Responding to issues regarding dev server reports & an update on spall lining armor from the developers

not the point of the conversation… gaijin claim they dont artificially nerf yet almost every NATO vehicle seems to be missing crucial aspects to its combat effectiveness yet magically Russian tanks seem to get every feature under the son…


You have no actual sources in the report you linked to.

Your position is that since the Pz IV with the gunner cranking could do 4 degrees traverse per second, and the loader cranking could do 6 degrees traverse per second (on a very loose estimation, sources unclear), and assuming that two people cranking traverse wheels at the same time is always purely additive or better (no evidence given, you might want to look into how gears work), the Pz IV should actually have a notional manual traverse of 12 degrees per second (when the autotraverse isn’t working), and the Pz III (because it also had a loader traverse wheel and a lighter turret) should therefore be able to do 14 degrees per second, except the B, which was even lighter and should therefore be 20 degrees per second. That’s not evidence, that’s just pure ungrounded speculation.

Maybe, for instance, the 6 degrees per second on the Pz IV is actually what the gunner and loader cranking together could do? That alone would cut your estimated new gear speeds for the Pz III in half. But it really sounds like just replacing one guess with another tbh.

I added a new simple mention at the bottom in form of a comment, by the Prelimary Brittish report on the Pz III and the Panzer Tracs i know that the Traverse per turn is 2,2°-2,7° per person, and that all models (E-N) (B had 4,4°) had the same gearing and in game the J1-N have 14°/sec. That is the same as was made in the Tetrach report, it showed that they have the same °/turn and should by that have the same speed. And the Pz IV speeds are by Hilary Doile.

And again, i made this, Community Bug Reporting System
Which was closed because, the other is still open. Which is also just showing it the same as the Tetrach report.

M1 KVT was chosen instead of M1A1 because they wanted it to fit a specific BR.

This has zero relation with my point. If they balanced by artificially nerfing capabilities, M1 KVT would be a M1A1 with stats nerfed down to M1 levels, and it’s not that; they swapped the whole model altogether, instead of nerfing it. See the difference?

And what’s your point with Challenger 3 (P) and 2S38? The equivalent to my point would be if they gave Challenger (3)P a 800mm KE hull armor for balance (or a 400mm one if they deemed it to be necessary), for example.

However, Challenger 3 (P)‘s armor is a mess in the exact same way all Challenger 2s’ armor is a mess. If they were to be balanced for gameplay purposes, they would just get a 700mm KE hull and call it a day. Yet they don’t do that, and, instead, keep asking for bug reports with sources to be made.

If all vehicles were modelled with balance in mind and not historical accuracy, they would not even require sources or bug reports on the first place. They would just give values arbitrarily like your typical FPS game and call it a day.

If all vehicles were modelled arbitrarily with balance in mind and not historicall accuracy, Ariete would have useful armor instead of 9.0-level armor. What kind of balance would it be to give Ariete such bad armor, if not the fact that it’s like that in real life (to a lesser degree though)?

If all vehicles were modelled arbitrarily with balance in mind and not historicall accuracy, Strv 122s would not have been implemented with twice as much armor than anyone else three years ago; instead, their armor would have been artificially nerfed for balance. Yet. They. Didn’t.


if you think balancing a game based on real information is “somehow” equal or better than my suggestions than your simply ignoring one basic aspect of warfare… its called technological advancements, at some point one nation over leaps another in those advancements and as such would not be able to compete.

Hence the idea of limiting the better performing vehicles to slightly weaker ammo OR improving armour on weaker tanks to compensate OR give stronger ammo to those weaker tanks ends up being better because its something you can always adjust as new vehicles get added and moved around based on performance/metrics, it allows for a much better flow of balance.

Let me use ARB as a great example, the R73 and 9M fiasco and how people wanted 9Xs to be added because that was the “closest” counter (a better counter to R73s) but as a result gaijin had to introduce the 9Ms, nerf the R73s because they knew sure as hell adding 9Xs to somehow combat a fully buffed/functional R73 wouldnt be the right balance so they chose the better solution (forgo historical accuracy for limiting munition types)

WT is a game not a Simulator like DCS, it doesnt “need” to have 100% accuracy, im not arguing in favour of this spall liner but arguing for a consistent approach to it on other tanks but as usual “russia get the new stuff before anyone else” then they look at adding it for others ONCE the community argues the unfair nature of such addition. and its been done year in year out with every patch

None of the above options were “[totally] balancing based on real information.”

Again, the real life tanks are simply not balanced in real life. So you HAVE to deviate somehow from real life, from real information.

And no matter how you do that deviation, if the original difference in ability was, say, 20% win rate for sake of argument, your total non-historical adjustments have to add up to 20% win rate’s worth of non-historicalness, no matter what flavor you do it in. Nerf this, buff that, armor vs ammo, whatever, it’s the same total amount of fantasy no matter what, at the end of the day. So who cares?

its something you can always adjust as new vehicles get added and moved around based on performance/metrics

You can always adjust composite armor modifiers too, just as easily as changing ammo. You can change ERA effectiveness vs kinetics also just a multiplier in probably a notepad file somewhere, just as easily as changing ammo. You can change spall liners to not exist / die in one hit / take multiple hits, just as easily as changing ammo. I’m not really following your point here on “easy to change”, all this is easy.

(Also you don’t need to fine tune any of this. It’s a gross adjustment, BR + or - 0.3 can do the fine tuning. So long as the BR change isn’t so huge that whole nations don’t face one another at all at top tier, it’s fine)

my guy… last pic… you can see the type of spall-liner
sort of the same as in the Leo



I mean thats not ever going to be a 1:1 scenario, if you limit a tanks ability by 20% that isnt going to magically equate to a 20% reduction in winrates, if thats your logic then I’m really confused, but you said it yourself, real life tanks are not balanced… yes I know this which is why I have always argued “balance around ammo/armour” because this allows for a fairer balance when you make certain vehicles have better ammo vs tanks with better armour or better mobility etc. im not arguing for WoT style balance, not even close if thats what you or anyone thinks.

Granted not all stuff can be balanced like this but that is why gaijin have recently taken this approach in recent patches because they know it will genuinely screw balance over BUT it always comes AFTER the community have to scream about the unjust nature of russia getting OP stuff.

R73s got added… not a single wiff of 9Ms in site, NOT TILL community went on the hunt, then when 9Ms got added what did gaijin do… ay yes, lets add better R27s and also introduce IRCCM on R72ETs (i think thats the right one) you see how they progressively push the line.

Spall liner is yet again a perfect example of “lets add new mechanic to russia” see how community react THEN lets add it to other nations… i cannot count how many times gaijin have pulled this stunt and its precisely why

1 Like

I would love the report team to not put any personal believes in their work. For be able to be neutral and not biased by their personal opinions that will imply to not request some bug report in favor of some vehicles or nationS.
It wasn’t the case since years and that why you are here talking about it. Because players are tired of all that toxic behavior.
So players can also play it the smhae sadly :/
I hope to see some improvements and everyone enjoying a game that suppose to be fun… A game.

It like other countries don’t just velcro kevlar to their tank and call it a spall liner


What about Ariete protection characteristics? On the dev-server weight parameters of these tanks and their add-on armor have been fixed, but protection remains on the same joke-level.
For example, Ariete with WAR kit weights now 59,5 t, but the fact that it’s intended to protect against KE threats is completely ignored. (5,5 t pack adds about 10-15 mm of protection against 3BM42, are you serious?).
Can we get rid of this prejudice towards Italian armor industry and finally fix protection of Ariete tanks in the game?


PS yes it was my report, but I thought Gaijin won’t be ignorant towards protection problems as well…


That is not what I meant, I was referring to 20% only as a measure of final result by any method, not what you start with. As in, the total magnitude of change by any method will be equally unhistorical overall, that’s all

I have always argued “balance around ammo/armour” because this allows for a fairer balance

I am not following your argument/logic here, you seem to just be saying “It’s ammo, therefore → Fairer” Huh?? Why is using ammo “fairer” than using gun caliber or armor or spall or mobility? Or anything else?

R73s got added… not a single wiff of 9Ms in site, NOT TILL community went on the hunt, then when 9Ms got added what did gaijin do… ay yes, lets add better R27s and also introduce IRCCM on R72ETs (i think thats the right one) you see how they progressively push the line.

I mean yeah, duh, if you strong arm them into buffing the thing that needs to be nerfed relatively, then they have to buff the thing that was buffed even more, or you’d undo their work.


NATO -3 = Russia


NATO -1 = Russia +2 ← have to add that +2 to re-achieve the desired outcome again

Re-balancing already balanced equations always requires doing the same thing to both sides of the equation.

1 Like

Hi, many of your reports have been forwarded and fixed.
Some were tagged as not a bug, if you have questions about why or you think the moderator made an error you can contact any technical moderator as I said.

1 Like

ikr… shocker :D

1 Like

Currently Germany has as only nation 3 Reserve tanks, because 2 are far from starter friendly.

Pz III Ausf. B
Pz III Ausf. E
Pz. 35 (t)

And the Pz. 35 (t) is the best of them. Because:

Pz III Ausf. B has 14,5mm armor (not enove for HMG), Max 6,0°/sec turret traverse (While the hand crancks have 4°/turn each for gunner and loader by Panzer Tracts), only 35 km/h max speed and 47 mm penetration.

Pz III Ausf. E has 30mm armor (protects against cal 50 (but not russian one) slower turret of 5,5°/sec (while it has the same gears as the later J1-N which in game have 14°/sec), more speed of 71 km/h (but can mostly only reach around 40km/h because idk) same somewhat bad penetration of 47mm.

Pz 35 (t) has 25mm frontal ( protects against 50 cal over range) is 33-34 km/h (forwards and backwards, so you can go backwards for more armor) same 14°/sec turret speed, while lower velocity has even 55mm penetration and has up to 25° elevation so it can be used against low flying planes even.

If the Pz III Ausf. B-J would finally get also 14°/sec (and perhaps more for the B) germanys Reserve tanks could also be reduced to 2 like the rest. There is no reason why to even touch the Ausf. B while the Ausf. E is just better (but not good in the fast low rank environment).
Pz III (that was not implemented on Dev)
Tetrach report (that was implemented on Dev now)

1 Like

Harassing, doxing and threatening employees is unacceptable and I’m sorry that some of them had to go through this. No one should ever have to fear for their safety just because of their jobs.

That being said…

Let’s not act as if the issue was lying in how information is conveyed to you. There’s a plethora of perfectly viable reports that get rejected for no reasons.
For example, AMX-30 Brenus missing 100mm of KE protection or M41A1 turret traverse speed.

It also doesn’t help that some of the moderators rejects reports while using objectively false arguments to reject said reports (name of the moderator scrubbed to avoid a witch hunt):

  • Russian tanks do not have wet storage for their ammo

  • Lower flash point means that it ignites at a lower temperature, meaning that it’s easier to ignite and more volatile. This goes completely against the argument the mod is trying to make.

And yet this person is one of the person responsible for judging what gets forwared to the devs. It’s not surprising that the current approach can generate frustration amongst people who sometimes spend days and in some cases money to acquire documents to suppor their claims only to see their reports get closed for no reasons or factually incorrect ones.

Again, threats being made against the employees are completely unnacceptable and unjustifiable.

However, it’s undeniable that some of gaijin’s approach is resulting in annoyance to a large part of the playerbase (while again making any threats to the well being of their employees unacceptabke).

Gaijin genuinely needs to review and overhaul how bug reports are being handled, because at the moment it’s not functionning well (and in some cases, not at all).


Hstvl should have optical tracking and a proximity fused ammo too…


I did a bug report on the stormer a while back and it was instantly closed within five minutes stating wiki isn’t a valid source… There wasn’t a single source in that report from a wiki page, the guy straight up just didn’t read it and closed it. Resubmitted the exact same report 20 minutes later with a caption like (IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY REPORT) Bingo it was acknowledged after abit of back and forth with a different Mod.


TLDR: “We will use Spall liners as a balancing decision like we do currently for shells, shell stats, reload rates, etc etc”


The worst part is that I’ve made my own bug report on the M41A1, due to the fact that there is a contradiction within the source that was used to obtain the 24º/s turret traverse, being that the source is actually stating the minimum speed of the powered traverse, rather than the maximum speed.

But when I made my bug report pointing this out, and even used the same primary source that Spookston showed, the dev response was to ignore that entire part of my bug report that was pointing out that their source was faulty. They answered by just saying that when there’s multiple contradicting sources, they have to pick one and they decided to stick with the technical manual that I had spent an entire 5 line paragraph showing that it wasn’t valid.