like the article title says, Wargaming seems to be incapable of following simple blueprints, plans, sketches, paintshop drawings, you name it, nothing new, if you remember they even initially built the wrong Chieftain years ago but you would think they would have improved after all these years but they clearly have not which can be seen on the Cavalier which has been recently introduced in the Sandbox server.
Almost every time they push out a new model they seem to interpret data differently (mess something up) so my team of experts, that shall not be named, and I will from now on investigate every model added and we could also investigate old models, which ones do you think need a look into?
At first glance when you look at the screenshots leaked the immediate thing that stands out is the turret:
The turret displayed in-game was a Vauxhall experimental turret tested on a Cromwell hull, it is not a Churchill turret as it looks very similar to an in-game one and like some players speculating but clearly took some influence from that as they were made by the same company. This turret was never used on the Cavalier. The model is also marginally too tall and narrow giving it an odd look. While its hard to say exactly the consensus, WG’s turret model is roughly 3 inches too tall and too narrow.
The same thing for the track tension spanner, it does not belong at all on the Cavalier but instead to a Cromwell.
The bulges bellow the driver’s periscope also do not belong on the Cavalier and this is totally a WG’s “invention” for this vehicle, as can be compared in these two images, the real Cavalier did not have protruding mounds.
Furthermore, if photo evidence of the Cavalier is not enough, measurements were taken from a real Cavalier tank and the headlights are also not quite right as they need to be roughly 3inches closer to the centre.
And to finalise, the serial number showing on the hull is also incorrect for the Cavalier series as they should range between T129620 – 130119 to be historically accurate.
This is not their most offending vehicle and is considered by some to be just good enough to be acceptable but there are some far worse tanks in this game which we will be browsing upon.
25 thoughts on “Cavalier: How difficult it is for Wargaming to follow basic blueprints?”
To answer the title: pretty hard when u have the next soviet premium on the mind.
Love this kind of content! I could read thousand of these
You’re joking…right? This is a hastily and lazily written joke of an article. This blog-turned-(pseudo)newspage is being carried by every other writer EXCEPT Rita, which can clearly be seen in the quality discrepancy between her articles and theirs’.
Rita is ranting on WG for not keeping models historically accurate (which is a good thing), but that’s all the praise this article could ever get from anyone using their brain beyond the scope of thinking what they should be spending their next allowance on when their parents pump in the ca$h. The content here used to be pretty good. It’s a shame that people who lose interest in their work keep doing it poorly just to get in some more attention/money/whatever else their benefit might be. Rita, please step down.
And btw – the site won’t even let me write in my own comment, I had to reply to another one. Stunning work indeed.
Damn, someone is being a salty little bitch.
You done goofed friend. I’ve talked to the historian at Bovington tank museum that provided the has confirmed that Wargaming didn’t follow them and just did what they wanted. So Rita is correct friends. You may need to pick your battles more carefully.
I’m getting the feeling that someone is butthurt that they got rejected by Rita at some point, either that or someone is trying to get some “attention/money/whatever else their benefit might be”.
Автор статьи – дилетант. Куча фактологических и реальных ошибок в тексте.
@Jerry Bill Bovington yes. ahah
AFAIK Wargaming outsources pretty much all of its modeling work to freelancers now, if you go on Artstation and search for ‘world of tanks’ you’ll see a ton of official models. That could have something to do with it.
Thank you for doing this sort of work. We can only hope they are looking at this.
welcome to the retardness has usual courtesy from wargaming
Ha !! Wargaming has one thing in mind.. sadly… it is not the players, nor is it making a perfect tank… They are interested in taking our GOLD. One way or another…. Take our GOLD. Selling a vehicle involves GOLD. Gold paid..?? Why does in not come back when the vehicle is sold. Instead… The numbers on the GOLD reserves went down… NOT UP.. And, you expect them to worry about whether or not a Tank is reproduced properly..??
What other tanks are modelled incorrectly?
I think you got a bit confused, I am pretty sure you wanted to ask
«what other tanks are modelled CORRECTLY?»
for something like a TS-5, AE Phase I, Concept Nº1B, Char-Futur 4, and the whole line of British Light tanks it is understandable if they change the models a bit from the original concepts/mockups/scale models, but for something as real as a Cavalier that they can go and measure IRL there’s no excuse to get things wrong
Why not bring up how arty in world of tanks has a targeting system that never existed. No people bitch about the look of a tank. What real about artys targeting
You arer right IRL arty is given a position to shoot at then flattens the area…much more effective than in game, soo should we have realistic arty?
*Looks at T110E5*
Yeah. It is no wonder. Making it to HD didn’t get it fixed unlike other tanks. That cupola is a travesty.
Furthermore it has its aesthetics based on the M103 when in real life the T110 project and the project that led to the M103 were competing designs.
Actually, looking at https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/t110/ it looks like WG has the versions incorrect. It appears that what they have as the E5 is what was the 6th design and what we have as the E3 is the 5th design, even though the drawings give the impression of a turret. Then there is the shape of the upper hull on the E3 (5th design) that is incorrect. Also, there is the problem that the T110 designs all had 120mm guns, not just the one design (T110E5).
Interesting they got the versions incorrect. Am not surprised considering there is a more accurate portrayal of how the T110E5(6) actually looks like.
Jerryatrick53, Good day. Could I know the full name of the historian who proposed blueprints to the company? And in this case I would also like to know who exactly from the company refused to take them?
Your words are not confirmed by anything at the moment.
Bill Bovington is my go to guy for these matters. Hes been a tank expert for 30 years now! Also, I checked your IP, Hello WG Minsk how are you?
“Автор статьи – дилетант. Куча фактологических и реальных ошибок в тексте.”
“The author of the article is an amateur. A bunch of factual and real errors in the text.”
now, let’s get 2 shits straight here:
1- carefully think before you wright in here
2- you’re NOT dealing with employes in the gaming company you work for…
GOT IT??? YOU’RE DO YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN TO YOU IN A VERY PORTUGUESE WAY???
Wargaming have long since given up any claim to historical accuracy. 5 crew members in a Centurion (Primo Victoria)? 3 in an ELC Even, when there were only 2 in the real tank? Yeah sure. However, so far I was not aware that they were sloppy on the models as well. Healthy mix of saving costs and who-the-f-cares at work here, I guess.
[…] Cavalier: How difficult it is for Wargaming to Follow blueprints? […]