No T-44-100 can stay at 7.0
1 Like
Its.not cherry picks.
The IS3 is a good heavy tank at its br,.it also has access (correct me if im.wrong) to B-412D?
The IS3 is designed for long range engagements, supporting tanks like the t54 , youre not supposed to be in close with it.
Lets compare it to something realistic, the m103.
Similar reload
Arguably better round depending who you ask, i prefer heat over aphe though.
Far better mobility
Far better armour.
And better side armour funnily enough
1 Like
Issnt the t44-100 sitting higher than that now ? Been a while since i touched it
Just checked it, so it could work as
T-44-100 7.0
T54 1947 7.7 (maybe)
foldered under that
T54 (1949) 8.0
Then t54 (1951) 8.0
If they did it step by step, it would work out better, and still provide assistance to the 7.3 lineup which only has 2 tanks last I checked.
Putting one t-54 (1947) at 7.3 then the 1949 at 7.7, then the 1951 staying 8.0 would be a pretty good balance. The best with the Leo 1 in Br.
The 49 isnt much different from the 51 though is it ?
Reckon if we moved some of the 9.0s up to 9.3 it would solve that brutal 8.0 area out.
Tbh most issues jn the game are resolved with decompression.
Was gonna sat maybe t54 47 to 7.3 but a lot of 6.3s.will struggle with it maybe.
Definitely a stepping sort of system would be nicer than what we have now though
1 Like
The 47 isn’t at tough, unless you hitting the UFP or really odd angles on the turret.
Often shells can / will bounce into the hill roof from lower turret hits.
Not a big fan of this line of thinking. Though, where I will agree with it is when someone is crying foul about a nation or vehicle without having any experience in the vehicle - they only experience that nation or vehicle from facing it, and don’t have any clear idea about the downsides of said vehicle. A popular/common example of this was in the Russian bias / NATO woes topic that was posted recently where these people were citing the TOR-M1 as some OP beast of an SPAA, without ever actually using it, without even realising that its a bit shit and has missile smoke trails that can be seen from the ISS. If I see someone crying about a nation tree and they only play one nation, I pretty much discount their opinion.
You also need to dig a little deeper sometimes with that line of thinking, sometimes. If you look at my stat card, you’ll see the 279 up the top, and vehicles that I use with the 279 up there with it. It would be easily to just dismiss me as some Russian-main with vested interests. But if you dig a little deeper, you’ll see that I’m not actually favoring nations, I’m favoring line-ups. Soviet 9.0 is #1, Britain 8.3 is #2, and so on. Sometimes its simply down to the vehicles, such as AFT09/WZ305. If the 279 was in the US tree, I’d have the most games as a US player, simple as that. However, there are actual people who only play Western nations or Russia/China because of nationality/geopolitics, and they’re the ones you need to watch out for when discussing balancing and what nation has biases. These people are the ones easily influenced by propaganda. While I don’t agree with everything Scorp is saying, I don’t think he is one of those people.
So my RussianBias squadron is a meme btw. Nothing to be taken seriously
M103 reloads at 14.9s when aced, IS-3 does it in 20s. I think those 5.1s of difference is pretty substantial.
Round is a mixed bag that can turn from good to bad solely depending on what you face. You’ll have to pixel hunt M103 while in return you’re paper.
Mobility is also a mixed bag, yes IS-3 has better max speed but loses in HP/t department.
Can I ask, far better armor from what ?
From what I can see, M103 can shrug off conventional AP rounds pretty easily.
The big problem of IS-3 lies in it’s crippling gun handling and gun depression. Latter will force you to play on flat ground, which is mostly inside the city or CQC areas, where your awful gun handling will come to play.
For me personally, I never got the appeal of IS-3 as it’s cons outweigh the pros, especially with more and more HEAT/HE slingers being added to the tier.
1 Like
Russia is my main nation yes, but my squadron is just a meme. Don’t take it too seriously.
Shouldn’t be even a factor for balancing consideration when discussing Soviet/Russian vehicles. They have their own playstyle that accounts for this. They’re not there to sit behind some hill sniping away.
But armor is irrelevant when you can hide behind a hill and hide all your armor.
Thus gun depression should factor into br placement
Rarely can a tank hide behind a hill without getting popped, and again thats a tactics and positioning issue for the Russian tank if he is even there to be sniped by some guy behind a hill. If I’m in a Russian tank, I’ll choose the map locations that will bring me up close to the enemy, up in their face. Not to mention the amount of times that a Leopard or something will think it is some sniper and an APHE will just nuke its roof armor, but I digress. I just can’t see a strategy where an IS-3 should be worrying about hills and shiz.
Mostly true bar for things like the bmp2m it was for years insanely busted and was the best light tank arguably in game.
Now its not so bad with atgm changes etc.
Or the leopard 1 being 7.3 while all the contemporary tanks from other trees were 7.7.
Also once you play thousands of hours and tens of thousands of games you get a far better understanding of how vehilces work, regardless if you have it or not.
(This does not include the morons who scream bias etc with 0 argument or value behind the statement, there is no bias just compression)
The 279 in of itself is a show of said compression and was absolutely criminal at 8.3 then 8.7 it was insanely strong there and very little could counter it effectively, now it sits in a far better area.
To an extent, but you need to actually use a vehicle to gain the full picture. You can’t get around it.
279 eats well where ever it will go. I’d be happy if it goes to 9.3, as I’ve said previously. I never cared about its ability to previously see 7.3 and 7.7, the fun of the vehicle comes from donking more advanced tanks.
With that gun depression, every bump is like a hill.
Gun depression, as every other metric that affects tank’s efficiency should be looked at when it comes to BR balancing.
That isn’t an especially good idea considering Aced crew needs 20s to reload in an IS-3.
Hence why I don’t use an IS-3 to be fair, you got me there. Easier when you have an 8 second reload, of course. Though, this bad boy taught me how to fight close quarters with a slow-ass reload.
2 Likes
M103 for me is over 14.9 seconds man, base crew on both? Need to investigate further, same as conq stock crew was about 17 or 18 seconds
Cupola shot, can also overpressure the m103 relatively easy, and is3 im sure has better optics (been a while since ive used it)
Is3 is one of the better armoured 7.7s in total, the is4m and maus beat it.
M103 armour is objectively worse due to the size of the turret, cupola, driver port, and LFP.
s is the conquoror armour worse due to ammo rack placement, cupola, drivers port and the massive lfp.j
is3 has a smaller profile, and better mobility overall compared to the m103 and conq.
However again as with all our discussions i do know it has flaws too
And slow reload.
Personally thr 7.7 heavies are all in a bad position. They uptier into stabiliser, apds or dart throwing some have thermals lrf.
But if they move down in Br they absolutely stomp, even in downtiers these tanks are potent af.
Though i do really like the T10M at 8.3 it is potentially one of my favourite 8.0.area tanks
I remember when the maus was 7.3 and the Leo 1 was 7.0
1 Like
Yes and no.
I hadnt used the T80UD but knew it was strong af st 10.3 due to having used the T80U and all the tanks of the br.
Got the event one, and still use it effectively in 12.0, i knew the tank would be strong, but as you say not its full capabilities.
Its probably in a lovely spot at 9.0 tbf not too curb stompy anymore either so its nice.
Was toral fear facing one in a centurion mk3
1 Like