WG revenue for 2012 - 218 mil. Euro

Source: http://www.newsru.com/finance/07may2013/woft.html

Not bad, Wargaming, not bad... :)

The WG branch on Cyprus 2012 revenue was declared to be 217,9 mil. Euro, with net profit of 6,1 mil. Euro, as written in the annual report for the Cypriot stock exchange. Almost all the money was gained by its superhit computer game, World of Tanks.

The WG Cyprus company was registered in 2011, it owns the rights to distribute the games of Wargaming.net, which itself was founded in 1998. World of Tanks, released in 2010, became one of the most popular games in the world, with 45 million registered users.

By the end of 2012, Wargaming was the biggest game developer company from former USSR in the world. Another notable Russian game devloper Mail.ru (multiplayer division) made cca 160 mil. USD and the biggest Russian producer of games for mobile devices, Game Insight, made 90 million.

New leaked pics from supertest

Source: http://world-of-ru.livejournal.com/1920387.html

....because we all know it was only EU supertesters who leaked stuff, right? :D

Please note that the British arty vehicles and the E-25 are not scheduled for 8.6

Loyd Gun Carrier (allegedly tier 2)

Birch Gun (allegedly tier 4 arty)

M44 US Artillery

M53/55

Batchat 155 (1955)

E25 premium TD

RU/EU new vehicle winrate comparison

Source: wot-news.com

Special thanks to Edrard from Wot-News.com for providing both pictures

This is the winrate table for RU and EU server (counted from the start of each 8.5 patch)

EU:

RU:

New tank stats service is available

Hello, everyone!

The biggest Russian WoT news site (wot-news.com) started a new and pretty interesting service, called "Advanced tank information". It contains not only the usual stuff (like tank statistics), but also some hidden stats and I think it's generally pretty well done. So, if you want to, go check it out :)

7.5.2013 part 2

- flipping the tanks - it's possible a part of client physics will come earlier, but turning the tanks over is tied to client physics so it won't come before Havok introduction
- RU251 (tier 8 German LT) will come "later"
- regular to free XP transfer for credits won't be implemented
- IS-7 mantlet doesn't have any 0-armor (bugged) spots
- T-50-2 won't apparently be replaced by MT-25 in 0.8.6
- there won't be an arty hardcap (of 3 pieces or less per team) implemented
- the 3-4 weeks for 0.8.6 is to be taken only very roughly according to SerB, more like "not before", it's not yet even sure if the "June" date (from Russian "In development" means a date when the test starts or release)
- regarding the WG staff checks to avoid leaks: "no comment"
- regarding new maps being used for assault and encounter: "we add modes on maps if possible"
- it's possible San Francisco map with Golden Gate will appear in WoT
- it's possible that at some point some maps will be made exclusively for encounter or assault, but it's not planned for now
- Supersherman and FL-10 Sherman as French premiums or even Israeli tree possible? "All variants are possible, but we don't comment on further branch development."
- Westfield assault will return when it's fixed
- kinetic model for shells (mass) is not planned
- new game modes - not anytime soon
- French hightier premium TD's in next 2-3 patches? "Wait for announcements"
- bigger battles (30vs30 etc.) - not anytime soon
- increase of model polygons won't come this year
- regarding T10 arty rebalance: "Tests will show"
- in 0.8.6, there will likely be a bridge between KV-2 and arty branch
- historical battles are still planned, but it's too early to tell
- the steam-powered KV Yuri Pasholok found documents about had apparently around 400 brake horsepower
- SerB thinks 0.8 arty accuracy is okay
- apparently Tiger is really unsuitable to become a premium vehicle (SS: absolutely no idea why would anyone ask that)
- SerB on trolling players: "Not players, but retards. Those are different categories."
- S-51 significant nerf confirmed ("it's tied to the specifics of arty rebalance")
- there is not enough German arty vehicles for another full branch
- M7 second turret weight is okay according to SerB
- new platoon search system will be implemented
- transfers of credits from one player to another are not planned, but it's possible the gold will be transferrable
- HEAT shell damage nerf for 0.8.6? "No comment, wait for tests"

Erratum: 0.8.6 arty XP

Hello everyone,

after SerB's reply about the arty XP being tied to tier, panic ensued not only here, but on RU server as well. No need for panic tho, it was SerB being unclear/trolling again. Veider (another developer) issued a correction:

XP will stay on the vehicle, eg. if you have a an arty, that gets transferred , the XP will move with it.

7.5.2013

Confirmed: 0.8.6 will come in 3-4 weeks on RU server

- if I understand it correctly, Russian server now has a special program - if you click "I accept", data about your computer will be sent to Wargaming to "improve the game". According to SerB, many players accepted.
- SerB likes the WoT: Generals project, but prefers regular WoT
- damaging your tank by crashing into a stone/building is not planned
- according to SerB, snowy maps have the same tank traction as regular ones, eg. tanks don't drift more on snow... for now
- 76mm penetration on 59-16 is "historical", the 76mm gun is more or less analogical to the Soviet D-56T
- no official info on 0.8.6 for now ("will be announced officially")
- it's very unlikely old premium tanks will get an overhaul (even a visual one)
- it's confirmed that newly unlocked tanks have limited MM... unless there is a very low number of players (for example in very early morning), in which case this rule is suspended
- T58 Heavy will most likely not appear in the game
- it's possible Americans will get a new tier 8 LT
- there will probably be no American TD's with autoloaders (SerB: "I can't remember any")
- there will be no transfers from higher tier to lower tier in the tech tree (SS: as in unlocking a tier 6 vehicle from tier 7 vehicle of another branch)
- if I understand it correctly, in distant future (apparently), there will be a function implemented that players will actually recieve credits for when they detrack enemy vehicle and the enemy vehicle gets then damaged by others
- crewmembers dying from engine fire won't be implemented
- there is a chance even now for crewmembers to die from ramming
- 0.8.6 will bring some game optimalisation changes
- tanks flipping on their back will eventually implemented
- SerB on why premium tanks must be worse than regular ones: "We don't sell pwnage for money. If you are a good enough player to compensate for the premium tank disadvantages, you can both pwn and farm. Otherwise - either you can farm, or you can pwn. And enjoyment has to be archieved by raising your skill. Otherwise it's some kind of narcomania."
- new premium vehicles are planned
- WG employees sometimes play companies, they are "above average"
- the phenomenon of retards starting companies only to look for platoons won't be dealt with ("don't join such companies")
- if two scouts light up one enemy target, the LT getting spotting XP is the one the server declared to be first to light up
- it's possible that the Königstiger and Jagdtiger will have their max speed buffed like the IS-7 did, but not the horsepower (eg. only applies when going downhill)
- it's not planned for now for players to be able to buy more than one camouflage of the same kind

- in 0.8.6, arty experience will be bound to tier, eg. if you have 200k experience on T7 vehicle, it won't be transferred with the vehicle, it will stay on T7 regardless of whether the former T7 vehicle gets transferred to another tier or not
- the option to select the look of your hangar has been considered, but has low priority
- 0.8.6 arty leaks? "No comment"
- the moving Panther in the tutorial was done as an "active element". According to SerB, it's principially possible to make maps with such things as moving trains and cars, but this won't be done for now in WoT.
- 57mm autoloaded S-60 gun is not planned for now, but it might appear eventually, because such a gun was mounted on the PT-76, the penetration of this gun is equal to ZiS-4 (SS: 112mm in WoT)
- new tier 8 premium MT's? "When it's done, if at all"
- according to SerB there is no connection between the illegal "warpack" mod pack and the introduction of illegal WoT clones (SS: yes, people ask such daft stuff)
- the tank mobility calculation won't be published, it's "very complicated"
- premium MT with autoloader? ("if we ever plan such a thing, we'll tell you")
- improved armor mechanics in 0.8.6 are "just a part of the whole"
- all servers have the same game mechanics, this won't change
- in very far future, it's possible there will be researchable tank hulls as modules
- theoretically it's possible that on one map, there could be more variants of the same gamemode (SS: as in for example assault with the base on various spots), but the devs will most likely do no such thing, since the people are confused even now as it is
- tank visual models will be slowly re-made in order to prepare for the option of tanks flipping over (for example by adding bottom escape hatches), but this is not the deciding factor in this feature

The T96 Heavy Gun Tank

Author: Priory_of_Sion

In my little Q&A session I mentioned that a major reason of the cancellation of the T110E5 were other, lighter vehicles that were being designed to fill the role of a Heavy Gun Tank(120 mm armed vehicle). The T96 project was one of the major reasons of the T110E5 cancellation. Today I want to dig a little deeper about the T96. The T96 originates from the TL-4 proposal from the Questionmark III Conference. The T96 was to be armed with a 105 mm smooth-bore weapon and be developed alongside the T95 90 mm gun tank(The T95E2 is to be in WoT AFAIK).

The T96 program was assigned to Ford while the T95 was assigned to Detroit Arsenal but they worked together to make most of the parts interchangeable. Ford proposed two variants of the T96 with more armor from the planned 3.8 inches at 60 degrees. The T96-1 variant had 4.1 inches and the T96-2 had 4.8 inches. However by the end of development the T96 was to have 3.2 inches at 65 degrees.

Looks Comfortable

The T96 turret was to be tested at first with the 105 mm smooth-bore on top of the T95 chassis. Soon other weapons such as the 120 mm T123E1 gun and later the lighter-weight T123E6 gun, a modified British 120 mm gun, variants of the smooth-bores, and other exotic weapons were proposed. The success of the more powerful weapons being able to be mounted in the T96 turret meant the T110E5 was redundant.

This shows the T95 mounting the T96 turret with the British 120 mm gun.

Soon testing on the T95 went underway in the late 50s. The need to test the T96 and its turret faded away as new requirements arose  Soon the T96 only survived as being part of the development of the T95 turret. The variations of the T95 with the T96 turret were to be called the T95E4 which mounted a 105 mm smooth-bore, and the T95E6 which was planned to use the T123E6 120 mm gun. Only mock-ups of the T96 turret were built  The T95 project, as a whole, led to the adoption of the M68 105 mm gun which was later the main gun for both the M60 Patton and the original M1 Abrams.

T95E6 with the T123E6 gun.

Now you might be thinking how does this relate to WoT? Well the T96 could very well be an alternate tier X  for the American Heavy Branch. The T96-2 mounting the T123E6 would be a very mobile platform and should be CW viable. The T96-2's armor would be ~207 mm effective head on, this number would be increased by manual angling. Don't worry about composite armor, the T96 never had plans for it. The T96 turret would be extremely tough, it should be around ~300 mm of effective armor. The T96 turret was designed to be more protected than the M103 turret, especially against Soviet 100 mm shells. Depression for the gun would be a tasty -9 degrees. Speeds should be around ~50 km/h with good handling characteristics due to the low weight for a heavy tank(46t was the estimated weight  I'd put it closer to 47-48 tons though) and a fairly powerful engine with original requirements stating the need for a ~750 hp engine which wasn't used for the T95.

Personally I think that the T96 concept would be a neat and interesting addition to WoT. I think the balancing of  RoF, OTM accuracy, aim time, ground resistance, and others would play a vital role in making or breaking the T96 in WoT.

Sources:
Hunnicutt's Abrams: History of the American MBT