Jump to content


Churchill making credits


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

Coraf #1 Posted Jul 26 2010 - 20:00

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010
As I have bought a Churchill to see how much credits it would make me I started a test of 20 games with it. I also used an Pz III/IV (also tier 5)(fully upgraded) in another 20 games to compare results.
The Pz III/IV scored the following :
from a minimum of  -736  to  +6571 with an average of +2670
The Churchill scored the following :
from a minimum of  +1779 to + 13093 with an average of +6100

So from this little test we can conclude that the Churchill generates ca 228% credits compared to another tier 5.
FYI  B)

Kalis #2 Posted Jul 26 2010 - 20:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26864 battles
  • 835
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
I don't find any premium tank worth it though.
6 days of 1.5x credits earns u far more than a premium tank would imo.
And of course, there's also the 1.5x XP to factor in which lets you get the higher tier tanks way faster...

gizaman #3 Posted Jul 26 2010 - 23:26

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 845
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
xp is used like an elite tank. It can be transfered as free experience.
But since this is a very bad way of using your gold besides the extreme case where you need FAST some experience.
There is no use for the exp gained from the tank. Credits is all what this tank is used for.

Phillyfanatic #4 Posted Jul 26 2010 - 23:30

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 15711 battles
  • 41
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010
While the churchill, and other gold tanks, may be good for you personally to grind credits, they are sub-par tanks compared to the normal tanks in the same tier as them, which leaves you team effectively handicapped because you're greedy. Granted there isn't much incentive to win particular games if you yourself manage to make plenty of exp/credits anyway. After all, this is just a glorified balance test.

leofwine #5 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 00:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 473
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostDrJ_Zoidberg, on Jul 26 2010 - 23:30, said:

While the churchill, and other gold tanks, may be good for you personally to grind credits, they are sub-par tanks compared to the normal tanks in the same tier as them, which leaves you team effectively handicapped because you're greedy. Granted there isn't much incentive to win particular games if you yourself manage to make plenty of exp/credits anyway. After all, this is just a glorified balance test.

Ah but you get to play with a Brit tank, which is why I'm saving for it. I get very bored of German, USSR & American tanks, because they are in every WW2 game. But British tanks? Ahh I'm looking forward to them being in-game.

Accidentally #6 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 01:21

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 445 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    07-07-2010

View PostBreyd1971, on Jul 26 2010 - 20:04, said:

Been saying that in every match where I was told the churchill sucked :)
Same.
I've also been told they would rather have an MS-1 instead of my Churchill,and get tked more than often in it rather then my other tanks.

GozerTC #7 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 01:56

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5383 battles
  • 581
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
Hey now the Churchill is better than an MS-1 since the Churchill can block more shells.  I can hide behind a Churchill much better than an MS-1. :)

gizaman #8 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 08:12

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 845
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Put the 17 pdr on it, instead of 6 pdr. And It will tear tigers apart, NO DOUBT.

The good side of the churchill is that it can surely take a beating. And it bounces a lot of shots.

If the british side is going to be a lot like this. I am going british.

yab #9 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 09:26

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 717
  • Member since:
    04-08-2010
I liked churchill in RU beta with old pen system. Now I don't like this tank. Period.
And from my experience it turns out that net gain are around the same in fully upgraded KV-1 as in Churchill and better in KV-3

Apocalyptica #10 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 10:30

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 245
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
how high are the repair and ammo costs of the churchill?

noobie #11 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 10:33

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    06-29-2010

View PostTagichatn, on Jul 26 2010 - 23:12, said:

Do the premium tanks have researchable upgrades or is xp just worthless with them?
no it comes "fully upgraded"

Coraf #12 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 11:13

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010
The repair cost for a Churchill is 2915 (highest repair cost from 20 games)
The ammo cost depends on how much you shoot of course : it averages around 450 for me (highest was 910).

theta0123 #13 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 11:51

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,971
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
pff i wish their was a british tech tree.

Their light tanks could have been the early cruiser tanks

Their medium tanks could have started with the crusader tank.
Heavy tanks would have been the Infantery tanks.

The tortoise could have been the maus type.

Such a shame, i so wanted to drive churchills MKIII and then the heavy churchills, and then finnaly the black prince with its 17PDR gun

WriterX #14 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 11:53

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 42
  • Member since:
    07-04-2010
I have seen a Churchill take part in a battle where almost a third of the tanks were Heavies. It died from the first shot. I suppose under certain circmustances it's good, but it's not a decent Heavy Tank which could argue with a proper Heavy.

theta0123 #15 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 12:04

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,971
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
I have seen some churchills in battle, and when used defensivly, it can rip apart many Scouting tanks.

High ROF and ease aiming. Its all the elements you need to stop those leopards and A-20"s

noobie #16 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 12:05

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    06-29-2010
very "certain circumstances"
it's good only for blocking road in Lasville

leofwine #17 Posted Jul 27 2010 - 12:14

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 473
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View Postgizaman, on Jul 27 2010 - 08:12, said:

Put the 17 pdr on it, instead of 6 pdr. And It will tear tigers apart, NO DOUBT.

Turret ring was too small to take a turret that could house the massive breach of the ROQF 17-pdr, and the 75mm gun they installed later on was a rebored 6-pdr designed to take the American 75mm shells...was pretty useless against a Tiger frontally

Churchill with a 17-pdr would have been the Black Prince, late-war Churchill VII chasis, widened, with wider tracks to take the increased weight, a larger turret and the 17-pdr installed.

Quote

The good side of the churchill is that it can surely take a beating. And it bounces a lot of shots.

If the british side is going to be a lot like this. I am going british.

The Churchill could take one hell of a beating, and actually had loads of armour, 16-102mm, which is similar to the Tiger, which had 100mm max on the hull. Churchills had one amazing feature that no other tank in the world at that time could replicate. It could go literally anywhere. Areas of terrain the Germans considered 'impassable', the Churchill would go over it. Their climbing ability was legendary at the time, and scared the hells out of German troops when Troops of Churchills appeared on their flanks in battle, where they had placed 0 AT defence because they assumed no tank could go over that terrain.

As for how British tanks will be...hehehe, yeah. Errr. Slight problem there. British tank doctrine split tanks into two categories. Infantry Armour & Cavalry Armour. Infantry Tanks were designed to support an infantry assault. Heavily armour, slow moving, they were essentially armoured pillboxes with AT capability (Churchills went at about 20mph max). The bulk of British Tanks were the Cavalry Tanks; decent AT capability, really fast, but thinly armoured.

I'll be interested to see how they do put the British Tank Tree in, and how they will play.

Dr_Wycior #18 Posted Jul 28 2010 - 18:14

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Isn't the Matilda better tank (in means of credits income) than Churchill? Matilda is Tier VI, while Churchill only Tier V.

Cynabal #19 Posted Jul 28 2010 - 18:44

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3308 battles
  • 298
  • [CCP] CCP
  • Member since:
    07-02-2010

View PostDr_Wycior, on Jul 28 2010 - 18:14, said:

Isn't the Matilda better tank (in means of credits income) than Churchill? Matilda is Tier VI, while Churchill only Tier V.

I read somewhere that the Matilda was feared by the Italians and Germans and was almost impervious to most AT and Arty untill about late '41 when the Afrika Korps came along with there 88's and pak38's, then we started to loose alot of Matildas and so they replaced it with the Valentine!

Cool looking tank tho, one of my fave WWII tanks.

noobie #20 Posted Jul 28 2010 - 19:32

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    06-29-2010
VERY slow and pretty weak, still good enough for farming (about the same level as churchill)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users