Whatever you say. It seems you are the one saying “skill issue” first, and when it turns out you are not skilled enough, and really rely on the paid advantage to win, you start crying. You still haven’t answered about the difference of your stats between pack tigers and tech tree tigers.
I have already given my test results, and discussed them with my friends. They agree that this is indeed p2w, and the thing is even a bit worse than Italian/Swedish premium 75mm cannon Shermans.
By the way, all these goes the same for KV-1s when facing Pz4, Turm III or M10. And yet, tanks like KV-1E is absolute biased. In a downtier, KV-1 (Zis-5) could be one man army.
Still, I am talking about pack tigers. The tech tree Tigers need to angle so much that their maneuver become limited(so that you may have enough angle). However, the pack tigers don’t. You can also see it as the effectiveness of angle.
I have edited the main post, and wrote a slight bit of the conclusion. I do recommend you ask a friend to help you perform this test.
I would say that this is more than the L2A5 and L2A6 difference. It’s like the difference between M4 (at 3.7) and Italian/Swedish premium Sherman.
I love how people pretend that Tigers are literally invincible when angled against their contemporaries, and that therefore they should be upped in BR until they face even more Cold War HEATFS and ATGMs on faster or/and stronger machines, as well as postwar Super-Heavies that would wipe them down (like many 6.7-7.0s already do)…
When the truth is, many of its contemporary guns can go through it easily, sometimes even when angled. French 75s, 77s, 85s, 90s, 100s, 122s…
The Tigers are perfectly fine where they are. Just because their armor sometimes works against uptiered smaller guns when perfectly angled and positioned it does not mean they should be up-br’d until their armor is rendered entirely pointless by everything they face. It’s a HEAVY tank, for God’s sake! It’s suppossed to be able to rely on its armor at least to SOME degree against SOME of its counterparts.
And no, I don’t think they should go lower either, so I hope no one comes with the “hurr durr Tiger to 2.7 Germany suffers Main noob” and all those kinds of comments that always come whenever someone says that Tigers are fine where they currently are.
The pack tigers are not. I already wrote about some test in custom battle and similar in-game experience. And I did not ask for any BR change of any Tech tree Tigers.
If “it’s a skilled player we are talking about”, what about having a skilled player in the pack tiger too? With enough skills you should know how to have enough angle to protect yourself while moving forward, just like skilled players do in a KV-1 in the face of Pz4s. And similar to what I say about Sherman I Composito, Sherman III/IV and KV-1E, I’d say that pack Tigers are p2w.
That sounds like a good reason to place Jagdtiger at 6.3, due to long reload and “blah blah just pen from the flank”.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Just stop talking and check it out. Perform the test with your friend, and draw your own conclusion. So far, I haven’t really seen anyone coming to me and say “hey I have tested it, and I still believe that this doesn’t change the thing, because…” If anyone really did this, I would be happy to discuss with him. Unfortunately, no one here really care about it.
Tiger I is perfectly killable by its contemporaries- sometimes, even angled. Tiger I does not need to face Postwar Super-Heavies or faster and stronger early Cold War MBTs/Light Tanks with HEATFS; its real, contemporary counterparts found on its own current BR ranges are more than enough already.
Just admit that people improve over time so they get better stats on recent vehicles. I dont think logs are p2w advantage that gives you 3 k/d.
Speaking of suggestion, I disagree because that extra protection doesnt change tigers survivability much. Jumbo will still go for cupola, t34-85 and long barrel guys for hull.
