Cavalier: Why is it so hard to receive concise, constructive criticism WG’s WoT?

Cavalier: How difficult it is for Wargaming to Follow blueprints?

Cavalier: WG’s employee attempted stealth in Status Report


Greywind, also known as Sergey Chmeluk, Wargaming’s Head of Military History for World of Tanks also left another comment on my Cavalier article:


Edit: I missed this comment at first as it went straight into “For moderation” I believe because of language reasons, I noticed it today, a day later while fixing another reader inability to comment on the blog, usual WordPress automated sec. system being overly zealous.

Which pretty much roughly translates to “The author of the article is an amateur. A bunch of factual and real errors in the text.”

So what errors are these Sergey Chmeluk? Can you back up your claims?

Please give us the factual proof of:

  1. A Cavalier with a Vanguard Turret;

  2. A Cavalier with Cromwell track adjusting tool;

  3. A Cavalier with those bulges over the driver’s periscopes;

  4. A Cavalier with a serial number that doesn’t range between T129620 – 130119.


I will eagerly wait!

It is interesting that if was Sergey Chmeluk’s first interest was to fix the WG’s Cavalier model he could have politely, professionally and easily not just emailed me but lets also not forget that I am a WoT and even WoWs Community Contributor and the options to reach me are endless, instead this guy not only tries to discredit me who got this information from factual sturdy sources but also goes on a witchhunt implying someone leaked me information they shouldn’t.


And then Nicholas Moran aka The Chieftain, that had absolutely no need to insert himself in this subject dares say to us that Sergey Chmeluk wasn’t being malicious:


In these screenshots, not only Nicholas attempts to pull wool over people’s eyes like even himself doesn’t know how things work in the company with some very poor arguments but we once more see Wargaming taking the usual route of blaming one “persons direct personality” or “Oh well those Russians be Russians!” type of standard response as an excuse for employees bad conducts.

Very recently Wargaming EU issued a long statement pretty much inviting Community Contributors out of the program for some of the “colourful” ways they were addressing Developers on Discord which quite honestly is something that I very much agree with, ever since I started Status Report back in 2015 I have been advocating that if people want to “throw potatoes” like old Storm (WoT’s old Developer for those who don’t remember) used to say to at least be constructive about it but there was nothing in that statement about Wargaming promising to deal or even discuss how some employees have been treating us. 

An excuse that has long ago gotten old.

 I typed on the last article and I type it now, Viktor Kislyi, this needs to change! 

And to speak quite frankly, I am also known to be quite direct, I personally even welcome and love when someone else is direct, but this was more than just being direct, this was sneaky, malicious and an attempt at underhanding. 


And to you, dear reader, what other British vehicles would you like me to investigate next?  As I very much doubt Sergey will ever give us any proof to corroborate his attempt at discrediting me and my sources, he will probably file the excuse that “its NDA” or private company’s data like it is not available publicly, that’s what they usually do anyways.

By the way, all the information I used on the Cavalier not only can be easily found publicly but part of it was also from a Cavalier owner itself who is very well respected in the Armoured Vehicle community for its knowledge in Tanks, I would be very careful to discredit these people, Sergey.

Have a good day and again my email which you have not yet used if you are actually interested in fixing your tank is !


Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!
Cavalier: Why is it so hard to receive concise, constructive criticism WG’s WoT?

29 thoughts on “Cavalier: Why is it so hard to receive concise, constructive criticism WG’s WoT?

    1. L says:

      Every brit tank in the game past tier 7 is specifically misrepresented or nerfed because they were successful when deployed in humiliating Russian armor. It’s been clear to every observer for years now that if it could kill russians (there main financial contributor) then it must be flawed either in the soft stats or in the open. Especially the centurion line.

      1. Well there is pretty much a law in Russia that you can’t show them being defeated or show them as inferior…. so they just nerf everything that even beat them or silently buff all the Russian tanks

      2. Scott McClure says:

        Yeah the Centurion line got plowed hard – but in a game where the ## of mm is more important than the actual gun capabilities [in real life] this isn’t a surprise.

    2. Rita Sobral says:

      Conway’s engine is wrong but not a major issue (they kinda do this often) but definitely no 5.5 gun, that’s the only major no-no! Armour wise give or take its alright, not a badly made tank as far as they come in WoT, acceptable TBH.

  1. It’s amazing how WG thinks they can be above criticism because they’re a big company.

    They created a tank that practically doesn’t exist then stuck the Cavalier’s name on it.

    Large scale companies (companies at all really), are not allowed to show prejudice or hostility for personal reasons against someone. barring very serious allegations.
    It comes off as very underhanded and borderline creepy that this WG employee has such a personal interest in making sure that the authors of this blog are slandered for simply having access to something that proves WG’s entire research department (and the supposed “Head of Military History for World of Tanks”) wrong.

    Rather than acting professionally and privately reaching out to fix their mistake or inquire as to where to find the correct resources, WG through this Sergei guy have proven their inability to be professional.

    The fact that Chieftain felt the need to insert himself to blatantly lie and try to cover up for his WG co-worker seems fairly suspicious too.

  2. sefhyro says:

    it’s wargaming…
    lets see…
    the same company that threaten 2 youtubers in this case sirfoch and circonflex, over the chrysler k gf, this retarded premium tank…
    the fact that this last event of the team youtubers or whatever it was, a event that was sugested to my knowlege by circonflex hiomself, yet they didn’t even invited him to be part of and dismissed him even tho it was a good idea from his part…
    the same company that sugested to change and remove preferential match making status of premium tanks that where bought by the comunity because of that same status they have…
    the same company that decide to do the same mistakes in world of warships wen it came to balancing the game to a point where now carriers can be a deciseve factor in a random match…
    the same company that acording to them decided to implement the mercenary tanks in consoles just to “shake things up” and fucked the (historical) factor the game has besides the fact that’s a online arcade game…
    the same company that uses the excuses of game balancing the reason for a RETARDED MATCH MAKING SYSTEM 3/5/7 or what ever the fuck is…
    the same company that changed the grind on the PAYTORICO EVENT…

    do you remenber….

    i fucking do remenber all this shit, and for sure more shit went under the radar for me…

    i say it again… do youtrust them???


    1. Seth H says:

      3/5/7 MM wouldn’t be a problem if:
      1) there was balancing of players (have seen far too many teams stacked with really good players against teams that had no really good players).
      2) WG didn’t sell premium tanks (brand new players have no chance at tiers 8 let alone at tier 6).
      3) Tanks were actually balanced with actual weak spots that lower tier tanks have a chance to pen.
      4) RNG didn’t have a tendency to troll people that don’t shoot “special” ammo, even then it will.

      1. sefhyro says:

        but the funny thing i remenber just now

        the front line event /mode or what ever, that shit worked in a single tier match making system…

        so my questions is, how fucking hard can it be to have a fucking single or even just 2 tier level match making system?

        i wonder if ANY “wargaming experts in balancing” can fucking come up excuse for this one

    2. jakub_czyli_ja says:

      It’s a company that for years tolerated in official wiki statement about 3 sigma in WoT aiming circle, to finally find out that there was whole 1.3 sigma.
      It’s a company that for years denied shots for 0 dmg to finally admit this “feature” after it was visible in official youtube material.
      It’s a company that for years claimed that artillery and TDs in WoT get same experience as tanks, only to release a patchnotes for some version where states that artillery and TDs will receive same exp as tanks.
      It’s a company that patented matchmaker algorithm where is’ stated that if player wins too much, he will be fucked up by MM, only to claim that “it’s only for patent purposes, it’s not used” afterwards.

  3. GenAlex says:

    Is there really evidence that the Chieftain was lying? He is not a blogger, after all. Also while Rita seems right to me, maybe there is a less conflictual way to solve the issue, and I think that the Chieftain was pushing towards that direction.

      1. GenAlex says:

        Yes, I agree he seems a bit confused, but the structure of WG is probably very confusing…
        Now maybe it’s just me, but I think that many problems in this world could be solved by proper tone. And I felt that he was attacked strongly, while he was essentially trying to calm the situation down. I mean if he says wrong stuff, just show it’s not true, no need to say he is “daft” or a liar.

      2. Rita Sobral says:

        He said “This may be a daft question” Which I responded that it was and the reasons why. I did not say he was daft so please dont twist things, and Nicholas knows very well the structure as even him said so.

  4. Best be careful Rita. WG is circling the wagons, and are going to start dragging you thru the mud to discredit you. Why? You’re doing too good a job showcasing their errors and subsequent efforts to squash criticism.
    It might be a ‘russian thing’ as suggested by Chieftain, but here in North America, its usually a sign that a company is being run by psychopaths….
    I hope this all blows over,…but Ive seen this kind of hostility before.

    1. Rita Sobral says:

      They already done that, for example on the NA server they have this misconception that I had some sort of agenda towards them which was never the case a false rumour spread by one of them. I learnt about this because of NA employees surprised that after meeting me in person or talk to me online found out that I am rather a joyful friendly person always willing to help and have a banter and not what they had been believed me to be!

  5. Schmargendorf says:

    My 2 cents:
    The WG guy who commented on Jerry’s post was plainly wrong on so many levels:
    – He didn’t have the guts to converse directly with Rita
    – He thought that by hiding his role in WG he would avoid getting flak from his company in case things went awry for him and he got publicly called out (as actually happened)
    – His tone was straight unacceptable. I could not sense any humility or reconciliatory attitude in his wording and articulation
    – His role in WG, and WG in general as a company, have responsibility over the public. A CC can be excused for having beef or being prejudiced in any way as individuals, against WG or any other company in that respect (Rita has only expressed legitimate concerns though based on past events, I have not sensed prejudice or unfairness on her behalf). However: a company, especially the size of WG, is not allowed to publicly show petty hostility and prejudice against the very people on which their own existence depends. Neither their employees, as representatives of the company.

    Hence I find that comment and the behaviour behind it creepy and completely unprofessional.

  6. jerryatrick53 says:

    Wargaming why is it so hard to check stuff just do a google search for “cavalier tank” I end up with this…0.2..0.94.888.15……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i71j35i304i39.vmdfKS4YVHo&ved=0ahUKEwjD8fuMqevnAhW-RxUIHQnbBi4Q4dUDCAo&uact=5 sorry for long link. Included with this is “” and many more.

  7. Brictoria says:

    This would be the same company who screwed up the SU-76i in the black market, preventing people who owned a completely unrelated vehicle from buying it. Who then, in response to tickets, keep closing them stating it was the players fault that we missed out and that they cannot sell tanks once the sale ends, even though it was WG who prevented us buying them in the first place (Does this mean I need to sell all 480+ tanks in my garage in case one I want pops up in the next black market)?

    Of course, it could just be (yet another) case of “never attribute something to malice where complete incompetence would explain the cause” on WG’s behalf…

  8. That’s the contrast with WG, on one side they can do plenty of good stuff. But on the other hand some things that we never needed sprout like chiendent. The more and more i get in touch with how WG internals work, the more i’m telling to myself “why that great potential is always dampened that much?”.

  9. OpaKnobbi says:

    Hi Rita (and Team!), Hi everybody!

    I guess almost everything has been said till now about this new fuck up – exclusively brought to you by WG. And I don’t even mean the 3d model of the cavalier, that is enough of a fuck-up itself, but of course their – sadly – always have and ever will be “special” way of dealing with getting nose-stuffed into their own pile of poop.

    But I would like to vote for the next Vehicle to investigate! Well it would be several vehicles, all of the Centurionsin this game to be exact.
    I think there are so many things wrong with their 3d models I don’t even know where to begin with.
    Proportions are just not correct, seems that the turrets on most of them are just too small and/or are mounted too far aft on the hull – or the hulls are too big? Difficult to judge, cause it is so difficult to compare the size of different vehicles ingame!

    Also, every single one of 3d models looks different.. It would sound logical that every version in the game is based on the same basis – but no – they seem to have been designed completely independent from another and therefore their proportions and looks differ in so many details

    Some examples:
    – Road wheels seem to differ in size and spacing betweeen each other, especially the ones on the Tier8 Mk. 1 are completely off
    – Hull height varies as well, Mk. 1 and Mk. 5 RAAC seem to stand taller than the 7/1 and AX
    – Excluding the AX here for obvious reasons, Turrets are shaped completely different, with 2 basic shapes:
    Mk1 and Mk. 7/1 seem to have the same basic shape and proportions, but the Mk. 5 RAAC turret looks/is shaped completely different overall

    Maybe I am the one wrong here, but after the introduction of the uparmored hull and fully cast turret starting with Mk. 2, the “core” or lets say basic external hull and turret shape of all centurions should be exactly the same, shouldn’t it?

    I would love it, if this topic would be taken on by you and your team! 🙂


  10. siralexice says:

    WG is that shitty company that sells you digital goods without disclosing all their specs. Should you charge back your money, WG would proceed to lock your account. They will then extort you for your money to give you back the account and the goods you have already paid for.

    Holding goods for ransom is the definition of extortion and the EU consumer organizations are too blind, lazy or stupid to actually help.

  11. kisli says:

    The fact that arty-is-for-autists post was removed, makes me think you’re juts pulling wool over our eyes here, Rita

Leave a Reply