Jump to content


Why does everyone complain about the Tiger I?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
238 replies to this topic

Inf3cti0NzZj #221 Posted Feb 22 2012 - 07:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10103 battles
  • 17
  • [82AD] 82AD
  • Member since:
    11-24-2011
i agree with the expesive tiger repair bill. another reason why im consudering selling this tank for tiger 2. Can anyone please tell me if i should sell my tiger 1 for the king tiger? Does the king tiger make any cash at all? or is the repair bill ganna leave me broke :(? im also a average joe no gold no prenium account and when i sell my tiger for the king the king tiger will be the only tank i have in my garage. i know ima noob.:/

c0mp3t3nc3 #222 Posted Feb 22 2012 - 10:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8367 battles
  • 2,131
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011
for a free account: only with the short 105mm and long 88mm. the top gun chews through money like no tomorrow

dreadNouGH7 #223 Posted Feb 23 2012 - 09:27

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 28488 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012
I don't think the Tiger is "okay" for historical reason. As a history buff, that bugged me.

In the game, I do like my Tiger a lot, and is doing okay with it, after the L88 upgrade, so I'm not complaining about its niche "in the game". I like the "in game" Tiger because I am used to it. I however can't help but think the game designer completely perversed the role of Tigers. In actuality, Tigers were dominant brawlers, not shy stand-offish snipers. The 88s were also the most accomplished and famous gun of the whole WW2. They were the most well known gun everywhere -- Eastern front, Western front, North Africa, Italy.

Tigers' weaknesses were niggling mechanical problems ("teething"), too complicated and too expensive to mass produce. Perhaps making them prohibitively expensive to repair, as prone or more to modules damages as they are now, and the 88s shells very expensive to use -- but make them the fearsome fortresses closer to what they really were, might have been a better design? Such nuance may even add more depth to the game.

I also have some gripes about the "imaginary" tanks and prototypes that somehow became mainstream in the game.

Battlecruiser #224 Posted Feb 23 2012 - 12:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 21391 battles
  • 7,012
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

View PostCommissarRykov, on Dec 30 2010 - 20:41, said:

Exactly this. The Tiger is fun to play but it is severely gimped for "historical" reasons. <_<

it's not gimped for historical reasons. it actually is a pretty bad tank when it comes to fighting inside its weight class in arcade games.

germans relied on the principal of "if it can penetrate everything dies" instead of "we're too drunk to aim so  throw a church at it"

which of course, when applied to a damage mechanic based entirely off the gun size (save a few cases, like the e-50 105, game balance) makes the gun surprisingly underwhelming. and that is why they gave the tiger so many hitpoints, so you die just as fast as anything else in your weight class in a vs.

yes it sucks but there is no such thing as "the best at everything" tank in world of tanks, because that would be incredibly unfair- and because the people who make this game really enjoy their work and want all of their tanks played, not just the best one

c0mp3t3nc3 #225 Posted Feb 23 2012 - 12:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8367 battles
  • 2,131
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011
yeah too true. However the key reasons why the Tiger was so lethal also are the key reasons why its not so lethal in the game. We are talking a tnak that incited fear in 1942 taking on post war tanks and prototypes. On top of that, you also have Battlecruisers' point, where the devs somehow have to translate HP into the thing. I mean, there sure as hell wasn't any fancy little GUIs in the 1942 tanks telling you how many HP you had before you died, though that idea makes me chuckle a bit. it would be hilarious so see Michael Whittman go: oh dear, I am on 32HP, I better pull back and let the T-29 over there use his big 105mm for once

yopapa #226 Posted Feb 24 2012 - 02:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6561 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011
Thank you bro! Finally, someone has a topic about how awesome tigers are!

SilverforceX #227 Posted Feb 24 2012 - 02:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 10698 battles
  • 2,691
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
You can't compare to RL because Tigers in RL typically have kill ranges ~2km and were deadly accurate.

A penetrating shot usually killed or disable a tank, no such thing as taking 3-6 penetrating shots. The ability to engage further and more accurate meant most tanks facing Tigers had no chance.

Embiggener #228 Posted Mar 01 2012 - 20:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 14780 battles
  • 4,722
  • [RDSQ] RDSQ
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View Postpagad, on Dec 30 2010 - 18:46, said:

I've had my Tiger for a while now, and honestly I love it. I am consistently raking a lot of credits and exp - 30,000+ credits and 1,000+ experience in good games - and I am having loads of fun driving it.

Because it's fighting tanks that in many cases were intended to be a response to the Tiger, and not spending much time fighting the tanks that it was commonly used on.   Historically, the armor on it was extremely effective.  In game - damn near everything sails right through due to the guns you're facing.   Add to this the somewhat inflated pen and damage values of some of the Soviet guns, the oddly low damage of some higher velocity German guns apparently due to nothing more than lacking a couple of millimeters in diameter, top speed on roads that is a good bit too low (and lower on any surface than opponent tanks that were slower IRL), all the time people spent driving it when it didn't even have the gun mantlet modeled out (since fixed), and the inability to take much advantage of long range engagements ...  Historical tank fanboys are understandably very displeased.

I enjoyed mine quite a bit, but you're simply not going to please a lot of people with it.

If you want a more Tiger-ey experience, drive the 3601 instead.

Taos #229 Posted Mar 02 2012 - 00:02

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 37376 battles
  • 378
  • Member since:
    05-29-2011
Too many times I got ammo racked, busted gun or damaged engine. I sold it before the the 7.0 upgrade. The armor also seemed soft. I remember being one shot killed by a GW Panther within a minute after the game started at El Halluf. I didn't even see his scout.
Maybe later I might buy it back to see if the Devs made the armor better. I love the tank, I just didn't like playing it.



HoIo #230 Posted Mar 03 2012 - 20:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24921 battles
  • 434
  • [HIME] HIME
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
I fucking loved my Tiger... and I still have it :P But, if you look at my stats, you will see I have a Lowe... Why do u think I got it <_<

c0mp3t3nc3 #231 Posted Mar 04 2012 - 02:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8367 battles
  • 2,131
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

View PostTeru, on Mar 03 2012 - 20:32, said:

I fucking loved my Tiger... and I still have it :P But, if you look at my stats, you will see I have a Lowe... Why do u think I got it <_<
to save up money and buy T10 tanks with?

Gochtune #232 Posted Mar 04 2012 - 02:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18868 battles
  • 581
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011

View PostKristine, on Jan 01 2011 - 15:01, said:

7 reasons:

1: VK3601H out performs this tank by a mile away. A VK3601H!!!
2: Zero durability on armour. Unlike the VK3601H which, with luck, bounces everything. Patched, the armor somehow bounces more and well, a lot of zero damage hit.
3: Insane module damage. Ammorack?
4: Low damage / penetration output compared to IS.
5: Slow as a brick while the russian counter part, the IS, runs like a ferrari with nitro.
6: Even tier 3 tanks can easily penetrate it from any angle.
7: Broken gun mantle. It's not invincible, but it is enough as the gun rarely gets damaged. If you want it to be invincible, T29 is your choice.

There are more reasons which i'm not going to list. But those 7 reasons are the most obvious.

View PostDeathsArrow, on Dec 30 2010 - 18:50, said:

I struggled with the Tiger until I got the Long 88, then it gets fun.

The  biggest problem I have with the Tiger is the constant module damage. My  gun gets busted constantly as well as turret ring damage.
Well... that happened to my King Tiger. I hate my King Tiger now :(
my gun got damaged easily, and my gunner dies when there's 122mm shells flying beside him.

As for the OP...
1. Module damage.
2. Module damage.
3. They may be unable to fit the tank to their needs.
4. Because it's not the OMG SO OP TIGER IN WWII IMA TROLL ANYONE IN MY SIGHT BEHOLD MAH TIGAH.

Slakrrrrrr #233 Posted Mar 04 2012 - 03:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 22233 battles
  • 6,435
  • Member since:
    07-16-2011
if you consider the fact that the Tiger I has as many hitpoints of some tier 8 heavies, while the IS and T29 have firepower, it would be a close fight if it fought the other tier 7 heavies (other than the AMX M4, that thing would get sent sky high).

Sp00kyScaryKitKat__o7o7 #234 Posted Mar 04 2012 - 21:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 45070 battles
  • 2,442
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011
good to hear that

in the E-100 line i loved all the tanks but i rly hated both  Tiger and Tiger 2 lol




W4lt3r #235 Posted Mar 05 2012 - 13:51

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 11283 battles
  • 1,222
  • [SSGS] SSGS
  • Member since:
    07-06-2010
Ah... this thread..
Tiger I was quite different back in beta then what it is right now. I still liked it in beta and in release, regardless if my modules got busted every single match.

Schrollski #236 Posted Mar 05 2012 - 14:59

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 20423 battles
  • 332
  • Member since:
    03-01-2011
Tiger I is great, you just need to know how to play it.

I_Robot #237 Posted Mar 06 2012 - 16:25

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 47131 battles
  • 708
  • [ELLAS] ELLAS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
I sold my tiger yesterday to go for the Tiger 2 which i had researched for quite some time. It was a hard decision but i needed the slot :/

From my experience:

1) As i see it, the basic problem of the tiger* is the hype built around it. Many people think that it's a miracle weapon that will take out everything in front of it, just because in real life it was a legendary tank. Ok this is not the case :) Wot is a game that has certain mechanics (good or bad). Learn the mechanics and read history too if u like but do not confuse those two things.

2) When in game someone will have to understand that there is no "better tank of it's tier" etc. Every tank has a role and serves the team in a different way (except maybe from the AMX 40 in higher tier matches :P ).If the role suits your play style, go on and play the tank. So in my opinion its not so wise to compare tanks like "what happens on one to one situations" cause yes this will happen from time to time but if the team plays right a tiger will never have to dog fight with a T29: the T29 will be destroyed or seriously crippled before it has even the chance to see the tiger. Because it's the tiger and it's the tiger's specialty to do that.

3) The tiger is a sniper, a support heavy. Its not a brawler and it shouldn't be used like one except if needed.It's not wise to lead an attack even if you are the top heavy, you will have better results if you stand behind scouts or advancing mediums. The tiger has awesome accuracy and rof and if you want to play the tiger you have to take advantage of these two things that are unique for this tank. Learn the enemy weakness and aim for it. Cause If you aim for soft spots from a distance you will probably hit them even if they appear really small in your scope. Something that, for example, the IS cant do.

that's what i wanted to say :)
(and i hope i didn't make many syntax errors, English is not my native language).








*except maybe the easy module damage mentioned before in this thread. I think this should be fixed somehow ;/

the_moidart #238 Posted Mar 06 2012 - 18:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30486 battles
  • 2,160
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010

View Postbjm1702, on Dec 30 2010 - 19:35, said:

It's the slowest T7 heavy, it has the weakest armour of any T7 heavy, it has the weakest gun (damage wise) of any T7 heavy and it gets constant and crippling module damage. For it being one of the most feared and deadly tanks of WWII, it's more like a domestic cat than a Tiger in WoT. I still like it though, despite it's flaws.
It's not slow. Remember the difference between top possible speed and acceleration. The Tiger H is actually one of the more mobile tier 7 heavies, certainly way more then Tiger P and T29.

The AMX M4 has similar frontal armor and 40mm side armor. The Tiger can angle.

Module damage stems from people not angling properly, and from enemies aiming for the turret of an angled tank. Once again, try playing the AMX M4.

Panzerbar #239 Posted Mar 07 2012 - 19:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 40345 battles
  • 322
  • Member since:
    01-07-2012
When I first got my Tiger I lost a lot.

Now I've got the long 88, and a different attitude.  And I'm starting to help my team win some.

Look at the numbers and the Tiger is very similar to the Slugger.  Better gun and more armor but slower.  Turret slew rate is about a wash.  Like the M36, it seems to draw arty.  Snipe.  Long-range snipe.  Be sure to shoot no more than twice and move or arty will find you.

Wish the gun depressed more.  A Tiger with long 88 and just a little more depression would make the south hill on "Mountain Pass" unapproachable from the west.

Still the only answer to a Tier X tank would be another Tier X - or a Stuka or Sturmovik.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users