Thursday, 17 August 2017

Assorted free stuff


I may occasionally use this post for freebies I come across.

Like these codes!

World of Tanks

2FTM-W5Z4S-AHP8E
2FTD-TVW64-D2GWY
WG Invite code (new accounts only)
WoT: Pz T15 w/ 50% crew & garage slot
WoWs: Enden & port slot
7 days premium
500 gold
Exclusive Lootboy emblem



World of Warships

KG3Z-PYNDX-MK2HD-ZXXY8
Marblehead & port slot
7 days premium



Armored Warfare

AW141883ABHNU7RP
AW141883ACC514KY
AW1418JQDJ1ZQP3U
Armored Warfare - 3 days premium

Oh yea. Do let us know if you use one of these codes so I can take it off the list and stop people vainly trying to use it for the next x number of years C:

Friday, 14 July 2017

Viva la resistance!

"Terrain resistance" is a set of hidden stats in World of Tanks that impacts how mobile a tank is covering how well it "maintains" speed and traverses on various surfaces. Take this comparison of British Tier 8 medium tanks for example - on paper the Centurion gets up to speed much faster due to its superior engine (16.7 power/weight vs 12.26), while the FV4202 can traverse faster (41.71 d/s vs 37.54 d/s). Yes, because of its resistances, the FV4202 is actually able to maintain its speed and make more of its acceleration when moving, while the Centurion by comparison will actually traverse faster.

In the real world, what determines terrain resistance of a tank? There's a few factors, and probably more than I can think of:

1) Weight - the heavier a tank is, the more likely it is to sink into the mud or break hard surfaces, drastically increasing the resistance it encounters

You ever get that feeling like you're slowly getting shorter...?

2) Suspension - the more robust and responsive the suspension, the better it ran. It's why the Christie was such a game changer in early tanks, and why the HVSS of the "Easy 8" Shermans was considered an improvement over the VVSS of earlier versions.

3) Track width - wide tracks allow more contact with the ground, which in turn allows more control and helps better distribute the weight of the tank. With the Shermans, HVSS tanks were able to equip wider tracks, allowing them more manoeuvrability than previous models.

4) Track and suspension design - this is a strange one really; a track is a just a strip of metal right? Well, not exactly. Tank tracks are surprisingly complex construction of, amongst other things, different metals, assorted pins, and rubber. Some designs proved more effective than others both in performance and ease of maintenance - take the ubiquitous T-34 for instance. Where other designers went to great lengths to create locking pins and alignment systems for their tanks, the Soviet designers simply used a small piece of metal welded to the side of the tank to whack pins back into place after each rotation. Such design variations meant that tanks like the Shermans had a tendency to bog down in mud, while overly-complex suspensions like the Panther would become caked in dirt and debris, slowing the tank down over time.

You want me to change WHICH wheel now?!

5) Undercarriage clearance - ever see a low-slung sports car try to get over a speed hump? Same principal.

Damnit Phil, I told you not to drop the damn suspension!

So how does this translate into World of Tanks?

At the moment, WG use resistances as a "soft stat" - something they can tweak with relative impunity to buff or nerf a tank's mobility, without actually impacting on the "hard stats" of horsepower, speed, and overall traverse (figures that are "official" and cannot be easily changed, especially for production tanks). After all, who really knows if the T-54 handed mud better than the Cromwell? After all a tank's reputation for mobility is often subjective or based on hard land performance, not on mud or snow.

Is this the right way to go about it? Personally, I'm not certain it's the best method. A tank's ability to traverse on assorted terrain should, in theory, be a measurable by simply taking it to a muddy field and going for a spin. Unfortunately, there are a multitude of reasons as to why this is not done ranging from a lack of tanks and muddy fields of similar consistencies to test with, to the fact that Wargaming do need some "hidden" metrics they can tweak to keep tanks competitive relative to others.

But that's just my 2 cents.

Sunday, 9 July 2017

Sniping Tiger, Hidden E75

There are now three German Tier X heavy tanks coming off two lines. Let's have a look at one of the oldest and possibly one of the most popular ones - the E-100 via the Tiger line.

We'll skip Tier I through III because these tanks are, for the most part, OK. There is a natural progression from through the various lines and the tanks themselves are reasonably accurate. We'll also be going via the Durchbruchswagen 2; we'll visit the Panzer IV line another time.

Tier IV - DW2/VK30.01H

Currently, a single tier separates these two tanks that have the same armour profile, similar visual appearance, and similar tier-for-tier mobility. Really the only difference between the two is the turret and gun choice. Why is that?

A quick root around reveals this excellent article by SilentStalker that answers it quite clearly: they're the same tank at different stages of development.


This isn't the only instance of a single tank being split to two tiers...

Oh look, a T28!

...but it's hardly an ideal solution. Nor would the gun selection of the Waffe 0725 really make a lot of sense, as this gun was designed for a later tank.

Solution: merge these into one tank. At Tier IV, the armour is sufficient to introduce the heavy-tank playstyle. We'll keep the mobility of the DW2 as it is closer to "accurate" and allows for a play style similar to higher-tier German heavies. We can introduce the 75 mm L/43 gun to give the tank some much-needed firepower and give it a bit more chance against Tier VI opponents.

Tier V - VK36.01H

I actually really enjoyed playing this tank; it's very competitive at Tier VI especially using the Waffe 0725. The problem is in this tank's mobility...a top speed of 50.5 KPH is silly and seems to be a holdover from the days this was a medium tank. Fully upgraded, this tank is better overall in most parameters than Tiger 131 or HT No. VI, the "historical" tigers. That doesn't make sense for a prototype that was barely developed..

Solution: The first and most notable nerf we'd need to bring this to Tier V is a downgrade on the top speed to around 30 to 40 KPH. Adjustments to its terrain resistances can be used to further reduce the mobility performance.  The 100 mm of frontal armour is very strong for this tier but is very flat and riddled with weak spots meaning that most opponents will have a chance if they can get close enough. The gun selection can be brought down to three: the 75 mm l/24, the 105 mm L/28 and the Waffe 0725. What you now have is either a Tier V KV-2 playing peek-a-boom derp, or a Tier V Tiger  playing the mid-range battled depending on the gun you mount.

Tier VI - Tiger

It says a lot that the "historical" setups of the Tiger were both introduced at Tier VI, where the armour  and 88mm L/56 both have a bit of relevance. The current Tier VII Tiger meanwhile is outclassed by most equal and higher-tier opponents, and is overall has a fairly high skill ceiling in order to maximise the powerful gun against the lackluster armour and mediocre mobility.

It's also worth mentioning that the Tiger was developed as a response to the T-34 and KV-1, and that the IS in turn was a response to the Tiger. Logically, shouldn't the Tiger sit at a tier between the Soviet tanks?

Solution: The issue here is one of gun selection more than anything else. Simply bringing the tech tree Tiger in line with its historical counterparts will be a huge boost for those playing this line. Remove the 88mm L/71 - it was only ever a planned upgrade that never happened.

Incidentally, Tiger I mit 88mm L/71 fits our criteria for a premium tank.

Tier VII - Tiger II

The 10.5 cm L/68 is one of those "what-if" guns that never really happened. It was planned and proposed, but never mounted in the Königstiger. See above what I think about paper guns on real tanks.

What a lot of people don't realise is that there is a more historical Tiger II in the game...the VK45.03. Yes, Wargaming has for whatever reason called it a "Tiger III" prototype when in actuality it was the Tiger II prototype


Solution: Pretty straightforward, really. WG already have an accurate Tiger II in game to model off of. Make the Tiger II 105 a Tier VIII premium if you really must.

Tier VIII - Löwe

Here is where things get a bit tricky. Between the Tiger II and the E100/Maus, German heavy tank design descends into a swamp of paper tanks and prototypes. In a sense this is a blessing for a game designer - it allows for a bit more "creativity" when it comes to balancing. From a historical point of view? Ugh.

The proposed Panzer VII actually sits in three places in WoT at the moment - there's the Tier VIII premium we all know and love, and the two variants of the rear-mounted VK72 project at Tier X.  We actually have a good branch-off possibility here to go to/from the rear-mounted turret Heavy Tank line.

Solution: Introduce two Löwe variants at Tier 8, a mid-turreted version to replace the current Tiger II and a rear-turreted version to replace the VK45.02A (we'll come back to this one another day). To differentiate from the current premium Löwe the tech tree version can trade armour protection for mobility. Or a more historically accurate solution would be to replace the premium Löwe with the above mentioned Tiger II 105, though from a business/profit standpoint WG would stand to lose out on that trade.

Tier IX & Tier X - E 75 & E 100

We are now entirely in the realm of pure paper projects, which is a real problem for any sort of historical accuracy.  Things like mobility and armour protection are completely theoretical, and determining firepower is a question of "what couldn't it mount"?

With these tanks we know they were meant to be better than their production equivalents (the Tiger II and Maus) but also simplified to use the same parts. Applying that logic we could argue that weapons planned for the Tiger II could be mounted on the E 75, and the Maus turret could be slapped on the E 100. For the E 75 this poses a serious restriction - we're talking what is at best Tier 8 firepower on a Tier 9 heavy tank.

Stock gun problems


Solution: The E 75 will have to lose the top 128mm gun. An argument can be made, however, for keeping the 105mm L/68. While the alpha is a bit low for a Tier 9 heavy, this can easily be compensated for via gun handling. After all, the E 75 was more efficient design than the Tiger II, surely that translated into better crew ergonomics?

The E 100 is "fine" enough. The only possible change would be to add the option of the Maus turret, which would give the option of two distinct playstyles at Tier X

In Conclusion

The main issue with this branch is unhistorical uptiering; tanks are placed at the wrong tier to begin with meaning they then have to be buffed to unhistorical/paper levels to make them competitive. I propose a general "nerf" of sorts instead - after all, if you keep balancing stuff by only buffing it, all you get is unmitigated power creep (I'm looking at you, current Maus and Type 5 Heavy).

World of Tanks and the Great Balancing Act

Let's face it. If you visit any World of Tanks social network of any sort, you will see endless posts about how so-and-so tank is really underpowered, or how such and such tank needs a buff, or how Wargaming has no idea how to balance matchmaking, the game, etc. etc. etc.

The inevitable fact is that World of Tanks is a very difficult game to balance. Think about just some of the parameters that need to be considered:

  • History - remember what happened when Wargaming completely diverted from the pages of actual recorded history?
  • Gameplay - WoT currently boasts over 400 tanks representing 9 major nations plus Israel, Switzerland, and Taiwan. That is a lot of tanks to choose from, and each one has to be designed to be unique in some way)

Well, almost completely...
  • Data - the numbers don't lie. Unless of course, you misinterpret them. Either way we see time and time again Wargaming using the numbers to justify a buff or a nerf (tank is winning too much/too littler/not played enough/etc.)
  • Profit - well, Wargaming is a business after all...
...and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

So how can we balance WoT exactly? How do you strike a balance between all the above factors?

I'm not sure there's actually a way to do so, not completely. Balancing WoT will run as long as the game runs. Every new tank added is another variable, every new mode or change to mechanics can drastically kill the gameplay of an entire line while boosting the appeal of another.

What we can do, however, is focus on a particular aspect. Take one point and work around it to build the others. Let's take History, for example. If we completely rebalance a few trees with history in mind, we can tweak them for more unique gameplay and identify profit options (re: premium tanks).

I don't really expect anything to come out of these proposals; most if not all will likely involve some major tweaking of the existing tech trees that make them impractical or unprofitable to implement. Still, it never hurts to get something off your mind, right?

...after all, because this is my blog, I'll can write up whatever the heck I want. I just haven't really decided what that is yet.

Watch this space...