StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mr Bean wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:

Broken wrote:Ahh, the much delayed 8.0 physics engine. I eagerly await the youtubes of Maus driving off cliffs to smash puny tanks below them.

Driving off of cliffs should so hurt big tanks more than small ones...

Piff nothing, I want to Voltron my tanks. I want my Tiger to have a Hellcat on my roof to protect it from artillery. I want to mount my Jagpanther on two Stuarts so it can turn faster. I want my KV2 to be carried on the backs of two T-50s so it can zoom across the map.

Yeah, yeah. I just want some W48s for my American arty, since I'm fighting all sorts of other stuff that never saw combat.

Skywalker:

In real life, most early T-34s were armed with low to middling-velocity 76mm guns, which were adequate antitank weapons against early-war German tanks, and also slung powerful explosive shells to blast enemy troops out of defended positions.

[Compare to the Sherman, which favored the lower-velocity 75mm gun over the faster 76, because the 75 threw a better HE round. The game distorts this, but most of the really successful tanks of WWII were designed to fight bunkers and AT guns, not other tanks]

However, the Russians had a high-velocity 57mm antitank gun that was optimized for penetration instead of blasting power. And they armed... I've heard a few hundred T-34s with the 57mm, to use as dedicated tank hunters. It never caught on for general service because the Russians needed the average tank to be a good bunker buster more than they needed it to penetrate 100mm of armor.

Which makes it an exception to the rule that bigger-caliber guns are better for fighting tanks.

Also:

PhilosopherOfSorts wrote:Yeah, yeah. I just want some W48s for my American arty, since I'm fighting all sorts of other stuff that never saw combat.

Splash damage is sooo OP...

Yeah, that makes sense.

I think a Sherman with a flamethrower would be fun, too. Pop out of an alleyway and hose a Panther down with napalm, "Haha! Burn, fucker!"

*imagines doing just that*

That would be fun! Wouldn't do much damage, but it would be fun.

Simon_Jester wrote:Skywalker:

In real life, most early T-34s were armed with low to middling-velocity 76mm guns, which were adequate antitank weapons against early-war German tanks, and also slung powerful explosive shells to blast enemy troops out of defended positions.

[Compare to the Sherman, which favored the lower-velocity 75mm gun over the faster 76, because the 75 threw a better HE round. The game distorts this, but most of the really successful tanks of WWII were designed to fight bunkers and AT guns, not other tanks]

However, the Russians had a high-velocity 57mm antitank gun that was optimized for penetration instead of blasting power. And they armed... I've heard a few hundred T-34s with the 57mm, to use as dedicated tank hunters. It never caught on for general service because the Russians needed the average tank to be a good bunker buster more than they needed it to penetrate 100mm of armor.

Which makes it an exception to the rule that bigger-caliber guns are better for fighting tanks.

On a couple things you are wrong, the 57mm was just too expensive a gun, not that it lacked anti-tank gun firepower. After all it was the most accurate and long ranged AT gun of the Russian forces until the 100mm. I mean they only made a 1000 guns, and the infantry liked it just as much. It was just too expensive for either service despite the advantage of a lightweight high power and accurate AT gun would've been for the infantry.

Secondly T-34s armed with the longer 76 had an excellent anti tank round in the APCR round, and the Russians were even able to spread that round around to their tanks with some consistency thanks to their mineral wealth of tungsten. No other nation really could afford to give APCR rounds to as many tanks in as large a number as the USSR tank horde. So to say that the T-34 was a poor AT gun tank is not really true for most of the war. (Since you aren't really talking about the -85 that was adequate late war I can only think you are talking about mid war. But like I said APCR really evened it out then.)

And in actual fact the preferred attack for Russians versus Ferdinand TD's would've been more easily thwarted if it turned faster. But that is an anti-tank gun tactic that is all about receiving the attack and luring the TD into the midst of a pair of other concealed guns on the flank while the gun that lured it in has it's crew go to ground.

Really the 'soft stats' of the T-34 were it's only weakness. (Anecdote: I remember a story of a T-34 armed with APCR defeating 3-5 Tigers with a similar number of shots, though they might've been KTigers. But hey it's been a while since I read it so I can't be sure.)

Agent Sorchus wrote:On a couple things you are wrong, the 57mm was just too expensive a gun, not that it lacked anti-tank gun firepower...

Uh, what? That's the opposite of what I said. Unless "anti-tank gun firepower" means something very different to you than it does to me.

Secondly T-34s armed with the longer 76 had an excellent anti tank round...

Kind of beside the point- this is more of an illustration of how designers deliberately accepted compromise. The T-34's ability to blow up heavily armored enemy battle tanks didn't matter so much, compared to it being able to blow up bunkers and infantry positions.

So in World of Tanks, you'd always take the 57mm if you can, because of better antitank performance. But in real life, you'd almost always take the 76mm, which is adequate against enemy tanks (even without APCR) and better against everything else, and easier to supply to boot.

Being able to use better ammunition to make up for the gap in performance is good, but it's beside the point again. Even without APCR ammunition, the Russians had great, logical reasons not to pick the 57mm, even if it was the gun most effective against enemy tanks. Economics is, yes, one of those reasons, you're right about that.

I might not have said it totally right but you're either strawmaning me or misreading it. The 57 was adequate as an anti-field (AT gun) weapon. Unlike the Brit 6 pounder it did have a good HE round. Not a good anti-bunker gun, but the western front rarely stabilized for long enough for heavy bunkers to be to be produced. No the only flaw with the 57 is it's high per unit cost, not the bullshit wasn't good enough at chucking HE like the brit gun. (Here is the strawman mind you, you completely ignore the cost issue.)

As far as your second position is concerned, again you are ignorant. As an infantry gun there was no better, for AT. IF it wasn't overcosted as all shit (I believe it cost more than either the 122 or 85mm) it was perfect for the role. AND it still used APCR as it's primary ammo. So I am comparing apples to apples.

Skywalker_T-65 wrote:I like the new MM personally. I'm still not top-tier very much, but I have been that way for so long I'm used to it, and understand what the poor shumucks who are lower tier feel like. Plus now that my biggest tank is the 3601 I don't need to worry about being lower tier as much.

And a WoT Horde Mode? I realize it was a joke, but that actually sounds somewhat fun.

Well I gave it some thought while trying to fall asleep and this is what I came up with, lol:

Human players have 3 rows of field fortifications/hull down positions. 1st row in the middle of the map for most of the tanks, 2nd row behind for TDs and sniper tanks, and the final row for Arty and the last stand.

Enemies will spawn at the other end of the map and CHARGE!. Each successive wave gets larger or has a higher propotion of high tier tanks to lower tier cannon fodder. It should be balanced to it is possible with skillful play to hold out and win at the last row, but average players will still satisfyingly get overrun after a good fight.

Strategy is partly how you focus fire, and keeping key enemies strategically tracked to keep them away for longer, and knowing the right time to finally give up on the 1st line and retreating to the 2nd line.

I realize this is now essencially Fulda Gap NATO defense, WOT edition.

The Infidel wrote:New record, lads. TEN FUCKING KILLS!
Victory!
Battle: Mines 6. august 2012 19:20:37
Vehicle: T18
Experience received: 943
Credits received: 14 496
Battle Achievements: Top Gun

I'm gonna put this one on Youtube, but need some software a friend have, so be patient.

It helps a lot that the teams were noobs. It felt like playing Space Invaders.

Agent Sorchus wrote:I might not have said it totally right but you're either strawmaning me or misreading it.

Sorchus, why on Earth would I be 'strawmanning' you? I don't understand.

The 57 was adequate as an anti-field (AT gun) weapon. Unlike the Brit 6 pounder it did have a good HE round.

It really becomes an issue of how often you expect tanks to expend HE versus AP ammunition, I think. You can't make a 57mm HE round as effective as a 76mm one. It can be effective enough, a hell of a lot better than throwing a grenade, but it can easily leave a lot to be desired. There's a reason practically everyone fighting in the war converged on ~75mm caliber for antitank, field artillery, and support guns by the late war, when they could get away with it.

It's a very practical size for general-purpose guns. The exploding charge of an HE shell is big enough to wreck almost anything except heavy earthworks or reinforced concrete. The ammunition size is still small enough that you can carry a lot of rounds for the gun inside a vehicle, and bring more up from the rear even if you're relying on animal transport or guys staggering through the mud to get the ammo up to the firing position. It's large enough to be effective against light armor, and even medium armor with the right choice of shell design; using it against heavy armor requires a longer barrel that makes it a heavier, more awkward weapon in some ways, but that's all right for dedicated AT and tank guns anyway.

Not a good anti-bunker gun, but the western front rarely stabilized for long enough for heavy bunkers to be to be produced.

No, it generally did not.

But there was a lot of urban warfare. Blasting troops out of rubble eats up tanks and men, but it's even harder if you don't have good weapons for infantry support. Which helps explain things like the SU-76 being so well loved too, though there were a ton of other reasons for that.

And in general, it is vastly better to be able to quickly overrun a slightly hardened position than to be stopped by a machine gun firing from behind thick pile of sandbags and logs, which is a real hazard for WWII infantry advancing without direct-fire guns in vehicles. Poured concrete bunkers aren't the only threat here.

Today, troops with that problem would just blow the improvised field fortification apart with antitank missiles from a thousand yards away or something, but that is now and this was then.

No the only flaw with the 57 is it's high per unit cost, not the bullshit wasn't good enough at chucking HE like the brit gun. (Here is the strawman mind you, you completely ignore the cost issue.)

Sorchus, like six hours ago I just said:

"The Russians had great, logical reasons not to pick the 57mm [EDIT: meaning in the T-34 tank, just so we're clear], even if it was the gun most effective against enemy tanks. Economics is, yes, one of those reasons, you're right about that."

As far as your second position is concerned, again you are ignorant. As an infantry gun there was no better, for AT. IF it wasn't overcosted as all shit (I believe it cost more than either the 122 or 85mm) it was perfect for the role. AND it still used APCR as it's primary ammo. So I am comparing apples to apples.

...I said nothing specific about its use as an infantry gun. For infantry guns weight is king over all else, and a well-designed 57mm gun is brilliantly sized to be about as heavy as infantry can handle in a practical way, while being powerful enough to genuinely matter in heavy combat.

Nephtys wrote:You can absolutely not take on a properly handled T-34-85 with a III/IV. The 34 actually has just enough armor to reasonably bounce many of your shots, is well armed, and nowadays, even faster than before. Still has somewhat bad soft stats, but unless you can successfully circle (which is countered by rotating + turret traverse), can't do it.

A T-34 with the 57mm can't take a Panther in this game in any reasonable circumstance.

That said, I'm assuming a basic level of competency. Without that, well. I've had an E8 Sherman take out a Pershing before solo. But one can't really account for that level of BAD.

That being said, a major reason why higher tier tanks have a better chance of winning is the bigger HP pool. My match with the triple Tiger kill on the Sherman (one King Tiger, two regulars) all involved pumping a lot of 105mm shells up their rears, but in a real fight they'd be destroyed with just one penetrating hit to the engine compartment.

Okay, I just had one of those 'WTF how did I survive that' matches in my A-20. About halfway through the match, I got hit by a T34 (American) and got dropped down to literally 1 HP. If that had done anymore damage I would have been one-shotted by it. And then I got tracked by an IS-3...and somehow it didn't take away that 1 HP I had left. I then proceeded to run for my life until the end of the match.

EDIT: After somehow surviving long enough for the track to be fixed without a small repair kit...hence the how did I live factor.

I ammo racked in a super Pershing from the front. How did that happen....


Loving it so far. Nice money

So Wargaming bought Bigworld...

Now that they own their engine, it should be a lot easier for them to build on it like they have been and bigworld should become a much more appealing engine.

xthetenth wrote:So Wargaming bought Bigworld...

Now that they own their engine, it should be a lot easier for them to build on it like they have been and bigworld should become a much more appealing engine.

I have to admit I am looking forward to grinding world of warships to get a des Moines and a Tone.

Finally. Finally, finally got a top gun in the 3601. Missed out on a Boelter's by a second or two of reloading, but at least I'm somewhat happy.

Now to get one where I'm not the top tank.

AniThyng wrote:

xthetenth wrote:So Wargaming bought Bigworld...

Now that they own their engine, it should be a lot easier for them to build on it like they have been and bigworld should become a much more appealing engine.

I have to admit I am looking forward to grinding world of warships to get a des Moines and a Tone.

Yeah, I've been reading a ton of Friedman's books just thinking about how awesome warships is likely to be. I really want a Shimakaze and a Forrestal or whatever they make the T10 US carrier. I also really like the looks of the Iowas as a guard for a fast carrier group.

How far along are Warships and Warplanes anyway? Beacuse they sure look interesting.

Warplanes is in a semi-open beta and will probably officially launch around New Years with the few nations/trees that they've already teased. Warships we won't see until 2014 I reckon.

From what I can tell, the Warships alpha is going to start sometime this winter, and I'm thinking the warplanes open beta should be pretty soon.

xthetenth wrote:

AniThyng wrote:

xthetenth wrote:So Wargaming bought Bigworld...

Now that they own their engine, it should be a lot easier for them to build on it like they have been and bigworld should become a much more appealing engine.

I have to admit I am looking forward to grinding world of warships to get a des Moines and a Tone.

Yeah, I've been reading a ton of Friedman's books just thinking about how awesome warships is likely to be. I really want a Shimakaze and a Forrestal or whatever they make the T10 US carrier. I also really like the looks of the Iowas as a guard for a fast carrier group.

I'd hope they put the cutoff point at the Midways, otherwise we're talking missile and jet era already

It would be interesting to see how they balance - I mean US Cruisers are all gun, great against peers and below but they aren't going to be sinking any battleships, while the Japanese Cruisers with Long Lance could legitimately harm anything they hit...while also going up like roman candles if they take a hit to the torpedo magazines.

But yeah. I want both US and IJN cruiser lines anyway

I forsee endless arguements over getting magazine hits ala Hood and getting steering damage ala Bismark. The new ammo racked and tracked!

Nothing would stop having torpedoes on US cruisers, aside from Atlanta class which carried them in the war on some hulls, several US heavy cruisers had torpedo tubes but removed prior to the war. Given how not historically accurate world of tanks is, I can't see details like that becoming a serious problem for warships. I'd be kind of disappointed though if they have carriers, it would be better I think if they limit people to catapult float planes only. That'd work out better anyway since only the US-Japan-UK had serious numbers of carrier designs plus carrier capable aircraft, while otherwise Italy, Germany and the USSR have more then enough real and reasonable paper ships to flesh out elaborate surface warfare fleet. Depends though on how many sides are present, if its only the first three then this doesn't matter, or if they keep the number of ship designs more low ball then world of tanks.

Though I kind of think world of warships would make a lot more sense if it started more like 1914, allowing for near unlimited tiers, as well as more upgrade options, before reaching missiles and such, but doubt that will happen either.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Nothing would stop having torpedoes on US cruisers, aside from Atlanta class which carried them in the war on some hulls, several US heavy cruisers had torpedo tubes but removed prior to the war. Given how not historically accurate world of tanks is, I can't see details like that becoming a serious problem for warships. I'd be kind of disappointed though if they have carriers, it would be better I think if they limit people to catapult float planes only. That'd work out better anyway since only the US-Japan-UK had serious numbers of carrier designs plus carrier capable aircraft, while otherwise Italy, Germany and the USSR have more then enough real and reasonable paper ships to flesh out elaborate surface warfare fleet. Depends though on how many sides are present, if its only the first three then this doesn't matter, or if they keep the number of ship designs more low ball then world of tanks.

Though I kind of think world of warships would make a lot more sense if it started more like 1914, allowing for near unlimited tiers, as well as more upgrade options, before reaching missiles and such, but doubt that will happen either.

Yeah I think trying to put carriers into what is basically a brawling surface combat game would cause the same kind of problems having SPGs in the WoT did... only this time you can shoot down those pesky planes at least. How would you model those? They'll be like AI drones you launch on a squadron by squadron basis at enemy targets?

Won't a lot of the start of war battle ships be basically upgraded WW1 hulls anyway though. Tiering will be messy.

How much gameplay concepts are they lifting from Battlestations Midway/Pacific anyway? As far as I am concerned that series is the epitome of arcade-sim naval combat as it is

BTW Skimmer since you're here, earlier in the thread I asked Zinegata about his opinion on the book "Hitler's Panzers". Have you read it, and do you have any comments about its value?

Skimmer- One thing Wargaming isn't afraid to do is give certain nations unique gameplay features.

In World of Tanks, only the Americans get turreted tank destroyers; only the French get autoloaders with a revolver magazine for the tank gun (that's how it's modeled, anyway).

German and Soviet tanks don't have any particularly unique features- the differences are more of degree (more accurate this, module placement that, slab-sided armor scheme versus sloped/curved armor scheme) than of kind.

So I'm sure that in World of Battleships, the designers will be happy to include unique features or non-features for certain nations' ships.