Jump to content


The forgotten Russians (K-91 line)


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

Shayd_Knight #1 Posted Mar 21 2020 - 19:12

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 15430 battles
  • 12
  • [ROT] ROT
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015

Im curious as to what the community's thoughts on this line is. I very rarely see it being played, and I want to know why people think its not worth getting compared to other mediums. From a balance perspective I can understand not every medium can be a Maus (looking at you 430U with 300+ effective armor) or what have you, but it feels the whole line it intensely scorned at large.

 

I guess what im getting at is, why do you consider the line unworthy of persuing, and what, if anything, you would improve about each tank or at least the tier 9 and 10 to make it more viable to more players?



ThaneTyrian #2 Posted Mar 21 2020 - 19:23

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17368 battles
  • 209
  • Member since:
    03-02-2012
I'm only at the Tier VIII, so I can't speak to the IX and X, but I'm guessing it plays like the STG and the GUARD, so people who are not fans of rear-mounted turrets will like probably NOT like the K-91.  I'm going to get it eventually because I DO enjoy the Guard and STG.  Thinking about getting it THIS weekend with the 20% off sale, but I HAVE to get an Artillery line to complete the Campaigns and they NEVER go on-track so THAT'S a priority with the 20% off.  I only have enough extra credits for one additional VIII-X line, and I don't have the 430U or the T-100 LT, which I both want, but I REALLY like the GUARD and STG so I'm still debating...

Shayd_Knight #3 Posted Mar 21 2020 - 19:38

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 15430 battles
  • 12
  • [ROT] ROT
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015
well my biggest gripe with tihe 9 is that it loses the camo which makes the 416 so enjoyable as a sniper medium. its low profile also allows it to hide in uneven terrain where other tanks couldnt. the 430 loses a lot of the camo which helped the 416 make up for the lack of armor and gun depression due to having to sit in unorthodox locations. The 430 ll on the other hand gains a tiny bit of armor, notably on the turret, hull is still paper. It doesnt get to keep the camo though so its not able to sneak around and snipe as much. i lost a lot of matches in it due to having to unlearn a fair bit of 416 hiding spots to use it in. It currently feels like its neither a sneaky tank, nor an armored one so it fills neither role particularly well. the A-44 had some decent armor for its tier, the 416 dropped all of the armor for camo, then you lose the camo to get some horrible 'below average joe' in the 430 ll. At least the K-91 gets some of that camo back and keeps the good gun handling i guess.

subweevil #4 Posted Mar 21 2020 - 20:10

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 37813 battles
  • 796
  • [S0YUZ] S0YUZ
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
The gun makes the K-91, everything involves getting into spots to use the -9 degrees of gun depression to the sides.  K-91 has decent camo and great view range.  Mine is cursed but I still ahve fun in it.

VooDooKobra #5 Posted Mar 21 2020 - 20:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 10245 battles
  • 6,686
  • [W-UN2] W-UN2
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
i loved the 416, though still trying to find that same feeling with the 91.  i think you dont see a lot of them because it takes a special kind of insanity to play rear turreted tanks (not meaning this as a bad thing)

Jaguarz #6 Posted Mar 21 2020 - 20:28

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4832 battles
  • 322
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
The problem isnt the k91 or 430 II, the problem is the ease and skill free productivity of the 430 and 430U, no amount of idiot ammo "rebalancing" will change that and instead of balancing tanks they wasted 2 years on the ammo rebalance which will never get the green light from the money men and even if it did it would require MORE individual rebalancing than is already needed.....




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users