Jump to content


Lorraine gun choice 100mm or 90mm?


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

Poll: Lorraine gun choice 100mm or 90mm? (351 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Which gun do you equip?

  1. 90mm Fires faster, shells cheaper, damage and penetration acceptable. (131 votes [37.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.32%

  2. 100mm Has downsides but is superior weapon and worth the credits. (220 votes [62.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.68%

Vote Hide poll

Exocet6951 #81 Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:31 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 39998 battles
  • 2,097
  • [BALTO] BALTO
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostMr_Sukebe, on 26 March 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

With all due respect, I'm not quite sure you've worded that correctly.
If you'd like to say that YOU PERSONALLY don't see the point to the 100mm gun, that's fine, but to tell us that NO ONE ELSE needs the 100mm gun is an overstatement.
Personally I now prefer the 100mm, regardless of it's increased costs.  If anything makes me more careful about how I use it because of the cost/reload times.  It does NOT make me overconfident.  For example, came across an IS4 yesterday at range.  He had a T29 for support, so closing up for a kill was too dangerous.  IMO the 100mm allowed me to damage him with 75% of my shots.  I'm not confident that I'd have done that with the 90mm.
It's not about the cost, it's about limiting exposure. It's plain and simple, using the 100mm makes you stay a longer amount of time in sight of the enemy, and your only concern as a Lorraine, hell, as a French tank should be doing the max damage in the lowest amount of time possible. If you use the 100mm, you take a few more seconds to fire, and those few seconds mean taking an extra hit, and when it comes down to a French tank, half the time, that means a critical hit, which cripples you to no end.

As for your exemple, if you met him at his flank, the 90mm would have allowed you to do the same in terms of accuracy.

View Postazakow, on 27 March 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

At first it might appear to be that simple.
A closer look will reveal the reality of it: A compromise between ammo cost and team success.

http://forum.worldof...ost__p__1495389


P.S.:

At the moment, the time to fire the 90mm and 100mm are equal, hence the exposure to enemy fire when attacking is the same!
Moreover the ratio of potential damage and risk is better using the 100mm gun.
I agree that being tracked is fatal, but the gun that is carried has no influence on this, other than the play style.
Nope, the 90mm fires faster in between shots.
Also, your link doesn't really mention the 90mm DCA45, it just says that it does less xp per shot, coupled with a slightly worse dpm, so it's worse. That's would be true and all, if it were a normal gun, but in an autocanon, with difference reload time in between shots, it changes.
Risk/reward ratio doesn't mean anything if you die.
It's really simple, when you use the 100mm, you stay longer to fire all the rounds, and by my experience, along  with playing along with clan mates, every Lorraine platoon we did, I survived the longest due to the fact that I was more careful, didn't take too big of targets alone, thinknig I could kill it before it killed me, and more importantly, I stayed a shorter amount of time out of cover.

Mr_Sukebe #82 Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:52 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32373 battles
  • 2,623
  • [ZOLO] ZOLO
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostExocet6951, on 27 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

It's not about the cost, it's about limiting exposure. It's plain and simple, using the 100mm makes you stay a longer amount of time in sight of the enemy, and your only concern as a Lorraine, hell, as a French tank should be doing the max damage in the lowest amount of time possible. If you use the 100mm, you take a few more seconds to fire, and those few seconds mean taking an extra hit, and when it comes down to a French tank, half the time, that means a critical hit, which cripples you to no end.

As for your exemple, if you met him at his flank, the 90mm would have allowed you to do the same in terms of accuracy.


Nope, the 90mm fires faster in between shots.
Also, your link doesn't really mention the 90mm DCA45, it just says that it does less xp per shot, coupled with a slightly worse dpm, so it's worse. That's would be true and all, if it were a normal gun, but in an autocanon, with difference reload time in between shots, it changes.
Risk/reward ratio doesn't mean anything if you die.
It's really simple, when you use the 100mm, you stay longer to fire all the rounds, and by my experience, along  with playing along with clan mates, every Lorraine platoon we did, I survived the longest due to the fact that I was more careful, didn't take too big of targets alone, thinknig I could kill it before it killed me, and more importantly, I stayed a shorter amount of time out of cover.

You still haven't understood my point yet.
I appreciate and am happy that YOU prefer to use the 90mm gun and understand the arguments that you've put forward.

However, you are STILL trying to tell me that I MUST also prefer the 90mm gun.  That's like you telling me that I SHOULD prefer chocolate flavour milkshake.  As it happens I prefer both banana AND the 100mm gun.
We have a difference of opinion based upon our own personal preferences and application.  I'm sure that the 90mm gun suits your style of play better.  It does NOT suit my style of play better.

As for the example of the IS4, if I'd closed to the flank, I would have been a dead mean, but that's because you're trying to second guess a scenario based upon very little detail.  In the example in question, I was at medium range using cover to avoid (1) being spotted and (2) their arty (they had a couple of T6+ SPGs).  So if I'd moved up to a firing position on his flank, probabilities are that I'd have been spotted during my movement and then shelled into oblivion.  As it was, I could fire at range relatively safely (covered against anything but return fire from the IS4 and I could hide as soon as he pointed his main gun at me) and with the penetration of the 100mm, actually damaged him reliably.

azakow #83 Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:05 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 79243 battles
  • 4,938
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View PostExocet6951, on 27 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Nope, the 90mm fires faster in between shots.
Do you know the reload time in between shoots for each gun, i. e. 2,5 sec on 100mm and 2 sec on 90mm gun?
I'm aksing, because this is completely new to me.
Thank you.

Exocet6951 #84 Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:24 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 39998 battles
  • 2,097
  • [BALTO] BALTO
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostMr_Sukebe, on 27 March 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

You still haven't understood my point yet.
I appreciate and am happy that YOU prefer to use the 90mm gun and understand the arguments that you've put forward.

However, you are STILL trying to tell me that I MUST also prefer the 90mm gun.  That's like you telling me that I SHOULD prefer chocolate flavour milkshake.  As it happens I prefer both banana AND the 100mm gun.
We have a difference of opinion based upon our own personal preferences and application.  I'm sure that the 90mm gun suits your style of play better.  It does NOT suit my style of play better.

As for the example of the IS4, if I'd closed to the flank, I would have been a dead mean, but that's because you're trying to second guess a scenario based upon very little detail.  In the example in question, I was at medium range using cover to avoid (1) being spotted and (2) their arty (they had a couple of T6+ SPGs).  So if I'd moved up to a firing position on his flank, probabilities are that I'd have been spotted during my movement and then shelled into oblivion.  As it was, I could fire at range relatively safely (covered against anything but return fire from the IS4 and I could hide as soon as he pointed his main gun at me) and with the penetration of the 100mm, actually damaged him reliably.
Actually, when asking for effiency, the metaphor becomes: which milkshake contains more potassium, banana, or chocolate? You might prefer chocolate, but if you want potassium, you'll take the banana one.

Then, in your IS4 scenario, you are basically saying to went up to the IS4 frontally, and shot him up. So, tell me again, the Lorraine is a medium tank, right? So,why are you even face to face with a heavy in the first place?
Second of all, with 212mm pen, you are still more than able to pen the IS4, in fact, it changes NOTHING, since the only 2 places you can penetrate with both guns are identical.


View Postazakow, on 27 March 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Do you know the reload time in between shoots for each gun, i. e. 2,5 sec on 100mm and 2 sec on 90mm gun.
I'm aksing because this is completely new to me.
Thank you.
No problem, the 100mm needs 2.75 sec between each shots, while the 90mm is only 2.25 secs.

Mr_Sukebe #85 Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:30 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32373 battles
  • 2,623
  • [ZOLO] ZOLO
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostExocet6951, on 27 March 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

Then, in your IS4 scenario, you are basically saying to went up to the IS4 frontally, and shot him up. So, tell me again, the Lorraine is a medium tank, right? So,why are you even face to face with a heavy in the first place?
Second of all, with 212mm pen, you are still more than able to pen the IS4, in fact, it changes NOTHING, since the only 2 places you can penetrate with both guns are identical.

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing.
As per my statement, I was at "medium range", or around 200-300m.  The IS4 had been spotted by another friendly teammate and was being shot at by myself and probably 2-3 other vehicles.  By reversing a little at the location I was at (next to a building) I was able to fire into his flank.  IMO the success rate of penetration with the 100mm has been better than the 90mm by more than I'd expect given the stated penetration of each gun against the side armour of IS4s.

So back to my earlier statement.  YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO TELL ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION BASED UPON YOUR GUESSES AND NOT HAVING BEEN THERE.

Now stop trying to tell me that I MUST have a different opinion when I don't agree.

realkaischi #86 Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:45 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31010 battles
  • 213
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
this whole question is interesting. I love the lorr and fly around the battlefield with a very good winrate.
But in the moment i use the 100mm i normally lose...

Longer reload time was mentioned!
But: what the 100mm kills for me is the longer reload time between the shots. U can just shoot 2-3 times until the enemy shoots back or gets help. With the 90mm i can easier and faster finish the enemy or can pull back. Even with higher penetration its not guaranteed that every hit damages. And further the accuracy is not that good. So often i miss shoots with the 100mm even with fully aim where then the overall reloading time makes u useless. Im using by the way both accuracy modules plus 100% crew.

Respect for everyone who performs well with the 100mm!

Exocet6951 #87 Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:13 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 39998 battles
  • 2,097
  • [BALTO] BALTO
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostMr_Sukebe, on 27 March 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:


So back to my earlier statement.  YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO TELL ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION BASED UPON YOUR GUESSES AND NOT HAVING BEEN THERE.

Now stop trying to tell me that I MUST have a different opinion when I don't agree.
Not really, you can prefer anything you want, but if the question is which one is more efficient, the 90mm is the answer, just like you can prefer chocolate ice cream over vegetable, but veggies are better for you.

Besides, I'd like to remind you that opinions can be wrong, like ancient Greeks thinking owning slaves was A-OK.

Mr_Sukebe #88 Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:28 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32373 battles
  • 2,623
  • [ZOLO] ZOLO
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostExocet6951, on 27 March 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

Not really, you can prefer anything you want, but if the question is which one is more efficient, the 90mm is the answer, just like you can prefer chocolate ice cream over vegetable, but veggies are better for you.

But the question wasn't "which one is more effecient".  All you've got to do is refer to the top of the page.
The question was "which do you equip".

And unfortunately you appear to be in the minority at this point in time from the replies to the poll.

GeneralPaul #89 Posted 28 March 2012 - 10:13 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 15144 battles
  • 54
  • [DADDY] DADDY
  • Member since:
    11-23-2010
I don't enjoy the 100mm.. feels like im spending 50% of my time cursing the reload and wishing I was playing something else.

With the 90mm it actually feels like im in the same fight as my team so I prefer that.

joyuesp #90 Posted 14 April 2012 - 10:34 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 52953 battles
  • 7,700
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    01-22-2012
the important question is who deals more dpm with his 6 shots,since you still have to hide long time to reload the 90mm, i could wait a bit more.

zbing #91 Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:43 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22451 battles
  • 1,325
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010
90 mm is much better choice for Lorraine.

Maximillian #92 Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 28670 battles
  • 534
  • [MUTTS] MUTTS
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
90mm is the better g. un in my opinion. Tried several battles with both, and the 90 fits me alot better than the 100.

Ihmemies #93 Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:38 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9398 battles
  • 235
  • Member since:
    10-26-2010
Reload between 90 & 100mm is something like 2.7 vs 3.7s. Full drum reload 40 vs 50s.

azakow #94 Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:00 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 79243 battles
  • 4,938
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View Postjoyuesp, on 14 April 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

the important question is who deals more dpm with his 6 shots,since you still have to hide long time to reload the 90mm, i could wait a bit more.
This question was answered furhter above. It is the 100m which deals more damage in a average battle, inclduing the "long" reload time.

HariSeldon #95 Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39557 battles
  • 1,161
  • Member since:
    11-28-2011

View PostExocet6951, on 27 March 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

Not really, you can prefer anything you want, but if the question is which one is more efficient, the 90mm is the answer, just like you can prefer chocolate ice cream over vegetable, but veggies are better for you.

Besides, I'd like to remind you that opinions can be wrong, like ancient Greeks thinking owning slaves was A-OK.

You are wrong, and the full statement of the efficiency is just false.

You keep in mind that effi in a game is just like potasium, and is not, because potasium is there or not, and effi in the game depends on gamestyle, not just skill. And there is not only 1 effi gamestyle to play this tank. If I play it as a flanker, your option with the small gun could work. I play myself as flanker to do dmg in sider and back, but when I play with the 100mm gun, i find i could snipe from long and med range, and relocate, and i could do that because of the higher dmg and the increased pen. BOTH gamestyle suit the tank, but you choose what you like more. Non related to effi, just likes and how you want to use your tank.

I like both gameplay, so i have both and change to try a diff gamestyle, while in fact 100 mm allow you to play as flanker too, less effi of course, but 90mm as sniper dont.


I think it hardly depends on gamestyle, and effi depends on so much factors, skill of the driver too, so not all tanks are driven the same by all players. Potasium is a much easier fact to talk about =P

HubertGruber #96 Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:36 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 25765 battles
  • 2,176
  • Member since:
    01-15-2011
Lorraine with 90mm is balanced tier 8 tank, with 100mm its overpowered machine of doom. I did quite well with 90mm gun, but damage increased significiantly once i upgraded. Summary: with 90 its a very good tank and moneymaker, with 100 its a very very very good tank. So choice is economy or fun...

Passchendaele #97 Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5774 battles
  • 898
  • Member since:
    03-17-2012
Wtf 1.000 credits per shell on a ~8 shots per minute gun (100 mm)?  

Ihmemies #98 Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:07 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9398 battles
  • 235
  • Member since:
    10-26-2010
After getting the 100mm my opinion is that it's the best weapon for my playstyle in Lorraine. 90mm has problems with penetration and damage which 100mm fixes. Also with 100mm there's no need to wait for the aim to close in completely between shells, thus wasting time. Altough time between shots with 90mm is in theory smaller, in practice the difference is minimal because you need to wait for the perfect aim...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users