Dumbest list I’ve ever seen. 99% of these were built and tested.
hey the NbFz actually saw combat
I know. The first thing I did when I bought it was download the historical Norway skin from WT Live.
TT33a is not just objecting to vehicles that never saw action. They object to many many more vehicles, including “one-off rarities” even if they saw combat. The NbFz definitely qualifies as a “showroom failure” of German tank development in the mid 1930s, and was abandoned very early on as a concept. The fact that the existing ones were sent to Norway rather than stay parked on a training ground does not change the fact that the Germans saw the vehicle as a complete dead end and never pursued it past that initial stage.
That’s what I’m hoping for. I do think bringing them back in recurring, skippable-with-real-money events would be a good fit for what the tanks are and a win-win for us players and Gaijin alike.
And yes, I’d happily pay a reasonable (or unreasonable, if I’m being honest with myself) sum for them if they came back solely for a price. I don’t think it’s a good option because they were freely available as tech tree tanks before, but I and many others would absolutely take that option if it were the only one.
3 Likes
+1
I want them to bring back all removed TT vehicle every now and then, like how they keep bringing back Maus every year or so. I want the Sturmtiger so bad and I’m still waiting for it to be back on sale, but Gaijin is so quiet about, I’m starting to think that it won’t ever come back :(
3 Likes
Bringing Maus back as a regular TT vehicle again? 100%. Never should have been removed, we have balancing mechanisms in-game.
Flakpanzer 341 brought back under partial prototype category. 100%.
However, with the old Panther II and KT 105 I don’t think they should be brought back as TT vehicles. Gaijin should rename them to Panther II (Gaijin) and KT 105 (Gaijin) to just own they’re fakes, Frankenstein’s Monsters of multiple projects. Then make them available on a rotational basis like the Maus now. So one year you can unlock the Panther II (Gaijin) and then the next year you can unlock the KT 105 (Gaijin), if you missed one or just joined the game? No problem, it’ll come back around the next year.
I would like to see more accurate vehicles return as permanent TT additions, such as:
- Panther II (Schmale Blendenausführung): Would have the intended early turret with 75mm gun.
- Panther II (Schmale Blende): Would have the later intended turret, 75mm gun, and range finder. Maybe a premium/event/BP vehicle, because Gaijin loves to sell slightly better versions as premiums.
- Panther II (captured): Doesn’t have to be added, but a captured US version with a Panther G turret could work. Considering the US are the ones that fitted it.
- KT with Rangefinders: A wooden mockup was produced, and the rangefinders (major component, ticks the box of partial prototype category) were built for the project. Basically just a regular Tiger II (H) with range finders. Again, perhaps a premium/event/BP vehicle.
- Jagdtiger with gas turbine: Was tested, could be a BR step above the current Jagdtiger due to better mobility.
- Panther G with gas turbine: I can’t recall exactly which engines they had, but sources were shared here on the forum. There’s at least 2 or 3 different engines that were fitted and tested.
6 Likes
It will only come back in SL gambling boxes. Sadly. Gambling seems to be all the rage in this game lately, and Gaijin creates artificial scarcity by making some vehicles essentially impossible to obtain without SL boxes.
I really dislike it because it removes the original, winning FP2 MMO formula: play a lot or pay a lot. This is why for the removed tech tree vehicles I would like to see an option where you can unlock them for free if you, say, spade every vehicle in the relevant tree (in this example the German ground tree), or play an absurd amount of matches with a subset of vehicles, or whatever. Or you just pay a squadron-vehicle-level sum of money to get them right away. Again, play a lot or pay a lot.
And for event vehicles that aren’t on the marketplace, or even just event vehicles in general, you could make it so that you can buy a “digital archival access” whatever that allows you to complete old events, perhaps with a penalty (say, you pay and you can unlock the Sturmtiger again but you need more mission score to do it). So if you weren’t around at all during the previous event, at least you get a chance to catch up by playing more or paying more. Good business for them, and one more option for us.
Or if you buy the BP and get to level 150, you get to trade your coupons for one removed vehicle from WT’s past instead…
There are many ways this can work. There is no lack of solutions, so clearly the discrepancy is one of business strategy.
EDIT:
As far as I know the Panther II was cancelled before either design was approved, so if we want a “grounded” historical Panther II, I guess it would need a Panther D turret (unless there’s a bespoke design that I’ve forgotten about - been a while since I checked it).
You can also easily get a better engine in it, since they were built in metal. I don’t know the status of rigidly mounted guns and stabilised gun sights but those are also potential upgrades for a Tiger II “Late”.
I am currently writing a technical suggestion for this vehicle. I can DM you the draft when it’s almost ready if you want to take a look.
2 Likes
Panther II with the intended turrets are fine, as the hull was built in metal. Was running. Which is considered a major component for partial prototype.
Eh, I’d rather not have more “what-if” vehicles. We already have the SLA Tiger II. Rangefinder Tiger II is basically just that, but well, with rangefinders.
Great stuff, +1 to that.
A bit of a ramble: I can’t see the renaming being necessary for the KT 105 and Coelian; anyone who knows their tanks well enough to be aware of their historical authenticity will know they are fakes from the current names anyway. Plus, it breaks the fourth wall a tad to see a tank with ‘Gaijin’ in its name!
Obviously the Panther II would be a different story for the sake of differentiation if they add the versions you proposed. But even then I think it should be called something like ‘Panther II (Schmalturm)’ or ‘Panther II (8.8 cm Kw.K)’.
That’s my point, I think the only intended turret was the Schmale Blendenausführung. The actual Schmale Blende only came to be after the project was already cancelled, so it wasn’t “intended” for it.
To be clear, I said I didn’t know the status of the other considered upgrades precisely for this reason. If they reached the same level as the rangefinder (component built in metal, mockup stage) then they can be added. If not, I would also consider alternatives.
At some point the gap between 6.7 and 8.0 will need to be filled, in gameplay terms. For obvious historical reasons there aren’t many options in there, unless you relax standards a little.
Any chance you could DM it to me too? I’ve never looked into the project and would be keen to find out more.
1 Like
There is no Panther II Schmalturm or Panther II 8.8cm, that’s why I say it should just be declared a fake. Not all players know vehicles history. Just making it obvious it’s fake would be a radical departure from what WoT does. Where they try to pass off nearly everything as real.
3 Likes
Yes, gladly. It was built in metal and tested, so it fully qualifies for inclusion into the game. My only real worry is that it would be considered too same-y for a BP or event vehicle, especially because the Jagdtiger is hardly a meta vehicle and probably would be slept on by a lot of the player base.
Of course they have ways of making it distinct if they want. They can add the engine deck MG, give it APHEDS and put it at 7.0 for example… but those are game dev considerations that fall outside the scope of a simple technical suggestion, which is just for the vehicle as it was actually tested - a simple JT with the Sla engine installed and operational.
Honestly, naming conventions in WT are already very unsatisfactory. The mere fact that our Tiger IIs are called “P” and “H” always annoys me. Ditto the fact that we have a “Tiger H1” treated as a different “version” from the “E”, when in reality the name change was purely administrative, and the Tigers that fought at Kursk (represented by the H1 in the game) were already called “E”. Same story for Ferdinand vs Elefant. Technically we also have this with the Panthers, in the sense that we have late war representations of the A and G, but they’re not labelled as such, they’re labelled as if those were the Panther A and the Panther G…
For a game that teaches so much vehicle history otherwise, these naming patterns are surprisingly misleading already.
The actual naming change I would suggest specifically for the Panther II and the Tiger II 105 is to slap a “PROJECT” on it, like they do for ships. “Project ships” as they appear in Naval already include a hefty dose of speculation and what-if, mixing together upgrades that were considered separately at different times, and so on, so extending that nomenclature to ground makes sense to me. The Coelian is a whole other story naturally.
Btw they should also add “Project” to the “final ideal version” of the TOG II, which is similarly a speculative build.
3 Likes
I’m all for Tiger with X. I just don’t think we should be putting together separate projects unless that’s what actually was intended.
I disagree with using the word “Project” as that implies it was real. Would be better to say “what-if”. As the TOG II abandoned the side mounted sponsons well before it received the 94mm and the hull mounted howitzer wouldn’t work in Gaijin’s interpretation at all. Really, if Gaijin wanted an accurate TOG II* all they need to do is remove the stupid “Great War Package”.
1 Like
I can see where you’re coming from. I would still personally prefer a more subtle integration where it’s clear to those who know and not immersion-breaking for those who don’t. I imagine most tank enthusiasts who play WoT are pretty well aware of what’s real and what’s not, despite all tanks being presented as ‘real’ within the game.
This sounds like a decent middle ground to me. I will say that I would prefer, like it is for ships, for the ‘fictitiousness marker’ to be confined to the statcard. That way it’s there but not at all in-your-face.
But at the end of the day it’s not something I feel very strongly about; I’ll just be happy to see the tanks brought back.
2 Likes
You know how they have that yellow diagonal ribbon on a tank’s tree icon to indicate that it was newly added in a recent update? I’ve always liked the idea of slapping a ribbon of a different colour (say, red) on tanks/planes/ships that are either incomplete, erroneously modelled, or were worked on by real engineers but never came together completely. This could give you more leeway to add plausible but “paper” designs to fill gaps (say, the P43 Bis for the Italian tech tree) without descending into WoT madness, while indicating to players what vehicles are less historical than others.
1 Like
I’d like to see them lean into the customisation side of things when making event vehicles unique. It would be nice to have more variants of tanks dressed up like the Tiger Ost/West, IS-2 No.321, etc.
I like the idea. A personal wish of mine would be the proposed Jagdtiger with 12.8 cm L/66 (plus potentially a stereoscopic rangefinder and the Sla.16), though I’ll admit that would require Gaijin expanding the game’s scope to include paper designs completely. Which I would love to see happen because it opens the gates to so many interesting vehicles, many of them conventional WW2-era ones… the O-I, the P.43 Bis you mentioned and so forth.
1 Like
You’re gonna love this… (Never mind, looks like it’s old news to you already! Ah well, something interesting for this thread at least)
Thanks to @gszabi99 for the datamine.
Not a bad idea, I’ll be happy with any marking method under the sun if it means Gaijin brings such vehicles to the game.
3 Likes
The recent WW2 packs were amazing. Can’t wait for late war equivalents to come around a few years from now.
I do. I still would have preferred something like “Tiger Ausf B Pre-Series” and “Serienturm” or “Production”, something like that, but this is undoubtedly much better than before, and at least it’s not actively misleading people about the history of the vehicles!
Yes. I think Naval is proof that the concept is solid, because there is paper and then there is paper. The stuff we get in Naval is very grounded - real engineers worked on these projects, the components are not made up by the company, etc - while still being speculative.
After I finish my Jagdtiger Sla suggestion, I’ll see if I can bug report any of the inaccuracies that are there for the Jagdtiger we have in game already.
I love the idea of affordable “line up” packs. The US and British ones have several historical issues though.
The British one is called Overlord, but only one of the vehicles actually served in that operation - the Firefly. The Avenger never left Great Britain during WW2 and only had a very brief service history in BAOR after WW2. The Crusader AA Mk II also never left Great Britian, is was declared unfit for battle and was reserved as a training vehicle. The actual in service SPAA was the Crusader AA Mk III, very similar, but different machine. What I would have done:
- Sherman IIA (M4A1 76) at 5.0: The British used them and a very low effort addition. Simply copy-paste the US one and then have cosmetic differences.
- Firefly IC Hybrid at 5.0: Just copy-paste the Italian one, and again, just have cosmetic differences.
- Crusader AA Mk III: Minor model differences on the turret and hull. Such as radio antenna in the hull instead of the turret, counter-weight between the 20mm guns, partial open-topped turret with a parapet.
That’s 3 “new” British vehicles, that could have had copy-pasted tech tree versions added too.
The US one is Pacific themed. We have a Korean War Sherman dressed up as a WW2 one and we have an incredibly well known Canadian Skink fighting the Japanese in the Pacific (sarcasm). When in reality the US had nothing to do with the Skink, had no interest in the program, and it only ever saw service with Canadian forces in Europe.
1 Like