Jump to content


Crusader- is it worth playing?


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

Alexeiy #101 Posted 03 January 2013 - 10:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14260 battles
  • 249
  • Member since:
    10-12-2011
Well, while the Crusader is definatly a good tank(I just love high rof, low Alpha tanks), I think it's worse than the M7(not by too much), which is nearly the same tank, but trading a bit better gun(1round/min more and 5mm more pen) and camo(not much either, cause the M7 was long time considered to be played as a scout tank) for much better mobility (you can circle slow heavys, even if they are driven by guys who know that you need to turn the turret and the hull, what you can not do on the Crusader thanks to the massiv speed drain while turning) and a viewrange, which can be used to passivscout.

But rigth now I think the M7 is one of the best tanks in the game anyway so perhabs I'm a bit biased :Smile_smile: .

Kyphe #102 Posted 06 January 2013 - 03:04 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostCpt_Branko, on 30 December 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Meh... when you compare it to something like a T5 medium tank (since it gets the same matchmaking and virtually the same agility and same/lower topspeed, you should), it's got worse guns, worse armour and just about worse anything except gun depression and camo on the move.

The gun is inferior by miles to the Soviet 57mm (which goes on T-34), with far worse accuracy, noticeably worse damage per shot and worse penetration. The armour is so bad that a derp Sherman can oneshot you with HE through the turret. If the gun was at least to the Soviet 57mm ZIS standards, it'd be a decent-ish tank.

I would take the Crusader over the T34 any day, the gun is amazing the soft stats make it better than the zis4

starlight2098 #103 Posted 07 January 2013 - 04:19 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12452 battles
  • 258
  • Member since:
    08-26-2011
I honestly feel inclined to chime in and say that I really love the Crusader.  It's stolen my heart in the Tier 5 stakes.

Whilst I'm sure it and most of the Cruiser tanks seem to literally offend the heavy armour, high alpha mindsets of many WoT players ("What!?  It can't take a building to the face or one shot a mountain? I hate this PoS! Why does it exist, WHY!?!?!?" - WoT Player Panzerkopf) I've ended up wondering where the Cruiser Tanks have been all my WoT.

The Cruiser tanks in general seem to iconise the philosophy that the best defense is to avoid the enemy's offense entirely and the Crusader is a central tank in the line, demonstrating this philosphy centrally.  The general rule with the Crusader is not to be where the enemy is shooting.  With a low profile, good mobility and a good camo rating, you can dodge or avoid pretty well as long as your situational awareness is good.  Hide when you have to, retreat when you must, flank and outmanuevre whenever you can.  Don't get suckered into trading blow-for-blow;  You'll lose and you'll be the fool for taking blows when you didn't have to.

Whilst I love my Elite T-34, the Crusader is now my star Tier 5 credit and XP-pool grinder.  Whilst the T-34 is good, the high profile works against it and the gun is extremely clumsy on the move.  The M4 Sherman just seemed to be the T-34, but worse in every department, bullying well as top tier but proving impossible to hide and impossible to miss, a veritable shot magnet.   The Crusader lacks all of those faults.

The Crusader is definitely not without faults.  As mentioned by others, it's slower then I'd like and loses more speed when turning then anyone would like, but this can be overcome with familiarity and cunning.  In good hands, the mobility is more then enough to put it where it needs to be (in cover, slightly ahead of the enemy's turret traverse or under their gun depression.)  The armour is awful and the tank is too vulnerable to HE weapons (even though in reality it had spall-resistant armour,) causing a driver to live in fear of derpguns or artillery, but the hitpoints otherwise allow you to take a mistake or two and keep going (as long as it wasn't an HE mistake, courtesy of a Pz IV's derpgun or suchlike.)

The Crusader isn't a scout or a brawler, not an Eagle or a Wolf, but an opportunist, a Fox.  You sneak and dash and avoid concentrations unless to pour distressing 6-pdr fire onto enemy tanks from unexpected angles, slipping away before any retribution can be accurately directed at you.  Picking off the the slow, the vulnerable and the seperated and withdrawing whenever the situation looks troublesome.  Best case is they chase you.  2-4 mediums and heavies wasting time chasing one light tank is a tactical victory that wins your team breathing room.  Worthwhile even if they corner you and you have to bare your teeth.  The 6-pdr from point blank range into sensitive spots can inflict shocking injury on tanks until they manage to wrestle in that killing blow.

I've made it up to the Comet and I've loved the whole line, but it was the Crusader that won my heart. z: )

Slythe #104 Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 31789 battles
  • 112
  • [BAD-A] BAD-A
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011
Great post starlight2098, I agree with every word. I'd give you a +1 but I'm all out.

punkadelic #105 Posted 08 January 2013 - 07:08 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 17264 battles
  • 267
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
I finally got the second turret researched, so have shoved on the top gun, now my Crusader can do some damage!
Fingers crossed it'll start to be a little bit luckier for me now.
Happy hunting all ;-)

Cpt_Branko #106 Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:17 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4875 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012

View PostKyphe, on 06 January 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

I would take the Crusader over the T34 any day, the gun is amazing the soft stats make it better than the zis4

The ZIS4 is miles better, with far better accuracy (which brings with it - the ability to fire sooner, since you do not need to wait for the circle to fully close) or make really accurate shots, 13% more damage per shot (very noticeable really), slightly more penetration (not a big difference), and also the T-34's aim doesn't go all bonkers after stopping the tank like the Crusader's does, and the accuracy on the move of the T-34 is at least on par with Crusader if not better.

It is a decent tank if you really adapt your playstyle to it (took a while, but then again Crusader was my first T5 and it is not a good choice for a first T5); but comparing it's gun to the ZIS4 is silly, the ZIS4 is better then the 6pdr by miles. There were more then a few times where I went "damn, if I had my ZIS4 I would have won this match".

I actually don't fit a rammer on the Crusader but rather a spall liner (which makes it far less vulnerable to HE and ramming, both good) since it's quite pointless outside of short range shootouts.

StClement #107 Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:13 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16036 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostGibMeister, on 06 November 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

In real life the Crusader wasn't very good, it was fast light and had an under powered gun (compared to german tanks), thin armour and was very unreliable. Sorry but thats the truth, it wasn't as good as the Sherman, T34 or PZ IV, thats a fact. The brits needed the sherman tank to win the desert war, thats a fact.

It was designed as a cruiser tank, the tank philosophy in the desert war was different to Europe so the Crusader just wont work as well in the small maps of WOT, give it a wide open flat desert where it's speed would be useful then it may do better, but for creeping about and sniping it will be hopeless. I won't be bothering with it thats for sure.

The fact is Brit tanks didn't get any good until the latter stages of the war (except for Matilda. Valentine and Churchill)

Firstly, your opinions (not 'facts', there's a difference, fella!  :Smile_blinky: ) on real world tanks aren't mine. Having said that, in real life the Crusader was, as you say, a cruiser tank. Well armed (by British pre war and early war standards- it always had the best anti tank gun then available), fast, but lightly armoured. It's weapon could deal with the opposition it faced, while it was noticeably faster than opposing panzers. It's armour wasn't great, but most were lost to anti tank guns, not the enemies tank weapons.

In real life it was faster than either Panzer IVs or Shermans, in real life it didn't suffer anything like the atrocious losses the poor T-34 did. It wasn't (as you say) particularly reliable, it remained in production far too long, it was denied the 6 pounder (for logistical, not tactical reasons) while other nations up-gunned their tanks- but none of that makes it inferior to the iconic tanks of other nations in service at the same time. It beat the opposing panzers, it was assisted, not replaced, by M4s and while the T-34 was a fine vehicle, it suffered far higher losses at the hands of an identical foe. Either Soviet tankers were inferior to the Brits (not particularly likely, to my mind) or the Crusader had qualities which made it at least as good as the Soviet tank.

In the game, however, it's easily out performed by all of them. I've watched Shermans and seriously up-gunned Panzers tear past my Crusader as if it was standing still. It's weapon is a poor joke and it doesn't seem to be fitted with armour. Thread after thread advises the Brit player to hide at the back while the grown ups carry on with the real work. I even heard someone say 'it's a stealth tank'. Really?  :Smile_amazed:  I can't help feeling that while I disagree with you about the real vehicles, you're spot on with your assessment of the game ones. WG- your Crusader model sucks!  :Smile-angry:

Kyphe #108 Posted 27 January 2013 - 07:35 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostCpt_Branko, on 15 January 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:



The ZIS4 is miles better, with far better accuracy (which brings with it - the ability to fire sooner, since you do not need to wait for the circle to fully close) or make really accurate shots, 13% more damage per shot (very noticeable really), slightly more penetration (not a big difference), and also the T-34's aim doesn't go all bonkers after stopping the tank like the Crusader's does, and the accuracy on the move of the T-34 is at least on par with Crusader if not better.

It is the 6pdr that can fire first and hit first because you don't have to wait for it to fully decrease, you don't even have to stop that often you can just lift off the W key for a sec, as it has a better percentage of shots towards the center anyway , and then it will fire a second shot first as its reload time is better.

There is no bonkers aim when stopping that I have ever seen? and its fire on the move is better and its overall fall of shot is better which means it is more predictable and so easier to hit with, 10hp av per shot is not much.

I have never lost a match because of the gun.

I actually like the zis4, at least when I was playing the T28, I had a ball in that tank and never bothered with the old top gun which was a long barreled 75mm.

But the T34 was hateful, a big sluggish mess with no gun depression, gawd I hated that thing, 34/85 was epic though. i am going back a while though.

MartiniHenrie #109 Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5427 battles
  • 245
  • [BAD-A] BAD-A
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
I will admit to being a new player, and the crusader is my first tier 5, I have found it difficult.  It gets better with the first 6 pdr, but how much of an improvement is the second one in game?  I enjoy the challenge of it, but the many weaknesses can make it a drag.

GibMeister #110 Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16643 battles
  • 593
  • [TS_GG] TS_GG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012

View PostMartiniHenrie, on 27 January 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

I will admit to being a new player, and the crusader is my first tier 5, I have found it difficult. It gets better with the first 6 pdr, but how much of an improvement is the second one in game? I enjoy the challenge of it, but the many weaknesses can make it a drag.
Well all tanks are bad at stock, struggling with my new Tiger, its awfull at stock. I cheated with the Crusader, I used gold to buy Free XP from my elited tanks and started with the Crusader fully researched with best of everything and paid for 100% crew, added rammer, vents and optics and it was a killing machine, totally brilliant! I would also like to add for those that think they just want to grind the Crusader to get cromwell that I think the crusader is better and I really hated the cromwell and I had it fully upgraded with 100% crew, vents rammer etc and I was knocked out easily all the time, just couldn't get used to it, it has very weak armour, crew always seem to die, doesnt fire as fast as Crusader, doesnt aim as well, gun doesnt depress enough, its bigger, I could go on, it was a big disappointment so I sold it, I much prefer the Sherman easy 8 and VK3601. I have given up all my Brit tanks, I am British as well, but I didn't enjoy many of them, I only hope WG give us Sherman Firefly....

Edited by GibMeister, 28 January 2013 - 11:45 AM.


Cpt_Branko #111 Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:36 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4875 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012

View PostStClement, on 26 January 2013 - 12:13 AM, said:

In real life it was faster than either Panzer IVs or Shermans, in real life it didn't suffer anything like the atrocious losses the poor T-34 did. It wasn't (as you say) particularly reliable, it remained in production far too long, it was denied the 6 pounder (for logistical, not tactical reasons) while other nations up-gunned their tanks- but none of that makes it inferior to the iconic tanks of other nations in service at the same time. It beat the opposing panzers, it was assisted, not replaced, by M4s and while the T-34 was a fine vehicle, it suffered far higher losses at the hands of an identical foe. Either Soviet tankers were inferior to the Brits (not particularly likely, to my mind) or the Crusader had qualities which made it at least as good as the Soviet tank.

In reality, far more T-34s in the initial years of the war were lost due to poor organization then combat. The T-34 wasn't reliable, the crews were badly trained in comparison to the German or British or US crews (and the T-34 wasn't a "crew friendly" tank, especially in the earlier years before it had the cupola added), and the Soviet doctrine in the early days was horrible. In the later days - the T-34 was just increasingly inferior to the newer German tanks.

These factors matter more when you compare how many T-34s were lost versus, say, Crusaders (which were put out of use sooner, while the M4 / PZ4 / T-34 etc fought on; the last major use of them was in Africa).

Besides, if you want the actual T-34 experience, use the 76mm gun versions. They are bad; but this was the gun used on it historically. The 57mm gun had the problem of not having a powerful enough HE shell, which is important, since tanks are expected to engage soft targets as well. For this same reason (performance vs soft targets) the British used 75mm guns on later Churchill / Cromwell despite the fact the 6pdr 57mm was a better anti-tank gun.

View PostKyphe, on 27 January 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

But the T34 was hateful, a big sluggish mess with no gun depression, gawd I hated that thing, 34/85 was epic though. i am going back a while though.

The T-34 doesn't accelerate exactly as fast as the Crusader (close, though), but it can reach much better top speeds (both my T-34 and Crusader crews had BIA/offroad driving, though), so it's really a better flanker, and it can run away much better if it has to.

Gun depression isn't stellar but is overall usable (with the 57mm ZIS), and the gun is more accurate and harder hitting then the Crusader's 6pdr. I haven't experienced the Crusader's shots go towards the center of the reticule more often then the T-34's, myself; and the aim on my Crusader when I stop moving goes haywire before closing again (a phenomenon I didn't find on the T-34).

Edited by Cpt_Branko, 28 January 2013 - 11:43 AM.


GibMeister #112 Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:40 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16643 battles
  • 593
  • [TS_GG] TS_GG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012
Just had a thought, I may buy back my crusader, I retrained my 100% crusader crew to Cromwell, if I stick them back in Crusader will they be 100% as they were originally? They better be or I will have wasted all that gold!

Oh, I just read a post above that quoted me of old lol, funny how your opinions change over time, I must learn to wait a few games before posting stuff!

Contrary to my initial assesment I liked the Crusader, I prefer my M4 with Derp, but I think I like the crusader compared to the T34 which i really cant get on with, it behaves like a bigger Crusader actually, bigger target.

Isn't it odd that just a few small differences can make a huge impact on these tanks. I currently am struggling with Pz3/4 the only thing wrong with it on paper is very poor view range so i stuck on optics, but even with optics my view range is only 352m which is still too short for a medium, I think it needs buffed to 350 stock.

Edited by GibMeister, 28 January 2013 - 11:50 AM.


Kyphe #113 Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:17 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostGibMeister, on 28 January 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

Just had a thought, I may buy back my crusader, I retrained my 100% crusader crew to Cromwell, if I stick them back in Crusader will they be 100% as they were originally? They better be or I will have wasted all that gold!

hate to be the one to tell you.

but there is little point in moving your crom crew back to your crusader unless you want to retrain them again.

if you have a British light tank crew on 100% and you put it in another British light tank the crew suffers a 25% penalty on crew skill and earns 50% less XP, I think the last bit is new as I used to put up with the 20% to get extra XP for my top US crew by playing Pershing and E8 with them.

OK but that is not all

if you put a brit medium crew into a light tank you get a nasty 50% reduction in skill.

so if you really want to put them back i would go for the 20K cred option as it will put your crew on 90% each or more

StClement #114 Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16036 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013
Does that carry on Kyphe? I've been moving my crews up into each vehicle I unlock, accepting the retraining penalty (well, fair enough, it is a new ride after all). Are they earning less experience than if I'd just got a new crew each time? :Smile_ohmy:

That sucks!  :Smile-angry:

Eruantien_Aduialdraug #115 Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:02 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12102 battles
  • 370
  • [SNOO] SNOO
  • Member since:
    02-02-2012

View PostStClement, on 26 January 2013 - 12:13 AM, said:

Firstly, your opinions (not 'facts', there's a difference, fella!  :Smile_blinky: ) on real world tanks aren't mine.
In real life it was faster than either Panzer IVs or Shermans.
Um, yes and no. It had the same top speed as the Pz4 and depending on the Sherman variant it was either faster or slower (though not by much). What it did have was far better pwr/weight. 17.2 - 18 as opposed to 13.2 - 15.8 for the M4 and 11.84 for the panzer.

View PostStClement, on 28 January 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Does that carry on Kyphe? I've been moving my crews up into each vehicle I unlock, accepting the retraining penalty (well, fair enough, it is a new ride after all). Are they earning less experience than if I'd just got a new crew each time? :Smile_ohmy:

That sucks!  :Smile-angry:
The penalties only apply to vehicles they are not trained for (excluding premiums of the same weight class). A crewman can only be trained for one vehicle at a time.

Eruantien_Aduialdraug #116 Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:10 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12102 battles
  • 370
  • [SNOO] SNOO
  • Member since:
    02-02-2012

View PostMartiniHenrie, on 27 January 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

I will admit to being a new player, and the crusader is my first tier 5, I have found it difficult.  It gets better with the first 6 pdr, but how much of an improvement is the second one in game?  I enjoy the challenge of it, but the many weaknesses can make it a drag.
The L/50 is much better, the improved accuracy is a godsend. Stick to the flanks and use the fact that you lose no camo for moving to help you relocate if the enemy is getting a bit close for comfort. Oh, and be careful of the Pz 3/4, they're evil little ********. Fling those shells kid, fling them fast.


Edit; Also, nice to see a fellow Brit pratting about on here.   :Smile_blinky:

Edited by Eruantien_Aduialdraug, 28 January 2013 - 06:14 PM.


Doopheck #117 Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:04 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6875 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    11-24-2012
I bought 75% exp for this tank crew and after about 30 battles I won 17% of it (with 52% of my average of 1300 battles in total). I don't like this tank, maybe I get it wrong.

Ishamel1 #118 Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12946 battles
  • 930
  • Member since:
    11-01-2012
I hated the crusader, but i suspect it was more down to my deficiencies than the tanks, it is very unforgiving.  The cromwell on the other hand makes you feel like a genius however much of a noob you are.

Eokokok #119 Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:53 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 18755 battles
  • 6,162
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012
All things considered this should be a tank that I would like - a tier 5 "medium" (no point calling it light with the dynamics of a medium and hp pool of medium), not bad gun, not bad speed, no armour, but everything seems pretty much peachy... Somehow though I feel this tank is lacking in many aspects. Gun being probably the most annoying thing.

This is suppose to be better then ZiS-4 according to some people? Don't make me laugh. Its accuracy is pathetic, which forces a short range brawl. That is not bad in itself, but since it's the only noticeable difference between the two ZiS is just better being good at all ranges. Crusader is just annoying, even more with aim time fighting against RoF...

Maybe it will grow on me, but so far it's not as good as I hoped it would be...

Edited by Eokokok, 29 January 2013 - 09:54 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users