T34 Black has worse camo values than a T34 with bought camouflage

Thanks to Cobra6 for sharing.

Here is the proof:

Wargaming again promised that the camouflage values will be the same on the pre-skinned tanks as with the clean ones with an official camo pattern applied on them. Why is this promise not reflected in the game?

It might be the same with other tanks, they have worse camo than they should because of the pre-applied skin… Looking at you, M41 90 GF…




55 thoughts on “T34 Black has worse camo values than a T34 with bought camouflage

  1. Thanks for posting this :)

    Thing is, I always suspected this to be the case for the M41 90GF but there was no way for us to check this in the game unless someone had both the M41 90GF and the regular M41 90 in their garage and did a comparisson.

    Now that WG released what is effectively the same T34 twice it’s easy to check and it seems that the camo is not working on this tank so good chance it also isn’t on the M41 90GF.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. First of all, are we sure that the tanks compared here equiped with same crew (skills/perks such as BiA,Camo) and equipment (Vents + Food)?

    And the M4190GF has worse camo than the counterpart T49. Its how WG balance the tanks.


    1. Which is very dumb, because while it’s fine to have maybe slightly lower mobility or firepower, I don’t think it’s ok to mess with camo, because that’s the tank’s only real advantage, being a light that is also a scout.

      It directly affects the vehicle’s ability to function as it was intended to and camo is a stat that affects your overall team performance, not just yours.

      And anyways, I would pay money to be able to change camo, it’s obvious they have the standard tank. I hope in the future they will allow this because it bugs the hell out of me.

      Not only do we pay for a sub-class tank for tier that nobody but a scout would buy in their right mind, but we also have to tolerate free advertisement (which we pay for). It’s a bunch of BS.

      The Ru 251 has better firepower overall (though all sides 8 deg gun dep and faster aim time are nice), much better camo and the mobility, well…at least I can put my own damn camo on it.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Maybe that’s because both are about the same height?
          M41 is actually pretty big, just a bit smaller than Pershing and is higher than STA-1 or T-34-2.


    1. If you subtract the equivalant of the camo paint bonus from the Skorpion’s listed camo rating, you’ll see it has pretty same-ish values to the Grille 15, a very similar vehicle, so that one is probably Working As Intended.


    1. Once I bugged myself into the night mode.
      Then I installed winter map mod with night maps – looked gorgeous and laggy from all the lights and reflections :D
      All and all – you can check my winter videos.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. T25e5 with camo 7.59/1.9 moving 4.79/1.2 T25e5 Patriot 6.73/1.68 moving 3.93/0.98
    AMX M4 mle.49 w camo 6.28/1.24 moving 4.17/0.82 Liberte 5.41/1.07 3.31/0.65
    base stats with no crew

    Liked by 1 person

  4. What I wonder about is if these values are proper base+paint values, or if the T34 B simply has increased base camo to compensate for not having a camo paint option.

    Because if it’s the latter, T34B might have better camo.

    I calculated camo values using WoT-Info by using the Caernarvon, which has 5,02% camo. With camo skill, vents, BiA and food. And paint on T34, but not on Caern.

    T34: 9,77% camo
    Caern: 9,91% camo

    Now, this isn’t perfect because Caern has 4 crew members rather than 5 so it’s effective camo skill level comes out slightly lower.
    But higher base camo means you get much more out of the camo skill.

    Anybody have a T34 B and a 100% camo crew they’re willing to retrain for scientific purposes?


    1. It’s the latter. Source: http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/600658-premium-shop-t34-black-edition/page__st__220__pid__13423028#entry13423028 (it’s what CobraShishx posted)

      T34B has better base camo but less camo then T34+paint. AFAIK WG never claimed that tanks with applied camo have EXACTLY the same value like tank w/o camo+paint, just that they are compensated for not having an option to apply camo.

      If they said that they have exactly the same camo anyone can prove me wrong, with source ofc.


      1. The problem is that that picture doesn’t actually answer my question. The only way to know if the 5,07% camo is entirely base camo (and thus entirely multiplied) is by putting a camo crew in and then reverse-engineering the resulting value.

        If T34 B has 5,07% base camo, with full skill it should come at about 9-9,8% camo. If it has 3,07% plus an invisible 2%, it should come at about 7,6-9,1%.


        1. Read what the guy said, bare tank, no crew. So only the camo values of the vehicle themselves, the “B” with the baked in camo and the T34 with gold camo assigned.

          As you can see *all* other values are the same apart from camo.


          1. I read what he said, but I don’t think you’ve read what I’ve said. I want to know T34B’s camo value WITH crew skill, so I can dissect if the listed value is entirely base or if it has a hidden ‘paint’ modifier that we can’t see in the Exterior menu. As my math showed there’s quite a difference.


          1. Why does it matter? You get an inferior product at a higher price.
            Is that not enough to argue a point?

            Double the trouble for the M 41 90 – you actually pay WG to advertise their own product on a somewhat inferior tank. At a lower price, yes, but scouts are hard work!


            1. It matters because if it’s entirely base camo, and thus gets fully multiplied, the Black version ends up slightly better as it can ultimately reach a higher camo value.


          2. Nobody except for people with at least 5 skills on their crew because then you have basically all usefull skills. That doesn’t make me any less curious about it, however.


  5. So basically…
    Not only a horrible ‘sale’ offer, but also a freakin’ SCAM
    This is scam, promising something and then not doing it, when money is involved.
    Jeez. What’s next, straight robbery?


  6. Continuing here since the conversation above got too branched:

    I tested with the M41 90 and T49 from a friend. Putting in a 100% camo crew in either and using Vents and food, both had a camo increase of roughly 93% (increased camo divided by base camo was roughly equal to 1.93 for both). That indicates that the camo rating of M41 90 does not include a paint bonus as it is fully multiplied by the camo skill.

    If T34 B is the same, then the 5,07% camo is ENTIRELY BASE CAMO RATING. Meaning that, as my math above showed, it’s not neccessarily inferior to regular T34. Yes, T34 is better if you apply camo paint, which T34 B cannot. But If you have a skilled crew and you start picking up camo skill* then the B will pull ahead.

    (*= because let’s be honest, after Repairs, BiA, two sets of other perks and skills, what else will you train? Firefighting? Well, then Camo is your 6th skill)


    1. I think the T49 having worse camo has been known for a while, tbh.
      And I actually might choose firefighting because i run rep/med/chocolate on my M 41 90 and it gets set on fire a lot. Then again I am still on ~90% of 4th skill so we will see.


    2. But as I understand it, you’re saying that if you have full camo crew on M 41 90, it would have more effective camo than if it didn’t have the fixed added camo value, so you’re actually getting more, not less.

      In which case, great! But it’s still not enough lol


      1. No, that only goes for the T34B since it has a much higher base camo than the regular T34.

        M41 90 has an average-ish camo for it’s kind, 15,9%, which is slightly higher than the 15,27% and 14,25% that T49 and M41WB get, but in the end it comes at about the same as M41WB and inferior by a small margin to

        M41WB has 27,54% with skill, Vents and Food. It will get a flat 3% added from the paint to put it on 30,54%
        M4190 with the same setup except no paint is 30,4%, so a tiny bit worse.

        BiA, which the crews I tested with did not have, would put the decimals slightly more in favour of M41WB.

        T49 is laughing because it has 32.51% with that same setup, a whopping 2% more.


          1. Are you sure you don’t have BiA, because I just had it double-checked and it’s 30,7% for Vents and Food.

            …yes I was wrong too, by a small margin. Really gonna log off and sleep >.>


            1. Oh, right, sorry, yes I have BiA on my crew.
              I am using Tank Inspector and by what it shows me, for the T34 B, the difference is actually much closer to 4% camo rather than 3. So … yes, with full camo skill, BiA, vents and food, the camo ends up better because of the higher base camo value.


    3. But the whole point is that WG always insisted that these pre-applied camo’s that you can not remove have a camo bonus baked into them (to compensate for not being able to apply camo).

      Thus if we take the values of Wargamings’s *own* game as are visible in the garage it clearly shows this is not the case.

      It’s irrelevant if the camo factor improves if you put crew in it with camo skill, that is not the point.


      1. But the point is that they DO get a camo bonus. It’s just a different one than you expect. If we take the values from their *own* game, then you clearly see it has a higher camo rating to compensate.


  7. y, cromwell and cromwell b = cromwell b is way better in tank handlinkg than regular one. BUT regular is better in cammo so… fuck you anyway WG whores.

    just make another regular tanks to premium and make them better! fuck you!


    1. What are you talking about? Both accelerate about the same, but the Berlin version traverses worse and it has a bit more dispersion on the turret. So the regular one is slightly better.


  8. How many of these bobs buying afro-34 will even understand how to use camo, let alone benefit frum its value? Imo, HTs need 0% camo value anyways because they shouldnt even be shooting staying insivible.


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