Jump to content


The Crusader is painfully slow for a flanker.

crusader light

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

Kauhava #1 Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:47 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5507 battles
  • 275
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010
Right now, it seems to me that the Crusader is simply a slower and less armoured PzIII/IV. Too slow in fact to properly flank and circle other tanks due to a combination of weak engine and very low speed limit (even the all-rounders Sherman and PzIV have 48km/h). Is there an point in driving this tank over the other ones?

Thread moved to more appropriate section of the forums.

---Orree

Edited by Orree, 11 December 2012 - 11:59 PM.


Eeti #2 Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:59 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29508 battles
  • 411
  • Member since:
    08-08-2011
I agree. PzIII/IV does everything better except gun depression.

Zedarot #3 Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:01 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19173 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011
Which means it's worse than the M7 as well.

Grabz19 #4 Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:02 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 11258 battles
  • 3,985
  • Member since:
    09-04-2010
Fully agreed.

veryangryenglishman #5 Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8666 battles
  • 369
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011
You get a cromwell afterwards? I haven't played this tank myself yet, but from ingame chat, it seems to be overall liked. Just grind it and forget it, I suppose.

Kauhava #6 Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:06 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5507 battles
  • 275
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostZedarot, on 02 November 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Which means it's worse than the M7 as well.

Indeed. They have pretty much the exact same gun, armour and role, but the M7 is MUCH more mobile and has better viewrange as well. There's really no reason for the Crusader to exist right now.

View Posthunt3rk1ll3r, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

You get a cromwell afterwards? I haven't played this tank myself yet, but from ingame chat, it seems to be overall liked. Just grind it and forget it, I suppose.

What tank comes before and after in the line doesn't matter. We're talking about the Crusader here.

Edited by Kauhava, 02 November 2012 - 11:08 PM.


saml6131 #7 Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:09 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8559 battles
  • 3,821
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
I've been comparing it to the T-34.

That's better in almost every way.

azakow #8 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:09 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 79357 battles
  • 4,940
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
Crusader, LT5, Apples
PzIII/IV, MT5, Peaches

The MT6 Cromwell is definately worth the grind. Moreover if you like to spam shells from second row, the Crusader is perfect.

FreakDC #9 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:16 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 6000 battles
  • 1,563
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011
I think this is the free XP grave before the awesome Cromwell.
On the Cromwell it's the other way around, it's a medium with great HP pool and light tank speed, at the same time you get a high DPM, high pen weapon perfect flanking tank.
Crusader feels heavily nerfed from test2, they might have changed some of the hidden agility stats.

XxXSpottedYouXxX #10 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:37 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 23824 battles
  • 8,336
  • [4077] 4077
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
Its rubbish tank needs a serious bluff.

Kauhava #11 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:50 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5507 battles
  • 275
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View Postazakow, on 03 November 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Crusader, LT5, Apples
PzIII/IV, MT5, Peaches

Then the M7. As said before, it is the same as the Crusader and carries a similar gun, but is MUCH faster and more agile and has a much better viewrange as well. The classification doesn't matter. Else the T95 could be classified as a heavy tank, as it wasn't always considered a GMC and was once a "Super Heavy Tank".

azakow #12 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:24 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 79357 battles
  • 4,940
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
You were asking:

View PostKauhava, on 02 November 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Is there an point in driving this tank over the other ones?
My answer was, you compare LT and MT.
This was due to my asumption that you are familiar with the battle mechanics.

View PostKauhava, on 03 November 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

The classification doesn't matter.
This reposonse shows, that you are not at all familiar with the battle mechanics and the influence on vehicle attributes.
The most important attributes in your assement are the gun followed by the engine and top speed, which might be important for your play style.
Your conclusion, "The Crusader is painfully slow for a flanker." seems valid according to your play style.

You were asking, whether there is a point in driving this vehicle at all?

My answer is, yes there is!
The prerequisite for that is knowledge of the battle mechanics and maps as well as using the vehicle attributes.
This will enable me to spam a shell every 2.15 sec from a hidden position to lit up enemies with the same penetration of the PzIII/IV (not to mention the M7).
A bounce or zero dmg hit will not matter much, other than with the Pz III/IV.
This does not need a agile and fast vehicle at all it just demands a different play style!

:Smile_honoring:

Kolbur #13 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:35 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29109 battles
  • 200
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012
Crusader has better view range, gun depression and camo (with same camo on the move as camo when standing still thx to light tank designation) than PZIII/IV.
It's a light/medium hybrid and makes an excellent bush scout/sniper with good flanking capabilities when needed or the opportunity opens up + hilly terrain abuse due to good gun depression.
Just adapt your play style.

Edited by Kolbur, 03 November 2012 - 12:36 PM.


Habad #14 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 54075 battles
  • 432
  • [SCREW] SCREW
  • Member since:
    12-07-2010
To be honest, Crusader was garbage even in real life, even M3 Lee was more sucessful. But ofc, we are talking about game balance here, Crusader would use some buff as plenty of other crappy british tanks.

Harabeishio #15 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 76 battles
  • 569
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
If you wanna try a painfully slow flanker try T-43.

azakow #16 Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:52 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 79357 battles
  • 4,940
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View PostHabad, on 03 November 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

But ofc, we are talking about game balance here,
I'm affraid we are not talking about balance here, rather than play style issues.

Toddwjp #17 Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 9515 battles
  • 2,002
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011
the crusader was bad irl because of really bad matience, but thats not in game so it should be at least average

nautalihas #18 Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29770 battles
  • 267
  • [USAW] USAW
  • Member since:
    11-23-2011
I dont think all tanks have to be really good. The crusader might not be a speed deamon but it has a fairly good gun and its armor is acceptable. Its a hard tank to play but not bad.

Psycho_Baby_ #19 Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:51 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 61231 battles
  • 2,089
  • [AHAZ] AHAZ
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
Interesting, it found it very mobile.

Kauhava #20 Posted 03 November 2012 - 06:32 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5507 battles
  • 275
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostKwagga, on 03 November 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Interesting, it found it very mobile.

With a top speed of 44km/h that bleeds on every turn?





Also tagged with crusader, light

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users