Jump to content


churchill VII, or should i say craphill VII


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

RAWwDoggin #1 Posted May 28 2016 - 14:19

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 15533 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    12-15-2012
Why is the churchill 7 SOOOOO bad??? why does it have to be so slow.... I cant seem to ever have a good game in this tank because of the slow speed. the damage is all right, This tank just does not have anything going for it, unless its something im not seeing... If this tank could do 28 to 30kph if would be more playable. ad it is now its just a normal churchill with a bit more damage and armor, The normal churchill is tera bad [edited]well.

Thijs79 #2 Posted May 28 2016 - 14:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 56177 battles
  • 707
  • [9-PDH] 9-PDH
  • Member since:
    05-26-2013
Prepare for the BP that 1 sucks aswell
The tier 8 is better but still not good(still no heavy tank gun)
Tier 9 is 1 of the best tier 9 heavys!!
  hang on  (for a long time)

Collapsed_Eigenfunction #3 Posted May 28 2016 - 14:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 27660 battles
  • 5,193
  • Member since:
    12-06-2011
I thought the tank was pretty good, with angling and fighting tier 6 terribada it's basically an auto win... The Churchill I is even better tier for tier, great fun with good DPM and idiot proof armor lets you just kinda curbstomp everyone. Though the church 7 is one of the weaker 6 heavies it is by no means bad.

vbluguitar #4 Posted May 28 2016 - 15:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18799 battles
  • 1,363
  • [CS7AO] CS7AO
  • Member since:
    01-21-2012

Ok,  You need to sidescrape, sidescrape, sidescrape - they are terribad tanks, but they are workable. I had a 58 percent win rate in my VII and have a 59 percent win rate in my BP.  The BP gets silly good MM.  I had one night this week (video of it is uploading to youtube as we speak) where my friend and I played 17 BP battles.   In the mm we had 1 tier 9 and 1 tier 8 game.  The rest were all 7s.  Got my first MOE in the BP yesterday.   Its the first tank that anyone has ever accused me of cheating in.  When sidescraped properly, it can bounce most of the guns you will face.  People get nuts and start yelling at you.  Its pretty funny.  I am almost done with the grind, and I may end up keeping it.

 

Anyway,  just keep at it, but try your best to get to choke points and sidescrape the hell out of them.



InvincibleTanker #5 Posted May 28 2016 - 15:48

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16119 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

You can't sidescrape on churchill 7 at all because of the hitbox on the side (that square bump on the side). 

It actually makes it easier for low tiers to pen that weakpoint (unintentionally).

You just sell that thing and never look back.



nac2011 #6 Posted May 28 2016 - 17:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18863 battles
  • 921
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

The churchill 7 is definitely one of my most trying grinds. I enjoyed everything up until that point. I expected it to be something that it wasn't, and I haven't really taken the time to learn it. It's just been sitting in may garage for almost two years now. 

I can definitely see why a lot of people say it's a bad tank, but I can also see how, in the right situations it can be stupidly good. Also I'd imagine a 100% would make the tank significantly better.



Lightknight6401 #7 Posted May 28 2016 - 17:05

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16168 battles
  • 17
  • [H-W] H-W
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

Here is a link to a replay that disproves that tank is bad. proper angling and support by your team lets that tank shine. Unfortunately yes the speed was a huge factor, by time I got into action most of my team had already folded.

http://replays.quickybaby.com/result.php?id=203756


 

Advice for the tank, your front armor is your strong point, slight angling is advised.

Your gun doesn't hit hard, but it hits fast, you can shoot 2 or 3 shots for every shot equal size tanks return.

You want to be in alleys if you could help it, avoid the open.



pepe_trueno #8 Posted May 28 2016 - 18:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 41596 battles
  • 6,391
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostLightknight6401, on May 28 2016 - 17:05, said:

Here is a link to a replay that disproves that tank is bad. proper angling and support by your team lets that tank shine. Unfortunately yes the speed was a huge factor, by time I got into action most of my team had already folded.

http://replays.quickybaby.com/result.php?id=203756


 

Advice for the tank, your front armor is your strong point, slight angling is advised.

Your gun doesn't hit hard, but it hits fast, you can shoot 2 or 3 shots for every shot equal size tanks return.

You want to be in alleys if you could help it, avoid the open.

 

one match is total proof... now what about the rest of the matchs? those 570 average damage disagree with you.

 

tank is just bad, pen is below average, alpha is way below average, DPM is actualy below its t6 med counterpart wich uses the same gun!, has no depression, terrible mobility and the armor is all flat and full of holes

 

and even if you manage a sidescrapig/hulldown position where enemys cant hit your tracks weakspots no one will give a dam becouse they just punch trhow your flat 150mm turret.

 

keep the crappy gun, depression and all that but the armor needs to be buffed. plate behind the tracks need to be upped to150mm and the front hull/turret olso need a general buff, either a direct buff of 20-30mm across the front and 40-50 on the turret or giving it spaced armor trhow add ons like they did in real life

 

 

fat prince is more of the same but at least the armor behind the wheels is somewhat stronger and the turret has 240mm 

 

alternative drop the whole heavy line a tier

current church7 as t5 with 650-700 hitpoints, 77mm gun removed  

black prince as t6 with 850-900 hitpoints, 17 pdr removed 

 

heavy valiant as t7:

tank derived from the A33 Excelsior and its T1 suspension. it was uparmored up to 228mm (hull) 240mm (turret). Weight was  estimated around 42 tons and used a 400 HP engine, originaly it mounted the 3.7 inch howitzer gun but it could be upgraded with the black prince QQF 17 pdr.

 

 

 


Edited by pepe_trueno, May 28 2016 - 18:30.


Hartmen #9 Posted May 29 2016 - 04:16

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27764 battles
  • 112
  • [UNA] UNA
  • Member since:
    04-18-2014

View Postnac2011, on May 28 2016 - 17:00, said:

The churchill 7 is definitely one of my most trying grinds. I enjoyed everything up until that point. I expected it to be something that it wasn't, and I haven't really taken the time to learn it. It's just been sitting in may garage for almost two years now. 

I can definitely see why a lot of people say it's a bad tank, but I can also see how, in the right situations it can be stupidly good. Also I'd imagine a 100% would make the tank significantly better.

 

I didn't seem to have a problem with the VII, now the BP -- Oh gawd that was awful, it was the most painful grind I had, I stopped playing it unless it was a 3x game. the Carnaervon (SP?) is OK but I like my Tiger II better.

Dante_Quixote #10 Posted May 30 2016 - 04:13

    Private

  • Players
  • 17661 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    11-02-2013

So I've played that line a lot, and honestly they're crap. The Churchill 1 is fun, I kept it because the tier V pubstomping is just too fun. Since I loved the churchill I so much I was really excited for the Churchill VII... and honestly yes it's crap. It's biggest letdown is it's gun. It's armor is alright, but with massive weakspots (tracks) that make that decent armor nearly worthless. If WG would fix the armor hitboxes, buff some weakspots etc it's crap gun would be almost tolerable. Or if they gave it an awesome gun, like what the AT7 or AT15A mounts. Or [edited]...it's a game, screw historical accuracy and buff the damn things penetration. If the Churchill VII could at least reliably do damage it would be pretty good. The fact the Churchill VII is in the same tier as the ARL 44, O-I, and KV-85 is just [edited]. It doesn't come close to them. 

 

WG needs to either fix the armor or the gun. 
 

I'm going to cut myself off here because the BP, and Church VII were the first tanks that really opened up my eyes to how [edited] up WG's tank balancing system is. I could write a book about how [edited] it is. Either way, the Church VII, BP, and Caernarvon are pretty much the worst heavy tanks of their tier. Caveat: The Caernarvon becomes almost decent when maxed out, but the lack of a real gun, [edited]speed, and crap armor means that ultimately the Caernarvon is just a slow, [edited], medium.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users