TAP Insider News: The Fate of the Chieftain

Thanks a lot to our Russian insider.

„WG is planning a Chieftain tech tree branch. They also plan other lines too, but let’s talk about this one for now. The Chieftain line will likely split from the Valentine, with most probable tanks to be in it being the A38 Valiant, AT-1, and the Heavy Valiant. The Chieftain will top it off as the tier 10. They were planning it since the last year’s summer or even earlier, I don’t recall that far. The line is still a prototype so it can always change its structure. In the last few months, WG changed the classification of the Chieftain from Heavy to Medium a couple of times, but right now, the Chieftain is a Heavy. The line is somewhat urgent – ETA late 2017/early 2018. A Brit scout line is also in the works.”

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “TAP Insider News: The Fate of the Chieftain

    1. yeah, excellent news about worrying on something other than the soviet tech tree, this probably also means that the “Super-Conqueror” will be taking the FV215b place although I don’t see the direct connection between the Valiant (a infantry tank) with a pure sniper such as the Chieftain
      I also have another doubt, the A38 Valiant might come as tier 6 or 7 with a lot of frontal armor (more armor from the front than a Tiger), 6pdr(57mm) stock gun and 17pdr top gun
      the Heavy Valiant at tier 7 or 8, the rest they don’t hint about, but why not add the british version of the T14 at tier 5 (or 6) with the 6pdr (possibly the top gun of the Churchill as top gun), it would definitly fit with the overall layout of the line
      valentine>>valiant>>heavy valiant, all well armored vehicles with good enough guns, you could also think of them as “assault” tanks (specially the valiants)

      let’s wait to see if the rumored second french heavy line will also come along, or the long rumored rework of the US tech tree (reorganizing the US tech tree is probably the most urgent, since currently it is a mix of different play styles)

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Finally??? hardly its eta is 2018 thats not love thats called stringing the player base along with promises which is what WG have been doing for years with the british Tech tree…..

      Liked by 1 person

    3. I’ll believe this when i see it. Its been promised before as replacement for the fantasy tank gathering dust in my garage what seems like years ago. This leak is probably just bullshit too.

      Like

      1. Each to his own, personally I’d love to see it changed to something that doesn’t catch fire three times a game and doesn’t get its gigantic engine hood penned by arty constantly. Only if it could at least sidescrape but cardboard side armor and those weakspots under the turret don’t support that either. I’m not saying it’s unplayable, since its gun is a dream come true but I’d cherish a replacement that can actually be played as a T10 heavy. Not to mention that it’s faker than a pair of Hollywood tits.

        Liked by 5 people

    1. I thought the renders of the Conqueor with addon armor package were leaked long ago, is it not enough? the gun is the same in the tier 9 and 10 vehicles
      it will be different than the “Super Conqueror” configuration Listy found before with a proposal for a new turret with more armor, but in the end it will still come with extra armor

      Like

      1. Not sure about that. It’s true that at some point some pics of a spaced armor Conqueror turret was leaked but the whole story was quite suspicious. First of all the tank on the pictures was simply marked “Conqueror”. It didn’t have any spaced armor on its hull, only on the turret, which makes it highly unlikely it’s the soon-to-be T10 “super” Conqueror – that’s why many people thought it would be simply a new top turret for the T9 Conq. Also the guy who posted it said it would be out in 9.17, which apparently didn’t happen. All these confusing details make me think the whole thing was just some kind of hoax, but who knows. I guess we’ll see eventually but some official info on the matter would be friggin’ welcome.

        Like

  1. FINALLY 😀 I’ve been wait for this tank for so long! I just hope it’s as good as it is on the PS4/Xbox. WG plz don’t nerf it

    Like

  2. When light tanks were ending at T8, I thought the Cheiftain would be in a a medium, following some Vickers MBT variant, tacked onto the end of the light line. If it comes through this news makes me happy.

    Like

  3. Biggest news since SerB asked for more money to go into space and Ritardgamers fanbois site has missed this…what a shower if shyte that turned out to be. Well done Seb…. Jeep up the good work

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I think they missed a chance with adding FV4202 prematurely.
    FV4202 was a testbed for Chieftain tank features, and would fit in Chietain line so nicely historically or as jumping point from Centurion tank to Chietain line like KV-13 do.

    Like

      1. Well, it could be a jumpoff tank from Centurion to Chieftain Line proper, like KV-13 bridging T-34 and IS line or Churchill GC briding UK Churchill to to AT line.

        So people don’t need to play all over from Valentine line if they already researching Centurion.

        Like

  5. “The Chieftain line will likely split from the Valentine”
    ARE THEY OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MINDS????
    THERE IS NO WAY I AM PLAYING THAT PIECE OF TRASH TANK AGAIN TO GRIND ANYTHING EVER!
    JUST NO!!!

    Like

    1. My thoughts when i read this exact same line you posted…

      “oh no, not this again”

      After grinding the valentine for the archer and for the bishop, I can say, this tank is a pain to play and grind on.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s why it’s interesting for WG to create a new line which starts with the Valentine. Spend gold to convert free XP so you can skip that POS. Da!

        They are doing the same with the Tiger P. That tank is so bad, yet they don’t include it in the German bufffest (cool, a word with tree f’s…), because it leads to two tier 8 tanks and they can make a lot of money out of free xp conversion.

        Like

    2. Oh. God. I totally agree.
      But indeed this piece of crap would be OK if they give it her historical 210 hp top engine (giving it a more ok hp/t ratio of 11,3), and good soft stat, PLEASE, those actual ones are just freakin dump.
      And like this we could keep the most logical connection for this new line to come !

      Like

    3. Oh, God! I totally Agree!
      But indeed this piece of crap would be OK if they give it her historical 210 hp top engine (giving it a more ok hp/t ratio of 11,3), and good soft stat, PLEASE, those actual ones are just freakin dump.
      And like this we could keep the most logical connection for this new line to come !

      Like

          1. Yeah, I can definitely see the E5 among those “Murican HTs”, right? Or maybe you’ve never heard of gold ammo? Or maybe you’ve not heard of the 9.17.1 nerfs? 😐

            Like

                1. So M103/M6/T1 HT/T57 have strong turrets aswell?
                  Everybody with half a brain knows he meant T29/T32, both having probably best turrets on their respective tiers. But you bring up a tank that’s getting nerf to prove your point even though discussion is not about it.

                  Like

              1. FV215 – 153 mm on cupola…
                121 – ~240 mm on turret ring… (penned by gold).
                131 – Overmatchable roof…

                I’m not saying those turrets aren’t good, but compare them to the IS-7 turret:
                Not a single weakspot, and +300 mm everywhere… Even Kranvagn has tiny viewports.

                And now don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about the IS-7, I’m rather wondering why all other nations HTs can’t also have it? What’s the point of having 300 mm on the mantlet of the Chieftain if everyone will just aim for the cupola?

                And yes, the answer that keeps getting brough up is: “Wiggle it back and forth”… In which case I’ll answer that HTs shouln’t need to wiggle, especially in the case of a hulldown tank being hulldown, and this is why this discussion never leads anywhere 🙂

                Like

                1. Ofcourse it leads nowhere because everybody wants armor without any effort. Why should bot program accidentally sitting in hulldown position have same armor as best player in the game?

                  Armor should be tied to skill aswell, i.e. angling, moving, blocking with gun, using terrain/hard cover to hide weakspots, go hulldown, get depression to get better angles etc. Not only hitting weakspots should be knowledge/skill, hiding them should be one too.

                  Like

                  1. “best player in the game” == “a player that wiggles the tank back and forth”?
                    Really? Shit, I must go and buff my WN8 drastically! 😮

                    Like

                    1. This is your logic:
                      1. Every idiot wants armor without effort.
                      2. That should not be the case.
                      3. Let’s only give armor to idiots that can press W and S like if they had epilepsy.
                      4. It requires skill to give massage to the W and S keys.
                      Only retarded one here is you. In fact, you’re so retarded that your retardness only becomes obvious when someone else points it out for you…

                      Like

                    2. If it’s so easy why better player = more DMG blocked per game in general?
                      Oh and CSGO players also sit in one spot because that’s how it should be? Or they also mash their keys to make themselves as inconvenient to hit as possible?

                      Like

                    3. You really going to compare CSGO with WoT? I didn’t know there were stuff as armor and different levels of mobility in CSGO. And I’ve never argued about things like hiding weakpoints or angling your armor, that does indeed require skill. Let me remind you that I talk about turrets here, not entire tanks. And let me also remind you that I talk about turrets of HTs that are specialized in being hulldown. These tanks should not need to wiggle their turret in order to make it work, since they’re in their strongest possible position. Imagine if you had to drive back and forth while side-scraping with an IS-4 in order to make the side armor work…

                      Like

                    4. “I didn’t know there were stuff as armor and different levels of mobility in CSGO.”
                      There are hitboxes with different DMG multiplier, which is similar to armor in WoT. You move around – you don’t get hit into head – you take less DMG. In WoT – you move around – you don’t get hit into weakspot – you don’t take DMG. Completely different yet somewhat similar things.

                      “And let me also remind you that I talk about turrets of HTs that are specialized in being hulldown.”
                      Ehm what? IS-7 is garbage apart from turret armor, bad gun, apart from topspeed not great mobility (turns and accelerates like a boat), limited depression, decent hull armor. Add a turret weakspot and that tank is shit, it’s not that amazing now anyway.

                      Meanwhile, 215b, E5, 113 are doing well even with turret weakspots, aren’t they? Chieftain, if it is to come with current stats and armor layout, will most likely do well anyway. If not, it’ll be tweaked. No need for it to have close to unpennable turret.

                      And again, what is the problem with moving around if it’s so easy? “specialized in being hulldown” doesn’t mean it should be invulnerable.

                      Specialized sidescraper IS-4 cannot fire without exposing it’s hullcheeks and making himself vulnerable. You can atleast partially cover your hullcheeks with good use of terrain (rubble, small ridgeline, wreck).

                      Specialized “mobile bunker” Maus cannot fire without exposing it’s turret cheeks and making himself vulnerable. Sadly you can’t really hide your cheeks but you can bait shots and shoot tanks on reload/cover atleast half of your turret/

                      Specialized hulldown tanks shouldn’t be able to fire without exposing some kind of a weakspot. You are not firing, you can make your weakspots really hard to hit by covering them/making yourself inconvenient target by moving around, you want to fire, you need stop moving, aim your gun in and “expose” the weakspots. You can, in case of E5/Chieftain/(215b to an extent) hide your weakspots behind hard cover, or make them hard to hit/bait a shot by moving around.

                      So, why should “specialized hulldown tanks” be special and invulnerable, when other specialized tanks are vulnerable? Why should good sidescrape in IS-4 and correct angling in Maus/E100 be a matter of skill/knowledge but making hulldown tank work shouldn’t require any kind of work/knowledge?

                      Like

                    5. As I said before, there’s no point in discussing this, because it won’t lead anywere. I can already predict how this conversation will carry on: You’ll keep saying that HTs must have frontal weakspots on the front of their turret to be balanced, and I’ll say that they don’t because this is a tank game where you’re supposed to think tactically and flank, not play whack-a-mole with weakspots. I’ve had this discussion with other people before and I already know that it won’t lead anywhere, it’s a waste of time.

                      Like

  6. So wait a minute…. We console peasent get it as an alternative to the 215b off the Conqueror and the PC players have to regrind an entirely new line……. Something doesn’t add up

    Like

  7. Don’t be getting carried away, this is just an unverified “leak” from an unnamed “source”.
    Smoke and mirrors..
    If it doesn’t come from a named WG source with a date, it is just rumour.

    Like

      1. I’m not questioning YOUR integrity, nor the importance of your “source”. However, i know “smoothing ruffled feathers” when I see it. Its all just a little too vague for me to take seriously.
        And lets face it, we’ve heard it all before, many times when it comes to the Chieftain.
        So much so, that even if it were an official statement, I would still be doubtful

        Like

  8. So this was posted in February 2017 based on information you received in Summer 2016..

    Why wait so long to post it?
    Could it because you don’t believe it either, and were waiting for a “slow news” day?

    I’m sorry if i come across as awkward. It’s genuinely not my intention.

    Like

    1. I didn’t wait for long to post it, it’s just the leaker that told it to me a lot of time later (he was an unexpected leaker too, but high-ranked with WG ties). I only waited a week from recieving the info to actually posting it.

      Like

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