Jump to content


Tiger II 10cm gun alpha damage should be 390


  • Please log in to reply
201 replies to this topic

KillingJoker #1 Posted 23 October 2017 - 10:34 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35203 battles
  • 1,523
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

This is something i dont understand... 

 

your giving the Tiger II gun a diferencial treatment than you give per example to the 105mm gun of  the M4A1 Revalorisé

its ridiculous you put the Tiger II gun in the same pocked of 320 damage, made by guns like the fast firing russian 100mm that are equiped

in medium tanks...

 

they are not the same type of gun, they are much different, the Tiger II hits with a complete different PUNCH, just like the M4 rev...

and it should be given a 390 alpha damage for that reason...

 

its just stupid to keep the tank underperforming at tier 8 without nothing special on it... for god sake, give it 390, and you at least will have 

a gun that is fairly accurate and still outputs serious damage, because that 320, is not scary enough...

 

I also would sugest to do the same on the Lowe, since it gets a similar gun, but the Lowe in my opinion would be extremely overpowered if it got 390 alpha damage (allready is overpowered at least in my hands)...

 

but my point here is, you cannot treat every gun by the caliber like they were the same.,... you do the same mistake with the Panther 75mm gun

you think that gun should do similar damage to a Sherman M4 75mm... when the right damage for that gun would be at least 200, because that 75mm gun of the panther was actually a beast in real life! 

 

its not just the kick they deliver, its also the shell velocity, this guns where very very powerfull, you should not treat them as other guns that are most fast firing but should do significant less damage per hit. 



Aikl #2 Posted 23 October 2017 - 10:39 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26079 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostKillingJoker, on 23 October 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

(...) you think that gun should do similar damage to a Sherman M4 75mm... when the right damage for that gun would be at least 200, because that 75mm gun of the panther was actually a beast in real life! is on a T7 tank(...)

 

Fixed that for you.

 

320 on the Tiger 2 would be fine if most battles in WoT were decided at range. The Tiger 2 is quite good at long-range combat. However, the practical difference of the IS-3's 0.40 base final accuracy and the Tiger 2's 0.31 is kind of small at the engagement distances we see on almost every map (and very much so at every flank heavies are good at).



KillingJoker #3 Posted 23 October 2017 - 10:49 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35203 battles
  • 1,523
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View PostAikl, on 23 October 2017 - 10:39 PM, said:

 

Fixed that for you.

 

320 on the Tiger 2 would be fine if most battles in WoT were decided at range. The Tiger 2 is quite good at long-range combat. However, the practical difference of the IS-3's 0.40 base final accuracy and the Tiger 2's 0.31 is kind of small at the engagement distances we see on almost every map (and very much so at every flank heavies are good at).

 

The IS-3 have a fairly well armored tank frontaly, with a turret that when hull down is very hard to beat...  plus the IS-3 gun at tier 8 outputs fear to the enemy...

while the Tiger II 320 alpha, doesnt give enough fear factor....

 

You will get many shots under 300 damage, due to low rolls, while in the IS-3, you get easly 400+ damage at high rolls... 

 

you rargument that the Tiger 2 is quite good at range, doesnt stick, since you can do the same with the M4 Rev, and output 390 damage...

so a French tier 8 medium, gets a better damage roll than a tiger 2?  when its penetration with apcr is 200, and the tiger apcr rounds do 280+ penetration? 

 

it doesnt sound right... they should give the Tiger II 390 alpha damage on the 10 cm gun... just compare the gun size with the russian mediums... gun

is it logical a more biger gun and slower to operate do the same damage? its nonsense... 


Edited by KillingJoker, 23 October 2017 - 10:52 PM.


Aikl #4 Posted 23 October 2017 - 10:58 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26079 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

You missed the point entirely; if accuracy mattered and you had more distance to opponents, it would be perfectly balanced to get 320 damage with a "sniperish" gun. I'm saying it's not better at range - because of how WoT handles accuracy. 0.40 on the IS-3 is more than enough.

 

As for the M4A1 it's more a TD than a medium tank; it's a giant gun on a shitty chassis with no armor.

 

Not arguing that it doesn't need a buff. It probably does. A much simpler solution would be to move all the Tigers down a notch. Tiger I would be fine with a bit extra pen on the short 88 (maybe as a 'Ausf. B;). Tiger 2 is largely fine as a T7. Maybe with the 88 as a high-DPM alternative to the 105. T8 is easily filled by some "E-75 prototype", which gets a proper-working L68. That would make the line have armor that mattered (a bit) overall too, not the current 'paper sniper' setup, whose role is long gone.



KillingJoker #5 Posted 23 October 2017 - 11:08 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35203 battles
  • 1,523
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View PostAikl, on 23 October 2017 - 10:58 PM, said:

 

 

As for the M4A1 it's more a TD than a medium tank; it's a giant gun on a shitty chassis with no armor.

 

 

 

While i agree, the gun of the M4 Rev is giant and on a shity M4 sherman chassis... that doesnt change the fact...

the Tiger II 10cm gun is even bigger.. than the one on the M4 Rev....

 

The Tiger 2 gun hits harder...  if you shot the apcr rounds on the Tiger 2 you get almost 300 penetration, it hits much more harder than the M4 rev gun...

 

so why give 390 to one and 320 to another? 

 

its just silly... it something i will never understand..

 

 

 

Despite the Tiger 2 is a much bigger tank, even on the Tiger 2, the gun looks bigger by comparison with the overal size of the tank... 

 

This gun is a beast, why the hell treat it like a medium tank gun?



Balc0ra #6 Posted 23 October 2017 - 11:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67411 battles
  • 17,150
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostKillingJoker, on 23 October 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

Despite the Tiger 2 is a much bigger tank, even on the Tiger 2, the gun looks bigger by comparison with the overal size of the tank... 

 

This gun is a beast, why the hell treat it like a medium tank gun?

 

Because it's more on balance then historical reasons. And more on roles. But more to the point.. why a screen from WT to show how the Tiger II looks? Could not find one from WOT?

 

As I'm sure you have noticed on tier 8+. Damage is not always related to caliber. It's also related to tier and role. Tier 8 HT's with 122's have 390, but get 440 on tier 8 TD's like the WZ-111-1G. Same with the 10,5 Cm or 105mm. HT's all have 320. TD's and support meds get 390 on tier with 105mm on tier 8. As they have the alpha for a sniper role, not to brawl with it.

 

So I get the low alpha on the Tiger II, or 105 guns on HT's vs TD's and meds, since they are not a sniper, and don't need the same alpha as the 122mm on tier 8 HT's. Then you might argue that the 122mm guns on tier 8 HT's should be 440 alpha and not 390 to make it the "same" there to.

 

So I get the alpha difference. But IMO alpha is not something the Tiger II needs. Since the meta has changed on tier 8, especially HT's. His role has gone even more over to the support HT role. It's still not a sniper, but it needs the gun if they are not going to buff it's armor. So it needs a pen buff to get on pair with the Lowe, and a ROF buff to get at least 1 more round a min out. As I'll take the current alpha with more ROF, over more alpha and less ROF.


Edited by Balc0ra, 23 October 2017 - 11:44 PM.


Aikl #7 Posted 23 October 2017 - 11:49 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26079 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 23 October 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

 

Because it's more on balance then historical reasons. (...)

 

 

I don't think this guy gets the 'balance' aspect or any sensible argument. ;)



RockyRoller #8 Posted 23 October 2017 - 11:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34137 battles
  • 1,337
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016
As a King Tiger user I can only say at any range the IS3 will always win in a 1 vs 1. This is why T8 clan battles are dominated by a nearly full group of IS3 and not King Tigers.

ares354 #9 Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:09 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 74003 battles
  • 3,304
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
Well in War Thunder long 105 mm gun on Tiger 2 is more devastating then 122 on IS 3. So point still stand imho. 

Tiger 2 cant get armor buff from WG for years now. He's armor is nothing, tier 6 pen him frontaly. As for gun, 320 is nothing to fear. 225 pen is low too. Like this gun have very high velocity, quite big shells and yet is has lower pen then 100 mm gun on AMX or 90 mm on T26e5. 

Only reason why German Army Command didn't agree on rearming Tiger 2, was fact that 105 gun had separate ammo, shell and charge, unlike 88 mm ammo. And ofc rearming would take too much time. 

HassenderZerhacker #10 Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:17 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27856 battles
  • 2,480
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostKillingJoker, on 23 October 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

 

While i agree, the gun of the M4 Rev is giant and on a shity M4 sherman chassis... that doesnt change the fact...

the Tiger II 10cm gun is even bigger.. than the one on the M4 Rev....

 

The Tiger 2 gun hits harder...  if you shot the apcr rounds on the Tiger 2 you get almost 300 penetration, it hits much more harder than the M4 rev gun...

 

so why give 390 to one and 320 to another? 

 

its just silly... it something i will never understand..

 

 

 

Despite the Tiger 2 is a much bigger tank, even on the Tiger 2, the gun looks bigger by comparison with the overal size of the tank... 

 

This gun is a beast, why the hell treat it like a medium tank gun?

 

some tanks are designed to make a loss in battle.

320 damage is simply not enough damage to offset the 1000+ credits the shells cost.

 

I played the second half of my Tiger II grind using the 88 gun. win rate stayed the same, but the financials improved a lot.



KillingJoker #11 Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:19 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35203 battles
  • 1,523
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View PostBalc0ra, on 23 October 2017 - 11:42 PM, said:

 

Because it's more on balance then historical reasons.  (....)

 

stoped reading here... 

 

 

 

 

 

View Postares354, on 24 October 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

Well in War Thunder long 105 mm gun on Tiger 2 is more devastating then 122 on IS 3. So point still stand imho. 

Tiger 2 cant get armor buff from WG for years now. He's armor is nothing, tier 6 pen him frontaly. As for gun, 320 is nothing to fear. 225 pen is low too. Like this gun have very high velocity, quite big shells and yet is has lower pen then 100 mm gun on AMX or 90 mm on T26e5. 

Only reason why German Army Command didn't agree on rearming Tiger 2, was fact that 105 gun had separate ammo, shell and charge, unlike 88 mm ammo. And ofc rearming would take too much time. 

 

Thats because in real life, the gun was also better... 

 

Its amazing how this people refuse to see the obvious... the Tiger II is underperforming for years... 

its still fairly reliable in the hands of a good player because of the gun accuracy, but its much more harder for a good player have sucess on a Tiger II than in on any other tier 8 tank...

 

And since they cant buff the armor because it is historicaly represented the way it is... at least they could do it justice and give it a proper 390 alpha damage...

 

i am not asking for a huge buff, i am only sugestign to give it the same alpha other tier heavies have, and even some mediums like the M4 Rev have...

 

there are tanks the like the Defender or the VK 100 P that have 440 alpha, but the Tiger II cant have 390, because "balance"

 

FFS, i wont argument anymore with this people... 


 
 

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 24 October 2017 - 12:17 AM, said:

 

some tanks are designed to make a loss in battle.

320 damage is simply not enough damage to offset the 1000+ credits the shells cost.

 

I played the second half of my Tiger II grind using the 88 gun. win rate stayed the same, but the financials improved a lot.

 

There are people who play the Tiger 2 only with the L71 88 becuase of that...  becuase the shell is much more cheaper, and the difference of alpha, vs DPM doesnt compensate

the extra 25mm of penetration you get...

 

I personaly think doing this slightly buff to 390 alpha, would completely change the position of the Tiger 2 in the game, and make it a respected tier 8 heavy, and much more interesting to be seen in the game...

 

Its so painfull for me to only see noobs using the tiger II, because above average players rarely touch in the tiger II, because they simply know it will underperform compared to other tier 8 heavies...

 

its a tank that requires a much more specific style of gameplay, due to its "limitations"

 

and this limitations are all about the gun... if WG had made the Tiger 2 gun from the beggining with the same alpha damage of the IS-3, today its reputation on the game

would be completely different...


 

Sergeant_Antaro_Chronus #12 Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:29 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14223 battles
  • 630
  • [EL-G] EL-G
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013

Look budy, if it's not Russian is shouldn't be good.

 

Joke aside, the Tiger II is balanced completely wrong based on the maps we play. The Tiger II is supposed to have good accuracy to bounce off the low alpha, the problem is that the maps are made of three corridors and heavy tanks are supposed to head-bud each other and in so close ranges the .31 accuracy means nothing when a .40 pokes the corner and deletes 1/4 of your hp.

 

Personally I want a 390 dmg on the Tiger II, but unicum players and for "historical" or "balance" reasons buffing the gun is unrealistic.



KillingJoker #13 Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:34 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35203 battles
  • 1,523
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View PostSergeant_Antaro_Chronus, on 24 October 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

 

 

Personally I want a 390 dmg on the Tiger II, but unicum players and for "historical" or "balance" reasons buffing the gun is unrealistic.

 

Do you honestly think the Tiger 2 would be extremely OP if it had 390 alpha? 

 

Because the way i see it, the Tiger 2 is so poorely armored, (specialy the turret and sides) that even with the alpha buff, wouldnt still be a match for other tier 8 heavies....

 

 

I didnt mentioned, but obviously if they buffed the Tiger II alpha to 390, the reload times should be naturaly increased... 

 

but if am not mistaken the tiger II gun with 320 alpha is 8 or 9 seconds reload, so 

 

 


 

Jack_Sparroxx #14 Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 57133 battles
  • 548
  • [KLKMP] KLKMP
  • Member since:
    09-18-2011
its german, so the likelihood of it being buffed for that reason is between slim to non. I can only recal 4 buffs to german tanks in the past years, Mouse amor buff, 88L100 for the panter 2, Leo pta and recently gun handeling for the rhm tier 10 light

_Avenger_SRB_ #15 Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:51 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 22285 battles
  • 146
  • Member since:
    06-08-2014

360 would be fine...lets not forget the new Caernarvon with 250 turret and like 2800 DPM

 

but it makes no difference to me. not because i don't have one, but because i only play one tier 8 tank just to print credits - others are collecting dust because of 9.18 MM and Tier 9 and 10 being too powerful


Edited by _Avenger_SRB_, 24 October 2017 - 12:52 AM.


ares354 #16 Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:52 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 74003 battles
  • 3,304
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View PostJack_Sparroxx, on 24 October 2017 - 12:44 AM, said:

its german, so the likelihood of it being buffed for that reason is between slim to non. I can only recal 4 buffs to german tanks in the past years, Mouse amor buff, 88L100 for the panter 2, Leo pta and recently gun handeling for the rhm tier 10 light

 

RHM was nerfed and buffed, he got alpha nerf and dpm was hit as well. Still, he is worst tier 10 LT/ 

Sergeant_Antaro_Chronus #17 Posted 24 October 2017 - 01:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14223 battles
  • 630
  • [EL-G] EL-G
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013

View PostKillingJoker, on 24 October 2017 - 01:34 AM, said:

 

Do you honestly think the Tiger 2 would be extremely OP if it had 390 alpha? 

 

Because the way i see it, the Tiger 2 is so poorely armored, (specialy the turret and sides) that even with the alpha buff, wouldnt still be a match for other tier 8 heavies....

 

 

No, I do want it buffed. The tank is pre-historic compared to the rest T8 heavies. What I meant was that because some excellent players will say that because I'm  a noob and don't know how to play the tank, it doesn't need a buff because they can make it work while I can't. Also WG doesn't buff German tanks because "reasons" and "historical accuracy"

 

The lower plate is a joke, the front spoke wheel weak spot is a joke, the side turret armor is a joke, the depression of the gun is a joke. The tank needs the alpha damage buff. 

 

Also remember when you could flambe the German tanks if you penetrated the lower plate. Good 'ol days, and probably WG thought, that global buff made all German tanks OP as fek.

 

 



leggasiini #18 Posted 24 October 2017 - 07:51 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 15233 battles
  • 6,240
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012
390 alpha would actually be quite a good buff for the tank, and would be fitting, because the tier 10 of the line has highest non-HE alpha of all HTs in the game, and tier 9 also has above-average alpha for its tier.

Edited by leggasiini, 24 October 2017 - 07:51 AM.


shane73tank #19 Posted 24 October 2017 - 07:52 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29076 battles
  • 2,038
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014

If you ask me the king tiger is as broken as the defender except it's at the opposite end of the scale , the absolute only reason to play the tank is to grind painfully to the e75

 

it does not need a buff, it needs a complete redesign which won't happen, much shame an iconic and sexy looking tank is best played in garage 



adameitas #20 Posted 24 October 2017 - 08:00 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 64481 battles
  • 880
  • [LTTTT] LTTTT
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011
not alpha is problem on this tank. Its armor. Huge lack of it. Anytime i see those tigers i see free hp nothing more.. In battles tigers firstly were known for their great armor in this game it is their biggest minus. Along with brother 4502a (this tank is just a pure wg joke at t8) their are worst t8 heavies in game.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users