shoots side of T90
Fuel tank gobbles up the round and nothing happens and you die.
Literally top tier is - shoot barrel or breech. You can shoot a weakspot but that doesn’t guarantee they die and in most cases result in your death.
1 Like
I already said once that instead we´d see the return of Bayonet charges as its far too cost inefficient to constantly repair the barrel and breech. On the danger of summoning some demons but why not introduce the ability to “fix bayonets” aka RPG´s to barrels so atleast you can kill the tank by ramming it, it would also fit all the CQC maps :D
2 Likes
this forum is useful also to tell things that do not work or I missed something Balanced? I think the MAIN purpose is to tell to fix things. Otherwise what to say?
What, you want us to look at this photo?
Well, let’s look: the shell came in at almost 90° angle and completely disabled the gun. While in the game Gaijin thinks that a shell coming at 0-5° from the front and clipping the barrel will have the same result.
7 Likes
Skill issue? It’s not incorrect English
Showing my point. it’s not even an issue, you can often go for breach/barrel and do 0 damage.
https://streamable.com/nmiuhi
You missed the barrel.
Wasn’t going for the barrel but the APFSDS to me pretty clearly skims the bottom of the barrel for no damage. Regardless you HAVE to aim for barrels in a lot of tanks, and when doing so you’ll find barrels are NOT that easy to knock out first try in most tanks. Only if you’re in very close CQB and the guy just sits there is that true.
Well yeah, a solid hit in real life disables the barrel, why shouldn’t it in game?
and it’s really not that bad, you’re exaggerating.
A solid hit into the ammo blows the tank up in real life so why shouldnt it ingame? The problem with barrel and breech is simply that every HE-blast of a nearby bomb, Artillery or even non-penetrating hits can and will destroy either of it if unlucky enough. Even more BS if you play an open top tank 7mm and 12.7mm will disable your breech. In regards to the picture you do know that the chance for hitting the barrel irl is still very slim and not the regular standard, cant remember any conflict in recent history where the first shot is not a killshot but rather “lets disable his cannon, tracks, engine, optics etc and then go for the killshot”.
Prime example of this nonsense is peaking over a hill and the first thing that gets destroyed is either the breech or barrel and that often times over distances of 1,5km+. I cant remember any other game that claims being esport where its possible to render the enemy completely defenseless.
3 Likes
Once again, I think you’re exaggerating. I really don’t see it as that big of a problem and sometimes the barrel being hit saves the rest of my tank. I’d rather reverse back down a hill and repair than have my entire tank taken out.
and I can’t remember ever having my breech taken out by 7mm 😂
There are main ways to prevent getting your barrel destroyed.
Movement, distance and cover.
Do you often have to resort to close quarter engagement due to map design and objective design? Sure and it obviously increases the risk. Here the dilemma is wether to focus on map and objective design or adjusting the damage mechanics.
From my experience when I look at warthunder youtubers, its all first hit destroyed barrels, but then again its often edited video, supposed to show a lot of destroyed barrels or one shot kills in a row, so who knows how often it actualy works for them.
When I started shooting barrels I found that they are damn hard to destroy at first shot to the point where I don’t go for barrel unless there is no other option. Its a lot of misses, richochets or yellow barrells for me.
Now, slow heavy tanks like Jagdtiger, T95 or Churchill are prone to miserable life, so in this case I get where you are coming from, but then again you kind of had it coming when you chose to play this kind of vehicle:) Even in real life these tanks had to operate with others. On their own, they were quite helpless and prone to maddening events.
I agree with your overall comment, less so with this paragraph. In a perfect world, all vehicles should be competitive and worth playing, otherwise why bother having them in game? Of course, we’ll never get 100% perfection, but if the solution to a balance issue is “just don’t play that vehicle” then it isn’t a solution, but an admission of failure. It’s not the player’s fault for not going with “the meta”, it’s the devs’ oversight.
And real life doesn’t really apply here anyway. We’re taking tanks into Sun City with no infantry support. In real life, that’s be stark raving mad.
2 Likes
These tanks aren’t even bad in-game.
Yes, they have weaknesses, but people are being forced to exploit your weakness because you have such good strengths in your amazing guns and frontal armor. Particularly when you get a good map, because it’s worth mentioning that you don’t have to spawn something on every map when it’s so niche as a super heavy.
I hugely support using gunner sight though. It won’t make too much of a difference at long range, but might help at close range a bit.
1 Like
Lol, the barrels ingame are more dureble than supposed. Sure, some damage to the muzzle brake might not affect gun preformence except for additional strain on recoil pumps or mechanisms, but in real life even a dent, cracking or debree/shrapnel in barrel could cause a missfire and cause the barrel to pop like pop corn.
Oh, I’m not saying these vehicles are bad. That’d be quite hypocritical of me. I get a lot of mileage out of the Jagdtiger, and I’m an average player at best. If I can do it, then the vehicle’s good, and that’s that.
However, I do think you might want to consider a few aspects of your assessment when we’re discussing balance more broadly.
Mobility is always an advantage. This is especially true in a game where the primary winning objective is to cap points. You can compensate for lack of armour with your skill (not getting hit), but you can’t compensate for lack of mobility.
Armour is always dead weight, up until the point it actually stops a round from penetrating. And this is why, in real world history, heavy tanks went away… but obviously in a game that’s not what you’re looking for, unless it’s a hardcore sim.
We’re all compensating for respective weaknesses at the end of the day. Using mobility to compensate lack of armour or firepower, for example. The Jagdtiger sacrifices mobility and has very bad (but not horrendous) reload time, which is a bigger handicap than often assumed. When it can minimise its weaknesses and play to its strengths, it can be a game-changer, otherwise, it’s dead weight.
Which, however, tends to happen quite rarely. Not only are CQC maps more common, they’re also featured more frequently in the matchmaker. And even long range maps usually require you to, at some point, go and cap (and slug it out at 300 metres) if you actually want to win this thing.
Of course, that goes without saying. It’s a situational vehicle, less versatile than others. The problem arises when you’re stacking negative incentive after negative incentive. We all get a lot more uptiers than we do downtiers (that’s how the game is designed), and as we all know, armour is very uptier-sensitive. The Jagdtiger is still very competitive at 7.3, that’s how I got two of my nukes and that was pre-decompression; these days, even 7.7 is very enjoyable with it. But you end up relying on your armour a lot less than you’d think, in my experience.
Which, to be clear, is not a complaint. But it is worth noting. You meet a lot of vehicles from 6.0 to 7.7 that can bypass your frontal armour, or that have to aim for your weakspots but in turn you have to aim for theirs (the latter element in particular is why 6.7 is my favourite BR in War Thunder, shot placement is so important and so rewarding to get right).
But when you stack the abundance of CQC maps, their over-representation in the rotation, the game mode built around capping points, and the fact that armour is more BR-sensitive… you end up with a very small number of situations where spawning a heavy is the correct move to help the team win the game. I play heavies anyway because I like them, but many times I feel like I’m actively lowering my team’s odds of winning and I’d be better off spawning in a LeK instead. And that’s not how different vehicle classes should feel in a game, imho. They should all get equal opportunities to shine, I think.
So do I. My only reservation with that is that it would probably trigger the need to rebalance several vehicles. Some have way bigger “visual discrepancies” so to speak, which adds an element of difficulty, and others benefit a lot by the fact that pixel-hunting their weak spots would be much harder.
For example: I think the IS-3 is fine where it is, but if we all used gunner sight, getting its shot trap or the small protruding right cheek would be much harder, with obvious consequences. Definitely harder than, for example, aiming at a lower front plate where accounting for visual discrepancy is easier.
Dunno. Just something to think about.
Yeah, but in real life tanks don’t go anywhere without infantry, and crews don’t repair the transmission and fire the gun back at the enemy simultaneously, so I don’t really feel that’s relevant.
I will start a bit defensive, I didn’t mean he shouldn’t play Jagdtiger, but rather expect such things to happen in this kind of a vehicle and suck it up:)
Now I don’t consider pro or even organised play here. My point of view is ordinary realistic battles. Here I consider niche tanks like this to be perfectly playable. Not every time, but there will definitely be maps/situations, were even very niche vehicle will do very well. Here I agree with you that devs could work on making this happen more often with better, more creative design. I think that too little is happening in terms of new ways to play the game, like different objectives, battle scenarios or even allowed vehicle lineups. For example, I would like to see similar vehicle restrictions as SB to be used in RB environment as well, optional of course.
Personally, I enjoy playing niche vehicles, which are very good in one aspect but completely “tank it” in others:) Although, I consider their design to be inherently prone to frustrating situations, where you feel like you can’t do anything. And apparently, unlike others, I am completely fine with that and consider it a feature rather than design flaw. (Would I be angry, swearing and moaning in that situation? you bet:))
I really admire WTs “lineup” philosophy, where I enter the match with lineup of vehicles and it allows me to choose one or another depending on situation.
This wouldn’t be possible with WoT and other games “single vehicle/character” philosophy, where you are stuck with one vehicle/character for the whole match, but since it isn’t the case in WT, I am completely fine with some vehicles simply not working sometimes.
As I said, I completely agree that devs can design maps/objectives/situations which turn the tables a bit for certain vehicles/tactics. My biggest fear is that devs will get stuck in specific design philosophy making all maps and objectives too similar and to restricted and too predictable.
I disagree with “real life doesn’t really apply here” statement, because real life parameters are one of the defining design restraints that make WT what it is.
While majority of other mainstream multiplayer games are more fantasy based, so their devs can change whatever parameters they desire for the sake of balance, in WT, devs have to be more creative in other ways, as they cannot simply change all parameters of vehicles as they see fit.
And, in my opinion, this creates environment in WT, which makes some vehicles inherently less versatile or usable just like in real life.
In case of module destruction and repair mechanics, I consider them very nicely designed, where destruction of certain modules have big impact on battle outcome, without it being automatic end of battle for damaged vehicle.
1 Like