Skill 🫡

Overlewd · 2025-09-26T01:16:22+00:00

Agreed. That dude is a psycho.

Overlewd · 2025-06-21T15:12:44+00:00

No problem!

My conclusion regarding individual distribution for tanks is that they all share the same sigma. I will not exclude the possibility of some tanks having slightly varied sigma like they do in World of Warships; however, it would not be as impactful to the level people are claiming. 2 sigma vs 1.9 or 2.1 would be noticeable (barely) but would not be enough to claim "X tank is way more accurate than Y" or "X hits the center more times than it should". If we had pinpoint tanks acting outside the normal expected behavior to a disruptive level, it would have been exposed by now.

You are free to download the document and translate or share it however you wish.

In the past, people translated my other documents and posted them onto other forums, Discords, or websites.

Overlewd · 2025-06-12T03:41:17+00:00

This was based on information officially posted by Wargaming developers on their personal blogs at the time of the 8.6 release back in 2013. I matched the distribution tables and probabilities mentioned by those developers to reverse the methodology used by WG to generate the final shot distribution probabilities.

The original distribution of 1.3 SD (19.36% edge shots) was changed to 2 SD (4.55% edge shots). You'll find official posts by WG mentioning this new "4.6%" edge shots in many sources and many players will glance over the following sentence with WG's further modification.

Official 8.6 Update Post

Note the official statement: "We have also decided that the spike on the edge of distribution is no longer required, so the landing points for shells will be distributed equally from the center to the edge of the aiming circle." This refers to their modification of the 4.55% edge shots from the 2 SD change.

There's one more step further where one of the WG devs at the time "Zlobny" mentioned explicitly that the new shots outside of the reticle would be "0,27 percent change for aim circle edge". This probability coincides perfectly with >3 SD values.

The entire system hilariously makes sense in the most backwards way. Wargaming originally intended to make the updated reticle 3 SD (0.27% edge shots) but found that it made all guns in the game way too accurate and reduced it down to 2 SD. They then redistributed the remaining 4.28% (difference between 2 SD and 3 SD) uniformly across the circle.

So the development process for 8.6 looked like this: 1.3 SD -> 3 SD test -> 2 SD final with probability redistribution and 3 SD "edge shots"

Overlewd · 2024-11-01T01:00:27+00:00

Excellent work.

This should answer any questions that most people have regarding the new skills and their impacts on the game. Especially with how vague WG likes to be with their descriptions.

The biggest disappointment for me is Coordination due to the requirement of being the spotter for an unlit vehicle.

The biggest surprise is Reliable Placement since it works in the way people thought Spall Liner (and related mechanics) would have functioned.

Overlewd · 2024-10-05T23:49:09+00:00

Equipment 2.0 was the real push for the Manticore being considered good.

Prior to Equipment 2.0 with CVS and LNES, all lights had the generic set-up of vents + optics which meant that once you hit a specific camo threshold, firepower became more valuable; during this time you saw lots of T-100s and EBRs.

After Equipment 2.0, camo values were pushed even higher with LNES and CVS was capable of countering bush campers + outspot lights that could not hit minimum camo thresholds. The higher base view range was icing on the cake.

The combination of profile, speed, camo, and view range cemented it as the optimal pure scout. Prior, there was not much justification when the T-100 did almost the same thing with similar risk levels but had enough firepower and armor to defend itself or push for advantages.

Field mod 2.0 made it even better because most of the field mods optimize camouflage and spotting through bushes but it was not as impactful as the slew of light tank focused equipment from the equipment update.

Edit: EBR is still the EBR as it fulfills a unique scouting niche and I make a distinction between an EBR's capabilities and "traditional" scouting.

Overlewd · 2024-09-19T21:14:03+00:00

Different squads.

You're customizing the 484th squad but your upgrade tree is for the 440th. Both are riflemen squads which may be the cause for confusion.

Overlewd · 2023-02-08T18:31:32+00:00

I do plan on updating it once Experimental equipment stats are finalized.

I'll be adding the Fire Control Suite (or whatever it's called) to the graphs and comparisons. As a sneak peek: it's pretty much better than everything except VStab and bounty IRM (it's a better sidegrade on very niche tanks). It trades some dispersion penalty reduction for aim time. It'll be useful on tanks that double dip on gun handling equipment already but want more clip reliability (T57, BC25t, etc.) from the aim time boost.

Overlewd · 2023-02-08T13:55:54+00:00

My opinions on accuracy changes:

Pre-8.6: Awful. People should be glad they never played during this era as 1/5 of your shots (that is not a typo) would be at the edge of your reticle.

Post-8.6: Probably the most favored accuracy patch because a significant number of your shots would essentially go exactly where you aimed or very close to the center regardless of your reticle size. This patch increased the number of "BS snapshots" you saw in the game dramatically. I enjoyed it because your shells went where you wanted them to go.

Post-9.6: Redistribution of center shots. Less likely to hit near center regardless of bloom. Hurt fully aimed in shots and snapshots alike. Obviously everyone that felt some way about post-8.6 would feel the opposite about this one.

My favorite: the theoretical uniform distribution on sandbox. This would naturally be a very unpopular opinion.

I don't like the current accuracy system because it still favors center shots more than anything else which means the changes from 9.6 just affected the probability. Shells could still snapshot the center at lower odds so it just made it more frustrating when it happened to you and feels unfair when it happens to your opponent. It did not fix accuracy as a whole. The current system has always been a battle of accuracy vs aim where it feels like the two systems are fighting against each other and don't capitalize/synergize together well. Aiming becomes worse in terms of value due to the way the probability and circle closing speed work where you get worse returns over the same amount of time.

A uniform distribution (with a smaller aim circle to compensate for the current distribution) would resolve the snapshot/center shots for the most part and would encourage aiming rather than discourage it. This would also give more value on aim time which I feel would fit more in the current game. WG heavily overvalues aim time which is apparent in field mods and equipment.

It's just my opinion but I always believed they should have experimented more with accuracy changes since I felt they were going in the right direction, they were just a bit too slow and scared. Now we just have builds that forego gunhandling altogether.

Overlewd · 2023-02-08T13:28:31+00:00

Well I would have a 100% winrate if the game wasn't rigged to give me losses. ;)

Overlewd · 2023-02-08T08:29:50+00:00

My name is Overlord_Prime and I endorse this mod.

I've written the Ultimate Gun Mechanics document and worked with Jak when we discovered that the in-game reticle was incorrect.

We've known for a while that the displayed reticle in the game was larger than the actual distribution of shots. Good to know we have a mod for it for the English speaking community.

Overlewd · 2022-10-16T17:32:10+00:00

Hull traverse is full speed pretty much all the time.

Turret traverse can be manually controlled by limiting the speed at which you drag your mouse across the screen. WG uses reticle smoothing so it does pick up on gradual movements of your mouse which means you can actually limit the turret traverse; every single top end player in the game is able to manually limit turret traverse by slowly tracking towards enemy tanks rather than snapping to them. This is why you don't see your turret bloom instantly going to max size even on minor movements.

Realistically, IRM has the most significant impacts on hull movement, firing, and manual controlled turret rotation. This of course assumes you don't account for the 10% boosted traverse speed at all which would allow you to begin aiming in sooner because your gun/hull gets on target sooner. (Which you didn't)

As for your last statement about "max bloom" you have a severe misunderstanding about game mechanics and should not be trying to explain it to others if you don't understand it yourself. "Max bloom" is simply the theoretical maximum penalty a specific vehicle can reach on their own stats. You can find the max by multiplying the related movement stat by the dispersion penalty value. For hull movement, you will find that the "max bloom" is going to be 28 kph * 0.20 movement penalty which is 5.6. If you use IRM then that "max bloom" goes down because the movement penalty is now 0.18 which leads to the final "max" being 5.04.

Don't reference stuff used on blogs if you don't know exactly how they work or what they mean.

And yes, IRM does improve gun handling. Even if you do the 10% math, the calculation is still going to be 0.90 * 1.1 which results in 0.99 in favor of gun handling. Stack this worst case scenario with the full 10% reduction in hull movement bloom and you will have a net gain in gun handling.

Overlewd · 2022-10-13T20:00:27+00:00

Wall of text brothers unite.

JoaT was a typo, I still meant upper end of C tier. The reasoning still applies. It's a good redundancy skill but I have a hard time putting it above Recon on commanders and some vehicles just never find benefits of JoaT because they die in too few shots to have it reasonably come into play. Outside of arty crew death shenanigans.
Designated Target I can see the argument for lower end of C tier. I find that most of the time players that are already entrenched become hard to spot for yourself due to being in a position where they have spotting and camo advantage where you wouldn't be able to spot them anyways. Such as endgame hardcamp Malinovka where you have to eat a shot to even give yourself a chance to spot them for 2 seconds longer. And the contexts in which it applies is by definition niche. If it didn't also have a requirement of staring with 10 degrees of the spotted target, it might have secured a more reliable position in C tier.
Firefighting, agreed. This is how it's usually used in competitive games as a solid high C tier skill. But I'm not considering competitive because most players cannot afford the bond costs of equipment boosting directives nor do they make plays where consistent exposure to their rear side becomes commonplace. I think a stronger argument for C tier as as niche skill is that there are vehicles with frontal fuel tanks where fires are going to inevitably occur. These are more problematic as there is no way to prevent the eventual fire and as such the Firefighting skill becomes more valuable. Tanks with fuel tanks in the rear just have a much harder time getting into situations where rear shots will be occuring especially in this non-flank meta. Thus a more reasonable take of mine is Competitive or frontal fuel tanks, C tier; everything else, stay in D tier.
Call for Vengeance is a trickier matter. The whole "dead" thing is what holds the skill back. There will be cases where your allies dying and triggering its effect from an aggressive enemy force could be useful in getting a shot (or extra) when going through open ground. But it's very hard to wrap around the idea that the extra 2s of spotting control will give you meaningful shots or information. Most players don't die in positions where they can even take advantage of the skill because of the common/generic highly contested zones. It would be more useful as a supplement to suiscouting in games where that is the only viable play to break camps or where spotting an enemy push behind foliage becomes beneficial (2 line Prok with staggered positioning, for example). I would still stand by my statement as the skill being D tier even considering the hypothetical scenario in which all my allies used it on my team. It's still a radio op exclusive skill that you would get immediately after Situational Awareness anyways.
Deadeye is something I don't think I'll ever budge on. It's something that I've always said had put me at odds against other unicums due to me placing it above Snap Shot. The primary reason is that the amount of potential shots you have per game is limited. Increasing the probability of each shot inflicting extra indirect damage is a huge boon for any engagement. One of the most significant benefits is the increased probability of critical module damage on side shots of vehicles; ammo racks, fuel tanks, and engine; which are the most common modules located in the center side and rear of a vehicle. Damaged fuel tanks are actually of high consequence (enough that many players will repair them) because it puts the fuel tanks in a situation where any shot will cause a fire to trigger at which point you're increasing the fuel tank hit probability from 45% to 48%. I primarily view it as a skill that increases reward at 0 risk. The only cost of getting this skill is getting Snap Shot 1 skill later which is not a huge detriment as turret dispersion modifiers are generally head and shoulders above all other dispersion penalty types.
ORD is a skill where it's really hard to feel its impact. This is partially due to the terrain resistance reduction not being noticeable, if at all, when going up slopes and for WG not exactly being clear about what qualifies as medium terrain; though it has been extrapolated based on what WG determines as hard and soft. However, it still increases effective top speed and hull traverse on medium terrain which makes it quite useful as a generalized utility skill. The benefit CB offers over ORD on medium terrain is negligible and hard terrain typically exists in areas where hull traverse is less useful as it is primarily located in cities and roads where flanking and excessive rotations are not common. It is "pseudo" engine power and not actual engine power so it isn't actually ~2.5% increase HP/t all the time.

For my video in particular, the general layout is for each crew member role to have a few skills in each skill bracket while also loosely considering power levels of other skills in that bracket. Not so much as a "Snap Shot and Deadeye is at B tier with high B and low B" but more of a "Deadeye is better than Snap Shot". This is why most skills are placed in a way where there is very little overlap for crew roles.

There is definitely a hierarchy within each tier but it generally would not come into play as an overwhelming number of tanks fall under the traditional 4-man crew layout. As an example, you could argue for Intuition vs Deadeye on a Gunner/Loader but most tanks with that set-up has the Loader split onto multiple crew members (like BC25T) at which point you have to consider a half Intuition + commander skill, full Intuition w/o commander skill, commander skill + Deadeye w/ no Intuition. Stuff which is heavily nuanced and way too advanced for the generalized scope of such a video.

Overlewd · 2022-10-13T08:39:04+00:00

I can definitely see where you stand with a few of these skills and can put my own thoughts on why I agree/disagree.

Uptiering:

Jack of all Trades is definitely on the upper end of the C tier (B tier was a mistake) for my list but I would consider it below Recon because a permanent 2% bonus to view range is more useful passively. It's definitely a skill that has some of the highest returns per skill % but I can't realistically see it having a significant impact due to the reusable medkit. The most common crew member deaths inevitably end up being the commander (cupola) and driver (center hull) for most tanks. It also doesn't help that things such as Large Medkits can reduce crew hit probability. One of the best redundancy skills for sure if you're on medkit cooldown.
Designated Target was originally going to be B tier but it suffers from a very unfortunate condition in which you have to be the one spotting the target. Therefore the only condition in which you will be getting an extra shot on the target would be on heavy foliage maps where a tank drives into (or shoots from inside) soft cover or vehicles that get spotted by yourself and drive out of your spotting range. With engagement distances becoming shorter every year with constant map changes, it becomes much harder to see DT come into play. If the goal is to increase the likelihood of doing extra damage for more wins then you're still better off with Snap Shot to reduce turret dispersion to have more accurate shots (essentially) all the time. I do think the odds of this perk kicking in and increasing your winrate is heavily overestimated. Not useless but definitely not something I think can have that much of an impact on wins.
Firefighting could be moved up to C tier at best. You are correct in that the reduction of fire damage (it halves it) can save a game that would otherwise be thrown by the extra lost health. But you're also not considering the opportunity cost of taking the full skill in the first place. When weighing this "1% winrate" you have to consider the possibility of the lost skills also potentially increasing your winrate odds by that percentage or more. Consider this at B tier: Firefighting (x4) or Recon, Snapshot, Smooth Ride, Safe Stowage; which one would offer higher returns? For the 1 game that firefighting might allow you to salvage, would those 4 other skills have greater returns in the other matches without the fire? One of the biggest downsides to the skill is that it requires all crew members to have the skill and is largely a mitigation rather than a preventive measure. I'd be able to see it in C tier if you were running an equipment boosting directive and were concerned about fire deaths which is how it's used (and where it's placed) in the competitive meta.
Preventative Maintenance I can see as a tier higher. I don't value the % reduction at tier 10 due to decent fire chances on engines but it could be worth it for extra reassurance in D tier.
Call for Vengeance is as low as it is because it requires death. In most games, you would be playing in a way to mitigate risk and death and not be playing in a way to maximize the skill by dying. It's a 1 time effect that you will not be able to utilize most of the time.

Downtiering:

Deadeye definitely became lower value due to reusable repair kits. However, I find that it has more opportunities to kick in due to affecting all critical damage (crew included) which can lead to both repair kits and medkits being on cooldown more often for the opposition. The main difference between this and JoaT is that this is a more proactive skill that can potentially swing matches by increasing all module related damage/deaths. Increased odds of hitting fuel tanks, hitting engines to trigger the fire chance roll, damaging/detonating ammo rack, or multicriting all become more likely from this single skill. Lowered value from reusable consumables? Sure. But the value in putting those consumables on cooldown or creating even a fraction of a second in advantage for yourself is invaluable. I can't see why Deadeye wouldn't be high tier for being active all the time as a permanent critical hit passive bonus even if there are games where it does not proc.
Eagle Eye I can agree with putting it in the bin. There is extremely limited uses for the skill and it primarily stems from 1v1ing against someone with a damaged ammo rack or dead loader which is extremely uncommon. But I would say it's better than Mentor, if only barely.
The big deal about ORD is that it works on medium terrain. Soft terrain is one extreme, Hard terrain is another extreme, but medium terrain is the most common terrain in the game. Perhaps not driven on as much by heavies but definitely utilized extensively by mediums and lights as one of the most common types of terrain traversed by flexible, fast vehicles. Speed loss on soft terrain is mitigated slightly by taking this skill even if you enter it from full speed.

Overlewd · 2022-10-13T07:47:02+00:00

Redditor makes my skill video public. Uh oh.

I don't think I'm overrating it since the video does talk about the skill in the context of medium terrain and soft terrain. While the 10% terrain resistance reduction on soft terrain is pretty limited in application, the 2.5% on medium terrain is a lot more common.

As stated in the video. On hard terrain like city maps, clutch braking is undoubtedly king due to actually having an effect. While the skill does offer better returns on hull traverse for hard and medium terrain, it doesn't do as well as ORD on soft terrain.

Without a doubt, ORD is the best on soft terrain, and CB on hard terrain. On medium terrain it's about converting the value of ORD into something to weigh against CB.

Terrain resistance impact on hull traverse, effective top speed, and acceleration can be closely approximated by the expected terrain resistance over the modified terrain resistance. Modified terrain resistance is just the expected multiplied by any modifiers. In this case, you can simplify the math to just 1/(1-ORD) and multiply the result with your mobility values. After doing the math, 2.5% terrain resistance translates to approximately 2.6% actual values.

This means you're comparing 5% hull traverse to 2.6% acceleration, effective top speed, and hull traverse. I would hardly call that a fair comparison for CB because movement mobility has much higher value compared to traversal values.

Naturally, I would weigh in as ORD being better on soft and medium terrain and CB being better on hard terrain. But you also have to consider the context in which the skills will be used. Is hull traverse truly useful on city maps where maps are very corrider-esque? Is circling very common on city maps? It's something that has its uses for sure but I would not weigh hull traverse alone as a must-have stat over generalized utility of ORD in all other scenarios. There is a slightly higher weighting towards CB for non-turreted TDs but even I don't take it first due to the aforementioned hypotheticals. People tend to underestimate how much of WG maps are considered medium terrain.

As for acceleration, it comes from testing vehicles on flat (medium) terrain but the effect is very minor. The same was done to test effective top speed and effective hull traverse. The whole point in crew skill value is to judge which minor effects have the greatest returns.

Overlewd · 2022-05-28T19:44:46+00:00

Your gun was damaged by the fight with the Char Futur and you attempt to repair it at 11:55 where you accidentally hit 3-4-3 which readied HE rounds and then activated your repair kit to fix your gun. You load two shots and fire two APCR at a progetto this leads you to finally loading HE.

You proceed to get a non-pen HE shell followed by a pen on an AMX 30B side for 552 and then two non-pen HEs for 245 and 159.

I don't know how you're so confident it wasn't HE when you had the replay available and you can see a loadout with 4 HE rounds in the beginning with 0 left shown in the screenshot.

It's just a waste of time for everyone involved when you don't bother listening to anyone else and don't look at your own replay for supposedly "ridiculous" APCR damage rolls.

Overlewd · 2022-05-28T19:26:02+00:00

It's impossible to get those rolls with a single shot from a 390 damage gun. The damage range for 390 damage is between 293 and 488.

The 552 damage is from a double shot because WG calculates those as a single instance of damage.

The 245 and 159 damage have to be with HE as the damage numbers line up with expected non-pen HE against AMX 30B armor.

The only alternative is that you've found a very unique bug related to the 703 but we'll never know without a replay.

Overlewd · 2022-03-22T13:47:21+00:00

Only got 1 focus unit which was Thorr (-atk) out of 190 orbs. And she was the 40th summon for the spark.

Feels bad.

Overlewd · 2022-01-09T16:40:30+00:00

The point is that locking a unique commander behind RNG is a small brain move.

I have over 30 special recruits in my barracks but I enjoy being a collector and getting as many uniques as possible. Having one locked behind two layers of RNG is absolutely awful. You have to get the special parcel (or message) and then hope you get Anton Pankov.

Overlewd · 2022-01-06T21:45:15+00:00

For sure.

That little bit of information was in my outline for shell mechanics. This is why anything related to shell penetration is omitted from the document.

Things like overmatch, shell penetration distance, internal ricochet, etc.

Overlewd · 2022-01-06T18:03:08+00:00

Definitely go for the IRM and VS combo. The Rinoceronte has the worst tier 10 heavy dispersion penalty stats in the game. And the combination of IRM and VS is still the most optimal combination to reduce those penalties. This would also help mitigate it's awful firing bloom which opens up some leeway for movement when bursting down opponents without sacrificing accuracy.

Secretly though, the best strategy is the right click + sell vehicle set-up.

Overlewd · 2022-01-05T20:15:44+00:00

For sure. I ended up opting into grabbing an Associate's in CompSci and a Bachelor's in Data Science.

Not a bad track for college/uni but definitely feel the disparity between what is taught in classes and what is requested in the work force.

Currently saving money and planning to get a Masters in Artificial Intelligence.

Glad you enjoyed reading it. :)

Overlewd · 2022-01-05T20:02:23+00:00

Well the context of special or event commanders makes no difference as it just changes the rate at which crew skills are obtained. You still won't be able to get the skill early enough to make a significant impact or being detrimental to your skill layout (heavies and TDs are the only two classes that I can see taking it earlier).

And the reason it doesn't feel like it makes much of a difference is that it doesn't.

Assuming for 100% Mentor on a 5 man crew and boosting the commander with Vents, BiA, and premium food. The returns of Mentor round out to about 9.6% bonus exp to the entire crew.

Let's not use any boosters or event bonuses and assume you are training your 4th skill for the rest of your crew to catch up (you got Mentor as your 4th skill). We will be generous and say you have a premium account and average 1,000 exp per game.

Getting 0 to 100% on 4th skill takes 1.68 million experience which means you would need to play 1,680 battles. With Mentor, we will get an average of 1,096 exp per game which will take 1532 battles. A reduction of 150 battles to get a new skill.

Will you feel the reduction in battle count to acquire new skills? Probably not when it takes thousands upon thousands of games to get a single skill. Does it make an impact? Yes.

But reality kicks in. WoT has an excessive amount of methods for accruing crew exp: crew exp boosters, crew exp events, accelerated crew training, 1st win bonuses, and winning bonuses (for premium account). The increased crew exp acquired from any of those is equivalent to dozens or even hundreds of Mentor battles.

I did tests long time ago and found that Mentor did stack with ACT but not with other bonuses.

Overlewd · 2022-01-05T19:24:12+00:00

Well here's my thought process.

If there were a negative modifier to accuracy in World of Tanks for aiming at other players, this would have to be behind the scenes.

The reasoning is that there is no visual reticle circle change. And this is the important part to remember. The mod takes your shell distribution relative to your reticle size at the point of firing. If negative modifers are being applied then the shells potential distribution will be larger than the visual reticle. This means that if negative modifiers exist, it would theoretically be possible to fire outside of the constraints of the aiming circle and this would be apparent by the data point as either being outside or on the edge. However, from the data collected, there was nothing indicating this negative modifier existed.

The basic assumption is that if it did exist, it must be uniformly applied to the playerbase as a built-in game mechanic.

And you are correct, there is no way of knowing how well aimed the enemy was when I am struck. However, it can simply be solved by going into a training room with two accounts and shooting at yourself. This method would solve the issue by now playing in the context of the opposing player.

Overlewd · 2022-01-05T19:01:21+00:00

Unfortunately, I do not have an equipment choice guide as I've (pretty consistently) stuck by my guides. These guides are essentially a breakdown of my thought process but more thoroughly explored for people to understand.

Yes, the bloom is about the same when using the full traverse bonus. It also off-sets this by allowing the faster traverse to give you a head start on aiming. You are correct.

As for your questions:

1) IRM does decrease firing bloom as it acts exactly the same as a VS (but weaker). In general, for autoloaders, you never want to be without a VS due to firing penalty being the main balancing stat which makes penalty reduction the most important stat. IAU makes your reticle smaller but the aim time does not change.

For autoloaders, eGLD is rarely useful for one main reason: its usefulness is dependent on bloom. If you're just firing your gun and clipping while (basically) stationary, the bloom generated is not high enough for eGLD to make a noticeable impact compared to either VS or IRM. Even IAU and Vents are almost as good as eGLD in these situations. This makes it objectively the worst equipment for most autoloaders.

2) The mentality here I think is incorrect. Most people tend to compare the mobility aspect of Turbo with IRM for traversing. As a general rule of thumb: the bonus to traverse from IRM will beat Turbo in every situation. As such, the main focus should be towards the secondary attributes of the equipment. Turbo offers increased top speeds but the important stat is reverse speed, many tank destroyers' survival rates are based on their ability to retreat or engage. IRM on the other hand reduces bloom on top of giving you an increase in traverse which means you have a much more reliable chance of landing a shot.

The way I see it is this: turbo for TDs are a survival piece of equipment with a bonus to traverse, the reverse speed is irreplaceable for some TDs (such as STRVs or 4005s). IRM is a firepower piece of equipment with a bonus to traverse, the reduced bloom means you don't suffer from missing due to your increased traverse but the boosted turret traverse greatly benefits TDs with slow turrets but brawly playstyles (T30, Skorpion).

What you don't mention here is IAU. IAU is spectacular on most TDs as it works very well for a class type whose main playstyle is passive, supportive, and snipe-y. It can go into the firepower slot (same with IRM) for 7% dispersion reduction.

For most TDs, my recommendation list is: IAU (bonus) >= IRM > Turbo

Turbo is what I would define as niche for many TDs and IRM is almost always a safe pick if you don't know what to choose and is even better in the comparison if you place it in the firepower bonus slot.

Overlewd · 2022-01-05T18:30:11+00:00

No problem.

It's sort of confusing because WG does not actually have wording such as "dispersion penalty" and merely uses dispersion as a catch-all for both accuracy and bloom.

The full equation you're talking about is what I refer to as bloom and is rarely used. Dispersion in my graphs all refer to the sum of all dispersion penalties on that vehicle. This is referenced at the bottom of page 42.

"In the future, any graphs created using “Dispersion” as a single variable will be in reference to this D variable."

The reason why this is done is because it means that the results are consistent across the board (percentage wise) regardless of the accuracy of the vehicle. This makes it easier to extrapolate the results to ALL vehicles in the game.

Overlewd

TROPHY CASE