I would not say a thing if you could get togeder actuall lineup. And would not even mind if some tanks are slightly overtiered. But if your tech tree looks like 1.7 -2.0-2.3-2.7-3.0-3.0 then I do mind that things like Chi-ha kai isnt for 2.0 lineup or that chi-nu cant make 3.0 lineup with all the other ovetiered 3.3s.
3 Likes
The issue here isn’t that the Chi-Nu is too high, it’s that the Panzer IVs are too low. The Panzer IV G/H could easily go to 4.0-4.3. The Chi-Nu is fine at 3.3, but maybe 3.0 would work. 2.7 is too low.
Thats cool and all. But now they are at the same br. And Panzer IVs are not only problem, T-34s, Kv1 you can barely pen from front, shermans are usally also problem while all those can pen you anywere. Its stat wise same as german tank that is 2.7 but I am fine with any down tier. I think if it would make 3.0 line up with So-Ki and Na-To it would be fine.
3 Likes
Huh? Type 16 (P), Type 93 Are 9.3, Or Do You Simply Mean Lacking Tier V-VI Premiums? Like, I Don’t Get The Point Here.
Not Even, Ki-200 And A6M Play Vastly Different, And Why You’re Trying To “Chase” A Heavy Bomber Is Also Beyond Me. You Intercept It Or Leave It, The A6M Deals With Other Fighters, Not Exactly A Plane I Suggest Bomber Hunting With.
On The Ki-200s Behalf, Boom-N-Zoom With A Hell Load Of Manoeuvrability To Play Around With. Roughly Use 2min Of Fuel To Get To Roughly 6k, Idle At The Altitude And Intercept Targets, Even If They’re Paying Attention, The Manoeuvrability Allows You To Take Insane Angles On Dives, And Again, The Rocket Engine Is Only Really There To Gain Altitude.
FPS Is Effectively A Copy Paste Of The Standard Type 16 With Minor Visual Differences And Lacking Type 93 APDFS.
Type 16 & FPS Both Have A Front Hull Composite Armour Screen Which Effectively Brings It To 100 mm Frontal Armour Which The Type 16 (P) Lacks.
I’ve Always Complained About The Fact That The Type 16 FPS Doesn’t Get Type 93 APDFS As It Should Have A Shell… That Came 10+ Years Before The Prototype Was Even Built And The Fact It Sits At The Same Bracket As The Type 74 (G) As Premium Is Silly, I’ll Agree On That. Though The Hull Armour & Lacking Side Armour The Type 16 (P) Misses Over The Premium Is Not That Huge Of A Difference, Especially Not At That BR. Would Be About Comparing An Pz.IV F2 to G. The Only Time It Really Comes In Clutch Is Against Low-ish Pen Auto-Cannons
It’s perfect to just do nothing and watch everyone fight 10km in the distance as you’re managing your 5 minutes of fuel and hope to get in the fight before it’s over.
4 Likes
I know the feeling way too well.
2 Likes
Huh? Type 16 (P), Type 93 Are 9.3, Or Do You Simply Mean Lacking Tier V-VI Premiums? Like, I Don’t Get The Point Here.
Type 16 + Type 93 is hardly a complete lineup, so you’re uptiering the other Type 74s just because you get crappy gen 1 thermals.
Not Even, Ki-200 And A6M Play Vastly Different, And Why You’re Trying To “Chase” A Heavy Bomber Is Also Beyond Me. You Intercept It Or Leave It, The A6M Deals With Other Fighters, Not Exactly A Plane I Suggest Bomber Hunting With.
The point is that you can’t hunt a bomber because they’re as fast as your fighter due to the insane BR it’s at… an Me 264 has the same speed as the A6M5.
FPS Is Effectively A Copy Paste Of The Standard Type 16 With Minor Visual Differences And Lacking Type 93 APDFS.
FPS is not a copy paste of the 16 P, unless you consider 130 and 38mm a visual difference, the regular Type 16 is the same body as the FPS.
The FPS is a straight upgrade however and with autocannons not being uncommon at the BR that’s not something to dismiss.
3 Likes
I Said Standard Type 16. When Did I Ever Say Prototype = FPS?
1 Like
The Chi-Nu is clearly not 2.7 material. Raw penetration numbers may resemble the German 50 mm KwK39 Panzer III, but it is basically the Japanese equivalent of the first Sherman M4A1 on the US ground force tech tree. Lastly, T-34s are fairly straightforward to defeat, even on the front.
1 Like
9.0 → 9.3… What A Bummer…
Type 16 (P) & Type 93 Are Worth The BR Step For The Line-Up.
Just Like How 6.0 Tiger Japan Is Worth Bringing Your 5.7 Up For.
Not Even, Ki-200 And A6M Play Vastly Different, And Why You’re Trying To “Chase” A Heavy Bomber Is Also Beyond Me. You Intercept It Or Leave It, The A6M Deals With Other Fighters, Not Exactly A Plane I Suggest Bomber Hunting With.
On The Ki-200s Behalf, Boom-N-Zoom With A Hell Load Of Manoeuvrability To Play Around With. Roughly Use 2min Of Fuel To Get To Roughly 6k, Idle At The Altitude And Intercept Targets, Even If They’re Paying Attention, The Manoeuvrability Allows You To Take Insane Angles On Dives, And Again, The Rocket Engine Is Only Really There To Gain Altitude.
I did not say anything about heavy bombers. I dont think Ki-200 even has any heavy bombers to chase at 8.7. Maybe only Tu-4 if you get full down tier. Anyway did you play Ki-200 ever since its guns were nerfed? Because god it was pain before. Now its unplayable. In uptier there are things that go 1000 km/h faster than you and you can never touch those. Even things that are at its br rn can just run away while you full dive at them.
2 Likes
I Said Standard Type 16. When Did I Ever Say Prototype = FPS?
No idea why you talk about the standard Type 16 when that was not relevant to the discussion.
9.0 → 9.3… What A Bummer…
Yeah, it is when 9.3 is THE worst BR in the game for uptiering with 80% of the games being 10.0 or 10.3.
The Chi-Nu is clearly not 2.7 material. Raw penetration numbers may resemble the German 50 mm KwK39 Panzer III, but it is basically the Japanese equivalent of the first Sherman M4A1 on the US ground force tech tree. Lastly, T-34s are fairly straightforward to defeat, even on the front.
It could compete with first sherman with gun. Not with armour. Same with t-34 its not like you cant pen it from front you can to the turret cheeks but the t-34 can pen you anywere same with the sherman.
2 Likes
Read Back. I Did. It Was Perfectly Playable Before, But As I Mentioned If You Read, Army 30mm Belts Got Nerfed Into The Ground And It’s A Pain To Play Right Now, Just Because Snapshot Shooting, What You’re Supposed To Do With The Ki-200, Isn’t Reliable, Forcing To Either Stay On Tail (Which You Don’t Really Wanna Do) Or Reapproach To Do Another Spark Another Day.
Most early World War II tanks fighting the T-34 have to aim for the turret cheek or ring (excluding Germans), therefore “Chi-Nu” is no exception. Armour-wise, this could be due to historical references to Japanese tank ideology, just as most Allied tanks in World War II were inferior to German tanks in terms of raw firepower and protection (Sherman vs. Panthers), but far more agile.
Its not “equivalent” to sherman nor it is to t-34 nor to Panzer IV. Chi-Nu simply does not belong to 3.3.
1000m shots :
While if I take Panzer IV at the same br aggainst t-34:
Its just not fair. That every other nation can aim anywere. And Chi-Nu actually has to aim.
5 Likes
I enjoy WWII Japan, so I wouldn’t say no to buffs or additions. :P
An I-Gou Otsu would be appreciated.
4 Likes
Sure sherman also has to aim for the cheeks at the T-34 but that thing also has some armour to protect it from firing back. Chi-Nu just does not have that.
2 Likes
Not even talking about russian or french heavys at the tier? Like tell me whats chi-nu good at then? I have it naturally at ace crew just by playing it and yes I do get kills with it. But its simply not fair. + I have to take it to 3.7 to have something close to “line up” and when that gets uptiered. Oh boy it sure is just pure pain.
2 Likes
The same thing goes for Panthers and late-Shermans, doesn’t it? The first US tank to truly surpass the Panthers in terms of raw firepower and frontal protection is around the M26 stage, with a 0.7 battle rating difference. Furthermore, statistically, practically all late-Shermans (with the exception of the one-axis stabilizer and mobility) are quite similar to Panzer IV H. Protection analysis is important, but I do not believe it should be the sole determining factor in battle rating discussions. If protection analysis is the sole determining factor, late-Shermans would be facing Panzer IVs, which is clearly not the case here.
The only thing Chi-Nu lacks is armour (no offence, but expectedly, this was a characteristic of practically all Japanese tanks during World War II due to divergent views of deploying tanks to directly support infantry attacks rather than tank-to-tank battles). Based on my experience with Chi-Nu, it works perfectly fine at 3.3 battle rating. Similar to what the other players have said, while 3.0 is a slightly possible option (although I am slightly opposed to it), a 2.7 battle rating is far too low.
1 Like
I am talking about 3.3 here. Like can you tell me how is Chi-Nu competative tank given those protection screnshot? What is it good at? If its worse in every possible way than its competation how do you possibly defend its br? How many times you played chi-nu?
5.3 with panthers and late shermans is completly different story and “shermans” is kinda half of american tech tree + many other trees. Still those late shermans like firefly can still penetrate panthers while some shermans like jumbo can withstand panthers shots. Not the case with chi-Nu. It simply cant pen things while the things can pen it while it has 0 other adwantages. I am not really sherman player - never played one and never will I also see panther as a better tank for my playstyle but thats not what we compare here. At br we were talking about the 3.3 all said tanks are simply better in every way than chi-nu. Chi-nu isnt a light tank to use its speed over its lack of armour nor tank destroyer to use its gun its simply medium tank and its the worst medium at the br. In direct combat its simply terrible tank and its br just isnt fair because you have to aim for weak spots and hope for the best while enemy can aim anywere. Its basically Ho-I with better gun. Exept Ho-I is 2.0 tank thats the issue. You said its equal to sherman at its br. It just isnt nor to any other medium at the same br.
3 Likes