80 replies to this topic

[SocialFlaws]

Clearly no one agrees with you. You are making yourself look foolish.

[MalikCarr]

SocialFlaws, on Apr 27 2012 - 03:19, said:

Clearly no one agrees with you. You are making yourself look foolish.

I will not be intimidated by people unleashing a wave of repressed emotion about being derped at low-tier battles. It reinforces the knee-jerk reaction that gun alpha is the only indicator of whether or not a tank is "good" in this game and I am against this.

I mean, if that were true, E-100 would be the most popular Tier X in the game. And last I saw, most people hate it... though I think that has more to do with the fact that WG has screwed around with its design in an unfair way.

You have a Panzer III/IV with KwK 40, he's got a KV with 152mm M-10. Don't cower behind a rock and hope the bad man goes away - take some damn responsibility and kill the thing. It can't turn worth a shit and any Tier 5 tank - and many Tier 4 ones too! - can puncture its flat turret with comparable ease. You have a much better chance of killing the "OP" KV than your Panther II ever will at killing the OP IS-4 (let's not talk about that one though... more blood-boiling all around).

thejoker91, on Apr 27 2012 - 02:22, said:

Hummelsdorf? Never heard of it, and the times I have seen arty doing something can be counted with my fingers. 9 out of 10 times I have seen them died very early in the match.

Lets see, Pz IV vs KV, can we take equally skilled drivers or is that assuming too much for you?

Still bitter, I see. But go ahead.

thejoker91, on Apr 27 2012 - 02:22, said:

Ruinberg: Ill take the KV thank you, more dmg, close encounters, team can cover reload, dead tanks can fight back and Id rather have a good chance of one shot kills. Lets not even mention the KV can actually damage every tank it sees while the PZ IV is already screwed against tier 7 since it needs to be on the open to take advantage of its higher RoF.
Himmelsdorf: see above.
El halluf: PZ IV.
Komarin: Either. KV can keep middle island safe, PZ IV can snipe.
Cliffs: KV, fighting is cliff is really close combat.
Province: Either. KV can hold the low ground if the enemy decides to push, PZ IV can snipe from above.
Abbey: either, both have roles here.
Lakeville: see abbey.
Sand river: PZ IV withouth question.
Prokhorovka: PZ IV.
Murovanka: either.
Mines: Either.

Ruinberg: Derp KV is only useful at a few of the heavy battle corners in town. If you get tracked while you're rolling out to shoot, you're boned - IS-3s and Tigers and everyone else who doesn't like that gun will immediately focus on you. Likewise, a surprising amount of combat doesn't take place at "personal" distance in the city area - tanks are a block or two away from each other, which is just plenty for a derp shell to go whizzing into the sky. Furthermore, unlike Himmelsdorf or Ensk, there are very few areas where you can be tactically relevant and still be able to quickly roll back and hide while you reload for half a minute. The park area to the west is just a total no-no. Don't go there. Period.

Komarin: I wouldn't go on or near that island if you paid me. The most luck I've ever had on that map while derping has been hiding behind a little shack from the northern spawn and covering the cap point. Just hide there until a red tank zips out into the circle and then he gets a nice 152mm surprise to the side. The approaches to the island are totally exposed - if artillery doesn't get you, someone sniping from the middle or the sides will.

Cliffs: If you are trying to take the east road along the cliff the derp KV can really shine. It's useless everywhere else. The valley is too long to reliably hit enemies down, and that central plateau has too many areas where an enemy could pop up when you aren't looking the right way. It is also far too wide and open - a Panther chilling at the far end could cut you to pieces and you'd never even know what was killing you.

Province: Only useful for holding the low ground, as you stated.

Abbey: THIS is a KV map. There's lots of really tight spaces that you can tuck yourself into and give someone a really rude appearance when they come out. You can also squeak along the edges of the narrow roads and try to get people when they're moving up.

Lakeville: Too many open areas. The streets in town are too long, going down the central road is doom even if you're top tank, and the valley and perimeter road need a tank that's both faster in movement and which can aim faster to get people.

Murovanka: There's no debate here. Derp KV can be useful if you park him in the woods behind that little cabin to get one or two shots off at the enemy, otherwise the Pz.IV will be more useful in almost every situation. There's just not enough good places to hide while reloading and there's far too many places where you can be cut down before you can even start aiming.

Mines: This -can- be very good for the derp KV if you stick to the village or try and contest the hill (not actually going up it or taking it). I wouldn't recommend it though. Pz.IV takes the hill and he can start gleefully sniping either side until artillery or a well-aiming TD gets him through the bushes.

thejoker91, on Apr 27 2012 - 02:22, said:

  
As you can see, it highly depends on map and tier. Against tier 8 , a tier they can both see, I would rather have a KV than a PZ IV since it doesnt has the pen or dmg to be a good asset and its sniping suffers as a result, while KV can actually do some dmg to any tank it sees.

Good news, KV gets into Tier 8 battles all the time already. I fail to see the issue here.

thejoker91, on Apr 27 2012 - 02:22, said:

  
Because of something called game balance, But you must never heard of it. Also, 10.5 deals only half the dmg (AP) or less than half the damage (HE). I also detect a slight note of sarcasm about the hummel.

No, I *have* heard of game balance. I think the monstrous alpha of the M-10 is "balanced" by the fact that it takes a year to aim, longer to reload, and is attached to an insufferable slug of a tank that can be brutally dismantled by Tier 4 tanks in close combat and which is more likely to see an enemy Lowe than a T-28. If damage and alpha were the only things that mattered, why isn't KV-1S the most popular Tier 6 heavy? 122mm D-2-5T has great alpha and penetration compared to 90mm M3. Could it be because it's attached to a tank with bad armor and the gun has bad handling characteristics and loading times, perhaps? Outside of close range combat, a VK3601H can take a KS-1S apart without too much suffering. I've seen it happen annoyingly frequently.

thejoker91, on Apr 27 2012 - 02:22, said:

Wow, it can bounce, now where the hell did I say it cant bounce? oh right, I didnt. I said it cant bounce reliably, but surely your one in who knows how much events surely contradict this.  Because bad rolls are bad rolls and happen to everyone, or are we going to balance tanks so that they are good even in bad rolls? I can bounce an E-75 shell from the front of a Tiger in a bad roll, doesnt mean anything. A derped victim will on average happen more often than the bad rolls. ALL tank gets zero dmg pens and random bounces, but they arent the average. Also, its trusting the RNG to get an average roll for armor penetration, not a good one.

"It one-shots things" implies that there was no bounce. Your shot bounces, you didn't one-shot anything, did you? And if you're up against another T5 or T6 heavy tank, you likely just signed your own death warrant. For every KV that one-shotted another tank using a 152mm AP round, I'd say at least one or two more died because they tried that and it bounced, or just de-tracked, or did a zero-damage penetration. You are basically going all-or-nothing when you use the M-10 and nobody cares to mention this little detail. Aside from the better aiming, better accuracy, and faster loading, the ZiS-6 is used far more than the M-10 because one bounce probably won't kill you. The same frequently cannot be said for the M-10.

thejoker91, on Apr 27 2012 - 02:22, said:

  
Im not saying you cant know about a tank, Im saying you cant talk about it being so much better than other if you didnt play it. I can also make you a list of the tanks you wont pen if you use 90mm M3 instead of 107mm on the average scenarios. With the 107, the reticle will also close before the gun finishes reloading, its not like the 107 reloads in 4 seconds or anything like that. Also, 90mm M3 not only has less alpha but also less DPM until the tier 7 T29 gets it (no tier 7 gets 107mm until 7.3), and even then its marginal. So its alpha, penetration, and DPM vs accuracy, aim time and RoF.

I find it hard to swallow that you can reliably point out that many areas where only 7mm of penetration makes a notable difference. And even then, the 90mm M3's greatly improved accuracy and aim time would give you a better chance of landing your shot in a more vulnerable area anyway. It also matters tremendously that if you're moving in the field and you spot an enemy, you can stop, aim, shoot, and then get moving again a whole second faster. How long does it take for the artillery to dial you in? Or maybe an enemy tank destroyer?

This is why DPM is only really a useful tool to look at absolute terms. If you're facehugging another tank, it matters. In any other type of battle situation - which is most of them on most maps - you're going to be maneuvering, covering, hiding from artillery, or attempting to flank an enemy force - you likely will not be putting a shot down range at your maximum speed. When you *do* get a shot of, alpha is the most important thing at very close range battles. Anything more than 80-100m away, however, and now accuracy and aim time become very important. All the damage in the world doesn't count for shit if your shell pings off the Tiger II's upper plate instead of penetrating his lower one (or, if it's the M-10, just misses his tank entirely). Lob all the giant bombs down range you want - the guy with the smaller but more accurate gun (I'm looking at you, Panther with KwK 46 L/100) will just take you apart.

Seriously. You can have my 167mm penetration. Give me your 2.3s aim time and 0.38m dispersion. I consider this to be a good trade.

[mizaralcor]

OP, I have read your previous arguments regarding your intention to keep the 152mm derp in tier V. All in all, everyone has just been talking about on-paper stats showing the advantages and disadvantages of the derp gun and the tank itself (KV) whether it should be moved to tier VI or not. You seem to think that 152mm derp is a gun fitting to be placed in tier V, but there is one undeniable proof that it is not a gun fit for tier V :

Currently, in medium (tier VI) company battles, most of the tanks used are tier VI tanks for obvious reasons. There are however, a bunch of non-tier VI tanks that are used in competitive teams because of their special roles :
- T-50, as the best scouting tank below tier V lights which can't enter medium company battles
- Grille, as the best arty below tier V artys which can't enter medium company battles
- And finally, the only damage tank that is not tier VI tank, 152mm - using KV.

Now ask, why would a mere tier V tank be taken OVER even some of the less-popular tier VI tanks such as VK3001P and also to an extent T-34-85 (only occasionally seen)? Because it is pretty much the only gun mounted on a tier V tank that can still matter amongst other tanks one-tier higher. Hopefully this can finally convince you why a KV, even though losing its 107mm but not its 152mm derp based on your suggestion, should be more fitting as a tier VI tank rather than a tier V that it is now. Also remember that WG is planning to reduce the MM of tier V heavies to that matching of T1 HT, i.e. one-tier lower.

Also, we don't need to be concerned much about "152mm derp being designated as tier V gun by WG". There are other tanks other than KV whose guns don't match the tier they are designated at. Are you saying, for example, that the tier V M7 medium tank should be a tier IV just because its best gun is designated by WG as a tier IV gun?

[MalikCarr]

mizaralcor, on Apr 27 2012 - 04:30, said:

OP, I have read your previous arguments regarding your intention to keep the 152mm derp in tier V. All in all, everyone has just been talking about on-paper stats showing the advantages and disadvantages of the derp gun and the tank itself (KV) whether it should be moved to tier VI or not. You seem to think that 152mm derp is a gun fitting to be placed in tier V, but there is one undeniable proof that it is not a gun fit for tier V :

Currently, in medium (tier VI) company battles, most of the tanks used are tier VI tanks for obvious reasons. There are however, a bunch of non-tier VI tanks that are used in competitive teams because of their special roles :
- T-50, as the best scouting tank below tier V lights which can't enter medium company battles
- Grille, as the best arty below tier V artys which can't enter medium company battles
- And finally, the only damage tank that is not tier VI tank, 152mm - using KV.

Now ask, why would a mere tier V tank be taken OVER even some of the less-popular tier VI tanks such as VK3001P and also to an extent T-34-85 (only occasionally seen)? Because it is pretty much the only gun mounted on a tier V tank that can still matter amongst other tanks one-tier higher. Hopefully this can finally convince you why a KV, even though losing its 107mm but not its 152mm derp based on your suggestion, should be more fitting as a tier VI tank rather than a tier V that it is now. Also remember that WG is planning to reduce the MM of tier V heavies to that matching of T1 HT, i.e. one-tier lower.

Also, we don't need to be concerned much about "152mm derp being designated as tier V gun by WG". There are other tanks other than KV whose guns don't match the tier they are designated at. Are you saying, for example, that the tier V M7 medium tank should be a tier IV just because its best gun is designated by WG as a tier IV gun?

I'll make a wager with you. Unfortunately there's no way to test it short of WG actually reading this thread and deciding it's a good idea, but I feel it's worth stating anyway.

I would bet you 12,000 gold that if you removed the ZiS-6 from KV/KV-2 that tank's relative usage would fall considerably.

When I see KVs - and I see plenty of them while grinding credits in my Churchill - there's at least a 75% chance it's armed with the ZiS-6. The greater flexibility and utility of that gun simply overshadows the impressive damage that the M-10 offers. Those are the ones I hide from because I know they'll beat me in a shooting competition at almost any range. A KV armed with the derp, meanwhile, I can almost always beat simply because the thing's helpless while it's reloading and because of HE absorption he most frequently cannot take my tank out with one shot.

When you go out with the M-10, you're basically making a huge gamble that you'll get a map, tier, and team that will allow you to commit to short-range battles while also giving you plenty of opportunities to hide while reloading without being torn to shreds. You get Ensk and your team makes an effective push through the city, you could be a hero. You get El Halluf or Sand River or Malinovka or Karelia and you wish you had the ZiS-6. You wish you could actually turn your turret to face the sudden appearance of another tank across the way without your reticle becoming bigger than your HP/reload gauge. You wish you had the ability to reliably engage an enemy tank more than 150m away. You wish you could pick out the weaker spots on a Tiger or T34. You wish you had more than a snowball's chance in hell of hitting a moving target - especially one that's sighted you and is deliberately maneuvering and/or shooting to throw your aim off. Most importantly, you wish that you weren't armed with a gun that rendered you an XP/credit vending machine after you click shoot - which is all the more frustrating when your shot bounces, blows a track off, or gets eaten by the ground somehow.

If you want to play the semantics and details game, let's just ignore the gun tier rating. I mean that's not a very good indicator sometimes - ZiS-6 and D-10T are both Tier 7 guns even though one is demonstrably better than the other in almost every way. No, I say look at the M-10's research costs. What is it, 5,000? Compared to almost three times that much for the ZiS-6? In fact, I believe the ZiS-6 is the most expensive thing you can research on the KV, minus the next tier tanks of course. The upgraded engine costs more, or so I believe. I could actually name at least two players I platoon with who didn't even bother researching the M-10 because "the 107 is better at almost everything?" or so they tell me.

Was that just for fun? Generally speaking, isn't the cost of a module in XP supposed to have *some* bearing on its usefulness to you? Like upgrades suspension on a tank that NEEDS upgraded suspension to mount a new turret, for example. None of those are cheap once you get into mid-tiers and up.

God I really wish I could test this now. Unless Wargaming is following this thread and decided I'm a genius there's just no way you could actually put it through its paces in random matches or tank companies - which is a terrible shame, because I am absolutely convinced that I am right.

http://forum.worldof...mile_mellow.gif

EDIT: Yes, the M7 Medium ought to be a Tier 4 tank, but that's mostly because that thing is incredibly bad compared to, say, the T-34 or Panzer III/IV. The gun is only part of the problem.

[mizaralcor]

I do not dispute the fact that 107mm is more flexible than the 152mm when it comes to being jack-of-all-trades gun. 152mm is more of a niche gun, yet it excels at those niches, while 107mm is a very good gun that can perform well enough in many situations and combat conditions.


You have been pretty much saying that the main and only factor that allows KV to outperform other tanks in its tier is the 107mm. Firstly, I do not doubt that as the stats of 107mm makes it one of the best gun in the tier. Yet, what I am trying to point out is the fact that 107mm is not the sole factor that enables KVs to outperform other tanks in its tier. Allow me to elaborate :

1. I mentioned the first case already. The fact that 152mm - wielding KV being the only non-arty non-scout tank that is not a tier VI but brought up to the competitive scene that is tier VI company battles. It is even taken over some of the other tier VIs that are considered underperforming. This phenomena of bringing a lower-than-max-tier tank with nonspecific role into the competitive team doesn't really happen in other competitive scenes with say, tier VIII company battles or CWs.

2. Secondly, the 107mm ZiS-6 exists in another tier V tank, SU-85, and even with buffed stats i.e. significantly better reload, accuracy, and aim time. SU-85 is undoubtedly the best-performing tier V TD due to that gun, and SU-85 is also faster, more mobile, more stealthy, and carries better 107mm ZiS-6, yet it is not played as much as KVs, it is not as feared as KVs in randoms, nor is it brought into competitive scene unlike KVs. If the cause of KV's performance is mostly from the 107mm, why isn't SU-85 treated the same? The answer is, yes the 107mm contributes to KV's success, but there is one thing a KV but not a SU-85 has that boosts KV's performance into earning its current place in popularity to be played, success in randoms, and viability in competitive scene, i.e. the ability to mount 152mm.


Also, please do not call me for playing semantics. You were the one who first referred to tier V designation of the gun in your OP post. I was just stating that a gun being designated a tier V by WG does not justify it to be made strictly a gun that can only be mounted on a tier V tank. Also, research cost is in no way an accurate indicator of the intended tier of a gun or modules or even a tank, really. Some examples that come to mind :

- Up until 7.2, the research cost for the 105mm gun of the tier VII T29 was 40k+ exp, more than double the research cost of other guns on tier VII tanks which is usually around 17k-20k max. It is not even the most penetrating, having the best alpha, nor the most accurate gun in the tier. Only after US heavy players complained to WG about that for almost a year that WG finally yielded in 7.2 and reduced the research cost.

- Some guns which are practically the same gun on different tree don't even have the same research cost. The German 105mm derp, which is pretty much the twin of the US 105mm derp, has more than double the research cost of its twin in the US tree. Does this mean that one is intended to be a higher tier, or at least a better same-tier, gun?

[MalikCarr]

mizaralcor, on Apr 27 2012 - 07:24, said:

I do not dispute the fact that 107mm is more flexible than the 152mm when it comes to being jack-of-all-trades gun. 152mm is more of a niche gun, yet it excels at those niches, while 107mm is a very good gun that can perform well enough in many situations and combat conditions.


You have been pretty much saying that the main and only factor that allows KV to outperform other tanks in its tier is the 107mm. Firstly, I do not doubt that as the stats of 107mm makes it one of the best gun in the tier. Yet, what I am trying to point out is the fact that 107mm is not the sole factor that enables KVs to outperform other tanks in its tier. Allow me to elaborate :

1. I mentioned the first case already. The fact that 152mm - wielding KV being the only non-arty non-scout tank that is not a tier VI but brought up to the competitive scene that is tier VI company battles. It is even taken over some of the other tier VIs that are considered underperforming. This phenomena of bringing a lower-than-max-tier tank with nonspecific role into the competitive team doesn't really happen in other competitive scenes with say, tier VIII company battles or CWs.

2. Secondly, the 107mm ZiS-6 exists in another tier V tank, SU-85, and even with buffed stats i.e. significantly better reload, accuracy, and aim time. SU-85 is undoubtedly the best-performing tier V TD due to that gun, and SU-85 is also faster, more mobile, more stealthy, and carries better 107mm ZiS-6, yet it is not played as much as KVs, it is not as feared as KVs in randoms, nor is it brought into competitive scene unlike KVs. If the cause of KV's performance is mostly from the 107mm, why isn't SU-85 treated the same? The answer is, yes the 107mm contributes to KV's success, but there is one thing a KV but not a SU-85 has that boosts KV's performance into earning its current place in popularity to be played, success in randoms, and viability in competitive scene, i.e. the ability to mount 152mm.


Also, please do not call me for playing semantics. You were the one who first referred to tier V designation of the gun in your OP post. I was just stating that a gun being designated a tier V by WG does not justify it to be made strictly a gun that can only be mounted on a tier V tank. Also, research cost is in no way an accurate indicator of the intended tier of a gun or modules or even a tank, really. Some examples that come to mind :

- Up until 7.2, the research cost for the 105mm gun of the tier VII T29 was 40k+ exp, more than double the research cost of other guns on tier VII tanks which is usually around 17k-20k max. It is not even the most penetrating, having the best alpha, nor the most accurate gun in the tier. Only after US heavy players complained to WG about that for almost a year that WG finally yielded in 7.2 and reduced the research cost.

- Some guns which are practically the same gun on different tree don't even have the same research cost. The German 105mm derp, which is pretty much the twin of the US 105mm derp, has more than double the research cost of its twin in the US tree. Does this mean that one is intended to be a higher tier, or at least a better same-tier, gun?

It means they hate German tankers, if you ask me.

Regarding SU-85, it's because the ZiS-6S is the only thing good about it at all. With 45mm frontal armor almost everything can kill it - very often with one shot if it's a Tier 7+ tank. It's also blind as a bat with an utterly pathetic 280m view distance. Enemy heavy tanks can often spot you before you spot them, even in cover! The fact that it only has 350HP also adds to its incredibly fragile nature - even top-ranked, you can still be killed with absolute ease by anyone who gets the chance to shoot at you, and that happens surprisingly often. It's also hindered by ZiS-6's enormous muzzle blast, which will almost always reveal you at any distance. You shoot, and almost like clockwork an enemy artillery shell will land on you moments later.

You could put the PaK 44 on a Leichtraktor and rank it at Tier 5 - if the tank literally cannot get hit, at all, period, it's still not going to be very popular, much less steamroll things in front of it.

Anyway. As far as your tank company conundrum is concerned, I don't really have much to add to that other than that I don't do tank companies very often, if ever, so I can't really vouch one way or the other. But I also fail to see the relevance of even bringing it up, considering KV-2 will still be in that rank of tank companies, while KV-3 being moved to Tier 7 will miss out. With the significantly increased rate of fire on ZiS-6 and M-10, and M-10 also dealing more damage as a Tier VI gun, I don't see the supposed domination of KV-2 in tank companies ending any time soon.

This brings us back to pub matches, where we're still at an impasse.

[mizaralcor]

MalikCarr, on Apr 27 2012 - 08:01, said:

Regarding SU-85, it's because the ZiS-6S is the only thing good about it at all. With 45mm frontal armor almost everything can kill it - very often with one shot if it's a Tier 7+ tank. It's also blind as a bat with an utterly pathetic 280m view distance. Enemy heavy tanks can often spot you before you spot them, even in cover! The fact that it only has 350HP also adds to its incredibly fragile nature - even top-ranked, you can still be killed with absolute ease by anyone who gets the chance to shoot at you, and that happens surprisingly often. It's also hindered by ZiS-6's enormous muzzle blast, which will almost always reveal you at any distance. You shoot, an almost like clockwork an enemy artillery shell will land on you moments later.

There you go! Basically what I am trying to say is : 107mm may contribute somewhat to the success, popularity, and competitive viability of the current KV, but it is not the sole reason. If it is the only reason, SU-85 would have enjoyed the same level of success, popularity, and competitive viability as KVs. As such, your suggestion of removing the capability of mounting the 107mm from the current KV, while keeping everything else intact and still having it as a tier 5 will not do much to its success, popularity, and competitive viability as an over-performing tier 5 tank.

MalikCarr, on Apr 27 2012 - 08:01, said:

Anyway. As far as your tank company conundrum is concerned, I don't really have much to add to that other than that I don't do tank companies very often, if ever, so I can't really vouch one way or the other. But I also fail to see the relevance of even bringing it up, considering KV-2 will still be in that rank of tank companies, while KV-3 being moved to Tier 7 will miss out. With the significantly increased rate of fire on ZiS-6 and M-10, and M-10 also dealing more damage as a Tier VI gun, I don't see the supposed domination of KV-2 in tank companies ending any time soon.

This brings us back to pub matches, where we're still at an impasse.

No, the reason for me bringing its competitive viability in medium tank companies is pretty much stating the fact that if the current KV has done well in a company battle one tier higher, making it a tier 6 will not hinder its competitiveness at all. If at all, it can now perform even better now due to small survivability buffs and minor buffs to the gun RoF.

[MalikCarr]

mizaralcor, on Apr 27 2012 - 08:19, said:

There you go! Basically what I am trying to say is : 107mm may contribute somewhat to the success, popularity, and competitive viability of the current KV, but it is not the sole reason. If it is the only reason, SU-85 would have enjoyed the same level of success, popularity, and competitive viability as KVs. As such, your suggestion of removing the capability of mounting the 107mm from the current KV, while keeping everything else intact and still having it as a tier 5 will not do much to its success, popularity, and competitive viability as an over-performing tier 5 tank.



No, the reason for me bringing its competitive viability in medium tank companies is pretty much stating the fact that if the current KV has done well in a company battle one tier higher, making it a tier 6 will not hinder its competitiveness at all. If at all, it can now perform even better now due to small survivability buffs and minor buffs to the gun RoF.

You've completely glossed over the salient point of the first argument.

Firstly, compared to heavy tanks, no tank destroyers are truly "popular" in the first place. I could think of plenty of people who just can't deal with the lack of a turret, yours truly included. There's a reason why I never actually bought the SU-100 after unlocking it. Just look up the general EU server characteristics and tell me how the comparison of T5 heavy tanks and T5 tank destroyers look. If anything, it's a false comparison.

Secondly, without that gun, SU-85 would be completely useless - the gun is that important. I'm of the opinion that KV would have a proportional impact on its popularity as most players simply cannot make effective use of the M-10. Unlike nicodeimous' assertion, it requires a lot of skill to be able to use the derp effectively, which is to say perform more than "fire off one shot point-blank and then die". Ripping 450 HP off of an enemy T7 heavy and then getting blown up doesn't contribute much to your team when a more useful employment could have been done to harass larger tanks and decrease their health systematically, allowing your own team to exploit their weakened states, or even better, shoot them in the flanks when they turn to come after you. The ZiS-6, meanwhile, plays like any other tank gun.

[mastergenera1]

I fully agree with the OP on this one,even tho i am largly a player of german tanks,i also own a kv and am one of the few to excel in using the M-10(7 derp shot kills in one match)i also see that the 107 is far more popular among the community as the ZiS-6 has better overall stats,which is why the M-10 is largely ignored on the kv.being the previous owner of a Pz III/IV PzIV and Pz V/IV i must say that it isnt hard to kill a kv-2 derp as all it takes is evasive manuvers,but most enemy would rather just sit in front of ur gun,or come at u in a straight line,so it is my conclusion that the kv derp isnt OP its just the general populace is too noob to avoid said fire.

[Anakarsis]

The problem is not really the tier 6. As a tier 5, i can consistently kill any tier 6 with the KV, except the KV-3 and may be the Jumbo. The VKs are not really that difficult and at the BEST are 50/50 against a tier 5 KV. So yes, it was OP as a tier 5, but the matter is that being tier 6, ill be thrown in tier 8/9 battles more often and even in some tier 10 battles. In tier 9 battles the KV is stupidly weak, as its outgunned AND outmanoeuvered by all tanks.

The tier 6 has to be easily the tier that LESS often lead battles, so the probability to end up in a battle were the KV can do somethings has been DRASTICALLY reduced.

Also, the KV was "the tank of the people" and i cant avoid to think about this when i think of the KV-2 being now tier 6. It was the best creditmaker apart from Premium Tanks, specially since the nerfed economy for tier 6s in 7.2 (before that, i did much more monery with the Jumbo than with the KV, but that needed some more practice with the tank, and now, its impossible), however, i supose that now that 20-25% of the players have a nice free T34 premium in the garage, nobody cares anymore that no silver tank can sustain the economy of a player.

[Midnitewolf]

MalikCarr, on Apr 27 2012 - 00:37, said:

Combat distance is what the maps and team makeup makes it. Put a derp KV on Komarin - chances are he'll be an empty spot in the team that would have been much better filled by something that can actually move or actually fight at range (Panzer IV with KwK 42 would be good). Same goes for El Halluf - I'd rather have a Pz.4 on that map too. Sand River, Malinovka, Province - Province especially.

Your central premise is that tanks should not be allowed to kill other tanks in one shot. There are a huge number of tanks in this game that can kill a derp KV while it's reloading. I've done it in my Churchill before - soak a hit (which, by your logic, I shouldn't be able to do), then repeatedly shoot his vulnerable turret with my puny Tier 4 6-pounder gun until he's dead. I do enough damage to kill him before he can reload and shoot again to kill me. That sure is a really powerful tank there, isn't it?

To wit, I reject this entirely and any accompanying points you might feel are suitable to be attached to it. The situations you describe are absolutely unrealistic and incredibly ideal for the exact situation you describe.

Do you have some kind of special gold consumable that puts you into matches where you can exploit the derp KV's abilities to the fullest? Or perhaps your loader has Intuition fully maxed out and there's some kind of glitch we don't know about that allows you to switch ammunition types as the tactical situation demands? If we could control for every battlefield condition, the derp KV would be an awesomely potent weapon. Then again, so would almost any tank... maybe not the B1 or A-20, though.

It's staggering to me that you think the situations I've described are unrealistic, and then you submit the above. Staggering.



This is proof that anyone can see Russian bias in anything, even when it's demonstrably false. In the magical fantasy that USSR-haters live in the only quality that matters in a tank is its gun alpha. Penetration doesn't matter, aim time doesn't matter, accuracy doesn't matter, reticle bloom doesn't matter, tank vision range doesn't matter, tank rotation speed doesn't matter, and tank armor certainly doesn't matter.

It must be nice to be able to so casually discard everything in your opponent's deck that doesn't reinforce your own preconceived ideas of the other side.

"The Zis-6 has capabilites similar to the Most of the Russian Tier 7 and 8 guns and is just as accurate as them to boot.  There is a reason why they are Tier 7 and 8 guns and something similar really doesn't belong in a Tier 5 match."

False. 122mm D-25T has 0.01m worse dispersion and a slower reload time - all of its other qualities are equivalent (aim time) or better (damage, penetration). Comparing the ZiS-6 to 100mm LB-1 or 122mm BL-9 is so incomprehensibly dumb I'm not even sure how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion.

"Secondly, the Derp even with its long reload and poor accuracy is still able to one shot or severly cripple just about any tank Tier 6 and below.  Reload speed only becomes important if you need more than one shot to kill your opponent."

False. Because of armor absorption of HE damage, plus random bounces/zero-damage penetrations/shells vanishing into thin air, the 152mm M-10 is the biggest gamble you can play outside of artillery direct-firing into an enemy. My Churchill has absorbed derp KV shots with its front fenders and only sustained about 250 damage in the process. I could survive another shot before the third kills me - meanwhile, I've already 6-pounder'd the KV to death before that time even passed. In fact, I would argue that against other Tier 5 tanks, if you aren't hitting them from behind you're more likely to need two shots to kill them than not. Or are you so good@tanks that you wiggle your derp shells into the enemy's turret ring and vision slits?

"Third, armor.  The KV-2 has very respectable armor, even as good as alot of Tier 7s.  Now the armor alone is not enough to stand out at Tier 5 but when you combine a gun or guns that can effectively engage Tier 7s or 8s or in the case of the Derp, Teir 10s on a Tier 5 tank with better than average armor....well you don't have a tier 5 tank anymore, you have a tier 6 or 7 tank."

Leave. Now. Your willful ignorance of this game hurts my brain.

I decided to do a little bit of digging for you. No Tier 7 heavy tank has frontal armor values as bad as the KV, and none have a turret that is anywhere near as vulnerable as KV.

Churchill. 7-pounder. Tier 4 gun. Goes through the KV's turret like butter. And that turret is the size of lesser tanks by itself. Unless you're trying to shoot through the gun mantlet or the one heavily sloped part of the KV's bow, you have to have some kind of aiming deficiency to not be able to penetrate a KV with any half-decent gun. I mean, hell, total noobs using auto-aim are in good shape - the KV's center of gravity is its turret ring, and even 20mm FlaK 38 can jam a KV-2 turret. This is realistic, though, so I don't have a complaint with that - KV-2 did suffer from turret rotation problems quite badly.

Finally, most Tier 10 tanks can simply absorb a derp KV shot if it hits them in any of their well-protected areas - which is to say basically the entire front. T110E5, IS-4 (unless you hit the driver's slit - good luck with that), Maus... all these tanks take pathetic amounts of damage when a derp KV shell hits them over the frontal arc, and if you've somehow managed to get around behind them with your lethargic speed and sluggish turn rate, and your shell doesn't get absorbed by tracks/magic no-damage penetration, you MIGHT be able to bring some pain against the weaker-armored tanks (T110E5, AMX 50B, etc.). You shoot a Maus in the back, meanwhile, and it wonders why you're even there.

"T1 -  has the armor, but gun sucks." - T1 can reliably engage a derp KV from far outside its shooting radius, and its side skirts have an annoying habit of deflecting HE shells with no damage. Next.
"BDR GB1 - doesn't have the armor or the gun" More effective at killing derp KV from even further away and faster at it too. 90mm DCA can take out a KV in two shots if you roll high, three if you aren't so lucky, and will just about always penetrate from almost any angle.
"AMX 12t - yeah right" - Can dismantle a KV from 100% while it reloads its gun. Are you kidding me? YOU "yeah right", thanks.
"M4 Sherman or M7 - Not in the same class" M4 Sherman can outshoot derp KV at range with 76mm M1 and can even out-damage KV with 105mm M4 in close combat if you can circle. M7 has the same gun the Churchill has - if you don't get taken out in one shot, you can destroy a KV before it can reload.
"Pz III/IV or Pz IV - Lacks Armor, gun or both." - You aren't playing World of Tanks. Any Panzer IV with KwK 42 can rip a derp KV apart at range before its gun can even aim, and the schmalturm can absorb an HE shot. Panzer III/IV is at more of a disadvantage with its smaller gun, but it has adequate mobility to circle a KV faster than it can turn both its hull and turret, and KwK 40 will still go through a KV's turret from almost any angle.
"T-34 - Not in the same class" - I've killed more KVs in my T-34 than any other Tier 5 tank. Try again.

Oh, one more thing. Since you decided to bring up ZiS-6 again, I feel it bears mentioning.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT ZIS-6

PLEASE USE READING COMPREHENSION BEFORE POSTING

If you gave me 90mm M3 on the KV-3 or T-34-85 I'd be a perfectly happy camper. That gun is sweet - the tank it's attached to sucks. But, please, do keep making assumptions about me and the way I play tanks.

Like that you only see Russian tanks in my garage because they're ALL OBVIOUSLY BETTER THAN EVERY OTHER TANK IN THE GAME.

Or that you don't see any sort of mastery badge next to KV or KV-3 because those tanks are not fun to play.

Or that I do have Ace Tanker next to KV-13 and T-34, supposedly bad tanks, because those are fun to play.

Have you got any other gross generalizations you'd like to level today?

I am not going to address you point by point, but my most played tanks are Russian and my playing goes back to about 8-9 months of beta as well.  Lets just say I am intimately familiar with the characteristics of most Russian guns.

The 107mm is absolutely not as good as the 122mm guns that replace it, however it is very, VERY Close to similar performance to the higher tiered guns.

First the 107mm has 167mm of penetration.  That is only 8mm difference in pen and this means that most anything they 122mm guns (aside from the BL-9 and better) can penetrate, so can the 107mm.  THIS IS HUGE!!!  Let me say that again...THIS IS HUGE!!!

The reason this is huge is simply because higher penetration allows you to effectively engage tanks of higher tier catagories.  For example, a VK3601, even with its absolute best gun cannot even remotely think of engaging a Lowe frontally.  The L56 won't penetrate anywhere, the Derp 105mm might do 90 damage.  However, the 107mm gun not only can penetrate the Lower front hull of a Lowe but can deliver 300 HP of damage when it does.  If you can't see how much more effective that makes anything armed with this gun, well I don't even have a clue what to say.

Second, 300 damage is nothing to sneeze at.  Sure it isn't the 390 damage put out by the 122mm guns, but the 107mm fires faster offsetting some of the damage difference.  Also Alpha damage is a huge factor in this game.  You have a target about to kill you as soon as his gun reloads with 280 HPs left.  You have time for one shot.  A gun with average 240 damage isn't going to win this for you, but a gun with 300 average damage likely will.  

As far as accuracy, aim time, etc.  Those are all situational.  The Accuracy difference between the 107mm, especially with a 100% crew and the 122mm guns, is slight.  Hit rate might be something like 75% with the 107mm and 78% with this 122mm.  Aim time...well sometimes(alot of times) I have all the time in the world to aim...you know what matters then....ability to penetrate and damage a target for a large amount of HPs.  

As far as the Derp.  This gun throws the danger level of the KV all out of wack.  I have managed a 1000 point Hit on a Lowe at about 300m with a KV using the Derp...that is a Tier 5, doing 1000 points of damage to a Tier 8.  Your going to tell me there isn't anything at all imbalanced about this???

Sure the Derp has bad accuracy but it can hit at range and alot more often than alot of people give it credit for.  Up close it is devestating.  Also yes it has a long reload but 9 times out of 10, any tank it comes across has to assume it has a round loaded and ready to go.  Unless they actually see the KV with the Derp fire, the KV with a Derp, JUST BEING IN THE AREA, acts a a deterent to the movemet of just about any tier tank it encounters. I have seen a KV with the Derp tie up an entire flank of multiple tanks that could normally kill it with ease, just because not one player was willing to take one hit from the derp for the team. This is yet another factor that allows the KV with the Derp to fight above its tier and be effective at a much higher level than any other Tier 5.  

This is why it is imbalanced at Tier 5, hell it is partially imbalanced at Tier 6.

Unfortunately this post is a classic example of someone who have had his cake and got to eat it too for a very, very long time and now doesn't like the fact that the party is over.

[SocialFlaws]

The problem is most people don't agree with you and your reputation is suffering. I think you should swallow your pride before you go into negative numbers.

[MalikCarr]

SocialFlaws, on Apr 28 2012 - 02:50, said:

The problem is most people don't agree with you and your reputation is suffering. I think you should swallow your pride before you go into negative numbers.

I will not be intimidated into silence. This isn't about pride and you know it.

Midnitewolf, on Apr 28 2012 - 00:18, said:

I am not going to address you point by point, but my most played tanks are Russian and my playing goes back to about 8-9 months of beta as well.  Lets just say I am intimately familiar with the characteristics of most Russian guns.

The 107mm is absolutely not as good as the 122mm guns that replace it, however it is very, VERY Close to similar performance to the higher tiered guns.

First the 107mm has 167mm of penetration.  That is only 8mm difference in pen and this means that most anything they 122mm guns (aside from the BL-9 and better) can penetrate, so can the 107mm.  THIS IS HUGE!!!  Let me say that again...THIS IS HUGE!!!

The reason this is huge is simply because higher penetration allows you to effectively engage tanks of higher tier catagories.  For example, a VK3601, even with its absolute best gun cannot even remotely think of engaging a Lowe frontally.  The L56 won't penetrate anywhere, the Derp 105mm might do 90 damage.  However, the 107mm gun not only can penetrate the Lower front hull of a Lowe but can deliver 300 HP of damage when it does.  If you can't see how much more effective that makes anything armed with this gun, well I don't even have a clue what to say.

Second, 300 damage is nothing to sneeze at.  Sure it isn't the 390 damage put out by the 122mm guns, but the 107mm fires faster offsetting some of the damage difference.  Also Alpha damage is a huge factor in this game.  You have a target about to kill you as soon as his gun reloads with 280 HPs left.  You have time for one shot.  A gun with average 240 damage isn't going to win this for you, but a gun with 300 average damage likely will.  

As far as accuracy, aim time, etc.  Those are all situational.  The Accuracy difference between the 107mm, especially with a 100% crew and the 122mm guns, is slight.  Hit rate might be something like 75% with the 107mm and 78% with this 122mm.  Aim time...well sometimes(alot of times) I have all the time in the world to aim...you know what matters then....ability to penetrate and damage a target for a large amount of HPs.  

As far as the Derp.  This gun throws the danger level of the KV all out of wack.  I have managed a 1000 point Hit on a Lowe at about 300m with a KV using the Derp...that is a Tier 5, doing 1000 points of damage to a Tier 8.  Your going to tell me there isn't anything at all imbalanced about this???

Sure the Derp has bad accuracy but it can hit at range and alot more often than alot of people give it credit for.  Up close it is devestating.  Also yes it has a long reload but 9 times out of 10, any tank it comes across has to assume it has a round loaded and ready to go.  Unless they actually see the KV with the Derp fire, the KV with a Derp, JUST BEING IN THE AREA, acts a a deterent to the movemet of just about any tier tank it encounters. I have seen a KV with the Derp tie up an entire flank of multiple tanks that could normally kill it with ease, just because not one player was willing to take one hit from the derp for the team. This is yet another factor that allows the KV with the Derp to fight above its tier and be effective at a much higher level than any other Tier 5.  

This is why it is imbalanced at Tier 5, hell it is partially imbalanced at Tier 6.

Unfortunately this post is a classic example of someone who have had his cake and got to eat it too for a very, very long time and now doesn't like the fact that the party is over.

I wish I could punch people using standard TCP/IP as a method of conveyance.

I haven't even driven my KV since the HE nerf because the thing can only do as much damage as it once did in EXCEEDINGLY FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. Your 1000 HP shot against a Lowe meant you somehow managed to get a penetrating hit with an HE shell - something I can say with absolute certainty happened to me once in the entire time I drove my KV (it was against a Panther that I hit in the side because the Panther drove past me to get at an ally). You shoot an E-75 in the front, you might shave 100-200 HP off of him - more if you manage to hit the lower plate, which is already a challenging task even at fairly close distances, and that's assuming you didn't get obliterated by him from far, far outside your engagement range.

I find it an absolutely revolting and insulting accusation that I'm merely out for personal gain by making this topic.

It absolutely couldn't be because it's a foolish idea to overbuff a tank to make it fit a tier because people complained about getting shot too much.

It certainly couldn't be because far too many people have a knee-jerk reaction to getting hit by a big gun and thinking that that's the only thing that matters to them in this game.

No. Only my personal, singular self-interest. Thank you for reaching into the inner depths of my motivations and psyche and determining for yourself that I only care about having an imaginary "win" button.

It's degrading and ultimately only serves to reinforce the fact that there's no fundamental basis for any of these claims. You resort to attacking the messenger instead of the message, which is a classic example of a defeated argument.

The "party is over" - get off the hate wagon, you snob. The party ended when WG added armor absorption versus HE shells.

I could reiterate for the fifth time about beating a derp KV in a Churchill, a tank which by your glorious supposition should be 152mm food in any combat situation, but there's no point to that. You, like the small army of rep haters that have decided to shame me out of existence because I share a point they disagree with, cannot and will not see anything past the fact that you don't like the fact that it's possible, with a battery of extremely favorable conditions, for a tank that sacrifices countless tactical opportunities to mount a really big gun that it might ruin someone else's match.

You are what is wrong with this game.

You are why there are Tier 10 tanks with artificial weak spots.

You only care about the end result of what happened to YOUR match. A battle is a confluence of conditions and events that produce an end result that involves an incredible amount of luck both on the part of the individual player and the team as a whole, with smaller measures of personal skill, teamwork, and other trace variables that give one half of the map a W and the other half an L.

But, in the fantasy land inhabited by people who think the 152mm gun is OP at Tier 6, none of that matters. The other team won because they had a bigger gun. That was it. Nothing else mattered. Nobody on the other side planned, nobody on your side failed, the RNG didn't totally flub extremely important penetration and damage rolls. They had the bigger gun.

When they give up whatever historical pretense is left in this game and just make it an arcade shooter, I hope you'll look back on this and wonder, "Gee, maybe that guy who I thought was just butthurt over his favorite tank* being nerfed* had a point."

* factually inaccurate statements

Or maybe that's what you actually want in the first place. http://forum.worldof...Smile-angry.gif

[ColonelColt]

At the risk of being the victim of hate crimes, I have to back up MalikCarr again. I don't even like driving the KV at all, even with the 107mm. Does the 152mm derp gun do ridiculous damage? Yes it does. However, in my experience driving the KV around (Mastery Class I in that hateful machine, thank you) with the derp gun I've found that it can really only be employed in very specialized situations. You can hit things at a greater range with it but at least 75% of that is pure stupid luck. Once the reticle closes, that's it. No matter how long you sit there it won't get any more accurate. Because we can not have foreknowledge of a future battle and we are stuck picking the best equipment for the most common situation. Have I killed a Lowe with the 152mm? Yes I have, because he was amazingly stupid and fixated on someone else and pulled up right next to me and allowed me fire into his rear left deck when he had already been hurt. I then suffered a fiery death because a VK 3001 P rolled up (a T6) and started shooting me while I was reloading and trying to turn and back around the corner and there was nothing I could do about it. I think that's the more common scenario for a KV with a derp gun. If I had the 107mm, I wouldn't have had to even go into the buildings and probably wouldn't have died like that.  I know recently I've been getting almost nothing but matches where I'm bottom tier in the KV and that means I'm under-armored, mediocre health, slow in every way, and with a huge flat turret to shoot at. You don't really get a chance to employ your Soviet Super Slugger very much.

I really think that people are fixating on the times that a KV, with either gun, was able to easily kill them at lower tiers and remembering this at higher tiers which is why everyone almost immediately shoots for the KVs in the matches I described. Personally I would have loved to drive the KV-1 with the standard turret a lot more but it ends up being bad at that because of the tiering and you're forced to use the bigger guns. Really the KV-1 and KV-2 should stick to being T5s and have their tiering changed so they only ever face T6 and below. Why? Because that's really how it was and they honestly should be terrors in their tier range forcing people to use simple tactics to overcome them. And yes, if you're shot by one you're dead or nearly so. I can't remember how many times I've killed every kind of KV in my M8A1 with its 57mm cannon simply by slowly driving around them with my horrible turret traverse speed and eating away at their health or firing at them from farther away. So many people end up playing the KV because they're forced through it like a meat grinder to get to the higher tier Soviet tanks. If the German lines were so restricted I'm sure we'd hear all kinds of complaints about how that evil, evil Panzer IV is OP and it must be amazing because so many people drive it. It must be the accuracy. Or maybe the maneuverability.

This is a game. It seeks balance but it is still based on a historical context and in a historical context if a 152mm HE shell plowed into your Tiger II, you would certainly take notice. It is still only a game.

[MalikCarr]

With respect to your experiences in the KV I don't think they should only ever face Tier 6 tanks - even if that was more or less how the war went. The tier spread being what it is is another monster that's best left to other topics.

But your remarks about the general performance of the M-10 vs. the ZiS-6 are basically exactly what I was driving at. Most tankers simply can't make effective use of that gun because they generally lack the patience and tactical acumen to exploit it to the best of its abilities - and even then, a single bad roll can screw you far more than it does in anything else besides artillery.

The KV is as popular as it is because with the ZiS-6 and a top-tier battle, the tank is very nearly the closest thing to an actual "easy mode" in this game, while compared to other Tier 5 tanks, it retains the ability to strike out at higher tiers in most normal situations - no other Tier 5 tank except the Panzer IV can actually do that, and giving that heavy tanks are more popular than mediums on the NA server, the results should be self explanatory. If you remove the ZiS-6 and leave the KV-2 the way it was actually equipped, I guarantee you that status would evaporate.

Or, you do the opposite of what makes sense and overbuff while increasing its tier just to appease the crybabies who don't think their Tier 5s should be being shot by a 152mm gun. But Wargaming has been very good at doing this lately - Tier X IS-4, making Maus' lower armor magically thinner, nerfing AMX 13's turret elevation/depression just because they overestimated how much some of the other French tanks could elevate or depress, and so forth.

This is the type of thing I'm clawing at about this game's simulator aspects becoming more and more marginalized in favor of more arcade-style play. It's god damn maddening.

[Darth_Conrad]

This discussion is pointless.  Keeping the KV-2 at tier 5 would mean that it's matchmaking would stay the same as it is now.  Moving it to tier 6 allows for increased health and stats along with the possibility of better MM.

Also the 152mm M-10 is the reason you can get into high tier battles with the KV not the ZiS-6.

[MalikCarr]

Darth_Conrad, on Apr 28 2012 - 05:41, said:

This discussion is pointless.  Keeping the KV-2 at tier 5 would mean that it's matchmaking would stay the same as it is now.  Moving it to tier 6 allows for increased health and stats along with the possibility of better MM.

Also the 152mm M-10 is the reason you can get into high tier battles with the KV not the ZiS-6.

And I think that's just fine. The KV-2 shouldn't be some kind of do-all ubertank like WG has made it out to be. I mean as it is now in 7.3 the ZiS-6 - a gun that was only tested (tested!!!!) on KV-2 - actually shoots faster than in the gimpy KV-3 called T-150 who has a turret that was designed to use that gun specifically. Come the f@%# on, it's practically a turreted tank desroyer now.

It's a mobile siege gun for God's sake - there's a reason why the majority of KV-2s that weren't lost during the first few months of Barbarossa were reconfigured back to KV-1. In real tank combat situations it just didn't have the mobility (or turret rotation speed) to fight other tanks.

Is there something wrong with this being reflected in the game right now?

[Darth_Conrad]

MalikCarr, on Apr 28 2012 - 05:46, said:

And I think that's just fine. The KV-2 shouldn't be some kind of do-all ubertank like WG has made it out to be. I mean as it is now in 7.3 the ZiS-6 - a gun that was only tested (tested!!!!) on KV-2 - actually shoots faster than in the gimpy KV-3 called T-150 who has a turret that was designed to use that gun specifically. Come the f@%# on, it's practically a turreted tank desroyer now.

It's a mobile siege gun for God's sake - there's a reason why the majority of KV-2s that weren't lost during the first few months of Barbarossa were reconfigured back to KV-1. In real tank combat situations it just didn't have the mobility (or turret rotation speed) to fight other tanks.

Is there something wrong with this being reflected in the game right now?

Well considering how many things in this game that aren't historical I'm not surprised.  The thing is though this is a fictional game so you can't always be historical otherwise every time someone fired their S-51 it would fall apart.  The higher RoF comes down to balance in that the T-150 is better armored and has a lower profile so the KV-2 gets the advantage of two viable guns and higher RoF with the ZiS-6.

[MalikCarr]

Darth_Conrad, on Apr 28 2012 - 06:02, said:

Well considering how many things in this game that aren't historical I'm not surprised.  The thing is though this is a fictional game so you can't always be historical otherwise every time someone fired their S-51 it would fall apart.  The higher RoF comes down to balance in that the T-150 is better armored and has a lower profile so the KV-2 gets the advantage of two viable guns and higher RoF with the ZiS-6.

There's a difference between fudging details and complete and total fiction.

Sure, some things in this game are done by fiat for the sake of gameplay. Retracking a tank, for example - this isn't something you do while under fire because it's a long and laborious process. But, at least until not so long ago, most of what went on in this game had a reasonable degree of accuracy while still leaving room for this thing called "fun".

A good example a lot of people bring up are guns mounted to tanks and how some of them never happened, etc etc.

That being the case, most of them were either tested, prototypes, or planned upgrades that never materialized. For example, KwK 43 L/71 was tested on a Tiger I but the Heereswaffenampt decided against upgrading the Tiger I on the grounds that it made more sense to devote shop space to producing Tiger IIs and Panthers. Likewise, the KwK 45 L/52 was planned for installation on the Tiger II, but the war ended before any guns could be mounted.

But, the majority of these little nudges make sense. The ZiS-6 only worked on KV-2 in a demonstration - they had to leave the back door of the turret open because the long shells almost couldn't be turned inside the KV-2's tall but horizontally narrow turret. Now, the total inverse is true.

It would be analogous to Wargaming kowtowing to the German players bitching that the E-100 sucks - which is namely because Wargaming unfairly nerfed the thing's armor design. So, instead of just FIXING THE ARMOR, they decide to make it a Tier 9 tank somehow, except it's now slower than Maus - which was half the point of E-100 to begin with in the first place.

If I just wanted to have fun randomly shooting other tanks, I'd be petitioning whoever owns the rights to Battletanx to find a developer and make a new version for the current-gen consoles. A year ago this game was advertised as a shooter with a fairly strong historical basis and really detailed battle physics, and I fear this is breaking down because whiners can't grasp the fundamentals that tank warfare is a complex thing and Wargaming wants to broaden the appeal of its game (and its customer base...).

[Darth_Conrad]

MalikCarr, on Apr 28 2012 - 06:13, said:

There's a difference between fudging details and complete and total fiction.

Sure, some things in this game are done by fiat for the sake of gameplay. Retracking a tank, for example - this isn't something you do while under fire because it's a long and laborious process. But, at least until not so long ago, most of what went on in this game had a reasonable degree of accuracy while still leaving room for thing thing called "fun".

A good example a lot of people bring up are guns mounted to tanks and how some of them never happened, etc etc.

That being the case, most of them were either tested, prototypes, or planned upgrades that never materialized. For example, KwK 43 L/71 was tested on a Tiger I but the Heereswaffenampt decided against upgrading the Tiger I on the grounds that it made more sense to devote shop space to producing Tiger IIs and Panthers. Likewise, the KwK 45 L/52 was planned for installation on the Tiger II, but the war ended before any guns could be mounted.

But, the majority of these little nudges make sense. The ZiS-6 only worked on KV-2 in a demonstration - they had to leave the back door of the turret open because the long shells almost couldn't be turned inside the KV-2's tall but horizontally narrow turret. Now, the total inverse is true.

It would be analogous to Wargaming kowtowing to the German players bitching that the E-100 sucks - which is namely because Wargaming unfairly nerfed the thing's armor design. So, instead of just FIXING THE ARMOR, they decide to make it a Tier 9 tank somehow, except it's now slower than Maus - which was half the point of E-100 to begin with in the first place.

If I just wanted to have fun randomly shooting other tanks, I'd be petitioning whoever owns the rights to Battletanx to find a developer and make a new version for the current-gen consoles. A year ago this game was advertised as a shooter with a fairly strong historical basis and really detailed battle physics, and I fear this is breaking down because whiners can't grasp the fundamentals that tank warfare is a complex thing and Wargaming wants to broaden the appeal of its game (and its customer base...).

The T-28 prototype is 90% fiction.  Most of the german prototype tanks too.  Heck the Pz V/IV's turret was bolted on and couldn't be traversed.  Wargaming is balancing a game here though and sometimes reality takes a back seat for balance.  This isn't a sim after all.  If it were I'd totally agree with you.