Jump to content


Improving the British Line


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

mttspiii #21 Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:26 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 24171 battles
  • 15,624
  • [KYLIE] KYLIE
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View PostJarms, on 15 April 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

 

I don't see what the issue with implementing the Chieftain is. Its hull is covered in glaring weak spots:

- upper plate whilst at an impressive angle is weak to HE damage due to the comparatively low thickness when compared to contemporaries. 

- the lower plate, much like many other heavy tanks, is fairly weak

- the side armour ranges between 38.1 - 50.8mm thickness, making it very easy to overmatch

 

In reality, the Chieftain is essentially a less armoured T110E5, what would make the Chieftain truly exception would be its gun and gun handling. 

 

The Chieftain...undersells itself. That's its main problem. Implementing it with current stats would make it as underwhelming as the pre-buff tier 7 Tiger I.

 

But less about the Chieftain, I'm more interested in a possible mini-branch from Valiant, leading up the Valiant II, some Excelsiors, a bunch of "pocket infantry tanks", to a possible tier X such the the one WG is mentioning about: a UK HT with the 77mm HV and 300mm frontal armor. You know stuff about it?

 

Also, any research on an "AVRE" branch of UK tanks? There's the lower-tiers with the 3.7" howitzer-mounted Cruiser. Then the Churchill had a 290mm spigot mortar with 28 lbs of HE sticking out of the barrel, upgradeable to a 165mm L9 demolition gun with 40 lbs of C4. Then the same gun mounted on the Centurions, which in-game would be regular Centurions complete with the 105mm L7 as a weapon stock / sidegrade (don't worry, they mount dozer blades to counter HEAT spam). There should also be some Chieftain AEV (gun), a tier X just to be distinct from the FV215B or the FV4005 (demolition tanks are different from dedicated TD's with the 183mm L4 gun) Then I'm sure there's something wackier like the 300mm Ardeer Aggie recoilless gun.


Edited by mttspiii, 15 April 2017 - 06:36 PM.

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 


Jarms #22 Posted 17 April 2017 - 09:34 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 12581 battles
  • 423
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View Postmttspiii, on 15 April 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

The Chieftain...undersells itself. That's its main problem. Implementing it with current stats would make it as underwhelming as the pre-buff tier 7 Tiger I.

 

The problem with the Chieftain is classification, in reality it's an MBT, in-game it could be shoehorned into either medium or heavy classifications. As a heavy the armour is rather unimpressive, you're looking at Conqueror level protection -- arguably worse if you want to debate raw thickness against angling -- a tier higher. Though the gun would be leagues better in handling and DPM.

 

As a medium it'd fair pretty well against the Centurion Action X offering better turret armour and gun, but worse mobility (and arguably worse hull armour). 

 

View Postmttspiii, on 15 April 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

But less about the Chieftain, I'm more interested in a possible mini-branch from Valiant, leading up the Valiant II, some Excelsiors, a bunch of "pocket infantry tanks", to a possible tier X such the the one WG is mentioning about: a UK HT with the 77mm HV and 300mm frontal armor. You know stuff about it?

 

I've added the Valiant into the latest tree I posted. It'd fair pretty favourably to the proposed tier V Churchill adjustments I've made, offering better armour protection and similar gun selection, but with worse mobility and HP (the Valiant just doesn't have the same bulk of the Churchill). 

 

The Valiant II / Heavy Valiant is a lot more difficult to implement due to the raw thickness of the armour. If we make it historical it'd play fairly similarly to the AT2 with the 3.7 inch howitzer, except with a turret, and a crew of 3, which could work as a tier V. 

 

View Postmttspiii, on 15 April 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

Also, any research on an "AVRE" branch of UK tanks? There's the lower-tiers with the 3.7" howitzer-mounted Cruiser. Then the Churchill had a 290mm spigot mortar with 28 lbs of HE sticking out of the barrel, upgradeable to a 165mm L9 demolition gun with 40 lbs of C4. Then the same gun mounted on the Centurions, which in-game would be regular Centurions complete with the 105mm L7 as a weapon stock / sidegrade (don't worry, they mount dozer blades to counter HEAT spam). There should also be some Chieftain AEV (gun), a tier X just to be distinct from the FV215B or the FV4005 (demolition tanks are different from dedicated TD's with the 183mm L4 gun) Then I'm sure there's something wackier like the 300mm Ardeer Aggie recoilless gun.

 

In regards to the 3.7 inch howitzer, it should really be split into 2 gun/howitzers. Specifically the 3.7 inch mountain howitzer, and the 95mm tank howitzer. The former would be balanced for the low tiers and mounted on the Cruiser I & II. The latter being balanced for the mid tiers, being used across the Churchill and Cromwell series, even on the Centurion if WG want to add another historical armament (it would be a terrible choice however). 

 

The 290mm spigot just wouldn't work, you could fudge its stats to make it fit, but it'd be a complete fabrication to reality. If they did added the AVRE I see them fitting as follows:

- Churchill 290mm AVRE: tier VI

- Churchill VII 165mm AVRE: tier VII

- Churchill Ardeer Aggie: tier VIII

- Centurion AVRE: tier IX

 

I wouldn't make any of these tech tree vehicles though. 


Edited by Jarms, 18 April 2017 - 05:13 PM.


DeadArashi #23 Posted 20 April 2017 - 08:01 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 10536 battles
  • 358
  • [TGB] TGB
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

I like a lot of you suggestions but I can't help but feel it's too cluttered in the mid tier. You have nine tier 10s and 13 tier 5s. You have one tier 5 that branches into 3 tier 5s, and in another case you have to go through three tier 5s to hit the tier 6... this is a massive turn off for someone that wants to free exp or try to speed grind a line and is just poor design in my opinion.

 

Don't get me wrong, you have definitely done your research on these tanks and for that, well done. 

 

I did, however, take your last line proposal and change a few things to it to try and clean it up a bit

 

 

I feel there's a few tanks thank need explaining here:

FV4401: This is not the same as the FV4401 "Contentious" tank destroyer, this is a LT project that was essentially a bigger AMX ELC armed with a 105mm gun
FV4202: This tank currently being a premium makes it tricky to have in the line unless WG want to let people keep its premium status. The reason I want it here is because numerous sites list it as essential a prototype to the Chieftain
FV4201: While you want to have the Pike-nose Chieftain here I would suggest against that. While it's a chieftain prototype, its design is so radically different to other British tanks it just doesn't fit in the line (but it could make a good tier 8 premium HT). The prototype I would use is this:

Spoiler

 

Note the hull front how it is similar in shape to that of the FV215b compared to the nice rounding of the production Chieftain

 

What are you thoughts on this?

 

On a side note though, I did find a very well detailed document of the Pike-nose Chieftain stats:

Spoiler

 

 


Edited by DeadArashi, 20 April 2017 - 07:56 PM.

Spoiler

DeadArashi #24 Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:03 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 10536 battles
  • 358
  • [TGB] TGB
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

I also hesitate to remove the "FV215b", it's too popular a tank. The issue is that it is unhistorical as there was never a plan for a rear turreted Conqueror... but there was a designation for a tank FV215a, and this got me thinking. There's no documentation on it but let's run with it being a "prototype" if you will. Do some editing to the FV215b (183) turret and to give it a similar size to that of the Conqueror with the Conquerors commander cupola.

 

So we have something that looks like this:

Spoiler

 

You don't need to maintain that view/range finder bar on the roof from the FV215b (183), I just left it there because that's more effort for me to remove in photoshop but you should get the idea.

 

So rather then a rear-turreted Conqueror "FV215b" we have a have a prototype turret FV215a. It's not historical, but it's more plausible

 

I would change aspects of it to be as such:

Name: FV215b -> FV215a
Turret : 254/152/101 -> 254/178/101 *

Hull: 152/101/76 -> 178/152/152 *

Weight: 70t -> 80t

hp/t: 13.57 -> 11.87

Speed: 34 -> 28

 

*armor values based on the FV215b (183) HD model when it was tested on the Sandbox during the initial 1st phase.

 

What you essentially have now is a slower, more heavily armored tank compared to the Chieftain, it just gives a bit of diversity between the two HTs.

 

but this is just my own suggestion of what they could do with it


Edited by DeadArashi, 20 April 2017 - 04:13 PM.

Spoiler

Jarms #25 Posted 21 April 2017 - 07:07 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 12581 battles
  • 423
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostDeadArashi, on 20 April 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

I like a lot of you suggestions but I can't help but feel it's too cluttered in the mid tier. You have nine tier 10s and 13 tier 5s. You have one tier 5 that branches into 3 tier 5s, and in another case you have to go through three tier 5s to hit the tier 6... this is a massive turn off for someone that wants to free exp or try to speed grind a line and is just poor design in my opinion.

 

Thanks for the criticism, my trees are just rough guidelines of how I'd structure the tree and make it more inclusive of the entire Commonwealth.

 

I don't see a problem with having a more flushed out lower tree, just look at the Germans for example, they have 11 tier IV's and 9 tier X's. I can understand your point regarding the triple tier V's, as you can see I've also added two crossovers into the line elsewhere to avoid that. The easiest solution would be just removing the AT1 and letting the Valiant lead directly into the AT series.

 

However, I liked the idea of an infantry/assault tank turned into turreted assault gun, turned casemate assault gun. I'd fit to keep the Churchill changes I've made though, it really does cover the numerous changes the series underwent. 

 

View PostDeadArashi, on 20 April 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

 

I feel there's a few tanks thank need explaining here:

FV4401: This is not the same as the FV4401 "Contentious" tank destroyer, this is a LT project that was essentially a bigger AMX ELC armed with a 105mm gun
FV4202: This tank currently being a premium makes it tricky to have in the line unless WG want to let people keep its premium status. The reason I want it here is because numerous sites list it as essential a prototype to the Chieftain
FV4201: While you want to have the Pike-nose Chieftain here I would suggest against that. While it's a chieftain prototype, its design is so radically different to other British tanks it just doesn't fit in the line (but it could make a good tier 8 premium HT). 

 

I've thought about adding the FV4401 light tank, I'd probably knock the AVR down to tier VI and add the FV4401 as the tier VII. 

 

I've also thought about adding the FV4202 as a tank leading to the Chieftain, however, with the current layout of the tree and its premium status something had to go to make it fit. If the Chieftain was a medium, we could place it as another alternate tier X medium, however, we'd lose the Conqueror link.  

 

Point taken, there were numerous Chieftain prototypes, we could slot any of those into the tier IX position with the others being potential clan or campaign reward tanks.

 

Other than that, good attempt. 

 

View PostDeadArashi, on 20 April 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

I also hesitate to remove the "FV215b", it's too popular a tank. The issue is that it is unhistorical as there was never a plan for a rear turreted Conqueror... but there was a designation for a tank FV215a, and this got me thinking. There's no documentation on it but let's run with it being a "prototype" if you will. Do some editing to the FV215b (183) turret and to give it a similar size to that of the Conqueror with the Conquerors commander cupola.

 

We'd just be replacing a fake with another fake, the FV215a was just a Conqueror (some sources say FV201) AVRE with a mine flail. 

 

I've made some suggestions to improve the tier IX Conqueror and add a tier X Conqueror as a replacement to the ageing and completely fabricated FV215b 120mm. To summarise the changes, the tier IX would get the current top Conqueror turret as the new stock turret and get the "Super" Conqueror turret as the new top turret. This is the same turret, except mounting an additional 14mm of spaced armour (known as burster plates). Which has already been modelled by WG.

 

Spoiler

 

The tier X Conqueror, which I've just labelled as the "Super" Conqueror (which isn't the most historical of names). This would have the proposed "improved ballistic shape turret" with 13.5 inches (342.9mm) of frontal protection and 7 inches (177.8mm) of side protection. The hull would be the same except with the additional 14mm burster plates added to the upper plate (which the above WG model is missing). I would then provide a L11 120mm gun (the same gun as on the Chieftain) which several Conquerors were used as testbeds for as a researchable top gun (similar to how the E100 needs to unlock its top gun). 

 

I think Listy had the images for these somewhere. Edit: Found them.

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by Jarms, 21 April 2017 - 07:12 PM.


DeadArashi #26 Posted 21 April 2017 - 11:07 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 10536 battles
  • 358
  • [TGB] TGB
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

OK Ok Ok, 2 things to start with

 

  1. That rendered image isn't actually a "Super Conqueror", it's a standard Conqueror using the battle packs that it would have had equipped had it ever gone into battle. The document drawing from Listy IS the "Super Conqueror" turret
  2. Putting the L11 on the "Super Conqueror" would remove any historical accuracy you may have been aiming for

 

at least I think so from my admittedly limited knowledge on British tanks. I like their designs but I know more about American, Swedish and German tanks

 

You could put the spaced/burster armor on the Super Conqueror turret as it would be a battle pack they wouold have used but I would leave the gun as the L1A1 as it's the historical gun

 

 

I still don't particularly want to get rid of the FV215b completely but it can't stay with the Conqueror turret either... My turret, while also not historical, is... "closer" (?) then using the Conqueror turret, so why not use it and the 120mm L1A1 on the Deathstar? Something like this:

Spoiler

 

It's not a conventional solution for a tier 10 to have two options for turrets but I feel this is a good compromise for us. 

  • People that love the FV215b HT will be able to enjoy it (except the changed turret) as the TD
  • Offeres FV215b drivers the option of either high DPM or high alpha
  • The Super Conqueror comes in as the historical tier 10 HT
  • By making the FV215b TD slower it offers the FV4005 to shine as being the more mobile of them (would be nice if that line got more gun depression though)

 

View PostJarms, on 21 April 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

 

Thanks for the criticism, my trees are just rough guidelines of how I'd structure the tree and make it more inclusive of the entire Commonwealth.

 

 

I would love a Commonwealth line, the issue I have is that, like the FV4202, they have the AC 1 "Sentinel" and AC 4 Experimental as premiums, that's not to say there weren't other designs for it, they very well could have made a 3-4 tank mini branch in the UK tech tree. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend this thread HERE. (Seems you have been there, just noticed your comments in it). I will probably do a module outline for each AC tank in the future similar to the FV215b above and make a post regarding it or add it here

 

View PostJarms, on 21 April 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

 

I've thought about adding the FV4401 light tank, I'd probably knock the AVR down to tier VI and add the FV4401 as the tier VII. 

 

 

Well in mine I have the FV4401 at tier 7 so we're on the mark there. I was actually considering the AVR at tier 5 with the FV301 andd FV400 a tier high just because the stock gun is, if I recall, a 30mm burst fire autocannon

View PostJarms, on 21 April 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

 

I've also thought about adding the FV4202 as a tank leading to the Chieftain, however, with the current layout of the tree and its premium status something had to go to make it fit. If the Chieftain was a medium, we could place it as another alternate tier X medium, however, we'd lose the Conqueror link.  

 

Point taken, there were numerous Chieftain prototypes, we could slot any of those into the tier IX position with the others being potential clan or campaign reward tanks.

 

Well as I said, players that have the FV4202 would keep it in premium status if placed as a regular tank. Ideally though you would have replace the FV4202 with another tier 8 premium MT. Players would be given that new premium MT as well as the regular FV4202. Having a MT build in from tier 8 you could class the Chieftain as a MT and it also lets HT players and MT players both access it

 

Should the FV4202 not make it in as a regular tank I feel they could drop that tier 9 down to tier 8 and and have the Chieftain P1 take up the tier 9 slot

 

 

 


Edited by DeadArashi, 22 April 2017 - 01:57 AM.

Spoiler

camdy #27 Posted 22 April 2017 - 01:45 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 16989 battles
  • 403
  • [TOG1R] TOG1R
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
the ac 4 experimental would stay as a premium as the ac 4 looked more like an ac 3

 iDd_Sloth RNG ... sometimes it loves you, most of the times it just doesn't care. #WoTbiggermaps  

https://youtu.be/hHkKJfcBXcw


DeadArashi #28 Posted 22 April 2017 - 02:30 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 10536 battles
  • 358
  • [TGB] TGB
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

View Postcamdy, on 22 April 2017 - 03:45 AM, said:

the ac 4 experimental would stay as a premium as the ac 4 looked more like an ac 3

 

That's because the AC 3 and AC 4 shared a similar hull with changes to the tracks while the AC 4 Exp was the turret mounted on the AC1 hull and mounted a 25 pdr gun (twin 25pdr actually) to do recoil tests, the Exp was never meant to mount the 17 pdr gun itself but it's still an important part in the development cycle. You could leave it as a premium but you would have to drop it to tier 5 and change the gun otherwise it would be a completely pathetic premium that falls so far short it isn't funny... But let's run with it as a tier 5 premium: 

 

Spoiler

 

Engine Power:
Cadillac "75" x3 - 330hp (AC 1 - 11.82hp/t)
Pratt and Whitney - 400hp (AC 1 - 14.31hp/t)
Perrier-Cadillac - 397hp (AC 4 Exp - 13.68hp/t)
King Gipsy - 525hp (AC 4 - 17.5hp/t)


Spoiler

camdy #29 Posted 22 April 2017 - 11:12 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 16989 battles
  • 403
  • [TOG1R] TOG1R
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
no the AC 4 exp was an AC1 E1 or E2 hull and they were only the pilot or test tanks and the turret was not an AC 4 turret but the E series turret mounted with a 17pdr for testing

 iDd_Sloth RNG ... sometimes it loves you, most of the times it just doesn't care. #WoTbiggermaps  

https://youtu.be/hHkKJfcBXcw


DeadArashi #30 Posted 22 April 2017 - 01:07 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 10536 battles
  • 358
  • [TGB] TGB
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

View Postcamdy, on 22 April 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

no the AC 4 exp was an AC1 E1 or E2 hull and they were only the pilot or test tanks and the turret was not an AC 4 turret but the E series turret mounted with a 17pdr for testing

 

It was a modified AC 3 turret, and to test that turret they mounted twin 25pdr guns in it for recoil trials before mounting a 17pdr in it
Spoiler

Jarms #31 Posted 22 April 2017 - 02:08 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 12581 battles
  • 423
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostDeadArashi, on 22 April 2017 - 01:07 AM, said:

OK Ok Ok, 2 things to start with

 

  1. That rendered image isn't actually a "Super Conqueror", it's a standard Conqueror using the battle packs that it would have had equipped had it ever gone into battle. The document drawing from Listy IS the "Super Conqueror" turret
  2. Putting the L11 on the "Super Conqueror" would remove any historical accuracy you may have been aiming for

 

You could put the spaced/burster armor on the Super Conqueror turret as it would be a battle pack they wouold have used but I would leave the gun as the L1A1 as it's the historical gun

 

The term Super Conqueror is a misdemeanour, it was a term that was never officially used. Which can both refer to the Conqueror Mk. II with the additional burster plates (see Super Pershing), or the proposed improvement program. A more accurate name for the tier X could simply be Conquer III.

 

The Improved Ballistic Shape Turret is already has a fairly impressive thickness for a tier X, though I wouldn't say no against improving this further with the addition of the burster plates (if these were still required with the new turret is another question). :P

 

The L11 was used on the Conqueror though, numerous tanks were used to trial the gun for the Chieftain.

 

View PostDeadArashi, on 22 April 2017 - 01:07 AM, said:

I still don't particularly want to get rid of the FV215b completely but it can't stay with the Conqueror turret either... My turret, while also not historical, is... "closer" (?) then using the Conqueror turret, so why not use it and the 120mm L1A1 on the Deathstar? 

 

I'd accept that as a compromise. 

 

View PostDeadArashi, on 22 April 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

That's because the AC 3 and AC 4 shared a similar hull with changes to the tracks while the AC 4 Exp was the turret mounted on the AC1 hull and mounted a 25 pdr gun (twin 25pdr actually) to do recoil tests, the Exp was never meant to mount the 17 pdr gun itself but it's still an important part in the development cycle. You could leave it as a premium but you would have to drop it to tier 5 and change the gun otherwise it would be a completely pathetic premium that falls so far short it isn't funny... But let's run with it as a tier 5 premium

 

AC I E1 (AC 4 Exp in-game)

 

AC IV

 

I'll probably create a post of how I'd implement the AC series into the tree, similar to the Churchill post I did on the 1st page. 

 

View PostDeadArashi, on 22 April 2017 - 01:07 AM, said:

Well in mine I have the FV4401 at tier 7 so we're on the mark there. I was actually considering the AVR at tier 5 with the FV301 and FV400 a tier high just because the stock gun is, if I recall, a 30mm burst fire autocannon 

 

The FV301 and the FV400 use the 77mm HV. 

 

View PostDeadArashi, on 22 April 2017 - 01:07 AM, said:

Well as I said, players that have the FV4202 would keep it in premium status if placed as a regular tank. Ideally though you would have replace the FV4202 with another tier 8 premium MT. Players would be given that new premium MT as well as the regular FV4202. Having a MT build in from tier 8 you could class the Chieftain as a MT and it also lets HT players and MT players both access it

 

If they were to make the FV4202 a tech tree machine again, I'd offer one of the tier VIII premiums I suggested as a free replacement along with a fully elited FV4202.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Jarms, 22 April 2017 - 02:11 PM.


MaximumSomething #32 Posted 22 April 2017 - 02:08 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 9571 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    09-06-2014

View PostDeadArashi, on 22 April 2017 - 02:30 AM, said:

 

 

Engine Power:
Cadillac "75" x3 - 330hp (AC 1 - 11.82hp/t)
Pratt and Whitney - 400hp (AC 1 - 14.31hp/t)
Perrier-Cadillac - 397hp (AC 4 Exp - 13.68hp/t)
King Gipsy - 525hp (AC 4 - 17.5hp/t)

 

You are probably going to want to compare like with like, in which case the Cloverleaf is 370, the P&W is 430, Perrier is indeed 397, and the Quad Gipsy power plant is four Gipsy Major series 1 engine and not a Gipsy King, and will give you 510.



DeadArashi #33 Posted 22 April 2017 - 08:32 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 10536 battles
  • 358
  • [TGB] TGB
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

View PostJarms, on 22 April 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

 

The L11 was used on the Conqueror though, numerous tanks were used to trial the gun for the Chieftain.

 

 

Must have missed that. As I've stated, I don't have a lot of knowledge on the British tanks but I am very much interested in tank history and development so any corrections to my misunderstandings are greatly appreciated.

 

View PostMaximumSomething, on 22 April 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

 

You are probably going to want to compare like with like, in which case the Cloverleaf is 370, the P&W is 430, Perrier is indeed 397, and the Quad Gipsy power plant is four Gipsy Major series 1 engine and not a Gipsy King, and will give you 510.

 

thanks for the correction of the Gipsy engine, must have been my misunderstanding and lack of knowledge on them. Even at 510hp and the tank weight of 30-32 ton the AC IV would still have a power to weight of 15.93 to 17 hp/t. And the engine powers do certainly fit into the tiers that they would appear in
Spoiler

mttspiii #34 Posted Today, 12:39 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 24171 battles
  • 15,624
  • [KYLIE] KYLIE
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

Instead of poking the FV215 a bit more, we can have the FV217 instead, trading side armor for a bit mobility (like T95 to T110E3), having the 120mm gun on the Tortoise but even more buffed, and possibly respectable armor (flat bits 254mm, slopey bits 152mm which is normally sloped to maybe 215mm, but you have good gun traverse for more sloping). And it's probably smaller, based on FV200.

 

 


Edited by mttspiii, Today, 03:35 AM.

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 


DeadArashi #35 Posted Today, 01:10 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 10536 battles
  • 358
  • [TGB] TGB
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

View Postmttspiii, on 24 April 2017 - 02:39 AM, said:

Instead of poking the FV215 a bit more, we can have the FV217 instead, trading side armor for a bit mobility (like T95 to T110E3), having the 120mm gun on the Tortoise but even more buffed, and actually respectable armor (flat bits 254mm, slopey bits 152mm which is normally sloped to maybe 215mm, but you have good gun traverse for more sloping). And it's probably smaller, based on FV200.

 

 

I have issues with the T95 -> T110E3 but this isn't the place for that

 

As interesting as the FV217 would be there's literally nothing about it except that it's, according to various sites, a "SP 120mm medium". The FV215b (120) might be a fake but it's based off the Conqueror and the FV215b (183), there's even less for the FV217 and no matter what you do you will only have a tank that's just as fake as the FV215b (120) which defeats the whole purpose of replacing it.

EDIT: I'm going to change what I said, there's something that could hint at what the FV217 could have been

 

 

Arcanea FV lists both the FV205 and FV217 as being variants of the FV201 universal tank. Based on this I think it's safe to assume the FV217 would be a moderatly armored tank with a casement. Kinda doesn't work as a replacement for a well armored tank with a turret though

 

 

I am interested to know what your source for the armour thickess is though because that frontal thickness doesn't give the impression of the described "medium anti-tank gun"


Edited by DeadArashi, Today, 02:04 AM.

Spoiler

mttspiii #36 Posted Today, 03:33 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 24171 battles
  • 15,624
  • [KYLIE] KYLIE
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

Not replacing the FV215B as an HT though, rather it's a continuation of the Tortoise-style gameplay as a TD of sorts.

 

My bad, turns out that the numbers of my source was just an extrapolation. No actual data released yet.


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 


mttspiii #37 Posted Today, 04:10 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 24171 battles
  • 15,624
  • [KYLIE] KYLIE
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

As for Chieftain, I'd put it as an MT (with engine problems). HT's tend to be limited-procurement vehicles meant to supplant the main armor force; Chieftain is meant as the mainstay of British armour. So we instead have a Spersh at tier X.

 

Just curious though, leading the AT 1 from Valentine? Thought it would start from a similarly bulkier breakthrough vehicle as a Matilda or an A1E1...but I digress. It would be like leading it up a tier 3-4 Valiant with the worst soft stats imaginable

 

And thoughts on the recent reclassification of Crusader to an MT (probably would mean Cavalier isn't needed anymore)? Would we have to attach Littlejohn adaptors as well to it to make up for the camo?


Edited by mttspiii, Today, 04:14 AM.

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 


DeadArashi #38 Posted Today, 04:49 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 10536 battles
  • 358
  • [TGB] TGB
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

View Postmttspiii, on 24 April 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

Not replacing the FV215B as an HT though, rather it's a continuation of the Tortoise-style gameplay as a TD of sorts.

 

My bad, turns out that the numbers of my source was just an extrapolation. No actual data released yet.

 

If you want that "Tortoise" Style of gamplay you could make it tier 10 with some armor improvements like the 171mm front section inreased to 191mm and so fourth, at tier 9 you would have the AT 16 that was proposed to become the Tortoise and looks very much like it.

 

On a relavint topic... do you think the FV217 would be turreted like the Conway or casement like the Tortoise?

 

View Postmttspiii, on 24 April 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

As for Chieftain, I'd put it as an MT (with engine problems). HT's tend to be limited-procurement vehicles meant to supplant the main armor force; Chieftain is meant as the mainstay of British armour. So we instead have a Spersh at tier X.

 

Just curious though, leading the AT 1 from Valentine? Thought it would start from a similarly bulkier breakthrough vehicle as a Matilda or an A1E1...but I digress. It would be like leading it up a tier 3-4 Valiant with the worst soft stats imaginable

 

And thoughts on the recent reclassification of Crusader to an MT (probably would mean Cavalier isn't needed anymore)? Would we have to attach Littlejohn adaptors as well to it to make up for the camo?

 

Chieftain as a MT is fine, I've been leaning that way myself

 

You're probably not wrong and more thought towards it is required

 

don't see why they needed to make the Crusader a MT honestly and cant say I support the change


Edited by DeadArashi, Today, 07:07 AM.

Spoiler




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users