Create a gap between ww2 and cold war vehicles and tech

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
82

What I actually said was

In other words, everything weaker than 105mm HEATFS cannot get through from the front. We’re off to a flying start.

I’m sure they would, given that the later two are incapable of doing any meaningful damage from the front, while they can penetrate both of them frontally.

That’s why I mentioned “Working together”. If said trio of IS-4Ms have any level of skill or coordination, the second one barrel is taken out one of them will move back into cover to help repair and cover. You’d need all three barrels to be down to push safely, something that they can pretty easily prevent.

Furthermore, who would be flanking here? What tank that’s been left at this BR is fast enough to push them? Germany would have nothing faster than a Tiger II. If they’re positioned correctly, IE not close enough to be immediately rushed while on reload, you aren’t going to be able to reach them in time. Let alone if they have any of their team around to help cover.

This is a level of understanding I just don’t have time for. A T-54 can, quite literally, drive circles around any of these late war heavies you’d be putting them up against, whilst also having the same or better armor, and in most cases a far better gun. This would be the only fast tank capable of flanking left on the field, and without any HEAT of sabot to keep them in check, would be able to just roll over entire teams without recourse.

They also do have the exact same armor multiplier, I have no idea where you got the idea that they don’t. Their rounds flat capped APHEBC rounds have special angle negation applied to them, that’s it.

Based on that statement, I can 100% guarantee you’ve never played the Ikv-103. And I’m willing to wager you haven’t touched any of the other vehicles you’re railing against here. The Ikv is a bad tank. Moving it up achieves nothing other than making a bad tank worse. The same goes for a frankly huge variety of other tanks in the game that would recieve the same treatment, massively decreasing gameplay variety and rendering a huge number of vehicles worthless.

Frankly, the fact that you’ve never played these vehicles all but disqualifies you from making blanket statements like where they would be balanced. Branch out and actually try other lines first, get a first hand experience of just how useful these vehicles are.

The irony of this statement is palpable, when you’re advocating for a MM system that would see the big three with their strong 7.7 “late war” sic lineups absolutely demolish any of the smaller nations whose WW2 lineups end at 6.7, or who have weaker “Cold war” era vehicles being relegated to complete uselessness via the new “reserve” tier after 7.7.

The fact that you think missiles and HEATFS don’t require careful aim is just hilarious. Missiles are rather difficult to aim post nerfThe post pen damage from HEAT is about as limited as APDS, moreso in lower caliber shells. You absolutely require careful aim to ensure your round goes into a spot where it will actually disable something important. Go play the PT-76 and get back to us how easy it is to just point and click with low caliber HEAT.

2 Likes
83

If the IKV-103 is that bad of a vehicle, it should be removed.

84

Bad vehicles can still be occasionally functional, or a fun challenge. With the Ikv, it’s one usecase is that it has excellent gun depression and low velocity, meaning you can lob it’s shots over ridges while staying completely behind it. It’s extremely position dependant, it’s not very consistent, and it takes a lot of practice to pull off, but when you can get it work, there’s some fun to be had.

Similar to the Type 60 ATM, bad vehicles don’t nessesarily have to be removed, just made optional. Let people who like the challenge of making bad vehicles work still use it, but don’t force anyone else to.

3 Likes
85

That’s fine, they just shouldn’t be put at ridiculous BRs because they are bad tanks.

86

That is how balancing works. If it is bad, it gets put with vehicles that more closely resemble its performance.

3 Likes
87

But the Maus is a verys silly tank for WW2 standards. It achived protection like the IS-3 and IS-4 achived at the very end of WW2 but at the cost of being unreasonable heavy.

So the Maus is in no way a a realistic representation of that “problem”.

A lot of BRs are based upon silly game design desicions that turn superior vehicles into being equal or worse than worse vehicles.

A M41 with APDS would just go around and kill one T-54 after another. Not even taking into account that in RL the M41 crew will be much more efficent than the T-54 crew, due to the different design philosophy.

It’s the same with planes. A bad vehicle that wouldn’t be very competetive can still be competive in the scenario of the game, especially since most players will make mistakes and put themself into situations that plays into the enemies hands.

5 Likes
88

There is no BR where the IKV-103 would be a competitive vehicle. It doesn’t fit the game. It doesn’t belong in the game. The game needs to be broken up by technology, with BR flexibility for weaker vehicles. Putting a tank with 500+mm pen HEATFS at 4.0 is absurd.

2 Likes
89

There is plenty that has no place in the game.

90

Stop exaggerating so much. It doesn’t have 500+mm of pen. Heatfs is harder to use than APHE rounds anyway, even with the better pen values. It can be blocked by bushes, trees, fences, and anything else it comes in contact with. It also doesn’t do much in terms of post penetration damage when compared to APDS, AP (C or CBC), or APHE rounds.

A vehicle that honestly shouldn’t be in the game is the Maus. It was a ridiculous vehicle that was unrealistic to build, operate, and maintain. The fact that the turrets or hulls were actually made just shows how crazy Hitler was. And the Maus is a nightmare because of the balancing it needs, that is why it is no longer available except for events.
The IKV-103 is fine where it is because it is an awful vehicle, and having Heatfs doesn’t even help it. It even has a low velocity gun which would be the reason it has Heat ammunition anyway. So using it at range as a tank destroyer with heatfs rounds is even harder.

6 Likes
91

I really don’t understand this “not fit for the game” nonsense that’s being talked about.
All the mentioned vehicles fulfil the criteria for the game and play in their own unique way.

But because certain vehicles are more unorthodox than others doesn’t make them unviable: It makes them interesting. Yes, bad vehicles will of course be part of that group, but guess what? Bad vehicles have always been part of the game and never has this lead to widescale issues. It is a challenge for those who welcome it and just another target for those opposing it.

4 Likes
92

As I asked OP, try playing these vehicles you consider so absurd, maybe then you’ll understand that vehicles are more than just their paper stats.

Having a high penning HEAT round sounds great at such a low tier, until you undestand the awkwardness of the platform which makes it very difficult to use, or that HEATFS’s poor post pen damage is very inconsistent against boxy WW2 designs, and that your slow reload mean that enemy tanks will recrew their positions before you reload, or that your armor holes mean even if their gun is out they can coax you to death.

Maybe after playing you’ll find out that having all that pen isn’t much of an advantage when there are other tanks at the same BR that have more than enough pen to punch through 90% of what they see, whilst also having far more post pen, on better hulls.

There’s nothing about it that’s so good or so bad that would require it being removed or artificially limited (like the Maus or the old French reserves, respectably) for game health. It cannot dominate a game like the Maus can in the perfect situation. All it can do, if played perfectly, is achieve something multiple other vehicles can also do.

3 Likes
94

Are you saying that the History channel lied? The tiger wasnt a glorious wonder weapon?

1 Like
95

No! It is because of israel bias! The Real Tiger was fully inpenetratable! A single Tiger tank could take on the entire US tank inventory, and win, without even getting a scratch!

(i actually know a person who says that the Tiger 1 was never frontally penetrated, and that it could take on any modern MBT and win most of the times in an 1v1 xd)

96

This is just a small correction (I agreed with everything else you said): the Maus, like the Jagdtiger, can pen the driver’s hatch on the IS4-M. If you’re using Pz.Gr.43, the extra explosive filler over the APHEDS will overpressure the crew, resulting in a OHK.

97

Would it be better if it was 248mm?

That’s how much the Sturer Emil, a 4.3 vehicle, pens. It still scythes through everything it sees, and does a metric ton more post penetration damage.

A penetration is a penetration. Even if you nerfed the IKV to an ahistorical and arbitrary 248mm of pen, it would still hard-counter armour.

I don’t think it suffers from the balance problems you describe anymore. It’s a tradition for it to return, but I honestly think it could be in the tech tree now if they wanted.

I mean, after the summer decompression, and the recent overpressure changes, you have a situation where the Maus is a lot more competitive against most of the vehicles it meets, but it’s also more vulnerable to CAS than it once was. Moreover, there is a growing number of SPGs in the game that can overpressure it, even at lower BRs.

The way I see it… a bad rival player who doesn’t bother to learn where to ammo rack the Maus, will always struggle against one. A bad Maus player who doesn’t know how to angle the turret between shots, or pick the optimal route to the battlefield, will waste the SP, get penned through the cheeks, and die.

In the right hands, it can dominate, but it can also be useless. Which is something you could say for literally every other vehicle.

The Maus plays very different from most vehicles in WT, but it doesn’t perform very different, not anymore, at least in my opinion. I look at it and I have basically identical stats in it and other regular vehicles in the German tech tree. If it really is that unbalanceable, my performance in it should be noticeably different, compared to vehicles that are balanced…

1 Like
98

High pen does not mean anything.
Yes, it will pen you, and then deal no damage, because it is HEAT.

Meanwhile the tank has no armor, the gunner can be killed with low calibre MG from any distance, it has a long reload, it is casemate. It is literally just a bad tank.

If you think it is some OP thing, then sorry to say, but you have a metric ton of skill issue.

99

I never said it was OP. I said it doesn’t belong at 4.0. It’s a bad vehicle, and there’s no BR you can put it at that it won’t be bad, so move it up.

100

“Since it’s bad, might as well make it worse” strikes me as a pretty bizarre position.

2 Likes
101

It is fine at where it is. The only thing it does somewhat well is penning tanks. Nothing more.

1 Like
102

You’re not making it worse. If anything, moving it away from APHE might help it.