Yuri Pasholok: „Not all yogurts are created equal” (On Swedish Tree)

Source: world-of-kwg livejournal

Huge thanks to Vlad for translating.

As you already may probably know, Yuri is Wargaming’s main tank historian. I will quote his post:

„In case somebody missed it, we had some drama over here. […] (Seb: link to another blog, but it is basically the same stuff as here: SP15’s Original Rant)

The essence of what’s happening is the following: SP15, one of the two Swedish historians who made the Swedish tree possible, exploded. WG totally screwed up the tree, the models are wrong, it does not correlate with historical data etc.
I, of course, understand the anger of SP15, the tree really is not quite like it was planned. But let’s look at how things happened the way they did. I personally learned about this drama from the internet and was quite surprised.

Let’s start by sorting out who SP15 was talking to. With us, the historians, he was talking exactly ONCE. In Stockholm, in January 2015. I didn’t hear anything from him after that. This poses a question: who was he talking to, and who broke the tree?

The answer is simple: he was talking to a person who is known on the EU and NA server as Cannoneer. In contrast to myself, who isn’t an official Wargaming employee (and never was), he is working there oficially. But there’s a nuance. He is working in the balancing department. There are no historians in this department, and if there is someone who thinks of himself as a historian, that’s his personal problem.
There is also another interesting fact. We historians have contacts regarding the Swedish branch, namely Renhanxue. We’re working with him exactly as we have worked together with Silentstalker. We’re thankful to both of them, the archive material provided by them formed the basis of drawings which became game models later on. We also are doing archive work, so we contributed to these as well.
Now, let’s talk about wrong models and wrong specifications.
You know, after we recieved stuff regarding the Swedish vehicles and started to verify it, we had some quarrels. Swedish schematics. The fact that they oftentimes do not correlate with each other is only half of the problem. It all becomes even merrier when you start comparing numbers.
If we’ve already mentioned the EMIL 1951, i’ll just leave this here.

In other words, with the given elevation angle, the rear turret niche enters the engine compartment, and with the depression angle, the gun enters the hull. These are just frontal elevation and depression, not taking left-right movement into account.
Regarding inaccuracies: some changing of the proportions of this same EMIL 1951 is a result of trying to press broken schematics into broken specifications.
Regarding broken schematics:

To stay on point: may I ask who decided to plug a 105mm gun into the EMIL 1951 which it did not have? And put a 120mm gun, which is actually a bit weaker than the D-25, in the top configuration? Wasn’t this SP15?
And this stuff continues on and on. In the schematics on the Strv 74 with a wheeled base the error was twenty (20!) centimeters. We then manually calculated each wheel and the distance between them, since we couldn’t believe it at first.
Now, regarding the LAGO. This may be breaking news for SP15, but the LAGO existed in three configurations – 1938, 1940 and 1941. Let’s look at the 1940 LAGO:

May I ask what’s wrong here?
I can say that our draftsmen broke their brains over the Swedish schematics. One of them “broke” entirely, we almost lost him. He was working with the EMIL 1951, by the way. Instead of 1,5 months he was working 4,  he’s still trying to come to his senses. And before that, he worked for 3 months on Strv m/38, since the factory schematics really didn’t correlate with the real vehicle. We’ve came to a point where the most correct material were schematics of the Toldi I, which were made by the testing department in Kubinka. Thank god they are based on the same vehicle.

All in all, we historians are somewhat confused. It’s weird to expect good results if you have tooth pain and go to the proctologist instead of the dentist to heal it. Both are medics, both work on parts of the body, but there’s a nuance…

By the way, SP15 is not the first one. Mizutayio, who works on the Swiss tree, also made the same mistake at first. And before that, the guys who work on the British vehicles did the same.

Afterwards, I can only recommend SP15 to calm down a bit and take up a constructive position. For example, seek contact with us, after 1,5 years you might want to do that. Neither I nor my colleagues do like any of the things that happened, it’s sad that the story took such a turn but to say that WG is to blame about everything is not quite correct. It’s weird to talk about historical accuracy when you talked with historians once, in a cafe.

P.S.: Neither the historians nor the balancing department do take final decisions on matters of trees and branches. This is done by different people entirely. And we have a game about tanks, not an encyclopedia. Thus, changes in branches are usually unavoidable.”

29 thoughts on “Yuri Pasholok: „Not all yogurts are created equal” (On Swedish Tree)

  1. If this is any show of how much communication they have inbetween their departments, then I’m not even surprised the slightest why the game struggles so much in developement.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. What communication between departments? You think some guys from balancing department should come to the historians and say “Hey, I talked to this guy about Swedish tanks”? What would that be for? They’ll tell him: “Yeah, we are talking to guy he’s working with” (Renhanxue) and it’s done. It’s even possible this was done, in fact.

      IMO SP15 just proposed wrong models, WG now can’t pull back (because the branch has been already promised to release this year and is in full work and the blueprints as you see above don’t fit anyway), they can maybe fix it in future (or maybe not, depending on number of tanks – who knows). SP15 doesn’t want to be connected to the “fake” tanks (which he proposed years ago and since then learned about alternatives, alas too late), so he just throws fits around, blaming WG instead.

      Liked by 4 people

        1. REKT!
          Not really tho – just as always – talking to WG employee is NOT as talking to WG as whole.

          All and all – good intentions, wrong person. And there you have a paved road to hell.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. What I meant is that the historians, modellers and balancing department is not in sync. This causes the problems.
        If one part of the trio is defective, it can fix itself. But if two or all of them cannot function, shit like the T-34/100 happens!
        Communication is the key, remember this.

        As for the specific people responsible for important tasks: if they have an overseer who will check facts and communicate with other people, they can’t fail this much. It would be under control.

        Get the picture now?


        1. “What I meant is that the historians, modellers and balancing department is not in sync. This causes the problems.”

          I don’t understand where you get the idea of this. Yes, there were few cases in the past like that, but in any big company those are not 100 % avoidable. And specifically in this case, I don’t think that’s what happened at all.

          There were historicians communicating with the main Swedish research guy. There were modellers working with blueprints provided by him. There were balancing guys, where one of them talked to SP15, which had absolutely no impact on balance – history departments communication (why should it?). And there was someony who decided which tanks will go in from the overseeing position (balance/history), so there’s the overseeing link (who likely communicates with both branches all the time).

          As I say – I don’t see any major problem (only minor, like delays, but again, might have been caused by sheer size) with the development line – just with some person thinking they had more influence on Swedish tanks than they actually had.


          1. Perhaps I was thinking of things in a more grandiose level. I see what you are saying now.
            Either case, someone fucked up and it has a great impact, one such that was avoidable.:/

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Lets get this straigt OK. There are no outright fake tanks in the Swedish tech tree, none, nada. However i didnt agree with the chosen vehicles, especially in the TD line and i voiced my concerns about that line as early as 2014. I was very vocal about the TD line troughout 2015 and tried to push changes trough cannoneer, i had and still have no idea how much influence Pasholok had/has but frankly the only contact in the historical team dmitri shein (i think he was called) was laid off by WG in 2015.

        Direct contact with Pasholok was handeled trough Renhanxue and when Pasholok asked something about a model or whatever we would take a look at it and consult on the matter togheter. I think the main thing that whent wrong is that i wasnt personally in direct contact with Pasholok as i thought him going trough Ren and me talking to cannoneer all the time was enough. Frankly though i dont know what difference it would have made if i had been talking to Pasholok directly but several of the models could probably have been better at least.

        You also need to keep in mind that neither me or Ren knew about a lot of the things happening with the swedish tree untill it was too late. A lot of feedback we gave was ultimately ignored or discarded.

        Liked by 5 people

  2. As much as I like Yuri Pasholok, anything related to the feud between him and Cannoneer is biased. Cannoneer always did a great job, working with him on the CZ tree was a pleasure.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. Pasholok has implied that i had no idea that there were several versions of the Lago medium tank. To help prove his point he also posted this picture ( http://i.imgur.com/quxRQhb.jpg ) of the landsverk terro… Now if the picture wasnt enough of a givaway im going to quote a excerpt from a document written by me and renanxue (in late 2015) for WG about the lago detailing model issues and modules.

    “This tank combines the historical Lago prototype and elements of the production version, strv m/42. The drawings that are closest to the prototype that was actually built are probably Landsverk S-6049 and S-6052.”
    “Turret: Lago I
    The turret used on the Lago prototype. See Landsverk drawings S-262, S-6049, S-6052 and S-5011.”

    As you can see both me and Ren were well aware about there being multiple versions of the tank and we reccomended drawings S-6049 and S-6052 to serve as a basis for the Lago. However Instead WG chose drawing S-262 as the basis for the tank. So either Pasholok missed this competly or he never recived the document to begin with.

    Lago prototype (early engine deck) (1941)

    S-6049 (1941)

    S-6052 (1941)

    S-262 (1940)

    S-248 (1938)

    Critique of the EMIL drawings.
    Pasholok also critizised my citique of the EMIL model. I can agree that the original drawings were not very accurate when it comes to their dimentions in relation to eachother, that is a fair point. However in these drawings (and the documents that came with them) there is a -14dg gun depression value for over the front of the vehicle, if this is possible then the turret on WG’s model turret should have been kept in a simmilar position. This should have allowed -14 degrees of gun depression over the front without redesigning the turret completely. I dont see why this wouldnt have been possible.

    Then he complained about the 105mm gun on the EMIL when it historically had a 120mm. To that i first have to say that a 105mm was historically concidered as i translated in this post (sorry couldnt find the original right now)
    The Problem with the EMIL using the 12cm gun is quite simple, first even if it had low penetration it would be near impossible to balance with that alpha and HEAT rounds at tier 8. Secondly there is no way WG would accept the 145mm or 150mm rifled guns for the tier 9 and 10. This would have left them with only the 105mm which would have effectively turned them into mediums.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. I doubt it… even though it sounds seemingly needed, judging by everything that is happening about that tree…


    2. That isnt happening and i have accepted that. All i really want right now is to have the vehicles be given back their historical stats (most of them do) and possibly some fixes to some of the models later on.

      Liked by 4 people

    3. WG needs a pull in the autumn-winter. I already heard a few people saying they might/will go back to the game when swedish tanks will be released so I highly doubt they’ll push the date.
      And I expect atleast arty balance/MM rework around the same time to keep the players that might return, and if the numbers will drop then they might try some sort of rebalance, not sooner IMO.

      My 2 cents anyway.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. the turret is a little taller than the original FV4202, the sloped turret front is weaker, while the WT’s version made it exactly like the original, If I had a chance to change the model I would take WT’s FV4202 anyday


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s