Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

World of Tanks: A Different Kind of Tanking

24

Comments

  • FilosofiFilosofi TurkuPosts: 10Member Uncommon


  • FilosofiFilosofi TurkuPosts: 10Member Uncommon

    Uups... Douple post...

     

    This is a good game. Your clan doesn't need to have 400+ members with premiun accounts, if your clan has skilled players. Teamwork and proper tactics are vital.

    Matchmaking... Small percentage will always be higher tiers, but mostly others have same or +-2/3 tier...

  • ZodanZodan TamperePosts: 564Member

    Only issue with this game is the insane grind from Tier 7 onwards.

  • vonslashavonslasha ashville, NCPosts: 31Member

     "mmorpg" stands for "massivley multiplayer on-line roll playing game". every letter in that acronym does apply to WOT.  so go back to playing house with your dress up dolls, im playing tanks!!

  • comicazecomicaze Herndon, NHPosts: 147Member

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    You're actualy missing about 8/10th's of the tactics/strategy involved in WWII combat...and skewing it pretty badly. WWII combat was all about combined arms....and most of the strategy, tactics & systems developed for it....including those developed by the Armor arm were about facing different sorts of threats. Tanks without infantry, AT Guns, Artillery, Air Power, etc makes for less then half a game.

    AT Guns (self-propelled) and Artillery are in the game. Does it make more like a 75% game?

  • comicazecomicaze Herndon, NHPosts: 147Member

    Originally posted by Yellowbeardd

    The game it self not bad to kill a few hours but if you are looking for end game go find a different game for this monster has huge issues in the end game tons of issues if u don't have a clan of 400 members all with the highest tier tanks you willl have no chance at keeping land might get lucky get 1 chunk but that is about it. also those clans that have 400 members will make alliances with the same guilds so they can control the entire map then you only have 30 or so clans on the map getting all the gold and the small guy gets the crap stick and there are over 1400 clans on NA side and right now less then 3% of those clans own land so yaaaa not very good lol.

    Clans are limited to 100 members. But who cares about the facts, right?

  • comicazecomicaze Herndon, NHPosts: 147Member

    Originally posted by finnmacool1

    You hop on and just hope to get a match around your tier. More often than not that isnt the case and your one shot fodder for 2/3 or more than enemy team and all your rounds simply bounce. The spotting system is the biggest joke aside from the matchmaker and can really ruin some matches.

    I reckon I saw you yesterday in El Halluf in A-20 camping at the base and sniping King Tiger on the other side.

  • CenthanCenthan Toms River, NJPosts: 483Member

    I'm actually having fun playing this one.  Great to have a game to play for a short time and log out.

    However, like others have said, please don't call this an MMO.  It is exactly like any other multiplayer shooter.  For most of us, you click "Battle" and randomly get put into a 15 v 15 match.  That's about as far as the MMO goes.

    Good review, just two things that have me a bit confused...

    1) You give gamplay an 8/10, but your last sentence of the section says "...surprised, entertained, and engrossed me, but it never really convinced me."  That's a pretty high score for something that doesn't "convince" you.  You must be real easy to shop for.

    2) You mention buying the gold, and purchsing the "premium" account, but you never mention that buying this account gives you 50% more credits and experience per battle.  Why would you leave out probably the biggest benefit of the premium account in your article?

  • AkruxAkrux Goderich, ONPosts: 56Member

    WOT is god fun. It is a different kind of fun.

    I have played many shooters and the twitch factor and no death penalty in most shooters make them appeal to 14 year olds.

    In WOT your strategic thinking is just as important if not more important than your twitch skills. Being at the right place at the right time is crucial. 

    When you die in WOT you don't magically reappear 15 seconds later. Your tank is out of action for the duration of the battle. You can leave battle and start a new battle in a different tank. You will also suffer a hefty repair cost if you die in battle. This causes players to be far more careful than any other shooter that I have played. No more kamikaze runs. Playing smart is rewarded.

    Try WOT its free and its fun.

  • GooneyGooney StockholmPosts: 194Member
    Really enjoy this game because it is so easy to jump in and out of. Wouldn't really class it as an MMO though, more of a match making engine like guild wars or the Battlefield games.

    -Gooney
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Originally posted by comicaze



    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2



    You're actualy missing about 8/10th's of the tactics/strategy involved in WWII combat...and skewing it pretty badly. WWII combat was all about combined arms....and most of the strategy, tactics & systems developed for it....including those developed by the Armor arm were about facing different sorts of threats. Tanks without infantry, AT Guns, Artillery, Air Power, etc makes for less then half a game.

    AT Guns (self-propelled) and Artillery are in the game. Does it make more like a 75% game?


     

    Tacticaly there is a very significant difference between AT Guns and TD's (what WOT has). The same holds true for SPA and towed Artillery.

    The thing about armor is that it has horrible situational awareness, especialy with the crew buttoned up...which they really need to be in combat if there is any possibility of hostile infantry in the area (or just HE rounds landing in the vicinity).

    It was very often the case that tanks would roll right up on and even past well concealed AT guns. Giving the enemy point blank shots, often against side or rear armor. This is one of the reasons that AT Guns were so effective in the defense, particulary where plentiful cover exists. It's also one of the reasons it was very important to provide armor with close infantry support, if they were operating anywhere except a wide open field with no cover.

    Towed AT guns have a MUCH smaller profile then TD's (or even towed Artillery for that matter). TD's (and SPA's) have pretty much the same profile as most tanks (they were often built on the same chasis). Some of the German TD's, like the Hetzer, did achieve lower profiles by removing the turret.....but even these couldn't compare with the profile of a purpose built AT gun.

    Most Allied (and many Axis & Soviet models as well) TD's were basicaly tanks with lighter armor so they could achieve better speed (shoot & scoot was a common tactic) and guns with good armor penetration.

    The big thing about artillery (both towed & SPA) was the FO's that could call in indirect fire without exposing the gun and crew to danger. Without having infantry FO's you are really neutering alot of artillerys functionaly. They really were only employed in a direct fire role in an emergency, as they had very limited survivability when exposed to direct attack.

    I just took a look at thier site and they also seem to have some pretty bad historical inaccuracies. For instance in the US Arsenal they list a TD called the "M36 Slugger".  The M36's designation was the "Jackson" (as in Stonewall Jackson) and they have it listed as sporting a 76MM gun standard. In reality it NEVER mounted a 76MM gun, it was purpose built for the 90MM and only ever deployed with that gun. Even the early M4 conversions only ever sported 90 MM's.... that was it's reason for existance. At the same time, they have the M46 Patton listed...which wasn't even in the US Arsenal until '49..... yet the M24 Chaffe is completely absent...even though it did see some significant action at the end of the War...including in the Buldge.

    On the Axis side they have the Maus listed which only ever had a few proto-types built and never saw action. Even germanys own tank experts regarded it as an extremely impractical machine. Worse yet, they have this listed in the description of it "Good speed allows it to get at most needed place in time." . Yet the actual vehicles engine was only capable of achieving a top speed of 8.1 mph under ideal conditions, which would have made it one of the slowest tanks of the entire War...let alone for '45. The strain on it's power plant caused frequent breakdowns in the proto-types. It was too large to actualy cross most bridges of the day.....and it's high ground pressure meant it was in danger of bogging down even on reasonably firm ground.

    World of Tanks may be a fun little arcade game...but it's definately not something that would interest anyone looking for a serious WWII game....MMO or not.

  • Daffid011Daffid011 Posts: 7,824Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Tacticaly there is a very significant difference between AT Guns and TD's (what WOT has). The same holds true for SPA and towed Artillery.

    The thing about armor is that it has horrible situational awareness, especialy with the crew buttoned up...which they really need to be in combat if there is any possibility of hostile infantry in the area (or just HE rounds landing in the vicinity).

    It was very often the case that tanks would roll right up on and even past well concealed AT guns. Giving the enemy point blank shots, often against side or rear armor. This is one of the reasons that AT Guns were so effective in the defense, particulary where plentiful cover exists. It's also one of the reasons it was very important to provide armor with close infantry support, if they were operating anywhere except a wide open field with no cover.

    Towed AT guns have a MUCH smaller profile then TD's (or even towed Artillery for that matter). TD's (and SPA's) have pretty much the same profile as most tanks (they were often built on the same chasis). Some of the German TD's, like the Hetzer, did achieve lower profiles by removing the turret.....but even these couldn't compare with the profile of a purpose built AT gun.

    Most Allied (and many Axis & Soviet models as well) TD's were basicaly tanks with lighter armor so they could achieve better speed (shoot & scoot was a common tactic) and guns with good armor penetration.

    The big thing about artillery (both towed & SPA) was the FO's that could call in indirect fire without exposing the gun and crew to danger. Without having infantry FO's you are really neutering alot of artillerys functionaly. They really were only employed in a direct fire role in an emergency, as they had very limited survivability when exposed to direct attack.

    I just took a look at thier site and they also seem to have some pretty bad historical inaccuracies. For instance in the US Arsenal they list a TD called the "M36 Slugger".  The M36's designation was the "Jackson" (as in Stonewall Jackson) and they have it listed as sporting a 76MM gun standard. In reality it NEVER mounted a 76MM gun, it was purpose built for the 90MM and only ever deployed with that gun. Even the early M4 conversions only ever sported 90 MM's.... that was it's reason for existance. At the same time, they have the M46 Patton listed...which wasn't even in the US Arsenal until '49..... yet the M24 Chaffe is completely absent...even though it did see some significant action at the end of the War...including in the Buldge.

    On the Axis side they have the Maus listed which only ever had a few proto-types built and never saw action. Even germanys own tank experts regarded it as an extremely impractical machine. Worse yet, they have this listed in the description of it "Good speed allows it to get at most needed place in time." . Yet the actual vehicles engine was only capable of achieving a top speed of 8.1 mph under ideal conditions, which would have made it one of the slowest tanks of the entire War...let alone for '45. The strain on it's power plant caused frequent breakdowns in the proto-types. It was too large to actualy cross most bridges of the day.....and it's high ground pressure meant it was in danger of bogging down even on reasonably firm ground.

    World of Tanks may be a fun little arcade game...but it's definately not something that would interest anyone looking for a serious WWII game....MMO or not.

    Not to knock your historical information, but most of what you are posting about misses the point of this game.

    First, the tanks are set up to be balanced, not to be historically accurate in their dates of operation.  Some things are operating with designs that never left the prototype stage or were developed post war.   It really does work nicely for what the game is trying to accomplish.   It is pretty cool to play in some tanks that never actually saw combat or play with variations of equipment on different vehicles.   Most of which I can tell is still historically accurate.

    I do agree that adding infantry, long range artillery, AT guns and things of that nature would add new dynamics to the game, but again that isn't the goal of this game.  It is a tank shooter and not a military campaign simulation. 

     

    There are already plenty of serious WWII games that fill the gamespace for those types of games.  That does not diminish what this game is trying to be, which is a lobby style tank shooter and it achieves that very well. 

     

    Personally I find it an exceptionally fun game.

     

  • comicazecomicaze Herndon, NHPosts: 147Member

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Tacticaly there is a very significant difference between AT Guns and TD's (what WOT has). The same holds true for SPA and towed Artillery.

    The thing about armor is that it has horrible situational awareness, especialy with the crew buttoned up...which they really need to be in combat if there is any possibility of hostile infantry in the area (or just HE rounds landing in the vicinity).

    It was very often the case that tanks would roll right up on and even past well concealed AT guns. Giving the enemy point blank shots, often against side or rear armor. This is one of the reasons that AT Guns were so effective in the defense, particulary where plentiful cover exists. It's also one of the reasons it was very important to provide armor with close infantry support, if they were operating anywhere except a wide open field with no cover.

    Towed AT guns have a MUCH smaller profile then TD's (or even towed Artillery for that matter). TD's (and SPA's) have pretty much the same profile as most tanks (they were often built on the same chasis). Some of the German TD's, like the Hetzer, did achieve lower profiles by removing the turret.....but even these couldn't compare with the profile of a purpose built AT gun.

    WoT TDs have much better camo value that tanks, which addresses your point  AT vs TD.

     

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    The big thing about artillery (both towed & SPA) was the FO's that could call in indirect fire without exposing the gun and crew to danger. Without having infantry FO's you are really neutering alot of artillerys functionaly. They really were only employed in a direct fire role in an emergency, as they had very limited survivability when exposed to direct attack.

    SPGs in the game use "indirect fire without exposing the gun and crew to danger", any allied tank can call the fire. You should really try playing the game.

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    I just took a look at thier site and they also seem to have some pretty bad historical inaccuracies. For instance in the US Arsenal they list a TD called the "M36 Slugger".  The M36's designation was the "Jackson" (as in Stonewall Jackson) and they have it listed as sporting a 76MM gun standard. In reality it NEVER mounted a 76MM gun, it was purpose built for the 90MM and only ever deployed with that gun.

    Slugger is British for Jackson. 90mm is the second gun and no one really play with the stock one for long.

     

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    At the same time, they have the M46 Patton listed...which wasn't even in the US Arsenal until '49.....

    If you read something about the game, you'll find that the game encompasses period from 30's to 50's, and Patton is a direct competitor to T-54 of approx the same period.

     

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2



    On the Axis side they have the Maus listed which only ever had a few proto-types built and never saw action.

    Two tanks were actually deployed.

     

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2



    World of Tanks may be a fun little arcade game...but it's definately not something that would interest anyone looking for a serious WWII game....MMO or not.

    Well, Captain Obvious tells me that WoT is definitely not a Uni historic student's tutorial, but for armatures, like me, it gives an interesting and pretty accurate incursion into the history of mid-XX.

  • XaeroDegreazXaeroDegreaz MasanPosts: 13Member

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2



    Admitedly I haven't tried this out but having A WWII based tactical wargame where the only playing pieces are tanks is kinda like playing an old school D&D game where the only character type allowed in the game is a halfling rogue.



    You're actualy missing about 8/10th's of the tactics/strategy involved in WWII combat...and skewing it pretty badly. WWII combat was all about combined arms....and most of the strategy, tactics & systems developed for it....including those developed by the Armor arm were about facing different sorts of threats. Tanks without infantry, AT Guns, Artillery, Air Power, etc makes for less then half a game.



    Heck the whole US armor strategy for pretty much the entire war was that tanks were NOT intended to engage enemy armor. They weren't designed or built for that. That role was intended for dedicated AT weapons (initialy towed AT Guns, later augmented by TD's)...not sure how the game could even cope with that design difference. It wasn't until the M26 came out (with only a few months left in the War in Europe) that the US had a tank which was primarly designed to deal with enemy armor. Earlier estimates were that it took about 5 Shermans to engage and defeat a single Panther. How could the game deal with something like that?


     

    I do see your point about the game missing some elements, but if you threw in all of the stuff you're talking about then it wouldn't be a "tank game" -- it would be Battlefield 2, or Bad Company, or some other game who has ran that genre into the ground.

    Who cares about the realism of "tank-on-tank" battles, and how they were deemed inneffective in real war, so long ago. If I wanted realism, I would watch the Military Channel.

    But, I blow up some fricking tanks, so I play World of Tanks.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Re:  The "Slugger". The M36, unlike the M10 never entered British Service. The British had thier own TD's the Archer & the Achilles. Thier listing the U.S. arsenal...so it should be the "Jackson".  I've never seen any evidence that the British used the designation "Slugger" when refering to the U.S. weapon system. They did have a tendency to avoid using designations of confederate generals (They redesignated the M3 from Lee to Grant in British Service) so maybe it's possible ...but WoT lists the US arsenal and the designation for the M3 is "Lee" not "Grant" so they should be using the "Jackson" instead.

    That also doesn't forgive alot of the other bad historical inaccuracies in the game.

    Re: The "Maus". Nope only 3 proto-types were ever built. The first was a wooden mock-up. The second had a dummy turret. Only the 3rd was functional. None of them ever left the factory grounds. They were captured by the Soviets when they occupied the factory.  You're probably thinking of the VK series, another German tank that was proto-typed and makes an appearance in WoT. The VK was dropped in favor of the Tiger I. Two proto-types were built and thier chasis were cashiered into service for 2 mashed together TD's, similar in design to the Elephant that saw service on the Eastern Front.

    I get what WoT is....point is it's not a "tank simulation" as stated in the title of the article. At best it's a lobby based arcade game that doesn't do a very good job of "simulating" the dynamics of armored combat of the period or the ways that many of the weapon systems of the period actualy functioned. At that, it's rife with historical errors. Many of which don't even need to be made.

    I'm not trying to put the game down, it may indeed be fun. But the article seems to be glossing over some points about it.

    Now you want an MMO that actualy captures the dynamics of WWII combat...including armored combat. WWII Online, despite it's dated engine...actualy does a pretty decent job of that...at least for the early war. Guess they are not paying for enough ad space here.

  • comicazecomicaze Herndon, NHPosts: 147Member

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Re:  The "Slugger". The M36, unlike the M10 never entered British Service. The British had thier own TD's the Archer & the Achilles. Thier listing the U.S. arsenal...so it should be the "Jackson".  I've never seen any evidence that the British used the designation "Slugger" when refering to the U.S. weapon system. They did have a tendency to avoid using designations of confederate generals (They redesignated the M3 from Lee to Grant in British Service) so maybe it's possible ...but WoT lists the US arsenal and the designation for the M3 is "Lee" not "Grant" so they should be using the "Jackson" instead.

    Jackson/Slugger

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Re: The "Maus". Nope only 3 proto-types were ever built. The first was a wooden mock-up. The second had a dummy turret. Only the 3rd was functional. None of them ever left the factory grounds. They were captured by the Soviets when they occupied the factory.  You're probably thinking of the VK series, another German tank that was proto-typed and makes an appearance in WoT. The VK was dropped in favor of the Tiger I. Two proto-types were built and thier chasis were cashiered into service for 2 mashed together TD's, similar in design to the Elephant that saw service on the Eastern Front.

    "Some sources state that the Panzerkampfwagen VIII saw combat while defending the facility at Kummersdorf". Anyway Maus is in much better position here than some American tanks.

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    I get what WoT is....point is it's not a "tank simulation" as stated in the title of the article. At best it's a lobby based arcade game that doesn't do a very good job of "simulating" the dynamics of armored combat of the period or the ways that many of the weapon systems of the period actualy functioned. At that, it's rife with historical errors. Many of which don't even need to be made.

    I'm not trying to put the game down, it may indeed be fun. But the article seems to be glossing over some points about it.

    Now you want an MMO that actualy captures the dynamics of WWII combat...including armored combat. WWII Online, despite it's dated engine...actualy does a pretty decent job of that...at least for the early war. Guess they are not paying for enough ad space here.

    First and foremost it's a fun game. Having it's based on pretty accurate historical facts is a very nice perk.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    It may or may not be a fun game. It's accuracy I definately call into question. Just the few vehicles I happaned to glance at had pretty inexcusable errors...like the M36 starting with a 76MM gun or the Maus being classified as having "good speed" when the Germans could barely get the thing to move.

    Stuff like putting in the M7 Tank (which only had 7 models ever built before being dropped) while leaving out very important weapon systems like the M18 Hellcat, the M3 GMC, the M24 Chaffee...I mean c'mon.

  • Daffid011Daffid011 Posts: 7,824Member Uncommon

    Not to be confrontational, but grumpy all of your complaints seem to be based on historical realities when the game isn't trying to be a completely accurate representation of WWII.  For heavens sake, when you join a match you WILL have US, Russian and German tanks all on the same team.  Your opponents will have all 3 nations on their team as well.  Again, the game isn't trying to be an accurate picture of the WWII battlefield as it played out. 

    The tanks in the game use equipment and designs that were drafted or tested, but never used or completed. 

     

    I'm curious if you have played the game or not?

  • A1x2e3lA1x2e3l KoelnPosts: 131Member

    WoT has nothing to do with WW2 history except formal use (misuse) of recognizable shapes, textures, technical terms, and insignias. The rest is fiction, starting from tank-tier balance (real tanks were obviously not “balanced” and had no tiers) and finishing with such details like fantasy guns e.g. 88mm KwK 43 L/71 for a Tiger.


     


    Having said that it is necessary to admit that WoT vehicles in general  are based on their historical prototypes. Unfortunately, the game matchmaking system mercilessly sends helpless WW2-period tanks in a battle against advanced powerful post-war monsters. Matchmaking is very unfair and primitive.


     


    IMO the review correctly noticed one the greatest game drawbacks (“Social 6/10”): it is very chaotic, based totally on self-organization (can 15 random people without game help establish coordinated actions in few minutes reserved for a battle using simple chat and mini-map commands?).


    Tank mechanics is nicely simulated in the game. Developers have found a good compromise between realism and game fun. Unfortunately, armor units combat (team play) is not simulated at all. There are no build-in game features to select/elect a team leader/commander/general, there is no time for issuing orders and pre-battle deployment of forces, etc. Therefore one can observe  very often epic failures or victories without practically any casualties.


     


    Unfortunately, recent game patches are limited to “quantitative” improvements (new tanks, maps, correction of some known bugs), but no new game types and modes, no missions/campaigns. WoT has only one mode at the moment – capture the base/kill them all. Other modes (assault, defense), as well as historical battles that were announced by developers months ago are still in work. In general the game after nearly a year of beta testing is still not finished/polished.


     


    The game resembles amateur sport fishing or hunting than classical MMO entertainment. However, in case you like tanks I would give it a try.

  • razrwolfrazrwolf , ABPosts: 7Member

    Im sorry, but there is nothing innovative about it. Its basically a rip of the Direct Control system used for vehicles in Men of War and previous games in that series turned into its own game. The balancing is sporadic and shoddy across the tiers and with an abysmal matchmaking system designed for only a few tanks to dominate. This is not a game for anyone who can get frustrated easily.

  • SharookSharook MünchenPosts: 72Member

    I am actually quite a WW2 hater, because it's the most overdone setting ever. so i had great reserves when trying the game out and was quite surprised.

    no it is not a fps, it's not all about reflexes and spinal cord (although they help)

    no it is not a ww2 sim, not about US vs. Wehrmacht vs. Soviet.

    if there is any realism in it, it focuses on the characteristics of the various vehicles, but i would not dare to claim that.

    what it is: it is a nice MIX between arcade fps, tank sim and rpg. it is not a mmo at all. it has a suprising depth regarding tactics. it may not be a combined weapons simulation, but there is a degree of that in it, mainly in the physics how damge works, how you have to use the terrain but also in the collaboration of reconnaisance, MBTs and artillery. you wont see this kind of co-op too often, since like in most shooter games, it is dominated by trigger-happy forward-charging morons. chances are, more of these are on your side. but even if you lose, it is not a big deal (unless you are an overly ambitious laddie). this is what i like most in this game. it is extremely casual. even if you suck and get yourself killed in the first 2 minutes, just exit the battle hop in the next tank and get into the fray again. there is no respawning and ticket bleeding, it's always 15 vs. 15.  this makes the battles most of the time short and intensive. you can play the game on a 20 minute base. and it still gives you some persistency in your advancement toward better tanks, teams and equipment.

     

    what I need next is "World of BattleMechs". srsly! or some combined weapons sim (i.e. with some more sim elements) in a sci-fi setting. still, it can be suprisingly amusing to crawl around in a tracked tin-can with <20 mph, hearing how the diesel combustion engine is howling like in great pain when climbing even the smallest slope. and the thundering of the artillery when you kill a tank that tried to charge you on a short distance is one of the greatest moments you can have in games. but ww2 is still old and done.

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHPosts: 7,181Member Uncommon

    Some of you seem to forget it is a game not a simulation.  What I do not like about the game, it is basically a pay to win game.

  • comicazecomicaze Herndon, NHPosts: 147Member

    Originally posted by Ozmodan

    it is basically a pay to win game.

    It is not. You pay only to reduce grind, which is a perfectly legitimate business model.

    No OP "gold" modules, ammo, or tanks.

  • comicazecomicaze Herndon, NHPosts: 147Member

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    It may or may not be a fun game. It's accuracy I definately call into question. Just the few vehicles I happaned to glance at had pretty inexcusable errors...like the M36 starting with a 76MM gun or the Maus being classified as having "good speed" when the Germans could barely get the thing to move.

    Stuff like putting in the M7 Tank (which only had 7 models ever built before being dropped) while leaving out very important weapon systems like the M18 Hellcat, the M3 GMC, the M24 Chaffee...I mean c'mon.

    Maus by far is the slowest tank in the game, a few TDs and probably SPGs are slower.

    M36 with 76mm is a short transient form to ensure a progression process to M36 with [historically correct] 90mm. For me it is pretty accurate, you might need to search another animated history book.

  • comicazecomicaze Herndon, NHPosts: 147Member

    Originally posted by razrwolf

    The balancing is sporadic and shoddy across the tiers and with an abysmal matchmaking system designed for only a few tanks to dominate. This is not a game for anyone who can get frustrated easily.

    The matchmaking is not abysmal or broken. It's just different from your usual "fight mobs of my level only" and "select target, mash skill buttons", or even from FPS' headshots.

Sign In or Register to comment.