T110 and M103 #3

Doctuer, on Mar 22 2012 - 19:16, said: We need to see a list of what was changed. Otherwise we have to make assumptions which will be (correctly, because they are not facts) ignored.
We have a list of what we feel needs changing. While there are variations of this some of them have been analysed very carefully and represent exceedingly reasonable changes that would reduce the glaring disadvantages of arguably poor initial modeling choices put into the two American tanks in question, while at the same time keeping them different to the other tank contempories (Wargaming's original desire or intent) and not making them overpowered.
Looking at the T110E5, these would be:-
Speed. The design is meant to operate as a sort of hybrid Heavy/Medium and that's fine. It augers well for the game to have greater variety in tank attributes at any tier, to cover a wider variety of roles in how they can acchieve success in combat by utilizing these differances best. In REVERSE GEAR the T110E is slower than an E100, a tank with a lower power to weight ratio and carrying much more mass than the T110E5. The T110E5 cannot operate well in it's intended role while it is being restricted to less manoevre in reverse than an E100. How can this be jsutified in the name of good game balance ? The E100 is much larger, heavier and slower than a T110E5, but trades manourvre for armour protection far superior to the T110E5, which should trade armour protection for speed. By the terms of game balance itself a 2 km/h increase in reverse (granted for test 3) is clearly inadequate. It must at the very LEAST be the equivalent of the heavier E100 (which can do 15 km/h in reverse) and in all probablity should be even higher given it is a lighter tank, far smaller, and with a better power to weight ratio. AND it's operating principle is that of a much more mobile tank by virtue of what it is and how it is intended to operate in the game.
Requirement 1. The T110E5 should be capable of 15-18 km/h in reverse gear.
The gun. When the first iteration of the M58, as the SA47 French 129mm gun (the same gun as the M58 apart from the breech loading mechanism) was built by Wargaming, the estimare was that it would need 280mm AP penetration to fit into the game equitably with the lowest damage alpha of all the tier 10 guns (400) ... after testing and finding the new autoloader burst strike of the French version was exceedingly overpowering, the penetration was reduced to 268mm (arguably no real differance from the 269mm the American version carries) but that this is attributed to the 6 rounds in less than 15 seconds power of the autoloader mechanism. Without that function the American version has to rely on not bouncing rounds or it's DPM advantage is eliminated. If it is going to be balanced with the smallest aplha strike of all tier 10 guns it makes sense on every account (including and primarily GAME BALANCE) to give it the original estimate of what would be ideal, that being 280mm penetration with AP. If we take into account that the drop off over range of the M58 gun is TWICE that of the other high velocity guns it faces such as the S70 (IS7) 130mm gun and the Maus 128mm (for example) then the need to have a higher penetration is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.
Requirement 2. The T110E5 M58 gun should be capable of 280mm penetration at 100 meters -or- have it's penetration over range percentage HALVED (like the others do) to compensate. Even game balance alone notwithstanding the reality of a modern high velocity cannon of the M58s ability says this must be the case.
Armour. The T110E5 is improved in the front hull over test 1. However, the turret is still inadequate, and the rest of the tank is much less well protected than it's contemporaries except for the AMX50B, which has speed in forwards and reverse that the T110E5 cannot rely on. The T29 American heavy had the rangefinder ears on the turret top/sides taken OUT OF THE HIT BOX because they were a weakness that was far too great in the end. This same lesson applies to the commander cupola on the T110E5. It will be too great a liability when all the other armour weaknesses are taken into account. Even if the hull and turret were better protected than they are now, the cupola would still be too great a weakness. The lesson from the T29 is clear and obvious. If it cannot be remodeled (and we undertsand this to be the case if v 7.2 patch release be possible ASAP as it is) then at LEAST it could be made thicker to ACT like it isn't a weakspot hitbox. That would adequately correct the problem and require almost no work as armour thickness is a number in a data field and not a remodeling task of the tank 3D model itself.
Requirement 3. Take the 10mm increase in cupola armour and increase it a further 30mm. It would be a weakspot still but far less so and with much less frequency. Only the biggest guns and at close range would be a worry and while still not correct, it would be acceptable.
We could also ask for better front turret armour, and a small increase in damage alpha (say 440, which is the midpoint between the 105mm guns and the 128mm guns on other tanks) which for a high velocity 120mm gun fits perfectly inside current game mechanics. But in deferance to the developers being reluctant to make any changes at all greater than the tiny ones so far mentioned, I will focus on the 3 points above which will at least give the tank an acceptable level of ability as a hybrid heavy/medium based on it's core design attribtres.
So that's a list culled from a compendium of all the things discussed previously about the T110E5 as feedback. It's pretty modest really. It isn't going to introduce any work that will delay the release of the v7.2 patch as it is all data work. Above all it is conservative enough to be considered NOT overpowering to the tank itself (as a competitior) and to NOT unbalance the game, while at the same time improving the T110E5 so that it is NOT UNDERBALANCED as it is in it's current form.
Would you be so kind as to obtain a list from Wargaming that deal with the discussion from THEIR point of view ?