Jump to content


Tiger2 and Panther


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

TheJeep1 #1 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 04:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18959 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

What is up with these two tanks now a days.  Both of these tanks were actual production, war tests beasts.....in this game they are complete jokes.

 

Well, the only complaint I actually have with the Panther is the amount of damage it does.  120ish?  Really?  It needs a damage bump, especially considering how many kills Panther crews scored in action.  I dont know what would be balanced, but 120 is completely retarded.  I have tier 5s that do 120ish.  I would of expected a little more knockout power from one of the best tanks that was "actually" made in the real war.  I have to say its accuracy, armor, speed, loading time all seem about right.

 

Tiger2-  Where do I begin?  Every aspect of this tank is poor.  And it seems it has been recently nerfed in accuracy.  I seem to be missing about 30% more then what I remember, and my crew has only gotten better...Now add in everything it faces it cannot penetrate, even though it was known for it's long range penetration capabilities.  And its armor?  WOW, it cant stop crap.  Angled, sloped, and everything penetrates it. 

 

Historically the Tiger2 was designed to hit and penetrate enemy tanks from over 1500 meters and at that distance resist pretty much anything the Allies had.  That doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

Every match I look and if its a balanced tier 8 match, the first top 6 tanks I see I cannot do crap against.  "oh, you just have to flank",  yeah, here is the problem with that.  One- Im slow  Two- Entire team screams Im not going the right way  Three- Something is defiantly wrong with its accuracy  Four- I get spotted and enemy turns to face me.

 

I understand that the new tanks introduced are to generate cash, I get it.  But seriously?  Why totally make one of the better tanks actually produced totally impotent.

 

I used to be able to sit back and hit commander hatches and vision slots when I was thrown into a tier9 or tier 10 match, it was hard but I did it occasionally, now it seems I miss so much more.  The only two things I can think of that seem to be ok are the amount of damage and speed, also the damage to my engine and crew seem to be accurate.

 

I dont have a list of fixes, Im only reporting what its like to play a Tiger2 now a days.  It plays more like a Tier7 heavy, in fact I have a much better experience playing my Tiger P.



bfp4f360 #2 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 05:16

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15004 battles
  • 597
  • [LOAD] LOAD
  • Member since:
    06-27-2012

so many words, such sadness

 

 

 

 

this is a video game, a very arcadey one too, u want realism go play war thunder.....oh wait its dead.....

 

besides the tiger II has the most accurate heavy tank gun i think so.....its got that

 

 

again ur want realism, go play war thunder XD, this is WOT and i want my biased russian tanks plzzzzz

 

 



madogthefirst #3 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 05:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 21263 battles
  • 7,578
  • [CSA-1] CSA-1
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011
The only joke are those that come across my Tiger II and think it is a push over. Been hovering 90-91% MoE on the Tiger II for a while, thinking of adding optics to get it over the hump.

View Postbfp4f360, on Mar 17 2017 - 20:16, said:

so many words, such sadness

 

this is a video game, a very arcadey one too, u want realism go play war thunder.....oh wait its dead.....

 

besides the tiger II has the most accurate heavy tank gun i think so.....its got that

 

again ur want realism, go play war thunder XD, this is WOT and i want my biased russian tanks plzzzzz

I believe it is, I have it down to 0.28 without food.



_Gungrave_ #4 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 05:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 35163 battles
  • 8,749
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostTheJeep1, on Mar 18 2017 - 04:54, said:

What is up with these two tanks now a days.  Both of these tanks were actual production, war tests beasts.....in this game they are complete jokes.

 

Historically the Tiger2 was designed to hit and penetrate enemy tanks from over 1500 meters and at that distance resist pretty much anything the Allies had.  That doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

I understand that the new tanks introduced are to generate cash, I get it.  But seriously?  Why totally make one of the better tanks actually produced totally impotent.

 

OP just some food for thought the only real reason they were considered beasts in WW2 is because they didn't really have any equal aside from the Panther whose crews were a little scared of the Sherman Firefly. I do get amused by history buffs who love german armor and how they cry over this or that German tank but you have to realize that game balance comes first and German tanks are always second to Russian tanks.

 

The quicker you accept all of that the better and simple truth is for German tier 8 heavies you don't rely on the armor because with all the tanks they've added in the past 2 years its armor is irrelevant.

 



ogHaKo #5 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 05:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26932 battles
  • 614
  • [RUSHB] RUSHB
  • Member since:
    11-14-2011

Comrade, this game ain't about realism, its an arcade.

 

Just because those tanks were considered "beasts" in WW2 doesn't mean anything here. They were on "beastmode" level because they were mainly fighting Shermans and T-34s.

As you can see in this game - they're still "beasts" if to compare to t5 Sherman and t5 T-34.



KingAuthur #6 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 06:10

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2181 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    11-12-2012

ALL I GOT TO SAY

thanks dev you *** **** for no armour

and making this game Rssr wot you bunch of ***



Nightrager7 #7 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 06:17

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 8657 battles
  • 18
  • [FOAD] FOAD
  • Member since:
    01-05-2015
Tiger II is hard to master, but I like it, fits my play style. My strategy: Hang back and go for weak-points, and if someone tries to brawl you on a one-2-one basis, face-hug 'em, this covers the lower plate and prevents them from hitting the sides.

Bob_5000 #8 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 10:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27833 battles
  • 76
  • [SC4R] SC4R
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostNightrager7, on Mar 17 2017 - 21:17, said:

Tiger II is hard to master, but I like it, fits my play style. My strategy: Hang back and go for weak-points, and if someone tries to brawl you on a one-2-one basis, face-hug 'em, this covers the lower plate and prevents them from hitting the sides.

 

you can pen the turret though

TheJeep1 #9 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 10:32

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18959 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

View Postbfp4f360, on Mar 17 2017 - 20:16, said:

so many words, such sadness

 

 

 

 

this is a video game, a very arcadey one too, u want realism go play war thunder.....oh wait its dead.....

 

besides the tiger II has the most accurate heavy tank gun i think so.....its got that

 

 

again ur want realism, go play war thunder XD, this is WOT and i want my biased russian tanks plzzzzz

 

 

 

You have a hard time understanding English, don't you?  Where did I say I was looking for a historical mimic?

TheJeep1 #10 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 10:38

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18959 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

View Post_Gungrave_, on Mar 17 2017 - 20:42, said:

 

OP just some food for thought the only real reason they were considered beasts in WW2 is because they didn't really have any equal aside from the Panther whose crews were a little scared of the Sherman Firefly. I do get amused by history buffs who love german armor and how they cry over this or that German tank but you have to realize that game balance comes first and German tanks are always second to Russian tanks.

 

The quicker you accept all of that the better and simple truth is for German tier 8 heavies you don't rely on the armor because with all the tanks they've added in the past 2 years its armor is irrelevant.

 

 

I agree with your post.  This is why I posted.  I wasn't looking for "Historical Value" so to speak.  I was looking for a little bit more balance.  Right now, a production tank is useless.  Im telling you right now, the accuracy is off, and its been off for about 7 months.  Plus all these gold tanks, which I DONT have a problem with, should throw this tank back to tier 7.

TheJeep1 #11 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 10:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18959 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

View PostogHaKo, on Mar 17 2017 - 20:58, said:

Comrade, this game ain't about realism, its an arcade.

 

Just because those tanks were considered "beasts" in WW2 doesn't mean anything here. They were on "beastmode" level because they were mainly fighting Shermans and T-34s.

As you can see in this game - they're still "beasts" if to compare to t5 Sherman and t5 T-34.

 

Again, complete crap.  Panthers especially had at least a 8 to 1 kill ratio against their Russian counter parts.  One thing you book memorizers forget is "History" is written by the victors.  Panther and Tigers were almost never were left on their own, especially on the Eastern Front.  Prussian battles saw localized counter attacks that slew 100's of Russian tanks.  Seelow Heights saw 400 Russian top of line tanks destroyed in a mere 36 hours.  You put a German tank vrs a Allied tank is ideal conditions, like this game, and its over.   All this talk and quotes I see do not replicate this game.  This game does not have fog or the fear of AT guns or Infantry.  It is tanks pushing on their own.  So gamey as it is, German tanks are very much under represented as to their full capabilities in ideal conditions.  Especially the Tiger2.  Any tank enthusiast will tell you how many attributes were modeled after this tank.

 

Shermans and T34's.  Give me a break.  In this game both those tanks do more damage then a Panther......does that really make sense?



TheJeep1 #12 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 10:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18959 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

View PostNightrager7, on Mar 17 2017 - 21:17, said:

Tiger II is hard to master, but I like it, fits my play style. My strategy: Hang back and go for weak-points, and if someone tries to brawl you on a one-2-one basis, face-hug 'em, this covers the lower plate and prevents them from hitting the sides.

 

This is great advice.  However it is outdated.  With the limits on visual range and its accuracy nerfed, crap armor, and no penetration.....need I say more?

Motok0 #13 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 10:58

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 10454 battles
  • 2,087
  • Member since:
    12-03-2016
Tiger 2 is trash in this game for a t8 and the lowe is WAY better, havent played the panther so i wouldnt know

mrmojo #14 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 11:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17629 battles
  • 1,755
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011
Agree with OP the damage of the Panther is pathetic

TheJeep1 #15 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 11:04

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18959 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

View PostMotok0, on Mar 18 2017 - 01:58, said:

Tiger 2 is trash in this game for a t8 and the lowe is WAY better, havent played the panther so i wouldnt know

 

Yep, I agree.  This is my only T8 tank, so I hope they do something to make it little more competitive now that they have introduced 6-8 gold tanks that have made this one useless.  I really dont have a big problem with the Panther, as its portrayed in this game....other then the damage is laughable.

Bolo_MkXX_Tremendous_DMD #16 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 14:57

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14012 battles
  • 2,417
  • [POET] POET
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014
Both of these tanks are great but if you need real life validation that IS-3 was trash IRL just go to your local grocery store.  You will probably notice that you passed no Lenin statues on the way, that the food is all fresh and fully stocked, and that the lines don't last for four hours in the cold.

ogHaKo #17 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 16:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26932 battles
  • 614
  • [RUSHB] RUSHB
  • Member since:
    11-14-2011

View PostTheJeep1, on Mar 18 2017 - 09:54, said:

 

Again, complete crap.  Panthers especially had at least a 8 to 1 kill ratio against their Russian counter parts.  One thing you book memorizers forget is "History" is written by the victors.  Panther and Tigers were almost never were left on their own, especially on the Eastern Front.  Prussian battles saw localized counter attacks that slew 100's of Russian tanks.  Seelow Heights saw 400 Russian top of line tanks destroyed in a mere 36 hours.  You put a German tank vrs a Allied tank is ideal conditions, like this game, and its over.   All this talk and quotes I see do not replicate this game.  This game does not have fog or the fear of AT guns or Infantry.  It is tanks pushing on their own.  So gamey as it is, German tanks are very much under represented as to their full capabilities in ideal conditions.  Especially the Tiger2.  Any tank enthusiast will tell you how many attributes were modeled after this tank.

 

Shermans and T34's.  Give me a break.  In this game both those tanks do more damage then a Panther......does that really make sense?

 

You are biased towards German tanks, I am biased towards the Alliance tanks period.

 

Yes, in real war tanks aren't the only force on the battlefield. And this is exactly why you should NOT compare real combat to this arcade game. 

Panthers and Tigers were superior to Shermans and T-34s, but they were not to IS1 - 2 or Pershing. And both feared each other.

 

Either way, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Should Panther 1 do 9999 damage a hit so it actually resembles what it could do in real war? Should Tiger 2 outclass 90% of the tanks on the battlefield and do 10 kills a game on average?

 

Just because those are production vehicles doesn't mean sh'', it only means that they suited the needs of German army back then, which were: Ability to fight other tanks, especially American M3Lees, Shermans and Russian KV-line and T-34s.


Edited by ogHaKo, Mar 19 2017 - 16:33.


PrimarchRogalDorn #18 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 17:55

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostTheJeep1, on Mar 18 2017 - 04:54, said:

 

Again, complete crap.  Panthers especially had at least a 8 to 1 kill ratio against their Russian counter parts.  One thing you book memorizers forget is "History" is written by the victors.  Panther and Tigers were almost never were left on their own, especially on the Eastern Front.  Prussian battles saw localized counter attacks that slew 100's of Russian tanks.  Seelow Heights saw 400 Russian top of line tanks destroyed in a mere 36 hours.  You put a German tank vrs a Allied tank is ideal conditions, like this game, and its over.   All this talk and quotes I see do not replicate this game.  This game does not have fog or the fear of AT guns or Infantry.  It is tanks pushing on their own.  So gamey as it is, German tanks are very much under represented as to their full capabilities in ideal conditions.  Especially the Tiger2.  Any tank enthusiast will tell you how many attributes were modeled after this tank.

 

Shermans and T34's.  Give me a break.  In this game both those tanks do more damage then a Panther......does that really make sense?

 

"History being written by the victors" is a fallacy. To quote Tiako from r/AskHistorians:

 

Block Quote

 It is a very lazy and ultimately harmful way to introduce the concept of bias. There isn't really a perfectly pithy way to cover such a complex topic, but much better than winners writing history is writers writing history. This is more useful than it initially seems because until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that. To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes. Or within my speciality, the senatorial elite can be argued to have "lost" the struggle at the end of the Republic that eventually produced Augustus, but the Roman literary classes were fairly ensconced within (or at least sympathetic towards) that order, and thus we often see the fall of the Republic presented negatively. Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users