At tier 4 Soviets stop caring about german armor once they get to 100/122mm.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44906678]Despite everything wrong with War Thunder, it'd be difficult to say it doesn't have promise. I'm excited for whatever Ground Forces is going to be, esp for combined battles, and I'm MORE excited for naval battles. I'm excited just even for more maps.[/QUOTE]
Trust me I'm excited too I'm just infuriated by some of the little issues here and there. Doesn't help when the tanks disappear and other odd things like that.
[QUOTE=Azaz3l;44906733]Armor doesn't work here like it magically did in wot.[/QUOTE]
Never played WoT so I wouldn't know. All I know is when I'm hiding behind terrain cover, staying on the move, not immediately revealing obvious weakpoints but still getting one-shot from any angle I get annoyed real fast. Especially in a tank that at least has decent armor.
[QUOTE=Texas_Ranger;44906797]I really do not understand how people believe that the mythical "Russian Bias" is in ground forces. At tier 1, I understand that the T-26 is somewhat better than the PZ II because of the 45 MM. The T-50 is also just fucking broken. At tier 2, I always see the Pz IV F2 and the StuG wrecking everything. At tier 3, I feel like everything is somewhat balanced. The Panther and Tiger have higher penetration, and seemingly more accurate guns than the russians do. Meanwhile, it feels like the Russians have mobility at tier 3.
I can't say anything about tier 4 or 5 as I haven't played them, but the first 3 tiers really didn't feel all that bad for grinding Germans.[/QUOTE]
The "Russian Bias" is something that feels like it's there but I'm sure it's not despite how I feel about it. I'm playing late Tier 3 and the only really good German Tanks are the Panther and the ones before it. The Tiger has the issue of having an awesome gun but it's a literal tinderbox and I have yet to survive a tank shot while using it. Russian tanks move faster but can also rip into any German tanks with relative ease. The T-34s are my main issue cause they are a bitch to deal with at time. Same with the SU's.
I've had a decent time working up to Tier 3 for Germans but as soon as I got that Tiger and the other Tier 3 tanks it seems like something flipped. I still see Russian tanks holding the top of scoreboards unless a German tank-player knows how to rock it and keep his head low.
all i want for christmas is an american heavy cruiser
actually no wait i want a dreadnought but that aint happening
I seriously do not get how Yak-9's are tiered lower than my A6M3's. It's seriously fucking ridiculous that I keep ending up in matches with 7-8 of the fucking things on a team and I might as well just quit then and there because while I have to spend a good third or half a cannon reload to take them down, one glancing hit and I've exploded into ten thousand bits without fail
It's not even like the 63's and 39's with their cannons, those I can deal with because those planes handle like ass but these freaking magicyaks are just stupid. Climb too fast, turn too fast, way too tanky, and get ridiculous fucking guns all on a package that's again, lower tiered than me so I keep ending up facing loads of them
[QUOTE=Trooper-guy1;44906976]I've had a decent time working up to Tier 3 for Germans but as soon as I got that Tiger and the other Tier 3 tanks it seems like something flipped. I still see Russian tanks holding the top of scoreboards unless a German tank-player knows how to rock it and keep his head low.[/QUOTE]
I can honestly say that, after playing with Tiger for a few days now and back in CBT, angling about 10 degrees off-target does wonders for shot deflection. Keeping your lower hull covered doesn't seem to have much effect as everyone appears to know about the insta-kill viewport area, but turning the tank ever-so-slightly so you're not facing the enemy dead-on has really seemed to help me survive at least the first shot or two. Also between shots, I've found that rocking back and forth (not turning side to side) can sometimes throw off the enemy's aim and cause a bounce or complete miss if they're aiming for the turret cheek or viewport.
[editline]25th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;44907412]I seriously do not get how Yak-9's are tiered lower than my A6M3's. It's seriously fucking ridiculous that I keep ending up in matches with 7-8 of the fucking things on a team and I might as well just quit then and there because while I have to spend a good third or half a cannon reload to take them down, one glancing hit and I've exploded into ten thousand bits without fail
It's not even like the 63's and 39's with their cannons, those I can deal with because those planes handle like ass but these freaking magicyaks are just stupid. Climb too fast, turn too fast, way too tanky, and get ridiculous fucking guns all on a package that's again, lower tiered than me so I keep ending up facing loads of them[/QUOTE]
A6M3 first flight: late '41
Yak-9: mid '42
P-63: late '42
P-39: early '38
Doesn't seem too far a stretch historically, really... though the thing with Russian planes is that between tiers 1 and 4 imo, nearly every plane can either tank shots like a concrete bunker (which in War Thunder can be taken out with MG fire lel) or can outmaneuver anything else somehow. Anyone who claims that there isn't [i]some[/i] truth to the case for Russian Bias is kidding themselves.
my favorite part about the ground rescuer medal is that you get it for rescuing yourself. it's like
[img]http://printerprojects.com/pictures/elements/largegoldstar.jpg[/img]
good job, you didn't die
[editline]25th May 2014[/editline]
fun fact
it's actually faster to alt-f4 upon seeing the text "karelia" than it is to wait for the game to load
[editline]25th May 2014[/editline]
fun fact #2
hitting "cancel" while sitting in the queue forces the matchmaker to put you into a match within the millisecond
i like the tanks. a lot.
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;44907412]I seriously do not get how Yak-9's are tiered lower than my A6M3's. It's seriously fucking ridiculous that I keep ending up in matches with 7-8 of the fucking things on a team and I might as well just quit then and there because while I have to spend a good third or half a cannon reload to take them down, one glancing hit and I've exploded into ten thousand bits without fail
It's not even like the 63's and 39's with their cannons, those I can deal with because those planes handle like ass but these freaking magicyaks are just stupid. Climb too fast, turn too fast, way too tanky, and get ridiculous fucking guns all on a package that's again, lower tiered than me so I keep ending up facing loads of them[/QUOTE]
The matchmaking and BRs are "dynamic" and Gaijin use player performance to determine if a vehicle is OP or not. They forgot to remember that 90% of people will not care much for Japan and their first couple of vehicles are super rough to get into. Those who actually get to the high tiers will be hardened veterans of tryharding and send the BRs of otherwise meh planes skywards. It's the opposite for the USSR and the USA. If you look very closely, you'll see that half your teams when playing this nation will collectively be unable to decipher their arse from their elbow, otherwise sending perfectly fine aircraft down massively.
why do arcade maps play in simulator mode?
it's a full on fucking mystery.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44907727]why do arcade maps play in simulator mode?
it's a full on fucking mystery.[/QUOTE]
Because otherwise there would only be one map and 90% of USSR players would just drop out because it's unwinnable past early Era 2 for them.
[QUOTE=Shibbey;44907593]The matchmaking and BRs are "dynamic" and Gaijin use player performance to determine if a vehicle is OP or not. They forgot to remember that 90% of people will not care much for Japan and their first couple of vehicles are super rough to get into. Those who actually get to the high tiers will be hardened veterans of tryharding and send the BRs of otherwise meh planes skywards. It's the opposite for the USSR and the USA. If you look very closely, you'll see that half your teams when playing this nation will collectively be unable to decipher their arse from their elbow, otherwise sending perfectly fine aircraft down massively.[/QUOTE]
I can't deny that I'm probably part of the problem, since I've been regularly team-topping and getting double and triple kills in my zekes despite all of the BS entailed in doing so, it's just super frustrating when you end up fighting loads of superplanes with people who aren't falling below the retardation line in intelligence, and even moreso when idiots respond with 'well it's how it was historically so it's balanced'
no it's not. Just because two planes were made in the same year doesn't make give you the excuse for terrible fucking game balance
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44907727]why do arcade maps play in simulator mode?
it's a full on fucking mystery.[/QUOTE]
Because Kursk is horrid puddle of Malinovka tasting urine
I would rather play Malinovka in WoT than Kursk in WT, and I really didn't like Malinovka, but it at least had The Hill to throw yourself at and suicide rushing down the middle at least got you spotting experience.
The invisible tank shit needs to get the hell out of RB. I rolled up to shoot down at A from the hill on ash river. I didn't see anything until I had a round firmly lodged in my PZ IV's turret.
The T-34-57 seriously just appeared. I had been looking down for a few seconds, and he only appeared when he fired.
fuck that
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44908165]Because Kursk is horrid puddle of Malinovka tasting urine
I would rather play Malinovka in WoT than Kursk in WT, and I really didn't like Malinovka, but it at least had The Hill to throw yourself at and suicide rushing down the middle at least got you spotting experience.[/QUOTE]
I've had nothing but fun on that map. Gunnery is important, the map actually has space, target acquisition times are not instantaneous because you're not engaging things at 200meters, formations are actually something worth doing, teamwork as a whole pays off, armor actually starts to matter at those ranges. It's all very interesting, I want more proper simulation maps. It's also not gamey, as you can't take "your position", you're just moving up on a natural feeling map. It's a HELL of a lot more dynamic. Arena style maps are contrary to the entire purpose of simulation.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44908165]Because Kursk is horrid puddle of Malinovka tasting urine
I would rather play Malinovka in WoT than Kursk in WT, and I really didn't like Malinovka, but it at least had The Hill to throw yourself at and suicide rushing down the middle at least got you spotting experience.[/QUOTE]
Learn to drive the tanks like a real tank and you will not have this problem.
[QUOTE=C0MMUNIZT;44908214]Learn to drive the tanks like a real tank and you will not have this problem.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me but I am not interested into spergshit party, thank you.
I like to play games to actually have fun.
Kursk does justice to people who say tanks are inherently more boring than planes.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeHVfPeR5E4[/media]
kv-2 aint got shit on the 57
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44908269]Excuse me but I am not interested into spergshit party, thank you.
I like to play games to actually have fun.
Kursk does justice to people who say tanks are inherently more boring than planes.[/QUOTE]
[B]don't play simulation[/B]
you are wrong either fucking way. don't play simulation or don't say kursk is bad. kursk IS simulation.
Kursk should be a Soviet defensive map with a fuckload of support vehicles for either side because [I]that is what actually happened[/I]. At no point did a pure tank battle where the soviets had to park inside an arbitrary zone in the face of nazi railguns occur.
I just wished they had more maps like Kursk, but a good urban map would be good.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44908211]Gunnery is important,[/quote] so it is on "arena" maps if you aren't playing an overpenetrative German zero effort railguns popping armorless T-34s[quote] the map actually has space[/quote] so did malinovka[quote] target acquisition times are not instantaneous because you're not engaging things at 200meters[/quote] yes it's 500ms longer finally I can take a breather and calm my shaking hands[quote]formations are actually something worth doing[/quote] ahahahah okay, yes, if the intent is to feed tanks to the enemy in more efficient manner, sure[quote] teamwork as a whole pays off[/quote] as opposed to it not paying off on maps where you can actually take cover, ambush, and position intel has more meaning than "HE'S ON THE SIDE YOU WOULD EXPECT HIM TO BE"[quote]armor actually starts to matter at those ranges.[/quote] On german tanks.[quote] Arena style maps are contrary to the entire purpose of simulation.[/QUOTE] I disagree with your idea of purpose of simulation
[editline]26th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44908318][B]don't play simulation[/B]
you are wrong either fucking way. don't play simulation or don't say kursk is bad. kursk IS simulation.[/QUOTE]
Kursk is simulation of some particular battle through the war. Not all (not even most) tank engagements that happened were like Kursk. And the Kursk in the game is NOTHING like Kursk was in reality.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44908366]so it is on "arena" maps if you aren't playing an overpenetrative German zero effort railguns popping armorless T-34s so did malinovka yes it's 500ms longer finally I can take a breather and calm my shaking hands ahahahah okay, yes, if the intent is to feed tanks to the enemy in more efficient manner, sure as opposed to it not paying off on maps where you can actually take cover, ambush, and position intel has more meaning than "HE'S ON THE SIDE YOU WOULD EXPECT HIM TO BE" On german tanks. I disagree with your idea of purpose of simulation
[editline]26th May 2014[/editline]
Kursk is simulation of some particular battle through the war. Not all (not even most) tank engagements that happened were like Kursk. And the Kursk in the game is NOTHING like Kursk was in reality.[/QUOTE]
have you ever played a single tank game other than wot and war thunder
ever
you're so wrong on every single point it's AMAZING
[B]By the way, the whole tanks mostly killed each other at ranges of over a kilometer thing is [highlight]bullshit[/highlight][/B]
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1R0YdKn0TGw/UhPhjoGp_nI/AAAAAAAABKI/l4E5dzBPe34/s1600/igumnov-2.png[/IMG]
This was data kept by the Russians. [B]More than 60% of kills by 75mm German guns upon Soviet vehicles was below 600 meters of distance.[/B] Over 80% of the kills by it were under a kilometer.
[B]Over 60% of German 88mm kills were under 800 meters and literally 0,5% were at 1800-2000m range.[/B]
Kursk was an UNUSUAL ENGAGEMENT through the war. It was an ODDITY. You guys are wanking over something that was literally one of like THREE BATTLES EVER that were that way.
[editline]26th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44908429]have you ever played a single tank game other than wot and war thunder
ever
you're so wrong on every single point it's AMAZING[/QUOTE]
Both Red Orchestras (first red orchestra tank only maps extensively), Men of War... uh... World in Conflict??? nothing else really
awesomecaek vs mbbird go
Target Undamaged!
Gunner Unconscious!
Target Undamaged!
Loader Unconscious!
Riveting gameplay. Shame that crew skills barely even work right now (vitality isn't one of them, btw, as confirmed by devs) and that only four upgrades even do anything.
(Parts/FPE/Ammo/Artillery)
Also gettin' real sick of this "Hit! 4RP, 20 Silver" shit. Might as well tell them the round penetrated, gave them cotton candy and went on it's way.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44908438][B]By the way, the whole tanks mostly killed each other at ranges of over a kilometer thing is [highlight]bullshit[/highlight][/B]
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1R0YdKn0TGw/UhPhjoGp_nI/AAAAAAAABKI/l4E5dzBPe34/s1600/igumnov-2.png[/IMG]
This was data kept by the Russians. [B]More than 60% of kills by 75mm German guns upon Soviet vehicles was below 600 meters of distance.[/B] Over 80% of the kills by it were under a kilometer.
[B]Over 60% of German 88mm kills were under 800 meters and literally 0,5% were at 1800-2000m range.[/B]
Kursk was an UNUSUAL ENGAGEMENT through the war. It was an ODDITY. You guys are wanking over something that was literally one of like THREE BATTLES EVER that were that way.
[editline]26th May 2014[/editline]
Both Red Orchestras (first red orchestra tank only maps extensively), Men of War... uh... World in Conflict??? nothing else really[/QUOTE]
It's not about the engagement distances, although I really like the "meeting engagement"-esque nature of the relatively flat map, it's about the shape of the map. Simulation shouldn't be just World of Tanks with an annoying camera, overly convenient cover positions, and the annoying requirement of having to "Watch corners" as though you're playing CS:S and clearing CS_Office. Point blank manual spotting is stupid, especially since we're technically every crewmember in the tank. The commander, radioman, loader, gunner, and driver are all the same person, whereas in real life they'd each be their own pair of eyes. Spreading the map our more into a more natural flowing environment slows things down a bit so that that becomes less of a problem.
Simulation really benefits from open field combat, or relatively open field combat (600m is still longer than the 150-200m of Arcade), and yes Kursk is super flat so you get a lot of 800-1200m engagements, but that's again, not the point. That hill over in the east of Kursk? It's [I]awesome[/I] because it's about 800m but you can flank and move around and pop over hills and it's not super long range but it's just not [I]artificial[/I] like the Arcade maps.
Kursk feels very familiar to Steel Armor, Steel Beasts, WinSPMBT, Wargame, etc. Simulation should strive to be like those (well, WinSPMBT is an odd case). The fact that you call formations a way to "feed tanks to the enemy in more efficient manner" is worrisome. Teamwork is VERY WoT-like on the arcade maps. Arcade benefits from this, but Simulation shouldn't feel like WoT ever. And no. Malinovka did NOT have Space. It had a few lanes of open fields, that's not open space. There was never once a such thing as flanking in WoT, not in the tank sim sense. WoT was basically sub-tactical level combat in League of Legends esque lanes.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44908572]There was never once a such thing as flanking in WoT, not in the tank sim sense. WoT was basically sub-tactical level combat in League of Legends esque lanes.[/QUOTE]
I forgot you were always miserably bad at WoT so why should it suddenly be different with War Thunder, my bad, nevermind lol
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44908594]I forgot you were always miserably bad at WoT so why should it suddenly be different with War Thunder, my bad, nevermind lol[/QUOTE]
Flanking in WoT happened when the enemy sent too few or no tanks into an entire half of the map.
you can fuck off anyway
[img]http://wotlabs.net/sig/na/plod/signature.png[/img]
Oh and in WT you
1. never played a single tank past era 2
2. never played a Soviet tank
(yes I checked)
god why do I get baited into pointless bullshit so easily
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
