Vehicles become much worse if you’re consistently lowering your expectations of them.
This doesn’t really prove anything.
1 Like
You are reading the match stats themselves instead of what they imply. :)
T-10A, Marder A1, and M3 Bradley, none of them are directly comparable despite their similar battle rating ranges, much like an IS-2 1944 is not directly comparable to the Tiger 2 Henschel
Despite that, it is still possible to perform well with all of them. :D
T-10A is one of the best 7.7s though.
Still, those matches don’t really prove anything.
Again, you misunderstand the point.
The point is, all vehicles in a battle rating range have their own strengths and weaknesses that a player has to consider if they want to perform well. It does not matter if the Bradley has a better autocannon than the Marder, nor does it matter if the T-10A can be penetrated by the missiles of both. What matters is the player behind them know what their tank can and cannot do by itself, not what it cannot do that other tanks can. :)
This is not good logic. Say a good player performs better in the 2A5 than the average one does in the 2A7. This does not mean the 2A5 is better, or that it should be the same BR, rather the player is better.
1 Like
That is not the point I am making, my friend. :)
In your example, the main difference is the player. The 2A6 player knows their vehicle better, which leads to them performing better. The fault does not lie in neither the 2A6 nor the 2A7 there.
Regardless, comparing a decent Tiger 2 H player to an average IS-2 1944 player is not a valid comparison, either. The Tiger 2 H player is decent with a Tiger 2, while the IS-2 player is only average with an IS-2 specifically. You cannot judge the vehicles if the players using them are already different. :)
There are some objective statements that can be made in this game.
IS-2 < Tiger II
2A5/6 < 2A7V
These are objective.
1 Like
However, these ‘objective’ statements fail to take player capability into account, nor does it account for the vehicle adaptability.
You can argue that the Tiger 2 is better at range, but I would also argue that an IS-2 is far better in city maps than a Tiger 2. Neither are wrong. :)
Regardless, you are comparing the IS-2 to the Tiger 2 in the terms of the Tiger 2. If I instead pointed out that the IS-2 has enough filler to kill all vehicles at its battle rating with a cupola shot, it would tip the scales in favor of the IS-2.
Archetypal comparison =/= Surface-level comparison. :D
Tiger II is far better in city maps.
Tiger II can as well.
1 Like
Not really, the Tiger 2’s flatter armor plates are much easier to exploit up close compared to the curves on the IS-2. Not to mention that the IS-2 is far more agile. :)
The difference is, the Tiger 2 could, the IS-2 will. :D
But the main point to take away is that these are two vehicles of different roles. It is simply unfair to compare them. It would be like if I said the Type 10 is worse than most top tier MBTs because of its armor, while ignoring the 610mm pen APFSDS and 4 second autoloader. :)
The Bradley is pretty goated idk what you mean it’s “not good”
Compare the kv-220
And the Tiger 1 at 6.0
They have the same reload.
About the same gun.
Kv-220 has better side armor.
Tiger has:
Better mobility
Better frontal / no commanders hatch to easily shoot, and what was it double the filler?
Meanwhile the Kv-220 has two loaders… but has a 7.4 sec load time. How does that make sense for them to be the same br?
85mm vs 88mm gun, biased comparison as it does not consider the fact that the KV-220’s turret is far more cramped. :)
Also you are completely ignoring the fact that the KV-220 is far tougher when it is angled compared to a Tiger 1.
1 Like
Player skill cannot be counted for raw vehicle performance that makes no sense.
I myself killed 6 10.3 tanks the other day in the 4.0 BT-7A, with the 76mm cannon with 84mm pen APHE.
So does that mean it should be 10.3? No. Why? I’m a pretty good player tbh.
I’m taking all these proposed changes with an average player in mind, with the raw stats of the vehicle.
That is not the point. The point is you are considering changing BRs based purely on “Is x better than y” instead of “What can x do that y can’t, and can y still counter x anyway?”
1 Like
No the KV-220 is not in fact tougher. Just shoot any part of the turret really. It’s 100mm all around sure, but 90mms and 88s seems to go through all angles.
Keep in mind the breech is very easy to pen to either: full kill the tank, or disable it from firing back. The gun has to rotate to you to be able to fire. Not rocket science.
And if you don’t want to shoot the gun, hit the commander hatch. It usually kills everyone in the turret or kills 2/3 of them.
If we are going with your kind of argument, why did the Kv-1 Zis, & KV-1E get moved up?
Kv-1E has armor, but lacks the gun to kill most 5.0-5.3 tanks.
KV-1 Zis is the same br as the Swed KV-1 1942. Despite having the far weaker turret.
Meanwhile both sit a mere 0.3 br loveee than the German Kv-1 that increased the protection & the fire power.
Perhaps you want to try angling the turret and exposing the right side of the turret instead of the left side? :)
Also, the KV-220 has 100mm armor all around, a feat the Tiger does not posses.
1 Like
I could show you a clip of my angled turret being pierced by a 90mm on the T1E1(90) if you’d like.