Did you also though about the rp and sl cost because if you seperate them would the rp and sl not increasing.
Ive said it before for AIR. The game needs a BR fire break. War machines evolved during conflicts, after WW2 it went a little bit quiet for a few years then it started again with a massive jump in technology
1 Like
Well yea vehicles would naturally be compensated for that.If a 6.0 HEATFS slinger goes to my 9.0 it would get a higher rp and sl multiplier.
Why would it, only uf gaijin says so and does not decompress
Actually it can be done with a 4.0 HE shell. You can do it with a SU152
Not surprising, I can only speak from experience and I know I easily dispatched of a Maus and Jagdtiger by just shooting them from the front in the Type 75, but overpressure is pretty insane at the moment.
You’re not as likely to have an SU or ISU in a 7.7 game tho.
So you want to create new “top tier” in middle of the tech tree that cant be uptiered.
Also tanks that are now downtiered will be new “low tier” and will only be uptiered.
What can go wrong.
Would you play against full team of Tigers that only face their BR or lower? Would you then play early cold war tanks that only face uptier?
2 Likes
As a French 7.7 enjoyer, sign me up for this
1 Like
TBH, as an Air player, I don’t mind either way separating MM or not, but if we do, it should be divided between pre-1953 and post-1953, not WW2 and the Cold War.
1 Like
That’d be in the Cold War split no?
2 Likes
These arbitrary lines in the sand make no sense to me, and it always seem to boil down to people wanting heavy tanks to be invincible frontally. That they’d come up against vehicles that can deal with their armor, no matter what massive sacrifices they make in other respects to gain that advantage, is complete inconcievable to them. That they need to play these heavy tanks more passively and carefully in uptiers (Or just not play them at all, relying on more flexible tanks in their lineup when it’s an uptier) seems beyond them as well.
My go to examples are always the Ikv-103. It gets a HEATFS shell with 400mm of penetration, more than enough to cut through any armor it can see. And yet it’s still an objectively terrible vehicle. It’s got terrible gun handling, terrible reload, terrible ballistics, paper armor with holes in the front that allow MGs to wipe your crew, and it’s relying on HEAT post pen damage against boxy, large WW2 era tanks that aren’t easily oneshot with such a round. Yet, under your system, this would be expected to face vehicles with the same level of firepower, but exceeding it in every single other aspect, while also being uptiered into stabilizers, LRFs and darts?
Meanwhile, using your metric as to what is a WW2 era vehicle and what isn’t, we have something like the IS-4M. A vehicle that’s immune to all but 105mm HEATFS from the front, and you want it to specifically face other vehicles firing APHE? A trio of IS-4Ms working together in such a matchmaker would be nigh unkillable. Not to mention more flexible vehicles like the T-54 1947, who’d completely run over anything other nations have.
What about national balance? You seriously posit in this thread that Tortoises should be fighting Mauses, and I think that about sums it up. Outside the big three (And depending on how generous we’re being about what goes where), all of the minors would be nothing more than food for these “late war” vehicles like the Maus, the IS-4M or the M103.
And on the flip side, the innovative vehicles who defined the early Cold War would become the new reserve tier, unplayable due to facing full uptiers into infinitely more capable tanks every game. Who’d play the Cent Mk3, the Leo 1, the AMX 13-90? Or any of the far weaker earlier tanks that are arbitrarily thrown up here, like the PT-76, the Cent Mk2, the IVK-103, the Ratels, or the M36Bs?
Oh, and by the way? APDS is a WW2 era round. Britian used it extensively through the war with most of it’s AT guns.
12 Likes
It boils down to people wanting heavy tanks to be able to do anything at all in a game that is dominated by mobility, fast reload and no armor best armor.
3 Likes
Funny, I seem to be able to make armored vehicles work. Personally, it comes down to how you use them, and probably more importantly what expectations you put on them. If you play them as though your frontal armor will bail you out of poor positioning, or being surprised, you’re doing it wrong. Armor is there to slow down your opponents reaction upon seeing you, nothing more. Because when they see you, they then have to make a judgement about what shot is the most likely to pen, and then carefully line up said shot. At the same time, if they don’t have armor, you’re free to just point center mass and click.
You also have to respect the fact that while your tank sacrifices much for armor, there are also vehicles that sacrifice much to have guns that can negate your armor. So you need to be mindful of where these vehicles would position and avoid them. Said vehicles are snipers 9/10 times, so avoid pushing areas with long sightlines and obviously powerful sniper spots. Sometimes someone will take their glass cannon brawling and surprise you, but good spatial awareness and target identification can let you know at they are there and prioritize them appropriately.
Ultimately, heavies that rely on their armor above all else play better defensively, carefully, and if at all possible only in downtiers. To me, playing a heavy tank in an uptier is analogous to playing a Nashorn on a city map, you can make it work, but you’re really not playing it to it’s strengths. That’s the whole point of building lineups, after all, to have options to deal with any situation the game throws at you.
5 Likes
Destroyer: Advocating for a separation. It makes a mention of helicopters.
Immediately forgets the Sikorsky R-4 exists and was serviced. 131 of them. Throughout WW2 from 42 when it was first introduced till 1945.
Just because you were wrong about the information doesn’t make it irrelevant. If you think doctrine changes don’t matter then you surely don’t know anything about military equipment, let alone historic military equipment. I absolutely proved you wrong. The difference in technology with the high velocity 75mm made the Panzer 4F2 a much deadlier threat. Here is a picture of how that 20 year gap ends for one of the most formidable superheavy tanks to see the start of the war.
Instant death from the front as the heavy armor of the Char 2C, which absolutely crushed the Panzer 1s and 2s that it faced during the invasion of France, is reduced to nothing but a large deathtrap for the Panzer 4F2. Doctrines matter for every vehicle in this game because they were designed with a purpose, regardless of what happens in this game.
If you think there is no disadvantage of the Char 2C fighting tanks that will annihilate it because they are 20 years more advanced, then you should think there is no disadvantage of a late war tank fighting cold war tanks. It is absolutely comparable, and I made the 20 year comparison as YOU pointed out, with an interwar tank YOU said didn’t matter or see problems like the late war tanks. Stats are in, and YOU are wrong.
You can deal with the transition like it is now like the rest of us. The heavy tanks of late/post war origin need to be balanced out by the early cold war vehicles. You can dislike it all you want, but it is needed for progression to make sense too. I know 100 percent why you hate this transition so much now too. You’re a German main and probably haven’t played anything past the late ww2 tanks Germany is famous for. Well guess what, there are 9 other nations in the game and you couldn’t give a shit less about any of them than what you play. Try working your way up to 7.7 in another tree that isn’t focused on slow heavy tanks and maybe you’ll see why normal players (other than late ww2 German mains) don’t care about the transition very much at all.
Edit: You complain about the Maus vs light vehicles so much, and the Maus has TWO main guns. You’re telling me you can’t handle killing light vehicles with TWO main guns?
Don’t even talk about the aircraft side of the game. You surely have no experience about what happens there.
2 Likes
Meanwhile us Japan mains still scratch our heads when German mains complain. Since we try your nation and state there complaining about very competent vehicles which makes no sense.
Me that was pumping 5x heat rounds into a Jagdpanzer IV … I know … skill issue …
The heavy tanks have their times where they are unstoppable, but they aren’t a jack of all trades in the slightest sense of the phrase. If every other player can deal with the German heavy tanks in their smaller less armored vehicles(talking Shermans, T-34s, Centurions, ect), then the German mains can deal with the lighter vehicles (T-92s, Marders, BMPs, ect) in a battle rating above them.
You’d run into the really really old F-104 problem again. Whatever is at the top, where the “gap” is, but just below, will always be downtiered. Every match will be a downtier for them. So anything below that will have trouble killing them because “hey, that’s a Maus and I’m in a Pershing I can’t hurt him” every match, just like when the Sabres fought the F-104s, when the latter was introduced.
Really what we need is decompression of the Cold War/Modern stuff to like 15.0 which will allow breathing room for the WW2/very early CW stuff to thrive.
2 Likes
Those times are pretty uncommon, opposed to light tanks which are always the meta.
Mobility always works.
Firepower always works.
No armor is always best armor.
Scouting always useful.
Drones always useful.
Artillery always useful.
Heavy tanks draw the short end of the stick in most cases, miss out on a lot of capture zone, flanking only happens to them and isn’t done by them, prime bombing targets, big guns are the worst type of gun as well.