Jump to content


Russian Bias?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
133 replies to this topic

Poll: Russan Bias? (508 members have cast votes)

are the Russian tanks better than their counterparts?

  1. yes (259 votes [50.98%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.98%

  2. no (249 votes [49.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 49.02%

is there bias in another faction?

  1. German (70 votes [13.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.78%

  2. American (62 votes [12.20%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.20%

  3. none, they are all equal. (376 votes [74.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 74.02%

Vote Hide poll

CNCfan101 #1 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 03:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3297 battles
  • 110
  • [JASF] JASF
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011
seems that a lot of people in the forums are complaining about "Russian bias"

so are Russian tanks better, or is this whole thing myth?

Sadukar09 #2 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 04:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19455 battles
  • 3,299
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011

View PostCNCfan101, on Jun 06 2011 - 03:33, said:

seems that a lot of people in the forums are complaining about "Russian bias"

so are Russian tanks better, or is this whole thing myth?

There's a few slightly overpowered ones, but they are either being moved up a tier or readjusted. People create the perception of bias because people keep perpetuate the view that Soviet tanks are all completely overpowered, mainly through confirmation bias. Once one troll/joenobody says he got killed by *Insert Soviet Tank Here*, a couple more joins in and agrees without any solid evidence.

blade12444 #3 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 04:48

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7691 battles
  • 563
  • Member since:
    09-23-2010
i wish people stoped making these threads. EACH tank has is own strengths and weaknesses, learn the ones YOU like and play that tank

Sickocrow #4 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 04:53

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 3230 battles
  • 1,023
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011
Try all 3 and make up your own mind.

As many others have said before, and I agree with.  Each nation plays a ROLE, and have unique and different attributes. With some exceptions in each and every line.

Russian are Brawlers.
German are Sniper/Support.
American fit in the middle of those two.

Pick the nation for the Role you want to play, and find a tank that suits your playstyle.

the_moidart #5 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 05:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 21815 battles
  • 2,114
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
Russian tank bias?

KV-3: The only tank in the game truly crippled by inferior mobility.
KV-1S: A useful glass cannon, not so glass since update. Neither are worth a VK3601 H.

T-34-85: Severely inferior hull armor (45mm?!), the D10T at its slowest, reducing DPS to a trickle. A flat out bad tank.

IS: Good, but not a T29, which has it beat in protection and especially gun utility.

T-43: Good, but not a VK3002 DB, which has a more reliable gun then the D10T and slightly superior armor and mobility.

T-44: Good, but not as functional as a Panther (ammo crits, inaccurate guns with long aim times) or as mobile as a T23

IS-3: Only good if upgraded fully. The weak hull is a permanent liability, especially in 'brawling', where the gun can finally be relied upon to hit. KT's and T32's are better armored, more reliably armed.

Russian tanks that stand out: High tier TD's - great guns, and who cares about their armor, its not like a JP is more survivable. IS-4's - the only functional tier 9 heavy.

Arty I know nothing about.

In short, russian superiority is a myth, I was disappointed with the IS-3, which my KT quickly surpassed. All its good at is driving in a straight line.

The real uber faction is the americans. Not all of their tanks are that good, namely the T1 and M6, but otherwise, American tanks have a balanced utility that the other two sides lack. Sufficient protection, sufficient gun accuracy, sufficient mobility, they have it all. People let the Lee and T1-M6 grinds blind them.

evanb90 #6 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 06:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 17908 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
The moderate responses will be lost in the incoming ****storm of "OMG RUSSIA OP posts", but: Sadukar is mostly right. (and it kills me to say that)

There are only a few examples of concrete Russian bias.
KV- I used it, it's not that hard to compensate for the sluggishness, even at close range. Backing into walls, corners stops circling. It's a decent sniper with its 107mm and the derp gun is absurd at close ranges. A well played KV is really only threatened at its tier by other KVs or artillery. But a poorly played KV is easily circle-strafed by a HETZER. Yes, I seriously circle-strafed a derp KV in my Hetzer.
IS-4- Face to face with the other T9 tanks, it's basically an equal. VK4502 vs IS-4 is a cointoss and the T34's 120mm is absolutely painful. IS-4 is overpowered because it's overall armor makes it much harder to hurt. E8 Sherman for example, can flank a T34 and hurt it badly. I once had a E8 Sherman flank my VK4502 and damage my ammo rack and my fuel with two side-shots. IS-4...barely hurt by 76mm HE rounds...to the rear.
T-54- Again, when faced with the other T9 meds, it comes out fairly equal. Matter of fact, a good Pershing will probably kick the crap out of a T-54 (due to vastly outdamaging the T-54 and penetrating each time). But against lower tiers, it can rip through them in a way that the Pershing/Panther II can't.
KV-3- Situationally OP. It ****s over all Tier 6 tanks completely, and against Tier 5 its a cruel joke. Against Tier 8+, it's just sluggish target practice for everybody. The other Tier 6s can atleast run away.

Coincidentally...
KV- is being split into two separate vehicles. And while it seems likely the KV-1 will get the 107mm, it probably will fire slower with less accuracy given the smaller and faster turret. The number of derps will decline hugely as well.
IS-4- Being moved up to Tier 10, where I have a feeling it might just be a bit underwhelming. Its replacements won't be nearly as powerful or impressive.
T-54- Is going to face new competition- the faster M46 Patton and the overall deadlier E-50.
KV-3- Is being moved up to Tier 7, where its pitiful speed will become a huge liability to it, and its armor won't seem anywhere near as impressive.

the rest is mostly attributable to the player.

And the 704 doesn't count anymore, because I've run into Inviso-Mice since 0.6.4 came out. Inviso Mice that can see you while you can't see them, while moving around and shooting. Seriously. That invalidates all Russian stealth tank arguments.

hazywater #7 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 06:57

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2663 battles
  • 758
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
Wellllll
The KV-3 is OP so its getting moved to tier 7
The IS-4 is OP, so its getting moved to tier 10
Are any German or American tanks being moved up a tier?

The KV/107 has by far the best gun of any medium and heavy at tier 5. The 152 can 1-shot any tier 5 tank, including its heavy rival the T1 if it hits the side armor. Its a 2-shot from the front. There is no other heavy tank in the game that gets so much firepower so early. There is a medium tank though, the T-28 (also russian). If you look only at tier numbers, you might think the T29 gets tier 9 firepower at tier 7, but no, take a look at the stats and you see a tier 8 gun instead.

The T-54 is considered OP, so the German and US tier 9 mediums are getting replaced. I really don't think that was necessary, actually. If the T-54 just had its historical armor value instead, things would probably have been just fine.

Mizar_Panzer #8 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 08:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 3789 battles
  • 2,421
  • [TT-C] TT-C
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
Overpowered Russian Tanks:
KV3: Being moved up a tier
IS4: Being moved up a tier
IS7: Will have the buffed MAUS for company
T54: Will have to play with E50 and M46 in a couple of months, and even at its current state is outperformed in competitive games.
OBJ: Nerfed last patch

Underpowered tanks:
VK3001P: This tank is hopeless, utterly hopeless.
JagdTiger: Mantle fixed, 128mm gun buffed, quite competitive now, in conjunction with the OBJ nerf.
T34 heavy: Another utterly hopeless tank, but is being replaced.
Tiger: Module damage fixed
T23: Getting removed and replaced by pershing

Well, the devs didnt get it right the first time, but at least there're signs of them getting it better,

Mow_Mow #9 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 09:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11515 battles
  • 14,801
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
No, the Poor Russians have the slowest, least armored, least maneuverable, most likely to catch fire tanks. They also have the guns with the least alpha damage.

Oh wait...

Seriously speaking though, it's just a few outliers. Generally the Russians seem fairly balanced. They may seem strong but when you play them their deficiencies will show themselves to you.

Quote

The real uber faction is the americans. Not all of their tanks are that good, namely the T1 and M6, but otherwise, American tanks have a balanced utility that the other two sides lack. Sufficient protection, sufficient gun accuracy, sufficient mobility, they have it all. People let the Lee and T1-M6 grinds blind them.


I don't know about you, but 102/76/51 is not "sufficient protection" at tier 10. hell, even the T30's "uber turret" is the weakest at tier 10. Even the T34's turret is rather lacking by tier 9 even. IS-4 and VK4502's turrets are both generally stronger. The Maus and IS-7 turrets are leagues ahead of the T30's turret. T30 only has the gun and traverse to fall back on. When the strongest part of your hull (102mm) is almost as strong as the armor on someone's behind (IS-4, 100mm), I think 'sufficient protection" doesn't quite apply. And don't get started on the 51mm rear armor. I'd be surprised if a loltraktor doesn't get 50mm penetration somewhere.

Datpony #10 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 13:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
The only thing that makes for a russian bias is how they have no real distinct disadvantages or quirks.

German tanks have the reduced mobility on anything that's not solid concrete, and American Tanks have the whole "Paper hull, stone turret" thing going on.

Russian heavies are.... slow. But name one heavy that isn't entirely slow?

Russian mediums are slightly under-armored(Save for T-44 and T-54, pershing, panther and ect), but what mediums aren't?

Plus their SPG's and TD's actually have a bunch of advantages that no other tanks have. Mostly in the gun/ammo/mobility department. All early TD's and SPG's are food to HE shells, but later on when the TD's are all completely enclosed and the Arties have ginormous guns, Russian SPG's and TD's have the decisive advantage of Gun and mobility. I cant tell you how many times i've seen JagdpanzerIV's and panthers get annihilated trying to be on the front line. But Su-85's, Su-100's and up are able to survive on the front lines

But by design, the tech trees now all favor the russian side. Once the American TD's come out, french tree, maybe the british tree and who knows what later on, only then will the "Russian bias" be nonexistant. Or at least Benign.

jasta07 #11 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 14:06

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3278 battles
  • 108
  • Member since:
    12-25-2010
I think a lot of people totally underestimate the poor accuracy and aim time of Russian tanks and focus solely on armor and gun power. In my experience a US or German tank will miss a "dead on" shot due to bad luck maybe 1 in 10 times? (hard to explain what I mean by dead on - one of those shots that isn't 100% guaranteed but you sure as hell swear a lot when you miss) With Russian tanks it's more like 1 in 7 or 8. That makes a difference.

Not to mention that Russians have a much harder time shooting and scooting, it's a lot harder for an IS or T-44 to pop out of cover, snap off a quick shot and pop back in - they either have to fire wildly or wait a dangerously long time to zoom in.

Having said all that - there's a reason there's a bunch of re-tiering going on. The Pershing and Panther II really aren't equal to the T-54, even with buffed guns and hitpoints. Same with the IS-4 and T-34. I don't think it's the massive "OMG it's one big Red Square parade, Ivan is just laughing at us capitalists" that some people seem to love spouting on here but some tweaks are probably needed.

CNCfan101 #12 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 15:50

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3297 battles
  • 110
  • [JASF] JASF
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

View Postthe_moidart, on Jun 06 2011 - 05:52, said:

People let the Lee and T1-M6 grinds blind them.

i see their is a lot of strong opinions going on around here.  actually, i am neutral on this issue, and in my opinion, the T1 and the M6 are relitivly some of the worst tanks in the game.  

after getting gunned down by a KV for the 40th time in my T1, i felt starting this topic would start some interesting discussion.

Steel_Viper #13 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 18:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5124 battles
  • 278
  • [LB77] LB77
  • Member since:
    09-30-2010
There is definitely some bias towards Russian tanks, especially at the end tier.

The T-54 is a monster of a tank. Better top base speed and armor than its counterparts. Similar penetration on guns, with slightly lower damage, but best R.O.F. Definitely the most feared medium.

IS-4 is another crazy tank. Thankfully being moved to Tier X. My JT bounces shots off this guy from the front and sides, regardless of aiming for "so-called" soft spots. My 250mm of frontal armor still gets penetrated by these guys, meanwhile I can shoot and actually get the message "Shot did not penetrate." My avg. pen is 276, IS4 armor is 160mm max hull, and it doesn't penetrate?

Futuristic Obj 704 and its 286mm pen with 750 damage...how is that balanced? It has lower armor thickness but its sloped armor bounces way too many shots.

Really, the major OP-ness of the Russian tanks is not from their damage potential but rather their sloped armor and how much the devs have over-compensated for sloped armor. I would really love to see testimony from a WWII tank gunner saying that it is typical for 3 out of 5 shots to bounce off a target.

And yes I know you can aim at soft spots, but sadly you don't always hit where you aim do to gun accuracy.

I think if they lessen the value that sloped armor provides it would solve a lot of player complaints. Because I personally feel that no equal tier tank should be able to go head to head with a TD. You should be forced to use your maneuverability to flank the td's, otherwise, while even go td if a heavy is better for straight on sniper attacks?

Sadukar09 #14 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 18:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19455 battles
  • 3,299
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011

View PostHolice, on Jun 06 2011 - 18:11, said:

There is definitely some bias towards Russian tanks, especially at the end tier.

The T-54 is a monster of a tank. Better top base speed and armor than its counterparts. Similar penetration on guns, with slightly lower damage, but best R.O.F. Definitely the most feared medium.

IS-4 is another crazy tank. Thankfully being moved to Tier X. My JT bounces shots off this guy from the front and sides, regardless of aiming for "so-called" soft spots. My 250mm of frontal armor still gets penetrated by these guys, meanwhile I can shoot and actually get the message "Shot did not penetrate." My avg. pen is 276, IS4 armor is 160mm max hull, and it doesn't penetrate?

Futuristic Obj 704 and its 286mm pen with 750 damage...how is that balanced? It has lower armor thickness but its sloped armor bounces way too many shots.

Really, the major OP-ness of the Russian tanks is not from their damage potential but rather their sloped armor and how much the devs have over-compensated for sloped armor. I would really love to see testimony from a WWII tank gunner saying that it is typical for 3 out of 5 shots to bounce off a target.

And yes I know you can aim at soft spots, but sadly you don't always hit where you aim do to gun accuracy.

I think if they lessen the value that sloped armor provides it would solve a lot of player complaints. Because I personally feel that no equal tier tank should be able to go head to head with a TD. You should be forced to use your maneuverability to flank the td's, otherwise, while even go td if a heavy is better for straight on sniper attacks?
Just so you know, Jagdtiger does not have full 250mm frontal armour, your upper hull is 150mm, same as Tiger II, while your lower hull is 120mm.

Engine_of_War #15 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 19:33

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9582 battles
  • 840
  • [TCH] TCH
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
I don't think the bias mostly comes from Russian tanks being Better. just that they constantly nerf anything thats not Russian and buff russian tanks.

ex: all american heavys get teh depression nerf and IS-3 gets increased hull health and increased turret health.

accuracy,depression, damage, turret transverse, even speed on the US heavys from T29 up got nerfed expecially the 105mm cannon, even how fragile the gun is. russians get nothing of a sort done to them. and a 10cm increase in hight a nerf does not make for a special med tank.

Drive_Me_Closer #16 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 22:32

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7300 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
Most of the Russian bias seems to stem, not from an overt action on the Dev's part, but a seeming lack of experience with their designs for the US and to a lesser extent german trees.  

US tanks seem balanced on simple paper analysis.  A T32/34 will equal a IS3/4 if they stand in the open and trade shots.  But factor in the sloped russian armor, better camo and larger up front damage, and suddenly the IS series becomes a much better design.  The Dev's don't consider the depression change a nerf because they don't have enough experience with US heavies to really know how much that change hurts.  Someone noticed some clipping on a model and did a quick patch, totally ignoring the effects or the design intent of the superior gun depression.  

It seems obvious that the russian tanks get the most play time and testing, so they get the most fixes to various issues.  The US tree is especially an under appreciated step child, with minimal upgrades and options.  Heck, The 75mm, 90mm, and 105 are your only guns on mediums and heavies long after the other trees get new toys.  I mean, didn't any of the Devs notice that the 105 can't pen a IS3 frontally?  IS tanks never have that problem, they can always pen German and US tanks with stock guns.  IS tanks also are more resistant to splash damage from artillery.  T29/T32/T34/T30 will be double tracked by a near miss every time, and often lose another module or two.  If this happens while they are exposed they die.  

The US advantages of shorter aim time and some minor maneuverability are too small to make up the difference.  The removal of the T23 and T34, and the change of the T30 to a TD will help in some regard, but overall the proposed replacements don't seem to have any improvement.

Sadukar09 #17 Posted Jun 07 2011 - 02:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19455 battles
  • 3,299
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011

View PostDrive_Me_Closer, on Jun 06 2011 - 22:32, said:


It seems obvious that the russian tanks get the most play time and testing, so they get the most fixes to various issues.  The US tree is especially an under appreciated step child, with minimal upgrades and options.  Heck, The 75mm, 90mm, and 105 are your only guns on mediums and heavies long after the other trees get new toys.  I mean, didn't any of the Devs notice that the 105 can't pen a IS3 frontally?  IS tanks never have that problem, they can always pen German and US tanks with stock guns.  IS tanks also are more resistant to splash damage from artillery.  T29/T32/T34/T30 will be double tracked by a near miss every time, and often lose another module or two.  If this happens while they are exposed they die.  

I would like to contest that, 105mm on the American Heavy line CAN and WILL reliably penetrate the frontal hull armour of the IS-3. IS tanks do not have any hidden resistance to artillery. Every tank takes the same amount of damage, just depends on if the hit penetrates or not, and if the tank in question has spall liner.

hazywater #18 Posted Jun 07 2011 - 02:43

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2663 battles
  • 758
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostSadukar09, on Jun 07 2011 - 02:17, said:

I would like to contest that, 105mm on the American Heavy line CAN and WILL reliably penetrate the frontal hull armour of the IS-3. IS tanks do not have any hidden resistance to artillery. Every tank takes the same amount of damage, just depends on if the hit penetrates or not, and if the tank in question has spall liner.

The 105 will only penetrate the IS-3 on the upper glacis at very close range, basically when you can aim down at it to overcome the slope. The lower glacis can be penetrated at long range.  It is by no means "reliable" especially considering the inaccuracy of the 105T5E1.

TheRonmasteh #19 Posted Jun 07 2011 - 03:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 31919 battles
  • 4,767
  • [CAZA] CAZA
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
For me: Russians are somewhat overpowered IN EXCHANGE OF

- Lower DPS than counterparts (right?)
- Drunk tank designers that studied Feng Shui deeply and found out that space is important so Modules are OK outside of the tanks

    - Fuel tank. Really? ITS VISIBLE!
    - Ammo rack. Yes, totally a lie. Just ask an IS-3/IS-4, or a T-43, T-44 driver to tell you how Ammo racks are so good with them...
    - Engine: Less chance of fire but less powerful (?)
    - (Cant think on anyone else.)

Hated russians for their strong bias, but unfortunately I have (I know, not forced, but still, 3 tanks...) to grind them and well, with the time I just saw their weaknesess as well...

Sadukar09 #20 Posted Jun 07 2011 - 04:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19455 battles
  • 3,299
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011

View Posthazywater, on Jun 07 2011 - 02:43, said:

The 105 will only penetrate the IS-3 on the upper glacis at very close range, basically when you can aim down at it to overcome the slope. The lower glacis can be penetrated at long range.  It is by no means "reliable" especially considering the inaccuracy of the 105T5E1.

Debatable, 105mm will penetrate most of the time if the IS-3 is angle in any sort of way, and in battle, it will happen. The only time you have difficulty penetrating is if the IS-3 is facing you head on with the V, with no angling. Reliable as in penetration to hit ratio.