This is player error and not game design error.
3 Likes
It could certainly be just fine at 6.3. there’s no reason it shouldn’t go up. However, there’s no reason either it should go up. It’s not a dominant vehicle that others at the BR struggle to combat (T34, Jagdtiger). Neither is it demonstrably undertiered compared to vehicles of comparable design, configuration, and performance (Firefly, M36).
So it’d be equally good and balanced at 6.0 or 6.3. It’s already 6.0, so if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, keep it 6.0.
And for people who don’t think it’d be good at 6.3, I advise learning to use the APDS- that thing works wonders after the learning curve. Few vehicles are safe even at max uptier.
Plenty of reason if you actually play it and have line built around with 6 as max.Changing BR is one of the prime issues for many and its a shame people have such a trivial attitude to it.moving BR is of particular interest around 6-7 BR as it is the ugly mix of WW2 and cold war and an area where many players simply stop climbing and playing any higher.its a sensitive area.
It gets pen in the face by rank 3 t34’s, lucky it has a reverse as its no good going forward. As for APDS only thing it can do in head on is knock 1 crew out at a time.
You have had 42 matchies with it, your comment sorry but nothing personal is just utter scutter and sounds like your humming and R’ing
3 Likes
Good point. Against sloped armor, a lot of times shell just breaches the armor and ricochet with no or few parts of the shell getting inside the armor.
I would say in more than 70% of cases, APHE wouldn’t detonate inside a vehicle,
either due to fuze failing, the shell breaking up or the round simply not entering the vehicle.
I think, if the damage from rounds was heavily reduced while the requirments for destroying a tank were changed, it would create a lot more balance between vehicles.
In RL, gun penetration was way more important than the damage it inflicted on the vehicle, while in WT it’s often better to take the shell that can destroy a target in one shot instead of a round that makes it more likely to penetrate but only damages or disables a vehicle.
I think the lower damage of the solid shot is made up by the fact that the Cent has a good reverse gear, allowing to manuver into a position that allows firing more often, as well as the fact that it has a better RoF.
I always considered the Cent the better vehicle but I think there’s little point raising it to 6.3.
The inside of the tank used to splinter if there was no penetration
How long ago did you spade the centurion mk1?
The problem is that explosive filler is massively OP in WT - in real life it mostly failed to detonate.
Solid shot should also do much more damage, but that wouldn’t suit GJN/the major nations in WT.
1 Like
Even solid shot will deal way too much damage in a lot of instances. It’s just a lot less than APHE and can go down from wiping out the whole crew to just painting them yellow or orange, so it feels underpowered compared to the sphere of doom.
Seems like you haven’t passed the learning curve I was talking about. Best of luck to you! Try aiming for the driver and gunner with your first shot, these are usually on the right side. This will leave the enemy completely helpless. Then, finish off an enemy with that second shot. Alternatively, knock out the barrel or breach and you’ll have plenty of time to destroy the enemy. I’d also advise staying mobile - while it’s true there are weak spots on the turret, they’re small so unlikely to be hit first shot. Compare that to APDS which frontally pens all but the utmost heaviest vehicles with ease.
If you want to hop in battle some time I’d be more than willing to help you out :)
I know how to, and i stand by my statment. Appreciate the offer but i think you mixing up the 17pdr with the 20pdr gun.
When you have aced the centurion mk1 get back to me ;)
1 Like
Lol. Centurion Mk I is basically just a British Panther. It’s fine at 6.0, I don’t see your point at all OP.
The 17-Pdr is seen as low as 2.7 and 17-Pdr APDS as low as 5.3.
Seems kinda funny that they want it to go up in BR when it should probably go down, the APDS is okay sure, but situational at it’s best and gets you killed if you try to use it at worst.
It’s literally a slower and less armored panther with a very inconsistent gun at the same BR.
Centurion Mk.1 for 5.7 anyone?
5 Likes
Pen is everything, post pen is not important: Average poor user of a Panther.
People thinking Cent 1 is a tough nut to crack might not have faced a Panther at 5.3 with many of the vehicles finding that a tough nut to crack (aim v centre mass).
Now with Shell Shatter to nerf high pen/low post pen AP is it not about time to add fuse failure and accurate explosion modeling of APHE types? I vote yes.
1 Like
Ammo nicely placed at front by the driver for extra BOOM.
This quote right here has to be the funniest part, it can literally be frontally penned by a panzer 4 and “is a behemoth”.
If you struggle to pen this thing with a tiger you’re doing something very VERY wrong.
4 Likes
The fact that some of you want it to go uo says your very weak players, if anything it needs to go down
So rather than “voting” to improve your own experience of the game (by for example, trying to remove APDS shattering), you “vote” to make everyone else’s experience worse?
Mechanics like fuse failure would do nothing but add more RNG and frustration. It’s not that APDS shattering isn’t frustrating, but it is far more consistent on how it works and less reliant on RNG than inherently random fuse failure.
APDS shattering is just a fancy way of the game saying that your round didn’t penetrate because there were multiple plates of armor or air gaps between armor plates on the specific spot you hit, so the round lost too much penetration to go through. There’s nothing actually inherently random from how APDS shattering is implemented, and inconsistencies with it come from either execution failures from the game itself, which can screw up literally anyone with anything, or already existing RNG mechanics, meant to do nothing but frustrate players like random cannon dispersion making it so you hit a spot you weren’t aiming for.
Adding RNG mechanics that make the game more frustrating for sake of frustration helps nobody.
1 Like
More I was tired of historical WT arguments of pen being everything in game in relation to BR placement (specifically 17pdr), to then have an inclusion of a mechanic that effects AP only nations more (regards to early APDS, therefore UK).
Did APDS need this nerf?
It is more what would players think if Gaijin reacted to APHE as they have done to APDS (over the years, as it has fluctuated a lot).
Will they remove Shell Shatter or improve it to make more sense in game?
If not then why the focus on AP rounds being more “realistic” while APHE stays as always (minus various pen changes per round over the year).
The question is why add it then? When it will not be looking at effects of other shell types (to Gaijin ofc, it was their decision).
Which at 17pdr area feels worse than accuracy of other 76mm cannon using AP with filler.
I spent years conversing with those adamant UK vehicles should go up due to high pen (expecting high accuracy too, with limited scopes), and which group of nations then were given a new mechanic with DS? I understand later on as most use APFSDS rounds, but what was the logic to make APDS users more random (yes, not true RNG but even more wonky with regards to spots to aim for).
Remember this topic is about players feeling the Cent 1 is particularly strong where it is (varies per APDS/AP performance of an update).