Jump to content


IS-6 HD Model Changes and Clarification

9.14

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

MrConway #1 Posted 07 March 2016 - 09:42 AM

    Community Coordinator

  • WG Staff
  • 13046 battles
  • 862
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

As there were some concerns regarding the changes to the IS-6 model with the HD upgrade, headquarters have provided us with this clarification. You can find all the model changes, and explanations of how they will affect the vehicle's performance, below.

 

We will be watching this thread closely for your feedback, please keep it constructive!

 

Dimensions

Let’s start by comparing the dimensions in the frontal view.

 

Previous model:

New model:

 

Pros and cons regarding changes:

(+ improved; = has not changed; +/- partially improved, partially worsened, with the overall balance as the result; - worsened):

 

  • + Complaints that "cupolas have become bigger" are groundless and false. The cupolas have in fact become smaller.
  • + Complaints that "turret roof has become bigger" are groundless and false. The area of the roof has become about 1.5 times smaller.
  • = Complaints that "lower glacis plate has become bigger" are groundless and false. The size of the lower glacis plate only changed insignificantly (it has become a little bit smaller).
  • = Complaints that "the tank has become bigger" are groundless and false. The vehicle height was reduced a bit. At the same time, the clearance has increased by a small margin. Hull height has remained about the same, while turret height has decreased.
  • + The driver’s hatch has become a little bigger.
  • + The gap between the track and the fender has been decreased a bit.
  • +/- Tracks have become noticeably bigger and now comprise external elements of the suspension. In this case, it is hard to say whether it’s an improvement or a nerf—it can be either, depending on the situation.

 

 

Armor Protection

The values displayed in the images DO NOT factor in normalization. It should be understood that these values are given for comparison purpose only (previous/new model). They cannot be used as a basis for conclusions on whether a particular gun would penetrate a certain area of the vehicle’s armor.

 

Previous model:

New model:

 

Pros and cons regarding armor protection:

(+ improved; = has not changed; +/- partially improved, partially worsened, with the overall balance as the result; - worsened):

 

  • + Armor thickness of the top section of the upper glacis plate has increased a bit.
  • + Armor thickness of the driver’s hatch has increased significantly.
  • + Armor thickness of frontal curving sections of the turret has slightly increased.
  • + Thickness of the armor strip at the top section of the upper glacis plate has increased.
  • + Armor thickness of the lower glacis plate has increased a bit.
  • + The part of the fender that was visible in the frontal view (marked with arrows) was due to a faulty model and could be penetrated due to over match. It was removed.
  • = Armor protection of the cupolas has not changed.
  • = Turret inclination has improved, but it will have no effect due to over match.
  • +/- The armor strip between the lower glacis plate and the upper glacis plate has become wider, but armor thickness of the stripe has decreased.
  • - Armor protection of the bottom most section of the lower glacis plate has decreased. Previously the glacis plate was "broken" in sections, now it has the same slope angle, and, consequently, the same effective armor thickness across the whole plate.

 

An important aspect that deserves a separate mention:

 

Armor protection behind the gun mantlet in the previous model:

Armor protection behind the gun mantlet in the new model:

 

As you can see, the size of the embrasure behind the gun mantlet has decreased more than twofold! Therefore, the area where the gun mantlet overlaps the turret armor has increased significantly, with a resulting armor thickness of 300 mm or more in these sections.

 

Turret armor protection is displayed in the next images, with areas of effective armor less than 220 mm highlighted—these areas can be viewed as weak spots compared to the rest of the turret’s armor.

 

Previous model:

New model:

 

The armor protection pattern is displayed this way due to the complex structure of the surface. This variant will be easier to understand, since we are only interested in weak spots.

You can see that the previous model had one large weak spot to the left of the gun. The new model has two such areas— to the left and to the right of the gun, but each of them is slightly smaller than the weak spot in the previous model.

Moreover, the new model does not have a weak spot in the gunner’s sight.

In general, the turret armor protection remained roughly the same: The addition of a weak spot to the right of the gun is fully balanced by a smaller embrasure for the gun and reduced roof and cupola areas.

 

Side Armor

 

Previous model:
New model:

 

Summary on side armor:

  • + Main side armor plate has become a bit thicker (142 mm instead of 138 mm).
  • + A stripe of reinforced armor has been added (screen of 56 mm + side armor of 136 mm).
  • + The prominent part of the fender, which could be penetrated with over match, was removed.
  • - Effective armor thickness of the side frontal plate has decreased a bit, which is balanced by the fact that the effective armor thickness of this area in the frontal view has increased slightly.


MrConway #2 Posted 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM

    Community Coordinator

  • WG Staff
  • 13046 battles
  • 862
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

Some nice gifs by coolathlon to help clarify the changes:

 

Dimensions

 

Frontal armor

 

Side armor

 



Cobra6 #3 Posted 07 March 2016 - 12:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16314 battles
  • 15,279
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Ok, so adding a "big" weakspot that is easy to shoot next to the gun is balanced by removing weakspots which were hard to shoot?

 

Overall, lets see how this vehicle will perform effectively once it hits the live server. At least the weakspot on the drivers hatch for ~175mm pen guns seems gone as does the frontal turret weakspot for the same pen guns.

 

ps: What are the effective armour values of the front of the turret? They are missing from the images or am I just blind?

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 07 March 2016 - 12:05 PM.


MrConway #4 Posted 07 March 2016 - 04:23 PM

    Community Coordinator

  • WG Staff
  • 13046 battles
  • 862
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostCobra6, on 07 March 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

Ok, so adding a "big" weakspot that is easy to shoot next to the gun is balanced by removing weakspots which were hard to shoot?

 

Overall, lets see how this vehicle will perform effectively once it hits the live server. At least the weakspot on the drivers hatch for ~175mm pen guns seems gone as does the frontal turret weakspot for the same pen guns.

 

ps: What are the effective armour values of the front of the turret? They are missing from the images or am I just blind?

 

Cobra 6

 

Only the areas with less than 220mm are shown here.

Cobra6 #5 Posted 07 March 2016 - 04:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16314 battles
  • 15,279
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Ok cool, that explains. So no obvious 175mm pen weakspots on the front of the turret (like now) then a part from the ones outlined directly next to the gun?

 

cobra 6



8126Jakobsson #6 Posted 07 March 2016 - 04:40 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 61975 battles
  • 2,924
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
And my WZ-111's pee-pee shrunk a little further  :child:

Laatikkomafia #7 Posted 07 March 2016 - 05:43 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 21315 battles
  • 4,228
  • [ELC-P] ELC-P
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010
So buffing the IS-3 wasn't enough?

Well done WG, you have done it again.

Should you consider nerfing the Tiger II and Löwe, as they are broken OP atm?

DeltaOperator #8 Posted 08 March 2016 - 10:22 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 23910 battles
  • 4,816
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014
Retardproof Tank got even more Retardproof! Stronk Balancing WG, as always! Gonna pick myself one up one day so i can join the Yolo train.

Krasnoarmeyets #9 Posted 08 March 2016 - 11:35 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 24601 battles
  • 2,673
  • [RAKIA] RAKIA
  • Member since:
    05-21-2013
BTW when will 9.14 be relased?

breeeze #10 Posted 09 March 2016 - 05:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27943 battles
  • 478
  • [S4] S4
  • Member since:
    03-11-2014

Thank you for outlining your utter incompetence in even more detail :) 

This is yet another reason why I quit randoms for good...



8126Jakobsson #11 Posted 09 March 2016 - 09:40 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 61975 battles
  • 2,924
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostDeltaOperator, on 08 March 2016 - 10:22 PM, said:

Retardproof Tank got even more Retardproof! Stronk Balancing WG, as always! Gonna pick myself one up one day so i can join the Yolo train.

 

But how will they learn if you are going to reward them for it :P

thestaggy #12 Posted 09 March 2016 - 11:07 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14841 battles
  • 1,930
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

Good too see all the smart people not mentioning the gun.

 

The APCR shell on the IS-6 will have no better than a 65% chance to pen itself frontally. Cupolas and turret weakspots don't count as the standard AP round will pen them as well.

 

There is your balance. Crappy gun offsets the good armour. 

 

But don't mind me. Soviet bias, hurr durr and all the rest of it.

 

* PS - Armour buff was not needed anyway. That gun however is a load of crock.



breeeze #13 Posted 09 March 2016 - 01:48 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27943 battles
  • 478
  • [S4] S4
  • Member since:
    03-11-2014
You must be really smart then since you dont know that the gun is balanced out by the preferential mm and the IS-6 has always been one of the best T8 heavies. But you know, its Russian, so it has to be completely immune to <200 pen just like the IS-3 buff, otherwise it would be way too weak. And really, overmatchable roofs are obviously unnecessary, just like on the IS-3. /s

250swb #14 Posted 09 March 2016 - 01:56 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21409 battles
  • 4,772
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015
It's too easy to overlook the preferential matchmaking the IS-6 gets and let's be honest, it was starting to look a bit flabby even at it's limited tier, the game design and other tanks have moved on since it was first introduced. I played it on the test server and it now feels like a much more dependable tank, and there is nothing wrong with the gun. It's also a much better looking tank in HD and not the jelly mould it is currently. Can't wait until 9.14 is released.

breeeze #15 Posted 10 March 2016 - 02:46 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27943 battles
  • 478
  • [S4] S4
  • Member since:
    03-11-2014
Except people like to forget the other 175 pen tanks are suffering the same way (111, 112) whilst getting not or insignificantly buffed.

Cobra6 #16 Posted 10 March 2016 - 03:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16314 battles
  • 15,279
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Problem was that while the IS-6 had good frontal armour in most areas it was made completely obsolete by the fact that you had the huge drivers-hatch weakspot *AND* right side of the turret front which could easily be penetrated by 175mm guns that can be found on T6/T7 heavies. So the armour, unless coming up against total newbs, was actually not that effective.

 

At least now it can't really be penetrated frontally by tanks 2 tiers lower which is what a heavy tank is supposed to do.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 10 March 2016 - 03:03 PM.


lungustefan #17 Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:23 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22824 battles
  • 1,267
  • [RO-DV] RO-DV
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
i dont really care about the armour,if you want the is6 you want it for the looks

cool2hate #18 Posted 10 March 2016 - 07:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 16312 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    10-05-2013
IS-6 problematic just because of its gun. I started to think as a light tank to fight with other heavies. Very easy to get penetrated then you may think let me damage to enemy but also you cant. Just try to go backside of enemy (which is a light tank move) and shoot as much as before you die and prey for other tanks shoot as well. IS-3 super tank. I play with my 110 so happly because it somehow penetrates not like IS-6. IS-6 is like "you sold your soul for money..."

Edited by cool2hate, 10 March 2016 - 07:27 PM.


thestaggy #19 Posted 11 March 2016 - 06:42 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14841 battles
  • 1,930
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

View Postbreeeze, on 09 March 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

You must be really smart then since you dont know that the gun is balanced out by the preferential mm and the IS-6 has always been one of the best T8 heavies. But you know, its Russian, so it has to be completely immune to <200 pen just like the IS-3 buff, otherwise it would be way too weak. And really, overmatchable roofs are obviously unnecessary, just like on the IS-3. /s

 

I'm probably saying this for the thousandth time on these forums; the armour buff was unnecessary and unneeded. Gun is trash. 

Second rate tier 8 heavy and a low tier bully. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

If you want to pad win rate, I suppose you can't go wrong here. If you want credits, look elsewhere, as I have.

 

View Postbreeeze, on 10 March 2016 - 02:46 AM, said:

Except people like to forget the other 175 pen tanks are suffering the same way (111, 112) whilst getting not or insignificantly buffed.

 

This thread is about the IS-6.

 


 

 

 


Edited by thestaggy, 11 March 2016 - 06:45 AM.


Brav_LOWE #20 Posted 11 March 2016 - 06:51 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 20361 battles
  • 196
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    02-23-2013
Just waiting for that day when WG will say '.....' (yeah, you know it :trollface: ) to all E25 and new IS6 players and nerf them to the ground. Duh, even SP became OP due to it's stronk amerikanski armour. WG just can't get itself to do a simple thing. And for those who say will protest when WG will do so... you paid for it, therefore you shall deal with it. They sell premiums with a reason. A premium shouldn't have better armour than same tier heavy (aka Mr. IS6) and better camo and sick DPM than same tier TDs (aka Mr. E25). They are premiums, not normal tanks. They're made for $$$, not to roflstomp lower tiers or even higher tier tanks.





Also tagged with 9.14

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users