9.17 Test Server: Swedish Tank Changes

– Fixed a problem where ramming damage was dealt when two siege mode tanks were close to each other;
– Fixed the placement of the tank tier icon;
– Removed invisible obstalces near the rail carts on Prokhorovka;
– Fixed the absence of national flags when creating a training room with nation restrictions;
– Fixed the distortion of tracks in siege mode;
– Fixed the activation sound of camo net and binoculars on 5.1 and 7.1 systems;
– Configured the possibility to shoot through ladders of some houses;
– Fixed the text display in the sound settings;
– The possibility to invite to a clan thorugh the contact list of the recruiter is available again;

Tank balance;
– Reduced the engine power of the SFA F12 engine by 28%;
– Increased the drum reload time from 28 to 33 seconds;
– Increased the reload time between single shots from 2,75 to 3 seconds;
– Decreased the armor of the upper glacis;

Emil II:
– Reduced the engine power of the AVS-1195 engine by 28%;
– Reduced the engine power of the AV-1195 engine by 35%;
– Increased the reload time between single shots from 3 to 3,51 seconds for the 12 cm akan L/40 gun;
– Increased the reload time between single shots from 3 to 3,51 seconds for the 10,5 cm TK 105 gun;
– Decreased the armor of the upper glacis;

Emil I:
– Reduced the engine power of the SFA 8 cyl boxer engine by 18%;
– Reduced the engine power of the AOS-895 engine by 21%;
– Increased the reload time between single shots from 3 to 3,51 seconds for the 10,5 cm TK 105-9 gun;
– Increased the reload time between single shots from 3 to 3,51 seconds for the 10,5 cm lvkan m/42 gun;

– Reduced the engine power of the DB 605 engine by 30%;
– Reduced the engine power of the Meteor Mark IV Mod 271 engine by 31%;

Strv 74:
– Increased the engine power of the 2 st Scania-Vabis 607/1 engine by 19%;


53 thoughts on “9.17 Test Server: Swedish Tank Changes

    1. You think those small nerfs will change much?
      Those tanks still have unpenetrable turrets with autoloaders and decent mobility. Few seconds more reload and a little bit slower acceleration will not ballance them properly.
      There will still be people freexping these and owning the battlefield. :(


  1. One thing I miss: a feedback response from WG on the concerns about the balance consequences of new overmatch mechanics.

    How does WG view these worries?
    Which were expressed and well formulated by a lot of good and known players and community contributor.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I can understand the EMIL II and Kranvagn nerfs, but not EMIL I nerf, it was a good tank before, but not op. the thing is EMIL I I don’t think needed the gun nerfs. Yes the turret is really very strong, but it’s penetrable by some guns.
    I just personaly don’t think nerfing the guns is the right way to go, if the turret armor is too good you don’t nerf the gun, just nerf the turret armor. Mobility I have nothing rong with them nerfing. I actually quite like the swedes being a combination between American autoloaders and french autoloaders.
    AKA. faster than T57 heavy but worse hull armor, quite strong turrets, good guns and decent mobility, now they are just overpowered turrets with bad guns, decent mobility and shitty hulls. which is the wrong way to go I think.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The turret is hard to balance honestly. Look at the armor scheme. If you nerf it to pennable, it becomes suddendly useless against certain guns.

      Imo best thing they would do is to nerf to turret into historical 170mm but then giving the 150mm (without autoloader though) as option :P. But honestly, this works too. The gun is still workable on Kranvagn.


      1. this nerfed engine would have 500 hp, which would mean a little under 20 hp/t which is comparable to a Comet. Put the quick aiming gun, stock gun on it and voila, you have a Swedish Comet (same hp/t, same pen, similar alpha and gun depression)


      2. Sorry to say but after the nerf it will only have approximately 17.8 hp/t since it’s top engine is nerfed about 30% from 650hp to 455 hp so Comet will still be the tank with highest hp/t


    1. Agreed. WG already nerfed the gun and handling from the initial stats and now they nerf the only thing in which Leo truly stands out – acceleration. WG really hates tier 7 meds

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Still Swedish tank don’t get historical armor cuz fuck it, only German tank need to have historical armor, if those tank where build.

    True turret front armor of Emil 2 and Kranvagn 170 mm front, fuck it. We will add more armor, cuz reasons yes….


  4. On the subject of 9.17, I happened to stumble across this today: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/38GzJ

    AFAIK, this is one of the lead artists for WG, and in the description, it says “Another tank for World of Tanks project. Release 9.17.” Notice the very odd-looking turret & gun mantlet… does this mean they’re finally changing the Caern’s turret back?


      1. Yeah, I checked it after posting and saw that the turret is still the same. I’ve also looked around to see where this new mantlet comes from, as it doesn’t look like any Centurion mantlet I’ve seen before, but I haven’t found anything yet. Hopefully more info will surface if this turret actually comes to the Caern, and if it does, I really hope it’s going to be a significant buff for the vehicle. It needs one badly.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. more fake stats, typical
    these tanks could have been balanced trough terrain resistance but no, lest just cut the engine power in half. Also the hull armor is now weaker than the historical armor so thats nice too

    Liked by 2 people

    1. While I do see why you’re frustrated at WG’s decision to ignore the historical armor schema for these vehicles, especially seeing how much time and effort you’ve dedicated to the project (thank you for that, btw!), I personally think it’s better to have armor as a balance parameter rather than locked on 100% historical. Otherwise, these vehicles probably wouldn’t’ve been received as well as they have been, especially in the case of the Emil II & Krv (overbuffed turret armor). In general, historical accuracy as far as armor goes seems to be a little bit futile at this point, seeing how poorly vehicles like the Caernarvon are performing after receiving their “historical” armor layouts (even then, with the AX turret on it, which isn’t even historical for the Caern to begin with, still doesn’t fix the issue for the vehicle). Still, some very obvious historical details which you covered, but Wargaming blatantly seems to have ignored (i.e. the Emil I’s engine power, which has been nerfed to be even worse than the historical specifications, and the vehicles’ somewhat-incorrect names, just to name a couple) are a bit annoying to me as well…


      1. to me once you start making up essential stats like armor you no longer have any represenation of reality. if i understand it right, by your logic the tiger 1 dhould have a 200mm hull front because more players would like it that way. That would ruin the tank for me, but everybody always whines about its armor


        1. Eh, just a difference in opinion, I suppose. Personally, I believe the vehicles should retain their historical appearance and only have historically-planned modules (i.e. Caern with AX turret didn’t exist, so it shouldn’t remain as-is ingame), but armor can be modified somewhat for game balance. Tiger II with 200mm of armor would be a bit excessive IMO, but a difference within +/-25mm would be “acceptable” to me.

          While I do think that historical armor shouldn’t be completely ignored, if it needs to be changed for game balance, then it should be. (VK100.01 for example – its armor was a bit borderline historically and wouldn’t have compensated very well for its horrible speed/weight IMO, but with armor buffed over its historical stats, it can compete much more effectively). Plus, WoT is much more of an arcade-style game now, so trying to keep things 100% historical is a little tricky, and probably wouldn’t be as fun. Just my opinion on the matter, though. :P


          1. i think that the armor should be the only thing that should not be touched, there need to be some unique aspects on tanks (the armor is enough push for different type’s of playstyle), what need to be changed is the ammunition penetration, the rest like engine power,soft terrain or gun handling is fair game in my opinion.

            The whole mindset that “if muh gun can’t automatically penetrate anything frontally, then the game is broken” is getting a bit stupid. The only thing the Swedish Heavies have is the frontal armor of the turret, the hull is meh-okish (reducing it just seems unessesary). the rest of the tank is pretty much paper on tier 8-10. they got one great point, to use the turret. if ANYTHING get’s on the side or back, it will barely be able to defend itself. the turret rotation is bad and to use the whole clip would take 12 seconds (now), that’s not fast. after that you got 33 seconds to make a difference (reloading).

            Don’t get why the Nerf on the engine power of the leo, the whole thing with that vehicle is it’s speed, as it have no armor. the 10,5 cm gun is not the most accurate and the reload speed is long. 9,5 seconds or something? seems odd.

            The Strv 74 increase is a + though, felt a bit too hampered by the speed.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Well but it’s not about automatically penning tanks frontally.
              Kranvagn has no weakspot on the turret (it has 2 small hatches but they are literally a pixel shot if you’re not above the tank) and even on flat ground you need 330AP (310 if you hit small part below gun)/350APRC (329)/370HEAT (343). That’s to have 50% chance to pen and on flat ground, so even on flat ground only TD’s are gonna pen it’s turret.

              You might say IS-7 has similar turret and it’s fine in terms of balance. But IS-7 is slow compared to this, it’s gun is garbage, it has half the depression. And it’s not an autoloader so it has to expose more often. This thing, on the other hand, exposes for 12s (counting time it takes to aim etc), very likely won’t take any DMG, and will pump out 1200 DMG on average for sure (the gun is good enough to hit 3/4).

              I also don’t like armor with no weakspots. Not only because it’s pain in the ass to pen and pressing 2-2 has decent influence on whether I pen, but also because it takes 0 skill to play with it. Generally armored tanks are easier to play, that’s why I hate whiners about OP mediums so much, because it takes skill and knowledge to play medium well and if you get rekt by HEAT firing medium it’s 99% your fault.
              Average players also do more damage per game in their heavies (please don’t look at server stats, they are flawed, for example 140 has 100 more average DPG than 62A despite IMO both tanks being equally strong), and you also have to consider heavies getting much less cleanup damage when the battle is already decided.
              So ye, armor is ok, armor that is almost unpennable in combination with good speed and firepower isn’t. I can already imagine so many positions where this tank is unhurtable (I think I just made this word up :D )


              1. WARNING WALL OF TEXT INBOUND! “sirens”, those who fear reading! flee! FLEE NOW FOOLS!

                Comparably to the Is-7 the overall armor of the Kranvagn is almost un-comparable, it got that one side which is the front turret. that’s it. The is-7 can pull of bounces from the sides of both turret and the hull. which the Kranvagn can not.
                If an Is-7 is hull down, you can’t kill it as it aswell do not have any glaring weakspot on the top of the turret. why aren’t we complaining about that fact if we are gonna go down this road? sure it does not have the gun depression of the kranvagn, but likewise find a good spot and you can’t kill it.
                Also the Is-7 is viable on ALL maps, Kranvagn,Emil-II,Emil-I need to hide their….everything expect turret. and will always be exposed just by moving. take that into consideration.
                And to be honest i don’t feel that is-7 is that slow, it seem to be able to move around the map without any problem, on paper it seems you can say it’s “slower” but in the game? no. Just comparing the armor between kranvagn and Is-7 is like comparing paper with an small plate of iron on the side of the paper with an block of iron.

                The autoloader now nerfed require about 14 seconds to fire the whole clip, which in practise is extremly slow comparably to the french 10 seconds and the american 8 seconds. so just from taking 1 shot you have 3,51 seconds to adjust or move away. (in many cases enough time to react) and remember that the penetration of the standard round is worse then it’s counterparts. not by a massive amount, but that difference can change the outcome of the match completly.

                Yeah the just because it have a positive and one make use of it means no skill? then we might already remove the autoloaders, they pew pew faster then everyone else, so only unskilled players use them. mediums move faster and some cases have armor that can bounce, with added posibility of remaining hidden! only noobs play them! these.Tankdestroyers got hyper penetrating guns pschhh unskilled automaticlly, don’t need to aim. so basically the light tanks are the only skilled based tank then. sounds silly.

                I would say the armor depends on how the rest of the tank is built, Emil-I,Emil-II and kranvagn only have the frontal turret as actuall armor, the rest is pretty much paper. you only require to get some angle or flank to put this tank in a bad position as i’ve stated before the turret rotation is bad and the reload of a loaded gun is now worse. So the Kranvagn is in an unfavourable position in most close quarter situations (even with a loaded gun).
                Tanks like is-7 have armor that it can depend on in almost any situation without any glaring weakspots. it’s not that slow. the depression isn’t the best but doesn’t stop it from making use of the armor in most situations. During many encounters with an Is-7 (especially a good player), the opponent is most times forced to expose itself more to pen it then the other way around.

                In my honest opinion it doesn’t take that much skill to play a medium (you just need to think before acting)…. if you have good camo or make use of any of the russian mediums, you can either just destroy player’s without being seen in a “cempy bush” or go hull down and bounce shells. in a match with the t-54 i managed to bounce 4,621 damage with the turret by going hull down. (so hard, stronk turret, stalinium 10/10). and have the speed to clean up in the end.
                make use of the situation and use the map is something EVERY tank need to take into consideration, some more then others.

                SO the kranvagn have a good turret, but that’s it. If it get’s exposed in any situation. it will die or have a bad day. It have speed sure, but the IS-10,7,3 have armor (some more then others, obviously) that if used correctly other will have a bad time (pretty “trollish” armor aswell) and have enough speed to be dangerous. It have an autoloader sure, but 3.51 between shots… really? that is extremly slow! so if it miss any shot it’s really bad, also after those 4 shots it got 35 seconds of reload time. so more then half a minute of not being able to do ANYTHING (might be more now not sure). in any type of 1v1 situation this is well enough for the opponent to put in the hurt and most likely kill it. (add in that the turret rotation is bad aswell)

                I will repeat one more time that the only part of armor it have is on the front of the turret!!!!! If one consider oneself a good player, one would already see the glaring faults of the tank and not bash at only it’s good point, and make use of said brain to consider planning ones way to succes. ANY tank can be OP-GODLIKE-TERMINATOR-INSANE, if put in it’s correct position or make use of the tanks possibility. (Even a super pershing can be really good if used correctly)

                Oh and we are not even considering the possibility of Artillery fire. If hit anywhere except the front of the turret, you are going to have a very bad day (so the “camping” possibilites get’s limited). Even shooting HE under the tank will damage it more then expected!

                P.s Unhurtable is a used word in the dictionary so no! no new word for you! >:3
                Also if you think this is a pissed of reply, then that’s not the case, BUT it’s getting annoying with people only think of one thing and do not take anything else into consideration. Emil – kranvagn have flaws some pretty big ones. open yer eyes.

                p.s2 Would be nice though if WG would consider bigger maps, that would open up more possibilities.


    2. Isnt the Kranvagn’s UFP actually exactly 95 (and LFP about 140) or am i wrong? Why i got odd feeling from about that?

      Also wouldnt the 105mm be just better gun option than 120mm? I mean, not only it would be unique, but wasnt that (and 15cm, even if that is smoothbore i guess it would be neat if it was balanced as single-shot gun with low DPM and gun handling) actual guns considered for Kranvagn?


      1. the lower glacis is 145mm on the real thing, and 115 in game (or probably less now) because WG.
        and WG would have turned them into mediums if the 10,5cm gun was used.


  6. i dont get the leo nerf. I wanted this tank just because of its mobility, and now if they will decrease the power of its engines, that tank will be quite medicore. wp wg,

    Liked by 3 people

  7. The Kranvagn was supposed to be inbetween the 50b and t57 in terms of performance. With these nerfs you’re getting: worst hull armor of the two, worst dpm and worst p/w ratio and worst traverse with the only upsides being the decent gun handling, gun depression and amazing turret.

    I’d rather see them completely rebalance the swedish heavies first. The pre-nerf state is bad for the state of the game at tier 10 but the post-nerf version is bad for the tank itself and how competitive it is.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Its still much faster than T57 HT. T57’s top speed is limited to like 35, while Kranvagina still goes 50 fairly nicely.

      Also remember Kranvagn still has best turret in the game versus total trash turret of 50B and troll but still bad at close range (atleast when not hulldown) turret of T57 and 50% better depression than either of them. I played it on TS and it still feels very good tank. That just indicates how fucking overpowered it was. It had 2 flaws, longish intra and poor penetration, and thats about it.


    2. You get it wrong, man. Turret Armor >>> Hull Armor. Look at 50B, nobody is going to shoot at the hull, when you have a big paper turret. You can hulldown but you can’t turret-down, can you ? And it doesnt have a decent gun depression, it got the best gun depression in the whole tier X. Find a ridge and you are set, escpecially with decent arty awareness or better, no arty at all, it would be heaven for the Kranvagn


      1. You’re really missing the bigger picture. Sure, you have the best hulldown capability of any tank in the game. But, you no longer have the mobility or dpm to take an agressive position, or the flexibility to leave it. this is especially true on the tier 8 and 9. The recent nerfs have made these tanks one trick ponies, beast when hulldown against pubbies but counteres easily by anyone with half a braincell


  8. Typical WG, ignoring the simple solution (“nerfing” the turrets to historical values) and instead doing complicated solution that still doesn’t solve main issue of the tank, godlike turret even when not hulldown, just makes it pain in the ass to play with. It still remains pain in the ass to play against though.
    So instead of balancing it the way that should make most people happy they balance it more complicated way that makes nobody happy.
    17/9 WG, 17/9….

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Without turret armor nerf the tank will always be godlike. Hull armor has always been not as important as turret, and the turret is ridiculous. Engine nerf and gun nerf were expected though.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s