It could conceivably mesh if other design decisions had been made. Why does every nation fully fleshed out lines of light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, SPGs and artillery? Similarly, why are certain real & historical tanks not present in the game? The most notable omission that I (generally a non-treadhead guy) am aware of is the Sherman Firefly.

This is actually not a huge problem for me, since the core game works so well, but I do believe the game would be (slightly) better if the designers found a way to shed a lot of the made-up tanks. Especially since at higher tiers they exist primarily to counter other made up tanks…

I dont see what the problem with the fantasy tanks is. They are awesome and they work.

The problems with the game are not nearly as big as some of the drama suggests. Imo the biggest is the fact that my KV3 gets easier and more fun matches than the T34-85. Both are tier 6 but in the former im often top dog, as least as often as im bottom runt, while in the latter im very often in a match headed by tier 9 monsters. Its almost as if there’s a typo in the file defining what tanks go where.

It’s not a problem, per se, because it does work. It rankles because it’s arbitrary and unnecessary, in my opinion. As a fan of tanks, historical tanks, I think there are plenty of actual, fielded tanks that could be used, and different game modes that could make use of them. The developers clearly wanted to go in a different direction, fine, but if you are shilling a game that trumpets WWII tanks as a big draw, it seems to me you should make some effort to use the wealth of cool historical stuff better, rather than resort to the relatively cheap tricks of experimental tanks and cheese.

The Firefly is British. It should come out with the British tanks. I won’t be surprised if it ends up being a British Premium though, since AIUI the distinguishing feature of the Firefly is the 17lber gun, which seems to rule out having gun upgrades.

Is matchmaking noticeably better enough on the Russian server at low to mid tiers that it’s worth considering switching over there? Nobody says many useful things in chat anyway.

Well i did notice about 750 battles going on at the .ru server while there were about 400 on the .eu one. So yea, more battles means more players, means better distribution. I think.

Shit about half the time they are talking polish or czech or some such language on .eu anyway :P

Thinking about buying some premium for my .ru account again. I noticed i have a whole slew of tanks that are quite a bit shinier than the ones on .eu as well.

You’ve probably already got this factored in, but don’t forget RU servers will probably have longer ping times unless you’re living in Europe – although I played on the EU beta servers from California no problem.

Does the internet work that it will go West from Hawaii to Russia or is the infrastructure better so it will go East through America and Western Europe? I don’t get great pings anywhere already anyway.

It should be noted that T1 and M6 heavies were both actual tanks manufactured in a few dozens. They were never sent overseas to fight, though and the programs were cancelled.

There is however another tier 8 heavy which saw extensive combat – the Tiger II. VK45 and Maus were prototypes, however, which leaves 1/2 of the German heavies as “real” tanks.

Of the entire IS series, only IS-4 was a prototype, all the rest were “real” (the IS-7 being renamed and seeing production as the T10) and even saw combat (IS1/IS2 unquestionably, and possibly IS-3). Before this, the KV line is a mixed bag, KV-1, KV-2 and KV-1S were all real tanks that saw combat, KV-3, KV-5 and KV-13 were prototypes, however.

Tthe German VKxxxx tanks, the tier 7-10 US heavies and half the US mediums create the impression that the game is full of fictional tanks. But the majority of the tanks, some of which may be obscure (and wait till we get the French stuff!), they are no less “real” than the icons that stand out in public memory.

It should also be noted that with the reformation of the US medium line, effectively just one prototype will remain on the tree (T20). On the high end, the Pershing and Patton were both real tanks that saw combat, and on the low end the M3 Lee and the Shermans are iconic vehicles as well.

When it comes to Tank Destroyers, the vast majority of what we have in the game were real vehicles that saw actual combat. All the Russian TDs from the SU-76 to ISU-152 were production vehicles that saw combat. Only AT-1 and Object 704 stand out. For the Germans it’s even better, as every single one of their TDs in the game was an actual machine that saw combat. From the lowly Panzerjager I to the JagdTiger.

With artillery one has a point however when we move beyond tier 5. But honestly I wish it weren’t in the game at all. Not being “real” is the least of my problems with the class.

Well, even including prototypes and engineering samples is kind of silly–most of them didn’t see combat for very good reasons. The point isn’t that they aren’t “real,” it’s that they really had little to no tactical justification, and being in the game just reinforces the lack of any historical (or tactical) grounding. But it’s all fairly moot, as noted; the game works fine. And though your math is accurate, in any given match I’d wager the majority of vehicles are ahistorical (again though it doesn’t matter much, as the whole game is ahistorical–if WoT was history, WWII would have been the War of Heavy Tanks Only).

I just would rather have a more serious approach that took better account of battlefield actualities, but then, I guess it would be a different game. And I love arty; without it, all you’d get would be matches of heavy tanks rumbling around. Arty actually makes the high tier heavies think for a change.

It’s a bit silly imo to have historical concerns about certain tanks being in the game. The game is not at all a simulation or recreation of historical battles. It is a tactical shooting game with WW2 tank skins. Using real life values to loosely approximate numbers in the game is fine, but I wouldn’t let that dictate how the game played.

Count me in as someone that enjoys all the extra tanks that including “prototypes” allows. I enjoy the variety, and it would be pretty boring if everyone was in a King Tiger, Sherman, or IS.

I am hopeful they make similar full lines for other countries such as UK, France, Italy and Japan. That would require a fair bit of expanding off of what actually was produced during the war, but I’m fine with that.

I stand with the historical viewpoint, mostly for the reasons wombat expressed. Would it make a huge difference? No - but it wouldn’t make a difference for proponents of the ‘silly tanks’ either.

My top 5 wish list(except for no fantasy tanks):

  1. Tanks have a little more mobility
  2. More options in the research trees
  3. More realistic view distances
  4. Cover/concealment that works like cover/concealment
  5. Fully traversable terrain

I think it’s worthwhile spending the 20k/crewmember from tier V upwards so they start at a mimimum of 75%

Definitely.

heck i even consider the 200 gold for a 100% commander a good investment at tier 6 and up.

I agree, which is why it bugs the shit out of me when they bring out “reality” as a reason for ignoring balance issues.

Then they nerf the Tiger’s real speed because of “balance” and my head explodes.

Upgraded my T-34-85 guns. Tried the 85mm D5T-85BM first (165 damage / 144 penetration) but decided to switch to the 100mm D10T (230 damage, 175 penetration). It’s got a lower rate of fire and is much less accurate (which is why I tried the 85mm first).

It’s awfully fun pwning KVs for a change. The 100mm gun just chews them up. Killed two and took down a good part of a third – not bad for a T-34!

I’ll probably stick with the 100mm, although I do miss the accuracy of the 85mm.

If you have the entire crew at 75% and consider paying gold to bring one of them to 100%, I would suggest upgrading the gunner. IMO it’s much more useful to have a gunner who can shoot straight (due the additional 25%) than to give everybody additional 2% (as an effect of taking the commander to 100%). Commander bonus going from 8% at 75% to 10% at 100% is IMO not that big of a deal. A gunner going from 75% to 100% will have a huge reflection on your accuracy and aim speed.

As for the prototype tanks discussion, IMO it is more interesting to play all kinds of prototypes as opposed to boring A, B, C,… modifications. Because if the Germans did not have a “real” tank model between the Pz IV and the Panther, you would have to stretch the PZ IV line over multiple tiers and that’s BORING.

Plus they didn’t have anything above the KT.

So to have a “real tanks only” environment, they would have to either stretch tanks modifications over multiple tiers or cut the tiers considerably. Both of these options hurt variety. And kill fun. Why are you against fun? :)

And they never said the game was about WWII tanks. It’s about WWII era tanks, covering models from early 30’s to early 50’s.

Yes, KV-3 never fought in the war but it is fun to choose between leveling up through KV-3 or KV-1S. Yes, Maus was never built but it is fun to imagine “WHAT IF they had a chance to finish it? How would it look? How would it drive?” Who cares if the KV-2 with the derp gun was used only to destroy fortifications? It’s FUN to use it to one shot tanks.

The devs are going to update their tank lines and add even more prototype tanks like the German E series. IMO it’s good for this kind of game. It’s more fun to choose from (and fight) dozens of different tanks than to be stuck with like 10.

Do you have any recent examples of that?

It seems to me “the Internet” continues to re-iterate this old beta complaint (which MIGHT have been true last year) but IMO it has no ground anymore. It’s kind of silly to bring out “they ignore balancing issues” argument, when 90% of the the 6.4 patch notes consist of “increase this and decrease that”.

It’s ok for folks to either like the quasi-fictional /quasi-historical tanks, or not like them, or something in-between. Most of us agree the game is fun to play. I’m a historian by trade. When I see a game that is fundamentally based in some important way around historical events, I can’t help but view things through a particular lens. Other folks will see it differently. Neither view I think is silly; the developers court a WWII-fan audience with historical titbits, and thus have to answer for that. They clearly made a very fun CS-like tank shooter with little relationship to reality, and they deserve credit for that too. It’s all good, more or less.

I guess I still smart from the failure of WWII Online to deliver a dynamic battlefield, heh.