80 replies to this topic

[MalikCarr]

nicodeimous, on Apr 26 2012 - 19:58, said:

Actual tank stats from there servers point out there are flaws in the logic of how the turret speed, rof etc make the KV a reasonable tank at its tier in its present configuration.  Its the MOST played tank in the game, it literally floats the tier 5 up to being the most played tier.  Why would that be if it was too slow and shot badly?  Its because the armor of the tank is worthy of most tier 6's and 7's [it holds up to fire from almost any tank well enough to be mistaken for a tier 6 or 7].  It's gun choices at top tier is ridiculously powerful [the 107 can do 300 damage in a shot - which is all of tier 3-4 tanks and most of the tier 5's it encounters] and [the 152 does 700 damage which is literally ALL of the tier 5's and some tier 6's].  Reload's hard to argue when one shots all you generally need.  The 107 is usually sported for higher tier matches where the tank still can do 200 or so damage to tier 7's and 8's [something almost all of the other tier 5's can't do].  It got nerfed, it needed to be nerfed [they have nerfed other tanks for far less reason].

People who think russian guns are OP ... really?  The guns not OP at tier 7 where it belonged.  At tier 5 its just an excuse to one shot people with little or no actual effort.  Plenty of tier 4 and 5 tanks have tried to aim and maneuver around a KV only to be nicked or hit some terrain object that slows em up enough to get derped.  Most KV's i have seen killed are due to there own perceived invincibility borne of the play style created by guns that one shot other players.  Even then the tank takes upwards of six or seven penetrating shells before it dies.  NO other Tier 5 can even remotely do that, weather that kind of fire and still deliver one shot kills. Is all academic now though the right thing has been done and the 152 has been moved to tier 6.  We will see how many people stay in there now tier appropriate KV's rather than move on to some other more advantageous tank [which is really the only reason the KV is the most played tank - it had the LARGEST advantages of any tank in the game].

• 7.2 KV no longer exists in 7.3. Your point is irrelevant. Next.
• This just in - 90 to 75mm of totally vertical armor is acceptable at Tier 6 and Tier 7. What game are you playing again?
• I kill KVs in my Churchill, which has a Tier 4 gun, because their superior turret armor can't survive being hit by a gun with 110mm penetration unless it hits the gun mantlet. I really don't know where you've been aiming, but I'd suggest finding somewhere else. The giant barn on top of the hull would be my suggestion.
• Reiterate point 1 and every other post I've made in this topic. I am proposing ZiS-6 be *REMOVED FROM KV-2*. Reading comprehension. It is good.
• Do you have some kind of special account where your Tier 5 heavy tanks get into Tier 5 battles regularly or something? On a given night mine would get into one about ~15% of the time the last time I played my KV (this was right after Patch 7.1's HE nerf). That being the case, the fact that you somehow believe the 152mm M-10 gives KV an overwhelming advantage that cannot possibly be overcome by anything short of an E-75 is really illuminating on your perspective of this being a game of gun damage, not a game of shell trajectories, ambushes, cover-based shooting situations, terrain advantages, team-based tactics, and weighing the risks of taking a shot from an enemy tank so your teammates can pound him into rubble.
• Compensating for a gun that takes 4 seconds to aim, has terrible ballistics, and knowing where to go after you shoot for your 30 seconds of reloading = no skill required.
• The ZiS-6 is a WORSE choice for high-tier matches because it cannot reliably penetrate things at reasonable combat distances. The horrendous accuracy is likely to cause your shell to deviate into a tank's tracks, doing no damage, or into a heavily armored portion of a tank, such as T29's turret. Your crosshairs were on the hull, but the shell went into the turret - it happens when your dispersion is 0.45m more than you'd think. Or maybe you wouldn't, since the damage is the only thing that matters.
• I'm sorry you drove into a rock when you tried to flank the KV. I'm sorry Wargaming hasn't made realistic driving physics more of a priority. I'm also sorry you didn't pay attention that that rock was there - you would have out-maneuvered the KV and beaten him then, just like I've done countless times.
• You have now betrayed your point that you believe the 152mm was only suitable for Tier 6 because at that point many more battle situations will arrive where that tank can't even be effectively employed. The small tanks must be protected from a big mean gun that might hit them, that's what I'm getting from your argument. It was never about the ZiS-6, it was about the fact that getting shot by a large-caliber tank gun hurts and that that's not nice. There's this game called Team Fortress 2 that might be more to your liking if that's your attitude.

I'm done discussing this matter with you. A tank whose sole redeeming quality is its gun should not be placed into a tier higher than that gun (7.2 152mm M-10 is a T5 gun) just because you got hit by one of its shells. Instead of whinging about how it can hurt your tank, why don't you NOT GET HIT BY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Getting hit by shells: Russian bias.

[nicodeimous]

There's no anti-russian bias on this tank, if the game is an arcade sim then it should have balanced with the other nations tanks [ie they should have had an equally powerful tank] ... if its a historically accurate tank sim then the tanks many historically known issues should have been in the game and would have balanced it out as unplayable in most encounters [as it was in real life].  There are few tanks in the game that so speak towards a bias as the KV in this game.  It should have been on the same tier as the Tiger all along, both for historical reasons and for balance reasons.  It wasn't and so has skewed the game accordingly. My counter points are as follows;

1. Not even comparing stats with you, the tank was and is a horrible failure in real life.  It gets god statues here because the game does not take into account so many variables that effected the tank that its mind numbing.  From a stat and balance point of view if you give one nation a 700 damage [100 pen] derp gun then give all the others one.  Otherwise find a reasonable way to balance said gun - they didn't and the stats prove that by player choices.

2. Really?  Your surprised that the one shot king is played more than any other tank?  Its LITERALLY the only reason most people keep the tank [now they get a free tank too with the patch].  Its hard as hell to kill up close whether not aiming or not and its got a god gun as a bonus ... talk about blinders ...

3. Yeppers in 7.3 you'll have to actually plan and fire more than once to get those high kill totals, thanks for joining the rest of us players.

4. Pen of 100 isn't poor at all for a gun that does 700 damage on a pen and 400 or so if it fails to pen.  Reload time is irrelevant if the common opponent cant even pen you, its just time to wait while they ineffectively aim at spots that are supposed to be weak but aren't.  Then bam there dead ... reload goes quick when your not really in danger.

5. If they were that easy to deal with they wouldn't have the server stats they have, facts prove your wrong.  The dispersion is compensated for by kv players taking more time to aim, why do they have that time?  because there armored enough to ignore most tier 3-4 tanks and a good many tier 5's long enough to get the shot off.  We have all seen this at one point or another.

6. If you can't kill a kv in close range combat your unskilled, is that your elitist stance?  Perhaps its because your pretty much ANY tier 4 trying to fight it, or you a Tier 5who found the kv with a 107 ... no so slow on the kill then.  Worse still any of the above tend to bounce more than you seem to think they do when firing on the KV.

7. The gun it's self should never have been on that tier and they know it [the minor variants up the tree are so you don't get the 152's for free on the su-8 or su-152 after getting the go to KV tank].

But i tire of your KV love and will move on

[nicodeimous]

Point two [of your counter points] ... lol so funny I had to respond ... every German Tier 6 and 7 tank man ... wow ... go read the German forums man ... really ...

Oh I see now, just looked at your profile history ... sorry man they messed with the Russian line.  From your all Russian progression I can see why a myopic point of view would be present.  Perhaps you should branch out and play other nationalities and get a much more fair view of the game.  As this point I am done arguing with an obviously Russian biased player.  Clipped a link to your tank profile so others can see where your pov comes from.

[MalikCarr]

nicodeimous, on Apr 26 2012 - 20:25, said:

Point two ... lol so funny I had to respond ... every German Tier 6 and 7 tank man ... wow ... go read the German forums man ... really ...

You said you've "tired" of me. Go away.

EDIT: Why are you still here?

[DRV2M18]

nicodeimous, on Apr 26 2012 - 19:37, said:

<snip>No tank should be so solidly top of its tier, nor should a tank be literally the go to choice for winning [credit grinding too] for a tier spread.  The KV has been that tank for a long time, we all know it and argue as you might this way and that we all know it was extremely unbalanced and shouldn't have been at the tier it is as it was. <snip>

It deserves to be the KING of Tier 5. It was in 1941 historically. With the derp and without; I have no issue with this (as I tend to lean historical more that the "fantasy" the game has encouraged.)

The Tiger should be afforded the same leniency. Yes the IS line was created to counter the Tiger, and thus beget the technology / tactical experiments and thus leading to the changes to get to the MBT concept.

As for the KV2 to tier 6.... once again fantasy numbers. The tank should be slower, less maneuverable and slower rate of fire "gimping" it to tier 5 not buffing to tier 6 (once again my vote for historical). The challenge of a "derp you if you don't pay attention" tank to oppose the maneuverability most of the other should remain "in the game". It remaining at Tier 5 and getting the +1 level of MM is deserved.

Won't happen, just my .02

[MalikCarr]

DRV2M18, on Apr 26 2012 - 20:40, said:

It deserves to be the KING of Tier 5. It was in 1941 historically. With the derp and without; I have no issue with this (as I tend to lean historical more that the "fantasy" the game has encouraged.)

The Tiger should be afforded the same leniency. Yes the IS line was created to counter the Tiger, and thus beget the technology / tactical experiments and thus leading to the changes to get to the MBT concept.

As for the KV2 to tier 6.... once again fantasy numbers. The tank should be slower, less maneuverable and slower rate of fire "gimping" it to tier 5 not buffing to tier 6 (once again my vote for historical). The challenge of a "derp you if you don't pay attention" tank to oppose the maneuverability most of the other should remain "in the game". It remaining at Tier 5 and getting the +1 level of MM is deserved.

Won't happen, just my .02

If you look at previous posts (before things devolved into a troll-fest - thanks, nicodeimous; don't you have some rats to lead?) they've buffed KV-2 quite a bit to make it a Tier 6. I think this is stupid. Why not unbuff it and keep it right where it is? That includes removing the ZiS-6, since MOST PEOPLE believe that's why that tank is so supposedly OP at Tier 5.

As it is now, KV-2 shoots faster than T-150, which has a KV-220/KV-3 turret on it. That in and of itself is a laughable thing - that turret was created to facilitate easier handling of the very long 107mm shells which proved horribly unwieldy inside the tall but horizontally cramped turret of KV-2. I imagine this was done purely to give a reason for people to use KV-2 in the first place - something they surely wouldn't have needed to do if the derpgun was so incredibly powerful that it wins matches by itself.

[nicodeimous]

@DRV2M18 - Edited my post seems I was off on the year, 1941 the 76 armed KV-1 was the king of heavies [76mm standard barrel though only].  In game that would make it the silver version of the Matilda though, and not likely to be the king of Tier 5 at all.  Seems the KV-IS and the Tiger I are the same year though, so it would make since at Tier 6 then.  The KV-2 it seems had been around in extremely limited numbers as of 1941, the KV having been around since 1939.  From a balancing perspective though the firepower of the 152 and 107 would have made the KV-2 a good candidate for Tier 7 game wise [not historically].

1942, the Tiger was king ... and yet it wasn't put in the game as Tier 5.  If they both had been Tier 7's or BOTH tier 5's it would have shown a balanced historical perspective.  Historically the KV was a middle of the road tank, the 76 model is the most common and widely used version of it.  The 152 model had numerous turret and transmission [suspension issues] that in most field encounters it was skirted completely and rendered ineffective.  Again though in 1942 there was only one king of the heavies and it wasn't the KV.  The IS though a good tank came much latter than the Tiger and was more or less a Tiger II counter [It was better historically than the Tiger 2].

Personally the KV-2 shouldn't have been included in the game at all, instead leaving the SU-152 to be the rude shock it actually was historically and relegating the KV to what it was historically as a strong line tank that could be depended on to break hard points with support. I think the new KV-1 will better represent this, the KV-2's feeding off lower tier 3-4's is what I think there trying to circumvent by moving it up a tier.  As to fantasy tanks ... there are sooooooo many of them in the game it makes a historian cry inside.  For me as a historian and tank nerd it was a shock really to see so many vk's, t's and a's [prototypes] among the tree's.  I had initially hoped for real tanks and progression through them, then as I got on in play I encountered more and more fantasy ... so after awhile I gave up for the most part and centered on those things obviously unbalanced from a play perspective.

Personally an off topic fantasy tank that bugs me [admittedly I play it] is the Matilda ... it had a 40mm [2 pdr] gun in real life and the ring was too small to accommodate anything larger ... yet in game it has a 76mm.  The valentine is in game with a 47mm yet the most common variant used a 57mm ... the list goes on and on.  Noticed the M18 in the name, that's a tank that got messed over in game in the opposite direction of the KV its down played from its actual capabilities to shoe horn it into the game.

I see your point in regards to the KV-2 and if an MM would have reduced the feeding on low tiers I am sure it would have been acceptable, either way its not going to see many small munchies or at least not as many as it did.  Its performance stats in game are pretty much all fantasy any hows as it never did so well in real life in any balanced review of its operational history.

[MalikCarr]

nicodeimous, on Apr 26 2012 - 21:01, said:

@DRV2M18

1941, the Tiger was king ... and yet it wasn't put in the game as Tier 5.  If they both had been Tier 7's or BOTH tier 5's it would have shown a balanced historical perspective.  Historically the KV was a middle of the road tank, the 76 model is the most common and widely used version of it.  The 152 model had numerous turret and transmission [suspension issues] that in most field encounters it was skirted completely and rendered ineffective.  Again though in 1941 there was only one king of the heavies and it wasn't the KV.  The IS though a good tank came much latter than the Tiger and was more or less a Tiger II counter [It was better historically than the Tiger 2].

Personally the KV-2 shouldn't have been included in the game at all, instead leaving the SU-152 to be the rude shock it actually was historically and relegating the KV to what it was historically as a strong line tank that could be depended on to break hard points with support. I think the new KV-1 will better represent this, the KV-2's feeding off lower tier 3-4's is what I think there trying to circumvent by moving it up a tier.  As to fantasy tanks ... there are sooooooo many of them in the game it makes a historian cry inside.  For me as a historian and tank nerd it was a shock really to see so many vk's, t's and a's [prototypes] among the tree's.  I had initially hoped for real tanks and progression through them, then as I got on in play I encountered more and more fantasy ... so after awhile I gave up for the most part and centered on those things obviously unbalanced from a play perspective.

Personally an off topic fantasy tank that bugs me [admittedly I play it] is the Matilda ... it had a 40mm [2 pdr] gun in real life and the ring was too small to accommodate anything larger ... yet in game it has a 76mm.  The valentine is in game with a 47mm yet the most common variant used a 57mm ... the list goes on and on.  Noticed the M18 in the name, that's a tank that got messed over in game in the opposite direction of the KV its down played from its actual capabilities to shoe horn it into the game.

I see your point in regards to the KV-2 and if an MM would have reduced the feeding on low tiers I am sure it would have been acceptable, either way its not going to see many small munchies or at least not as many as it did.  Its performance stats in game are pretty much all fantasy any hows as it never did so well in real life in any balanced review of its operational history.

• I thought you'd 'tired' of this topic. You still linger. Why.
• My personal affection for KV-2, aka "the dreadnought" from Zaloga's books, is why I started playing WoT in the first place. Not having such an iconic vehicle from the early days of the Eastern Front would have been even more of an insult than this nonsense now that Tier 6 KV-2 is a fast-firing tank hunter with crap armor. The thing is absolutely emblematic of those very, very bad days where tanks often went into battle still with patriotic slogans graffiti'd on the side of the turret (this was supposed to be cleaned off before combat, often it didn't happen though). It also has a very mean and prototypically "prewar Soviet" look to it, compared to the sleek and aggressive IS tanks that capped the war off.
• Again, you reference SU-152. Again, you make some kind of allegory that M-10 and ML-20S are at all relevant to one another. I've looked up your tank profile as well - you're no noob, not by a long shot. And yet, somehow, you make these accusations about bore diameter and alpha damage like they're the only thing that matters. Did you engage a pubbie mode just to argue with me or some such foolishness? It's utterly asinine to even lump KV-2 and SU-152 together in the first place.
• What part about "KV feeding off lower tiers" do you find so god damn repugnant, lingerer? Is that somehow worse than Tiger IIs feeding off T6 KV-3s? Or T110E5s feeding off T20s? The fact that, if you aimed well, and if the RNG didn't screw you, and if your enemy was an idiot, and the matchmaker was cooperating (it rarely does), you could blow away a weaker tank in one shot with the derp KV was a singularly rewarding thing because, contrary to your ridiculous and factually incorrect assertions, THAT WASN'T EASY TO DO. In the fantasy world you're suggesting exists, KV somehow just puts its crosshairs over the enemy Panzer III and pulls the trigger and Panzer III is annihilated - there's no intervening factors, no variables at work here. The reticle doesn't have to spend 4 seconds closing, nor does the KV driver have to compensate for the incredibly slow, almost rainbow-like trajectory of the massive 152mm derp shell. Likewise, that Panzer III is most assuredly at such a range that the reticle isn't twice the size of his tank when it's fully closed, and he's also certainly not using his 5cm KwK 39 to throw your aim off while maneuvering to get in closer or buy time for someone with a bigger gun to appear. Especially in fluid battle situations, or tactical scenarios where you didn't have something to immediately hide behind. For the entire year that KV-2 saw combat in Barbarossa, "feeding off low-tiers" was all it actually did. Yet, because of the pretentious and entitled attitude towards how tanks like that handle, by you and yours, Wargaming now gives us a KV-2 that will never see tanks that it actually beat on, but instead will have a fast-firing gun with decent penetration that can eat through the sides of Panthers and Tiger Is. What god damn sense does that make?

Honestly. What sense?

[PredalienPlush]

MalikCarr, on Apr 26 2012 - 08:52, said:

EDIT: Damn, bring on the haters. Why don't you read the whole post before you -1? Or, you could still -1 it anyway after you've read it, but that just proves you're bad@tanks. http://forum.worldof...Smile_great.gif

I'm cross-posting this with a post on the feedback thread to try and gin up more conversation on the matter.

---

KV-2 at Tier 6.

I'm not really sure why this is. Most would say that the 107mm ZiS-6 is way too much gun for Tier 5. I would argue that KV gets into Tier 5 battles so rarely in the first place that that's basically a non-issue, but let's just assume that's why it can't be a Tier 5.

Now, I am aware that ZiS-6 was tested in a KV-2 (under the designation F-39) and was functional but the long length of the shells made it difficult to load in the KV-2's turret, which is why KV-3 was to be equipped with a much longer one. But, this *was* a historical configuration, even if only for testing.

That being the case, we now have T-150 as a Tier 6 tank whose top gun is 107mm ZiS-6. This tank is already being fairly maligned because at Tier 6 107mm ZiS-6 really isn't that great in the first place (I would much rather be using 100mm D-10T, and I did in fact use this gun the entire time I had my KV-3), even in a tank that can move better.

So, even though most tanks in WoT are equipped with guns that were only tested on them (e.g. 85mm F-30 and 57mm ZiS-4 on T-28), wouldn't it be fair to remove ZiS-6 from KV-2 and keep it at Tier 5?

Compared to T-150, KV-2's only extra ability comes from the fact that it can equip the 152mm M-10 (the famous derpgun), which WoT considers to be a Tier V gun anyway. As it is, the only reason you'd even play KV-2 anyway is for that gun, since those of you who wanted to use ZiS-6 would be just as well off playing T-150 which is more or less better in just about every other way. This would essentially remove the only reason for KV-2 to be a Tier 6 tank, as I believe most level-headed tankers would think the absurdly powerful but also absurdly inaccurate and absurdly slow aiming/loading 152mm M-10 is just fine at Tier 5.

whenever you get a t5 battle its ALLWAYS with kv-2s on the top, and even if they got bottom of the list games most of the time, you say its fair cause they need a great gun to cope, but why dont the other t5 tanks get a great t7 jesus-gun to cope as well? oh it's because they're not glorious soviet armour, comrade! also why dont they fix the MM?

[MalikCarr]

PredalienPlush, on Apr 26 2012 - 21:20, said:

whenever you get a t5 battle its ALLWAYS with kv-2s on the top, and even if they got bottom of the list games most of the time, you say its fair cause they need a great gun to cope, but why dont the other t5 tanks get a great t7 jesus-gun to cope as well? oh it's because they're not glorious soviet armour, comrade! also why dont they fix the MM?

7.2 KV NO LONGER EXISTS IN 7.3


107mm ZIS-6 IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS TOPIC


THANK YOU

[ctlbulldg06]

SourKraut01, on Apr 26 2012 - 13:38, said:

If you were to "expand" the tech tree (due to T6 being filled) to what it would really look like, then the KV-2 is a off the side tech tree tank. You can actually bypass it if you want to. So the only reasons to research the KV-2 is this:

1) To play the 152mm Derp.
2) Skip to T6 Arty with the S-51.

Granted that most of us players already have the KV fully researched, but for future players, this makes sense. I don't like the 152mm that much and I mostly use the 107mm (Due to high Tier MM), so I plan on keeping the KV-1, T-150 and selling the KV-2 and when I research the KV-4, I'll sell the KV-3. I still have the IS-3 (Don't have the IS-4) so I can research the IS-8.

^ This is exactly my plan.

[MalikCarr]

ctlbulldg06, on Apr 26 2012 - 21:22, said:

^ This is exactly my plan.

And this is what they SHOULD do with it. Make it a side branch from KV-1. It can use the 122mm U-11 or 152mm M-10. It upgrades to the S-51. It shares engine and radio modules with KV-1. It has two turrets. That's it.

If you really insisted, you could remove the preferential tiering (i.e. max battle tier reduced by 1) that other T5 heavy tanks will get now to compensate that it has such a singularly huge gun, but that would be all.

But oh no. Now we have to have "machine gun ZiS-6" because there's no other reason to play that awkward and poorly-handling SPG-with-a-turret at Tier 6. Otherwise, why would they so significantly buff the entire reason why KV was supposedly OP at Tier 5?

"KV with finger of death is OP"

"OK we'll make it a tier higher. Also finger of death is now better"

This logic doesn't make sense.

[nicodeimous]

One I was responding to DVR2M18

Two it seems to really anger you that I make the points I do and so me and my rats chose to hang out for a bit. [The rat reference was kind of cool though, few people get the name].

Three My higher tier tanks do well enough when I play them, more importantly they play balanced to there own tiers.  Yes they get mauled by higher tiers [as they should be], but never killed in one hit.  They tend to deal some before the final moments, my tier 8's see there fair share of tier 10 fights.  But again they aren't killed in one hit.  That's the issue at hand to me with the KV, its one hit from tier 6 to tier 3 and that's an issue from game play perspective

The KV-1 was iconic, the KV-2 was a joke in real life.  Novels and rare accounts aside it did very poorly in real combat.  The KV-1's though checkered in its combat history was at least iconic and representative of a change in armor philosophy in the Russian design bureaus.  A much more iconic and often over looked tank from the Russian mind was the T-34 which is WoT is just a bump in the player road.  That tank redefined how the world looked at tank design and to this day is influential to modern armored warfare [which the KV-1 more or less isn't].  Design wise the KV-1 shares a lot with the Russian / German efforts of the 30's the hull design is very similar to that used by German tanks too, semi flat lower hull, sharp slant upper glacius with a near flat upper hull plate ... not sleek at all.  That armor placement was found to be viably deficient in latter encounters throughout the war and was why the T-34 and its progeny went on to dominate over other tank designs.  T-34's remained in combat all the way through the Korean war and into the Vietnam war, where the IS family was paraded about but never saw meaningful combat.  When I started play the T-34 was one of the tanks I wanted to drive, it the PZ-4, Stuart, Lee and Tiger.  I was sad to see how generally useless all the classic tanks of WW2 were in the game and appalled at how strong the KV-2 was represented in the game as compared to the rest of its historical brethren.

In real combat the KV-2 seldom scored hits directly on tanks, operational histories are out there for you to read.  The tank had issues with crank and gear traverse, the turret was unbalanced and would bind to the ring on slight elevation changes [ie hills], the high silhouette of the turret got it hit and commonly penetrated by PZ4's and Stug's which was often a fatal hit.  "When production shifted to the Ural Mountains 'Tankograd' complex, the KV-2 was dropped. While impressive on paper, it had been designed as a slow-moving bunker-buster. It was less useful in highly mobile, fluid warfare that developed in World War II. The turret was so heavy it was difficult to traverse on non-level terrain, and it was expensive to produce. Only about 300 KV-2s were made, all in 1940-41, making it one of the rarer Soviet tanks. Many KV-2s were later converted into KV-1s." taken from sources about the KV family.  The few that were in operation Barbarossa would have seen very limited combat and largely and historically made very little impact on anything meaningful ... hence they would be "down graded" to KV-1's to be useful again.

[MalikCarr]

nicodeimous, on Apr 26 2012 - 21:38, said:

One I was responding to DVR2M18

Two it seems to really anger you that I make the points I do and so me and my rats chose to hang out for a bit. [The rat reference was kind of cool though, few people get the name].

Three My higher tier tanks do well enough when I play them, more importantly they play balanced to there own tiers.  Yes they get mauled by higher tiers [as they should be], but never killed in one hit.  They tend to deal some before the final moments, my tier 8's see there fair share of tier 10 fights.  But again they aren't killed in one hit.  That's the issue at hand to me with the KV, its one hit from tier 6 to tier 3 and that's an issue from game play perspective

The KV-1 was iconic, the KV-2 was a joke in real life.  Novels and rare accounts aside it did very poorly in real combat.  The KV-1's though checkered in its combat history was at least iconic and representative of a change in armor philosophy in the Russian design bureaus.  A much more iconic and often over looked tank from the Russian mind was the T-34 which is WoT is just a bump in the player road.  That tank redefined how the world looked at tank design and to this day is influential to modern armored warfare [which the KV-1 more or less isn't].  Design wise the KV-1 shares a lot with the Russian / German efforts of the 30's the hull design is very similar to that used by German tanks too, semi flat lower hull, sharp slant upper glacius with a near flat upper hull plate ... not sleek at all.  That armor placement was found to be viably deficient in latter encounters throughout the war and was why the T-34 and its progeny went on to dominate over other tank designs.  T-34's remained in combat all the way through the Korean war and into the Vietnam war, where the IS family was paraded about but never saw meaningful combat.  When I started play the T-34 was one of the tanks I wanted to drive, it the PZ-4, Stuart, Lee and Tiger.  I was sad to see how generally useless all the classic tanks of WW2 were in the game and appalled at how strong the KV-2 was represented in the game as compared to the rest of its historical brethren.

In real combat the KV-2 seldom scored hits directly on tanks, operational histories are out there for you to read.  The tank had issues with crank and gear traverse, the turret was unbalanced and would bind to the ring on slight elevation changes [ie hills], the high silhouette of the turret got it hit and commonly penetrated by PZ4's and Stug's which was often a fatal hit.  "When production shifted to the Ural Mountains 'Tankograd' complex, the KV-2 was dropped. While impressive on paper, it had been designed as a slow-moving bunker-buster. It was less useful in highly mobile, fluid warfare that developed in World War II. The turret was so heavy it was difficult to traverse on non-level terrain, and it was expensive to produce. Only about 300 KV-2s were made, all in 1940-41, making it one of the rarer Soviet tanks. Many KV-2s were later converted into KV-1s." taken from sources about the KV family.  The few that were in operation Barbarossa would have seen very limited combat and largely and historically made very little impact on anything meaningful ... hence they would be "down graded" to KV-1's to be useful again.

All well said and well researched points that belies someone with a good understanding of tanks outside this game.

Why couldn't you be this forward and reasonable when discussing gun figures instead of you and yours downvoting every post I made in my own topic? You talk about neg rep and yet you've knocked practically a third of mine off in one thread because you don't like a suggestion I've made.

[nicodeimous]

Too me the MM would be more able to deal with tanks like the KV-2 if it took with average of all "installed" modules on the tank and floated it to the appropriate Tier.  Then all they need do to change a tanks tier weight is change the modules given tier itself.  People could play with "under geared" more historically accurate tanks and get lower matches while those looking to move up or grind out fast could use the full upgrades and fight heavier tier weight matches.  Tanks like the whole lower french tree wouldn't be so hard on players and the M5, Leopard and A-20 would get so heavily MM over matched.  It would give more control to players too over what type of matches they could get.  Just an idea, and possibly impractical to implement ... but it would have helped this whole problem from the beginning.

[Springfield45]

Holy ****, Mr. Carr!  You have really got to get out some.   Check out the countryside.  Breathe some fresh air.
Stop daydreaming about Stalin in fishnet stockings and play a non Soviet tank!  (Wow.  Not even a single SPG?)
Try a German tank.  You just may like it.  http://forum.worldoftanks.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Smile-playing.gif
How about a French tank?  They can be quite a bit of fun!  http://forum.worldoftanks.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Smile-izmena.gif
You could even get drunk and try an American tank!  http://forum.worldoftanks.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Smile_great.gif
I am bad at tanks, but at least I enjoy the game enough to have driven 105 different tanks so far.  (Six more unlocked and trying to earn the credits to purchase.)  http://forum.worldoftanks.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Smile_honoring.gif

[nicodeimous]

I haven't down voted you at all, never really do down vote anyone but the people who post topics that can be found by searching ... now them lazies get a neg every time.

Your points are yours and thus valid to be voiced, no need to neg people over valid opinions, I promise you no neg came from me.

I love "collecting" the tanks ... and have 36 in garage atm.  Some are complete junk, but were historically relevant to a point in WW2 history [like the lee].  I try and avoid having any prototypes in garage and the few I have is to get to a tank that really did exist.  The present tree forces me through a few proto tanks and that's something I have to deal with.  Finally got my Tiger 2 for instance and now am done with the German heavy line, working on the soviet line to get the IS then on to others   The tank models them selves are worthy of praise, and are for an old model builder like me - fun to see moving around.

I have dabbled in every tree to better get an experience of the game as a whole.  To me the Tier 5's are the main interest point as that tier contains most of the historical tanks of note in the war.  Tier's 2-5 more or less, some select Tier 6-7's and precious few tier 8-10's.

[dienve]

thejoker91, on Apr 26 2012 - 14:35, said:

Even withouth the 107, the derp had no place in tier 5. It was just too much damage. I mean, you could even use derp AP rounds since nothing in tier 5 has a front hull capable of bouncing them effectively.

spall liner...survive the initial shot then murder it on reload...    

[MalikCarr]

nicodeimous, on Apr 26 2012 - 21:46, said:

I haven't down voted you at all, never really do down vote anyone but the people who post topics that can be found by searching ... now them lazies get a neg every time.

Your points are yours and thus valid to be voiced, no need to neg people over valid opinions, I promise you no neg came from me.

I've never even HAD a topic with -8 reputation before, much less with -4 to -6 on every one of my posts on the first page, and I've made some pretty bad topics in my time. If you had nothing to do with that, why is it that the landslide of -1's started right after you made a crass angle on my perspectives for the guns? http://forum.worldof...ile_sceptic.gif

nicodeimous, on Apr 26 2012 - 21:45, said:

Too me the MM would be more able to deal with tanks like the KV-2 if it took with average of all "installed" modules on the tank and floated it to the appropriate Tier.  Then all they need do to change a tanks tier weight is change the modules given tier itself.  People could play with "under geared" more historically accurate tanks and get lower matches while those looking to move up or grind out fast could use the full upgrades and fight heavier tier weight matches.  Tanks like the whole lower french tree wouldn't be so hard on players and the M5, Leopard and A-20 would get so heavily MM over matched.  It would give more control to players too over what type of matches they could get.  Just an idea, and possibly impractical to implement ... but it would have helped this whole problem from the beginning.

Yeah, not going to happen. WG has a "match normalization" system tested that would cause your tanks to go into a fairly average dispersion of games through its tier range (e.g. a series of high and low rankings, or mostly mid-list matches, or whatever else it deemed prudent at the time) but this apparently isn't being employed because there's no need - MM is working as intended. So any topic of how a tank would be if it actually got decent tiering ought to be a non-topic because we all know that just doesn't happen.

Now, if you actually wanted to discuss KV-2 in a meaningful way, you should be quite well informed that that thing was a terror to fight - when it wasn't getting stuck in ditches, tipping over because of the absurd height/mass of its turret, running out of ammunition, or spectacularly exploding when its propellant charges were set off by a hit from an 8.8cm FlaK 36. Likewise, the enormous 152mm M-10 could utterly demolish any German tank in 1941 with a direct hit - which were few and far between as KV-2's ponderous design was much better suited to fighting bunkers than tanks. That was its intention, after all.

Because Wargaming decided to make the tested-only 107mm ZiS-6 an option for an otherwise perfectly made Tier 5 tank, the KV becomes a very powerful opponent that can ruin lesser tanks with a fair amount of ease. You say the derp requires no skill to wax smaller players - I say the inverse is true. If you got into a top-tier match, rare as that was, and you had the M-10 instead of the ZiS-6, you're hurting yourself. One shot, if it actually hits, annihilates a Tier 3 tank and possibly a Tier 4 as well, and will cripple a Tier 5. You're then reloading for the next 30 seconds, and that's if your shot actually connected on the first place. Try hitting a moving target with that bomb-thrower. Seriously, try it. Meanwhile, ZiS-6's higher rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity, better accuracy, faster aim time, and 167mm penetration is plenty good for smashing those same poor victims with much more reliability and at greater distances and arguably in a faster overall pace too. Two or three KVs, all armed with ZiS-6, can dismantle any other tank in a Tier 5 match in one salvo. Two or three KVs all armed with the derp can annihilate any Tier 5 tank in one salvo, and then be destroyed in kind by the surviving enemy tanks while they all reload.

With all that on the table, I don't understand why you find KV-2 in its historic configuration somehow more objectionable than the outright fabrication WG is creating for the Tier 6 version? The tank is a complete myth now.

Only one tank was tested with ZiS-6.

It was considered too ungainly to use.

Now there's more of a reason than ever to use that gun. And you're somehow okay with this? http://forum.worldof.../facepalmic.gif

[nicodeimous]

Perhaps the negs came as people were reading and they sided with one argument over the other.  I got neg-ed first if you recall ... and that I expected to happen.  Again friend me  if you want, I don't neg people for there point of view.  Neg is for straight up dumb things that should never have gotten posted like "Whats up with all these Type 59" posts etc.  We had a discussion and from my point of view that's what it was - Point and Counter Point.

On the MM ... lets just say we all know what is and isn't going to happen.  I post dreams here and there ... that's all they are dreams.  It's the necessary evil we all deal with in game, pray for those lost souls in the A-20, M5, Leopard and other tanks deemed scouts by the MM [AMX40 anyone].

The thing about in the right conditions it being a terror is that it never really got those moments out side isolated events [novelized and exaggerated].  Many of these tanks were simply over run by infantry or other more mobile field elements and knocked out by placed charges or other crude debilitating attacks.  Once tracked or ringed the tank was simply avoided and skipped completely ... leaving the crew to abandon it before some bored airplane found it.  Like I said it was a joke in the tank family and historians know that.  It LOOKS mean though and on paper should have been.  Now as to why I don't like it in game, well that's obviously from the unbalanced nature of its placement in the game [we have differing opinions on this no need to rehash them].  As to fictional tanks ... like I said earlier too many to go over here.  As a player of a free game I have to set a line at what I can and can't tolerate for the sake of enjoying the game.  Most of the proto's aren't out of balance with the set tiers and so tolerable.  I am expecting the "buffed" KV-2 to fit nicer into tier 6 than it did in tier 5 ... play will tell though.  Personally its just a tank that's going to get sold on patch day, I fully intend to keep the KV-1 [76 long] equipped in my garage though because its relevant to my way of collecting and playing.

Players who want the old KV-2 will keep there's and we will see them on the field.  Its historical configuration on paper belies its actual combat history, as the game does not reflect this the tank is in effect fantasy as it is now.  For balance it should have been Tier 6 with the Tiger at the same tier ... accurate medium hitter with inaccurate hard hitter.  But that's not how the dev's played it out and thus we are here now

Again send me a friend request, there's no hard feelings and I welcome conversations.