As much as I want this annoying mechanic reworked it will never happen. Barrels with muzzle breaks should get more hp because it’s easier to hit them. You know what will help these heavies instead? Being able to shoot more than once per hour and actually defend themselves.
Bruh it’s a tank destroyer it does nothing well except penetration.
Conquerer don’t benefit much from having stab in arcade, in rb the stab often comes in handy making sure you able to land accurate shot quickly, it also center-mass all the T-54 variants and early T-55s without the chest plate, there are probability of getting gaijin’d but the odds were like 7 going through them clean and 3 bouncing off.
1 Like
Stabs is not an issue.
The problem is the very unreliable shell, combined with the tank being overpressured by basically any HE shells it will face, as well as a long reload and a very small ready rack, while it is very slow, and has relatively bad gun depression for a british tank.
1 Like
It can’t hull-down particularly well because of the -7 gun depression, so the LFP is almost always exposed, unless you hide behind a destroyed tank or rock. The side-armour of the conqueror is also abysmal, able to be penned by IS-6s with the slightest of angling.
The gunner’s optic is also ~50mm, so at mid ranges 35mm SPAA shells with APHE will oneshot the whole turret crew too.
The cupola (although having very good armour), has a small weakspot that can nuke the entire crew.
The ammunition rack near the driver is very easy to hit, (pretty much like any british tank at that BR), and the first-stage ammunition rack is easily hit too.
Overall, I don’t think it should lower in BR, but it has many issues. The biggest issue, by far, is the reliability of the shell to deal damage and to penetrate (not shell shatter). This wouldn’t nearly be as much of an issue if it hadn’t had a reload of 15s. The reload shouldn’t lower, but this problem is enhanced by it.
1 Like
Hitting the right side of the mantlet with APHE that does not overpressure also damages the ready rack charges.
If you hit the mantlet with any APHE that overpressures, if it pens the mantlet, it nukes the crew (soviet 122mm, german 128mm and so on).
It should not go down for sure, but i’d give it a reload ot 9s at worst, but more likely 8 or 7.5s with expert crew, and also remove the ready rack. 8 shells wile both of them are unreliable is just not enough.
Shattering in one thing, but also dealing no damage and causing no shrapnels is just so bad.
After all, if the M103 can have no ready rack (so it’s reload does not change no matter how many imes you shoot), so why not this too?
1 Like
Another thing I see as increasingly necessary - undoing long-since redundant nerfing of the postpen for APCR, APDS, HEAT, HEATFS, smaller-sized APFSDS, and HESH.
If that means all those HEAT tanks go up in BR im fine with it.
Another issue with the reloading is that losing a crew member is a percentage based penalty, meaning the already suffering long reloading tanks get a massive penalty on top, yet if they take out the crew of an enemy tank, that penalty is not nearly as severe due to their shorter reload.
1 Like
Usually, fast-reloading guns with HEATFS are pretty good, but when it takes 15 seconds or so to just knock-out one or two crew members, HEATFS becomes very frustrating, other than if you manage to hit ammunition.
1 Like
New thread
I understand what you said. The T32E1 rarely can play as a heavy because it lacks the armor or firepower to do so. It is better suited to play as a medium but is far less effective than the actual mediums at its BR.
The only objective strength of the T32E1 over other mediums at its BR is its mobility. The Maus has a superior main gun, a reliable secondary gun, significantly more armor and large internal volume that eats APHE, if you can pen it.
Yes, the larger caliber Russian guns get caught in volumetric but they also overmatch far more armor. There are trade offs.
The only objective strength of the T32E1 over other mediums at its BR is its mobility.
The gun depression is its biggest strength over the other 7.7s.
Yes, the larger caliber Russian guns get caught in volumetric but they also overmatch far more armor. There are trade offs.
In 9/10 times I’d rather have the 90mm with ⅔ the reload of the 122mm and smaller diameter.
Or you could take the 100mm with more pen, a faster reload and the slope modifiers.
No 7.7 heavy has the 100mm. There is an IS-4 with the 100mm but it’s not in the game.
If a vehicle has a reload rate of “x” it should be “x”.
Not changing it to make it more viable for people to use or to make it easier for other people to fight.
Sick of the game changing vehicle parameters to cater to peoples laziness or lack of willingness to learn a vehicle or overcome its weaknesses with its strengths etc etc or vehicles being changed because some people find it too hard because it doesnt have every advantage or any over its opponents.
It is the charm of the vehicle and extra kudos points for making it work despite the disadvantages.
Moreover it is also enjoyable to kill a superior vehicle.
“This guy can reload twice for my 1 shot, so i must make it count and shoot at the correct time with the right amount of lead etc”
No-one wants to take a vehicle because it has so many advantages in exchange for 1 big disadvantage, only to find out when you get in match that your biggest advantage (reload for arguments sake) has been nerfed to the point whereby it is not worth trading off (say armour) for it.
Rendering the vehicle in limbo at least by majority of peoples standards.
You have several issues with this.
First of all, the Sturmtiger. At best, it could fire 3x in a match. 4x, is like the absolute maximum for 99% of the matches.
The tank would be unplayable.
The german rocket launcher can reload 10 pieces of 15cm rockets in 18 seconds by a single crew member, even in move.
The Ontos can reload 6 pieces of recoilless rifles in 13s by a single crew member, even on the move.
French autoloaders in oscillating turrets can replenish their ready racks on move, while it was not possibe.
Aircrafts can fully reload their belts, fuel, bombs and rockets in 30s as well as get it completly repaired.
A crew member who just got himslef turn into a fine red mist by a 120mm shell can be magically revived in 20s into an uninjured state.
A crew member getting a headshot from a .50 cal still allows him to do his task, despite being barely alive (or dead if the game was realistic).
Do i need to continue?
Oh, then 3s reload for Leo 2 when?
1 Like
my point is, the vehicles should have the correct reload.
NOT changing them because people find it too hard.
want something with short reload? - advice: dont take something with a long reload.
Reload speed is such an incredibly variable number, even within a given tank, that it’s impossible to stick to a single figure.
Of course, every tank has a minimum required rate of fire for a loader to qualify, but individual loaders will each manage at different speeds. Add in techniques like lap loading, and fatigue, combat shock, and all sorts of other factors that influence loaders in battle, and that single number’s going to change a hell of a lot minute to minute.
You have tanks with different ammo rack locations, each of which would require a different amount of time to get a round from. Some even require the turret to be in a specific direction to fetch rounds from specific racks. That means memorizing 4+ possible reloads for every tank in the game.
Then you have tanks that, like in the comment above, cannot even be reloaded in specific conditions. Are you going to require tanks like the M56 and M50 stop and unload a crewmember just to reload?
Reload speed should be based on IRL speed as closely as possible, but ultimately it’s so variable that it can and should be used as a balancing factor. It is far preferable to do that instead of trying to buff/nerf tanks in other, less variable ways, like armor profile, speed, or other even less historical methods.
1 Like