So, this problem ain’t sounding as relevant for english-part of forum, however, on russian counterpart i can’t make separate topics to discuss issues relevant to added content on the dev-server.
To begin with, most of you here either saw a new premium setup or even tried those vehicles bundled in a pack with the name “Be Prepared”. Being a motto of soviet pioneers its both reminding people of a long bygone era and also, imo, making a reference to being a potential start for a newcomer. BR isn’t placing such player into advanced systems but could bring a newbie up to technological artworks of the late-WW2.
And, thus, i now get to the point of my complaint being the pack being not particularly friendly for a new player due to some questionable decisions in bundling it up.
First things first - pack is made from 3 vehicles putting it up to 6.7 BR, which is the edge between WW2 and cold war. I don’t have problems with the fact itself if not watching the issue of individual issues of vehicles not being suited for a new player to explore the vast field of WT caveats and such.
IS-2M, imo, is being almost a killer for this pack. You may ask “why”, for what i would reply with next paragraph.
Firstly - gameplay-wise it’s mostly a vismod for an IS-2 (1944). Only noticeable differences are:
- Slightly improved transmission (topspeed is now 40 kph instead of 38… And reverse from 14 to 16, yeah…)
- 1 sec shorter reload.
- 2t mass increasement, aka, 1st point is basically irrelevant due to engine being the same power as OG one (at least on dev) thus making TWR actually worse than 6.3 tank.
For all intent and purposes it’s a 6.3 vehicle, with the relationship between it and 1944 version is being eerily similar to a Tiger II (H) and Sla.16, however, the soviet counterparts are being divided by a BR step for no particular reason.
And the dev itself made it clear that IS-2 (1944) isn’t quite suited for BR the new addition being put into (literally less than month ago aformentioned 1944 ver. of IS-2 was brought down from 6.7 to 6.3).
All of that basically means that we have a clear example of not even a sidegrade or a slight upgrade, but a weird example of actually “pay-to-lose” which sounds funny by itself.
Being put at 6.7 with same ammo and armor scheme as 6.3 tank means that a buyer of a pack would quite usually find themselves in situations encountering enemies with little to no ways to counterplay. Also, D-25 is extremely notorious for being a huge volumetric victim while also having a horrendous recoil time (like… 1 second reduction from 20 to 19 secs haven’t done not even much, but anything)
There are a lot of problematic stuff for IS-2 added with the increasement to 6.7, e.g those (also sorry for pic quality, haven’t downloaded 60 additional GB of textures):
Also not being a particularly hard target even for vehicles in a downtier (only things which are indeed struggling with taking it out being american 76, american 75, Chi-Ri and… soviet 85 (which would be also discussed later)):
This, combined with the fact that IS-2 is being a backbone of a triple-force already makes the pack quite questionable. (Why would anyone uptier the tank back to the position where it was struggling?)
The second actual tank which you pay for is also questionable, but not so from the reason it being an uptiered tank from 6.3, but due to the fact it being mostly the hostage of it’s extreme characteristics (like jumbo, maus, etc).
T-44, being a second tank of choice for developer, isn’t also quite suited for sale for next list of issues.
- As i’ve mentioned earlier - it’s a vehicle of extremes.
For good part - it has some effective frontal hull armor layout for a medium tank at it’s BR (being an actual issue even for King Tiger at point-blank):
However, it’s mostly offset due to the turret being an easy shot for everyone except aforementioned (in IS-2 section) group of particularly weak cannons.
Being also a quite mobile tank, T-44 makes it look like a quite solid vehicle, and, for somewhat developed player it might be, however, we made to a little caveat of the tank making it frustrating to play.
And, yes, I’m talking about it’s armament. Plain M26, which is usually being called for not being well-armed, looks so much better in comparison we have with T-44.
First - it’s an 85 mm gun. Yes, it doesn’t sound too bad on paper, but essentially it means that we have 4.0 gun fighting early cold-war vehicles. The best round (pen-wise) being BR-367 (which is quite often changed to BR-365 due to postpen damage reliability) being basically a halfway between M1 and M3 rounds having ~160 mm of pen PB. Others… uhhh… let’s say that they’re being worse in that regard than T20’s M1 a BR-step lower (even tho T20 being severely overtiered and also having a stabilizer). Yes, if S-53 pens, it pens, but at 6.7 it might struggle with some medium tanks at it’s own BR not even talking about higher-ranked vehicles. Basically, vehicle requires not-so-small amount of aim.
Spoiler
Pershing might seem easy, however, shooting the turret up-front is often meaning playing volumetric slot-machine, so, basically, you’re limited to a general weakspot of an MG-port and LFP-sides. And it’s at not-so-long engagement range without M26 actually hiding a part of it’s weakspots or slightly-angling. And now imagine a newbie who bought the pack and now needs to carefully dodge hard-targets, sometimes completely or somehow lose several hours trying to understand general weakspots of common targets and then try to actually hit them considering an enemy for whatever reason not covering such in a ton of totally not P2W bushes. Yup.
P.S. Yes, it might seem like a vehicle to actually learn a BR-range, but this learning curve is steeper than with most of counterparts in other trees, i.e. isn’t suited for a majority of newer players. Also it means that it would be less popular purchase-wise (both for newbies who watch for a vehicle which forgives mistakes while this being a quite bad example of such and older players watching for comfortable grind, i guess are also aren’t met with good choices and also watch the 1st point being completely understandable for somewhat experienced player), which means less sales, which means less money for developer which for me sounds extremely counterintuitive cuz it’s like a second vehicle with which dev shoots itself in a knee for a whatever unknown reason.
AA… Is fine. Actually even good for 6.3 both suited for air and actually to engage tanks, even heavy ones, in specific conditions, so i have little to no comlpaints while talking about the “Lizard”. However, as i see, usually those packs are sold not through a good AA being added in such… (at least for now, pls Gaijin, don’t add pack ItPsV or other 35 mm hellbox in such)
In conclusion - the idea of such pack might seem fine, however, through a series of questionable choices (either in BR placing the vehicles or choosing not-so-well suited for sales vehicles from a regular TT) are making it not too suitable for a first buy for a newcomer (immediately uptiering yourself from TT counterparts at your possible first hour of game sounds already bad not even talking about specific gameplay of included vehicles) or as SL grinding setup as why just uptiering TT tanks for no reason?
So, as said in russian - “If you criticize something - propose a solution”, and me, being somewhat interested in this pack, i could formulate some ideas how to make this particular pack better for general audience and for Gaijin’s pockets (and i know that it’s being the main point of even making that pack, so…)
- Most straightforward path would be just giving additional ammunition to problematic vehicles. So, the IS-2 gets post-war 3BK10 shell (alr present on SU-122-54). Imo, it wouldn’t be in any ways game-breaking due to the fact HEAT-FS not being famous for their postpen damage, which, coupled with low RoF of a D-25 would make up for some last-ditch option in encounters with heavier opponents actually making a person somewhat research enemy vehicles to effectively counter them. That was IS-2M could play itself as a quasi-TD in some cases thus making it actually worth a step up from 1944 version of IS. That would also mean adding for both T-44s long-awaited (both in TT and new pack one) 3BK2 round (which is also already in-game being under disguise in chinese TT as Type-56 HEAT-FS (and earlier even being just a 3BK2 in ammo pool of event Type 62 in soviet TT)). That way there would be less frustration and more choices for how to engage specific target, not totally reliant on said enemy is blind, deaf or both while also being drunk.
- Make it a full 6.3 lineup. Just revert the reload buff (not even that necessary) for IS-2M and put it at 6.3 alongside TT counterpart. T-44 might be harder, but if we need to somehow make it 6.3 it’s either getting rid of BR-367 ammo series making it play like a jumbo - relying on speed and UFP armor to engage enemies or getting flanks. Or we can just put another vehicle here for either ASU-85 or 2S3 (it being def a cold-war themed pack wouldn’t have a problem with including cold-war vehicles in such). However, it definetely requires the developer to redo the work and thus making it extremely unlikely to happen, however, that’s also the way.
- Last, due to being not so beneficial, but might fix the fact of main vehicle of the pack being… uhhh… not great, being further reduction of reload time to ~15-16 secs to actually make it matter to place it higher. “Yes, you’re the same tank, but you shoot a round per minute more, so, there’s your +0.3 increase”.
And now i guess i could thank you for reading this whole wall of text. You ofc may add something and discuss my points down-below, i hope my english is understandable for a majority of you.
P.S. Here, i also made a poll in case you agree with one of the proposed solutions or just find the new pack as fine as it is.
- Yup, bring some new ammo to guys!
- Make it 6.3
- Nah, it just works…
- My option (if you have such)