Purpose of this blog

Dmitry Yudo aka Overlord, jack of all trades
David Lister aka Listy, Freelancer and Volunteer

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

[WoT] The Notorious Transmission Thing

In this post I have gathered some (not all) of the info gathered from various sources (including Serb's and Storm's posts on RU forums).

It's obvious that the hull size and design of E-50/75 is similar to the one of King Tiger, which leaves nearly no space for rear transmission layout declared by Jentz and Doyle in their reconstruction blueprints. 


The real archive blueprints are still not public and probably will never be. 


Serb: Rear engine layout (which results from intakes), the design of leading and rear wheels (plus the absence of hub drive casing) make the rear-drive for E-50/75 impossible. In the generally accepted configuration and design provided by Doyle and Jentz at least.


There is no evidence in the form of engineering blueprints, based on Doyle's hull geometry, that could demonstrate the possibility of moving the transmission  to the rear. The above does mean that with quite high probability Jentz and Doyle actually presented the two mutually exclusive theses on the same page.



Consequently the conventional front-drive design is considered to be more viable, without denying possible intentions of engineering rear-drive E-50/75.


More evidence by Serb is to be presented.

Storm: It's known that French AMX 50B was a successor of German tanks in terms of design. Still the hull of Tiger II is 6.4m (it's ~7.3m), while AMX 50B is almost 1m longer (7.35m). That allowed French engineers to enable rear-drive for that very vehicle, while E-series were almost of identical size with KT. The difference was mainly in armour thickness and slope.
If we cut 1m from AMX 50B hull we are getting the following:

That leaves very little space for driver or engine compartment. There was no way the turret could be in the center of the hull.

Added Panther II turret, leaving the suspension, AMX 50B hull decreased by 90cm:

Looks somewhat horrible. 

With the current front armour values of E-50 (upper 120@60, lower 120@60) and E-75 (upper 160@60, lower 130@60) the made adjustment doesn't look drastic and is not supposed to lead to noticeable performance decrease. However if the performance of either of the above drops, the necessary buffs will follow.

Edited (June 7):

Regarding the nerf thing, let's do some math.

Assuming that transmission is about 25% of the vertical projection of E-50/75 (I bet this is overestimation), internal module has 33% chance of being damaged and engine's (Maybach HL 295 Ausf. A) chance of fire is 15%, we get the following:

(0.25*0.33*0.15)*100%=1.2375%

And this accounts only for penetrating shots, while even at high tiers pen chance is not even close to 100% (for front hits ofc). It would be more difficult to do the same from the side.

So how many shots do we need to set a tank on fire:

100/1.2375=80.8 shots

80.8 rounds with average damage of 300 (it might be low for high tiers) will inflict 24242 damage which is enough to destroy E-75/50 how many times?

233 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. You know, some day Wargaming won't have a monopoly on tank games. Then we might see game fixes, proper graphics, and acceptable developer responses (instead of Storm's raging about how the Germans were good at killing his ancestors).

      World of Tanks could look like this if the devs wanted it to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4KnopzLHqI

      After a year, we haven't even gotten physics, and are just now getting additional game modes.

      Delete
    2. This would be so epic compared to the sluggish feeling camper game we all love because of a good, fun gameplay

      Delete
    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4KnopzLHqI

      it really makes the bigworld engine look very dated indeed

      Delete
    4. @ Muschi lecker, Loga, and PinkyDK. It took three years to develop the Frostbite 2 engine, that you see being used in that edited version of Battlefield 3, let alone the game itself. If you don't like it don't play it. The last time people like you were around Overlord took a leave of absence because of all the hate being directed at him. Please make a simple connection between the neurons in your brain and don't post unless it's at least constructive criticism.

      Delete
    5. It is indeed MASSIVE BULLSHIT. The Tiger 2 hull was 7,4 meters not 6,4 meters. Learn to read numbers WG staff. What a bunch of incompetent sissies. Not even able to read numbers properly. Poor russia:D

      Delete
    6. @Wasted I don't come to this blog to praise Overlord. There are issues with this game that WG is not dealing with. Really simple things like transmission fires, "We hit them hard!" for 0 damage, etc.

      I'm perfectly aware that BF3 has one of the best graphics engines available. What I'm saying here is that WG could put a little more effort in, not more animated birds.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. I'm sorry to say, but there is a little thing about the comparison of AMX-50 and Tiger-VI Ausf. B.

      Initially Storm had posted that schema of AMX #4 in your post, tag 'img' is not allowed in a comments here.

      But later he posted this one, and said: "С размерами AMX я лоханулся получается. В вики смотрел, каюсь... Длина AMX и Тигра практически одинаковая" ("shame on me, I've mistaken about the AMX's length. It's almost the same as of King Tiger") link: http://wot-filtered.livejournal.com/67949.html

      Delete
  2. http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/119669-%d0%b5-75-transmission-moved-to-front/page__view__findpost__p__2054707

    If you check this and the video linked in the post you can see that there is no enought space for front drive because the half of the sprocket is visible. So connect the transmission to the front is impossible because it must be connected to the middle of the sprocket.

    And please answer to this question, you missed it 3 times :)

    http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/703-eu-questions-answers/page__view__findpost__p__2062280

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is good to post this, so players actually know why this decision was made, and may be able to understand it better.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If E-75/50 are meant to be "nerfed", to be slightly easier targets for tier 6 and 7, it would be better to reduce lower plate thickness instead squeezing gearbox in front. Engine damages and possible fires are far more annoying than weakspot being available to some odd KV-1s.

    And lower plate shouldn't be angled at 60 degrees?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No more money for you + one more player gone!

    Well done

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well i see what you did here...
    There is no need to add 90 cms to hull to get gearbox in rear, amx hull got slightly different geometry in rear that I guess additional 45 cm should make thing. Also front of E-series differs from amx and overall effect will be far far from being horrible.
    Agree that plans presented by Doyle are unsufficent especially with that power (?) wheel at the front and overall length but still Doyle dig out archives and Serb well suck his thumb, still vote for Doyle conception.
    But you can drop more reliable datas (as hull parameters of E100 when we had one hull examined!) so nothing would make me amazed :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For a year it was OK, and E-75 was perfectly balanced tank. Why don;t you do something with VK4502B which is under performing? Why you ignore JPnzr IV issues?

    ps. you forgot to call us marijuana users, germofiles etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got nerf-ed because the new Russian tier 9 heavies have to work to kill them. Also the whole "set on fire" issue has been BS from the get go. Make the transmission a separate module from the engine. That way when it get's ko'ed the tank stops moving but isn't set on fire. This is the easy way to fix that issue and be more fair about it. Otherwise it's just another way to debilitate a non-Russian tank.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A disapointing decision for the E series to say the least, even small nerfs like this are the last thing these panzers need. Don't fix what isn't broken.

    Its like improved Vents, its only 5%, but boy it sure adds up, and so will this new weakness.

    I can only hope that hope you, Storm and Serb reconsider in the future or offer a minor buff in another aspect of the E series later to compensate for this highly controversial change: I've never seen the forums so unified on an issue before.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm sorry Overlord, as much as I respect you this whole transmission bullshit doesn't make any sense. What the hell does it matter where it is located, this is a simulator and not an historically accurate game. There is no requirement for an imaginary ingame tank to be historically accurate to the imaginary real life tank that never existed. It worked well until now, what's the real reason for changing it? Really guys, don't you have something more important to work on?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I call you to come and look @ the evidence {that you are wrong) the community put in front of you and comment on it! I stand by my words that this decision is gibberish!

    http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/119995-e75s-and-e50s-transmissions-moved-to-front/page__st__460

    And you cant compare tanks according to the win %tage! Thats just plain stupid =/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Do you know what is the most difficult thing to get back after you have lost it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Confidence, authenticity, money and playerbase.

      Delete
    2. Actually, TRUST
      You HAD players that TRUSTED you and in your abilities.
      Good luck getting it back (I really mean it, no sarcasam)

      Delete
  14. http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/119995-e75s-and-e50s-transmissions-moved-to-front/page__view__findpost__p__2073250


    The modified KT/E50 image:
    http://www10.pic-upl...2cxa4x6sk1w.png
    (important it is exactly this link to the latest version)

    The drawing with AMX M4, Tiger II and AMX 50b:
    http://www10.pic-upl...dp7odf11fz7.png
    Downloads: DXF/DWG, PDF (everything clearly readable there, including dimensionings)

    And the link to the ZF statement:
    Gearbox seen on M4 was designed for E-series, so the tanks had to fit this gearbox, not the other way round:
    Source:
    http://appsprod01.zf.com/Chronik/deu/1945/tn1945.htm (german),
    http://appsprod01.zf.com/Chronik/eng/1945/tn1945.htm (english)
    (ZF company chronicle)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.heberger-image.fr/data/images/14552_AMX_M4.png

      Delete
    2. Well it's nail to the coffin of Serb's theory that engine and gearbox wouldnt fix... Great job mates!

      Delete
  15. Dear Overlord,

    First of all- little offtopic regarding new game modes. My idea is to preserve the official "player feedback threds" about new game modes AFTER the patch goes live. Real testing can't be made on the Test Server, due to the fact that most players play a lot more aggressive @ the Test Server, which, regarding that new game modes rely on base capturing, greatly changes match outcomes.

    Second thing- about moving E-75's transmission to the front. The thing is decided and you told that already. That's bad and does angry a large portion of EU community but I guess you don't care. BUT, that's not that important. Transmission shouldn't be a fire-causing hit box. Engine- cool, Fuel tanks- makes even more sense but transmission is filled with oil not gasoline. You could introduce new hitbox type which would cripple tanks movement (like engine damage) but wouldn't cause fires.

    Regards
    Rojek

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Overlord

    IMO your explanation misses the point here. The E50 transmission has always been in the front of the tank in Wot. The quuestion should not be if that is the right place for the transmission. Your explanation does make sense for that. Also the players aren't angry that it is there (at least not the sane ones). The players are angry because of the change in hitbox size. It now includes the driveshafts. We have all come to accept inflamable transmissions. But what you are actually trying to sell us now are inflamable driveshafts. So if you can't give us histroical examples of inflamable alloys beinig used for driveshafts(eg MgLi12), it is just a nerf to the tank. So either you present us with the evidence for a catastrophic alloy choice by German engineers or you give an explanation as to why a nerf to the E50 was called for. Your current article is an interesting read but utterly irrelevant to the problem at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Overlord, I can't understand that on the one hand, you are extremely precise in this matter and try to pretend historical accuracy for this nerf, while on the other hand, you ignore historical accuracy for the sake of balance and adjust guns, armour and speed values of various tanks in order to make them balanced.

    In short: why don't you tell the community the real reason for this transmission change: WG thinks that it is necessary to nerf the E-Series, because these tanks are over-performing according to your stats. Please be honest and don't lead us around by the nose. THe community has not deserved this!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Your post still does not explain how a transmission is so inflammable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This mostly relates to the current game mechanics where both engine and transmission are equally flammable

      Delete
    2. In this case, can you decrease the flammability of the transmission only? Ingame globally, or variable for specific tanks?
      Lh.

      Delete
    3. Seriously, just make the transmissions thier own separate type of hitbox. I would be totally fine with the frontal transmissions if it weren't for the BS fires. Fires that are extra painful due to the fire extinguisher changes where they are only one time use now instead of one match use, and because there is no equipment to buy to decrease transmission/engine fire chance like there is to reduce fuel tank fires (which effect Soviet heavies the most) and ammo rack explosions (which effect Soviet mediums the most). You can train your crew in Firefighting yes, but that's a magnitude more investment in prevention than needed for the two main Soviet module weaknesses.

      Delete
    4. It's BS, just a built in way to debilitate tanks that use front transmissions. I.e. German and American tanks, if they wanted to I am SURE they could have easily designed to transmission module to be non-flamable [just killing movement]. As it stands it is a clearly biased choice to favor the rear driven tanks. The issue with this is there's no correlation between front transmission and battle field serviceability. In fact most tanks did just fine with the historical placement of there transmissions and in some vehicles it was seen as a crew saving measure. The modern Marder used by the German's and the Bradly both use the engine and transmission as damage soakers to protect the passengers and crew. The idea that these blow up all the time is rather absurd.

      Fix the bias and make the module non-flammable, easy enough to do.

      Delete
    5. The only "flammable" German tank really documented to have a related issue to the transmission was the Panther and that was only in the early series of it. Panzer [short term] 4's and 3's were plenty reliable and have few in any document "flame" outs.

      In addition unlike engine fuel, transmission fluid is slow burning and low heat when it does burn. Adding to that the above "flame" out issue was a compound of two or three events occurring at once. The transmission assembly would bind, splinter and penetrate the unarmored housing of the panthers fuel tanks. Nothing actually related to the front sprockets part of the transmission at all.

      So again I point out how absurd it is that the tranmission module even "flames out" in the first place. Just make it a movement stopper and remove the flame out.

      Delete
  20. "However if the performance of either of the above drops, the necessary buffs will follow."


    In 0.8.6 ???

    ReplyDelete
  21. If this would be a russian tank, WG would somehow change the history and put all the modules inside a magic unbreakable container that never breaks.

    But sadly, this is a german tank so they nerf it to hell.

    God if only a NEUTRAL country could have made this game instead

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not a fan of the transmission change either and has put me off getting both the e50 and 75.
    i can see the below as the constant plague of both tanks from frontal hits from now on just like the rest of the german tanks.

    "The engines knocked out", "engines working get moving", "We're on fire" "bailout"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well imo looking for "historical accuracy" on German tanks (and giving the German tree all ancient tanks) while in same time giving Russian tree fictional additions to stuff that never egzisted is biased. Hey neither did some stuff said to have egzisted on E100 was never added. 170mm gun and Henschel / Addler turret was never even considered and there is proof those were considered and not Krupp / 150mm cannon.

    Can we have the LEOPARD 2 then pls? As a separate tech tree ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of the vehicles in every tree never existed in reality, the game is a compromise.

      The E-100 was never completed, in this case arguments on what turret or gun to use is a choice between fictional and less fictional, not between historically correct and incorrect.

      Delete
    2. Ofc its a compromise. But nerfing a tank that is well balanced atm its not OP really (E75) and a medium tank that isnt really a medium (E50) stating that its only because of historical accuracy is silly.

      E100 atm imo the worst tier10 ingame should have been used with another turret! Why? Not because of historical accuracy even you said some tanks are fictional and so is this one! But making a tanks that is like a cube, squishy, sluggish and with a gun that is useless without premium ammo (when you grind 65k exp for it which you dont have to do on any other tier10) while in same time you have tanks that are from 1960's - 70's {Leopard2 pls?) i can only see as biased.

      Now i know you may not atm be that much in WoT but it seems like you are the only way for us customers to adress some of the higherup ppl with our concerns. There is proof it wasnt historicaly like this on E50/75 but nobody cares to comment in the thread made for it. Pettions for E100 turret egzisted and nobody cared to comment in them. Same with the petition about E50/75. It looks like it to me that nobody cares for the unhappy customers. But trust me they wont go away ;)

      Delete
  24. SerB seems to compensate for his small...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks for addressing this OL. Unfortunately it seem like most German tankers are die-hard conspiracy theorist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye, and on all servers by the way. The outbreak on RU side has also been tremendous. By German tankers I don't mean Germans as nation ofc.

      The follow up explanation with extra info will come a bit later.

      Delete
    2. Yet, you do completely nothing about that.

      Sure, if you did, at some points players might start to think, that they are Wargaming's cutomers. And customers have some rights.

      Delete
    3. I do not think so. I'd say it just happened to be the proverbial last drop.

      WG says it is historic, we have to change it (soviet tech), WG says, it is game, we have to nerf it for game sake (non soviet tech). So what game concept is it actually? Historic or hysteric?

      Delete
    4. Jan Kowalski,

      rights to have transmission where they want to? That's curious.

      Delete
    5. Anton Turon,

      to be completely honest, neither.

      Delete
    6. No, rights to know what was wrong with E50/E75/KT in the first place.

      Delete
    7. For E50/75 it was incorrect transmission layout, for KT - wrong size of it. Modeling issues.

      Delete
    8. In that case please introduce a generic tank , e.g. in case of T9 the player will select the most desired 'skin', be it E75, IS8 or M103. That way you can guarantee an absolute game balance in terms of WR.

      That way you will save huge amount of your game developers effort/time and finally get a chance to implement a good game engine (multicore support to name the least).

      How about this kind of east european irony?

      ;)

      Delete
    9. A happy customer is a good customer!

      Rights can be different from game to game but when you dis. your customer they are going to move on sooner rather then later.

      Can you ask anyone from the higher-up ppl to have a look @ what the community is asking for and actually get off their thrones :) ?

      Delete
    10. About KT being too small- could you please relate to these:

      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/703-eu-questions-answers/page__view__findpost__p__2062280

      Delete
    11. Why would you move the transmission to front, for historical reasons, to have the tank catch on fire from frontal shots, for non historical reasons?

      Let's be clear here - in game context, we are talking about frontal fires, NOT transmission location. The end result is that the E-75 catches fire from the front, which is NOT historical.

      Let me say that again: the end result is not historical.

      Oh yes, and if you think you're not losing money on this stupidity: I am not renewing my premium account this month.

      Delete
    12. KT hull: 7,38 meters. The 6,4 meters of Storm the worm is a lie. The word conspiracy is only used by the dumb. WG lies obviously into the face of the community. They are not even able to be objective. I wonder how such slobs are able to graduade with such a bad plan on moddeling. 2nd class developers who think of a project after they released it already. What messy amateurs. Their room cleaners do a better job.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  26. One big correction for your whole explanation King tiger is 7.35m long, not 6.4m. Even your game model supports this as KT is longer than the ~7m long IS-3 in the game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ingame model is about 10 m long if havent done any mistakes

      Delete
    2. Hull lenght, not leght with the gun.
      7.38m actually or 7.26m depending how you measure it

      http://www.panzerworld.net/tigerii.html

      http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ii-ausf-b-konigstiger-kingroyaltiger-tiger-ii-sd-kfz-182.htm

      Ps. Storm, don't use wiki as a source

      Delete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You have several mistakes in your blog the length of the Kt is wrong and more important your angle of the lower front plate of e-50 and e75 is wrong

    It is 60° not 50°

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The exact length will depend on the way of measuring it, the values in various sources can differ.

      Delete
    2. The only source that gives a lenght less than 7m is wikipedia, which is know for iffy information.

      Plus your own ingame model is longer than IS-3, which is know to be ~7m long. So your explanation doesn't make sense. If KT really were 6.4m long,you need make KT, JT, E-50 and E-75 a lot shorter.

      Delete
    3. Aye, that was a copy-paste error, since I was quoting other guys. KT is indeed 7+m w/o the gun.

      Delete
    4. So the reasoning that due to King tiger being 1m shorter than AMX is false. So how are you explaining the chance then, as size it not an issue.

      Delete
  29. "is not supposed to lead to noticeable performance decrease"
    The lower hull of the E75 is a giant weak spot and gets pentrated all the time. Why do you assume, that adding a chance for every shot to set your tank ablaze and damage the engine will not decrease performance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can advise you not to show your lower front hull that often, use the terrain.

      Delete
    2. If that advise was practicable T30 and T34 would have dominated every battle and wouldn't have been decommissioned from their position :)

      Delete
    3. Is that a joke? The lower hull is pretty high off the ground and the gundepression of the E series is poor.

      Delete
    4. Worldwide the E-75 is only behind the M103 [which is also getting nerfed] and the AMX 50 120 [which already got nerfed] in terms of performance stats. Only the VK4502B ]which is getting buffed], IS-8 and ST-I [which is in last place] are behind it.

      The E-75 is going to be fine. More importantly, Russian tanks ARE NOT OP, and the E-75 IS NOT UP.

      Delete
    5. Considerung the win rate, the E75 is currently performing average with 2 tanks being slightly better and 2 slightly worse (according to the unofficial statistic thread there are 70 ST1 owners aka too small sample size for statistical evaluation).
      The E75 will now take more damage (from fire) and have its mobility decreased (from broken engine). This will without a doubt decrease the win rate of this average performing tank.
      So the question remains, why is an average performing tank nerfed without compensation in any form (10-20mm more penetration to get on par with other nation's guns, slightly more accurate gun to offset the other nation's guns better penetration, slightly increased rate of fire to get on par with other nation's guns or something similar).

      Delete
    6. But there is a soviet tank behind the Germans! Clearly something must be done.

      Delete
    7. Overlord I advice you to tell the developer team to get another job. They suck on making plans for tanks. And now they mess around with already existing tanks because they had no clue what they did all the time.
      Are they really game designers or just some random unemployed slobs grabbed off from the streets?

      Delete
  30. i am fine with this.. but can i have brakes and gun depression on my e50? k? thx. bye.

    i played all meds so far except of bat chat and e50 imho is the most horrible.. its good for ramming t6s and sniping stuff like a coward.. but with that brakes and gun depression its just not useful as medium..

    ReplyDelete
  31. Storm just admitted in the RU Q&A thread that the KT (and thus E-50/75) is as long as the AMX 50B. So, his former explanation for the impossibility of a rear transmission is nothing but wrong.

    Well WG, you should have been honest to us from the very beginning concerning this nerf and not try to disguise an intended balance nerf as a historical adjustment. You made a big PR mistake, lots of customers may lose faith in you. Be honest to in future, please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still it's not all about the history ...

      Delete
    2. Then why do you argue history if it's all about it? And wrongfully even in this case. Quite ridiculous I should even say.

      Delete
    3. @Overlord
      "Still it's not all about the history ..."

      Yes we know and you only tries to cover your boss/friend ass.

      Delete
    4. The tanks aren't overperforming so why is it?

      Delete
    5. But it were about the history as long as the typo remained unnoticed. This habit of referring to or dismissing history at a whim does not suit you.

      Delete
  32. Plently of evidence to show rear drive in wot forums and considering its a compromise and a paper tank surely you just go with the design plan, that plus the fact that NO ONE was complaining about either tank just make this situation a joke. Historical accuracy LMAO when can we expect the T54 to get production model armour and the russian guns that are too big for turrets to be removed???????????

    simple solution - I will not be playing wot anymore, this is the only language companies will understand, no more money from me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope can get any of this nope... :)

      Its not all about historical accuracy! Just as "we" see fit ! xD

      Delete
  33. If this been a russian tank, WG would have find out some old soviet document, which says that this tank doesn't need a motor but it's powered by the will of the free soviet comrads. It also shoots diamonds and penetrate up to 400mm.

    PS, your document also states that E-75 top speed is 40km/h so mind to change that too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and make Maus move only on asphalt/paved surface too?

      Delete
    2. And make Russian tank crew's asphyxiate after every 2nd shot ? :)

      Delete
    3. That would make an awesome game, no doubt.

      Delete
    4. can you explain why some tanks are allowed their road speed and others aren't, please?

      Delete
    5. Heavies are mostly not allowed, while meds are. That's the typical pattern to balance the classes.

      Delete
  34. Moving the tranny's are not the issue really. The issue is wargaming mistakenly thinking that they can acually be caught on fire by shooting them. Well, Overloard, please tell them that a tranny cannot, and will not ever, catch on fire from anything short of a phosphorus round. Since those are NOT in the game, the tranny's NEED to be changed to a no fire chance hit box. Period. If you people need further proof, I'll be quite happy to made a video for you using 50W gear oil to put out a gas fire...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Overlord, you're just the messenger, I know, but - are you people daft? It's not about the fucking historical accuracy here. Assuming for a second that the E-series would indeed have their transmission in the front - who gives a shit? It's the community's wish to have the transmission in the back. The same community which brings in the cash. You're not really building up a good relationship with the community here - quite the opposite. You're doing exactly the opposite of what the community wants. Do the German tanks need this idiotic nerf? Judging by your prized W/R stats, which you for some retarded reason use to ''balance'' tanks, they don't. Quite the opposite. The E-series make the German tanks competitive, and you nerf them into shit. Why don't you just remove the entire fucking German line if you hate Germans so much? Would save us a lot of trouble. False hopes, too.

    If you like your ''historical accuracy'' that much, then give the German tanks their original speed and armour - but oh no wait, WoT is not a simulator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They straddle the fence on historical accuracy when it pertains to others and leap over it when it pertains to Russian tanks.

      Sim - So much would need to be done just to make the game match the overwhelming amount of historical data WoT Dev's cite for the in game vehicles ... along with game engine changes.

      Arcade - doesn't matter where the engine is, keep it balanced with the other tier 9 and 10 tanks to round out game play [game play being the BIGGEST point of an Arcade game].

      Presently, if your Russian your smaller and hit hard. Everyone else gets bigger, gets more weak-points and develops shifting stats every other patch or so.

      Delete
    2. Indeed. The front-mounted transmission wouldn't be too much of a problem if the Germans were the long-range snipers they're supposed to be - as I view it right now, the Frenchies exist for support and to rape lone wolfs, USA - allrounders, USSR - breakthrough tanks, but the Germans just don't have a real niche. If the devs would cut down on the current power creep and buff the German guns to reflect their purpose, everything would be well - Russians would still pwn everything at close range, while the Germans would pwn everything at long range. Frenchies and USA would remain unchanged, I think. Yet the Germans keep getting nerfed and nerfed, and it's such a pity. They have amazing (and in my opinion beautiful) machines, but extremely dumbed down.

      Note: I am not a ''Germanphile'', like how that idiot SerB likes to put it - I really like the appearance of the IS-7, IS-8, T110E5, M103, IS-2, KV-1, T32, M26 Pershing, and a crapload of other tanks, too.

      Delete
  36. First of all, no nerf was needed statistic wise so why the focus on the german Heavies?
    KV, KV3 and IS-4 were clearly OP for way over a year before something was done.
    T-50(-2) are physics defining "abominations" with no relation to their real life counterparts a rather dull and slow light tank according to the devs themselves. Yet nothing will be done until they get replaced "soon"... in 2021.

    88 L/56 was nerfed to hell in beta way under RL performances killing tanks like the Jagdpanzer IV or VK 3002 DB. Worst of their tier or even worst performing TD ingame since game release and NOTHING is done.

    This is simply bullshit, ingame AMX50 is smaller/shorter then KT.
    Yet KT (or its hitboxes) gets bigger and bigger each patch.
    Now you say AMX is over a meter longer then the King Tiger and (you assume based on NON scaled drawings?) that the E-75 and E-50 are the exact same size of the KT?
    You also ignore TONS of evidence that these two tanks were designed to use rear wheel drive (as a strict criteria) or weren't even physically able to fit front wheel drive.

    Then you wonder why even the RU community is in an outrage... yeah must be ze German fanboys' conspiracy theories...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Amazing for a non-sim game how often they cite real history and documents to "re-balance" non-Russian tanks to fit more with there very Russian centric view of tanks.

    Once again if its a sim [or close to one balance EVERYTHING properly];
    1. Gyro Stabilizers for American tanks
    2. Partial Auto-Loaders for American and German tanks
    3. Horrible Radios for tier 5 and down Russian and French tanks
    4. Massive rework of the 88mm [German], 90mm [American] and 100mm [Russian] Guns. Stop using the the "bigger mm = bigger damage model". Not all guns are in this category of thought. In fact the 88mm and the 90mm typically out performed the 122's used by late Russian tanks in real combat.
    5. Slower reload on Russian two stage munition weapons.
    6. Actual combat speeds on tanks not "paper" speeds, Russian T-34 will be fast again and the various land crawlers will return to there actual speeds.
    7. Historical attention to viewing ranges especially with German tanks [it was a known difference between the nations in the war].
    8. Admit the 500meters combat range is to make the inaccurate Russian tanks more viable, then change it to the common ranges of 1000m and 2000m.
    9. Rework the vision system so that if your moving in the open your not able to become invisible. Camo would tank upwards of a minute to setup - allowing for some semblance of setup. TD's would loose camo bonus entirely ... plenty of tanks in the same size categories with TD's no reason for one type to get a bonus over others.
    10. Tell all German players there is no tier 9 and 10 tanks for them as research died for them. Based on the presence of many Korean war era tanks. Make it to top tier 9 and 10 tanks are what they are in real life at that point in world history. American and possibly Russian.
    11. Make German tanks kings of tier 7 to 8 to represent the 45 to 46 dominance of armor
    12. No more re-sizing to match in game needs. Size em and leave em alone.
    13. Remove prototypes entirely, this would remove the temptation to "create" tanks like the T-50-2 ...

    List goes on.

    OR if its all an Arcade ... stop with the BS of citing things when it works for your Russian tanks and just balance every tier properly. Make each tier's tanks viable within there tiers without a sweeping bias towards one or the other nation. In which case if one tank gets a critical nerf, all of them should get a critical nerf of one type or another. Decide though and stop straddling the fence.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Start posting citing American and German material on weak points with Russian tanks. Nerf them based on documented weaknesses encountered by both countries. Stop using just Russian records for "World of Tanks" or rename it "Russian Tanks vs the World". There's a huge amount of data out there indicating plenty of HUGE nerf's for Russian armor in game ... try and be more unbiased in these things. Its beginning to get hard to avoid seeing for the more avid fans of the game that aren't into Russian revisionist armor history.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Overlord, an unrelated question. There's a WoT mod available (Day-to-Night mod, if anyone is curious) that enables daylight transitions in game, so that as the battle progresses it goes from day, to evening, night (with stars and the moon!), dawn, morning, and back to midday. This feature is apparently already built into the game, since the mod is only a collection of edited XML files that enable the feature.

    I've found this to be very cool addition to the gameplay experience, and it doesn't seem to change the gameplay at any functional level, so I'm curious as to why a feature that is already complete (or very nearly so) is not already enabled in the game.

    Can you shed some light on this? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To my shame, I haven't seen it. Can you give the link to it perhaps?

      Delete
    2. It's here:
      http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/278495-wot-day-night-mod/

      Delete
  40. That mod is conseedered an exploit I have reported you enjoy your perma ban jajaja

    ReplyDelete
  41. At least it's not like the E50s lower hull is easily penetrated by everything it faces.

    Oh wait.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Personally I would have loved this game more if it had only field and produced tanks. I am sure there would have been plenty of tanks still and it would have removed all temptation to fudge stats or create fictitious stats for tanks.

    Never been a fan of prototypes as they never went through the "teething" issues production tanks did. In that vein all there "paper" stats are all suspect as again they aren't actually tested and proven to operate at those stats.

    King Tiger would be the bully of tier 8 as it should be, M26 Pershing would ONE be a HEAVY and two its 90 mm would be lethal like it was in real combat. The IS's would be slow as dirt and unwieldy like they were in real combat. The T-54 would be second ONLY to the M48 Patton ... etc etc. Yeah the Maus would be dead along with all the VK's {German prototype's}, T's {American prototype's} and Russian prototype's {gets confusing here Russians used many prototypes names not just one type like the Americans or Germans}.

    Then all this could be a matter of comparing multi-national resources on tank information and not a guessing game of what documents were or weren't used to prove a given prototypes presence in the engineering staff office's of 19.. what ever. The game has SO much potential but its beginning to mire down with each passing patch and series of nerf's.

    Lets face it in real life everything wasn't balanced or equal. With that said, in real life the T-54 and IS's weren't nearly as good as they are portrayed in the game. Tanks like the M26 and M48 were easily able to knock them out at ranges exceeding 1500 meters. This kinda of changes how one views the top tiers.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Before you guys keep bitching about how horrible the E-75 is, I'd like to point out to you guys that ALL of the tier 9 and 10 Russian tanks except the Object 704 are eating shit right now. The ST-I and IS-8 are the WORST PERFORMING tier 9 heavies worldwide right now, even behind the VK4502B
    The IS-4 is the WORST Performing tier 10, The IS-7 is literally tied with the E-100. The T-54 is by far the worst of the tier 9 meds.

    So before you guys continue to whine and moan about how terrible German tanks are, maybe you're just terrible with German tanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think anyone would have complained if they'd buffed the IS-8 and ST-1. I think everyone knows they're behind ATM. And honestly, I don't think many would be complaining about the E-75 and E-50 transmission move nerf if it weren't for the fires. But the fires, they are rediculous.

      As for the IS-4, a major reason it's so far behind in the stats right now is that so many of the current stats are from people who got it without the upgraded gun in the tree change. Not all of them realized how important it would be to grind out that gun on the IS-8 before playing the IS-4, so of course thier stats have tanked using that stock gun.

      Delete
    2. Exactly, the IS-4 (elite) is actually better then say the E-100 in almost all situations. Also one look at the numbers tells us that a LOT of former T8 players barely unlocked the IS-4 (T9) to get the free T10, so that's a lot of new T10 players with no real T10 experience. I guess a small buff would not hurt it although I would wait a little.

      I personally think the IS-8 is competitive and does not "need" a buff but a small one would certainly not make it OP so I'm OK with that too.
      It's just that you have to drive it like a true medium which is more complicated and you constantly have to have an eye on the minimap (which most casual players fail at).

      Delete
    3. Well, for the E50 frontal engine damage is an absolute deal breaker, fire or not. Its a medium ffs.

      Delete
    4. noobody is bitching that E75 is horrible. but rear trans will make it pain in the ass. and if you play the game for half a year to get to T9 tank and now they are killing your fun => bad!
      If they think it's OP, then move it to TX with 2500 hp and some buff to front & gun like IS-4. but making it the same pain as KT in close combat, while it cannot snipe like KT in most random games, is just stupid...


      and you are seriously arguing with ST-1? it's a new tank and mostly stock, wait some 2 months...and than talk about it's performance (omg)

      Delete
  44. From [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55 ];
    Nevertheless, T-54/55 tanks have many serious defects. Small size is achieved at the expense of interior space and crew comforts, which is a common trait of most all Russian tanks. This causes practical difficulties, as it constrains the physical movements of the crew and slows operation of controls and equipment. Israelis who crewed T-54/55s captured during the 1967 and 1973 wars constantly complained about this, and it remains a problem that cannot be remedied by any upgrades. However, height limits were set for any recruit joining the tankers in the Soviet Army, hence the low average height of Soviet tankers. This is believed to completely solve the low silhouette issue, whereas other armies may not include crew member height limits as standards. The low turret profile of the tanks prevents them from depressing their main guns by more than 5° (the average for Western tanks is 10°), which limits the ability to cover terrain by fire from a hull-down position on a reverse slope. While both tanks have stabilized guns, in practice they can only fire accurately when the vehicles are at rest (this problem may have been solved with more recent upgrades). The 100 mm gun is less effective than newer tank guns of 105, 120 and 125 mm calibre, and only has a chance at being effective against some heavily armoured tanks when firing special ammunition (such as missiles) or hitting them at weaker areas such as the rear. Its main disadvantage is its light armor. While it had very strong armor that could withstand frontal hits from bazooka, PIAT, RPG-2 and most tank guns of that era, its armor became obsolete within 20 years of its introduction. Because it was designed for "traditional warfare", its side and rear armor was two or three times thinner than on the front. In Vietnam, its side armor proved very vulnerable to LAW rockets, TOW missiles and the M41 Walker Bulldog light tank with 76mm gun. As in most tanks of that generation, the internal ammunition supply is not shielded, increasing the odds that any enemy penetration of the fighting compartment could cause a catastrophic secondary explosion. And while the T-54/55 tanks can be upgraded, the stunning losses suffered by upgraded Iraqi T-55's against coalition tanks during Operation Desert Storm showed the aged design being obsolete. The original T-54/55 tanks are unlikely to be successful against modern opponents without the benefit of upgrades.
    The T-54 is especially defective: It lacks NBC protection, a revolving turret floor (which complicated the crew's operations), and early models lacked gun stabilization. All of these problems were corrected in the T-55 tank, which is otherwise largely identical to the T-54.

    Some nerf's i could find in there too, especially the penetrated by a standard 76mm easily :)

    ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34 ];
      Visibility from the driver's seat was also poor, which affected the driver's ability to see folds in the ground as well, or have as wide a range of vision as in some other tanks. A mallet was also needed to shift gears, increasing the time needed to maneuver the tank.[citation needed]
      The loader also had a difficult job due to the lack of a turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns). This problem was shared with many other tanks, for example, the U.S. M-3 Stuart. The floor under the T-34's turret was made up of ammunition stored in small metal boxes, covered by a rubber mat. There were nine ready rounds of ammunition stowed in racks on the sides of the fighting compartment. Once these initial nine rounds were fired in combat, the crew had to pull additional ammunition out of the floor boxes, leaving the floor littered with open bins and matting. This distracted the crew and affected their performance.[39]
      Further, the gun sights and range finding for the T-34's main gun, the 76.2 mm F-34 L/42.5, TMFD-7, or PT4-7, [40] were rather crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, thus significantly affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.

      More nerf's possible;

      Some 122mm nerf's perhaps [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank#IS-3 ]
      Two candidate weapons were the A-19 122 mm gun and the BS-3 100 mm gun. The BS-3 had superior armour penetration (185 mm compared to 160 mm), but a less useful high explosive round. Also, the BS-3 was a relatively new weapon in short supply, while there was excess production capacity for the A-19 and its ammunition. Compared to the older 76.2 mm tank gun, the A-19 had very good armour penetration, similar to that of the effective 75 mm high velocity gun mounted on the German Panther, and delivered 3.5 times the kinetic energy of the older F-34.


      The separate projectiles and charges of the separate-loading ammunition of the A-19/D-25T 122mm gun. Left to right: cartridge case, high-explosive/fragmentation shell OF-471, armor-piercing tracer shell BR-471, armor-piercing ballistic capped shell BR-471B. All shells are shown from two sides.
      After testing with both BS-3 and A-19 guns, the latter was selected as the main armament of the new tank, primarily because of its ready availability and the effect of its large high-explosive shell when attacking German fortifications. The A-19 used a separate shell and powder charge, resulting in a lower rate of fire and reduced ammunition capacity, both serious disadvantages in tank-to-tank engagements. However, the gun was very powerful, and while its 122 mm armour-piercing shell had a lower muzzle velocity than similar late-issue German 75 mm and 88 mm guns, Soviet proving-ground tests established that the A-19 could penetrate the front armour of the German Panther tank,[4] and it was therefore considered adequate in the anti-tank role.
      German Army data on the penetration ranges of the 122 mm A-19 gun against the Panther tank showed it to be much less effective when the Panther stood at a side angle of 30 degrees to the incoming round: the A-19 gun was unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the bottom front plate of the hull at 100 m.[5] It was however the large HE shell the gun fired which was its main asset, proving highly useful and destructive in the anti-personnel role. The size of its gun continued to plague the IS-2, and the two-piece ammunition was difficult to handle and slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute). Another limitation imposed by the size of its ammunition was the payload: only 28 rounds could be carried inside the tank

      Delete
    2. The point I am trying to make is that in all fairness the French, German, Russian and American tanks all had there issues ... some more pronounced than others. The nerfing of everything BUT one nation is an injustice to the players and more less an out right fabrication by the dev's to float things they like. This was a very brief and quick search ... i am sure with people on the payroll the information would be a lot more complete and involved. Pointing again to an obvious and complete lack of effort to put the tanks in proper perspective with each other.

      Delete
  45. E-100's are almost never seen in CW's anymore as is the Maus. IS-7, IS-4, T110's pretty much make up the CW lineup ... with minor variation of that theme. The T110's are usually backup firepower for the IS-4's and IS-7's. End game content the Russian armor is king.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are going to see to E-100 and Maus in one of the further updates. They have sort of lost their role, although stat-wise both don't look bad.

      Delete
    2. Overlord, can you elaborate a bit on this? I feel this is really the only pertinent issue fielded on the page. German armor no longer carry guns equivalent to Russian, French or US tanks in terms of penetration, and these large slow tanks are no longer useful in the CW paradigm. The hitbox issue can be clarified through statistical evaluation, and hopefully WG will act appropriately; its the fact that Germans dont have a gun on a tier 9 or 10 heavy tank that can pen the 260+mm that EVERY other nation's heavies have at tier 9 which seems non sequitur. What is the reasoning for increasing all nations gun penetration/armor values (i.e. IS4), and at the same time making German armor easier to hit, without a gun that can penetrate the buffed armor of other nations? I wouldnt want to drive an E-100 or Maus either...all you are is a damage sponge.

      Delete
    3. Stat wise they aren't bad, play wise they are. That's why they lost there role. Creep gets em too often and they aren't competitive with the upgraded Russian armor or the American armor now.

      Delete
  46. They have more or less removed the tier 9 - 10 German tanks from CW atm due to the already in place nerf's they have received. The coming nerfs will only further limit the presence of German armor in the CW's. At some point following there historical behavior towards other nationality's armor the T110 will only remain viable for a few more patches and then be nerfed too. Leaving the "support" roll to what ever "second" line tier 9 or 10 that's open to be fielded.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm totally fine with the transmission being moved to the front of these tanks since that's really where they designed them. I'm not fine with the transmission still being treated exactly like the engine. Why isn't the transmission it's own module? If you get hit there you shouldn't catch on fire. However if your transmission is damaged it should affect your acceleration, traverse and hill climbing. Mobility in this game is very important just losing that is punishment enough for not protecting your weak spots.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I think you should check armor values before posting them next time because you're clearly wrong.
    And frontal transmission will ruin those tanks because most penetrating hits to E75 happen to the LFP and E50 will get its LFP shot from now on too. And guess what happens then? Engine damage - and this will make a med tank useless and the heavy tank - semi useless. Also no more gasoline ffor E-series because nobody wants to get his tank burned into oblivion by a frontal shot. This is a ridiculously big nerf, and the worst thing is - it makes these tanks more random (because module damage occurs randomly and fire - even more so) and less fun and is completely unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Overlord:
    Are you thinking to do any other changes in some others tanks for 7.4?(i see this changes M2 lt, M3 Lee, JagdTiger, Gw E, Т-28, IS-8, Е-50, Е-75, VK4502B., But i say other changes)
    Are you going to nerf French tds tier 8 and 9?, i see it Overpower becouse have effecive armour of T95 and speed of amx-50-100, seriously this patch need at least Test4

    ReplyDelete
  50. OL - in the KT's case, with its already poor W/R pre-nerf, what buffs do you plan for it if the W/R continues to drop? Maybe a DPM increase in exchange for a weaker engine or lower hull?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has poor win ratio only on EU and US servers. On RU it has at this moment 49,5 prc win ratio (data for last 2 weeks). It bits both IS-3 and KV-4 there.

      Also Tiger (49 prc) is on RU better then IS and KV3.

      Delete
    2. Will see to it closely in 7.5, that patch is going to contain lotsa rebalancing.

      Delete
    3. Will the French heavy dispersion nerfs be removed? Cause its not like they could hull down anyway. Currently they have to reveal themselves entirely to get a penning shot off.

      Delete
  51. As an E50 and KT owner I don't care about this transmission and resizing. People, this is only game! You are abusing devs only because they are slightly changing virtual tank. Are you normal??? And we have 170 other tanks in game. For example new US heavies are wonderful (my son has them, so I can use them on his account, awsome tanks, try). E50 or KT will suck after this minor changes? Then I will use others.

    You also forget that even if enemy always hit your frontal tranmission (which is hardly possible) only sometimes it will catch fire. You are just exaggerating like hell.

    For me much bigger problem is that Encounter mod ends very often with unfunny battles which gave terrible low XP and creds even in case of victory. This is serious thing.

    Another bigger problem is boring Komarin map. Fortunately WG gave so many new maps, that this terrible map finally became rare enough, and I stopped to think about rage quitting when I get there.

    You so often cry that RU tanks are so great. So get IS8 or ST1 and you will see how greater armor has E75. I love when I have frontal fight with IS-8 or ST-1 - thats like shooting at butter. I hate to have frontal fight with E75 or VK4502, even lower plates are harder to pen then upper plates in current RU IX tier heavies. And angled IS-8 is virtually armorless (even IS-7 becomes butterlike then), angled E-75 is extremely hard to pen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. angled E-75 is extremely hard to pen.

      for tier 7? sure :)

      Delete
  52. Nobody cares about the t30 :(

    Shame to nerf to it seem so unjustified esp as its behind 704 win rate.

    ReplyDelete
  53. When about German tanks - historical accuracy, last balance, thus nerfs.

    When about Soviet tanks - balance is first, historical accuracy 2nd, thus buffs.


    Or am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Overlord i bet no1 will care much about gearbox placement if you change it into separate module with much smaller chance of fire (real gearbox isnt very flamable, oil in it can burn but there is realy small chance).

    ReplyDelete
  55. Why no comment on the video made by a player

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc08d25N4Mk

    ReplyDelete
  56. Manipulating specs, aren't we?

    Tiger II hull lenght is 7.26 mts, without the gun. But forget about it if SerB wants to make a point, right?

    Besides, german plans were to move transmission to rear. That was the plan, period. If they hadn't solved this problem before the war ended it 's another problem. The game timeline goes as far as 1955, so you could assume that they would solve this problem by then. But because they did not had the chance, you made it your way.

    And another thing: Engine != transmission. Oil != gasoline.
    Make a separate module. If you are adding a second engine to the front of german tanks, then double the horse power. Make things fair at least.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Guys come on!!!!
    I have the Tiger I, Tiger II, E-50, E-75, Jagdtiger etc etc, I have played some since beta and even kept playing the Tiger when it would catch fire after one hit (that was a hard slog to the Tiger II), but I wants it all!! (only 2 research away from whole tree) and I love the german tanks, STOP WHINGING!!! if it gets bad adapt! Its that simple, instead of using the E-75 as a Assault tank, use it as a kick ass snipe tank... anyway the Devs do a AWESOME job, I'm also going to fly 729.79kms (400miles?) to see the WoT guys in Sydney when they come to Australia, WoT is awesome, if you dont like it... got play D3 :p Also Devs are too busy trying to finish the British Tanks for me :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. instead of using the E-75 as a Assault tank, use it as a kick ass snipe tank

      I doubt that you actually played E-75. Or maybe you are premium and you don't have to play it effectivly. But E-75 cannot snipe for 2 reasons:

      1. top gun doesn't have the acc & pen and it's quite slow. yes, you can take tier 7 from distance, but will miss pretty often. for T8-10, you will not only have hard time hitting them, but most of your shots will ding because of low pen.

      2. in random battles, you are often on the top. and if you are not in the 1st line, all your ally will die quickly and you find yourself in nice snipe position, but outnumbered you will die just like any other tank...quiclky and pointlessly

      Delete
  58. Overlord,

    If you check the model in game, and then the provided drawings, you can easily see that there is no room for the transmission in the front. The front wheels would have no connecting point to the transmission, unless the lower plate was less sloped, and the front wheels moved further back along the hull.

    It just doesn't make any sense at all, and a player has even made a YT video proving as much. I realise you're just the go-between, but you really need to tell the people in charge that this is a rather illogical change, even for WoT.

    Cheers,

    Zenith.

    ReplyDelete
  59. hello, overlord...
    the argument for moving transmission to the front is quite weak, and is based on assumptions, extrapolations and "more or less" calculations done on very approximate comparisons between the E series design and other "similar" tanks. and, most of all, there's no known bibliography supporting this arbitrary assumption.
    on the other hand - besides E series specs that openly required front drive - there's Jentz and Doyle's study on the matter. they are not gods on earth, but their work on series and prototype panzers is worldwide accepted as the most accurate existing.
    i'm a surgeon and believe me, if i did my work against every literature and consensus BECAUSE I'M DAMN SURE TO KNOW IT BETTER THAT THOSE EGGHEADS, and without any factual evidence nor the agreement of international scientific community (that means case-control studies, publication and international reviews), i'd lose my work. simple as that. and - if i damaged patients with unjustified and unaccepted "personal" methods - i'd risk jail.
    now, with all respect for SerB, i never read any publication by him. on the other hand i read a lot of work by Jentz and Doyle and, as far as i know, they're considered among the most respected "scientists" in the field. so i trust them a bit more than SerB's assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Overlord @Serb @Storm
    With the hate you guys have for German vehicles, why should any one chose to play german in World of Warplanes / Battleships as I forsee they too will be "adjusted for historical reasons" also known as nerfs just because someone at wargaming HQ has a grudge against it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. length of hull PzKpfw VI B Tiger II: 7,26m source: Dr. Hart,S., Dr. Hart, R.; German Tanks Of World War II; Brown Packaging Books; London, 1998.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @overlord
    besides technical and historical aspects (that by the way point decidedly against the "new" layout), one of the most uncomprehensible things is the reason why a couple of perfecly balanced tanks, that have been introduced months ago in the game and only recently became on par with their tier IX opponents (after IS4 uptiering), and have been designed from the start with rear transmission (at least in game, let's forget for a second that they were supposed to be this way, and face the simple fact that they NEVER actually existed, so a certain degree of freedom is possible...) must be rebalanced so drastically. let me disagree with the optimistic assumption that the redesign won't affect gameplay, and i can't see any need to rebalance in subsequent patches tanks that work perfecly fine as they are...

    ReplyDelete
  63. It is amazing how WG can't find enough room for rear transmission, but there is plenty of room to fit S70 naval gun in IS'4 turret.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It's amazing how you are trying to hoax your customers. C'mon, that false KT length was not a copy/paste mistake. If it was, you guys would not have lengthened and shortened the hulls to prove your point. That was purely manipulating evidence.

    What backs this up is that you didn't even bother to answer the post made by Hopeasusi (June 6, 2012 3:52 PM), where he clearly states the short comings of your "proof".

    Keep digging the hole, you'll be in china soon and they are used to hoaxes and corruption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, one thing came out wrong.

      It might have been a copy paste mistake fron your part, but it sure as hell wasn't from Storm's part. I'm also pretty sure that he wouldn't make that kin of mistake my accident. Looks very intentional to me, which is really sad.

      I would even be ok with the transmission transformation, if the game developers would be honest about it and would not overlook the community.

      Delete
  65. Who cares the front transmission. Just give me a Panther 2a6 with build-in giros, and i dont care about a nerf on E series.
    This may be a good answer against the new french shits.

    cu

    ReplyDelete
  66. and just for size compersation:
    http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger-2-2002-Picz/Tiger2-M4Sherman.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why the hell you use photographs?? There are known dimensions of theses tanks, it is not a secret.

      Data from Onwar site:
      KT height 308 cm
      M4A2 274 cm
      Jumbo 295 cm

      Delete
  67. Design goal of E-series was to remove front placed gearbox liability and weakness. You can't change something on a never built tank for "historic" reasons. Especially not after a full year. And you can't possibly claim it wont affect balance, especially^2 considering that new gearbox hitbox that KT, E50 and E75 receive is much much larger than old gearbox that already made KT, Panther and Panther2 very prone to fires from front and side penetrations.

    German's didn't manage to finish the engine, French did and proved that you can make it as it was intended.

    Second. If you are going for "historical accuracy" (a bit difficult with so many of WOT tanks only ever being paper designs) why are Tiger and Tiger II so much slower than historical values? And why are Tiger II and JagdTiger so much bigger than they actually were.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Overlord the lower plate angle is still wrong even ingame it is 60° not 50°

    ReplyDelete
  69. Now the funny thing is that you are going to implant this chance even though RU, EU and NA community are uprising against it. I think you should finally start to listen to the communities atleast when it's clear we don't want this thing to happen. Please, do not piss off your whole customer base, it is bound to not end well.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Quoting the 2 relevant bits of your post:

    "It's obvious that the hull size and design of E-50/75 is similar to the one of King Tiger, which leaves nearly no space for rear transmission layout declared by Jentz and Doyle in their reconstruction blueprints."

    "It's known that French AMX 50B was a successor of German tanks in terms of design. Still the hull of Tiger II is 6.4m (it's ~7.3m), while AMX 50B is almost 1m longer (7.35m). That allowed French engineers to enable rear-drive for that very vehicle, while E-series were almost of identical size with KT. The difference was mainly in armour thickness and slope."

    Since you've acknowledged that
    1) the french hull was 7.3m long and able to mount a rear transmission and
    2) The e-type was based on a 7.3m hull and not a 6.4m one

    Are you prepared to retract your statement that there is no room for a rear transmission in the E-type hull?

    WOT in its current form allows us to drive a mish-mash of vehicles that never saw service concurrently or on the same side of the front. It is not a WWII simulation so much as a tribute to human ingenuity and feats of engineering that remain awe-inspiring despite the regrettable purpose they were built for. You do the game, the fanbase and yourselves a service when you smear the feces of nationalist propaganda over this tableau.

    Does it not strike you as hypocritical to nerf the numbers of a vehicle that never existed for "historical accuracy" while at the same time inflating the statistics on vehicles that did see service for "game balance"?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hang on, the entire reasoning behind this is due to the length, which you just pointed out is actually not a meter in difference, then surely you just null and voided the whole argument yourself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You realise that you could actually gain some positive reaction for a change by backing down, rather than piss off your customers yet again? Considering the tanks haven't shown themselves to be overperforming, there is a lot of evidence (the least of which being the in game model of the e75 not even being able to FIT a frontal transmission), every reason presented for the change has, frankly, been bullshit and based on nothing more than 'oh they look kind of the same' and innacurate numbers. The only reason to go ahead is sheer bloody minded stubborness and all it will bring is bad PR and lend credence to the (frankly stupid imo) anti german bias rubbish.

      Delete
  72. Its just ridicolous, i think it is nerfing germans again, cause IS-8 is to weak..

    ReplyDelete
  73. It's pretty sad that the devs wont acknowledge or address the community's evidence. They seem intent on ignoring it and presenting their own.

    Rule number one of mmos: dont piss of your playerbase!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Regarding the nerf thing, let's do some math.

    Assuming that transmission is about 25% of the vertical projection of E-50/75 (I bet this is overestimation), internal module has 33% chance of being damaged and engine's (Maybach HL 295 Ausf. A) chance of fire is 15%, we get the following:

    (0.25*0.33*0.15)*100%=1.2375%

    And this accounts only for penetrating shots, while even at high tiers pen chance is not even close to 100% (for front hits ofc). It would be more difficult to do the same from the side.

    So how many shots do we need to set a tank on fire:

    100/1.2375=80.8 shots

    80.8 rounds with average damage of 300 (it might be low for high tiers) will inflict 24242 damage which is enough to destroy E-75/50 how many times?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, it seems that you have read my point a few posts higher, that even if enemy always hit transmission, chances for fire are low. :)

      Delete
    2. Excuse me, but I think this math is wrong.
      Lets assume an enemy with a weakspot skin (or good knowledge),
      and he is close enough to get an aimed shot.
      Now the first 25% is faded away.
      The remaining:
      (0.33*0.15)*100%=4.95%.
      This is 1 out of 20 aimed shot to set you on fire.
      (But ingame this is somehow feels more than 5%...)

      regards:
      Kp.

      Delete
    3. Anyway, assuming you are not shooting from very close (100m or less), dispersion won't guarantee you 100% chance of hitting transmission. It will be lower than 5%.

      Delete
    4. E75 can be killed ~13 times with that amount of damage. Now because I gave the correct answer can you help me please with access to WoWp beta? dbtreborn@gmail.com

      When you came back I told you to keep cool because many people would rage against you on this blog. I hope you still keep in mind my advice. Nothing can be done against german fanbois.

      Delete
    5. Fire isn't the issue so much as constant engine damage completely killing the e50 as a medium tank and crippling the e75 as an already not exactly agile, easily penetrated heavy with a comparatively shitty gun. Not to mention its completely uncalled for and has been shown to be rubbish in countless ways with no actual solid reason given as to why move it in the first place.

      Delete
    6. Assuming people have a least more than 2 neurons they aim for the exact place where the transmission is, not hard to do, so the formula becomes
      (0.33*0.15)*100%= 4.95%

      So how many shots do we need to set a tank on fire:

      100/4.95=20.2 shots

      20.2 rounds with average damage of 300 (it might be low for high tiers) will inflict 6060 damage which is enough to destroy E-75/50 how many times?

      Stock E-75: 3.32 times.
      Upgraded E-75: 3.15 times.

      So basically chances of dying vs any half decent player increase by between 30.12%-31.76%. Quite a big increase for a change that shouldn't impact anything.

      Delete
    7. Sorry, but the Math is still not correct because we are dealing with probabilities here:
      The chance to set the tank on fire must be considered for every single shot. In worst case for E75 that will already be the first one. Otherwise its possible in theory that thousands of shots wont cause fire...

      By dividing 100% by the chance of fire for a single hit, you are assuming a case far from the average amount of shots that would be needed in reality.
      In fact you have to assume a normal distribution in this situation which has its maximum at 50%!!(not at 100%!)

      Lets assume that the probability of fire for a single shot is about 4% (Thats lower than 5%).
      50%/4%=12.5~13

      I have to admit that even these 13 shots would have killed the E75 twice but we see that its far less than 81!! shots like calculated before.

      If we go further we see that E75 takes about 3900 damage with these 13 shots. The conclusion is that an average E75 burns after 3900 damage. An E75 has 1920 HP. Considering he survives 33% of his battles (which is quite overall average in WoT). He needs between 2 and 3 battles to get these 3900 damage.
      -->E75 burns once in 3 games.

      Of course all the calculations are just theory and assuming quite a lot of simplifications made by other Replies and me. Im quite sure that the result does not exactly represent the real probability ingame but never the less it prooves very well that the chance of getting on fire by the transmission is by far!! not as low as it would need 81 shots!

      greetings
      Herb

      Delete
    8. 15% is the chance of fire for the top engine(98K xp to get there from stock), until then with 20% fire chance you might just as well light a match and trow it into your gas tank yourself.

      Delete
    9. Either way it doesn't match the definition of a major nerf.

      Delete
    10. How is a 30% increase in death not a major nerf? Have you seen the 35 pages of people signing the petition against this on the EU server? Go and tell them that. If you dare.

      Delete
    11. What is the "30% death increase"? Your tank gets destroyed 30% more often?

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. Read my first post here.

      Delete
    14. It is always about the engine dmage not about the fu**** fire.

      The fire will be a minor nerf that is right but a damaged engine is in a e-50 the worst thing that can happen so for the e-50 it's a major nerf. I like being a tiger2 with more dpm because I'm a med. Because you will be a tiger 2 in an e-50 with damaged engine.

      And what is the reason for the nerf if it isnt historical and not for balance? (the e-50 isnt overperforming)

      Delete
    15. Tank with every 20 hit received will get additional damage from burning and from destroyed engine, so yes, it's a major nerf (well same nerf as famous gun depression nerf for US tanks).

      And nerf is ahistorical and is based on Serbs wrong assumptions (guy who obviously got mentality of new ruskie, polish community still waits for apologies for Serbs insults last year. I really feel pity for you for that boss/friend/coworker).

      Delete
    16. Very pissed off I bought an E75 before the test.

      I very rarely play the game now, only for Clan Wars.(or the rare 3x or 5x specials now) My E75 is stock, I do not bother playing this grind fest any more.

      I decided to give the test a try as I was VERY excited for new game modes, First games I used fun tanks and honestly game modes felt similar, campers win, nobody attacks with me = no fun.

      FIRST game with E-75 my engine was damaged from the front and although we won, I decided to not bother playing if I will play with an utter slug thaat I heard was a fun tank so I bought one (engine damage is as much of a problem as fires except damage happens VERY often).

      I have not been on WoT since and after rreading Test 2 notes, I will probably never return. I missed even the Clan Wars in the last week.

      Enjoy the 400 Pound I spent on thi P.O.S game that I once enjoyed.

      AdiT out.

      Delete
    17. But what is a point of doing ANY nerfing/buffing for tank which is in about 48-49% win ratio? NONE! Even for "small nerf". Why to do "small nerf" to tank, which is according to your words (48% win ratio tank is balanced perfectly) very balanced?

      there are other tanks which needs look but you doing nothing about them.

      Delete
    18. also:
      0.25*0.33 * 100% = 8,25% of chance of damaging engine wihout setting the fire.

      and:
      8,25% (damaging engine) + (or) 1,25% (of puting fire) is 10% of doing something bad to tank (other then hp loss).

      This is 10% increase chance of doing other then only hp loss!!!!!

      Delete
    19. ok do the math: avg holes in my lower plate is about 3 per game. for one hole it's 66% chance engine is no dmg. so 0.66*0.66*0.66 = 0.287 => 71% chance of engine dmg in avg battle

      well, not a major nerf at all (i mean, omg)

      and please don't tell me not to expose my LGP. It's same as if you nerf T95 pen to 200 and then advising players to shoot on sides and rear...

      Delete
    20. As if you ever had guaranteed penetration from the front.

      Delete
    21. Look at your math and mine - they are the same - I just take all possible issues into considaration. It is all estimations, but you take only fire issue, I also tak damaged engine.

      And from your estimation 1,25% (pure math) we go to 8-9% (also pure math). Which is not "minor nerf". Specially to a tank which is 48-49% win ratio - by your standards - perfectly balanced tank.

      Also in Q/A:
      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/703-eu-questions-answers/page__view__findpost__p__2087566

      Delete
    22. Sorry, wrong link:
      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/703-eu-questions-answers/page__view__findpost__p__2087142

      Delete
    23. When people shoot at the front they shoot LFP they don't shoot the upper glacis... that's why you will have at least "engine" damage in almost every game and an additional fire in every ~10th game.
      That might not be a HUGE nerf that will plummet the win rate but it's still significant and completely unnecessary.
      Worst of all it ruins the fun if you have to drive half you matches with 12km top speed. Because you already used the repair kit for something else or get engine damage twice.

      Delete
    24. Sorry but i didnt understand why can you set on fire the transmisson? Yes it contains a little bit oil but lose so many HP because of so few oil...

      And evrybody forget it, that the E50/E75 is a high tier tank, so the nemy will have "deadeye" skill, so you need to calculate with 18 percent

      Delete
  75. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Hey, can you do the same math for Lowe/ Tiger/ Panther/JTiger?
    At least my JTiger and Lowe get their engine destroyed at the first hit. So, for them, chance of module damage = 100%
    The second shot usually set them on fire. And people always aim at transmission.

    It seems that you don't even play your own game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With my Löwe engine failures are not worth wasting a repair kit on since the next frontal shot will destroy it again. I have not done the math but for me it feels like its a high 80%-ish chance of engine failure when taking a frontal shot.

      Delete
  78. I know you likely won't read this far but I'm afraid I'm more likely to believe Jentz and Doyle's work over Storm and Serb's. Two of these people have made a decades long career out of studying tanks and are widely regarded as experts, two of these people are video game designers. Who would you believe?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Overlord did the T110 get its ammo rach HP buffed to make up for the ROF nerf?

    ReplyDelete
  80. OL, please first of all ignore 50% of the rage here in comments. We both know half of ppl here have no idea what they're talking about exactly. ;)

    I would like to add something to the general e100/maus subthread above:
    I'm a part of one of the bigger clans on EU server, and we often use Maus and E-100 tanks in CW. The main difference is that these require a lot of experience with the player to operate them with a decent effect, as russian heavies are more "noob friendly" due to their "triangular front nose" and no need to place Yourself angled against an enemy tank.

    Whay You should do is find a way to acknowledge some people about their weak points, and how to increase Your survivability a bit. So far we only have dry facts in the stats in-garage, but there is no way to view weakspots for new players, that have to dig thourgh forums or ask ppl "wtf?", while experienced players just roam arround and kill "newbs" in series ;).

    A good idea would be to create some sort of IN-GAME tank gallery, where You can enter it, and it will pop on to Your screen like in a garage view, and would also enable such options as:
    - Highlight modules
    - Highlight weakspots
    - Highlight crew
    - Show module description (in a visual way, not a dry data sheet)

    So it would be like "numbers" on plating that show armor AND angle, maybe also some sort of hit sim that You click on a point, and can "move around" a line that would immagine a hit direction, You can se "glowing spots" on (or "in") the machine for selected features etc.

    This is a LOT to add and does not impact the content or gameplay, but this will be a GREAT tool for both noobs and ppl who find it difficult to examine weakspots and "learn how to hit". I think experienced players would be glad to see this one as well, as every single one of us has one or maybe two tanks that we never figured out completely and find them difficult to kill.

    To sum up:
    Make ppl understand the game and stats easier, and there will be less complaining, and more understanding for the game mechanics. Make ppl know how to use tanks, and CW might see some more variety. I am awayre that such a tool is a material for a BIG update alone, and would require months of work, but it WILL be worth it. WoWarcraft has it's armory where You can explore Your characters on web based "character screen", WoT can have this.

    PS:
    I have also several other things that i would love to mention or send to You, but that would be completely offtopic for this exact conversation (like a "pseudo-tree" i've collected of 18 different polish self propelled guns, tanks and tankettes - that ofc. has NOTHING to do with german tanks :D). If anyone wants to try his luck in finding me, my in-game name is "zamaszysty". See You all on the battlefield. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "To sum up:
      Make ppl understand the game and stats easier, and there will be less complaining, and more understanding for the game mechanics."
      +1

      Delete
    2. We are also thinking in that very direction, apart from plain maus/e100 rebalancing. THANKS

      Delete
    3. I like Maus, and yes its difficult to play, but the IS4 has a pen of 400mm. Before T110 and IS4 was the maus unpenetratable, but now you cant angle.
      And the solution of this shit balance is NOT the teaching of noobs. If you want to be pro, read forums, and play a lot. If ervyone can be a pro after entering the game and make the tutorial the old pro players will leave this game.

      IF SOMBODY WANTS TO BE PRO, BE DILIGENCE AND TALANTED

      Delete
  81. that idea sounds very good to me aswell, although like u say it would recuire a lot of work.

    ReplyDelete
  82. What WG wants to is simply put second engine to the E series - why??= they say the are just puting there a transmission hitbox but transmission does not burn - engine does. Im ok with tranmission on front as long as it really is historical, but there should be 0% of caughting fire on that hitbox - i mean you can damage = slow, destroy = immobilize, but no fire. With current plans transmission on front is just second engine hitbox.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I was just playing with my Jagdtiger. I have preventive maintenance perk.
    The very first hit a receive hits tranmission. Dead engine + fire.
    What are odds, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Sure the engine might be 25% of the front of the tank, but it's the part of the tank that everyone shoots, i.e. the lower plate. 33% of damaging the engine! Overlord, have you ever played a tank with a damaged engine?

    15% chance of setting the engine on fire is good enough. That's more or less a 5% chance of fire from a frontal shot. It might not be much, but that more or less means a fire at least once every 3-5 matches. And sometimes you don't notice the fire until it's far too late (thanks to crew for saving that message for last), or accidentally press the wrong key.

    It's a substantial nerf and an even bigger pain and annoyance. Anyone who has played tanks with frontal transmission can tell you that.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Dont understand :) you are doing impossible thing, putting transmission in the front who is ridiculous and total nonsense, look at this video or it is lie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Cc08d25N4Mk

    42 pages of ppl signed this petition and you are disregarding all this?

    ReplyDelete
  86. You're going to make e-50 even worse, aren't you?? I've got one in my hangar. It's a disaster. Completely useless unit. Nor medium, nor heavy.

    Why nerf??

    ReplyDelete
  87. If a russian tank is better then the real one, you say balance, but if you nerv a german you say historical accuracy...

    THE gERMAN TANKS ARE USELESS IN CW, AND THEY WILL OWRSE WITH EVRY PATCH? JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE RUSSIAN

    FU WG, RUSSIANS KILLED MUCH MORE PEOPLE THEN GERMANS

    ReplyDelete