Tiger nerf

Depends on what the faction is suppose to face.
For calculs: (60/(Reload time))*(damage per shot) with some approximation you have the true DPM (without pen/bounce/deflect damage/miss ect... which could turn the calcul into nightmare).
An heavy tank is meant to be reliable in every way and be really good at tanking damage in exchange for mobility. It is a balance really hard to achieve because, if it is not good enough, other more "specialized" unit are better. And since the only target a Tiger is better than the other against is other heavy tank, which also got nerfed and vanished, the Tiger is not a worthy AT option, so it remain AI. If its AI capabilities are good enough, it could be a viable "bigger" P4 in its role, but turns out it isn't, so building one is risky due to the high amount of ressource to spare and other inconvenience which goes along which the "BIG ONE" archetype which were told before.

The ISU isn't properly OP, even if its AI performance seems unfair. It is exactly what power an heavy tank should have to remain an option which overpass the medium spam. With the nerf, those 3 heavies (IS-2/Tiger+variant/Pershing) kinda lost their identities (the IS-2 case is a bit special).

So yes, those nerf were intended for 1vs1 and their effects weren't sure by the time of the patch release. We waited several mounth and tournaments to be able to see exactly what happenend. The results are that the Tiger is no more used in any game mode, whether it be the 1vs1 or 2vs2 tournament, or from my own 3vs3/4vs4 experience.

We can no longer say that those nerf were beneficial and anybody against is just a idiot Wehrboos relying to much on its "OP toy" to win. Whether it be the overall impression or the stats during big events, everything point out that those nerf were disproportionate. Maybe it solves the Heavy meta in 1vs1, but it destroyed the diversity every other gamemode, limiting the Ostheer with the Elephant or the Infantry doctrine. And I find it legitimate asking for a buff which could allow us to have acces to a greater variety of commander,whether it be for the Ostheer, the USF or the SU. ( 5 Ostheer commanders have the Tiger or a Variant)

Due to time constraints, I will make a more elaborate answer later and this one has to be shortened.

Apart from that formula not being correct, what you term "true DPM" does not account for one of the most important factor: penetration. According to your formula, a Puma (1870 DPM) would outperform even an SU85 (1770) and apparently also almost the Tiger and ISU by far (see your numbers). At max vet, it would have a whopping 3116 DPM and even beat a vet 3 Jackson (3018). Now this gets even worse if you would take the correct reload formula because the Jackson has wind up times which forther prolongs the reload. This number says absolutely nothing and you cannot make any serious point with that. And these "nightmarish" calculations for penetration are quite straight forward maths. The only "nightmarish" aspect is calculating scatter hits but you can easily take the next step towards penetration. If you are not willing to do this ask for someone to provide the values, but don't try to make a point with raw DPM that actually says more about the rate of fire than about actual performance.

Now to the point:
Tigers (like Pershing and IS2) are meant to be generalist heavies. We previously saw them in literally almost every game. There are two options for that: Either the faction is unplayable without it, or the unit is vastly overperforming.
This role however included that they should be jack of all trades, but worse than specialized units at their special task. Pre patch heavies wiped models and sometimes even squads like specialized AI vehicles (Brummbär, Bulldozer Sherman), being able to attack AT guns while still having enough AT performance to fight off any armor that was thrown at them.
Their AI has been toned down quite a bit. The extend of it is up for debate obviously, but these units were vastly overperforming. SOV and USF have seen only slight adjustments and the factions are absolutely fine even without a heavy, arguing that the previous AI profile of heavies was too strong. For OST, this point is not as easy to make since the whole faction has seen some buffs, but looking at the stats the Tiger's AI performance is not that bad (have to search for MMX's posts somewhere, he has good data) compared to other heavies while still being good at AT.

snip

The point is, having "good" raw stat doesn't make an heavy tank, we are talking about a beast of iron. The Tiger had exactly the AI we expect from a Tiger, except if it really did One-shot some squad but i'm not really sure that's true. It is not suppose to take him more than 2-3 shot to deal with a support weapon team or a single section. The Tiger was good enough from the get go to deal with single squad and that's its purpose. While the Brummbar with a much better AOE is suppose to deal with a bunch of squad at the same time, and its competence is something the Tiger could never replace.

The Ostheer (and so the Tiger case) is really particular since as I mentioned, it was the pinnacle of 5 commanders and got the biggest nerf of all. And if we look at the Ace variant already consider below just got destroyed (30% turret speed for a tank half the time on Spearhead mode is quite useless).

If I had to pinpoint the problem, I would say that with the nerf, the balance of the ratio (AI/AT performance)/(ressources invested) isn't sufficient. When you read the patch note you only see big nerf without any ressources adjustement.
And yes the Tiger stat isn't bad at all, even quite good but we talk about an heavy tank, sure it is better than every other option but that's because it cost nearly double the price. But if the ratio isn't good enough, one would prefer go for specialized unit over it.

Ressources are really important, and investing into a bad ratio unit is already risky, so when the risk/reward isn't good enough, people do not use it, despite its good stats on the Paper.

The ISU is use because it is unique in its role, while the Tiger can be replace by other unit quite reliably since the nerf.

The range makes ISU great. The fact that it can engage both types of threats (armour, infantry) makes is much better than elephant. There is no point in analysing the details - it can counter armour AND infantry. And all of this sitting out of its opponents range. If you see your opponent building an elephant just swarm it with infantry. ISU can't be countered that effectively by building tanks as it will damage the attackers and, together with at guns and hand held at weaopn will simply blunt the attack. If you combine its at performance with mark target it becomes as lethal as elephant and still can will wipe infantry squads. Generally this is the emodiment of Soviet faction OPness - their units can deal adequatly with both types of threats - with ZiS being the best at gun in the game imo.

Tiger will always have to close into at/tank destroyer/isu range to deal damage. This is the difference.

The ISU issue comes down to only one problem: It hardcounters Paks.

The only effective way to deal with it is tanks.

And here is where the Allied 60 range td meta comes in.

One big balancing problem the game has since years... and will not be fixed, it seems.

One big balancing problem the game has since years... and will not be fixed, it seems.

ZiS (and su76) sort of hard counter them too.

Can you people stop being insane comparing Tiger to ISU and start comparing it to, you know, GENERALIST HEAVY TANKS WITH TURRET which the unit is part of?

" yup. Imagine if someone was comparing the is-2 with the elefant. That's how stupidly stupid the tiger/isu comparison is. It's literally comparing apples and oranges.

" yup. Imagine if someone was comparing the is-2 with the elefant. That's how stupidly stupid the tiger/isu comparison is. It's literally comparing apples and oranges.

not really, IS-2 is a general tank while the elefant is purely TD.

However the ISU can also be used as AT and AI, and is very dominant in the current 2on2+ meta. While not having a turret, it basically performs the same basic function as a tiger, and is in general just the better unit. The ISU is a special case of unit, because there is no direct counter part to it.

Not not mention you cannot compare units in a vacuum, by setting them up in a 1on1 fight, as this it not a realistic meta scenario.

There is no need to be exactly the same to be compared, as long as you do it right and make it clear why and what is important in this comparison.

Basically ISU can sit out of range and be rushed. At the same time, tiger needs to be in range all AT guns and tank destroyers (including ISU) to do anything. Both are doctrine tied.

Vacuum comparisons are really wrong. Byt vacuum comparisons of lategame units are just horrendous. ISU will always be supported sitting relatively safely behind the fronline dishing damage. That is basically its strength.

snip

I am not sure if I got your main point right, but from what I understood you think the Tiger should be as good as pre patch because you expect it to be that way? If I understood this correctly, please correct me, because the rest of the post will build on that.

I find that to be a quite weak argument, as there is no reason for it. I can expect any unit to perform exceptionally good, yet it is no reason to buff it. The Tiger is still a generalist and like for every other heavy tank, a lot of its price comes from the health and armor. Saying it should need 3 shots max to make any infantry unit (and also medium) retreat means that you waant a highly OP unit. With the reload of the Tiger and especially the vet buff, the unit could drive anything off within 8-10 seconds. The game has gone a long way from moving away from these heavily one-unit-focused builds in which one single unit win or lose you the complete game. And in my opinion this was for good.

The exact performance for cost can be up to debate, but judging from stats and the times I saw the Tiger in-game, it's not too far from its sweet spot. MMX posted that it performs about twice as good as a P4 while also costing about twice as much (it does not have twice the health but way more armor). You get less mobility, but also less risk to lose your investment (a lost P4 generates cost, a half health Tiger does not) and more AT power. Actually very good AT power.

The Tiger overall is still very much in line with other heavies as well, performing usually a bit worse in AI but better in AT. I think the main problem at the moment is that the Tiger was very overperforming, so any reduction now comes with the mindset that it should still perform like previously (this is also where I locate your first statements under the condition that I understood them correctly) as well as players still buying Tigers when they want primarily an AI unit that can dish out damage against vehicles if it needs to. It has been tipped towards the other side: The Tiger is still exceptionally strong against all vehicles in the game and fights off all other heavies reliably. So if the Tiger wins in AT against similarly prices vehicles in similar roles, why should it not perform a bit worse in AI?

While the AI of the Tiger still remains far better than that of any medium or premium med in the game (yes, even the HE-Sherman), it did receive a slightly greater nerf to its Vet0 performance than other heavies in the latest patch.

I might have missed a post to this, but from the spoiler drop down you showed comparisons between the current and pre patch Tiger and the P4, but no data on other heavies.

I think I remember that there was a post to this, but I cannot find it anymore...

Pre patch Tiger was OP.

Current Tiger is probably a victim of the OP allied TDs especially once vetted.

snip

My statement could be summurize by the idea of balancing the Power of a single big unit over a bunch of medium one.

As we can see, an heavy tank (tiger or not) does cost nearly 2 medium (P4 for instance).
Now the idea is, what is the most versatile and powerfull option? 2 P4 or 1 Tiger?

2 P4 means:
-2 cannon so Twice as more damages against tank (160*2=320 for 160 for the Tiger) and it is not the slightly less reload time which can off-set that.
-2 Health Bars, which means 1280 HP for 2 P4 against 1040 for a regular Tiger.
-2 separate units: less likely to get wipped out by a ram+Il2, to get immobilize by a Guard, to get engine damage from anything (snare 1 target is obviously easier than 2 and I prefer keeping 1 P4 than nothing)
-2 Separate units: Possibility to out-manouever Heavier Target, combine with greater DPM (first point), you can understand why a Single Tiger isn't match for 2 Cromwells/ T-34-85 while 2 P4 can fend itselfs.
-2 Separate units: Double Mounted MGs/Coaxials MGs ect... (same idea with the cannon...)
-Greater mobility
-Convenience: I prefer having 1P4 on the field then get a second 1 than waiting for a full Tiger, this way you put more consistent pressure on the battlefield.

1 Tiger means:
-More armor, which impact is hard to state since TD are meant to pierce it 70% of the Time.
-Less ammo to upgrade (1 mounted mgs/blitz ect...)
- More pen, so more reliable against heavy target (Churchill, KV, ect...)
-slightly more pop efficient (21 pop for tiger against 24 for 2P4)
-Cp (12/13) requirement
- need to spare ressources during a great amount of Time.
-Battlephase 3 requirement (even T4 for ace version)
-Call-in
-Cooldown on death (3 min)
-Less mobility
-bigger target size (with the slow speed, TDs can farm vet on it without commiting)
-Combinaison of the 2 previous: Easier target to combo and damage engine.

I stated the more obvious ones, but as you can see, there is a lot of drawback on using heavy tanks, and if it doesn't perform well enough (the idea of ratio explain on my previous post) nobody will make it. And currently, it isn't a good choice.

We waited 2 mounth to see if the patch was a good idea, it destroyed the "Heavy meta" as intended but also flipped every other modes, luckily Elephant and Inf doc are still viable option (even if Inf isn't that much use in 3vs3/4vs4).

Heavies were a great part of the 3vs3/4vs4 meta which could avoid the idiotic spam medium and rush tactics and could off-set the lose of MP due to a weaker late infantry (other topic) and arty spam (since the Pzwerfer is weaker, you can see the need of the Tiger).
The Tiger is part of 5 Wehrmacht commanders and bring a lot of diversity in all game modes. It is an icon in WW2 games and Heavy tank are meant to be powerfull and it is obvious that is will be more attractive in direct confrontation (1vs1) than Artillery for instance.

Those nerfs brought less diversity in the game for the sake of 1vs1 Meta and the results shown in tournament aren't really good (The final of the UTT2 was incredible). The game experience isn't better.

So maybe the Tiger terrorize people in 1vs1, maybe it was easier to play than a bunch of medium, but in Teamgames it was pleasant to play and not a must have to win and I prefer seeing a noob hard micro an heavy tank to win than a pro swarming mediums and A-click my base to win.

Basically ISU can sit out of range and be rushed. At the same time, tiger needs to be in range all AT guns and tank destroyers (including ISU) to do anything. Both are doctrine tied.

Vacuum comparisons are really wrong. Byt vacuum comparisons of lategame units are just horrendous. ISU will always be supported sitting relatively safely behind the fronline dishing damage. That is basically its strength.

Actually you're wrong, vet tiger is a machine and can quite easily slip into engagements with its extra range that premium meds and even vet0 is2 lack. All can't fire back due to tigers extra range

Obviously TDs can fire a shot off before tiger gets close, if they couldn't Jackson etc would be useless

Basically ISU can sit out of range and be rushed. At the same time, tiger needs to be in range all AT guns and tank destroyers (including ISU) to do anything. Both are doctrine tied.

Vacuum comparisons are really wrong. Byt vacuum comparisons of lategame units are just horrendous. ISU will always be supported sitting relatively safely behind the fronline dishing damage. That is basically its strength.

Actually you're wrong, vet tiger is a machine and can quite easily slip into engagements with its extra range that premium meds and even vet0 is2 lack. All can't fire back due to tigers extra range

Obviously TDs can fire a shot off before tiger gets close, if they couldn't Jackson etc would be useless

2 P4 means:
-2 cannon so Twice as more damages against tank (160*2=320 for 160 for the Tiger) and it is not the slightly less reload time which can off-set that.
-2 Health Bars, which means 1280 HP for 2 P4 against 1040 for a regular Tiger.
-2 separate units: less likely to get wipped out by a ram+Il2, to get immobilize by a Guard, to get engine damage from anything (snare 1 target is obviously easier than 2 and I prefer keeping 1 P4 than nothing)
-2 Separate units: Possibility to out-manouever Heavier Target, combine with greater DPM (first point), you can understand why a Single Tiger isn't match for 2 Cromwells/ T-34-85 while 2 P4 can fend itselfs.
-2 Separate units: Double Mounted MGs/Coaxials MGs ect... (same idea with the cannon...)
-Greater mobility
-Convenience: I prefer having 1P4 on the field then get a second 1 than waiting for a full Tiger, this way you put more consistent pressure on the battlefield.

those are all valid points, but you conveniently omit the fact that even though 2 p4s have slightly more hp than one tiger, one p4 will inevitably get focused down and away goes the advantage of having twice the amount of (at) firepower. not to mention you'd risk losing half the tiger's worth in resources if you accidentially lose one of your p4s.

I might have missed a post to this, but from the spoiler drop down you showed comparisons between the current and pre patch Tiger and the P4, but no data on other heavies.

I think I remember that there was a post to this, but I cannot find it anymore...

i did a comparison a while back before the patch went live here, but that didn't include the correct aoe profile for the tiger, yet (the most recent post here does though). should probably update this.

those are all valid points, but you conveniently omit the fact that even though 2 p4s have slightly more hp than one tiger, one p4 will inevitably get focused down and away goes the advantage of having twice the amount of (at) firepower. not to mention you'd risk losing half the tiger's worth in resources if you accidentially lose one of your p4s.

This is what hide behind: "if it doesn't perform well enough (the idea of ratio explain on my previous post) nobody will make it"

Either you can see this situation (2P4 vs 1 Tiger) as: "Twice everything for the same price + losing 1 make you lose only half the power while losing the Tiger is losing all" or "If I lose one, but I keep the Tiger half alive, then it is better"

and here is why I stated: "less likely to get wipped out by a ram+Il2, to get immobilize by a Guard, to get engine damage from anything (snare 1 target is obviously easier than 2 and I prefer keeping 1 P4 than nothing)"

Overall, with all 60 range TDs buff + More and more AT combo available (Ram+Il2, Ranger zooks spam, Sticky stachell ect...) a big and slow target like the Tiger is weaker IMO than 2 P4. This big Drawback should be off-set by either bigger armor (not really the case due to TDs pen buff) or overall AI/AT capabilities (which just got nerf).