Tiger main gun nerf too much? (Winter patch)

And which vehicle Tiger will lose to except IS-2 in direct firefight again?

IS 2, Pershing, ISU-152, SU 85, Jackson, Firefly. Tiger is easily countered by vehicles which costs considerably less than itself. An IS 2 will meanwhile win against JP-4, Stug, Panther and Tiger.


All this while ALSO having higher anti infantry damage, as well as being supported by more effective infantry and tanks.

Tanks don't hit infantry with the accuracy stat anyways. But scatter is also modified, I'm not 100% sure how scatter is exactly affected though (it could be that not every point in the allowed scatter area might be hit with the same probability).

Some info about scatter can be found here.

https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/231279/a-guide-to-d-p-s-basics

I voted yes but with a caveat, I don't think the AOE should go back to what it was before but I do believe the Tiger should at least have an AOE that is similar to the IS-2/Pershing in the patch. I was for the extra tech requirements for heavy tanks to delay them without adding extra CP's which are slower in team games but if the AOE isn't reduced at all heavies would still be the meta in 1's and 2's for sure. Not sure exactly how the AOE distance effects the Tiger as maybe that could be improved as well but ideally I want all heavies to be similar in performance.

For the record, Tightrope's tests aren't very conclusive because the Tiger I has always been weak against spread out squads because of its relatively small AOE. Its strength comes from high ROF, getting a lot of shots into clumped up squads (which happens a lot in real matches) which is impossible to test outside of getting a ton of real games in. The adjustments are minor, only geared towards reducing the OHK potential so that it doesn't wipe as much, so overal performance in a real match should still be good. The adjustments are not meant to make the Tiger (and the other heavies) necessarily weaker, but rather to make it (them) less oppressive. Heavies are still meant to be viable units.

AOE is hard to adjust because we have to basically guess the values because there is no way to standardize the values into some kind of performance gauge. Only the "live test" will show how it ultimately performs and if it needs any further adjustments.

Can you change it to "fastest rate of fire in its class?"

I did say Fastest in class rof but I'll change it for clarity.

More to the topic, BEST AT heavy is absolutely a great title,especially given osts current AT line up. It'll feel less dramatic for okw given the plethora of AT options of all sizes and shapes but for ost the tiger will remain an attractive choice. If it's AI feels a bit lacking, the various MGs can be looked at a la t34 (which, imo should be the prime source of AI for ALL tanks due to reliability and predictability but I digress)

Seeing how the game has become Company of Tiger, seeing it going to trash bin is good

IS 2, Pershing, ISU-152, SU 85, Jackson, Firefly. Tiger is easily countered by vehicles which costs considerably less than itself. An IS 2 will meanwhile win against JP-4, Stug, Panther and Tiger.


All this while ALSO having higher anti infantry damage, as well as being supported by more effective infantry and tanks.

In a direct firefight every single one of them loses to Tiger(even IS-2, which I excluded).
I've specifically mentioned direct firefight, not perfect conditions.

And if you really want to drag it, explain to me how tiger loses to allied TDs that outrange it in perfect scenario, but IS-2 doesn't in the exact same setting axis will just take longer?

If anything you could maybe give back some of the scatter Vet (either move it to Vet 3 and/or reduce it to like 10%). Would make the Tiger a wee bit more consistent at higher Vet with it's smalller AoE but not supper oppressive as a power spike.

If anything you could maybe give back some of the scatter Vet (either move it to Vet 3 and/or reduce it to like 10%). Would make the Tiger a wee bit more consistent at higher Vet with it's smalller AoE but not supper oppressive as a power spike.

Other heavies have comparable AoE, why fastest firing one should be most accurate as well?

Other heavies have comparable AoE, why fastest firing one should be most accurate as well?

I was always under impression that IS2/Pershing had larger AoE. I don't think Tiger needs to have best of all worlds but if the balance team thinks the current patch iteration is underwhelming then I think giving it back some of it's scatter is a potential solution. I assume that the previous patch kept heavies at the same relative ratios of scatter/AOE/ Etc. when they buffed them when it came to IS2 vs. Tiger main guns/ As such I would assume that reverting some of the scatter nerf wouldn't make the Tiger any better when compared to the other heavies than it had historically been in previous patches... Caveat of course being that I'm not diving into the stats here

Fastest in class is Pershing
Range is the same as Persing at vet 0 and same as IS-2 once vetted.

That leave only ROF

"only"

RoF is pretty important in armor engagements.

Tiger ROF
5.25
vet 3 3.75

Is-2 RoF
6.65
4.73

Alright, this leaves us with 1110 dmg*m^2/sec for pre-patch Tiger, 980 for post, 1050 for pre-patch IS2 and 960 for post.
For the vetted numbers basically add 400 to everything.
Both tanks are quite close in that regard. So the biggest differences will be in the squad size of the targeted squad, alpha damage and scatter values. AoE damage wise they are pretty much the same and both tanks got nerfed by about 10%.

IMO the tiger is fine, its the 9CP(which has been fixed) and panzer commander plus Tiger commander that is the problem.

IS 2, Pershing, ISU-152, SU 85, Jackson, Firefly. Tiger is easily countered by vehicles which costs considerably less than itself. An IS 2 will meanwhile win against JP-4, Stug, Panther and Tiger.


All this while ALSO having higher anti infantry damage, as well as being supported by more effective infantry and tanks.

As of 1.3 with the armor nerf jagdpanzer can kill a croc or IS-2 faster than a FF can kill a tiger or KT

This is due to faster RoF, go test it if you don't believe me.

IMO the tiger is fine, its the 9CP(which has been fixed) and panzer commander plus Tiger commander that is the problem.

Yea that is the simple problem but they are over-doing the solution. Just move it to CP12 or later and remove vet-2 scatter bonus. Also the panzer command bonus.

Thats it.

In a direct firefight every single one of them loses to Tiger(even IS-2, which I excluded).
I've specifically mentioned direct firefight, not perfect conditions.

Well i will reply with your words. PLAY TO THEIR STRENGTH. Its is absolutely easy to avoid Tigers with any of allied TDs.

And if you really want to drag it, explain to me how tiger loses to allied TDs that outrange it in perfect scenario, but IS-2 doesn't in the exact same setting axis will just take longer?

Because allied TDs are designed to fight heavies like Tiger but JP4 and StuG are for meds and they either lack the penetration that allied vehicles have or the range.

But I think you already knew those

I imagine it's too late to resuggest a swap of brit and axis tank commanders eh? Where the British one gets arty strike (ahem decorative base howitzes sitting there) and the axis gets the increased accuracy plus return the increased vet speed (all okw commanders with it embody the veteran armour trait)
Then British tanks can be balanced without the idea of "what about the extra accuracy they can get by default with literally no alternative option at any point of ever!" and axis tanks have a much more attractive alternative to the pintle: actually getting them sweet late levels of vet...

No. It was just a small sample size rng.

Got my calculation bat to feed some data into this discussion:

This is (if my calc is correct) how the approximate damage AoE curves look like:



"Functional area" is the area with 80 HP as a cap, since more than that are not useful and would scew the data.

I've done some more calc for better AoE estimation not only in the plot area, but the circle estimation.

This gives the following values (in damage*square meter):

Tiger pre 5845
Tiger post 5141
IS2 pre 6979
IS2 post 6359

Regarding AoE only (RoF is neglected, if someone has the exact values at hand please forward them to me), this means that post-patch the Tiger is 88% as good as the pre-patch while 'new' IS2 is 91% as good. The Pre-patch IS2 was 19% better than the Tiger, while this value goes to 23% post-patch.

Overall nerfs don't seem super drastic, but of course can be fine tuned. In the video it look like the Tiger is a bit weak, but it's hard to tell from shooting at two squads. Also it will likely look different in a real battle were models are already damaged by small arms.

first off, kudos for taking the time and sharing the aoe estimations! this kind of data is what the discussion needs imo, since actual in-game tests - as valuable as they are - always suffer from low sample size, huge variability and, in turn, often quite a bit of confirmation bias. that being said, please allow me some comments on the actual data:

looking at the aoe curves, it appears you have neglected the aoe_max radius (at which the aoe damage falls from aoe_far to zero), which adds quite a significant portion to the overall area under the curve. now i might of course be wrong on how the aoe_max is actually implemented in-game, so if you have more info on that i'd be glad to hear.

also, i'd be interested how you derived the dmg/area values, since i've done something similar myself recently to calculate some sort of aoe damage index, also taking the scatter area into account.

first off, kudos for taking the time and sharing the aoe estimations! this kind of data is what the discussion needs imo, since actual in-game tests - as valuable as they are - always suffer from low sample size, huge variability and, in turn, often quite a bit of confirmation bias. that being said, please allow me some comments on the actual data:

looking at the aoe curves, it appears you have neglected the aoe_max radius (at which the aoe damage falls from aoe_far to zero), which adds quite a significant portion to the overall area under the curve. now i might of course be wrong on how the aoe_max is actually implemented in-game, so if you have more info on that i'd be glad to hear.

also, i'd be interested how you derived the dmg/area values, since i've done something similar myself recently to calculate some sort of aoe damage index, also taking the scatter area into account.

EDIT: Just saw how long this post got. It's rather technical, so have fun reading...
EDIT2: Fucking hell I just realized that the circle calculations have a mistake. Slipped with the cell logic, will correct that soon.
EDIT3: Fixed it, will fix the original post now too.


Thank you very much. I also agree that the theoretical AoE calculation is better than in game tests when comparing units with the same scatter values.

First off: Yes, max_aoe_range (or how it is called) is neglected. I wrote this half a year ago and I didn't know how and if at all this stat is implemented, since many units don't really have it. At the time I left it out because the calculation in Excel overall is a bit tricky to implement and removing it later could be a huge pain. You actually just reminded me of that, I forgot that I did not do this at the time. Is this stat just used to increase the AoE with the minimum AoE value (as it would logically suggest)? I can't remember if I just saw a lot of units with the max AoE range stat being either "0" or the far AoE distance anyway. Also, if someone knows if the attribute editor is up to date in that regard that would be great as well. With some clarity on that regard I could implement this now.

To the AoE damage area values:
I'm not 100% sure about my calculus (plus how to write it for Excel) anymore, so I made approximations to closely estimate the area. The actual difference to a real calculus is minimal and only given if the actual distance points for the AoE are not covered by the increments that my Excel calculates automatically (which is to be expected though).
The "area under plot" is a first calculation to get more info about the plot. It just incrementally adds up the averaged damage for each radius increment. For example, the Tiger post does an averaged 116 [(120+112)/2] damage on the first 0,1 meters, adding 11,6 damage to the area under plot. This is done for each increment. Functional area under plot caps exceeding damage at the red bar, in this case 80 HP. So here, only 8 damage would be added.

This can give a quick impression about AoE performance, but neglects that the AoE is a circle and outer increments have more area than inner ones. That's what I mean with "circle estimation". It basically does the same, but beforehand calculates the actual area of each of the circle segments. For example, the most inner segment has an area of 0,0345 m^2 and a capped damage of 80, giving it 3 total damage. The most outer segment has an area of about 1,8 m^2 and 24,5 damage, adding 44 total damage. In my opinion though, this overestimates the outer rims as they usually don't matter that much. But it can still give an impression about overall performance.

That's why I gave both values, the "area under plot" and the circle damage (as well as the curves).

For a more complete calculation of tank performance you would need to know how exactly scatter is calculated (since also Vipper's guide is a bit thin on that). Then take the inter-model-distances and make a statistical model for the fight that ideally also accounts for re-targeting of other models if they are killed. This is basically way more than I am capable of doing though. And even this would still not account for clumping of squads in a real fight.

I think the curves and some area estimations are a bit more practical here and give okay-ish results for the amount of work you need to put into.