Tier 10 mediums and TDs

[mewninn]

I think they said that they don't think re-balancing T9 meds and TDs will be needed. What they are talking about is buffing T10 heavies.

Fat chance as that'll make the tier 10's utterly incompatible with tier 9's in the same game. The tier 9-10 heavy or 8-9 med/td gap is already pretty big relative to lower tier steps.

Now I have thought about it I am rather sad. I'd finally gotten the crew on my Patton close to where I'd want it (3rd secondary 60%) only now to face the choice of moving them up or not or move up all crews from E8 till patton one step. :/

I wouldn't expect much from competent devs when it comes to balancing this mess of trees and tanks so there's no huge gap in power. So we're double fucked since we have WG instead.

[Liare]

the Batchat IS the AMX 13 100/105

you're not losing any tanks, your current ones are being moved up and you get them replaced. so all you're getting is the new fail french light and new tiering.

[V]

So much feature creep.

[Liare]

gotta wring money out of the muppets somehow!

[V]

Also no way in hell i'll make a new sig.

[Dirk Magnum]

the Batchat IS the AMX 13 100/105

you're not losing any tanks, your current ones are being moved up and you get them replaced. so all you're getting is the new fail french light and new tiering.

I meant the export version of the AMX 13 with the 105mm. Batchat was a separate development based on the 13.

[Liare]

oh you mean the AMX-13/105 Modèle 58 ?

cant see how it's going to be all that different from the Bat Chat to be honest, but then recyling will be rather common on the high tier stuff anyway, maybe it's the fact they rape so hard when you use em right ?

(though the 12t is going to redefine suck)

[V]

Should just add AMX-30 tbfh.

[Liare]

and give the frenchies something with actual armor that can compete on a even footing ?

[Nooby]

The German tank tech tree will be enlarged by the tank destroyer JagdPz E-100 with 17 cm PaK 45 gun on board.

[dzajic]

So much feature creep.

Players/Customers/Retards have been whining for T10 meds since T9 ones were announced.

[Th3GoodSon]

So much feature creep.

Morons/Bads/Retards have been whining for T10 meds since T9 ones were announced.

Fixed that for you

[Stormscion]

i am expecting that E-50 Ausf M to be the same as the E-50, with 20mm more front plate and another 5 tons added tbh.

not expecting it to be competitive, the gun listed is the same as the top gun on the current E-50

Negative, the E-50 has the 10.5cm KwK 45 L/52 Ausf. B. The one listed in the article is the Ausf. K. Given that the Ausf. B is a completely made-up upgrade of the short 10.5 on the Tiger II with improved performance, I see no reason they can't do the same with the Ausf. K.

That gun is not imaginary btw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7

its pretty much modeled after that gun so it is after WWII gun... K can ofc be just upgraded version of that gun from some of the later developments etc buyt they can dowhat they want with them tbh.


This is ofc VERY interesting

and yes i forgot

HOLY MOTHER OF JESUS BURITOES
ITS HARD ONNNNNN )))

[Stormscion]

jesus christ at the amount of sexy

[Liare]

negative, the only real development done on the L7A1 that was not focused on increasing reliability was the Swedes going "hmm, that's a nice gun, but what if it was a bit longer ?" producing the L74.

heck, the only difference between the L7 and the L7A1 was the bore evacuator and the ability to mount a thermal sleeve, neither improved actual round performance, the former just reduced the amount of smoke going backwards into the tank and the latter improved the endurance of the gun when repeatingly fired. (gun barrels get hot, the hotter they get the less accurate they are)

simply put, until the late generation T-72's started rolling around and the Rheinmetall 120's where put on tanks there was no reason to upgrade the gun itself, more capable ammo provided plenty of performance.

so yea, the only reasonable way to differentiate the Ausf. B from the Ausf. K would be on the ammo side, because the gun is the same, unless the Ausf. K is some imaginary german wunderwaffe that somehow manage to outperform the L7. (fat fucking chance, we cant build better 105's today)

also, that's a nice picture of a E50 with the Ausf. B you got there, because i cant see the fucking difference. :/

[Skidrowpunk]

the game doesn't even fucking need this FFS.

Also, that soviet TD will never, EVER, be penned from the front. Ever.

Will uncheck crew training on patton, new patton looks fucking terrible with that cupola, but I'm a fanboy so I'll unlock it regardless.

[Corwyna]

That power creep is not crawling. That is full speed steroid induced sprint.

[Dahak]

also, that's a nice picture of a E50 with the Ausf. B you got there, because i cant see the fucking difference. :/

Hard to tell with the 90/105 on the T32 as well, just chill. That's the image they provided. They can set whatever stats they wish without rhyme or reason, so don't freak out because it's the same caliber. The Ausf. B already has more damage than the standard 10.5, no restriction on the Ausf. K having even more. Until we see stats it's all just speculation. Just wait and see what the preliminary stats are, then we can collectively freak out. I may even join you, depending on what happens.

[Stormscion]

negative, the only real development done on the L7A1 that was not focused on increasing reliability was the Swedes going "hmm, that's a nice gun, but what if it was a bit longer ?" producing the L74.

heck, the only difference between the L7 and the L7A1 was the bore evacuator and the ability to mount a thermal sleeve, neither improved actual round performance, the former just reduced the amount of smoke going backwards into the tank and the latter improved the endurance of the gun when repeatingly fired. (gun barrels get hot, the hotter they get the less accurate they are)

simply put, until the late generation T-72's started rolling around and the Rheinmetall 120's where put on tanks there was no reason to upgrade the gun itself, more capable ammo provided plenty of performance.

so yea, the only reasonable way to differentiate the Ausf. B from the Ausf. K would be on the ammo side, because the gun is the same, unless the Ausf. K is some imaginary german wunderwaffe that somehow manage to outperform the L7. (fat fucking chance, we cant build better 105's today)

also, that's a nice picture of a E50 with the Ausf. B you got there, because i cant see the fucking difference. :/

guns dont improve but shells do shells can make huge deference more damage penetration etc ; )

[dzajic]

I dunno ausf.M looks lower and sleeker.