Well Pz IVs might not be meta but leopard 2a4 sure is, much more than stuff like the Merkava 3. 11.0 would be too much but you’re wrong when you say that 2a4 is average, it’s not at all, arguably the best 10.3 and a pain in the genitals to face, it’s much better than the KVT, in fact the M1 sabot sucks big time, I don’t have it still I wouldn’t buy it, doesnt look very strong. The challanger ds is average and not meta, the T-80b would be the only competitor.
Merkava being overtiered doesn’t mean everything else is undertiered.
‘‘Grass is always greener on the other side’’
Go play it yourself, then come back once you’ve got a few dozen games under your belt.
You don’t get a fair view of a vehicle by just facing it, that’s just a recipe for confirmation bias to build up.
Please stop doing that.
Confidently claiming things about vehicles you don’t have any personal experience playing.
So I’ve played all these kinds of 10.3’s and have thousands of kills combined in Leo 2’s, M1’s, Challengers, T-80’s and T-72’s at these BR’s.
The M1 is the best one followed very closely by the Leo 2A4, and the APFSDS on the M1 is good enough.
Horizontal also doesn’t matter at such distances… And the math for both cases is extremely similar.
Edit: nevermind, the math is identical.
2 Likes
The only reason these shots have such a high difference is precisely because your PoV is not from 500 meters away, but closer to 20 meters.
At actually 500 meters, the entire side is hit at effectively the same angle, not matter where you hit on the side. The difference between the closest and furthest point on the side doesn’t even reach 1 degree.
3 Likes
The Type 90 is only at 11.0 due to its very good autoloader.
The face that Pz 4 long guns are that low is insane honestly, they are a blast to play because of how under tiered they are but makes playing other nations horrendous as soon as a competent player has one
1 Like
IDK. You could probably make it 2.0 in the Germany tree and they have so many bad players they’d STILL get steamrolled.
2 Likes
even when the tiger was at 5.3 it was easy to steamroll with a cromwell and firefly in my lineup as 4.7, balancing based on vehicle capability needs to take more value over poor player performance
1 Like
They are not undertiered simply because they have high penetration.
As an example, the Waffentrager is one of the worst vehicles in the entire game, even though it has incredible penetration for its BR.
These PzKpfw IV’s are worse in nearly every category compared to their adversaries:
3 Likes
No, they are undertiered because Germany players are bad at the game.
1 Like
Two things can be true at once.
German players can be bad and the Pz IV’s can still be at their correct BR’s.
I’d agree with you if the PzKpfw IV G was 3.0, but it isn’t. It’s at the same Battle Rating as it’s peers in the form of the T-34 (1940), Cromwell V and M4A1 Sherman.
2 Likes
they are under tiered because German players suck.
Back when I was still somewhat new (and sucked) I took a break from the British tree (just got to 5.3) to play some Germany and it was a point-and-click adventure game, I wasn’t a good player but being able to punch through every foes armour with not much aim or thought made it incredibly easy
Those reload rate values don’t seem right… Did you check the tanks with different level crews? Same with the traverse rates.
1 Like
skill issue
1 Like
Yes, but also no.
I’d change that to: Very poor players and beginners tend to overrate (paper) armor values and flat penetration data.
They see that the Pz IV’s have the highest pen and then conclude it must be OP, even though this game’s meta doesn’t revolve around those stats at all and these Pz IV’s sacrifice everything for this gain in penetration.
You’ve got so few battles in PzKpfw IV’s that you’ve basically not got any real experience playing them.
So you’ll excuse me when I take that comment with a grain of salt.
I’m pesonally of the opinion that one should have a decent number of battles under their belt with a particular vehicle before they can comment on a vehicle’s worth.
All four show data for 150/150 crews with Expert qualification.
All data is equal.
I’m sorry but there’s just no way that’s actually true.
I’ve checked both in game and in datamines, the Cromwell V and M4A1 have the same reload at 5 seconds max, 6.5 seconds stock. And the Cromwell V and T-34 have the same turret traverse rate at 25 degrees/second max.
Since crew levels affect all tanks in the exact same way, actual same level crews would have the same values. So this table very clearly does not show same level crews.
Edit: Also extra tid-bit here, the Cromwell I and V have additional 12.7 mm of RHA under the main armor of at least the turret (might also do under the hull). I don’t know if you’ve accounted for that or not.
2 Likes
REEEE, it’s not supposed to be RHA but structural steel!
Not that it has any significant consequences, gameplay-wise, as it’s armour is made of paper anyway, but history nerd in me is angery.
2 Likes
?
I know how to use stabilizers, but it doesn’t mean they are unfair at lower BRs. You just so happen to have them at 1.0 as well, although a bit weaker. They help you out a lot, but it’s not like they singlehandedly make tank busted or anything
There is nothing unfair about them
Ger Panzer IV’s need an uprank to rank III. As long as they’re stuck at rank II I refuse to play them.
2 Likes