Jump to content


9.20.1 ST - Changes to the British HTs


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

Elphaba #1 Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:06 PM

    Private

  • Beta-Tester
  • 995 battles
  • 2,570
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013

Here is the latest info about the fixes for the British HTs Tier VIII-IX.

 

We’ve decided to revise the top vehicles for this branch. The tanks are not bad, but they are too diverse: HT-8 was deeply out of the general concept, and HT-10 is a technical improvisation of developers – such a vehicle didn’t exist in reality.

 

We took the gameplay of HT-9 as a basis – a moderately armored vehicle with a good gun and armored turret, and “stretch” it to Tiers VIII-X. So we’re making well-armored multipurpose heavies with excellent guns. And we will make the current HT-10 a special tank, the same fate of the Foch (155), in case the changes end up getting released.

 

And now more details about the changes to the HT-8 Caernarvon. Currently the game role of this vehicle is that of a hybrid medium/heavy tank. We plan to make it into a real heavy – armored and armed with an “evil” gun. In order to do that, we’ll increase the vehicle’s protection and add a new 32-pound caliber top gun.  As a compensation for increased survivability and firepower, the parameters of mobility and maneuverability will be decreased a bit.

Spoiler

 

British HT-9 Conqueror was used as a benchmark when changing the top branch. It’ll have significantly increased armor – now it’ll be a balanced heavy tank, which is able to take a punch and skillfully give it back. Unfortunately, nothing is free, so the improved armor will be balanced with decreased mobility and rate of fire during the super test.
Spoiler

 

We’re ready to introduce a new British HT-10 - Super Conqueror. It’s currently available only on the Super test, but we’ll be able to see it further down the line on the main server as well. How do we plan to replace HT-10? The same as with French TD-10 – if the vehicle was present in the hangar with the release, FV215B will be transferred to special tanks.

Why do we change the tank? FV215B is an excellent vehicle. But its gameplay is a bit specific, requires some specific skills from players and doesn’t correspond to the logic of this vehicle’s branch research due to the rear position of the turret.

 

What is Super Conqueror? As it follows from its name, the vehicle is similar to HT-9 but even better: more HP, better firepower parameters and excellent armor, even better than what the HT-9 has.



Inglorious_Aussie_Tanker #2 Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:23 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 10950 battles
  • 3,925
  • Member since:
    01-18-2015
So 32pdr as featured in OTHER British Tanks or is it a NEW to be researched 32pdr?

Vote NOW, to Wall up the Lakeville Valley Pass.

So Many Idiots.

So little Shells.


Rainbow_The_Artistic #3 Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:25 PM

    Apache Attack Helicopter

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 31216 battles
  • 1,847
  • [LIFE] LIFE
  • Member since:
    03-10-2013

View PostInglorious_Aussie_Tanker, on 14 August 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

So 32pdr as featured in OTHER British Tanks or is it a NEW to be researched 32pdr?

 

A new one, afaik

Living in the wilderness as a unicum unicorn         

Tier 10 3 marks: IS4, IS7, T57, Badger, Leopard 1, AMX 50 B, Obj 140    

 


Otakubouzu #4 Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:40 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 15318 battles
  • 10,027
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

When 9.20 released?

 

So i can decided whether to kill my free time or to kill my wallet instead.



Nishizumi_Miho_SG #5 Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:52 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 1265 battles
  • 333
  • [WAT] WAT
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

Free tank?

 

Great, that almost makes my 46% @ 72 games worthwhile.



Zynth #6 Posted 14 August 2017 - 02:32 PM

    Aufklärungspanzer Panther

  • Member
  • 22968 battles
  • 2,805
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-01-2013

View PostElphaba, on 14 August 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

HT-10 is a technical improvisation of developers – such a vehicle didn’t exist in reality.

 

Because Wargaming cares whether tanks ever exist in reality or not.


 

RIP Aufklärungspanzer Panther 16th July 2015. You will be missed, friend.

 

But not for long. For "Heroes never die."


Flying_Elite #7 Posted 14 August 2017 - 03:22 PM

    Always blame Hema!

  • Forum Moderator
  • 26352 battles
  • 1,767
  • [YETI] YETI
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013

View PostZynth, on 14 August 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

 

Because Wargaming cares whether tanks ever exist in reality or not.

 

9.21 Awfulpanther comes back into tech tree and SP1C becomes free tank

   

   

Spoiler

 


Zynth #8 Posted 14 August 2017 - 04:23 PM

    Aufklärungspanzer Panther

  • Member
  • 22968 battles
  • 2,805
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-01-2013

View PostFlying_Elite, on 14 August 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

9.21 Awfulpanther comes back into tech tree and SP1C becomes free tank

 

I can haz?

 

RIP Aufklärungspanzer Panther 16th July 2015. You will be missed, friend.

 

But not for long. For "Heroes never die."


Matt_B #9 Posted 14 August 2017 - 04:57 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 16101 battles
  • 361
  • Member since:
    10-09-2015

I was hoping for an ahistorical 105 on the Caernarvon but the 32 pounder would still be a decent step up.

 

I'm guessing that the hull armour won't be buffed and will still be made out of ammo racks stuck together with tissue paper though.



Meverick #10 Posted 14 August 2017 - 06:18 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 47753 battles
  • 851
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013
Any update about British meds turret armour buffs? 

Elphaba #11 Posted 14 August 2017 - 07:02 PM

    Private

  • Beta-Tester
  • 995 battles
  • 2,570
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013

View PostMeverick, on 14 August 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Any update about British meds turret armour buffs? 

 

Just the one in this thread: http://forum.worldoftanks.asia/index.php?/topic/75013-9201-st-british-mediums/

AKASHA178 #12 Posted 15 August 2017 - 04:20 AM

    Smurfette

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 32511 battles
  • 5,560
  • [CRAZY] CRAZY
  • Member since:
    10-22-2012

guys here is the stats and pictures for Super Conqueror 

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.asia/index.php?/topic/28338-more-than-400-new-vehicles-are-still-planned-for-wot/page__st__400__p__1660564#entry1660564

 

:great:


In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him.

more than 400 new vehicles are still planned for World of Tanks

 


DeadArashi #13 Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:33 PM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 12493 battles
  • 1,629
  • [FRAP] FRAP
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

Guess I'll convey my opinions here now as well

 

Caernarvon:
I don't mind the idea of the 32-pdr being added, but I don't think the Caernarvon should lose both the 20-pdr guns, considering the 20-pdr is historical and the 32-pdr isn't

 

Conqueror:

No issues with the removal of both 20-pdr guns in favor of the 32-pdr

I personally don't feel a need for the Conqueror Mk.II turret to be changed to the Conqueror Mk.II ABP (with the spaced armor). I mean, I appreciate the overall armor buff to the tank (even if the massive LFP hasn't been touched) but I don't feel the turret to be considerably weak for a tier 9. I say keep the spaced armor turret for the "Super Conqueror". Would rather it stay as a high RoF, agile heavy tank then it becoming sluggish with a slower RoF

 

Super Conqueror:

Glad to see the Conqueror getting its battle pack spaced armor in game as a tier 10, although slightly disappointed we need to wait longer for the Chieftain.

No real complaints here except for the turret. I'm not sure where the devs found this design but it's neither the Conqueror Mk.II turret we currently have nor is it the turret that Listy found (especially in armor thickness: 342/177/? vs the 279/89/7 on supertest)

 

[spoiler]  [/spoiler]

 

Just to point out the differences in turret on the "Super Conqueror"

  • Turret in game has a small out cropping on the side of the turret that isn't present in this drawing
  • Turret roof clearly slops upwards before flattening out, this isn't present on the in-game model
  • Slight difference to the armor sloping on the cupola to the viewing device
  • Gun mantlet is clearly different between the two turrets

 

[Retracted]

 


 

Ultimately I would have the progression of modules be more like this (obviously with some gun performance tweaks for the 20-pdr)
 

[spoiler]  [/spoiler]

 

On a side note: I wouldn't be opposed to the FV215b getting the spaced armor on its turret nor the 5.5" gun being tested on the Conway :trollface:


Edited by DeadArashi, 15 August 2017 - 07:45 PM.


Cleirig #14 Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:57 PM

    Private

  • Member
  • 21706 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    11-03-2012

The game is full of neverland tanks with unstopium ammo and impenetratium armour plus invisibilium camo.

When do we get the chieftain ?



Jarms #15 Posted 15 August 2017 - 04:28 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 660
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostDeadArashi, on 15 August 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

Guess I'll convey my opinions here now as well

I have to agree with DeadArashi here.

 

The Caernarvon should at least keep the 20-Pdr Type A Barrel, and be accessible in the stock turret as that would be the historical configuration. Another question is the stock Caernarvon turret (and to an extent the FV201) going to get the same buffs the Centurion's are getting? 

 

The Conqueror didn't need any changes, it was already a good tank. The one change I like about this is that the top turret has become the stock turret, which helps the grind immensely. All that needed to be done was either leaving that turret as the only turret or make the turret with burster plates the top turret (which you've done), however you could have kept them as the historical 14mm thickness and not touched the gun handling or mobility.

 

I also like the fact that you're replacing the fake FV215b 120. Though you've given the Improved Ballistic Shape Turret the wrong armour thickness, it's too low and the burster plate thickness is again too high. 


Edited by Jarms, 15 August 2017 - 04:48 PM.


Elphaba #16 Posted 15 August 2017 - 05:56 PM

    Private

  • Beta-Tester
  • 995 battles
  • 2,570
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013

View PostOtakubouzu, on 14 August 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

When 9.20 released?

 

So i can decided whether to kill my free time or to kill my wallet instead.

Soon-ish.™ :hiding:

 

View PostCleirig, on 15 August 2017 - 07:57 AM, said:

When do we get the chieftain ?

 

Unfortunately, I haven't heard anything about this coming anytime soon.

 

Thanks to DeadArashi and Jarms for the feedback. Definitely something for the devs to consider. :)

 

View PostJarms, on 15 August 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

Another question is the stock Caernarvon turret (and to an extent the FV201) going to get the same buffs the Centurion's are getting?

 

This I would have to ask. Hopefully, I do get a response for you.



DeadArashi #17 Posted 15 August 2017 - 06:00 PM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 12493 battles
  • 1,629
  • [FRAP] FRAP
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013
Thanks for your hard work as always Elphaba

Jarms #18 Posted 15 August 2017 - 06:57 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 660
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostElphaba, on 15 August 2017 - 07:56 PM, said:

This I would have to ask. Hopefully, I do get a response for you.

 

Cheers. :)

 

View PostDeadArashi, on 15 August 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

Super Conqueror:

Glad to see the Conqueror getting its battle pack spaced armor in game as a tier 10, although slightly disappointed we need to wait longer for the Chieftain.

No real complaints here except for the turret. I'm not sure where the devs found this design but it's neither the Conqueror Mk.II turret we currently have nor is it the turret that Listy found (especially in armor thickness: 342/177/? vs the 279/89/7 on supertest)

 

Just to point out the differences in turret on the "Super Conqueror"

  • Turret in game has a small out cropping on the side of the turret that isn't present in this drawing
  • Turret roof clearly slops upwards before flattening out, this isn't present on the in-game model
  • Slight difference to the armor sloping on the cupola to the viewing device
  • Gun mantlet is clearly different between the two turrets

 

So my question for the devs is: Where did this new mystery turret design come from? Or is it another WG fabrication? Pretty laughable if they are trying to replace a fake tank with a historical tank that has a fake turret


 

One answer to this could be another turret that Listy found, but there was no listed thickness or pictures. The other (and major) problem is that it's a two-man turret. Which would still make it a fake turret.

 

http://overlord-wot.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/the-caernarvon-conqueror.html

"Well there is one other option. The files talk of a 1949 dated two man turret with an improved ballistic shape. This was achieved by removing the gunner, and giving that roll to the commander. With the gunner removed it allowed the current Conqueror turret design to be narrowed, meaning the armour improves quite a lot. As you can't change the number of crew in a tank when changing turrets this later one Wargaming could happily invent as there's no pictures or armour values."

 

The last sentence is the most intriguing, because that sounds exactly what WG have done (except keeping with the 3 man turret crew).


Edited by Jarms, 15 August 2017 - 06:58 PM.


DeadArashi #19 Posted 15 August 2017 - 07:44 PM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 12493 battles
  • 1,629
  • [FRAP] FRAP
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

Thanks for that info Jarms, I stand corrected and will retract my remark regarding the authenticity of the turret.

So right now they are changing the Conquerors current Mk.II turret to have the burster plates and calling it the Mk.II ABP while this new mentioned turret will be on the Super Conqueror and the "C.L.A.I.RE" turret is not being used. Just saying but wouldn't the logical thing be to set it up as Listy described?

Conqueror:

  • Mk.II turret (stock)
  • Mk.II ABP turret w/out burster plates. Turret being the undesigned turret Listy mentioned. Maybe similar armor to FV215b turret? turret could be called "Conqueror Mk.III" 

 

Super Conqueror:

  • C.L.A.I.RE turret w/ burster plates. Could be called "Conqueror Mk.IV"

 

The turret on the "Super Conqueror" in supertest clearly has this undefined turret which takes design from both the Mk.II and "C.L.A.I.RE" so it makes sense to have it as the upgrade to the Mk.II on the Conqueror while the SC gets the "C.L.A.I.RE". 

 


Edited by DeadArashi, 15 August 2017 - 07:49 PM.


Jarms #20 Posted 15 August 2017 - 07:49 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 660
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostDeadArashi, on 15 August 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

Thanks for that info Jarms, I stand corrected and will retract my remark regarding the authenticity of the turret.

So right now they are changing the Conquerors current Mk.II turret to have the spaced armor plates and calling it the Mk.II ABP while this new mentioned turret will be on the Super Conqueror and the "C.L.A.I.RE" turret is not being used. Just saying but wouldn't the logical thing be to set it up as Listy described?

Conqueror:

  • Mk.II turret (stock)
  • Mk.II ABP turret (upgraded turret as mentioned here with or without the burster plates but with the improved armor (maybe similar armor to FV215b turret?)) this turret could be called "Conqueror Mk.III" perhaps?

 

Super Conqueror:

  • C.L.A.I.RE turret w/ burster plates. Could be called "Conqueror Mk.IV"

 

The turret on the "Super Conqueror" in supertest clearly has this undefined turret which takes design from both the Mk.II and "C.L.A.I.RE" so it makes sense to have it as the upgrade to the Mk.II on the Conqueror while the SC gets the "C.L.A.I.RE".

 

Well that blog was written years ago, I'm just giving WG the benefit of the doubt and assuming they went that way. As I said, it'd still be incorrect as that turret only had 2 crew members. I'd just have the Mk. II turret and Mk. II turret with burster plates. Then the tier X could just have the Improved Ballistic Shaped Turret with or without burster plates. You could save the 2 man turret for a potential tier IX or X reward tank.

Edited by Jarms, 15 August 2017 - 07:51 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users