Login

russian armor

flank vehicles

11 Mar 2021, 09:50 AM
#21
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 08:16 AMVipper

Here what Relic has to say from the patch notes:
"The role of the T34 is that of a flanker meant to exploit enemy weak points with hit and run tactics. "


Now pls stop fabricating thing that are false and present them as Relic's design.


You are quoting from patch notes released in 2013. You have built this thread based on a patch note from 2013. You might have noticed that the game has changed a lot since 2013, and it changed a lot before that too, so I would not use these as ground truth. You are also effectively ignoring everything that happened in the game and around it since 2013. If you are quoting older patch notes, please include the dates so nobody is misled.

All units are doing their job better when they are flanking an enemy. No need to cling to some design note from 2013. You're arguing semantics here and it's pretty pointless. This thread deserves closing.

11 Mar 2021, 10:55 AM
#22
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 07:02 AMVipper


Relic decided to create the role of "flanker" that is a simply fact and T-34/76 was designed with that role.

If Relic implement that role correctly is another story.

The current state of the T-34/76 is even yet another story since Relic has stop making designing the Patches a long time ago. I will not go into T-34/76 current performance since it irrelevant this topic.

The fact remain that vehicles better of maintaining distance and vehicles that are better of closing the distance.


yes there was a time relic designed the game as more individual units with specialist skills like many other games

but over time of requesting standardization and reducing armor/(aka rng). things have clearly change
11 Mar 2021, 10:59 AM
#23
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 10:55 AMmrgame2


yes there was a time relic designed the game as more individual units with specialist skills like many other games

but over time of requesting standardization and reducing armor/(aka rng). things have clearly change

Not a single axis unit in game lost any relevant amount of armor that would even remotely impact result vs T34 main gun at any range, be it frontal or rear armor. Maybe some fringe cases with 5-10% bounce chance.
11 Mar 2021, 11:41 AM
#24
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 10:59 AMKatitof

Not a single axis unit in game lost any relevant amount of armor that would even remotely impact result vs T34 main gun at any range, be it frontal or rear armor. Maybe some fringe cases with 5-10% bounce chance.

Again totally false.

Please check you fact before posting:


Panther:
Rear Armor from 135 to 112.5

• Rear armour reduced from 110 to 90 (all variants)


Tiger
...
Rear armor from 250 to 180
...
Wehrmacht Tiger & Tiger Ace rear armored reduced from 180 to 140


Wehrmacht Elefant rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW Jagdtiger rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW King Tiger rear armor reduced from 225 to 150
11 Mar 2021, 11:42 AM
#25
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 10:59 AMKatitof

Not a single axis unit in game lost any relevant amount of armor that would even remotely impact result vs T34 main gun at any range, be it frontal or rear armor. Maybe some fringe cases with 5-10% bounce chance.

That's not true, heavy tanks list a dramatic amount of ass armour, but regardless, flanking has no role as it isn't rewarding enough for a role. It can be used of course, and by any tank at that, but a role it is not.
11 Mar 2021, 11:44 AM
#26
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 11:41 AMVipper
REEEEEEEEEEEEE

If you only could have made it to the end of the sentence....

But no, its better to just ignore half of the sentence and regurgitate your usual bullshit.
11 Mar 2021, 11:50 AM
#27
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 11:41 AMVipper

Again totally false.

Please check you fact before posting:


Panther:
Rear Armor from 135 to 112.5

• Rear armour reduced from 110 to 90 (all variants)


Tiger
...
Rear armor from 250 to 180
...
Wehrmacht Tiger & Tiger Ace rear armored reduced from 180 to 140


Wehrmacht Elefant rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW Jagdtiger rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW King Tiger rear armor reduced from 225 to 150



Did you read all that was posted? Clearly not. Check your reading before posting. He included exactly what you say.
11 Mar 2021, 11:55 AM
#28
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 11:44 AMKatitof

If you only could have made it to the end of the sentence....

You mean this:
jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 10:59 AMKatitof

Maybe some fringe cases with 5-10% bounce chance.

So let me do the math for you cause you really seem to be struggling lately

T-34/76 vs rear Tiger:
from 32%->57%

that is plus +25% chance

T-34/76 vs rear K. Tiger:
from 36%->53%
that is plus +17% chance

T-34/76 vs rear Panther
from 59%->89%
that is plus +30% chance

Actually contrary to picture you are trying to create, T-34/76 has a good chance to penetrate most axis vehicles rear armor even from max range including vehicles like the Ele/JT

It even has 89% vs PzIV J and Panther rear armor.

One should try to flank when using the T-34/76

So once more pls check fact before posting
jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 11:44 AMKatitof

But no, its better to just ignore half of the sentence and regurgitate your usual bullshit.

That is you projecting once more.
11 Mar 2021, 11:55 AM
#29
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 11:55 AMVipper

You mean this:

So let me do the math for you cause you really seem to be struggling lately

T-34/76 vs rear Tiger:
from 32%->57%

that is plus +25% chance

T-34/76 vs rear K. Tiger:
from 36%->53%
that is plus +17% chance

T-34/76 vs rear Panther
from 59%->89%
that is plus +30% chance

Again pls check fact before posting

That is you projecting once more.


Data is skewed. You're only posting stats in the best possible cases. Please post n/m/f too.
11 Mar 2021, 13:21 PM
#30
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2


Did you read all that was posted? Clearly not. Check your reading before posting. He included exactly what you say.


You're posting stats in the best possible cases. Please post n/m/f too.


I don't want to participate in the discussion what exactly is supposed to be a "flanker" unit since I find it tedious, but Vipper's general point is right. Katitof claimed:

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2021, 10:59 AMKatitof

Not a single axis unit in game lost any relevant amount of armor that would even remotely impact result vs T34 main gun at any range, be it frontal or rear armor. Maybe some fringe cases with 5-10% bounce chance.

He fails to back it up though.
Especially heavy tanks across all factions lost mostly rear armor to reward flanking. And regarding the special example of the T34 as discussed here, you are right, the exact numbers obviously depend on the range. Katitof though even claimed "at any range", so he should be able to deal with values calculated for "any range". But even in the "worst" case, Katitof's claim does not hold any truth.
11 Mar 2021, 13:28 PM
#31
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

Yeah, and I am looking for the data to back up. It makes a discussion interesting.

I don't care if Vipper or Katitof is wrong, they are both often wrong in this forum. That's their problem. But for me, I am looking for the data in every case, and not only the data for the best situation that bizarrely fits either their own best very best case scenario. That what I find interesting, the whole situation. Just nitpicking values like the few percentages that Kat says or the high percentages that Vipper uses is wrong. Often the data is just skewed in a way that it fits best, which is annoying, and very misleading. That counts for both people. I am asking Vipper to post all the data, since she is keen to do that.


edit:

In other words:

Kat says: best situation is 5-10%
Vipper says: worse situation is over 30%

me: But what about the whole overall picture?
and me from game experience: Everyone flanks. T34s are all about ramming anyway.
11 Mar 2021, 13:44 PM
#32
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

I fully support that.
From your second post though you were debating if Vipper had a point in general by referring to "He [Katitof] included exactly what you say". But he did not.

I agree though that the far values paint the picture too bright, since you realistically want to close in to a range of 5-20 meters (depending how much you want to risk your tank for that) to get the best shots off. Still even at those values, pen chance against heaavies has gone up ~20-30%.
11 Mar 2021, 19:27 PM
#33
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1


The role that's being called "flanker" exists and is really just called "shitty"

Yeah this is the only point to be made here. This thread is absurd

You flank with t34 and m10 because you can afford to. You can afford 2 of them with fuel to spare against whatever heavy you're flanking. Their cost has way more to do with it than penetration...
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

653 users are online: 653 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49874
Welcome our newest member, Howden
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM