Jump to content


Making the FV215b be worth playing

heavy british fv215b

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

MrEdweird #1 Posted 08 February 2019 - 05:21 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21384 battles
  • 405
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

Forgive me if this is a bit ranty.

 

So the FV215b, being pretty bad when compared to most stuff at tier X, needs some love. And now we have another very powerful tier X British heavy that will do everything better.

This is quite important now that it might be getting sold for bonds in the future as teased by WG over the holidays.

 

Here's what should change, in my opinion, to make this tank at least playable in more than one situation.

Currently, the lack of mobility, gun depression and armor make using the DPM nearly impossible. So I think SOME or all of these need to happen. Please don't read this as a suggestion to make it like the Pz7. The point is to make the base armor be like the Super Conqueror, without the spaced armor and stronger turret. It would be good if there's something to compensate for the bad gun depression and useless rear turret placement, however.

 

  • The weakspots under the turret should have been removed years ago. There is not one tank in the entire line that has these anymore.
  • The lower plate is worse than terrible. The modules behind it need to be resized or rearranged to avoid all the silly engine fires.
  • While the gun depression clearly can't be changed over the front, the tank should have good depression at least over the sides. This is the worst gun depression in pretty much the entire line of British heavies.
  • There is no reason for the side armor to be this abysmal. The last tanks to have such bad armor in the line are the FV201(A45) and the Caernarvon AX, two to three tiers down. The tank loses incredible amounts of potential by having a rear-mounted turret already. It gains nothing for this loss. Making the tank be incapable of sidescraping is pure insanity.
  • The turret is unimpressive. It's a worse version of the tier 9 Conqueror, with only a bit more armor on the cupola, which literally never does anything. This is plain stupid, but can be compensated  by changes in other aspects of the tank.
  • It would not be insane to make the lower plate be 152mm. The tank has zero armor advantages over any other tier X heavy tank. It is also so massive that people penetrate your weakspots from 500m without even aiming for them...
  • The tank is more mobile than the SConq but just barely and this accounts for nothing, since no amount of turning and twisting will save you from penetrations.
  • The number of rounds carried is unreasonably low. The tank is one of the largest vehicles in the game, and yeah, the SConq has more...because of course it does.

 

The list can go on but suffice to say that while the Super Conqueror is just slightly overpowered, the array of basic features it has obsolete the FV, without even considering that it is simply statistically better in every meaningful way and needs to be hit with the nerfbat. There are now an insane amount of tanks in the game that can and will eat the FV for breakfast and all you can really do in this massive piece of arty bait is get farmed unless you have one of the increasingly rarer occasions where you might actually be able to fire a few times before getting stomped.


Edited by MrEdweird, 08 February 2019 - 02:47 PM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #2 Posted 08 February 2019 - 05:49 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 3,770
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

The bulges in the side armor, or the fighting compartment armor, could use a buff.

 

Why "should" the gun depression be buffed though? 7° is good for a rear mounted turret.

 

Yes, the S.Conqueror obsoletes the FV and that's why it isn't in the tech tree anymore. The FV isn't the best tier 10, it isn't enjoyable to play and that's it. No need to compare it to one of the best tier 10s to make a point!

 

The turret armor and the upper plate are supposed to be balanced but if you want it to catch up with the current trend of unbeatable armor, they could use a buff.

 

The mobility sure could use a buff, there is no reason for a tank with such armor profile to be this sluggish.



MrEdweird #3 Posted 08 February 2019 - 06:01 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21384 battles
  • 405
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 08 February 2019 - 04:49 AM, said:

The bulges in the side armor, or the fighting compartment armor, could use a buff.

 

Why "should" the gun depression be buffed though? 7° is good for a rear mounted turret.

 

Yes, the S.Conqueror obsoletes the FV and that's why it isn't in the tech tree anymore. The FV isn't the best tier 10, it isn't enjoyable to play and that's it. No need to compare it to one of the best tier 10s to make a point!

 

The turret armor and the upper plate are supposed to be balanced but if you want it to catch up with the current trend of unbeatable armor, they could use a buff.

 

The mobility sure could use a buff, there is no reason for a tank with such armor profile to be this sluggish.

 

The gun depression should be buffed over the sides, because it's a tier 9 turret with the same gun as it is at tier 9. That gun in that turret has -10. I never wanted the Conqueror to have -10, but here we are. It should be buffed over the sides to allow for skilled users to position themselves and make shots while risking damage. And above all, it should have it, because the tank gains nothing for being a rear-turreted vehicle.

 

I compare it to one of the best tier Xs in the game because it is what replaced it. The SConq, OP as it is, was put in the line to better fit in with the other tanks that are a part of it. And the whole line got changes because it needed them for years (I loved the line before the changes, though, and 3marked my way through it). That the tank was replaced does not mean that it should be worse than what replaced it. It has a different gameplay style, yes, but it is not good at that gameplay style. How can it be?

 

There is nothing balanced about the turret armor. It has a large weakspot on top, with a barely adequate 254mm under the gun, though admittedly the SConq has that too.

The upper plate is fine and I made no argument about that, though pretty much nobody shoots it and when they do, they have prem ammo loaded so it's invalidated entirely.

 

And if you are referring to my comment about the lower plate being made double, consider that it is at a worse angle than the top.

Know what else got double lower plate armor?  The new T95/FV4201. It should have 76, same as the Chieftain and same as all other British tanks, but it has 152. Even though it is the same hull as all the other T95s in the game, which have 76. Yes, I'm comparing to another potentially overpowered tier X. So what? If we keep going like this, overpowered tier X heavies is all you will be able to compare it to.

 

The tank does not need unbeatable armor. It needs workable armor. It can't hide it's weakspots in any position other than at full gun derpession, behind a mound, facing entirely forwards, which is a position you would/can only take if you want to deliberately bait shots. The tank is so massive and it's weakspots so easy to hit that it is not really a good fire support tank either. The problem being mostly the rear turret.


Edited by MrEdweird, 08 February 2019 - 06:06 AM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #4 Posted 08 February 2019 - 06:18 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 3,770
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 07:01 AM, said:

 

The gun depression should be buffed over the sides, because it's a tier 9 turret with the same gun as it is at tier 9. That gun in that turret has -10. I never wanted the Conqueror to have -10, but here we are. It should be buffed over the sides to allow for skilled users to position themselves and make shots while risking damage. And above all, it should have it, because the tank gains nothing for being a rear-turreted vehicle.

 

Let's get something out of the way first. It "should" not have anything, it's an obsolete vehicles that got removed form the tech tree and replaced by a much better one and every owner got compensated with a S.C while keeping this relic. Any proposed modification for this vehicle falls under the QoL category, maybe around better balance.

 

It used to have better DPM and gun handling because of that rear turret configuration. Also still got the better gun handling over the S.C.

 

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 07:01 AM, said:

That the tank was replaced does not mean that it should be worse than what replaced it. It has a different gameplay style, yes, but it is not good at that gameplay style. How can it be?

 

Which is why it was replaced! and it was, and it was, and it was....replaced, replaced, replaced.....

 

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 07:01 AM, said:

There is nothing balanced about the turret armor. It has a large weakspot on top, with a barely adequate 254mm under the gun, though admittedly the SConq has that too.

The upper plate is fine and I made no argument about that, though pretty much nobody shoots it and when they do, they have prem ammo loaded so it's invalidated entirely.

 

And if you are referring to my comment about the lower plate being made double, consider that it is at a worse angle than the top.

Know what else got double lower plate armor?  The new T95/FV4201. It should have 76, same as the Chieftain and same as all other British tanks, but it has 152. Even though it is the same hull as all the other T95s in the game, which have 76. Yes, I'm comparing to another potentially overpowered tier X. So what? If we keep going like this, overpowered tier X heavies is all you will be able to compare it to.

 

The tank does not need unbeatable armor. It needs workable armor. It can't hide it's weakspots in any position other than at full gun derpession, behind a mound, facing entirely forwards, which is a position you would/can only take if you want to deliberately bait shots. The tank is so massive and it's weakspots so easy to hit that it is not really a good fire support tank either. The problem being mostly the rear turret.

 

And in what position will the Pz 7 be if you buff the FV armor all around like you described above?



MrEdweird #5 Posted 08 February 2019 - 06:28 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21384 battles
  • 405
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 08 February 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

 

Let's get something out of the way first. It "should" not have anything, it's an obsolete vehicles that got removed form the tech tree and replaced by a much better one and every owner got compensated with a S.C while keeping this relic. Any proposed modification for this vehicle falls under the QoL category, maybe around better balance.

 

It used to have better DPM and gun handling because of that rear turret configuration. Also still got the better gun handling over the S.C.

 

 

Which is why it was replaced! and it was, and it was, and it was....replaced, replaced, replaced.....

 

 

And in what position will the Pz 7 be if you buff the FV armor all around like you described above?

 

I don't understand how you could think that being a special tank means that it should be worse.

QoL and better balance are quite good reasons why these things should happen. Putting the word in quotes doesn't mean you can just relegate my opinion on the matter to being irrelevant.

The gun handling is the same, don't kid yourself. The SConq has the gun depression and armor to take all the time it needs for the shot. This doesn't mean that the gun handling is not excellent, just that it is not effectively better.

 

You seem to think that it's ok to keep a tank in the game that is replaced by one that is flat out better but sit there and pretend that everything is fine while the old tank dwindles in obscurity. If the tank was changed to a better one, then WG admits it is bad. Now why would they want people to play bad tanks?

If you do indeed think this is fine then I have nothing more to say on the matter.

 

The Pz7's position will remain completely unchanged. What changes did I suggest? That the lower plate be made the equivalent of like...barely 220mm? So that tier 8s can't just lol pen the tank without aiming?

The only suggestions I made for the armor are the side, which can easily be made to match the SConq, which doesn't have impressive side armor, either. That, the lower plate and the weakspots.

I don't see how a mediocre lower plate and mediocre 101mm side armor could possibly have any effect outside the tank itself. Please think about this before you say anything else, the FV215b is the last tank on the list to have any effect on something completely unrelated like the Pz7, which has ridiculous armor by comparison and is considerably smaller in size.

 

I doubt much can be done about the cupola since I really don't want to see any random [edited]like the T110E3's cupola that is so thick that it should be 3 times the size etc. It's just a problem that should be compensated for by *something* on the tank. It's not gun depression and it's not size.


Edited by MrEdweird, 08 February 2019 - 06:42 AM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #6 Posted 08 February 2019 - 06:57 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 3,770
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 07:28 AM, said:

I don't understand how you could think that being a special tank means that it should be worse.

QoL and better balance are quite good reasons why these things should happen. Putting the word in quotes doesn't mean you can just relegate my opinion on the matter to being irrelevant.

The gun handling is the same, don't kid yourself. It doesn't make any difference. The SConq has the gun depression and armor to take all the time it needs for the shot.

 

It "should" not be anything apart from being a special/obsolete tank like you yourself described it a couple of times. In some other cases the original tank just disappeared and was replaced by the new one whether you liked it or not, like the 263 or the WT E100. In the FV case you were fortunate enough to keep the original tank as well as receive the new one which is one of the best tier 10 heavies since release. Don't you think that's generous enough from WG? No, you need buffs and you need it on bar with other tier 10 heavies. Can you tell me one good reason for that? Why in such case, as i described above, the FV should be buffed and not the grille 15 for example???

 

Tanks aren't balanced around specific situations. On paper the FV still got the better gun handling compared to the S.C.

 

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 07:28 AM, said:

You seem to think that it's ok to keep a tank in the game that is replaced by one that is flat out better but sit there and pretend that everything is fine while the old tank dwindles in obscurity. If the tank was changed to a better one, then WG admits it is bad. Now why would they want people to play bad tanks? If you do indeed think this is fine then I have nothing more to say on the matter.

 

Simple enough, sell it and play a more competitive tank. Apparently not every single tank in the tech tree "should" be competitive and/or pleasant to play.

 

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 07:28 AM, said:

The Pz7's position will remain completely unchanged. What changes did I suggest? That the lower plate be made the quivalent of like...barely 220mm? So that tier 8s can't just lol pen the tank without aiming?

The only suggestions I made for the armor are the side, which can easily be made to match the SConq, which doesn't have impressive side armor, either. That, the lower plate and the weakspots.

I don't see how a mediocre lower plate and mediocre 101mm side armor could possibly have any effect outside the tank itself. Please think about this before you say anything else.

 

I doubt much can be done about the cupola since I really don't want to see any random [edited]like the T110E3's cupola that is so thick that it should be 3 times the size etc. It's just a problem that should be compensated for by *something* on the tank. It's not gun depression and it's not size.

 

Frontally the lower plate is about the only thing that a tier 8 can reliably pen and you propose to make it a near miss?

 

I did agree completely on the bulges/turret basket buff and the mobility while i didn't comment on the side armor. Not much can be done about the cupola or the gun depression since that's a part of the hull configuration. Yes the cupola is a weak spot, for heat since the angle but it's kind of hard to hit and pen reliably.


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 08 February 2019 - 07:08 AM.


MrEdweird #7 Posted 08 February 2019 - 07:17 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21384 battles
  • 405
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

There's no generosity involved on the part of WG as far as this tank's replacement went.

Changing the tank was their choice and doing, not mine. Letting players keep it was a requirement, but it was an appreciated gesture nontheless.

 

I think the buffs are needed the same reason any tank needs buffs - to be good and enjoyable and not be a pain to play. Is that not the basis of a balanced game?

 

As far as the situational thing - yeah, fair enough. But the tank is so large and so slow and the bad depression and rear turret make it unreasonably difficult to make anything work in a lot of situations, not just one. Those 3 degrees of gun depression and forward turret on any other tank make all the difference. The tank is that big and clunky. So I think that the small difference in the gun handling is purely academic and makes no difference in actual use. The gun handling is already good enough that the bigger bottleneck is actually the player and their Internet connection more than the tank's capabilities. But a great gun by itself is not enough to make a good tank imo. I think perhaps WG should have given the 120mm guns the 440 alpha they were testing a while ago.

 

And yeah, I propose to make the lower plate a near miss. Why whould a tier 8 have a massive readilly avilable weakspot to nail on a tier X? Do you expect tier 6 tanks to lolpen tier 8 heavies frontally? In what universe?

 

The FV used to be popular because back then there were nowhere near as many stupidly overarmored heavies with massive guns etc. etc.and unbeatable armor and the FV could just kill everything fast enough so that the bad armor would not matter. It's just not the case anymore and I feel that WG should do the vehicle justice. The same can be said of the T110E5, which shares a similarly bottom tier winrate for tier X. I can't talk about the Grille 15 as I don't have it. I don't see anything wrong with it other than maybe camo.

 

Also, remember the bonds thing. What incentive would people have to spend their hard-earned bonds on an inferior vehicle?


Edited by MrEdweird, 08 February 2019 - 07:34 AM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #8 Posted 08 February 2019 - 07:35 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 3,770
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 08:17 AM, said:

There's no generosity involved on the part of WG as far as this tank's replacement went.

Changing the tank was their choice and doing, not mine. Letting players keep it was a requirement, but it was an appreciated gesture nontheless.

 

Nope, it wasn't a requirement at all as with the other cases i mentioned.

 

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think the buffs are needed the same reason any tank needs buffs - to be good and enjoyable and not be a pain to play. Is that not the basis of a balanced game?

 

As far as priorities go, there are a lot of tanks across the tech trees both standard and premium that deserve attention more than an obsolete tier 10 that has already been compensated. Some of the buffs you mentioned are logical and essentially just QoL improvements but going too far is just asking for trouble!

 

View PostMrEdweird, on 08 February 2019 - 08:17 AM, said:

And yeah, I propose to make the lower plate a near miss. Why whould a tier 8 have a massive readilly avilable weakspot to nail on a tier X? Do you expect tier 6 tanks to lolpen tier 8 heavies frontally? In what universe?

 

Tier 6 tanks, or mediums, can pen the Caernarvon reliably in the lower plate. Does that make it a weak tier 8 tank? Does that make the tier 6s OP? Same with the 50 100, Caernarvon AX, FCM, EMIL I, T-34, Tiger 2. etc.

 

Tier 8 tanks, or mediums, can pen the S.C reliably in the lower plate. Actually tier 6s can do it reliably too! And yes, this should be the case since that's the only way to damage a higher tier tank frontally, through a weak spot!


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 08 February 2019 - 07:37 AM.


MrEdweird #9 Posted 08 February 2019 - 07:43 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21384 battles
  • 405
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 08 February 2019 - 06:35 AM, said:

 

Nope, it wasn't a requirement at all as with the other cases i mentioned.

 

 

As far as priorities go, there are a lot of tanks across the tech trees both standard and premium that deserve attentions more than an obsolete tier 10 that has already been compensated. Some of the buffs you mentioned are logical and essentially just QoL improvements but going too far is just asking for trouble!

 

 

Tier 6 tanks, or mediums, can pen the Caernarvon reliably in the lower plate. Does that make it a weak tier 8 tank? Does that make the tier 6s OP? Same with the 50 100, Caernarvon AX, FCM, EMIL I, T-34, Tiger 2. etc.

 

Tier 8 tanks, or mediums, can pen the S.C reliably in the lower plate. Actually tier 6s can do it reliably too! And yes, this should be the case since that's the only way to damage a higher tier tank frontally, through a weak spot!

 

I did say that not everything needs to be implemented as I see it. Even a 101mm lower plate would be appreciated. It would be nice if those same tier 5-6 tanks couldn't lolpen the tier X... The tank would still have worse armor than the SConq in either case so I fail to see your point.

Don't give the Caernarvon as an example, it is by far a more flexible tank for its tier and the lower plate is not as easy to pen, especially if angled. But even that tank has better side armor than the FV, which helps a lot with angling and positioning. It can handle itself in almost any situation, the FV cannot. I suggested the 152mm lower plate as an unique feature. Tier 8s will still be able to pen it with prem rounds. The sides will still be butter.

 

I say keeping the FV was a requirement because it is one in my mind. Nobody is "required" to do anything, but if they respect their customers and loyal players, who have been supporting the game financially and in spirit for what is now 8 years, they can do a lot more than letting me keep my damn tank. Yeah, it may sound entitled, but its fair. I'm not asking for anything special. I'm asking for QoL stuff. I pay them money, I play their game, I make mods for it so other people can enjoy the game more etc. etc., I get to ask that something is done to retain me as a player.

 

You ignored the purchase for bonds again. It's going to be a top tier prize, one that is hard to get. Does that not cover your criteria for importance?

Moreover, I don't give a rat's A about their priorities anymore. This tank has been in the gutter for years. If it gets put on the backburner any more, it may as well never be changed.

This stupid priorities thing keeps coming up again and again every time a change to a tank is suggested. We dont get to determine priorities, we get to determine what tanks are good and what tanks are not.


Edited by MrEdweird, 08 February 2019 - 07:54 AM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #10 Posted 08 February 2019 - 07:55 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 3,770
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Maybe i am just still mad about the 263 and the grille? :)

 

Good luck MrEdweird, i hope they'll buff it eventually and i hope they wake up one day and start looking at the rotten tanks across the tech trees.



MrEdweird #11 Posted 08 February 2019 - 08:04 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21384 battles
  • 405
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 08 February 2019 - 06:55 AM, said:

Maybe i am just still mad about the 263 and the grille? :)

 

Good luck MrEdweird, i hope they'll buff it eventually and i hope they wake up one day and start looking at the rotten tanks across the tech trees.

 

As well they should.

undutchable80 #12 Posted 08 February 2019 - 08:25 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 10321 battles
  • 2,912
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014

Players: "We need to buff the FV215b, cuz look at what they did with the Super Conqueror!"

T110E5: Hold my beer. https://tanks.gg/com...onqueror~fv215b

 



The_Georgian_One #13 Posted 08 February 2019 - 08:49 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40293 battles
  • 1,950
  • [KOFN] KOFN
  • Member since:
    01-05-2015
There's a chance they will buff it when it's introduced to shop for bonds. I don't want it to be OP, I just want the tank to be playable.

Ceeb #14 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:05 AM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 31801 battles
  • 5,747
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011
I think the 907, 260 and Chieftan will be due another buff before the FV215B

ExistanceUK #15 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:15 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17725 battles
  • 201
  • [SKIL1] SKIL1
  • Member since:
    08-29-2015

View PostThe_Georgian_One, on 08 February 2019 - 08:49 AM, said:

There's a chance they will buff it when it's introduced to shop for bonds. I don't want it to be OP, I just want the tank to be playable.

 

This.

 

For me all that needs doing is the hull armour being made exactly the same as the SConq minus any additional welded on plates the SConq has and it would be fine. It is basically the same hull after all. 

 

 

 



arthurwellsley #16 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:33 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53389 battles
  • 3,778
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostThe_Georgian_One, on 08 February 2019 - 07:49 AM, said:

There's a chance they will buff it when it's introduced to shop for bonds. I don't want it to be OP, I just want the tank to be playable.

 

WG are going to have to buff the FV 215b or else no one will spend hard earned bonds on it.

 

Why would you spend bonds on the worst tier X heavy?

 

The other two tanks available for bonds in the up coming bond shop are the FV215b (183) and the AMX 50 Foch (155). Neither of those TD's are particuarly good compared to other tier X TDs, but at least they are not as bad compared to the others as the FV215b is compared to all the other heavy tanks in the tier.

 

The only question is which elements of the FV215b will be buffed?

 

The FV215b has the best dpm and gun handling of a heavy, and yet is awkward to use due to rear turret, and dies very fast due to non-existent armour. Personally I would make the armour model similar some of the other support heavies.

 

Increase ammo capacity from 35 to 56

Increase forward speed from 34.3 to 65

Increase reverse speed from 12 to 20

Increase hull armour from 151/101/76 to 170/101/76

 

These buffs mean the the FV215b will never be a front line tank, but it will be similar to the T57 and AMX 50B in playing a second line support role to more armoured heavy tanks, trying to punish enemy tanks with it's dpm. A Type 5 with it's super OP armour and a vulnerable long reload, allied with a fast firing FV215b would then be a good combination.



The_Georgian_One #17 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:39 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40293 battles
  • 1,950
  • [KOFN] KOFN
  • Member since:
    01-05-2015
^ no heavy needs/should have a forward speed of 65, but otherwise I like this concept.

Edited by The_Georgian_One, 08 February 2019 - 09:39 AM.


arthurwellsley #18 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:41 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53389 battles
  • 3,778
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostThe_Georgian_One, on 08 February 2019 - 08:39 AM, said:

^ no heavy needs/should have a forward speed of 65, but otherwise I like this concept.

 

It is the exact forward and backward speed of the AMX 50B. So it is already in game.

 

It is of course modified by terrain resistances.



The_Georgian_One #19 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:43 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40293 battles
  • 1,950
  • [KOFN] KOFN
  • Member since:
    01-05-2015
50B has even less armour than FV and is a heavy only because WG classified it as such.

arthurwellsley #20 Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:53 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53389 battles
  • 3,778
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostThe_Georgian_One, on 08 February 2019 - 08:43 AM, said:

50B has even less armour than FV and is a heavy only because WG classified it as such.

 

Absolutely correct, but the role of the 50B is to dash in amongst the super heavies, unload it's clip and then get out of the engagement.

If the FV215b is being set up to get into an engagement and out again quickly while maybe using it's good gun handling and fast reload to squeeze out two shots before leaving the engagement it will need a little more armour than the 50B because (a) awkward to manoeurve rear turret, and (b) the FV215b is as long as a school bus.

 

But the figures I gave were illustrative of the general concept I was recommending for the FV215b, I am sure WG could test them and do better than I could.

 

The other option is more in line with the OP suggestions which means buffing the armour enormously to make it another rear turret side scrapper like the PzKpfw VII, VK 72.01 (K), Maus, and Object 705A, which I personally do not think is the right path because (a) already a good number of armoured side scrappers, (b) does not fit with the UK heavies high dpm gameplay style and (c.) the other support heavies are autoloaders and so there is a gap for a high dpm single shot support heavy.


Edited by arthurwellsley, 08 February 2019 - 09:54 AM.






Also tagged with heavy, british, fv215b

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users