Learning Replay for Students

I think this is technically a replay which goes into the replay section, but I dunno if I've shown this before but I can't find any before so here it is.

I think it's a good replay overall for pretty much every kind of decisions you can make in WoT. Deciding which enemies you should and more importantly should NOT engage and when to do that. Also to or not to cap.

But I believe a major thing to learn from this is how to be a fantastic dead platoonmate. Harlequin was absolutely great as a platoonmate, as he gave so much support and that last advice he gave me was awesome and could have in a way saved the game. All too often you have dead platoonmates who does nothing but give abuse to enemy players... kinda unconstructive in my opinion.

I really think this replay is worth watching, the action happens pretty fast and consistently throughout. If not anything else, you get to watch me get 9 kills with a Kolobanov's Medal via annihilation (as comapred to pussy base cap Kolobanov LOL)

Ideally you can either say with a reply what you think could be improved upon in my performance and what you've learned from this replay you didn't know already. If you can manage that, then you're really shining bright in the academy!

Classic lines from Harlequin:
"i am jizzing"
"i am literally orgasming here"
"just rape him"

Is Harlequin a motivational speaker in real life

Thanks for sharing the replay Ding

BTW, I'd prefer this kind of support

Meh... too distracting

first of all ... was harlequin one of monty's early nick incarnations before he started playing arty and renamed himself several times?  

Really enjoyed watching this as a big fan of medium and light tank combat.
Most important to learn in my opinion:
Never give up! (because if you do so you never get a kolobanv   ) but knew that already also many of the things you did there gives small "flashbacks" to lessons, tipps and tricks instructors here are giving but many things are really hard to master and require training and experience (like taking the right decissions in the right moment, target prioritisation, positioning and situational awarness)
Liked the VK kill almost directly in front of the SU and then killing him awesome positioning and awarness but I think I might have sh* myself trying to pull that off.

Was awesome to watch thanks for sharing.

Do note that I am being overly critical and massively nitpicking, as this is all in hindsight. I will critique as I would one of my own games. Practicing thourough analysis, is slowly teaching me to better analyze on the fly when playing, thus making me better. Here goes:

- I think you wasted a bit too much time early on looking for shots on the Type 59 you were not going to get. You could either have gotten a cheeky shot or two in on the KV-5's from behind the hill or positioned yourself closer to the 8 line for free shots on the T32 and a bit later the Tiger that both were out in the open. This would have gotten some early damage in, maybe even gotten the T32 killed.

- You took a big hit when engaging the Type 59. I think ramming him was a great shock & move towards taking him out, but it did expose you to enemy fire. Did you tunnel vision into wanting the 59 dead? Initially I thought the T32 shot you, but reviewing it a second time, it came from an unknown source. Possibly a TD hiding on the sniper ridge. This took 1/3 of your health early in the game. Could possibly have been avoided by staying closer to the 9 line and tracking him by shooting, but then he may not have been thrown off as much and reacted better to your attack.

- Finishing off the KV-5's was flawless. Did you turn after you got tracked to deny him a shot at your side? If so, that was a brilliant move

- I feel it was not necessary to rush your second shot on the SU-100. There was no immediate danger of taking damage at that point.

- When the M6 popped into view I would have either rushed him or pulled back a little to get some cover. You stopped dead out in the open and got hit by something hidden (but luckily don't take a lot of damage).

- Flanking move on the T32 is great. Dropped you out of reach from the KV-2 for a while (and anything else that was shooting from the town). You were able to pick up enough speed to outrun his turret and he didn't stand a chance.

- Good job avoiding the KV-2. I would probably have let myself get suckered into trying to take him out quick and either got to the cap too late or got killed because I was trying to rush the engagement.

- Excellent dealing with the VK from behind the rock, then rushing the SU-152.

- I'm not saying I would have noticed with the adrenalin flowing at that point and the threat of possibly eating a 152 premium shell at point blank range, but the T-34-85 was a oneshot, you were behind the 152 and he wasn't going to turn around on you that easily. Taking out the medium that could have tracked you should ideally have had priority.

- Good call to go after the KV-2. You roughly knew where he had to be given your last sighting and his speed. Given your ammo count, you should have moved to a better position after your first shot on the KV-2, because he was not reacting (you just can't discount extreme RNG in this game). Ofcourse he does come back once you get close and takes a half arsed stab at swinging his barrel in your direction. The fire messed him up pretty bad though and I think by that time half his crew turned crispy black and his tank was melting away from under him. Kill (and win) secured!

Again, I am being overly harsh here, but this is how I critique my own replays as well. Excellent game mate!   I always make stupid adrenalin driven mistakes at these Kolobanov opportunities...

edit: Also do note, these are just my opinions and they are not set in stone  Everything is up for debate.

Also....



 Holy crap! First bit of purple!  

(carry on, don't want to hijack the topic)

nilzatron wrote:...

That was a truly excellent critique Nilz, I look forward to many more of these from you if I have replays I think worthy of viewing.

I'll go over each one of your points in order:

1) I agree, I wasted quite some time at the beginning. I was indeed focused on killing the Type 59, the reason for me is two-fold... (1) because when I'm playing in my Type 59, I absolutely HATE seeing other Type 59s. It may come as a shock, but the only tank I struggle to kill in my Type 59 is another Type 59. Hence, I wanted him gone ASAP before I lose any hp later and end up fighting him on a possible hp handicap. (2) Me and Harlequin has an unspoken platoon pledge to help our team. This is why I platoon with him a lot, it usually ends up with us killing every enemy tank by trying to protect our team from dying. In this case, I really wanted to save the SU-100, unfortunately, he died immediately after saying "thx bro" lol. But looking at it from hindsight, I would argue if I had not taken out the Type 59, he could have flanked me...or worse....came from my REAR! That would be a disaster, no doubt.

2) Yeah that Type 59 fight was appalling, sure, I took him out, but I lost most of my hp there. Truth be told I was spending the majority of that time responding to 'Help!' commands.

3) Yeah he tracked me, to avoid a shot onto my side I used my repair kit and got out of the way. One particular aspect I think nobody picked up in this replay was the use of auto-aim when taking out the second KV-5 . You guys can see the center of my screen was not on the KV-5 yet I was still aimed on him, then eventually killed him while focusing on my driving. THAT, is how you should use auto-aim. There is no death more humiliating than when your killer wasn't even paying attention on slaying you!

4) Oh yes there was... I was acutely aware of the fact there were 2 tanks that disappeared from view to my left at the time. We now know only the M6 came back to engage me but I wanted that SU-100 dead ASAP, or else I would have gotten flanked. It;s hard to time these things I guess.

5) Yeah, dunno why I did that, probably thought my armor could take the M6.

6) That KV-2 was such a pain. I was terrified of the possibility he had a derp gun, so as you can imagine when I was trying to take out the T32 all I had on my mind was "do it FAST!!! Before the KV-2 gets here!!!". Also you will notice I kept turning my screen back to the KV-2 while running away from him... because I wanted to find a route which prevented him from aligning a shot onto me.

7) Truth be told I think that was as good as I could have managed it. I noticed I didn't bother to scroll out of zoom to see if SU-152 was still visible. Major mistake on my part there, I should have regularly checked on him between shots and check his location and my cover quality. I assume I had a little tunnel vision there.

8 ) Absolutely did not notice T-34-85 was a one-shot. Truth be told, I only noticed when he shot me from the rear that he was there! Still, SU-152 was the definitive priority, especially since I was already halfway charging over to him!

9) Actually, spotting the KV-2 at the end was a guess. There was no way I was going to assume he went AFK so when I did spot him it was by accident. When I noticed he didn't have derp I calmed down a bit (I freaked when I saw he was on higher ground with clear shot at me with my engine down). I calmed further when I noticed he wasn't moving. A final point I really want to add is never stop getting a feed of information. By asking Harlequin how to set fire to the KV-2 I definitely made my job easier if the KV-2 was not AFK. I think it is important to keep using your mind even during combat.

Again great observations Nilz! Was splendid reading what you had to say!

RoninRage wrote:first of all ... was harlequin one of monty's early nick incarnations before he started playing arty and renamed himself several times?  

Nope he was a student like all of you A bit inactive lately due to work though

Also thanks for your observations Ronin. Glad you learned somethign from it! Especially the 'never give up' thing.

"Go for the draw!"
"no...."

Should be the response for ALL students!

Hi Ding

I'm not enrolled at the Academy yet I'm just a potential recruit still on tier 3, so most of what you were actually doing probably just went right over my head.

I think maybe I did pick up something from this. Its probably something quite obvious as well but it never crossed my mind till I watched your vid here .

During your demolition of the M6 at 05:00 I noticed that you deliberately took your time to lay round on round even when he was returning fire and your previous shot bounced. Now I have always just tried to pepperpot tanks when I'm shooting at them, which only makes the exterior look like you are doing damage. But obviously now I have thought about it, it makes perfect sense to try to employ this technique to penetrate thicker armor. Cant understand why I didnt think about it before? maybe I was concerned if it was right on the money it might go unregistered by the game  

So was this a technique saved for the rounded front of the M6 or something you regularly do given the opportunity. Do you never worry about putting a round on top of a previous bounce?

Thanks

shinyhelmet wrote:Hi Ding

I'm not enrolled at the Academy yet I'm just a potential recruit still on tier 3, so most of what you were actually doing probably just went right over my head.

I think maybe I did pick up something from this. Its probably something quite obvious as well but it never crossed my mind till I watched your vid here .

During your demolition of the M6 at 05:00 I noticed that you deliberately took your time to lay round on round even when he was returning fire and your previous shot bounced. Now I  have always just tried to pepperpot tanks when I'm shooting at them, which only makes the exterior look like you are doing damage. But obviously now I have thought about it, it makes perfect sense to try to employ this technique to penetrate thicker armor. Cant understand why I didnt think about it before? maybe I was concerned if it was right on the money it might go unregistered by the game  

So was this a technique saved for the rounded front of the M6 or something you regularly do given the opportunity. Do you never worry about putting a round on top of a previous bounce?

Thanks

Hey shiny! It's great to see you're engaging! Absolutely fantastic hehe!

Truth be told, what you said as 'took your time' was perhaps a mistake. Looking back on it at hindsight I think I probably should have moved (maybe I thought I was safe there? I cannot remember) at least closer to some kind of cover instead of standing in the middle of nowhere.

Regarding my shots... I know for a fact there is a spot on the front of the M6 my Type 59 can penetrate. It's just strange I kept on getting an inaccurate shot which means it was a bounce. The killing blow to the M6 was actually an inaccurate shot that luckily struck him where it could penetrate. The idea is simple, the only area that the M6 could bounce my shots was that single horizontal line my aimer was aimed at on his front plate, I was essentially using the inaccuracy of the game against him. The chances of me aiming at his small impenetrable area and using the inaccuracies of the game to score an inaccurate shot (thereby scoring a penetrating shot above or below that impenetrable area) is GREATER than me aiming for a penetrable area and having the inaccuracy of the game forcing my shot to either hit his impenetrable area or the ground (or the turret if I aimed upwards instead of downwards). This is a technique that is very much unique to me and is very mathematical in a sense, it does work however, but explaining it is complicated... did you understand what I just said? lol

However, if you are trying to say I was trying to put a shot exactly where my previous shot bounced in the hopes of it penetrating. Then unfortunately that's not what I was trying to do. Also I believe that will have no effect on penetration, if it bounced before at that exact spot, it will bounce again at that exact spot.

If there are any further queries or clarifications needed just say so. I welcome your discussion

Hi Ding

Thank you for having me here.

By the way I thought you did a fantastic job in that battle and won a thoroughly deserved Kolobanov. I relish the opportunity of learning the skills that will allow me to carry a team like that.

When i said you "took your time" I wasn't talking about your tanks position or speed but about you making sure your point of aim was precisely where you wanted it to be.

What caught my attention here was that your aim marker was already on the hull lower glacis yet when he began firing at you, you held your fire until you had your aim on an exact spot. Where as I would just have just opened fire immediately.

If anything I was expecting you to lower your aim further into his softer under belly. What I couldn't understand was why you chose that particular spot at the front edge of the lower glacis as the angle his tank was at it meant you were aiming almost edge on to the length of the upper glacis which like you say would have been impossible to penetrate from your position.

I therefore presumed (wrongly as you explained) that you were attempting to put the next shell right on the exact same spot as the previous one which had bounced. I suddenly had a thought that maybe the gouge from the bounce had created a weak flat spot that would reduce the chance of a second bounce and allow the second shot on that exact spot to penetrate easier.

But I think what you explained was that the game mechanics are such that the more difficult any given spot is to hit, be it impenetrable or weak, then the less likelihood there is for your shot to actually land if aimed there. So by aiming there you avoid hitting there...Is that correct? if so then that is an even stranger exploit than what I was suggesting and very cunning of you indeed  

About repetitive precise shots. When you said "if it bounced before it will bounce again" does the same go for a failure to penetrate?

Say for example a stationary enemy has only heavy armor available to aim at from your position is there is any point in aiming at the exact same spot over and over in an attempt to break it down and penetrate it eventually?


Thanks again

I will ninja Ding a bit here...

I think I got what you mean and the answer in no. No matter how many times you hit the exact same spot, you will not "weaken" it for the next shots to penetrate.

On the other hand RNG does that your penetration value varies +-25% of the average value given in the game. (So does your dmg btw). Therefore, each time you hit a spot, the WoT server makes a "roll" for the penetrating value of your shell, against the effective armor of your target (effective armor as opposed to armor thickness is explained in the course notes you can find here: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwNZD5ZZbIRLYVpJTXZtM2NhZTg&usp=sharing&tid=0BwNZD5ZZbIRLanY1NERiY0swcU0).

Therefore you can hit the same spot over and over again and penetrate or not, depending on the roll you get. For example, if your opponent has 100 eff. armor and your average penetration is 100 (this gradually drops above certain distance, but still another discussion), you will actually penetrate him half the times on average. indeed the "rolls' will be normally distributed and half will be above 100 (up to 125 -> penetration) or below 100 (down to 75 -> no penetration)

What Ding is also reffering to is RNG in shell trajectory. The aiming cirlcle you see is actually the normal distribution of the shell trajectory for a distance of 100m. This means that at 100m from your tank, 66% of your shots will land within the middle third of the circle you see (if my maths are still any good). From 200m your shot will be twice as inacurate, whereas from 50m your shot will be twice as accurate. In other words, your shot VERY rarely goes where your croshair is, it will deviate randomly somewhat (although not too much). Therefore if a "strongspot" is small and far enough and lies between two "weakspots" actually aiming for the "hardspot" might give you better chances to hit the "weakspot. Mind you though this is applicable only to very particular cases.

What you should actually learn to do first is to learn the weakspots of the enemy tanks, aim for them (fully aimed or not depends from the distance from you really), and consider that your shot will not deviate (usually it does not deviate that much. Once you have mastered this you could start taking "deviations" into account and do what Ding does, which is still quite "experimental" and debatable to some extent.

Very nice observations, but unfortunately you NEEEARLY got my point, but not quite, I said my technique was complex lol. But this time I got some spare time so I'll draw a flimsy illustration to show my pioint. If there's anything you don't understand please do say so. As since I've committed to explaining I would appreciate it if you got my point lol! ^^

shinyhelmet wrote:Hi Ding

Thank you for having me here.

By the way I thought you did a fantastic job in that battle and won a thoroughly deserved Kolobanov. I relish the opportunity of learning the skills that will allow me to carry a team like that.

When i said you "took your time" I wasn't talking about your tanks position or speed but about you making sure your point of aim was precisely where you wanted it to be.

What caught my attention here was that your aim marker was already on the hull lower glacis yet when he began firing at you, you held your fire until you had your aim on an exact spot. Where as I would just have just opened fire immediately.

If anything I was expecting you to lower your aim further into his softer under belly. What I couldn't understand was why you chose that particular spot at the front edge of the lower glacis as the angle his tank was at it meant you were aiming almost edge on to the length of the upper glacis which like you say would have been impossible to penetrate from your position.

I therefore presumed (wrongly as you explained) that you were attempting to put the next shell right on the exact same spot as the previous one which had bounced. I suddenly had a thought that maybe the gouge from the bounce had created a weak flat spot that would reduce the chance of a second bounce and allow the second shot on that exact spot to penetrate easier.

Your assumption before was incorrect. You have now realized that is what I'm trying to say...so far you are correct!

shinyhelmet wrote:
But I think what you explained was that the game mechanics are such that the more difficult any given spot is to hit, be it impenetrable or weak, then the less likelihood there is for your shot to actually land if aimed there. So by aiming there you avoid hitting there...Is that correct? if so then that is an even stranger exploit than what I was suggesting and very cunning of you indeed  

Incorrect! Unfortunately you half understood my point but didn't quite get it. I'll draw a illustration (using my keyboard keys omg D:)

Ok so underneath will be an illustration of the M6 from directly the FRONT (I was shooting at it from a slight angle in the video but that makes no difference in relation to this illustration).

So let's see the M6 from the front as according to my Type 59 in the illustration below:

|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                     |
|   Turret area impenetrable covers around 40% of total front area             |
|                                                                                                     |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Upper front plate penetrable covers around 20% of of total front area        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Middle front plate impenetrable covers around 20% of total front area        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Lower front plate penetrable covers around 20% of total front area           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                     |
  Ground which is impenetrable (as concerning damaging the M6)

Ok so logically there is only 3 possible places I can aim for in my Type59. I can aim for the upper front plate which is penetrable, or I can aim for the middle front plate which is impenetrable like I did in the video, or I can aim at the lower front plate which is penetrable. Keep this consideration in mind as I explain what follows.

Right next thing to explain is the mechanics of the game in regards to accuracy. This game has a very dodgy accuracy system which allows your shot to go flying AROUND the area in which you're aiming. I'm sure you've noticed that when you are aiming, your shot doesn't necessarily hit EXACTLY the spot you're aiming at, but usually somewhere nearby. Although accuracy is concentrated around the spot where you're aiming, it is not that concentrated to the extent that the Type 59 has about an equal chance of hitting an area immediately above or below the exact spot where I'm aiming. Ok so keep this in mind too. In regards to the M6, my shot's likely spread is roughly around 60% (an estimate given the distance I was to him in the video) of the area of the M6's frontal area.

Ok so a little bit of maths here... and follow my steps...

Step 1: Look at my illustration. Notice that when the upper, middle and lower front plate's frontal area is added together they equal 60% (upper 20% + middle 20% + lower 20% = 60%).

Step 2: Looking at my illustration, and keeping in mind as I've mentioned that my shot's accuracy's likely spread is likely around 60% frontal area. Imagine my aimer placed on the upper frontal plate, middle frontal plate and lower frontal plate respectively.

Step 3: Explanation!!! Imagine if I placed my aimer at the upper frontal plate. Keeping in mind my vertical spread is 60% (as horizontal spread doesn't matter, because the penetration would be the same). My area of penetration would be only the 20% of the upper frontal plate...but IF the shot was inaccurate, it could go higher or lower than my point of aim, which would either hit the turret or the middle frontal plate, both of which are impenetrable. So my shot has a 33% possibility of hitting the turret (impenetrable), a 33% chance of hitting the upper frontal plate (penetrable), and a 33%^ chance of hitting the middle frontal plate (impenetrable). Thus giving me a 33% chance of penetrating while a 66$% chance on not penetrating (33% turret + 33% middle front plate = 66%).

Now let's examine what I actually did in the video. I aimed for the middle front plate, which is impenetrable. But... now look my my illustration. You can see that the upper front plate and the lower front plate are both penetrable in the 60% accuracy spread of my shot. Thus, I have a 33% chance of hitting the upper front plate (penetrable), 33% chance of hitting the middle front plate (impenetrable) and a 33% chance of hitting the lower front plate (penetrable). This means I will have a 66% CHANCE OF HITTING AN AREA WHERE IT PENETRATES (upper front plate 33% + lower front plate 33% = 66%), which is GREATER than the 33% chance of hitting an area that penetrates if I aimed for the upper front plate.

Finally, if I aimed for the lower front plate the theory is the same as if I had aimed for the upper front plate. In the 60% accuracy apread on the area, I will have a 33% chance of hitting the middle front plate (impenetrable), a 33% chance of hitting the lower front plate (penetrable) and a 33% chance of hitting the ground (impenetrable). Thus giving me a 66% chance of not penetrating (33% middle front plate + 33% chance of hitting the ground = 66%). thereby only giving me a 33% chance of hitting the area where i can penetrate (the lower front plate).

So if you do the maths, all this says is I have a 66% chance of hitting an area that penetrates the M6 when I aim for the middle front plate (which is impenetrable), because both the upper front plate and lower front plate is penetrable, As compared to the 33% chance of me hitting an area that penetrates when I aim for either the upper front plate or lower front plate. I understand I aimed for the impenetrable area, but the chances are that I have a greater chance of scoring a penetrating hit if I aimed at the middle front plate (66% chance) than I if I had aimed at the upper OR lower front plate (33% chance each).

Thus, it made sense to aim for the middle front plate, and USING the accuracy mechanism of the game to help me get a penetrating hit. Many people think inaccurate shots are bad for you, but by using the technique mentioned above I was actually HOPING for an inaccurate hit, as by hitting inaccurately I can then score a penetrating hit (which falls in the 66% chance). Had I scored an accurate hit I would have bounced the M6 (which falls into the 33% chance).

This is a very complex explanation for a game. But it is the only way I can fully explain it to you. I re-read what I wrote and it makes sense, if you still don't understand it I will endeavour to think of another way of explaining it.

shinyhelmet wrote:
About repetitive precise shots. When you said "if it bounced before it will bounce again" does the same go for a failure to penetrate?

Say for example a stationary enemy has only heavy armor available to aim at from your position is there is any point in aiming at the exact same spot over and over in an attempt to break it down and penetrate it eventually?


Thanks again

That's what I mean by "if it bounced before it will bounce again". I meant technically speaking, if I shot a spot and made a dent, shooting it again will NOT make it penetrate, it wil;l still be a 'bounce' (failure to penetrate).

There is no point in aiming at an exact spot again if you failed to penetrate it the first time, but that is only assuming you WANTED your shot to hit at that exact spot. In my technique I WANTED to hit above or below the spot where I aimed, the only reason I aimed there was because I WANTED the game to grant me an inaccurate shot, which would send my shell straight into the upper or lower front plate, giving me a penetrating shot.

Lol.... told you this was complex haha ^^

Btw, forgot to mention, that in order to get a feeling of the mechanics of the game this is the BIBLE! Check it out:

http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Battle_Mechanics

Some facts and figures may not be completely up to date due to recent updates, but 90% of the info you need to play WoT is in there.

I agree with Sapaki, you should learn how to shoot assuming your shot DON'T deviate inaccurately first. My technique is a very advanced form of playing this game and let's face it...is based on luck, as I have no idea if the next shot will deviate the way I want it to.

I gave my explanation because you asked for it. keep it in mind for use later but right now I think perhaps it's a bit out of your depth (no offence mate!). VERY few people think the way I do, teh technique works and is experimental, but most people have no idea when to use it and failure to know when to use it will often work against you instead of favourably towards you.

Thank you for taking the time to explain in such detail.

Okay I see you mean just the normal inaccuracy of aiming within the game. Sorry for being dumb, perhaps I just haven't paid attention enough during battles. I just didn't consider the point of impact to have such a variable spread from my point of aim at that distance (about 100m wasn't it). I will be sure to keep an eye on this in future though.

I agree its out of my scope of learning at present and I will most definitely concentrate on learning weak spots meantime.

@ Sapaki I do take the time to read the wiki and have read over the various sections a few times. Its a lot for a newbie to digest but I am picking up new information each time I reread a section.

Thanks again

Hmmm read through this but i think it is now harder (even more luckbased) to work than pre 8.6 (accuracy changes)
because of the changed distribution of shots within the aiming circle(19,4% of shots on the edge of the aiming circle pre 8.6 now we are on 4,6% has something to do with Gauss distribution *loads of blabla about sigma ... default deviation blablabla boring maths stuff tldr*

News that inspired me to think so: http://ftr-wot.blogspot.nl/2013/05/086-changes-in-game-mechanics.html and the snipping KV-1s syndrom (guys standing in next to the base and snipping with the 122mm and actually hitting stuff sometimes ... possibly ... now thats several hundred meters away).

Greets
Ronin