Jump to content

I'm wondering why Gaijin added the Class 3P to the games lineup after previously removing the Maus, Tiger II, Panther II and the Flakpanzer for being "vehicles that were never fully materialized in real life as a complete vehicle, prototype or test vehicle", but then proceed to add in a completely prototype vehicle... I myself have nothing against prototypes but if their going to remove the others for violating their "realism" why on earth would they add in another prototype.. Thoughts?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prototype was actually built and assembled AFAIK?  So not actually a contradiction there.

 

Plenty of other prototypes that were built all over hte trees - kinda 2019 bringing it up still.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger II 105 was from a paper drawing, it was a 'plan' to upgrade it, Heereswaffenamt said no to it, so completely blue print.

 

Coliean or FlakPanzer 341 had a wooden mockup turret in real life, and it was a Panther D hull, no idea why they removed it tho, since it isn't that much of a blue print.

 

Panther II is more complicated, the real Panther II did have a different transmission but the same engine, it was also longer vs a normal Panther. (not gonna talk about the turret in real life, because the amerians attached it.) The way we have it in-game is complete fiction, the original plans didn't involve a 88mm, late 44 IIRC they had plans to mount a 88, but they would need to redesign the turret for that (which we don't have in-game)

 

This is the Class 3P, it rests there now with a Olifant turret attached for what ever reason.

x4cc2icxj3561.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, William_Mer said:

I'm wondering why Gaijin added the Class 3P to the games lineup after previously removing the Maus, Tiger II, Panther II and the Flakpanzer for being "vehicles that were never fully materialized in real life as a complete vehicle, prototype or test vehicle", but then proceed to add in a completely prototype vehicle... I myself have nothing against prototypes but if their going to remove the others for violating their "realism" why on earth would they add in another prototype.. Thoughts?

 

If you can see the prototype and the prototype was tested, then it can come to the game.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, William_Mer said:

I'm wondering why Gaijin added the Class 3P to the games lineup after previously removing the Maus, Tiger II, Panther II and the Flakpanzer for being "vehicles that were never fully materialized in real life as a complete vehicle, prototype or test vehicle", but then proceed to add in a completely prototype vehicle... I myself have nothing against prototypes but if their going to remove the others for violating their "realism" why on earth would they add in another prototype.. Thoughts?

The Maus was removed because it was too difficult to balance, not because it wasn't built. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Stavroforos said:

The Maus was removed because it was too difficult to balance, not because it wasn't built. 

 

^This with the addition of Heat rounds and APFSDS the Armor on the Maus became almost obsolete since it could barely bounce any shots, and since this was prior volumetric shells Gaijin was faced with a decision to either Uptier since its OP vs 6.7's or downtier it since it was useless at the current BR.

 

Even today the Maus is situational the meta shifted from tanking shots to getting flanks on the enemy team something the Maus and other Heavy Tanks like the Is-4M are incapable of.

Personally i would have the IS-4M removed as well.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, William_Mer said:

but then proceed to add in a completely prototype vehicle

Difference being that the Class 3 actually existed in this form.

War Thunder: Next major update - Rumor Round-Up and Discussion - Page 53 -  General Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum

 

The Panther II in game is a combination of various existing parts but they were never combined as such historically.

The Tiger 105 was only a blueprint.

 

Edited by NoodleCup31
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CreditCardCmndo said:

 

^This with the addition of Heat rounds and APFSDS the Armor on the Maus became almost obsolete since it could barely bounce any shots, and since this was prior volumetric shells Gaijin was faced with a decision to either Uptier since its OP vs 6.7's or downtier it since it was useless at the current BR.

 

Even today the Maus is situational the meta shifted from tanking shots to getting flanks on the enemy team something the Maus and other Heavy Tanks like the Is-4M are incapable of.

Personally i would have the IS-4M removed as well.

For me IS-4M is good tank, no way it should be removed

Edited by RytisLTU1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CreditCardCmndo said:

Even today the Maus is situational the meta shifted from tanking shots to getting flanks on the enemy team something the Maus and other Heavy Tanks like the Is-4M are incapable of.

Personally i would have the IS-4M removed as well.

 

There is absolutely no need for that. Most of Russian heavies follow the same design philosophy, that by times pass is becoming less and less viable. Russian heavies at ww2 era were the menace, as time and BR's fly by they become kinda sluggish, very situational machines that can bounce some hits from front, have limited but not horrible mobility and generally powerful guns with massive post penn damage but low penn values and very high reload times.

 

They are not meta in todays WT ecology but if we would judge by that, we should remove 70% of vehicles from WT. And that would be a shame. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, William_Mer said:

I'm wondering why Gaijin added the Class 3P to the games lineup after previously removing the Maus, Tiger II, Panther II and the Flakpanzer for being "vehicles that were never fully materialized in real life as a complete vehicle, prototype or test vehicle", but then proceed to add in a completely prototype vehicle... I myself have nothing against prototypes but if their going to remove the others for violating their "realism" why on earth would they add in another prototype.. Thoughts?

 

2 Parts to this.

 

We did no remove the Maus for being a prototype. We removed it because its historically a unique and rare vehicle that should never be used en mass. Its much harder to balance due to how unique it is.

 

Panther II, Tiger II 105 and Flak 341 were removed because they were incomplete, paper or mockups.  

 

We have never removed vehicles for being prototypes and the Class 3P is no exception to that. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

We did no remove the Maus for being a prototype. We removed it because its historically a unique and rare vehicle that should never be used en mass. Its much harder to balance due to how unique it is.

 

We all know that this statement is complete BS. In that case the T95 would need to be a event tank too. Plus, being unique/rare doesn't mean it's a even tank in-game, look at the M8 Greyhound, over 8000 build, for the US it's a rare event vehicle,for the Chinese it's a TT vehicle. ;)

  • Upvote 8
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BeriY_ said:

We all know that this statement is complete BS. In that case the T95 would need to be a event tank too. Plus, being unique/rare doesn't mean it's a even tank in-game, look at the M8 Greyhound, over 8000 build, for the US it's a rare event vehicle,for the Chinese it's a TT vehicle. ;)


Give them a bit of slack. WT has over ...how many over 1000 vehicles? Some of them were introduced when gaijin had fewer resources and fewer options. By now, it's impossible to balance -everything- but they did present general policy on prototype and paper vehicles and I'm OK with that in general.

 Mouse is truly unique vehicle. If it fills his niche properly on the battlefield, it is OP. Mouse is either OP or useless, there is no middle ground. I understand the logic behind removing such a vehicle, although I don't necessarily agree with it. In my experience and my just slightly over 1:1 k/d ratio while spading the thing, it's fairly balanced. If the opportunity to earn it will be presented regularly every year, then I say it's fine. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BeriY_ said:

We all know that this statement is complete BS. In that case the T95 would need to be a event tank too. Plus, being unique/rare doesn't mean it's a even tank in-game, look at the M8 Greyhound, over 8000 build, for the US it's a rare event vehicle,for the Chinese it's a TT vehicle. ;)

 

T95 did not and still does not present the same balancing issue the Maus has. The two are hardly comparable other than the fact they are both super heavy vehicles. Maus is unique in the since its a super heavy tank that at a lower BR would be particularly overpowered against many tanks it faces, but also cant really compete well with higher rank tanks. 

 

Vehicle collectability "rarity" has nothing to do with it. The point was, there should never be tons of Maus tanks running about as it presents a bigger problem. It should be with the IS-7, E-100 and others in lower numbers. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BeriY_ said:

 

Panther II is more complicated, the real Panther II did have a different transmission but the same engine, it was also longer vs a normal Panther. (not gonna talk about the turret in real life, because the amerians attached it.) The way we have it in-game is complete fiction, the original plans didn't involve a 88mm, late 44 IIRC they had plans to mount a 88, but they would need to redesign the turret for that (which we don't have in-game)

 

You can find the turret at Bovington Tank Museum, the Brits had the bright idea to blow it open but it is there. The 88 planned was supposed to have a smaller breach, so a turret redesign was not entirely needed.

 

Edited by TheNexonRegime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2021 at 03:52, Stavroforos said:

The Maus was removed because it was too difficult to balance, not because it wasn't built. 

If the EBR is any sign of things, balance isn't on their table at the moment it is clubbing Pz IV's and tigers alike.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2021 at 16:36, Smin1080p said:

 

2 Parts to this.

 

We did no remove the Maus for being a prototype. We removed it because its historically a unique and rare vehicle that should never be used en mass. Its much harder to balance due to how unique it is.

 

Panther II, Tiger II 105 and Flak 341 were removed because they were incomplete, paper or mockups.  

 

We have never removed vehicles for being prototypes and the Class 3P is no exception to that. 

Then shouldn’t Gaijin have not implemented the Ostwind II being that it also is in the same boat as the Tiger II 105 and Coelion ie a proposal/paper vehicle?

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_man1199 said:

shouldn’t Gaijin have not implemented the Ostwind II being that it also is in the same boat as the Tiger II 105 and Coelion ie a proposal/paper vehicle?

Correct.

 

Nobody could provide any evidence that the Ostwind II in this configuration existed.

Edited by NoodleCup31
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_man1199 said:

Then shouldn’t Gaijin have not implemented the Ostwind II being that it also is in the same boat as the Tiger II 105 and Coelion ie a proposal/paper vehicle?

 

Its not. At least one prototype was built based on current information. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Its not. At least one prototype was built based on current information. 

Odd, I spoke to Hillary Doyle several weeks back and he stated it was nothing more than a proposal made within the final couple months of the war, just like the Zerstörer 45. Although he did say he had documents stating that they were doing some testing of guns on a Mobelwagen which might explain the claims of one each being built. 

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Its not. At least one prototype was built based on current information. 

What is "current information"?

Are there any pictures or blueprints or whatever 

Edited by NoodleCup31
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NoodleCup31 said:

What is "current information"?

Are there any pictures or blueprings or whatever 

i gotta agree with this.

i would rather much prefer an SPAA that had an existing turret, even if it was just a wooden and with photos to back it up, than an SPAA that was made because "the russians said so on this bit of paper"

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WT_CT_Center said:

i gotta agree with this.

i would rather much prefer an SPAA that had an existing turret, even if it was just a wooden and with photos to back it up, than an SPAA that was made because "the russians said so on this bit of paper"

I think Zerstörer 45 would have been better atleast there is this foto

3cm_FlaK_103-38_Vierling.jpg

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...