Jump to content


Tier X Guns


This topic has been archived.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

Reeptyle #1 Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:51 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13228 battles
  • 768
  • Member since:
    07-16-2011
When will you (WG), do something about the guns on Maus/E-100 to be on par with other nations tier X guns?
Compare and make your own conclusion if this is balanced or not:

T110E5 gun:
Damage: 400
Penetration: 269/381 mm
RoF: 6.45
Accuracy: 0.35m
Aim Time: 2s

AMX50B gun:
Damage: 400
Penetration: 267/351 mm
RoF: 6.29
Accuracy: 0.35m
Aim Time: 3s

IS-7 gun:
Damage: 490
Penetration: 260/303 mm
RoF: 4.38
Accuracy: 0.4m
Aim Time: 3.43s

Maus gun:
Damage: 490
Penetration: 246/311 mm
RoF: 4.04
Accuracy: 0.38m
Aim Time: 2.86s

E-100 gun:
Damage: 750
Penetration: 235/334 mm
RoF: 3.18
Accuracy: 0.42m
Aim Time: 2.86s

NOTE: only wrote 15cm gun on E-100 as its stockgun is same as Maus. As You can see, penetration on the germans ar far worse than other nations

Addi64 #2 Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:58 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 8050 battles
  • 1,659
  • Member since:
    01-20-2011
you are only looking at the guns, which seems rather foolish, as the playstyle (and survivability ... Armor, HP, ...) are very different.
you are comparing apples and peas ... or in case of T110 and Maus ... apples and melons ...

they have their different roles, and therefore different strength and weaknesses.
but of course, it is always obvious to whine just about one single aspect of a complex machine. good job

HarryStotle #3 Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:03 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16903 battles
  • 1,434
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010

View PostKampfiltis, on 23 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

you are only looking at the guns, which seems rather foolish, as the playstyle (and survivability ... Armor, HP, ...) are very different.
you are comparing apples and peas ... or in case of T110 and Maus ... apples and melons ...

they have their different roles, and therefore different strength and weaknesses.
but of course, it is always obvious to whine just about one single aspect of a complex machine. good job


Yeah, penetration is irrelevant :facepalmic:

As has been said elsewhere, what use is lots of armour (and it's accompanied slowness) when the new high pen guns can go through it like butter?Although as you don't have any t10 german tanks, i bow to your superior knowledge.

jkksir #4 Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:07 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 27558 battles
  • 273
  • [DAC] DAC
  • Member since:
    08-28-2010
From my point of view the 128 mm on the Maus should have 255 pen or 260 pen.And the 15 cm on the E100 should have better accuracy OR better penetration.But for me the better penetration would suffice ,let's say around 250 or 248.The accuracy should be at least 0.40.On the E100 it's either Penetration or Accuracy.This is the way i see things.

Boendal #5 Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:08 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8153 battles
  • 562
  • [EASY] EASY
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011
I think E-100 has a bit higher RoF than Maus with 128, but that makes no difference :) actually I think Maus performs well in its league, it slow and well armored behemoth. The gun and bad mobility has its reason due to highest hp pool and best armor. But E100 with its HUGE frontal weakspot, penetrable turret frontal plate, low agility and worst gun is simply terrible :) still its fun to play you know, the huge alpha strike is great if you manage to penetrate some weakspot or rear/side. Otherwise its useless You-have-to-use-gold-ammo-or-SUFFER! greed-machine.

We have damage dealers, we have fast movers, we have well or awesomely armored bunkers but E100 is none of this. Good armor on paper, but very bad in combat, good gun on paper but very but in combat and below average mobility. Together with its size its tank everyone else from tier 10 can laugh at.

After all, keeping it in the garage for the feeling, but playing it rarely just to taste the alpha sometimes.

saml6131 #6 Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:09 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8559 battles
  • 4,060
  • [UN1CA] UN1CA
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostKampfiltis, on 23 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

you are only looking at the guns, which seems rather foolish, as the playstyle (and survivability ... Armor, HP, ...) are very different.
you are comparing apples and peas ... or in case of T110 and Maus ... apples and melons ...

they have their different roles, and therefore different strength and weaknesses.
but of course, it is always obvious to whine just about one single aspect of a complex machine. good job
Couldn't have put it better myself. The T30 being a tier 10 tank was a good excuse.

Edit - Wow, why all the minuses? I just meant to say that a gun does not make the tank. It was suited to being a TD because of it's gun, and the fact that it lacked the "survivability" the other tier 10's had which is why it wasn't a good tier 10 tank. If you only look at the guns, then it would seem great, but you need to consider the whole of the tank, including the armour/speed which is why the T30 wasn't as good as it would seem if you included it in the way you shown these tanks.

Yes the E100 lack's penetration compared to the other tier 10s, but it's still plenty enough to shoot most tanks and deal more damage than the others. I hate running into an E-100 with my Patton, because I know that it can and will penetrate me dealing 750 damage. Much more than the others.

vince_grant #7 Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:06 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 8550 battles
  • 498
  • Member since:
    07-30-2010

View Postsaml6131, on 23 April 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Couldn't have put it better myself. The T30 being a tier 10 tank was a good excuse.

Edit - Wow, why all the minuses? I just meant to say that a gun does not make the tank. It was suited to being a TD because of it's gun, and the fact that it lacked the "survivability" the other tier 10's had which is why it wasn't a good tier 10 tank. If you only look at the guns, then it would seem great, but you need to consider the whole of the tank, including the armour/speed which is why the T30 wasn't as good at it would seem if you included it in the way you shown these tanks.

Yes the E100 lack's penetration compared to the other tier 10s, but it's still plenty enough to shoot most tanks and deal more damage than the others. I hate running into an E-100 with my Patton, because I know that it can and will penetrate me dealing 750 damage. Much more than the others.

The problem really lies in the fact, that E-100 have only 2 strenghts: huge alpha and ramming ability. The tank have a really terrible turret that IS-4/7 and new US guns have no problems penetrating frontally, and the gigantic weakspot in the front is too vulnerable. The tank is not fast nor agile, armor is meh and penetration is terrible, so what good is the huge alpha? I for one, didn't grind for a tier 10 derprammer. Then some people would say that gold ammo is good with E-100, but then again, new IS-4 gun and the US tier 10 120mm guns have way more penetration. The 150mm of E-100 have 334mm average, and its not even enough to reliably penetrate IS-7's front (not counting the tiny weakspot), but US and USSR have 381 and 400mm with their gold ammo. So please tell me in which roles does the E-100 perform better, or even just equal with its rival nations buddies?

T90_TANK #8 Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:07 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23483 battles
  • 816
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011
indeed the guns are unbalanced but when a gun is weaker, that means the tank is stronger in other areas. for example maus has enourmous armour compared to a t110 for example (and don't tell me about the weakspots because if u play well than you will make sure the enemy never gets them. the tier 10 tanks are obvously the most important tier of all to have properly balanced tanks, and i think the devs have not made such a bad job actually. people should realise that you have to choose a tank not by its nation, but by the type of gameplay required to use it efficiently. http://forum.worldof...le_honoring.gif

saml6131 #9 Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:15 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8559 battles
  • 4,060
  • [UN1CA] UN1CA
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Postvince_grant, on 23 April 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

The problem really lies in the fact, that E-100 have only 2 strenghts: huge alpha and ramming ability. The tank have a really terrible turret that IS-4/7 and new US guns have no problems penetrating frontally, and the gigantic weakspot in the front is too vulnerable. The tank is not fast nor agile, armor is meh and penetration is terrible, so what good is the huge alpha? I for one, didn't grind for a tier 10 derprammer. Then some people would say that gold ammo is good with E-100, but then again, new IS-4 gun and the US tier 10 120mm guns have way more penetration. The 150mm of E-100 have 334mm average, and its not even enough to reliably penetrate IS-7's front (not counting the tiny weakspot), but US and USSR have 381 and 400mm with their gold ammo. So please tell me in which roles does the E-100 perform better, or even just equal with its rival nations buddies?
Well aside from the two you just mentioned, I can't think of any. Other than the armour is still great against lower tier tanks and against those other tanks at a longer range when they can't hit your weakspots accurately. But, the gun doesn't really have that good accuracy so you won't be able to hit them either. I've heard it's good in clan wars though.... as a shield. Not really a good tank for randoms then.

I was only reffering to the E-100 in my post though as an example. What would you say is worse as a tier 10 tank, the E-100 or the T30?

Boendal #10 Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:46 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8153 battles
  • 562
  • [EASY] EASY
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011
I would still go probably for E100, but T30 wasnt great tier 10 either, maybe they were equally crap overall, but I think T30 was at least able to use the turret and awesome gun. Now its definitely E100 the worst tier 10 tank by REALLY far :)

war4peace #11 Posted 23 April 2012 - 05:18 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Translator
  • 14664 battles
  • 4,802
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011
I'd say all tanks have pretty sizable frontal weakspots to make any of the mentioned penetrations enough to reliably damage the enemy. Sure, from a distance (read 300+m) the difference in penetration might prove to be problematic, but honestly, if you snipe with E-100 or Maus you're kind of doing it wrong.

Waagabondh #12 Posted 23 April 2012 - 05:24 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16819 battles
  • 1,072
  • [A-P2] A-P2
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

View PostKampfiltis, on 23 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

you are only looking at the guns, which seems rather foolish, as the playstyle (and survivability ... Armor, HP, ...) are very different.
you are comparing apples and peas ... or in case of T110 and Maus ... apples and melons ...

they have their different roles, and therefore different strength and weaknesses.
but of course, it is always obvious to whine just about one single aspect of a complex machine. good job

I dont agree with you.

A tier 10 tank should be able to penetrate another tier 10 tank without forcing it to use gold bullets to have a chance for penetration.

I think Maus have a decent gun.
But the problem is E100 gun. That penetration should be brought up to 250 at least, possibly 260.
Just increase the aim time to 3 sec.

Add to that the trajectory of german guns. E100 shell travels like an artillery shell. Rather slow.

I dont drive e100 myself, no way Im getting this tank. I drive IS7 and T110, and moving up to get AMX 50B. And soon I get IS4 with 270 penetration, good rof and accuracy.

E100 needs a buff, Maus I dont think it does.

Waagabondh #13 Posted 23 April 2012 - 05:27 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16819 battles
  • 1,072
  • [A-P2] A-P2
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
Another problem with the E100 is that its very easy to penetrate unlike the maus.
The sides of E100 is wet paper, and the front can easily be penetrated. The turret can be penetrated if you aim between gunmantlet and edge.

Its just not a good tank.

It needs a slight tweak thats it.

vince_grant #14 Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:45 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 8550 battles
  • 498
  • Member since:
    07-30-2010

View Postsaml6131, on 23 April 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Well aside from the two you just mentioned, I can't think of any. Other than the armour is still great against lower tier tanks and against those other tanks at a longer range when they can't hit your weakspots accurately. But, the gun doesn't really have that good accuracy so you won't be able to hit them either. I've heard it's good in clan wars though.... as a shield. Not really a good tank for randoms then.

I was only reffering to the E-100 in my post though as an example. What would you say is worse as a tier 10 tank, the E-100 or the T30?

The T30 is in my experience the worst tank, as it offers no protection against tank from tier 5. Played it in beta though, but as to my experience, it haven't changed much, armor is still the same. E-100 it self is not really a bad tank, it just needs some minor, yet important tweaks. Buffing 128mm and 150mm to 260 and 248mm penetration, and increasing the lower front hull from 130 (iirc) to 150-160mm, the tank would be balanced imo. It still have a big weakspot; the turret, which is a way bigger target than what any other tank in its tier have.

piep #15 Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:05 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7029 battles
  • 577
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View PostT90_TANK, on 23 April 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

indeed the guns are unbalanced but when a gun is weaker, that means the tank is stronger in other areas. for example maus has enourmous armour compared to a t110 for example...

for example the e100 hull and turret amirite?