Tiger main gun nerf too much? (Winter patch)

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

Tiger: fires at 5man squads and 4man weapons crews, as well as 7man squads and 6man weapons crews.
IS2: fires at 5man squads and 4man weapons crews, as well as 4man squads and 4man weapons crews.

snip

very interesting read, thanks for elaborating a bit further on this. i've actually done something similar to estimate the aoe performance by calculating the volume integral of the area under the aoe-curve (in practice i dissected the curve into triangles and squares and added the volumes of the respective cylinder and cone segments , which turned out to be easier in excel). this should, in theory, give the same results than your methods, albeit mine seem to be quite a bit off (e.g. for the tiger i get an area of 170.7 DMG*m and a volume of 1314.3 DMG*m^2)
then, in order to factor in the unit's scatter, i've divided this volume by the respective scatter area at set distances (e.g. 10, 20 and 40 m) to get an aoe performance value for comparison.

however, as you've already pointed out, unit spacing add another huge layer of complexity to the actual aoe performance that would be very difficult to calculate precisely. i've done some numerical simulations with excel before concerning heavy tank aoe here.., which seem to correlate quite nicely with the theoretical aoe performance derived by the above method.

still, i'm also not sure about the exact way how scatter is calculated, so if you - or anyone else - has more info on that i'd be much obliged.

very interesting read, thanks for elaborating a bit further on this. i've actually done something similar to estimate the aoe performance by calculating the volume integral of the area under the aoe-curve (in practice i dissected the curve into triangles and squares and added the volumes of the respective cylinder and cone segments , which turned out to be easier in excel). this should, in theory, give the same results than your methods, albeit mine seem to be quite a bit off (e.g. for the tiger i get an area of 170.7 DMG*m and a volume of 1314.3 DMG*m^2)
then, in order to factor in the unit's scatter, i've divided this volume by the respective scatter area at set distances (e.g. 10, 20 and 40 m) to get an aoe performance value for comparison.

however, as you've already pointed out, unit spacing add another huge layer of complexity to the actual aoe performance that would be very difficult to calculate precisely. i've done some numerical simulations with excel before concerning heavy tank aoe here.., which seem to correlate quite nicely with the theoretical aoe performance derived by the above method.

still, i'm also not sure about the exact way how scatter is calculated, so if you - or anyone else - has more info on that i'd be much obliged.

-> I'll PM you

When it comes to AOE damage "accuracy" does not matter.

What is important is the AOE damage areas and the scatter. Here are some scatter number number for these weapons:

Tiger
Scatter angle 7.5
Distance offset 0.25
Distance ratio 1
Distance max 4.3

IS-2
Scatter

Scatter angle 7.5
Distance offset 0.185
Distance ratio 1
Distance max 5.7

Pershing
Scatter angle 6
Distance offset 0.3
Distance ratio 1
Distance max 4.2

One can probably use the ratio between AREA*Damage/Scatter area as indication of the weapon's "accuracy"

snip

They were talking about scatter though and referred to it as accuracy.

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...

If faster vet on the commander was judged OP enough to be removed from UKF then why would it be balanced on OKW with uber vet on panther etc.

Current OKW commander already increases lethality more than the Brit one

Tiger: fires at 5man squads and 4man weapons crews, as well as 7man squads and 6man weapons crews.
IS2: fires at 5man squads and 4man weapons crews, as well as 4man squads and 4man weapons crews.

We gonna pretend panzerfussiliers aren't meta?

We gonna pretend panzerfussiliers aren't meta?

No need to pretend, they aren’t. Tiger is meta. You won’t be seeing many pfusies once the patch hits and people start having to pick a doctrine for them instead of them just being a bonus.

Tiger got a huge turret rotation buff. It will rekt infantry faster if you play offensive.

We gonna pretend panzerfussiliers aren't meta?

Don't try to derail this thread with refering to a single squad and neglecting basically the complete rest of the game.

Let's be honest katitof has a point. When the patch hits ostruppen will be in a better place too with that reinforce and capspeed. Plenty of axis doctrinal inf that are fiveman or more

So let's stop the crying about four man squads, something Brits and USF also have

Let's be honest katitof has a point. When the patch hits ostruppen will be in a better place too with that reinforce and capspeed. Plenty of axis doctrinal inf that are fiveman or more

So let's stop the crying about four man squads, something Brits and USF also have

All factions have 4 man squads, it's just that thy are the norm for axis and the exception for allies. Axis has to pick a doctrine to get higher squad sizes, allies have it stock, as well as having considerably more potent infantry from the get go.


Simply said, if you would exchange squad sizes(or even squads for that matter) it would be a big buff to axis and a big nerf to allies.

If faster vet on the commander was judged OP enough to be removed from UKF then why would it be balanced on OKW with uber vet on panther etc.

Current OKW commander already increases lethality more than the Brit one

Because the Brit one had silly things like white phosphorus and increased damage while the okw one does not

All factions have 4 man squads, it's just that thy are the norm for axis and the exception for allies. Axis has to pick a doctrine to get higher squad sizes, allies have it stock, as well as having considerably more potent infantry from the get go.


Simply said, if you would exchange squad sizes(or even squads for that matter) it would be a big buff to axis and a big nerf to allies.

I agree with all you said, on the flip side allies have to go doctrines to get tanks as strong as axis get stock.

I agree with all you said, on the flip side allies have to go doctrines to get tanks as strong as axis get stock.

To get generalist mediums. Allied TDs are the best.

UKF also has stock Panther and KV1 clones.

I'd move panzer commander (arty guy) to some lighter vehicle such as 222 in this doctrine or maybe a stug. I wouldn't get rid of the ability (similar to pathfinders arty) removing it from the commander - but removing it from the tiger is a good idea.

For me normal Tiger should be a long-range 55-60 range tank-hunter with maybe one high-explosive ability at target.

Tiger Ace should be changed to King-Tiger.

To get generalist mediums. Allied TDs are the best.

UKF also has stock Panther and KV1 clones.

Allied td,s are the best because axis have acces to better armour stock. Hence axis having more healing options and mg,s regardles of tech choice. To deal with the better allied inf and stem the bleed stock.

The kv1 clone and panther escq tanks from ukf exclude eachother, you cant have a basic churchill and comet be build by the same player. Something neither axis has to choose between.

The kv1 clone and panther escq tanks from ukf exclude eachother, you cant have a basic churchill and comet be build by the same player. Something neither axis has to choose between.

Axis can get a stock heavy defensive tank like the KV1/Churchill? Where?

And don’t say KT, that’s a super heavy.