Jump to content


Worst heavy tanks in the game...my list.


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

_Red_Saaryn_ #61 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 08:34

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 15288 battles
  • 704
  • [-IKR-] -IKR-
  • Member since:
    08-09-2015

View Postjairogut, on Jul 11 2018 - 05:25, said:

 

I have faced all... I have 3 marks on my tiger 2..... Did you even check the link I sent you?  https://tanks.gg/compare/tiger-ii?l=51112g&t=is-3_71112m~emil-i_101114~kv-5_000001~amx-50-100_202117~alpine-tiger_000001~chrysler-gf_000001 .. it is updated with premium ammo penetration ... which tank has the top penetration? I guess you do not know how to use it... and you brawl with it in tier 10 matches.... Well .. what else can you do with 801 WN8? 

So what are you saying is that if I only shot gold magically I will win?, like if those gold shells would give me an energy shield that will protect me against the crap ton of OP guns that can penetrate the armor? Because I already did that long ago and using 50k each game even in a win doesn't sound nice at all 


Edited by _Red_Saaryn_, Jul 11 2018 - 08:35.


_Gungrave_ #62 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 09:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 42188 battles
  • 16,299
  • [X-OUT] X-OUT
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
Emil 1 and caern aren't bad as those tanks are more about skilled play. The only real tier 8 runner up for worst heavy is the Tiger II.

Zuikakoo #63 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 10:47

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 17282 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    02-11-2016

View Postearthman34, on Jul 04 2018 - 22:16, said:

Tier 5: OI Experimental. This is a polebarn on tracks, even more stupid than the TOG. At least the TOG has enough hitpoints to kill you before you kill it. And Wargaming buffed the armor and nerfed the gun, in a game where armor is mostly irrelevant. Runner up: VK 30.01 (H), because it's not really a heavy tank.

 

Tier 6: Churchill VII. We all know Wargaming hates British heavy tanks even more than it does American heavy tanks, here is your proof. Runner up: TOG II.

 

Tier 7: Black Prince, though arguably it's not that bad. Runner up, FV 201 A45, even though it's an uncommon reward tank, because it combines the worst qualities of British heavies and mediums at a tier that is one too high.

 

Tier 8: AMX 65T. Slow. Low DPM, Inaccurate. Useless armor. Couldn't they make it do one thing well? Runner up: Emil 1/Caernarvon, because they both suck.

 

Tier 9: Tough call, because nothing I've played at tier 9 really sucks that bad. Probably the Conqueror, simply because it needs better mobility for balance.

 

Tier 10: Another tough call, because I haven't played all these extensively, but I'm going with the Super Conqueror, because even though it's better than the 215 it replaced, the armor always lets it down. And it's also too slow. Runner up: T110 E5.

 

I agree with a bit of this, but I'm going to interject my views on it and things you didn't really consider.

 

Tier 5:  The T1 Heavy tank is just bad, it's missing everything a heavy tank needs and should have at T5.   

Tier 6:  Yep dead on the Churchill VII sucks like black hole

Tier 7:  In the great wasteland of tier 7 the Black Prince just squeaks out past the restatted existing model that is the Vk:45.03(seriously WG at least the patriot got a paintjob) the annoyingly forgettable M4-45 and the hopelessly creeped Tiger P to be the greatest pile of junk.   Though I could see the Tiger P being considered worse because you've got to play it for so freaking long.

Tier 8: I would say the Defender because its corrosive effects upon the health of the game and community but that's not what this list is, and so the hopeless AMX 65t reigns king just barely squeezing out the 110 to be the crappiest.

Tier 9: The AMX 50 120, a perfect synergy of faults, none on its own fatal or crippling come together like threads in a tapestry to make 60 tons of failure.   

Tier 10:The FV215b, gone and forgotten it was hopeless when they removed it and its hopeless now.   A few masters hold on to them and keep the candle burning, and I salute you.



Intolerance83 #64 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 11:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21086 battles
  • 554
  • Member since:
    07-10-2011

Both Conq's are awesome.

How you forgot the Tiger II at tier 8, I don't know...

I think the IS4 is the lamest Tier X atm - Slow, ineffective armour, meh gun...

 

 



o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7 #65 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 17:00

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 423 battles
  • 865
  • [ITDED] ITDED
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

View Postearthman34, on Jul 04 2018 - 22:16, said:

Tier 5: OI Experimental. This is a polebarn on tracks, even more stupid than the TOG. At least the TOG has enough hitpoints to kill you before you kill it. And Wargaming buffed the armor and nerfed the gun, in a game where armor is mostly irrelevant. Runner up: VK 30.01 (H), because it's not really a heavy tank.

 

Tier 6: Churchill VII. We all know Wargaming hates British heavy tanks even more than it does American heavy tanks, here is your proof. Runner up: TOG II.

 

Tier 7: Black Prince, though arguably it's not that bad. Runner up, FV 201 A45, even though it's an uncommon reward tank, because it combines the worst qualities of British heavies and mediums at a tier that is one too high.

 

Tier 8: AMX 65T. Slow. Low DPM, Inaccurate. Useless armor. Couldn't they make it do one thing well? Runner up: Emil 1/Caernarvon, because they both suck.

 

Tier 9: Tough call, because nothing I've played at tier 9 really sucks that bad. Probably the Conqueror, simply because it needs better mobility for balance.

 

Tier 10: Another tough call, because I haven't played all these extensively, but I'm going with the Super Conqueror, because even though it's better than the 215 it replaced, the armor always lets it down. And it's also too slow. Runner up: T110 E5.

 

 

U WAT M8?????

 

troll post. go away. shoo



Badird #66 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 18:37

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11720 battles
  • 540
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

I had more dpg in the Tiger I than the Tiger 2, and I two-marked the Tiger 2 in ~100 games.

 

Does that not solidify it as the Grand-prize winner?  2 MoE in 100 games, 1380 WN8.  Unreal.



jairogut #67 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 18:51

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 26938 battles
  • 162
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    09-12-2014

View PostBadird, on Jul 11 2018 - 18:37, said:

I had more dpg in the Tiger I than the Tiger 2, and I two-marked the Tiger 2 in ~100 games.

 

Does that not solidify it as the Grand-prize winner?  2 MoE in 100 games, 1380 WN8.  Unreal.

 

It solidifies the fact that people do not know how to use it..... The Tiger 2 is in real trouble if played as a close combat brawler.... However, for holding critical spots at medium range, doing snapshots and playing it as a heavy sniper, it has no match among Tier 8 tanks.... Noobs are way more at ease playing close support brawlers..... and certainly, do better playing those tanks 

Edited by jairogut, Jul 11 2018 - 18:52.


Badird #68 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 19:19

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11720 battles
  • 540
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

View Postjairogut, on Jul 11 2018 - 17:51, said:

 

It solidifies the fact that people do not know how to use it..... The Tiger 2 is in real trouble if played as a close combat brawler.... However, for holding critical spots at medium range, doing snapshots and playing it as a heavy sniper, it has no match among Tier 8 tanks.... Noobs are way more at ease playing close support brawlers..... and certainly, do better playing those tanks 

 

I mean, sure.  But look at the difference in stats you had between the Tiger 1 and Tiger 2.

 

Tiger 1 dpg: 1428

Tiger 2 dpg: 1521

 

You are honestly telling me that the Tiger 2 is good at tier, when you did an extra 93 damage per game from the T1 to the T2, despite having 100 extra hp, better gun stats, better armor, etc?  Not to mention the clearly superior and intimate knowledge of how to use the Tiger 2 described above...

 

You are a good player.  I am a decent player.  We both played the Tiger 2 worse than our average and worse with respect to the Tiger 1.  Carry on, if you must, believing that its a good-but-misunderstood tank at tier.  Personally, I choose to believe its been powercreeped.



StrachwitzPzGraf #69 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 19:28

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 36487 battles
  • 427
  • [PSYCO] PSYCO
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015

View PostGenErwinRommel, on Jul 04 2018 - 17:47, said:

tiger ll sucks to

 

I will grind most tanks once I start -- IS-2 -- did it... OI-Exp, Did it... AMX 65t Doing it.... but the Tiger II -- I gave up... it was poison for me....

Badird #70 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 19:35

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11720 battles
  • 540
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

View PostStrachwitzPzGraf, on Jul 11 2018 - 18:28, said:

 

I will grind most tanks once I start -- IS-2 -- did it... OI-Exp, Did it... AMX 65t Doing it.... but the Tiger II -- I gave up... it was poison for me....

 

Once you get the top gun, its much more bearable.  I dont make a habit out of shooting gold, so the lower guns were tough sledding.

 

The E75 is great and I really enjoy the E100, despite the hate that it got in this thread.



w1ckymagee #71 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 20:06

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21146 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011

View PostBadird, on Jul 11 2018 - 19:35, said:

 

Once you get the top gun, its much more bearable.  I dont make a habit out of shooting gold, so the lower guns were tough sledding.

 

The E75 is great and I really enjoy the E100, despite the hate that it got in this thread.

I didn't mean to sound like I don't enjoy playing it but if you don't have a team to back you up it's a miserable game.



sneakytails #72 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 20:12

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7217 battles
  • 196
  • [ESG] ESG
  • Member since:
    06-01-2014

View PostMirellemagic, on Jul 11 2018 - 04:47, said:

 

I agree with a bit of this, but I'm going to interject my views on it and things you didn't really consider.

 

Tier 9: The AMX 50 120, a perfect synergy of faults, none on its own fatal or crippling come together like threads in a tapestry to make 60 tons of failure.   

 

 

Yeah, I am playing the 50 120 right now and I will only play it in Platoons, its the only way to make it not feel so bad.

 

I cant believe the tank has to wait 3.3 seconds in between shots, it feels like an eternity and most enemy tanks can just fix their tracks and back out to safety before your next shot. It has paper armor, and its mobility never reaches its full potential to offset that. No heat rounds are also a problem as the apcr looses too much over distance which you are kind of forced to do because your tank is paper.

 

Its so bad i was reluctant to put my female crew members in it

Its so bad its making me want to buy back some of my British tanks I sold

Its so bad enemy light tanks stop out in the open and pen me frontally with zero effort and wreck me

 

And finally, its so bad I free xp'd to the 50b.

 

 

 



jairogut #73 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 20:56

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 26938 battles
  • 162
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    09-12-2014

View PostBadird, on Jul 11 2018 - 19:19, said:

 

I mean, sure.  But look at the difference in stats you had between the Tiger 1 and Tiger 2.

 

Tiger 1 dpg: 1428+

Tiger 2 dpg: 1521

 

You are honestly telling me that the Tiger 2 is good at tier, when you did an extra 93 damage per game from the T1 to the T2, despite having 100 extra hp, better gun stats, better armor, etc?  Not to mention the clearly superior and intimate knowledge of how to use the Tiger 2 described above...

 

You are a good player.  I am a decent player.  We both played the Tiger 2 worse than our average and worse with respect to the Tiger 1.  Carry on, if you must, believing that its a good-but-misunderstood tank at tier.  Personally, I choose to believe its been powercreeped.

 

Well, thanks for looking at my games.... Still I have +1000 games in the Tiger 1 I think.... Not that many in the Tiger 2 (only like 150 I guess?, and I just brought it back), maybe in the future I will have a better DPG on it... I am not saying the Tiger 2 is the best tier 8 heavy, I am just saying people do not know how to use it....It has many very important positive aspects......  Finally, my record on the Tiger 1 is very high.... It cannot be used for comparison.... 

Edited by jairogut, Jul 11 2018 - 20:57.


jairogut #74 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 20:58

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 26938 battles
  • 162
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    09-12-2014

View PostBadird, on Jul 11 2018 - 19:35, said:

 

Once you get the top gun, its much more bearable.  I dont make a habit out of shooting gold, so the lower guns were tough sledding.

 

The E75 is great and I really enjoy the E100, despite the hate that it got in this thread.

 

I agree, the E100 gets a lot of hate... It is a tank that needs a very good commander to be effective..... it is not "preangled" as russian heavies.... Still it is a support heavy... It cannot replace the Maus.... In GSH we use 1 E-100 for every 3 or 4 mice....... 

Edited by jairogut, Jul 11 2018 - 20:59.


Badird #75 Posted Jul 11 2018 - 21:58

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11720 battles
  • 540
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

View Postjairogut, on Jul 11 2018 - 19:58, said:

 

I agree, the E100 gets a lot of hate... It is a tank that needs a very good commander to be effective..... it is not "preangled" as russian heavies.... Still it is a support heavy... It cannot replace the Maus.... In GSH we use 1 E-100 for every 3 or 4 mice....... 

 

Honestly, the turret on the E100 could use a small buff, then it would be pretty good.  I saw a thread where someone claimed there was historical precedent to put the Maus turret on the E100.  Id take that, esp since the Maus turret isnt godly.

earthman34 #76 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 04:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 46820 battles
  • 3,137
  • Member since:
    07-17-2013

View PostMirellemagic, on Jul 11 2018 - 03:47, said:

 

I agree with a bit of this, but I'm going to interject my views on it and things you didn't really consider.

 

Tier 5:  The T1 Heavy tank is just bad, it's missing everything a heavy tank needs and should have at T5.   

Tier 6:  Yep dead on the Churchill VII sucks like black hole

Tier 7:  In the great wasteland of tier 7 the Black Prince just squeaks out past the restatted existing model that is the Vk:45.03(seriously WG at least the patriot got a paintjob) the annoyingly forgettable M4-45 and the hopelessly creeped Tiger P to be the greatest pile of junk.   Though I could see the Tiger P being considered worse because you've got to play it for so freaking long.

Tier 8: I would say the Defender because its corrosive effects upon the health of the game and community but that's not what this list is, and so the hopeless AMX 65t reigns king just barely squeezing out the 110 to be the crappiest.

Tier 9: The AMX 50 120, a perfect synergy of faults, none on its own fatal or crippling come together like threads in a tapestry to make 60 tons of failure.   

Tier 10:The FV215b, gone and forgotten it was hopeless when they removed it and its hopeless now.   A few masters hold on to them and keep the candle burning, and I salute you.

I didn't want to get into any premium tanks, which is why I ignored them. Funny, I have triple marked the T1, found it very effective. Need to use the ROF. I'd agree that the Tiger P is as bad as the Black Prince, maybe worse. It's a toss up. I'd also agree that the FV215B is awful, worse than the Super Conqueror by a mile, but it's now a premium vehicle.



o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7 #77 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 05:44

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 423 battles
  • 865
  • [ITDED] ITDED
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

View Postearthman34, on Jul 12 2018 - 04:01, said:

I didn't want to get into any premium tanks, which is why I ignored them. Funny, I have triple marked the T1, found it very effective. Need to use the ROF. I'd agree that the Tiger P is as bad as the Black Prince, maybe worse. It's a toss up. I'd also agree that the FV215B is awful, worse than the Super Conqueror by a mile, but it's now a premium vehicle.

 

215b was one of those tanks that required specific gameplay. very few people got it but those who did, could achieve magic. 215 was driven out of relevance with the widespread HE derps in the game that completely negated it. it stillhad dpm but it was just too awkward of a platform to be competitive against types

jairogut #78 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:04

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 26938 battles
  • 162
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    09-12-2014

View PostBadird, on Jul 11 2018 - 21:58, said:

 

Honestly, the turret on the E100 could use a small buff, then it would be pretty good.  I saw a thread where someone claimed there was historical precedent to put the Maus turret on the E100.  Id take that, esp since the Maus turret isnt godly.

 

While I agree with that (maybe 10 or 15cm buff?), the weakest point of the tank is the frontal wheel, when you angle the tank, it is not covered by the side-skirt and only has 120mm of effective armor. 

_Juris #79 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:18

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17771 battles
  • 563
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View Postearthman34, on Jul 04 2018 - 16:16, said:

Tier 5: OI Experimental. This is a polebarn on tracks, even more stupid than the TOG. At least the TOG has enough hitpoints to kill you before you kill it. And Wargaming buffed the armor and nerfed the gun, in a game where armor is mostly irrelevant. Runner up: VK 30.01 (H), because it's not really a heavy tank.

Tier 6: Churchill VII. We all know Wargaming hates British heavy tanks even more than it does American heavy tanks, here is your proof. Runner up: TOG II.

Tier 7: Black Prince, though arguably it's not that bad. Runner up, FV 201 A45, even though it's an uncommon reward tank, because it combines the worst qualities of British heavies and mediums at a tier that is one too high.

Tier 8: AMX 65T. Slow. Low DPM, Inaccurate. Useless armor. Couldn't they make it do one thing well? Runner up: Emil 1/Caernarvon, because they both suck.

Tier 9: Tough call, because nothing I've played at tier 9 really sucks that bad. Probably the Conqueror, simply because it needs better mobility for balance.

Tier 10: Another tough call, because I haven't played all these extensively, but I'm going with the Super Conqueror, because even though it's better than the 215 it replaced, the armor always lets it down. And it's also too slow. Runner up: T110 E5.

 

This post is one sixth correct, one third defensible, and one half a canonical example of why downvotes should be a thing.  In order:

 

Tier 5:  No.  The pre-nerf O-I Exp was ridiculous, now it's just not ridiculous.  it still has the insane derp gun that can one-shot some same-tier tanks and most lower-tier tanks.  That alone means it's not going to be the worst.  Let's consider the Churchill 1.  Yes, it has nice penetration.  No, that mostly doesn't matter.  Its alpha is well below-average, and has abominable elevation and depression, which combined with the enormous body makes it very awkward to actually aim at things.  The turret placement makes using your reasonable amounts of armor quite difficult, and that, combined with the enormous size and terrible power to weight ratio, makes it very difficult to force engagements to be on your terms.  It might not be the worst tier 5 heavy if it only had to face other tier 5 heavies, but it's the biggest XP pinata when facing anything above it.  I could entertain an argument for the VK, but it at least has mostly better gun characteristics and doesn't have the awkward turret arrangement.  Verdict:  downvote worthy.

 

Tier 6:  See tier 5 discussion - all the same arguments apply, and now include literally worst-in-tier alpha along with all the rest, except this time you made those arguments properly.  Verdict:  correct.

 

Tier 7:  Black Prince definitely isn't great, and you're not wrong about its downsides.  The improvement in penetration still leaves it lacking compared to its peers, and its alpha is weak.  However, it now has a reasonably reliable turret, enough gun depression to make it work, and enough gun handling to leverage the above-average DPM.  I would not call it the worst in tier, but it's definitely weak.  I think I would class the IS-2 as the worst, since it combines awful gun handling, poor depression, and no particularly workable/abusable armor.  Verdict:  defensible.

 

Tier 8:  AMX 65t is pretty bad, I agree.  It has a workable turret, good alpha, and reasonable penetration, but poor handling, bad DPM, and no hull armor.  So far you're in defensible territory, although I would say either the KV-4 (slow, low alpha, low DPM, armor only works as top tier) or the Tiger II (low alpha, low DPM, armor only works as top tier) could be worse.  Saying the Emil 1 is bad is... maybe defensible?  It's not great, but almost any autoloader is never going to be super bad because the clip potential makes it dangerous.  However, this veers pretty close to downvote territory because you call the Caernaervon bad.  It used to be, but with the addition of the 32-pounder and the DPM buff, it is now one of the better tier 8 heavies, since it has a turret strong enough to actually make use of the DPM.  Verdict:  defensible, only just.

 

Tiers 9 and 10:  If you think the Conqueror and Super Conqueror are bad, you are literally proving that you can't play tier 9 or tier 10 tanks.  Both have strong, reliable turrets, good gun depression, and awesome gun handling, and all the rest of their characteristics are perfectly adequate.  400 alpha is on the lower side, but both tanks have turrets easily strong enough to make near-full use of the DPM, and if you want to spam APCR there's basically nothing outside of superheavies or very heavily armored casemate TDs that you can't just right-click/left-click.  At tier 9, you could probably make arguments for the M103 or the 50-120, which have pretty glaring downsides, and at tier 10, probably the IS-4 (or maybe the E5, outside of the hands of very skilled players) are the worst.  Whichever way you go, it's definitely NOT the Conq/Super Conq.  Verdict:  downvote worthy.



QuicksilverJPR #80 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 25498 battles
  • 4,013
  • [RPG] RPG
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013
Tiger II and AMX 65T are the ones I truly hate at tier 8.  The rest at the other tiers are livable/passable...but at tier 8 when the MM really stacks against you (plus the powercreep over the past 3 years), those two tanks will ruin your damn life.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users