Jump to content


T62A needs a buff badly!

T62A medium tank

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
140 replies to this topic

respinK #81 Posted 05 October 2012 - 12:01 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 49375 battles
  • 103
  • [21ID] 21ID
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010
in short:

The(!) worst Tank my garage has to offer!
I usually adopt different playstyles of different tanks rather fast. I may not be an mega expert on any of them but I think, having at least 50+% on your current garage shows that you have a rough idea of what to do and what not to do.
Well less than 40% is just hilarious. As I said, I think I adopt a tanks does and dont's pretty fast, so I don't need to do 100+ battles to find out what's what..
But with this tinbox? I either have no idea how to use it or it's just THE badest of them all. And I tend to believe the latter...

mamlas #82 Posted 05 October 2012 - 10:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 14704 battles
  • 656
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View Posti486DX, on 04 October 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

I average ~2800 DPB which is more then decent, but the shell cost is like a wall that you hit at 100kp/h. For me it kills all the fun of playing the tank. Ive never had such drastic problems with my IS-4/7.

Post nerf Obj 261 is coming close though.  You could say I specialise in heavy tanks, but with my stats on the T-62A I should be doing fine, but no. You simply lose credits and I hate such tanks.

Post-nerf Obj. is nightmare...

On the 62A, premium can make money, without it you need miracle(low taken dmg, no bounces etc.)

lonigus #83 Posted 05 October 2012 - 10:40 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 33143 battles
  • 8,014
  • [T-ESA] T-ESA
  • Member since:
    09-26-2011

View Posti486DX, on 04 October 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

I average ~2800 DPB which is more then decent, but the shell cost is like a wall that you hit at 100kp/h. For me it kills all the fun of playing the tank. Ive never had such drastic problems with my IS-4/7.

Post nerf Obj 261 is coming close though.  You could say I specialise in heavy tanks, but with my stats on the T-62A I should be doing fine, but no. You simply lose credits and I hate such tanks.

Hit ratio- 86%
DPB- 2798
Eff- 1725

Even Batchat with that would make very decent money.

Noticed the same with mine T62A... It really eats money... ALOT. Dunno didnt check the cost of Batchat ammo, but I would guess the price range is close and while Batchat pulls 350 to 400 on almost every hit, the T62A does often for like 240 dmg. That ofc as a result has influence on the earnings.

PRO_MEMBER #84 Posted 05 October 2012 - 01:58 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22177 battles
  • 2,850
  • [ICYA] ICYA
  • Member since:
    10-31-2011
yup, low alpha, high rof and high ammo costs makes this tank one of the most (if not the most) expensive in game.

zzlzxzzlzx #85 Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:45 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25177 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    05-03-2012
way more expensive than other TX meds

Volccis #86 Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12232 battles
  • 137
  • [EFE] EFE
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010
I got this tank in last weekend. I have played 44 matches with it and tested its role in many ways.

What I found is how slow and soft is it, totally different compared to T-54. Its hull doesn't bounce at all, even when its sloped (thx to 102mm hull armor). Only turret is bouncable. It catches the fire as often as T-54, maybe a bit more often. Conclusion, its role is to be a sniper and flank when you have an advantage.

+Good gun (still hating those 250dmg hits, especially as T10)
+Good RoF (without good RoF it would be mega shit, dont overlook it because it deals 320avg dmg)
+Bouncable turret (doesn't have good gun depression so you can't use it as american tanks can)
+Low profile (batchat is still smaller)

So these aren't even that huge ++++ attributes, but when used well they may be.

-Slow (Batchat can drive away from you and reload its cassette. That slow you are)
-Paper hull
-Catches the fire quite often
-Bad gun depression
-Low alpha

If you are going to play this as T-54, forget it. It cannot attack in front line (bad armor and slow), its a tank who has OK mobility to switch to another side of map and snipe from the back line. Its not bad, but doesn't offer anything special. I wouldn't get it afterwards.

I would either want to see a buff in speed or in armor.

Edited by Volccis, 08 October 2012 - 08:23 PM.


vaktyuk #87 Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:31 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 10699 battles
  • 60
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
Dear Devs!
I would like give some correct information abuot the Type59, T54 and T62A. On this link You will find some correct information. Please follow that in the game too. THX!

http://www.armscontr...attle_tanks.htm

Give back the real capabilities of the tanks!!!!!!!!

Do not nerfing just give an playebble game. I am think here to the tactics and capability of the players. Do not nerfing one team in the battle. Give chance to the 50-50% win. Make a different game to the lame under the 1000 ef points by the tier 10 battles.

Edited by vaktyuk, 10 October 2012 - 01:59 PM.


Efoe #88 Posted 19 October 2012 - 11:21 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11098 battles
  • 44
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012
I agree, this tank is very hard to play! I really love my type 59 and my T-54. This tank? I dunno, really scratching my head here. Win rate of 35% with this thing, so I really need to learn to drive this thing badly.

Most of the time I lose a lot of money with premium (no problem next to my type, but still!)

So yeah, this tank feels like a beast, but it isn't. Turret armour is pro, gun aim speed and rof is good, armour is useless, alpha is a laugh. Usually I brawl T9 or T10 tanks, hit them around 6 or 8 times, do like 50% damage, And when I get a single hit in return? crippled, tracked, driver dead and its all over. Almost every time. And when it actually does goes my way for  a change there is always the enemy arty to blast 80% off my hitpoints in a single hit. Kablam.

So yeah, what to do with this tank? 2nd liner? sniping in the distance like a german? sneak attacks like a t-44 (But then much slower?)

So what to do? hmm, well, I'll just return to my 54, loads more fun, loads more credits.

Edited by Efoe, 19 October 2012 - 11:22 AM.


PRO_MEMBER #89 Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:29 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22177 battles
  • 2,850
  • [ICYA] ICYA
  • Member since:
    10-31-2011
brawl is a big no no. 2nd line and sneak attack is your answer (this tank has the camo for it). Weak armour means you must avoid getting shot at. Use your HP pool only in emergencies.

DutchNeon #90 Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:23 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12469 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View Postvaktyuk, on 10 October 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

Dear Devs!
I would like give some correct information abuot the Type59, T54 and T62A. On this link You will find some correct information. Please follow that in the game too. THX!

http://www.armscontr...attle_tanks.htm

Give back the real capabilities of the tanks!!!!!!!!

Do not nerfing just give an playebble game. I am think here to the tactics and capability of the players. Do not nerfing one team in the battle. Give chance to the 50-50% win. Make a different game to the lame under the 1000 ef points by the tier 10 battles.

By that logic we might as well giver the Tiger H it's real armor, the accuracy on the short 88 and make the IS-3 shit. To be honest I have no idea how they are balancing such tanks but they aren't doing it by historical accuracy.

Besides, The T-62A didn't had the performance the real T-62 did (as in, being a predecessor of it).

Edited by DutchNeon, 19 October 2012 - 06:24 PM.


Popovic123 #91 Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:40 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15022 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostDutchNeon, on 19 October 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

By that logic we might as well giver the Tiger H it's real armor, the accuracy on the short 88 and make the IS-3 shit. To be honest I have no idea how they are balancing such tanks but they aren't doing it by historical accuracy.

Besides, The T-62A didn't had the performance the real T-62 did (as in, being a predecessor of it).

How much armor did the Tiger H really had?
(If you check, you will of course see that it had exactly the same armor that it has ib the game).

What kind of accuracy did the short 88 had?
(I`m not sure about this, but I believe it has exactly the same accuracy as IRL).

And what in the world makes you say that IS-3 was shit?
It was FEARED by the NATO early in the Cold War so much that they dedicated time and resources for creating tanks such as M103 in order to have a chance of combating it.
Also, the Israelis that fought against them in the Six Day War (20 years after those tanks first entered service) had great respect for them, due to their strong armor).

So, next time get your facts straight before making another "RUSSIANZ ARE OP" whine..

Popovic123 #92 Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15022 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
@OP:
http://qkme.me/3rf2a7

(btw, why are so many image hoster sites disallowed around here?)

DutchNeon #93 Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:39 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12469 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostPopovic123, on 19 October 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

How much armor did the Tiger H really had?
(If you check, you will of course see that it had exactly the same armor that it has ib the game).

What kind of accuracy did the short 88 had?
(I`m not sure about this, but I believe it has exactly the same accuracy as IRL).

And what in the world makes you say that IS-3 was shit?
It was FEARED by the NATO early in the Cold War so much that they dedicated time and resources for creating tanks such as M103 in order to have a chance of combating it.
Also, the Israelis that fought against them in the Six Day War (20 years after those tanks first entered service) had great respect for them, due to their strong armor).

So, next time get your facts straight before making another "RUSSIANZ ARE OP" whine..

Russian OP whine? Don't make laugh haha... I'm not even trying whine. My examples might be a bit biatched in the context above though.

I'm merely stating that using historical proof has no effect on game balance or can be used as a reason to do, as there a lot more flaws in this game if you wanna base it on historical facts.

Tiger H's WoT armor is not historical, based on LFP and Rear Armor values. They were thicker historically. Sure it's close and Tigers didn't face the same tanks during WWII as they do most of the time in it's current MM.

Short 88 had great sniping accuracy, over across 1km with some rangefinder help, yet in WoT it's more of a brawl gun and not a snipe gun (VK36 top gun = short 88).

IS3 was feared.. Yes. Why? Entirely propaganda.

Quote

Between 1945 and 1947, the Chelyabinsk Kirov Factory No. 185 built 2,311 IS-3 tanks. While IS-3 tanks were touted as the best in the world by the Soviets, and were paraded at every chance, the fact of the matter is that they were mechanically unreliable. While Western analysts raved about the ballistic shape of the turret and the seemingly invulnerable glacis, in reality the crew worked under cramped and dark conditions. Due to flexing and cracking of the hull welds and road wheel bearings that burned out all too soon, the IS-3 did not meet minimum Soviet operational standards for reliability.
Consequently, the Soviets found themselves in the embarrassing situation of tanks rolling off the production line in Chelyabinsk onto trains to go to the factory in Leningrad for correction of their defects. Even in 1946 a committee was formed to fix the problems of what had become the flagship Soviet tank, and to prevent Western intelligence agencies from finding out how bad the tank really was. As a result, the IS-3 began a nearly continual cycle of upgrades and repairs, with every single tank receiving three major rebuilds and upgrades between 1948 and 1959 .
Militarily the IS-3 offered little more than propaganda value, as it was an embarrassment and seldom offered to Soviet allies. Poland held trials with two tanks and rejected them; later the Czechs got one and kept it for parades after it failed their trials. It was only in the 1960s that approximately 100 tanks were sold to North Korea, a small lot to China, and 120 to the Egyptians. While the Russians used the IS-3 in Hungary in 1956, losing a few to the rebels, the only real combat use of the tank came at the hands of the Egyptians in 1967. Here they were so poorly handled that, coupled with the tank’s intrinsic failings, 73 were lost. The remaining tanks were regrouped into a single regiment, which formed a deep reserve unit during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
The Soviets quietly converted most of those that did not serve as “hard” targets on ranges into pillboxes along the Chinese border in the 1970s and 1980s, and some still remain in service there today with machine gun artillery units in the Fortified Regions.

Source: Red star, white elephant? by Chief Warrant Officer 2 (Retired) Stephen L. “Cookie” Sewell. Armor, 2002

http://bayfiles.com/..._4redstar02.pdf

Edited by DutchNeon, 19 October 2012 - 10:11 PM.


LisbonYoloer #94 Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:21 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29182 battles
  • 564
  • [POR-1] POR-1
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011
:Smile_ohmy:It is fine as it is! Leave it alone! :Smile-angry:

        

That is the peak of my performance with it at this moment. I have done great deal of tactical review and seeking good places in maps for this tank and this is  the result. I also crashed IN MIDDLE of the battle fighting 1 on 1 with E-100 and survived with pure luck or thanks to the turret being so tough. When I got back in the game Lorraine 40t had just finished shooting it's revolver empty to my hull and kept fighting on and scored this result.

My average is 2.500 to 4.500 damage per battle with this  and you tell devs to buff this tank more? I would love the buffs but then again it wouldn't be anymore such fun tank to drive when it becomes OP. :Smile_amazed:

Hey even A-20 can kill 5 tanks if you know how to handle it! :Smile_trollface-3:

Only thing that ain't right I think that fuel tank gets damaged or catches fire from frontal armor shot too easily. (I call this tank: "Burning coffin on tracks")

Edited by FireFlower, 20 October 2012 - 01:29 AM.


Popovic123 #95 Posted 20 October 2012 - 11:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15022 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostDutchNeon, on 19 October 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:


Tiger H's WoT armor is not historical, based on LFP and Rear Armor values. They were thicker historically. Sure it's close and Tigers didn't face the same tanks during WWII as they do most of the time in it's current MM.


Could you give us some source that would confirm that Tiger H armor was thicker than it is in-game (as you provided a source for the IS-3, I figure you might have something for this as well).

As for the in-game accuracy of short 88... well I have to be honest, I never used it. But from the paper stats, it looks decently accurate, comparing to other guns in it`s tier (tier 6).

And yes, real life tanks, and this game are two completely different things. I also dislike the fact that WG is changing so many stuff, and introducing so many tanks that never existed, just to balance things out.
But there is really no use in complaining about it, the devs have their own ideas for the game, and it is highly unlikely that they will listen to anyone from the community (especially so if he isn`t active on the Russian forums, it seems those are the only ones they read).

Charcharo #96 Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:54 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 30726 battles
  • 1,414
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
IS-3 had 120mm of armour IRL

Volccis #97 Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:51 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12232 battles
  • 137
  • [EFE] EFE
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

View PostFireFlower, on 20 October 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

:Smile_ohmy:It is fine as it is! Leave it alone! :Smile-angry:

Attachmentshot_039.jpg
A single picture doesn't mean much, at least when you have 51% victory chance on T-62A. I have got also +2k xp with it, still doesnt mean its good.

As much I hated below 300 damage hits in T-54, the more I hate em in T-62A as T10 tank. Good DPM? = perhaps if you are able to shoot 1 minute in a row, otherwise its not that great. Lets say you have 15 seconds time to shoot and you are able to shoot twice or thrice and end up dealing about 1k dmg. So, nearly any Tier 10 tank can do same amount of damage in that time too = DPM isnt used. A situation where you can get that 400-500dmg (few extra hits compared to enemy) advantage will happen very rarely because there isn't many opportunities to be able to shoot 1 minute in a row.

T-62A with 121% crew skills (10% comm, 5% BIA and 5% Vent) reloads in ~5.45s
M48A1 (super patton) with 121% reloads in ~7.3s
E-50M with 121% reloads in ~7.9s

T-62A vs M48A1: T-62A has to shoot 6.25x (=6x) against Super patton = 32.7s when average damage is 333, if it has less than 333 avg dmg it has to shoot 7x = 38.1s. Super Patton has to shoot 5x against T-62A = 36.5s. So if T-62A deals more than 333 average damage, it will win, if it deals less than 333 avg dmg it will lose. Super Patton will win if it deals average damage. So its PURE luck anyway in 1v1 and the RoF wont save it, just up to luck nothing else.
T-62A vs E-50M: T-62A has to shoot 6.40x (=6x) against E-50M = 32.7s when average damage is 341, if it has less than 341 avg dmg it has to shoot 7x = 38.1s. E-50m has to shoot 5x against T-62A = 39.5s. Against E-50M T-62A will win most of time and avg damage can go down to 292 and it will still win.
T-62A vs Batchat = Batchat rapes totally unless it dings once or deals below average damage. Anyway, batchat can drive away from you so better to do super manouvers and cross your fingers and then keep it tracked when its trying to drive away.
Summary: the difference is in few seconds and you cannot really trust on your awesome RoF (thanks to the RNG). Anyway, the more you and your opponent dings, the more advantage you have as T-62A. But in that case when it lasts longer than 40s, its very likely that there will be some teammates too. So 1 minute 1v1 duel happens very rarely and more rarely when both are able to shoot without cover.
(Correct if my maths sucks)

So the gun and RoF is good? Well yes, but its not that much better than you would think because those situations are very rare when you are able to shoot after every reload.

Other wise the tank itself isn't than good compared to counterparts, so in my opinion its not better or worse than Super Patton/E-50M but those are very close to balanced. Haven't driven batchat 25t yet and cannot compare it to other meds.

Still disappointed in T-62A when thought it could be better brawler than T-54. Liked the aggressive playstyle of T-54 and capable to ding +150mm guns by angling, but found its just a fucking sniper and a basic med which comes in battle when teammates are in trouble. Yes, it may sound interesting but the way how T-54 played was just mooooore fun.... but still tried to play it as T-54 and ended up with 48% win ratio (:D) when I had 63% on T-54 with same style. But of course when its Tier 10 tank there is usually like 10 tanks who can penetrate you easily, and in T-54 there is probably 5 tanks who can penetrate you easily and against them you may still ding by angling.

EDIT: It doesn't need buff, but I would perhaps want more armor (at least same front hull as T-54) and get less DPM.

Edited by Volccis, 22 October 2012 - 05:13 PM.


mamlas #98 Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 14704 battles
  • 656
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010
Well, DPS is weird with low alpha guns.

Ex - you flank heavy in city, fire single shot, he starts to rotate, you fire second and have to retreat. Funny part is, T-62A has RoF advantage, but it is still limited to 2 shots (11 secs is enough for the heavy to aim at you) 50M/Patton will fire the same 2 shots. Dealing 25% more dmg...

Moreover, both tanks have supperior hull armor and module protection. They have weaker turrets, sure - but lets face it, front of T-62A turret will let T10 guns in anyway if you let them aim, and it lacks gun depression to hide hull in most situations.

Id say give it bit more gun dep (6-7?) or T-54s hull...DPM can go down, 6 sec reload(full crew, bia, ramme) would be just fine.

FireAnt #99 Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:13 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 60199 battles
  • 82
  • [DSPF] DSPF
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010

View PostSzlejer, on 06 September 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

http://wot-news.com/...rver/eu/norm/en

Last 4 weeks - EU

E-50 Ausf.M 49.94 %
M48A1 52.13 %
T-62A 52.12 %
Bat Chat 49.81 %

RU server

E50_Ausf_M 50.75 %
M48A1 55.23 %
T62A 50.58 %
Bat Chat 50.11 %

US server

E-50 Ausf.M 48.75 %
M48A1 50.86 %
T-62A 51.88 %
Bat Chat  49.75 %
It seems to me that the T-62A needs a NERF after all because it is proving to better than the other tier X meds.  :Smile_trollface-3:

Legault #100 Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:59 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 14706 battles
  • 2,342
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010
And the M48 needs to be nerfed further.  :Smile_trollface-3:





Also tagged with T62A, medium, tank

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users