Jump to content

MK_Regular

Members
  • Content Count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

MK_Regular last won the day on June 25

MK_Regular had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About MK_Regular

  • Rank
    RNG Conspiracy Theorist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You know an in-game decision is dumb when literally all but one of the named characters cringe at the very idea of doing it and start protesting the idea (bringing up some very good points as to why it is a bad idea) the moment it is suggested... and then you still get idiots who try to do it.
  2. There is an event slated to begin on Sept. 29th with a tier 6 premium MBT as a reward. Based on what little we know about the event so far, it will probably take about 3 or 4 weeks to get the tank, but you should only need to play a few matches per day in order to get it. As mentioned above, a tier 6 premium should help you print enough credits to get you to tier 7 or 8 before you'll need to start looking at obtaining another premium vehicle.
  3. Another notable difference between AW and WoT is the garage slots. In WoT you need to pay gold to unlock more garage slots, but in AW those slots are free. There isn't really a need to sell tanks in AW once you're done grinding them (or just don't want to play them anymore) to free up your garage slots, and in fact it is generally better to keep all of the tanks you buy because each additional tank you have gives a small bonus to the amount of XP you earn in matches (there are diminishing returns starting at +20% XP, but you should still be able to get it over +25% if you buy enough progression vehicles and manage to collect a few premiums).
  4. lmao this tidbit is absolutely based. "China doesn't exist because the US nuked the shit out of their army 80 years ago"
  5. I doubt it Stingray 2 can really only tank autocannon fire from the front and I don't expect the TAM 2IP to be able to tank 30mm AP from the sides (so, no improvement over the Stingray 2 there). Even from the front, I'm expecting that the TAM will have a massive "shoot me here" sign covering the entire lower half of the tank for autocannons and possibly large-caliber HE shells (and/or TB missiles). About the only way that I'd could see the TAM being "better protected" than the Stingray 2 would be the upper glacis (sloped at 72 degrees) and turret cheeks being able to bounce/eat 105mm AP at some wonky angles.
  6. doing a bit of reading, here's what I've found in regards to possible specs for the TAM 2C (the current in-service model) and the TAM 2IP: the main gun is a105mm L7 derivative, capable of firing NATO-standard ammunition (and as of the 2C, LAHATs) TAM 2C has a ~720hp engine and weighs in at ~31t for a top speed of 75 km/h and a power-to-weight ratio of ~24 hp/t the add-on armour of the TAM 2IP is likely to reduce this significantly without a more powerful engine base armour on the TAM 2C is minimal with 50mm of RHA on the turret, hull front (sloped at 72 degrees, should be able to deflect some autocannon fire) and sides I couldn't find anything concrete on the TAM 2IP's improved armour package, but I suspect that it's just composite note that the add-on armour only covers the hull sides, upper glacis, turret sides, and upper gun mantlet visual inspection of the few images I found shows that the side armour panels are around 10-15 cm thick composite on the hull front appears to be anywhere up to 20cm thick (~64cm by line-of-sight) additional turret armour appears to have significant thickness, possibly enough to be able to stop a 105mm shot in-game(?) Comparison of the TAM 2C (left) and TAM 2IP (right) - note the large change in turret profile due to the additional armour Frontal view of TAM 2IP - note the lack of add-on armour on the lower part of the gun mantlet and the lower glacis Rear-view showing the thickness of the additional armour on the turret sides and hull sides, probably around 10-15cm thick - note that the panels over the tracks could be either composite or sheet metal Image showing the thickness of the additional armour on the upper glacis, probably around 10-20cm thick Close-up of the new turret profile - note the thickness of the additional mantlet and turret cheek armour
  7. With the confirmation vote up, I'm casting my vote for naming the Termi the "Chicago Typewriter" (although I was really tempted to call it the "Bad Attitude" or "Thorpe's Hammer"), with both it and the rest of the tanks being painted dark grey. Now we just need to wait and see what we get...
  8. is it just me, or does it sound like Desert Viper will be using that glops desert map with the aircraft carrier in port? either way, I'm curious to see how these maps turn out
  9. Sooo, enough BC for two commanders and a tier 9 premium? Haswell, you lucky bastard. Good for you on figuring it out so quickly though.
  10. A few things of note about the reward vehicles that I'm not sure got picked up since their announcements CV90105 TML The TML's heat round is fairly competitive compared to the Stingray 2, with 520 damage and 744 penetration (stingray 2 gets 510 damage and 770 pen) giving it slightly more damage per shot but slightly less penetration. The AP rounds are identical The reload time for the TML's guns was reduced by 2 seconds (28s/16s for the 12/5 shot guns) and the optional upgrade for the 12-shot gun now reduces the cyclic time from 2.5s to 2.2s Aim time on the TML is 1.41s, meaning that you can just about get a fully-aimed shot off without any delay when using the 5-round clip (1.3s reload) The ability to use vision control of the TML is better than the Stingray 2, with an extra 2% camo (32% with paint) and 30m view range (450m with the view range unlock) before retrofits and skills Armour seems like it will be fairly reliable against autocannons from the front, with a few minor weak spots (290mm gun mantlet, 120mm turret ring, lower glacis of 210mm/180mm/145mm at tope/center/bottom) CV90 Mk IV Base camo and view range are superior to it its peers at 480m (510m when stopped) and 36% with paint. Probably good enough to give the VBR a run for its money Armour seems surprisingly good on paper (better than Marder on stats card!), can probably stop a lot of autocannon AP from the front if it doesn't hit the few weakspots (125mm turret ring, 205mm/180mm/80mm lower glacis) Gun stats are copy-paste from Marder (same accuracy, aim time, reload, and damage) but trades the PELE for HE (as previously mentioned) with 95 damage and 40mm pen CV90120 Ghost The ghost gets access to the upgraded transmission for the tier 9/10 LTs, allowing it to reach 85 km/h The upgraded AP round for the single-shot gun only increases the penetration only offers increased penetration (850mm instead of 800mm) for the same damage (600) The ready rack gun has significantly less damage per shot (510 vs 600 for AP and 610 vs 720 for HEAT) as well as reduced penetration (780mm AP instead of 800mm, 855mm HEAT instead of 880mm) There is a built-in flash suppressor upgrade that reduces the camo penalty from firing by 50% (this is in addition to ADAPTIV) Reload times for the ready rack got buffed from 5.6s per shot to 5s per shot and 2.8s cyclic to 2.4s, while the single-shot gun got buffed from 5s to 4.4s Turret armour will not resist large-caliber AP/HEAT rounds, but should be able to resist all auto-cannon AP from the front (>400mm). The weakest points of the frontal armour are the turret ring (190mm), the parts of the lower glacis not covered in applique (210mm), and the rest of the lower glacis (290-310mm) Strv 2000 Armour seems strong from the front, but far from invulnerable. Lower glacis is 800mm/700mm/600mm against AP (with the 800mm and 700mm portions being covered with three segments of 600mm NERA) and 880mm/770mm/900mm against HEAT (880mm and 770mm parts covered in the three segments of 900-1200mm NERA). The turret ring is venerable to HEAT and ATGMs with 920mm of protection. Turret sides are >400mm except for the rear-most part (250mm) and hull sides are between 200mm and 400mm (the rear-most section is 200mm and is covered by a piece of 35mm spaced armour, the 400mm and 250mm sections are covered by 9 segments of the same NERA as the front). Once the NERA is gone, you have comparable protection against large-caliber AP and HEAT as a light tank, but maintain complete resistance against autocannon AP for most of the frontal arc The known stats for the 140mm gun are unchanged, but the stats that were previously unknown are directly comparable to a stock XM1A3 (accuracy of 0.129 and aim time of 2.38s are the same as the stock XM1A3). The upgraded XM1A3 will still have the superior 140mm gun since it has access to upgrades that the Strv does not (10% accuracy increase, 20% aim time reduction, an improved AP round and a RoF upgrade) that more than make up for the extra 40 damage on the Strv's HEAT round DPM on the 40mm is around 11.4k before retros, with the first/second/third shots of each burst having 230/~310/~400 penetration at 100m. Note that for every shot of the burst that does not penetrate reduces the DPM of the autocannon by ~3.8k (11.4k if all 3 pen, 7.6k if 2 pen, 3.8k if only 1 pen). This seems to be an acceptable trade off compared to the Obj 195's 30mm autocannon since it trades anywhere between ~37% to ~79% of the 195's autocannon DPM for 15% to 100% more penetration (although how acceptable it actually is remains to be seen) tl;dr: The TML seems like it will be a good alternative to the Stingray 2 The Mk IV is probably going to be exceptionally good once it is fully upgraded The single-shot Ghost is on par with or better than both the Thunderbolt and Anders nearly across the board (aim time is a notable exception), while the ready-rack Ghost trades sustained DPM for a lackluster amount of burst DPM The only thing that might make the Strv OP will be the autocannon (if anything, it seems like the Strv would actually be underperforming if it didn't have the autocannon)
  11. Part of me hopes that they have a way to separate the trolls from everyone else who actually wants to do it properly at some point (say halfway through the campaign). Let's say that they record the choices that individual players make for a single episode (they only need to do it for that episode). From there, they can give the players a choice where the good and bad choices are super obvious and will have massive consequences. Once everyone has made their choices, they could use their DM powers and go "yeah, there was a schism in the group of story people, some of them decided to leave and do their own thing" and separate everyone who picked the "bad choice" into their own separate group that gets a series of extremely hard tasks (that will only last 2-3 episodes because they're almost impossible to complete) for no increased rewards while everyone who picked the "good choice" get's to continue on as if nothing happened. Edit: In the event that some players do manage to complete the nearly impossible tasks, they could be added back into the normal group, but any remains of the in-story splinter group would not be trusted by the others, and this could be reflected in-game by the removal of the surviving trolls' decision-making powers.
  12. Counting number of battles is the better option here, since it directly measures the amount of effort that the players as a whole put into selecting the vehicles rather than the amount of effort proportional to the normal traffic (which would heavily favour the less popular vehicles). If anything, I would say that the number of battles metric actually weights the choice in favour of the less popular vehicles (but not as much as % increase), since many of the players that are taking part in the event are already represented in the baseline numbers. I'll use the numbers you gave as a starting point: Experimentals are normally played 1000 times per week, and CW NATO are normally played 100 times 10 people taking part in the event normally play nothing but experimentals, 1 normally plays nothing but CW NATO (assuming the 10:1 ratio holds) of the 11 players taking part in the event, 3 choose CW NATO and 8 choose Experimental all 11 players decide to increase the number of battles they play per week from 20 to 30, and play all of their battles in their chosen vehicle category CW NATO increases from 100 to 170 battles per week (increase of 70 per week, or a 70% increase) Experimental increases from 1000 to 1040 battles per week (increase of 40 per week, or a 4% increase) despite nearly thrice as many people choosing Experimental, CW NATO sees nearly twice the increase in battles per week over the Experimentals
  13. It looks like I got pretty close with this one, I wouldn't have guessed that it would have the 50mm autocannon if I hadn't looked it up. I look forward to seeing it in the game.
  14. The Abrams series wouldn't be a bad choice either. It has decent buffs without a massive difficulty spike, and with the 0.33 changes the vehicles actually play a lot better than they used to (they tend to be tanky as long as they don't get uptiered, good mobility, good firepower, etc...). It might be worth picking them over the European MBTs since the Abrams would perform better (Challenger) or be easier to play (Leo, Leclerc) than most of them.
×
×
  • Create New...