Amen.
Honestly, I think the pz. IVs going up would really help.
They basically do what the Chi-nu and Chi-to do, but at a lower BR. Move them up to 4.0-4.7 and now the Chi-nu/to tanks don’t look as bad. It also puts the Chi-He in a better place, because it won’t get clubbed quite as badly at 3.7.
Some of the T-34s can be pretty rough to face as well, but they don’t have quite as much firepower.
2 Likes
Wait, really? o_O
How does that make sense?
Next, you’re going to tell me that it doesn’t make a difference whether an armored car has 4 or 8 wheels :D
No just no. The Chi-He is a 2.7 it’s fine at this BR. Go higher and it will not be able to do jack.
The Chi-To is already 4.7 and struggles a little. Due to its pen being 151 rather than 153.
The Chi-Nu is in a pickle. It can either go lower to 3.0 and potentially be the one seal clubbing, on tier would die fine, or go up a tier and roughly o what it’s doing right now.
In game it doesn’t. I don’t make the rules. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
All tanks have the same ground pressure between themselves and all wheeled vehicles do as well. There’s basically separate traction/friction modifiers depending on if your vehicle is wheeled or tracked, and that’s it.
Only if you have an upgrade like Ostketten do you end up with slightly better traction on all terrain. But I tested acceleration on a Pz.IV H and the difference even in poor terrain was of half a second to reach maximum speed. What that upgrade does is directly make the friction modifiers better as well, it doesn’t actually look at ground pressure or anything of the sort. It’s just a % better friction that Gaijin decided it would have.
How strange. Then no vehicle has the kind of mobility it should have, because ground pressure is same for all?
Or does the friction modifiers change between vehicles?
Friction does not change for the same kind of vehicle (tank compared to tank, car compared to car).
Honestly even if we did have well done ground pressure, no vehicle would have the mobility it had in real life either way. Tank engines and transmissions are still highly simplistic, with all engines being treated equally and there being no difference between gas turbine, diesel, gas, etc, and transmissions just being collections of gear ratios and sprocket radius, with no torque converters, regenerative steering, so on.
Gotta start from somewhere at least. If they gave the correct ground pressure, the Type 10 might start doing Type 10 things in muddy terrain.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was saying the PZ. 4s should go up, not the Japanese tanks.
Edit: I worded the Chi-He part really poorly lol
1 Like
Hard disagree, one of the most fun nations I’ve played at the lower BRs
For new players, not fun. For experienced players, really fun. Japan isn’t new player friendly, requires a lot knowledge to play them right. The other big nations are more new player friendly due to them having more armor saving them from making rookie mistakes. That’s what I believe anyways.
APHE on a pretty mobile and stabilized platform is quite good, paired with pretty decent lineups it’s not the worst experience for a new player compared to some nations like italy or france
A vehicle can end up performing well if the player knows what they are doing.
My problem is that the Chi-Nu can be played as well as one can play it, and yet an M4A1 would perform better if played just as well because it is just notoriously better.
3 Likes
It really shouldn’t. They were moved up before and struggled. Anyway though their not related.
Ignore Flip, as much as I hate stats. The dude only has a little experience operating the Chi-Nu tank. So he has no clue what he is talking about. Nor has formed a playstyle and came into using it expecting it to perform as a brawler like the Sherman tanks.
But he is right. The M4A1 can do everything the Chi-Nu can but better.
It’s fun to play as Japanese underdog and it can work because it has 75mm APHE but basically every 3.3 medium is better.
5 Likes
You bring up my stats to invalidate what I’ve said, saying I have no clue what I’m talking about.
But your K/B and K/D are less than half of mine in the Chi-Nu. And I have 1 K/B, 1.13 K/D with it. So somehow, I have “no clue” how to play the Chi-Nu and do not know what I am talking about and out-perform you. You that has so much more experience and has been hammering how the Chi-Nu is meant to be a support tank and that is where it is meant to perform.
It’s no wonder why you hate stats. If I can perform better than you despite being clueless, I wonder what that makes you.
Thats not how its supposed to work tho and someone with 15 kill average isnt really to judge if its fine for rest of the playerbase. Good players will still have a lot of kills with it but there are simply way better tanks at the br and with those tanks the good player would have even more. “not new player friendly” is exactly because they are overtired/ worse than all the competition (i am not talking about stuff like Ho-Ro that is fun at all tiers but normal tanks that I mentioned in original statement) and it is exactly getting its BR higher and higher because of those experiened players that grinded all the main trees and now with all the skill they go top off their grind with japanese ground forces. Tanks are different to planes as theres barely the playstyle variety as they if its medium you play it as medium and then you can use some advantages your tank has to the enemy ones except japanese are simply the worst at the job as in the case with said example of Chi-nu but that isn’t by far the only case. Also they are not just “not new player friendly” you literally can not start the game playing japanese ground rn. There isn’t and option for it and there is no premium starter rn for japan (i thought it was ha go commander but I was mistaken). Idk for what exact reason. But moust likely its exactly because japan is so bad in the low to mid tier…
The arguments being brought against you are more valid than your own, though. The Chi-Nu is absolutely the worst tank at 3.3. The Pz. Kpfw. IV Ausf. F2 has more firepower than it while retaining pretty much the same mobility, while the Ausf. G is straight up better than it in every way. The M4A1(75) is more mobile, has better situational firepower due to its stabilizer, while also having comparatively far better armour than the Chi-Nu that makes a direct duel between them lopsided significantly in favour of the Sherman. The T-34 obr. 1940 g. can’t penetrate as much as it, but it doesn’t need to; its 78 mm of penetration with its APHEBC is enough to penetrate it from any angle up to 1.5 kilometers, while having far better armour and mobility.
There is nothing exceptional or even good about it relative to the other mediums. It can’t perform as a sniper as well as the Pz. Kpfw. IVs can, while also not having either the brawling or flanking potential as either the M4A1 or the T-34. It’s utterly subpar when taken as a total package. The only comparably bad mediums at that BR are the Italian P 26/40s, but at least that has the advantage of being able to troll with its decently sloped armour. The Chi-Nu just has nearly vertical 50 mm frontal armour with hull cheeks that make it impossible to angle.
It wouldn’t be overpowered at 3.0. It’s far more comparable to the 3.0 Pz. Kpfw. IIIs in power than it is any of the compared to any of the 3.3 mediums, aside from the P 26/40 which also shares a lot of its issues relative to the “big three.”
I still enjoy taking out the Chi-Nu and can do well in it, but the exceptional shouldn’t be used as the balance.
5 Likes
The Panzer IV had nothing to do with this. This argument was one guy claiming the M4 Sherman was superior in every aspect to the Type-3.
The one who brought up the Panzer IV was just out of the blink—not related at all. If I wanted to argue the Panzer IV I would agree, and I have before. However, this argument was between the M4 and the Type-3. One as I stated numerously during this argument was designed to be a brawler, the other was not, which you also mentioned was a stop-gap vehicle. Until the Type-4 and Type-5’s were ready.