State of heavy tanks.

The accuracy buff, target size reduction, rotation buffs are far more important than the the ROF nerf when fighting mediums.

Generally speaking the accuracy of FF/M36/SU-85/JP are so high that they have nearly 100% chance to damage even at range close 60 and especially once vetted.

That makes mediums targets for gaining XP in the late game.

I simple disagree cause the rotation + size change was small compared to the RoF changes. Overall i don't think the changes as a whole made meds on 3v3+ harder to use which was the point.

Oh please, will you ever stop this bullshit?

KV-1 wins P4 because it has massive health and armor compared to it.
It outlasts it.

If KV-1 had enough firepower to take on P4, then so would T-34/76, because they have pretty much exact same firepower with irrelevant differences, but somehow T-34 loses, that means its NOT firepower that allows KV-1 to beat P4.

Exact same thing with Churchill, but it actually good decent gun and even more EHP.

We've had this discussion already, you've made equally retarded and incorrect point back then.

Oh please, will you ever stop all of your bullshit?

He thinks its the gun that makes KV-1 win vs P4, not the armor and health advantage.
That's the key difference.

And KV-1 got anything BUT a decent gun.
In fact, its the worst medium tank tier gun in the whole game to engage other vehicles with, so no, its not decent nor adequate.

Definition of adequate
1 : sufficient for a specific need or requirement

If KV-1's gun is enough to kill a PzIV than by definition it is adequate.

Also, example of KV-8 further underlines that its exclusively durability advantage, because KV-8, using its 45mm meme gun can also beat P4 in a slugfest.

Once more you seem clueless since the 45mm gun is an AT gun and actually has better penetration close value than the KV-1 one who has a dual purpose gun. If it can beat a PzIV with it is not meme gun.

You have argument out of this, because that particular specimen will do everything and anything to try to spin narrative using twisted semantic games to "prove" his point even if its complete and utter bs.

Once more projecting your own flaws to others.

I simple disagree cause the rotation + size change was small compared to the RoF changes. Overall i don't think the changes as a whole made meds on 3v3+ harder to use which was the point.

You can disagree but the stat are there and they also have to do with accuracy buff:

DPS SU-85 firing on OKW PzIV
Pre 32.2 29.0/25.9/22.9/20.0/17.2/14.5
Post 28.3 28.3/27.3/25.1/23.8/22.5/21.3

That is x147%,x131%,x119% more DPS at ranges 60/50/40.

He thinks its the gun that makes KV-1 win vs P4, not the armor and health advantage.
That's the key difference.

And KV-1 got anything BUT a decent gun.
In fact, its the worst medium tank tier gun in the whole game to engage other vehicles with, so no, its not decent nor adequate.

Also, example of KV-8 further underlines that its exclusively durability advantage, because KV-8, using its 45mm meme gun can also beat P4 in a slugfest.

You have argument out of this, because that particular specimen will do everything and anything to try to spin narrative using twisted semantic games to "prove" his point even if its complete and utter bs.

Wgile I don't agree with Vipper's sometimes weird self made definitions, this is actually a complete fail on your part.
'enough' does not mean it's the main selling point, no matter how often you repeat it. That's the at least second thread I see you two arguing about that. And I might have missed a couple of posts, but the ones I read Vipper never said the KV1 had a great gun. But obviously if you can provide a quote where he recently said that, I am open to change my mind

You can disagree but the stat are there and they also have to do with accuracy buff:

DPS SU-85 firing on OKW PzIV
Pre 32.2 29.0/25.9/22.9/20.0/17.2/14.5
Post 28.3 28.3/27.3/25.1/23.8/22.5/21.3

That is x147%,x131%,x119% more DPS at ranges 60/50/40.

How do you calculate those? Merely taking accuracy for hit chance is utterly useless in vehicle combat. The only semi-reliable way to determine that is to measure it in game in cheat mode

How do you calculate those?

With the weapons files from coh2 tools.

Merely taking accuracy for hit chance is utterly useless in vehicle combat. The only semi-reliable way to determine that is to measure it in game in cheat mode

I wouldn't call it "utterly useless" especially since we are not talking about two separate vehicles but about exactly the same vehicle pre and post patched.

This is of course theoretical analysis and I doubt that x147% increase in DPS is accurate.

The value thou is simply too high to be completely off by more 50% and the SU-85 being actually worse vs medium now than it was before.

Imo it is safe to say that with increase in accuracy, penetration, rotation and target size the SU-85 perform superior vs PZIV even if its ROF has been reduced.

In game one can see that FF with notorious long ROF is an effective TD because it delivers damage consistently with its over the top accuracy.

How many times do we have to discuss DPS vs TTK in tank vs tank comparisons ?

OH PIV vs Su85

Size 20, 180 armor, Shots to kill 4, acc for 0.05/0.0375/0.025 vs 0.055/0.045/0.04, 4.0s avg vs 5.4

Near: 16s vs 21.6
Mid: 21.33s+ vs 24s+
Far: 32s+ vs 27s+

Vet 2 PIV/OKW PIV
234 armor. 200/190/180 vs 240/230/220

Near: 18.72s vs 21.6s
Mid: 26.26+ vs 24.41+
Far: 41.6+ vs 28.71+

Vet2 Su85 OH PIV
2.8s vs 5.4 0.065/0.04875/0.0325 vs 0.0715/0.0585/0.052

Near: 11.2 vs 21.6s
Mid: 11.48+ vs 21.6
Far: 17.23+ vs 21.6

Vet2 Su85 OKW PIV
Near: 13.1 vs same as before
Mid: 14.13+
Far: 22.39+

Values with "+" improve once you consider scatter shots. For those without it, it means it already has 100% acc.

PD: i've realised late i didn't add the ready/aim which is 0.26 total.

I think a good angle might be to add support abilities to heavies. Maybe like a MU costing Combined arms ability that buffs nearby infantry, or off map smoke and barrage abilities or smoke/WP shella.

Abilities that make the units more valuable in an offensive that add value to the unit but don't disrupt the tank vs tank balance and don't raise questions of how tanky/ much damage should they do.

That's a good idea. The ability on the KV-2 and kv-8 is actually rather good if a bit under used.

Small suppression defense Aura for example would be good for infantry support or a cooldown bonus ect.

With the weapons files from coh2 tools.


I wouldn't call it "utterly useless" especially since we are not talking about two separate vehicles but about exactly the same vehicle pre and post patched.

This is of course theoretical analysis and I doubt that x147% increase in DPS is accurate.

The value thou is simply too high to be completely off by more 50% and the SU-85 being actually worse vs medium now than it was before.

Imo it is safe to say that with increase in accuracy, penetration, rotation and target size the SU-85 perform superior vs PZIV even if its ROF has been reduced.

In game one can see that FF with notorious long ROF is an effective TD because it delivers damage consistently with its over the top accuracy.

Why do you post them then implying that they are a good way of comparing units if you already know that they are heavily inaccurate at best? You are just misleading people with these numbers that might not have the in gamr knowledge of how everything behind the scenes works.

Fact is, TTK is the only real factor that matters, because in tank fight there is no difference between 161 and 320 HP. Your DPS calculation solely based on accuracy overestimates the performance of high accuracy units A LOT. That's like the reason why the 'new' SU85 looks so much better on paper.

Even if we assume that the new SU85 hits every shot and that the old SU85 misses once which would simulate farther ranges (again, this whole setup favors the new version by default), the TTK against mediums would both be at 17 seconds.

It is everything else than safe to say the unit now performs better, because its ROF got reduced by a third.

I woulf really recommend (if you have the time obviously) to check it out in cheatmode, best case with a 0 accuracy mod. I never tested all of this systematically, but from what I have seen in a (rather few) tests I started to count half of the missed shots as scatter hits as a rule of thumb. But again, without real testing. So I'd recommend doing that for the P4/SU85 setup

How many times do we have to discuss DPS vs TTK in tank vs tank comparisons ?
...

This the same set up and thus DPS is very good indicator and in addition it simpler to use.
If you want TTK you need to put accuracy into play and compare probabilities. For instance how much is that TTK that unit A will kill unit with in this time frame with 90% probability.

Why do you post them then implying that they are a good way of comparing units if you already know that they are heavily inaccurate at best? ...

For economy in time and space. I am not going to do a full statistical analysis when I am not really interested how much better the new SU-85 bad the simple fact that it is better.

Let me use another method thou that will bring us to the same result:

Lets arbitrary assume that half the missed shots score collision hit.

The old SU-85 firing on OKW PzIV has a 50% chance to score a hit we increases to 75% since half of that shot collide.

It also has a 77% to penetrate and that bring the total chance of doing damage to 0.58. So the probability of killing a PzIV with only four shots is around 11%.


The new SU-85 firing on OKW PzIV has a 80% chance to score a hit we increases to 90% since half of that shot collide.

It also has a 94% to penetrate and that bring the total chance of doing damage to 85%. So the probability of killing a PzIV with only four shots is around 51%.

One can factor in ROF advantage but it will not reverse odds like these and it is simply too much work since one would have to calculate for a similar probability.

The fact is that SU-85 might had great ROF but had terrible accuracy and since it is case mate and had less rotation I doubt that it could even take advantage of that ROF unless on certain map.

So the result is the same the new SU-85 is simply superior vs mediums unless one have the RNG GOD on your side. The question of how much better is hard to establish and not worth the effort.

This the same set up and thus DPS is very good indicator and in addition it simpler to use.
If you want TTK you need to put accuracy into play and compare probabilities. For instance how much is that TTK that unit A will kill unit with in this time frame with 90% probability.


For economy in time and space. I am not going to do a full statistical analysis when I am not really interested how much better the new SU-85 bad the simple fact that it is better.

Let me use another method thou that will bring us to the same result:

Lets arbitrary assume that half the missed shots score collision hit.

The old SU-85 firing on OKW PzIV has a 50% chance to score a hit we increases to 75% since half of that shot collide.

It also has a 77% to penetrate and that bring the total chance of doing damage to 0.58. So the probability of killing a PzIV with only four shots is around 11%.


The new SU-85 firing on OKW PzIV has a 80% chance to score a hit we increases to 90% since half of that shot collide.

It also has a 94% to penetrate and that bring the total chance of doing damage to 85%. So the probability of killing a PzIV with only four shots is around 51%.

One can factor in ROF advantage but it will not reverse odds like these and it is simply too much work since one would have to calculate for a similar probability.

The fact is that SU-85 might had great ROF but had terrible accuracy and since it is case mate and had less rotation I doubt that it could even take advantage of that ROF unless on certain map.

So the result is the same the new SU-85 is simply superior vs mediums unless one have the RNG GOD on your side. The question of how much better is hard to establish and not worth the effort.

If your "economy of time" leads to potentially wrong results, you should not publish. Especially not without any note why they are flawed and how much it could effect the outcome. If you are "not interested how much better the new SU85" is, then don't state any numbers that imply it would be exactly X% better. Easy as that.

Second: You completely switched your math now to support your view. Previously you calculated DPS as a function of "how long do I need to kill X". Now you calculate the chance to kill X with the least shots possible.
PLUS, you solely take the OKW P4 because you know that the lower pen will affect the old version the most. And last point (which is okayish but also should be noted): you calc everything for range 60 which also favors the new version.

But let's do it your way then. Old SU vs OKW P4 damage chance is as you said with my scatter preassumption about 58%. This brings us to 6,9 (or ~7) shots to kill, meaning 5,9(6)reload cycles or (with actual ROF) 25,8 seconds (26,25 rounding; unless I forgot to add 0,125 somewhere).

New SU, same thing: 85% chance to damage meaning 4,7 shots (5)-> 3,7(4) reloads -> 21,37 (23,1) seconds. In this case, the new SU is expected to be 21% better. Due to the penetration and accuracy profile, this advantage should diminish at lower ranges since we currently calculated everything for range 60.

Now the thing OST also has a P4.
Pen rates go up to 100%.
TTK old: 18,96 (without rounding the expected shots)
TTK new: 19,89. (without rounding the expected shots)
Basically identical.

range 30 (mid range for comparison)
TTK old: 15,63/20,27 sec vs OST/OKW P4
TTK new: 18,54/19,95

old SU is 19% better/identical to the new one.


So overall the new SU is better at long ranges vs OKW P4, while this advantage diminishes the closer the P4 gets. Against OST there is either no difference or the old SU performs better.

So conclusion of all this? New SU might have a slight edge at least against OKW since the unit gets used at rather longer ranges and now gets a bit more rotation (however it is also more costly).

Once vetted, the new SU has no chance though. It does not gain much from penetration increase whereas the old version gets much higher ROF. But even if we'd leave out the vet for no good reason, the "winner" is
1. not as clear as you try to convey here
2. depending on the set up and
3. the numbers you posted to support your hypothesis (19-47% better) are wrong for the most part.

...

And after of pages of calculation we come full circle back to what I had originally posted:

The m36 got buffed vs both mediums and heavies
The SU-85 at vet 0 probably got buffed vs both medium and heavies maybe vet 2 (at the old ) it might be slitly better vs mediums.

Which is the only point I made.

If your "economy of time" leads to potentially wrong results, you should not publish. Especially not without any note why they are flawed and how much it could effect the outcome. If you are "not interested how much better the new SU85" is, then don't state any numbers that imply it would be exactly X% better. Easy as that.

Second: You completely switched your math now to support your view. Previously you calculated DPS as a function of "how long do I need to kill X". Now you calculate the chance to kill X with the least shots possible.
PLUS, you solely take the OKW P4 because you know that the lower pen will affect the old version the most. And last point (which is okayish but also should be noted): you calc everything for range 60 which also favors the new version.

I agree with you. I find it highly controversial to falsify values in order to fudge the perspective. I would prefer if people stopped sharing the wrong knowledge with the intention of misleading. It is fabrication and falsification, and very biased. In serious research publications, it is considered plagiarism and seen as major scientific misconduct.

And after of pages of calculation we come full circle back to what I had originally posted:


Which is the only point I made.

I am sorry then because I apparently skipped that post. I can agree with that. My main point of criticism was that you used misleading at best numbers to prove your point.

I agree with you. I find it highly controversial to falsify values in order to fudge the perspective. I would prefer if people stopped sharing the wrong knowledge with the intention of misleading. It is fabrication and falsification, and very biased. In serious research publications, it is considered plagiarism and seen as major scientific misconduct.

If you want to criticize other users please quote them directly and don't use my posts as a vessel. Also plagiarism is something very different. And Vipper did not falsify his numbers (in a sense of exchanging or creating data), he used misleading ones which I find still not great but is different from active falsification that you imply.

If you want to criticize other users please quote them directly and don't use my posts as a vessel. Also plagiarism is something very different. And Vipper did not falsify his numbers (in a sense of exchanging or creating data), he used misleading ones which I find still not great but is different from active falsification that you imply.

I agreed with your point, that is all. That's why I quoted you. Also, there is a fine line between misleading and falsification. If it falls under plagiarism differs from country to country, from culture to culture. In UK based publications, it all falls under that.

I am sorry then because I apparently skipped that post. I can agree with that. My main point of criticism was that you used misleading at best numbers to prove your point.



If you want to criticize other users please quote them directly and don't use my posts as a vessel. Also plagiarism is something very different. And Vipper did not falsify his numbers (in a sense of exchanging or creating data), he used misleading ones which I find still not great but is different from active falsification that you imply.

I accept that it was not presented in optimal wat but I have to point if you read my post #24 I am replaying to elchino7 who in his post completely ignores the huge buff in accuracy that the SU-85 got and mention only target size rotation.

I simple disagree cause the rotation + size change was small compared to the RoF changes. Overall i don't think the changes as a whole made meds on 3v3+ harder to use which was the point.

My post, although not very analytic:

You can disagree but the stat are there and they also have to do with accuracy buff:

DPS SU-85 firing on OKW PzIV
Pre 32.2 29.0/25.9/22.9/20.0/17.2/14.5
Post 28.3 28.3/27.3/25.1/23.8/22.5/21.3

aim at exactly that to to highlight the effect that the accuracy buff has.

That is x147%,x131%,x119% more DPS at ranges 60/50/40.

and even here I high light the change in theoretical DPS and not actual performance.

(Keep in mind that in the mean time I also have to respond to usual suspect and his usual mental gymnastics)

Was this post top level? I will admit it was not but they had no intention to mislead and my original claim is right on.

The KV-1 has enough offensive power power to take out the OKW PzIV easily with roughly the same cost.

And the Churchill can take out a PzIV even when flanked point blank.

I didn't say they were defenceless. But their main gun is nowhere near as effective as those of the generalist heavies (Tiger/Pershing/IS-2). They have medium tank firepower with heavy tank durability because the latter is their main strength. And as such I think it's okay that they have higher rear armor.

Even though they will generally/eventually win against a P4, they do not dominate it (and other medium armor and infantry) as much as a generalist or specialist (super)heavy would, therefor I think it's fine that they have increased durability because the enemy will have more time to go for a suitable counter.

I didn't say they were defenceless. But their main gun is nowhere near as effective as those of the generalist heavies (Tiger/Pershing/IS-2). They have medium tank firepower with heavy tank durability because the latter is their main strength. And as such I think it's okay that they have higher rear armor.

Yes that pretty much accurate.

Even though they will generally/eventually win against a P4, they do not dominate it (and other medium armor and infantry) as much as a generalist or specialist (super)heavy would, therefor I think it's fine that they have increased durability because the enemy will have more time to go for a suitable counter.

There not near Super heavies in lethality but they not near in cost either, timing and not limited to one.

Imo a comparison of KV-1 and Churchill with Super heavies is not really helpful.

KV-1 is close to the lethality of T-34 in AI which is pretty high.

Churchill is a bit less lethal the Cromwell so I would say their lethality is close to that of medium main battle tank(or generalist if you prefer the term).

Sherman/Cromwell/T-34/76 all have far worse chances vs PzIV than KV-1/Churchill.

I personally find that fact that these unit will probably win even if they are completely out played and flanked by PzIV at point blank. Especially in the case of the Churchill that also has abnormally high acceleration/rotation for a heavy tank and defensive smoke.

A PzIV firing in optimal condition (on rear of Churchill at point bank) has a 69% chance to penetrate which imo is simply silly especially since the same Churchill firing at same PzIV at the frontal armor would have 75% chance to penetrate!

Imo these units would far better designed if their durability come from veterancy and/or if there gun where nerf in one area either AT or AI.

Most of the t34 AI comes from the hull mg does it not? How does the KV1 hull stack up?