pretty good on low.
Dual core 2.6 Ghz i5
8 GB RAM
Nvidia Quadro 1000M (700Mhz 2Gb ddr3 vram)
This Loewe bleeds money.
It's like the Germans put an American heavy turret on a Tiger II chassis and gave it a gun that spontaneously produces silver upon each hit.
why is lakeville on the test server only lagging in the e 100?
[QUOTE=SGTenima123;37615519]why is lakeville on the test server only lagging in the e 100?[/QUOTE]
SerB Syndrome
Apparently the rest of my parts are coming in today, so if I feel like building it tonight I should make it to the clan battle.
Hopefuly nothing is DOA.
Since tomorrow I'll be unable to play WoT for 10 days straight. I hope I'm not addicted, the only thing I regret is that I may miss a nice discount.
A slightly more extensive version of what Orkel posted
[img]http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2422/0a9c1025f3f5c1orig.jpg[/img]
Holy M4 with pershing turret batman
edit:
Oh god the 5th one from the left on the top row has a T1 for a hat
T95-E2
Wargaming you really have to try hard to make me regret getting M48A1, right?
T95E2! Composite armor here we come!
[editline]11th September 2012[/editline]
Though knowing them it wont have its composite armor...
[editline]11th September 2012[/editline]
Its turret looks wrong, looks to much like a M48's turret. It should more look like an M60's turret (Seeing they pretty much used the same turret)
[QUOTE=O'Neil;37617058]T95E2! Composite armor here we come!
[editline]11th September 2012[/editline]
Though knowing them it wont have its composite armor...
[editline]11th September 2012[/editline]
Its turret looks wrong, looks to much like a M48's turret. It should more look like an M60's turret (Seeing they pretty much used the same turret)[/QUOTE]
[quote]Because the T96 turrets were not yet constructed (and were never completed), it was decided that of the four T95E4s, [B]two would be fitted with the M48A2 turret[/B], and the other two were fitted with T54E2 turret and with 105-mm T140 cannon.[/quote]
Also I found a picture of a real T2 LT
[img]http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-LightTank-T2.jpg[/img]
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/T-95_tank.jpg[/IMG]
[h2]By the way, it was meant to be EVENTUAL REPLACEMENT FOR M48[/h2]
It had composite armor and smoothbore guns only.
Seriously WG I hate you. I want refund for grinding M48A1 which you first nerf into bland mediocrity and then add it's successor as "sidegrade".
I hope the sentinel IV is not premium. Was the first tank to mount the 17 pounder (not as a TD anyway). It's not the 17 pounder I'm hoping for though. To make sure the turret ring could handle the 17 pounder, they put two twenty five pounders on one for 120% the recoil of the 17 pounder.
Now while I have no idea if it was even viable for combat (probably wasn't) when has not being not viable for combat stopped wargamming.
[b]Two twenty-five pounders![/b]
Also, the weapon x looks like a good canidate for the high tier light for the Americans now that the T95 is getting in.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37617200][IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/T-95_tank.jpg[/IMG]
[h2]By the way, it was meant to be EVENTUAL REPLACEMENT FOR M48[/h2]
It had composite armor and smoothbore guns only.
Seriously WG I hate you. I want refund for grinding M48A1 which you first nerf into bland mediocrity and then add it's successor as "sidegrade".[/QUOTE]
I thought it could have smoothbores but the US rejected them because they were horribly inaccurate at the time (Though the russians stuck through with the smoothbore idea). Seeing the L7 worked way better then the smoothbores that were tested, though correct me if im wrong. But I also agree, compared to the T95E2, the M481 is just....well, its obsolete now.
My automerge
[QUOTE=O'Neil;37617267]I thought it could have smoothbores but the US rejected them because they were horribly inaccurate at the time (Though the russians stuck through with the smoothbore idea). Seeing the L7 worked way better then the smoothbores that were tested, though correct me if im wrong. But I also agree, compared to the T95E2, the M481 is just....well, its obsolete now.[/QUOTE]
I am going by what wiki is saying.
[quote]The OPTAC incorporated an electro-optical rangefinder and was mounted on the right side of the turret, and was used in conjunction with the APFSDS-firing 90 mm T208 smoothbore gun, which had a rigid mount without a recoil system.[/quote]
The gun on the icon actually DOES look like T208
[img]http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/t95weirton.jpg[/img]
Notice the perpendicular tubular muzzlebrake and widening of the barrel on the last quarter.
Wargaming "No smoothbores" was fucking clear, I think.
DON'T FUCKING TRY ANYTHING FUNNY
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37617316]I am going by what wiki is saying.
The gun on the icon actually DOES look like T208
[img]http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/t95weirton.jpg[/img]
Notice the perpendicular tubular muzzlebrake and widening of the barrel on the last quarter.
Wargaming "No smoothbores" was fucking clear, I think.
DON'T FUCKING TRY ANYTHING FUNNY[/QUOTE]
Yeeeah, no smoothbores. Seeing they didnt have the T-62 which had a smoothbore but the T-62a which didnt. So it will either be the L7 or the 120mm(Think its the L11...or was it L8 US version...which was very nifty)
[QUOTE=O'Neil;37617332]Yeeeah, no smoothbores. Seeing they didnt have the T-62 which had a smoothbore but the T-62a which didnt. So it will either be the L7 or the 120mm(Think its the L11...or was it L8 US version...which was very nifty)[/QUOTE]
Compare that T95E2 icon and that pic that awesomecaek posted, you'll crealy see that "T" shaped muzzlebreak and that bore evacuator that was used on that 90mm smoothbore.
The standard M41 90mm on M48's were also a T.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/M48_Patton_Tank_on_display.jpg[/img]
Dont think its the smoothbore
[img]http://puu.sh/13SlN[/img]
Holy SHIT WHAT
How does the DCA 45 make the ARL 44 any good? It has the same aim time as the BL-10, 3.4, how does the 212 pen balance that?
Yeah It's that M41. It's stock gun on M48A1 in the game, and it looks almost the same as on the icon.
Case closed, it will have same guns as M48A1.
STILL IT'S GENERALLY A SUPERIOR FUCKING TANK
[B]RGHHHHHHHHHHH[/B]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37617452]Yeah It's that M41. It's stock gun on M48A1 in the game, and it looks almost the same as on the icon.
Case closed, it will have same guns as M48A1.
STILL IT'S GENERALLY A SUPERIOR FUCKING TANK
[B]RGHHHHHHHHHHH[/B][/QUOTE]
Hopefully, seeing it had composite armor and if they add it into the game itself, it should reduce HE by around 50%, so...take that SPG's!...
[QUOTE=zom_bie;37617447]How does the DCA 45 make the ARL 44 any good? It has the same aim time as the BL-10, 3.4, how does the 212 pen balance that?[/QUOTE]
the DCA is good on the AMX M4 and the AMX 50 100
At the very least, make sure you have it researched before the M4 or else PAIN
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
