T54s at 8.0

[GoneToTheAether]

Yep, the same “fear of downtiers,” exemplified by “WAAAAAH BUT MUH JUMBOOOOO!” whenever anyone so much as thinks about dropping some piece of badly-overtiered heavy armor, is frankly ridiculous.

Not only do we have scores of machines that slice right through the armor of even T-54s with ease, but we also have giant HE launchers in every nation that generally don’t need to even aim to delete even the most heavily-armored opponents. Many of which also have so little armor that they don’t fuse APHE reliably.

Note, I specifically called out the Jumbo 76 because for whatever reason that particular vehicle is the one people cluster to about suffering in response to any kind of proposed downtier of some piece of heavy armor. If someone uses the worst possible vehicle for an uptier and expects not to get totally bodied, isn’t that a personal problem and not a game one?

[SneedSellsFeed]

What I hate the most is people instantly defaulting to vehicles it would meet in a full downtier.
Like - whenever people would advocate for the Maus being moved to 7.3,

Spoiler

(I personally thought it was just right at 7.7, but since they nerfed all the internal plates to 5mm and made it extremely easy to overpressure, I think it could go down to 7.0 and still be sub-optimal)

IMMEDIATELY you would hear people talking about those POOR 6.3 VEHICLES!! As if the BRs of 6.7 and 7.0, which had HEATFS slingers even back then, much less now - wouldn’t also be in the rotation in a 6.3-7.3 match. It’s like only the worst vehicles at the lowest BR matter, even though they would only be a small portion of a game which is made up of 4 individual BRs to create a range of 0.0-1.0.

And even then - flanking was always preferred. Bombing even more so, for extremely slow and large vehicles such as the Tortoise, T95, and Maus.

[GoneToTheAether]

Exactly!

The same arguments are deployed when anyone dares suggest making cannon barrels harder to disable, especially from the guy you’re aiming at. That especially brings out the Jumbo complainers.

I too believe most heavy armor in late game is horribly overtiered, being propped up on player stupidity and also the rounds meant to kill such behemoths doing comically low postpen that the behemoths take 10+ penetrations to finally die. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather die in 1-3 hits than sit there half the game trying to repair my barrel or breech or tracks.

How I would reorganize late game heavies:

• Maus & E-100 to 7.0

• IS-3 to 6.7

• IS-4M to 7.0

• Ferdinand & Elefant to 6.3

• Object 268 to 6.3

• Ho-Ri Prototype to 5.7 or 6.0.

• Ho-Ri Production to 6.7.

• M6A2 105 to 6.0.

• T26E5 to 6.3.

• IS-2 1943 to 5.3. Yes I am dead serious, it isn’t that good of a tank.

• IS-2 1944 to 5.7. Equally serious here.

• T28 stays as-is. T95 to 6.7.

• Tortoise to 5.7-6.0 depending on if it gets its missing APDS or not. Its armor needs to work or its pointless.

• Black Prince to 5.3. Yes I am dead serious about this one. It’s a Churchill VII and that machine’s hull cannot withstand a higher BR due to a rapid increase in gun performance which will kill it even if it angles. And like the Maus its too slow to do anything if the armor fails.

I may have missed a few, but you get the general idea.

Heavies that can actually move well would stay where they are (IS-6, T-10A) or even go up further (KT105, T34, T29).

What would drive all this? Undoing old nerfs to postpen of APCR, APDS, HEAT, HEATFS, and HESH. This deprives all superheavies of their “survivability” so that when they get penetrated, they die like everyone else, which means their stats plummet, causing their BRs to drop to where they become mostly immortal frontally which is the whole point behind their designs. If a machine is slow enough, frontal immortality should NOT equate to “overpowered.”

If such superheavies become a problem, downtier the derp HE launchers and/or add more of them. Those, not postwar HEAT-slinging tin can go-karts, are what should rein in heavy tank spam. It’s an evolution of a Sturer Emil caving in the skull of that Churchill VII nobody else is able to kill. We are missing quite a few derp HE launchers as-is in the WW2 era. The Long Tom, the Semovente 149/40, and others to name a few specific examples.

[Ion_Protogen]

I disagree with many of your BR changes.

The Maus at 7.0 is too low, and it would face too many tanks that can barely kill it.

The Ho-Ri production and prototype shouldn’t go below 6.3.

The T-26E5 would be unbelievably broken at 6.3 considering it is the best 6.7 brawling tank. I don’t how anyone would think it is overtiered. It is slow, but its manoeuvrability is super good.

The IS-2 '43 should be 5.7 like it used to be, and the '44 shouldn’t be below 6.0. They didn’t need to be changed from where they were last year.

@GoneToTheAether

Heavies that can actually move well would stay where they are (IS-6, T-10A) or even go up further (KT105, T34, T29).

So a Tiger II 105 would be a higher BR than the Maus? That isn’t balanced at all.

We just need decompression, not moving already not terrible vehicles lower so they don’t face lots of HEAT rounds.

[KillaKiwi]

I think you underestimate them by a great deal.

Infact these vehicles are currently perfectly balanced. (For the most part)

If you lower them by 0.3 or even 0.7 they would become nearly invulnerable for the majority of vehicles they fight, unless they get uptiered.

It’s not very balanced when one vehicle of the same BR can just point and click another vehicle out of existance while the other can at most disable their gun while lower BRs can barely penetrate them from the side.

The only vehicle that I would change is the IS-3, which I put at 7.0 but nerfing it’s reload by a couple of seconds, maybe just to match the IS-2. Or put it at 6.7 with a big nerf in RoF, since the IS-3s is just a night mare to be a loader in.

Historically the IS-3 sucked. But I would also do the same with the small turreted T-34s, which perform way better than they have any right to.

[SneedSellsFeed]

I would say that the Maus and E-100 could go to 7.3.
The biggest problem is that the Maus has an overpressure bug going on right now - and its internals are extremely easy to overpressure (and kill in one hit). The E-100 doesn’t have this issue currently.

The IS-3 could certainly go to 6.7. Its turret rotation is horrendous and the gun reload and gun depression adds to the horrible feel, certainly.

The IS-4M going to 7.0 is also fair IMO. Quite insane that it’s 7.7 currently.

Ferdinand/Elefant could certainly go to 6.3, and were 6.3.

The 268, however - I would say is superior to the Ferdinand due to its higher mobility, relatively better gun, and better armor. Along with the very useful 14.5mm. 6.7 is more fitting.

The Ho-Ris are better than you give them credit for, though. I’d reckon the Prototype could be 6.3 and the Production 7.0. They’re quite nimble overall and their armor is very strong.

The M6A2E1 does have very good stats and the gun is quite good, it’s also not very slow - so 6.0 is a bit of a stretch IMO. 6.3 is quite fine. The T26E5 is also one of the best 6.7s in the game, so I wouldn’t say 6.3 is right. The E5 is extremely strong.

The IS-2 (regular) is fine at 5.7. It was 5.7 for a long time, I played it at 5.7. And it was good. Not OP. Just good. About right. Wouldn’t say 5.3.

The 1944 to 5.7, though - definitely not. It’s not a fantastic vehicle but the armor’s considerably stronger and I’d reckon 6.3 was on the edge of “usable” - REALLY don’t know why it went to 6.7 when the Tiger 2H is considerably better, especially the premium one.

T95 at 6.7 makes perfect sense. No qualms there.

The Tortoise is quite bad, yes. I would say not quite 5.7-6.0, though. 6.3 would be absolutely perfect and would go along with the beautiful existing 6.3 lineup.

Black Prince at 5.3, especially with the reverse buff - I’d reckon is a bit too low. It is extremely slow, however. I would say 5.7 would be fine, though. 6.0 perhaps to be sure.

I would also add the T-10M, which really shouldn’t be 8.3. The IS-7 is the same BR and considerably better, and vehicles such as the Chinese Type 59 and Type 69 at 8.0 are honestly better. And a couple others.

[Tanker_E]

the T-54 is very survivable, i instantly get scared when im in an uptier and see a T-54 as the armor is very thick and its unlikely my round will go through in any good spot frontlaly

[Tanker_E]

@SneedSellsFeed

rs.

hell nah! the IS-4M is nearly impenetrable by any 6.7 vehicle, and same with the IS-3! not even my 8.0 tanks can pen the IS-4M and they have trouble with IS-3’s

[SneedSellsFeed]

I suggest you take the time to get to know vehicles you’re facing in the garage. Using the protection analysis, and generally improving your battle performance by thinking more about your actions.

[SneedSellsFeed]

I regret to inform you that every single nation in the game has a vehicle at 6.3 or below that can penetrate the IS-4M’s entire frontal plate.

China, Type 63, 6.3.

Spoiler

Italy, M109, 6.0.

Spoiler

France, ELC bis, 6.0.

Spoiler

Sweden, Ikv 103, 4.0. Yes, 4.0.

Spoiler

Israel, M51, 6.0.

Spoiler

Germany, JPz-4-5, 6.3.

Spoiler

USA, M109G, 6.3.

Spoiler

USSR, ASU-85, 6.3.

Spoiler

Britain, Ratel 90, 6.3.

Spoiler

Japan, STA-A2, 6.3. (And A1)

Spoiler

Every. Single. One.
And this is penetrating it frontally through the thickest part of the hull.
Not from the side, in a flank. For a heavy tank.

[Ion_Protogen]

Now do the same thing without using HE or HEAT.

The Is-4m could maybe go down to 7.3, but any lower will not be balanced well.

[Zephoid]

And 90% of those vehicles are barely functional. Its like saying the Archer can pen 5.7 heavy tanks therefore those tanks should come down. Early HEAT also has awful postpen that will often fail to disable the IS4 on a ufp hit. The driver often eats the entire HEAT round unless incredibly precisely placed (low velocity HEAT shells plus short barrels… not the best sniping weapons).

[SneedSellsFeed]

No? I’ve used like 5 out of 10 of those vehicles and I liked them all?
You’re literally making things up to try and discredit the argument.

[SneedSellsFeed]

@Ion_Protogen

Now do the same thing without using HE or HEAT.

You are a very facetious person.

[Burgermankillz]

Downtiering t54 so they can club WWII tanks isnt a solution. We had it with the IS 3 and IS 6 at 7.0 and look where they are now.

[Zephoid]

Ratel is utter trash and often the joke of how ‘modern’ vehicles are still inferior to WW2 ones.

ELC BIS barely functions. 2 man crew and frontally weak to .50s. <1kg filler 750m/s round is awful and will nearly never OHK anything.

Ikv is at 4.0 for a good reason. Low velocity HEAT that has terrible postpen with armor that isn’t even rated to .50s.

ASU and JPZ are mediocre fixed arc tank destroyers that are going to be situationally effective. The same problem with almost all fixed arc vehicles, they can only cover certain areas of the map and are awful in the ~50% of maps that are urban. Not an effective counter to an IS4 if the IS4 is even remotely competent.

M109G is rolling dice even on a perfect hit. I’d NEVER want to encounter an IS4 frontally with it and the IS4 is one of the tanks most likely to survive a frontal hit.

Japan STAs are fine. But lets not act like Japan isn’t one of the least played nations.

That leaves the M51 that everyone knows is underteired but has no/poor lineups to back it up.

‘making up things’ lol. as if low teir HEAT hasn’t ALWAYS been considered poor and all of these vehicles sitting at low BRs with high pen are just there because the devs ‘forgot’ to upteir them. They are there for a reason: they are bad.

[ZendikarHaven]

Ikv is sad…

~400mm of pen at 4.0, but terrible postpen, speed, and gun handling. I soooo want to love the tank, (I loved the Ikv 72 at 1.7), but its just… not good.

[SneedSellsFeed]

You literally only have 1 game in it. Where you did nothing.
And you’re also a new player with a 0.5 K/D. What were you thinking even giving an opinion?

@Zephoid

Ikv is at 4.0 for a good reason. Low velocity HEAT

@ZendikarHaven

~400mm of pen at 4.0, but terrible postpen, speed, and gun handling.

It not only fires HEATFS and not HEAT, making most of your points moot.
But it has a high hp/t, a fast neutral traverse, and some of the best gun depression values in the game…

Why even try to argue with someone who actually knows what he’s talking about?
One of my most played tanks (in fact - the tank I have the MOST battles in) is the Ru 251, which fires 90mm HEATFS (same shell and platform as the JPz). I’ve played the Ikv 103, I’ve played the Ratel 90, I’ve played the M109s.

And your entire post @Zephoid is just pure lies. I’m surprised that you can just come to the forum and gaslight people that these tanks suck.

[ZendikarHaven]

The Ikv sucks.
Flat out.

Yes, you can punch through anything at your BR, but your gun handling is atrocious, so getting it on target is a pain, you can be .30caled from the front, and post-pen is bleh. Velocity is also pretty bad, and given you tend to fight stuff with APHE and WW2 crew layouts, you suffer heavily.

[SneedSellsFeed]

Again. You literally have ONE game in it.
And only 169 RB games IN TOTAL. WHY are you even giving your opinion?