Your opinion, not a fact. You’re arguing for an overhaul of the game based on your feelings opinions (subjective) and you’re here doing awful job of trying to argue your subjective opinion with facts that don’t support your arguments.
2 Likes
I didn’t look for a sniping tank. I looked for a tank with as close shell velocity as possible and looked how the scope looks like. It really isn’t that bad.
Another reason to move it up. Again, read carefully what I said earlier, I’m not going to repeat myself.
What are you even accusing me of. Of course it’s subjective. No game is objectively the best lmao.
Which facts and which arguments?
So again, you’re basing your argument on how easy it looks like it will be to snipe with such a shell, rather than any practical experience with it. I really shouldn’t need to remind you of this, but tanks in battle aren’t perfectly stationary at known distances with no soft cover between them and you.
This got me curious about your actual experience with the game, so I looked up your account. I find it rather amusing how you perform noticably worse in the vehicles that rely on lolpen rounds (Jp 4-5, leKPz M41, Marder A1/3) than you do with the armored vehicles you say are being victimized by them.
To be clear, I am not attempting to stat shame, your stats are rather good overall, I just find the disconnect between your stats and your apparent experience with these vehicles interesting enough to point out.
4 Likes
That was quite a fair and polite way of using persons statistics to make an obersvation.
Well done.
4 Likes
I just love how easily personal statistics can shut down any personal opinions on something being OP.
- Person claims vehicles A, B, C are OP
- Person claims vehicles X, Y, Z are suffering
- Same person has around the equal stats in all of those
Most of people like that will hard focus a single metric while disregarding other metrics that are equally as important.
I have fired many different guns and I can tell how hard it is to aim with a certain gun just by looking at it’s drop in the scope…
If you didn’t guess, I aim by feel. I don’t estimate distance to the target, I estimate distance to the center of the scope in 200 meter marks.
I don’t play these vehicles at their BRs.
When I use leKPz M41 and Jpz 4-5, I rarely use them in a lineup with Tiger IIs. I mostly use them in a lineup with Leopard 1. I would rather take a Panther G or F to the Tiger II lineup, than these 2.
I also do that in reverse. I don’t take Kugelblitz to the Leopard 1 lineup at all, only to the Tiger II or Maus lineup. I don’t do that very often, because WW2 heavies like Tiger II can’t afford to get uptiered any more than they do. It fits well with the Maus, but Maus doesn’t really have many tech tree WW2 options for a lineup, only Jagdtiger (the rest wouldn’t be any good at 7.7).
In the case of Marders, I often took them to a “lineup” with a Leopard 2PL as a backup and in general often uptier them to serve as the main German IFV until Puma. They have weak ATGMs and only 4 of them. Their main gun is better for anti-air than anti-tank purposes, especially Marder A1-, which doesn’t have DM63.
I don’t see it as an issue that Marders are poor at killing tanks, because they are IFVs. They are utility vehicles.
Before you say that this BR is what I want them to be at, once again I’ll say, 8.0-12.0 is compressed. Also some performance differences are acceptable in a semi-historical MM.
You’re so utterly convinced by your own supposition about how these vehicles perform at their current tiers that you aren’t even willing to test it yourself? You don’t even need to grind these vehicles out to test it, just play them at their appropriate BR.
I suppose that’s technically untrue, you did test one part of it. By uptiering a vehicle that’s strictly better then the Ikv to 8.0 (Jpz 4-5), you got a feel for how it would perform up there. In short, poorly. You have a solidly negative K/D and a sub 40% win rate in it.
This is a massive departure from the vehicles you do well in, with >1.5 K/Ds and ~50% win rates. Which also happen to be the heavily armored vehicles you claim are so hard countered by low tier HEATFS that they need to be completely removed from the tier. Tiger II(s), IS-2s, Panthers, Pershings of all types, the Ferdinand and Jadgtiger, these are the vehicles you consistently do best in.
Based on your stats, I just don’t see how you can hold your position that HEATFS is so oppressive that the only way to save these vehicles is to move them up, when they seem to be doing just fine.
2 Likes
ah
Yet you defend the game becoming more and more arcade and silly so you contradict yourself there.
Things I’ve never done for $1000.
You have to respond to the correct people, or you fall flat.
I didn’t say I never played them at their BRs.
I rarely play Jpz4-5 because I want to, I usually take it as a historically accurate backup for my Leopard 1. Adjusting to Jpz4-5’s playstyle takes a bit of time/a few games.
You can’t have the audacity you can have with tanks that have APHE or at least 100mm HEAT. You should be always ready to reverse after firing, don’t poke enemies when you are without cover. When I have APHE, I often just stop in the middle of nowhere, kill someone and keep going. 90mm HEAT doesn’t one shot bigger enemies majority of the time and you can’t do that.
Not to mention that something like a Jpz4-5 will naturally perform worse at 8.0, when for compression reasons we have a BMP-2 and T-55AM-1/AMD-1 at 8.7. A Leopard 1 at 8.0 is also undertiered, like I said before.
You keep forgetting about the fact that I’m arguing about semi-historical MM not being the end of the world.
That being the case, in order for your stats to make sense, you must have either.
- Barely played them at their own BR, thus allowing their apparently OP stats to be drowned out by the rest of it
- They must have underperformed for you at their own BR too, making your contention of them being completely OP at their current BR questionable.
You’ve more or less hit the nail on the head in terms of why HEATFS is a liability in the early tiers. Making your stance on wanting all of it moved up even more puzzling.
It would not be the end of the world for you. For the vehicles who get shunted up to tiers they cannot perform it, it very much would be. You’ve seen it yourself, the Jpz 4-5 cannot perform anywhere near as reilably as the Leopard 1 you want it to be a historically accurate backup for. Who would bother playing it, even as a backup for the Leopard 1, when countless other, far better vehicles exist for that purpose? You have Marders, the BMP, the DF105 and Raketens (Auto and regular). Why put something that’s balanced at 6.7 into an 8.0 lineup?
That’s one of the biggest problems with historical (or semi-historical) MM. It relegates a lot of otherwise interesting vehicles into uselessness. Who’s going to bother to play these vehicles once they move up, when they’re in no way capable of playing at the tiers they ended up at?
But while I can speculate on what historical MM (and semi-historical) MM would result in, I what to see what you think would happen. What would happen when one side get IS-3s and the other side gets Pershings? What happens when someone wants to grind out France, Japan, Sweden or Italy? What would the second reserve tier look like, and who would play it?
2 Likes
1st option
-
HEAT’s benefits outweigh the downsides.
-
APHE is massively overperforming, not HEAT underperforming.
It doesn’t help that already OP APHE got buffed recently, because people cried about War Thunder supposedly “becoming WOT” after nerfing APHE’s fragmentation zones.
-
At higher BRs vehicles use HEAT or other modern munitions and departure from using APHE. Saying that low tier HEAT slingers can’t be at high BRs, because APHE is so much better doesn’t make sense.
The only cold war tanks which don’t abandon APHE that I can think of on the spot are T-54s and T-55s. I don’t even count M48, because of how useless it’s APHE is. (you yourself implied that M26 can’t fight a 7.0 IS-3s, which uses the same M82 round with same stats)
It’s you saying that they cannot perform at higher and decompressed BRs, which is a false assumption, making your argument invalid from the start.
That’s for semi-historical. If we wanted to go full historical, they would be useful if Gaijin reworked game modes to something more interesting than a team deathmatch with capture points to force cqc combat.
What’s the point of an IFV, if you can’t deploy infantry units. What’s the point of recon vehicles, if the maps are so small that you don’t ever worry where are the enemies.
On the other hand, some vehicles just should have never been added, like M109s and other artilleries.
Why add M109s, when the game simply doesn’t accommodate proper artillery gameplay in a way they are actually used irl.
You either add vehicles properly or not add them at all to not cause problems and add a liability. You shouldn’t add logistics trucks, when they simply don’t fit the game. There’s nothing outrageous about it, it’s common sense.
I literally said that Leopard 1 is undertiered too and should be moved up in a post you replied to:
I also said it earlier:
They would get blasted by T34s, T32s, T95s, Jagdtigers etc. or by vehicles with HEAT on uptiers. They would meet Pershing on a downtier, the same way a T32 can meet a T-44 (85) on a downtier.
That’s what semi-historical MM would look like, unlike what you try to suggest.
You get a very specific and unrealistic scenario, and try to present it as the only scenario that would happen.
Gaps?
Why are gaps considered a problem anyway. They are a problem for Gaijin, because they allow players to skip some grind and suffering.
I bet China mains would really appreciate, if they didn’t have to grind through tons of copy paste vehicles to get to actually Chinese top tier vehicles.
For real. People couldnt imagine losing the ability to nuke anything they pen.
2 Likes
To be clear, HEAT’s benefits are “Able to penetrate heavy armor”. Something other rounds are often also able to do. Meanwhile, it’s downsides:
- Low velocity, making hitting targets on the move and/or at range accurate is more difficult than other shells.
- Poor post pen damage, requiring accurate shots on known weakpoints to reliably disable tanks, while slight misses will punish you with almost no damage.
- Will prematurely trigger on soft cover, making it unsuitable for urban fights or sniping when bushes/trees are present.
This is a seperate issue, but one I feel helps the game flow. I’ll get into it if you want, but my opinion is that consistent oneshot kills are better for the pace of the game than having to play whackamole with low damage shells, and despite being ahistorical I would contend it makes the game more historical by recreating the actual crew reaction of being penetrated by a shell (that is, bailing out of the tank and running for the hills).
APDS is almost always the preferable shell for vehicles that have the choice. It also has the extreme pen of HEATFS, but is much easier to aim due to the higher velocity and doesn’t trigger on soft cover.
A side note, I do actually main APHE on the Pattons due to how much I hate the inconsistency of 90mm HEAT. I still carry quite a bit of HEAT for when I do run into a tank M82 can’t deal with, but I prefer that to being trolled by the lack of damage of 90mm HEAT.
This is talking about turning War Thuner into a completely different game, which I don’t think is likely. Arguably, yes, this sort of game could be decent fun, but that’s not what War Thunder is, or was setting out to do. War Thunder is a vehicle combat game, taking historical vehicles and putting them up against each other in “balanced” combat situations. Unless the developers take the extremely unlikely step of radically redesigning their proven cash cow, talking about a radical redesign of the game is not super relevant.
…Which would imply you’d still use the Jpz 4-5 as a historically accurate backup for it, just at a higher BR. Would it perform better at an even higher tier?
Not a single one of these can consistently frontally pen an IS-3. At least without relying on the very inconsistent shot trap around the driver’s port.
And that’s what I’m focusing on, because you’ve effectively removed every tool those uptiered players have for dealing with heavy armor. They lack high pen guns and mobility. Assume you’re an American 6.7 player in a full uptier. What exactly do you do? Go brawling in your heavies, knowing you’re likely to run into Soviet heavies that can frontally pen you, that you can’t touch? Flank in a Pershing? What are the options?
So we either remove all of those vehicles from the game entirely (with a giant middle finger erected to those who enjoy them, I guess), or we shove them up into a new “reserve tier” around, what, 8.0ish? Where minor nation players will have to slog through multiple vehicles balanced around 4.0-6.7 combat stats against 8.0 opponents.
All of this, just to help out the armored vehicles of late WW2 tier, who according to your own stats seem to be doing just fine.
It has significantly higher pen, it’s a big benefit.
It’s also not just high pen. It has very high pen at 30 and 60 degrees, as it just goes straight through and doesn’t denormalize.
That’s entirely dependant on the gun.
Unless by slow you mean the same velocity as other “full caliber” shells like APHE or HE. I wouldn’t call that slow, but rather that “sub caliber” shells like APCR, APDS or APFSDS are fast instead.
It’s mostly the case with <100mm caliber guns.
I think irl HEAT would do a bit more damage though. It also has more fluke shots than other shell types. While it’s harder to one shot the enemy, I don’t think it’s that bad.
It’s harder to one shot the enemy, but you are free to choose what part of the tank you want to disable, thanks to your pen.
Very often tanks with HEAT have better reload for their caliber than WW2 tanks.
A pretty big benefit to HEAT-FS is that it can both pen heavily armored tanks and overpressure lightly armored tanks. It sort of compensates for lower post-pen, you get a 2 in 1. I sometimes get surprised how I can overpressure even some vehicles that aren’t even open top, like HE.
For urban combat it can be problematic sometimes, however it’s not something you can’t mitigate with position. It’s not a significant drawback.
I don’t see how it would make sniping harder. When I snipe, bushes or trees never obscure my line of sight. They are relatively thin and aren’t a big barier, unlike fences. I rarely ever hit bushes with HEAT.
It’s a reasonable and valid approach. However, current APHE is just too strong.
I prefer HEAT for several reasons.
APDS shatters, HEAT doesn’t. HEAT usually has higher pen and most importanty higher pen at angles. From what I remember you can feel the difference and sometimes you can’t pen something you could with HEAT. HEAT overpressures light vehicles.
I don’t find velocity to be an issue. HEAT’s velocity is standard for me, same as APHE, and APDS’s or APFSDS’s velocity is just very good. You can consider HEAT to be slow only at BRs where APFSDS is the standard, because it’s just flat out better.
Not to say that APDS is bad though. It’s a very good round now after the changes. Recently it got some more buffs if I remember correctly. More pen I think. I should try it on a Leopard 1 again.
On tanks like Leopard 1 I think it’s a thing of preference between APDS and HEAT. I should try APDS again though, maybe it’s just better now.
Unfortunately I agree. I think it’s worth at least trying to change the community’s outlook on this matter and somewhat change course, make some changes Gaijin makes not acceptable, met with backlash.
Maybe sometimes for fun, but probably mainly at it’s BR. M48 and Jpz4-5 in the same lineup doesn’t look stupid unlike Tiger II and Jpz4-5. I wouldn’t feel guilty playing it at it’s proper BR, like I do now when it’s at 6.3.
IS-3 has only 90mm on the side, if you know where not to shoot.
IS-3 can’t pen them easily either (except T34). It has a longer reload too. IS-3 is arguably a bit stronger, thus higher BR, but at the same time for example a T32 has a higher BR, probably for a reason.
While none of them can pen it frontally, a Jagdtiger can pen it if IS-3 angles and exposes one side of it’s pike nose. I don’t remember if T34 can, but I think it can.
Tank destroyers? CAS? Flanking? (maps are shit, but that’s a different issue)
It’s not like the IS-3 would be the only tank you meet, so temporary solutions like bombs are acceptable. Especially considering you have equally powerful teammates.
T34, Super Pershing, T26E5 are all great tanks that work also in an uptier. I really like M26 too, but it can struggle a bit in uptiers.
You can touch them. You can shoot their barrels and tracks. You can easily kill them from the side. IS-4 may be challenging, but it’s a 7.7 tank.
Just move them up. Having them performing poorly is better than not having them at all or having them hurt other eras.
Make them not required to get to keep grinding a given line.
To improve health of the game, increase variety of playstyles, make it more authentic and sensible.
Perhaps it’s hard to imagine how it would look like, because what I advocate for involves changing BRs of many, many tanks.
Changing maps would be preferable, even by themselves, not just for these changes.
Changing game modes too, but it’s highly unlikely, that’s why I want only a semi-historical MM. War Thunder in RB was never meant to be fully historical anyway. It was supposed to be in SB, but SB are clearly abandoned by Gaijin.
Why not propose battle by BR, and propose also by Time période (ww2, Begining cold War,…, modern,…). As they should be design to fight each other.
Pfft this game is already 0 health, there is absolutely no variety in game modes except same old RB for 10 years probably. The only thing that’s new is the top tier and occasional other tech tree vehicles you can grind. It is just preying on people who want “new, new, new” all the time without actually wanting better
1 Like
HMMMMM
AH YES
TANK DESTROYERS