British Anvil Churchill, and my thoughts.

Not really cookies. Immortal tanks don't need to cost more, they need to simply stop being immortal hyper cost efficient beings.

Not really cookies. Immortal tanks don't need to cost more, they need to simply stop being immortal hyper cost efficient beings.

They arent immmortal,I just explained why,and a cost nerf would make them anything but cost efficient.

Not really cookies. Immortal tanks don't need to cost more, they need to simply stop being immortal hyper cost efficient beings.

What about JT and elefant?

What about JT and elefant?

ooooohh you mean those even slower than churchill with less health no turret and cost 100+ more fuel at cp 14-17 with no super veterancy and shock trooper satchel charge grenades. Yeah hmmm, sorry. But hey atleast they have more range.


To date, and I've been keeping count. I build churchills every game as brits, and have yet to lose even 1 churchill since the british release. When using it I feel bad for my enemies, as It honestly requires pure retardation to ever lose a churchill tank. Build 1 then save up for a second. Works without fail.

Just like the centaur, the churchill is a crutch unit. Especially crocs and avre.

Refresh extractor, i'm seeing 25 (last updated 30/09)

If churchill is fine as it is, then we should agree to limit this tank as one per player at a time. Of course same thing for the KT - this is a problem that wasn't solved yet.
For instance, I don't think there is comparison between a Tiger and Churchill in terms of durability, and that is kinda screwed up both reality and balance wise. You simply cannot adventure into enemy lines with a regular Tiger and not fear to lose it while you can do this with a churchill with almost no problemo.

I think the problem is related to heavies in general and not to particular call-in units. The spam of units that are good at all, can take alot of punishement while inflicting a ton of damage should be forbidden.

i'm really not against a price tweak or a limit of 1 churhill, although i'm not certain a limit is necessary. i do find in general play that i generally don't want more then two churchills (and 2 is only if the enemy has a LOT of AT, like 3 jpIVs) because they don't do much damage and they eat up pop. i think the grenade should probably have the falloff normalized and then see how it is from there. if it still has issues then increase the fuel cost by 10 and look at it again. it is pretty cheap right now, fuel wise, but i also think that has a LOT to do with how little damage the tank does and people just notice how much of their damage it takes to kill it, especially since the only comparable allied vehicle is the IS-2 and a lot of people still have problems dealing with it.

If the churchill is pretty much fine for only 150 fuel ,let's give KV1 more HP,imo 1400 is pretty fine for KV1.The HP is the only way to make KV1 durable against axis late game,just like the Churchill.

And also pls give brumbar some love,it cost 160 fuel,it's 10 more fuel cost than the Churchill,not to mention that high tech cost of T4.Yes the brumbar really need 1600HP. They need that high helthpool to make it more durable against allies TD.Just like the churchill.

i do think the KV 1 could use a buff to make it more interesting, i don't think it should have 1400. i think giving the kvs another 160 hp (960) would give them good differentiation from the other soviet vehicles, particularly the 34/85.

i'm of mixed opinions about the brummbar as its issue is not that it's a bad tank but that it's expensive and the late game is about AT. i'm not sure the brummbar would be particularly helped by having more health as it would just take even longer to repair, which is already one of the biggest weakness of the brummbar (slow speed and a long repair time means it spends a lot of time not shooting). maybe a 10 fuel decrease on the brummbar to make it more affordable late game.

ooooohh you mean those even slower than churchill with less health no turret and cost 100+ more fuel at cp 14-17 with no super veterancy and shock trooper satchel charge grenades. Yeah hmmm, sorry. But hey atleast they have more range.

Speed doesn't matter when you have 80 range, neither does health with that armor. Stun on a 320 dmg 80 range beast is not super veterancy?

But hey atleast they have more range. And armor. And AT. And face worse AT.

But you just said Immortal tanks don't need to cost more, they need to simply stop being immortal hyper cost efficient beings.

To date, and I've been keeping count. I build JT every game as OKW and have yet to lose even 1 JT since the british release. When using it I feel bad for my enemies, as it honestly requires pure retardation to ever lose a JT. Build 1 then deny half of the map for enemy armor. Works without fail

Do you see how stupid this argument is?

I've yet to see a jt or elefant die to anything else without a fatal user error but m10 spam.

Your arguments just contradicts what you previously said about "immortal tanks", and is purely anecdotal

I fail to see how 1 unit shutting down any armor play on certain maps, and heavily limiting on others is somehow more ''healthy'' than a churchill that has to drive up to be effective. Mind you I never said the current churchill is fine, but when it comes to gameplay is way less obnoxious than having your only decent AT tanks be in need of repair after 1 shot in my opinion

Speed doesn't matter when you have 80 range, neither does health. Stun on a 320 dmg 80 range beast is not super veterancy?

Range beyond 60 in this game is largely irrelevant because the maps simply don't allow for it and you need sighting. So this means you need to spend a lot of resources to keep the tank sighted, protected and constantly combat effective. The Jadgtiger doesn't get stun and the Elefant has 70 range. Using stun shot with an Elefant is really, really dumb because it resets your reload (which is 8-9 seconds) and often allows a tank you could have killed to get away.

The reason why the Elefant > Jadgtiger is the Elefants superior mobility, the fact it does not get stunned when hit, and it can self sight with spotting scopes in one commander and hulldowned to avoid rocket damage in another. The elefant also has a traversal gun

But hey atleast they have more range. And armor. And AT. And face worse AT.

Their rear armor isn't that good, and they don't face worse AT at all. All AT is based on cost, Allied AT is just as good as Axis AT for what it costs, the only outliers are 57mm being mediocre and 6 Pounder being way to good. You might have had a point several years/patches ago, not anymore.

I've yet to see a jt or elefant die to anything else without a fatal user error but m10 spam.

Try actually playing with these units. Watching means nothing since it's impossible to build an informed opinion without personal experience.

I fail to see how 1 unit shutting down any armor play on certain maps, and heavily limiting on others is somehow more ''healthy'' than a churchill that has to drive up to be effective. Mind you I never said the current churchill is fine, but when it comes to gameplay is way less obnoxious than having your only decent AT tanks be in need of repair after 1 shot

Funny that despite the Elefant and JT being so good as you claim almost none were seen in OCF and they are still rare units outside of 3v3 and 4v4. The counters to them are plentiful and the fact you can't use them is not Relics fault.

Show Spoiler

TLDR: Churchill current performance is fine,its cost for its performance is not.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. So I have no idea whats with all the hostility. You made a good point that spamming LeiG's and going Spec Op's is the best counter to Brits, in fact, it's pretty much the ONLY counter.

I haven't been posting lately because of IRL and the fact as you said the game is buggy and broken atm and I'm tired of all the toxicity on the forums (being treated like shit for months despite doing your best to bug report and help people sucks). Hope this Helps.

Range beyond 60 in this game is largely irrelevant because the maps simply don't allow for it and you need sighting. So this means you need to spend a lot of resources to keep the tank sighted, protected and constantly combat effective. The Jadgtiger doesn't get stun and the Elefant has 70 range. Using stun shot with an Elefant is really, really dumb because it resets your reload (which is 8-9 seconds) and often allows a tank you could have killed to get away.

The reason why the Elefant > Jadgtiger is the Elefants superior mobility, the fact it does not get stunned when hit, and it can self sight with spotting scopes in one commander and hulldowned to avoid rocket damage in another. The elefant also has a traversal gun

The jagdtiger comes with infantry that has huge visual range with a 90 ammo upgrade cost. I agree that the elefant is better than JT, but it's still the toughest tank in the game with the longest range. Why wouldn't I stun a churchill so my paks can get more shots in? In my experience it's an incredibly useful ability, compared to the shitty JT supporting fire and I've never seen this ''escape after being stunned''situation you described.

Their rear armor isn't that good, and they don't face worse AT at all. All AT is based on cost, Allied AT is just as good as Axis AT for what it costs, the only outliers are 57mm being mediocre and 6 Pounder being way to good. You might have had a point several years/patches ago, not anymore.

They face worse AT since they have higher armor and allies AT weapons do not have higher pen values than axis counterparts.

How are you supposed to hit the rear armor of a jagd without swarming the enemy with all of your tanks?

Try actually playing with these units. Watching means nothing since it's impossible to build an informed opinion without personal experience.

I did play with them. I use them every game and I never lost them!

Funny that despite the Elefant and JT being so good as you claim almost none were seen in OCF and they are still rare units outside of 3v3 and 4v4. The counters to them are plentiful and the fact you can't use them is not Relics fault.

I don't think churchill was a major factor in OCF either.

Since when is a JT or an elefant a rare sight in 2v2s? The same mode where churchill spam becomes relevant? Unless I missed a memo and every 1v1 game is a churchill rush into more churchills

I could also say:

The counters to them(churchills) are plentiful and the fact you can't use them is not Relics fault.

What's the counter to those heavy tank destroyers then?

The jagdtiger comes with infantry that has huge visual range with a 90 ammo upgrade cost. I agree that the elefant is better than JT, but it's still the toughest tank in the game with the longest range. Why wouldn't I stun a churchill so my paks can get more shots in? In my experience it's an incredibly useful ability, and I've never seen this ''escape after being stunned''situation you described.

The amount of DPS you are doing is significantly lessened unless you instantly attempt to use stun shot right after it fires as you are forcing it to reload. Also stun shot is better used on Pak's because it's a guaranteed chance to pen anyway. Against tanks with 640 or near that health Elefant stun shot isn't very useful. It's not about escaping after stun, it's escaping BECAUSE you tried to use stun.

Pfuss are excellent, yes but later on in the game were you are having to micro like crazy it's hard to always dedicate squads to baby sitting the JT and preventing flanks. It's also such a massive investment that leaves you wide open to enemy infantry and tank spam because you just dumped the equivalent of 367 allied fuel into one tank.

They face worse AT since they have higher armor and allies AT weapons do not have higher pen values than axis counterparts.

How are you supposed to hit the rear armor of a jagd without swarming the enemy with all of your tanks?

All unit values and stats are tied to cost, not faction. Axis tanks don't magically have better armor because Krupp Steel they have better armor because they cost a fuckload more. It wouldn't make sense for cheaper tanks to have better armor now would it?

And you can hit the rear armor of the Jadg by pulling a deep flank with fast tank like Sherman/Easy Eight/T34 variants, ect. Or going in with PIATS or Zooks. The Jadgtiger also can easily be stun locked by just shooting at it (you don't need to pen it to stun it).

I did play with them. I use them every game and I never lost them!

If your confidant in this you should link your playercard. Until you do this statement is meaningless.

Since when is a JT or an elefant a rare sight in 2v2s? The same mode where churchill spam becomes relevant? Unless I missed a memo and every 1v1 game is a churchill rush into more churchills

Statistically most games don't last long enough for 14-15 CP units to enter the field and the Churchill hit's the field around 8-9 CP's. Going Churchill every game has been the 1v1 meta since release dude.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. So I have no idea whats with all the hostility. You made a good point that spamming LeiG's and going Spec Op's is the best counter to Brits, in fact, it's pretty much the ONLY counter.

I haven't been posting lately because of IRL and the fact as you said the game is buggy and broken atm and I'm tired of all the toxicity on the forums (being treated like shit for months despite doing your best to bug report and help people sucks). Hope this Helps.

Well im sorry bae I tried to make that as un-hostile and unbiased as possible

Churchhill exemplifies flavor of the Brits IMO.

Speed doesn't matter when you have 80 range, neither does health with that armor. Stun on a 320 dmg 80 range beast is not super veterancy?

But hey atleast they have more range. And armor. And AT. And face worse AT.

But you just said Immortal tanks don't need to cost more, they need to simply stop being immortal hyper cost efficient beings.

To date, and I've been keeping count. I build JT every game as OKW and have yet to lose even 1 JT since the british release. When using it I feel bad for my enemies, as it honestly requires pure retardation to ever lose a JT. Build 1 then deny half of the map for enemy armor. Works without fail

Do you see how stupid this argument is?

I've yet to see a jt or elefant die to anything else without a fatal user error but m10 spam.

Your arguments just contradicts what you previously said about "immortal tanks", and is purely anecdotal

I fail to see how 1 unit shutting down any armor play on certain maps, and heavily limiting on others is somehow more ''healthy'' than a churchill that has to drive up to be effective. Mind you I never said the current churchill is fine, but when it comes to gameplay is way less obnoxious than having your only decent AT tanks be in need of repair after 1 shot in my opinion

If you are playing OKW vs British lately and have been using Jadgs I have a really hard time believing you have "never lost one".

The British vanguard Typhoon call in or the British Artillery cover call in are instant death sentences for Jagdtigers. In the case of the typhoons the planes hit instantly and will begin chain stunning it preventing it from backing up and usually taking its health down to half, in the case of the artillery cover the 1000 pen 100% accurate artillery will constantly fall on it, blow up its engine, and basically guarantee its death. You can also watch one of the replays floating around of the Air Supremacy insta killing one before it can back away.

I have actually stopped building jadgtigers and elephants now because in larger team matches a single British call in will basically kill the unit instantly. Better, but more riskier, to go with mass Stugs although Churchills are surprisingly nimble and can actually circle strafe the fucking things. If you can keep them at range stugs work very well, but the new strategy appears to be comets or a cromwell for the smoke shot to blind your stugs/paks, then drive up with the churchills grenade the paks and obliterate the stugs. Again the issue is the MASSIVE healthpool so if you can keep them at range the stugs can dps them pretty fast, but if they can close then the Stugs will die with virtually no meaningful damage to the churchills.

I would be all in favor of keeping it at its current level of effectiveness but limiting it to 1 along with the KT. But as of right now teamplay is such a mess that I am on permanent vacation from this shitty game until Relic patches it.

one stug + one pack is devastating to a Churchill you should try. It's not about the number of hit , it's about Rate of fire.

So what about giving KV1 1400HP then?one stug+one pak40 is devastating to a 1400HP KV1 too. I think 1400 is fine for KV1,since it just costs 5 less fuel than the Churchill and it can't grenade AT guns.

Well also maybe it's time to raise the HP of KV8 to 1400. In line with the flamer Churchill.

Stugs work really well against Churchill. I don't see the need to adjust the unit at all. I think the price is fair for the unit as well. Remember guys, Brits bleed man power like a "stuffed pig". If you opponent has 2-3 Church hills, he/she probably has limited infantry than.

Ye the price is fair,while the 800HP Brumbar cost 480MP/160fuel.No one wants to use brumbar and everyone spams 150 fuel churchill since both of them are in the fair price.Quite fair.

The KV1 has a bad main gun too but can't throw a grenade ,has 800 HP,cost 145 fuel.While the Churchill cost 150 fuel,has 1600HP,quite fair.Enough.

Ye the price is fair,while the 800HP Brumbar cost 480MP/160fuel.No one wants to use brumbar and everyone spams 150 fuel churchill since both of them are in the fair price.Quite fair.

The KV1 has a bad main gun too but can't throw a grenade ,has 800 HP,cost 145 fuel.While the Churchill cost 150 fuel,has 1600HP,quite fair.Enough.

No, at most kv1 health to 960. Churchill health to 1280, satchel charge grenade throw into a regular grenade.

i do think the KV 1 could use a buff to make it more interesting, i don't think it should have 1400. i think giving the kvs another 160 hp (960) would give them good differentiation from the other soviet vehicles, particularly the 34/85.

i'm of mixed opinions about the brummbar as its issue is not that it's a bad tank but that it's expensive and the late game is about AT. i'm not sure the brummbar would be particularly helped by having more health as it would just take even longer to repair, which is already one of the biggest weakness of the brummbar (slow speed and a long repair time means it spends a lot of time not shooting). maybe a 10 fuel decrease on the brummbar to make it more affordable late game.

LOL Actually they need.Just bring them simply in line with the brits.If not,no player will EVER use them again,because there's a godamn twice healthpool tank which cost just as same as them.So give people some reason to build them again.Never build them since it's TOTALLY UNFAIR.

I don't care the brumbar would take even longer to repair.At least the 1600HP brumbar can easily run into and out of the battlefield.And I can just spam them like the brits. What I need to do is just making a coffee then clicking with one hand waiting for their "GG".

I really like playing as the brits,every game I manage to spam the churchills in the late games,then I laugh at the opponents being crazy.

So I mean THIS IS NO FUN TO PLAY.Relic pls make all factions fair to play.You can't balance the game like this,releasing a new faction with detroying the old ones.Seriouly players would GONE with great DISAPPOINTMENT.

Ye the price is fair,while the 800HP Brumbar cost 480MP/160fuel.No one wants to use brumbar and everyone spams 150 fuel churchill since both of them are in the fair price.Quite fair.

The KV1 has a bad main gun too but can't throw a grenade ,has 800 HP,cost 145 fuel.While the Churchill cost 150 fuel,has 1600HP,quite fair.Enough.

the kv-1 is a bad comparison. No one uses it.

the kv-1 is a bad comparison. No one uses it.

LOL of course the KV1 is a bad comparison,It cost 145 fuel,5 less fuel than the churchill,but has only half HP of the Churchill.Obviously overpriced while the Churchill is too effective for its price.