Heavy Tank CP

Festung Armor meta in WCS2

It could be.

Show Spoiler

And strip OKW of their best counter to tank destroyer and medium spam? I'd rather not. The current Jagdpanzer IV has a clearly defined role, and it excels at it. The only problem is that nothing except the Tiger I has high enough DPM to fight against the IS-2, but that's no reason to change the JP4 entirely.

Why not make the Tiger II more akin to the IS2? It's steeply expensive of course, but the issue with it is the performance, specifically the turret rotation. That way OKW has a direct counter for the IS2 that does not result in Meta offensive every game.

Why not make the Tiger II more akin to the IS2? It's steeply expensive of course, but the issue with it is the performance, specifically the turret rotation. That way OKW has a direct counter for the IS2 that does not result in Meta offensive every game.

That would only result in the meta shifting from Tiger I most games to Tiger II most games, and make the strat even more powerful because the Tiger II would have a variety of commanders to back it up, amongst which Elite Armor with Panzer Commander and HEAT shells. The Tiger II is great in teamgames currently where its mobility isn't an issue, buffing it further so it becomes useful in 1v1s would make it OP in teamgames.

And strip OKW of their best counter to tank destroyer and medium spam? I'd rather not. The current Jagdpanzer IV has a clearly defined role, and it excels at it. The only problem is that nothing except the Tiger I has high enough DPM to fight against the IS-2, but that's no reason to change the JP4 entirely. JP4s do good enough against all other heavies.

Besides that, I do consider the Allied TD profile to be a bad design (even though we're stuck with it now), that I definitely wouldn't want to spread to even more units.

This narrative of yours that the JP4 is for countering mediums is ridiculous and no one is asking for it to be the case. The JP4 misses most of its shots at range trying to track mediums and Jacksons/Fireflies on the move, due to it having to rotate to keep up I imagine triggering the 50% moving accuracy modifier. What do you suppose happens to a turret-less tank when turreted tanks swarm it? The P4 is a much less risky counter. I'm not sure why you think a JP4 excels at countering other TDs either, it's nowhere close to a hard counter, it can only trade damage.

And no, it doesn't just struggle with an IS2, it also fails to do much of anything to an ISU even with HEAT rounds. Meanwhile allied TDs can reliable pen Elephant/JT frontally.

This narrative of yours that the JP4 is for countering mediums is ridiculous and no one is asking for it to be the case. The JP4 misses most of its shots at range trying to track mediums and Jacksons/Fireflies on the move, due to it having to rotate to keep up I imagine triggering the 50% moving accuracy modifier. What do you suppose happens to a turret-less tank, when turreted tanks swarm it? The P4 is a much less risky counter. I'm not sure why you think a JP4 excels at countering other TDs either, at most it's able trade damage.

And no, it doesn't just struggle with an IS2, it also fails to do much of anything to an ISU even with HEAT rounds. Meanwhile allied TDs can reliable pen Elephant/JT frontally.

Agreed with the accuracy thing. I would suggest buffing the JP4s horizontal depression range to allow better tracking.

And strip OKW of their best counter to tank destroyer and medium spam? I'd rather not. The current Jagdpanzer IV has a clearly defined role, and it excels at it.

The only problem is that nothing except the Tiger I has high enough DPM to fight against the IS-2, but that's no reason to change the JP4 entirely. JP4s do good enough against all other heavies due to their excellent DPM.

And what might that role be?
Because as counter to mediums tanks it far more expensive then SU-76/Stug/M10

And as a counter to "heavy TDs" it cost and is close to that of SU-85/FF/M36 while most dedicated counters are cheaper in cost and pop and work more like soft counter zoning them out than a units that can chase and kill them.

(fun fact: at max range and vet 0 a JP4 actually has a lower TTK against an IS-2 than a Jackson or a Firefly has against a Tiger; only the SU-85 is slightly better)

Is that TTK for FF without tullips?
Fun fact: JP is more expensive than SU-85

Besides that, I do consider the Allied TD profile to be a bad design (even though we're stuck with it now), that I definitely wouldn't want to spread to even more units.

Then simply change the bad design of allied TDs. Either JP need some changes or Allied TDs. Or both.

Pershing has obvious trade-offs compared to Tiger, which you'd know if you'd take an unbiased look at the stats. I wouldn't call one clearly better than the other. IS2 is probably the best heavy - if we take its counters into account - which gets addressed below.

It sounds like a small change, but it's quite significant. The only armor that really matters in endgame situations is armor above the 180-190 mark, the far penetration value of most AT guns. Reducing the big chunk the IS2 has above this value even with just 25 will make quite a big noticeable in game.

The Tiger's fast rof makes it far too efficient against infantry. Its AoE is not far off from the Pershing, but it reloads much faster (5~ reload vs 6,5). If you added 0,5 more reload to Tiger, you could give it like 10-20 more penetration to compensate loss of AT power.

How about this:
- 18 pop to 16 pop
- 50 range to 55 range
- 185 fuel to 175 fuel
- 960 hp to 800 hp
- 260 armor to 220 armor

This would put it somewhere between the current Panther and 60 range TD's in terms of role. It would not bully mediums as hard, but be a more efficient counter to heavies. It would also allow it to more easily return fire against 60 range TD's, without overly exposing itself.

I honestly not know which areas Tiger is better than Pershing besides Rof. When Relic gave Pershing additional 160Hp at slight cost of armor (still high vs Axis stock pen) and rof vet bonus (still within vet Tiger and better than hyped Panther).

That change imo, makes Pershing more Tiger than Tiger. A Tiger that has mobility and accuracy of Sherman, and can be supported by Jackson.
Hence i rank it clearly above Tiger in use. Tiger slight rof is its saving grace.

This change to Panther is still bad. The only sensible is the range change...but for Allies 60TD to 55TD.
This theorectical Panther is still less cost effective than 60TD and their sweet vet bonus. This new Panther will get eaten by Comet and Ukf.

Then simply change the bad design of allied TDs. Either JP need some changes or Allied TDs. Or both.

Yes very strange decision by Relic. Know is bad, but dont look into it?

As my suggestion, make it 55TD. This make Pak/Rak and Jp4 more able to counter them, put 55TD on their toes like it should be. But 55TD is still a safe distance from Axis 50 stocks return fire.

Make heavies later CP, at least in 4v4, 55TD have more window to prevent resources for heavies build. Maybe, become 60TD at vet3. I dont know man, the 60TD have great vet bonus already and 60 range is so lazy help. Reduce 70TD heavies to 60TD, so they can less zone out a game. These heavies have already nerfed so slow in positioning, encourage the flanks already. AT Guns can also counter them at 60.

I don't think the stats on any of the heavies need to change, except perhaps the IS-2's armour which restricts the enemy build in a way the Pershing and UKF heavies just don't.

I think they just need to a chunk more expensive to offset how much more they offer than a double medium.

I honestly not know which areas Tiger is better than Pershing besides Rof.

Comparison of their stats: https://gofile.io/?c=AVldde
Comparison of their AoE: https://imgur.com/a/MxiFmh1 Show Spoiler

Tiger has better reload, scatter, durability and extremely strong veterancy.
Pershing has better moving performance, accuracy, penetration, mobility and overall AoE.

I feel the patch has kinda overbuffed the AI of the Tiger, because it now has and a good AoE profile (even if it's not as "splashy" as the Pershing) and excellent scatter and excellent reload speed and a pintle. Maybe reload was not the best change to suggest of me, because it affects AT significantly, but perhaps something else could be toned down a bit.

Problem is not heavy tank but medium tanks. They are crappy vs other tanks and building two of them which cost more than a heavy tank (except for the T34) don't bring anything vs said heavy tanks.
On the same page heavy tanks deal better vs tank destroyer and having more health and more armor make them more forgivable in any circumstances.

I mean, do you build another light vehicle once medium tanks are out? nop, so why would you build a second medium tank when you know a heavy is coming.

Sanders stated it perfectly in one of his responses here, Medium are for midgame while heavies are for late game. And this is this logic that is broken. Heavies should be as much for late game than mediums. Having 2 or 3 mediums on the field should be rewarded more than having 1 heavy but that's the opposite today: bigger investment, bigger repair time, more micro taxes, more subject to lose all or part of your investment etc...

I think heavies just need to be more expensive at this point.

Heavies are effective units now, but they're priced more efficiently than a medium pair.

They could all get away with being 260 - 280 FU.

That, or a substantial teching barrier, like OST and UKF's 200 MP 50 FU to unlock their heavy tier.

Problem is not heavy tank but medium tanks. They are crappy vs other tanks and building two of them which cost more than a heavy tank (except for the T34) don't bring anything vs said heavy tanks...

They where fine until TDs where buffed thru the roof, so the problem in the TDs and not the mediums. Most of meduim have received buffs and should not be buffed further.

They where fine until TDs where buffed thru the roof, so the problem in the TDs and not the mediums. Most of meduim have received buffs and should not be buffed further.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the TD-Medium matchup these days. The problem is mediums don't do shit to heavies.

That means if one player goes heavy, the other has to go TD-medium or their own heavy, and heavy is generally proving to be the better option. This is especially true of Ost and OKW, who have expensive mediums and anti-medium tailored TDs.

This narrative of yours that the JP4 is for countering mediums is ridiculous and no one is asking for it to be the case.

So how do you know no one is asking for it? Did you hold a poll under all OKW players? I don't have any evidence proving otherwise, nor do I claim the opposite, but the distinct lack of balance threads being raised about it in the last 1-2 years (a grand total of one bigger one and another very small one on these forums) seems to indicate that most people are content with the way it has functioned for years now.

The JP4 misses most of its shots at range trying to track mediums and Jacksons/Fireflies on the move, due to it having to rotate to keep up I imagine triggering the 50% moving accuracy modifier. What do you suppose happens to a turret-less tank when turreted tanks swarm it? The P4 is a much less risky counter.

Accuracy at max range is fine, it has -15/15 traverse to track targets without moving, which is the same as the SU-85. Only close to medium range it can have trouble tracking with the gun traverse alone. It has high base accuracy stats and high veterancy accuracy bonuses. It counters mediums because it utterly out-DPMs them, because of a very fast reload, low target size and 230 frontal armor. Flanks can be prevented by using other units to provide sight, threaten snares and lay mines. As long as you prevent it from getting flanked, it eats up mediums with ease. The Panzer IV Ausf.J struggles with anything that has more than 160 armor, and even against the Sherman and the Cromwell it's mostly a coin toss which one wins.

I'm not sure why you think a JP4 excels at countering other TDs either, it's nowhere close to a hard counter, it can only trade damage.

Because it out-DPMs every Allied TD at vet 0 because of faster reload and smaller target size, along with having a tiny chance to bounce. With veterancy it gets camouflage, 800 hitpoints and even faster ROF, at which point it out-DPMs Allied TDs with ease and effectively hardcounters them.

Vet 0 TTK at max range, from the first shot:
(accuracy not included, as it's proven to be too random to quantify. Even though the Jagdpanzer IV has a significant accuracy advantage over the Firefly and the Jackson, as its target size at 17 is much lower than the other two's 23 and 24 respectively. Though the Firefly and Jackson have a 0.05 and a 0.25 moving accuracy advantage in return.)

- SU-85 vs JP IV: 22,6s (16,95s if we ignore the small bounce chance)
- Firefly vs JP IV: 24,75s (24,75s if we ignore the small bounce chance) (ignoring Tulips)
- Jackson vs JP4: 26,2s (19,65s if we ignore the small bounce chance)

- JP4 vs SU-85: 15s
- JP4 vs Firefly: 15s
- JP4 vs Jackson: 15s

Vet 3 (4) TTK at max range, from the first shot:
- SU-85 vs JP4: 18,28s
- Firefly vs JP4: 18,75s (ignoring Tulips)
- Jackson vs JP4: 20,22s

(Don't know the exact values here because Cruzz' stats don't show vet 4 reload, and I don't know how to calculate it exactly, so these are estimations. But the point is clear.)
- JP4 vs SU-85: ~11,5s-13s
- JP4 vs Firefly: ~11,5s-13s
- JP4 vs Jackson: ~11,5s-13s

And no, it doesn't just struggle with an IS2, it also fails to do much of anything to an ISU even with HEAT rounds. Meanwhile allied TDs can reliable pen Elephant/JT frontally.

That seems like a highly subjective statement, which is not supported by the statistics:

- Jagdpanzer IV has a 50% chance to penetrate the ISU-152 at max range;
- Jagdpanzer IV with HEAT shells has a 65% chance to penetrate the ISU-152 at max range.

Allied TDs at max range have a
- 52,5-55% chance to penetrate the Elefant at vet 0. And 52,5-71,5% chance at vet 3;
- 47-48% chance to penetrate the Jagdtiger at vet 0. And 47-64% chance at vet 3.


TLDR: the Jagdpanzer IV is a highly underrated unit, it excels at its intended roles of killing everything that isn't a heavy. Even against most heavies it's decent, as its high DPM makes up a lot for the lack of penetration. It's also an excellent unit to support a Tiger I or Tiger II and the combination is very powerful. The Panther is meant to be OKW's (Axis') heavies counter, and the Panther is good against everything that isn't an IS-2. I don't see a reason to give the Jagdpanzer IV higher penetration and slower reload, as it would strip OKW of an effective mediums/TDs counter, blur the role divide with the Panther, would unnecessarily further homogenize the game and would introduce an already unhealthy profile to yet another unit.

....
TLDR: the Jagdpanzer IV is a highly underrated unit, it excels at its intended roles of killing everything that isn't a heavy. Even against most heavies it's decent, as its high DPM makes up a lot for the lack of penetration. It's also an excellent unit to support a Tiger I or Tiger II and the combination is very powerful. The Panther is meant to be OKW's (Axis') heavies counter, and the Panther is good against everything that isn't an IS-2. I don't see a reason to give the Jagdpanzer IV higher penetration and slower reload, as it would strip OKW of an effective mediums/TDs counter, blur the role divide with the Panther, would unnecessarily further homogenize the game and would introduce an already unhealthy profile to yet another unit.

Then simply reduce pop/cost and lower any stat you guys see fit. Because currently the unit is too expensive for the unit it counters.

Then simply reduce pop/cost and lower any stat you guys see fit. Because currently the unit is too expensive for the unit it counters.

I'm not convinced it is, not anymore.

It competes with the Panther, and it's better AT against everything but heavies.

The issue is the IS-2 being such a werewolf unit (that is to say, it's only really countered by its silver bullet) rather than the JPIV being a bad tank. Sander39 has throughly brought me round on it.

I'm not convinced it is, not anymore.

It competes with the Panther, and it's better AT against everything but heavies.

The issue is the IS-2 being such a werewolf unit (that is to say, it's only really countered by its silver bullet) rather than the JPIV being a bad tank. Sander39 has throughly brought me round on it.

According to Sanders it counter mediums and TDs.

Mediums have lower Pop and cost
And from TDs Su-85 is cheaper and only M-36/FF are a bit more expensive. It is simply too expensive.

The unit has little to reason being more expensive than SU-85. When it had a lower tech cost it made sense, with the new tech cost its price simply does not match its performance.

Again lower price to around 100-120 fuel at the cost of any stat they see fit and the unit will immediately see more action.

The JPIV 'counters' tank destroyers with its Vet 1 and Vet 2 bonuses: Vet 1 gives it cloak so it always gets the first shot off, and Vet 2 lets it take another hit.

Those are both big advantages in a slugging match.

I'd say add 20-30 fuel to ALL heavies and the problem will solve itself.

Heavies are still viable stat wise, but they are no longer no-brainer choice over 2 meds.

Accuracy at max range is fine, it has -15/15 traverse to track targets, which is the same as the SU-85. Only close to medium range it can have trouble tracking with the gun traverse alone.

SU-85 shooting at a p4 is a much different scenario than a StuG or jp4 shooting at allied tanks since they are significantly faster, or in the case of the sherman, slightly faster with much higher moving accuracy.

Allied infantry are also better spotters since they tend to be stronger and tankier than axis infantry in the late-game.