Churchills need the old armor back

"It's not really supposed to be fighting other tanks like the Tiger and such. "

Fair enough.

Circulate the memo to the Axis and providing they cooperate...

It shouldn't be facing Tigers because it isn't a heavy tank, unless you consider the PIV to be a heavy...

Churchill 240
Panther 320 ( wtf! Its a medium!)
PIV 234 (wtf! It was a poorly armoured medium!)
Tiger 300
JS2 375
KV 300
Pershing 300

See the odd one out? Mk 8s had more armour than a sodding light cruiser and close the same thickness as a KT!

Saying that though the Krauts couldn't make proper armour due to a lack of molybdenum.

Not sure if I've missed any out....

Just for Completion: add sherman and t34 to the List snd the Hp values of the units, armor+ health= effective health, one stat doesnt say much (600 armor and 1hp will be useless )

Hmmm... Truish... To a wierd and slight extent.

Not sure I agree with armour + health though.

If we assume the opposition paks or infantry AT to be the likely threat then it would be number of shots required to feck it up. Difficult to quantify the Protection / Mobility / Firepower triangle in pure stats.. Also really you should also divide the actual cost of these units into it but here goes...

Pak40, Pen 200 will penetrate a Church ( anyone thinking of Welsh opera singers here? ) 83% of the time for 160 damage, hence 1400 / 133.33 = 11 shots average. Course the Pak also has AP rounds guaranteeing penetration...

JS2 13
KV2 10

Same values for 6 pdr...

Tiger 10 shots but with more statistical variation upwards due to higher bounce chance
Panther 8 shots, but even higher variation
PIV 5 shots
Not sure what the KT stats are.

Zis..

Panther 9 shots
Tiger 11 shots
PIV 5-6 shots.

For Shrecks though Churchill will die to 24 hits on average, 4 volleys from a 4blob. Panther, PIV and probably Tiger are highly unlikely to take many Piat rounds providing they keep moving.

So purely on volleys the from AT the values are similar, the Axis tanks however all have far superior mobility ( on average 50% better) allowing them to take damage and retreat. The Churchill on the other hand is barely any faster than the infantry chasing it and not a great deal faster than a Pak.

The Soviet heavies are also much better in a footrace.

Add firepower into the mix with the rather weak in comparison to all others main gun and the Churchill isn't head and shoulders above the opposition in terms of protection ( in an annoying way too as it is far less likely to get lucky with bounces) and rock bottom in mobility and firepower.

There are other factors too of course. Time in Combat will be worse on the whole assuming a well microed tank always retreats to be repaired due partly to it's glacial pace on the retreat( think my Gran could avoid a squish from a Church) and slower repair times due to higher HP pool. Also it is far more likely to take damage due to the amazingly cheap by comparison Shrecks ( effectively no manpower or fuel, just munitions).

Best comparison would probably be the Tiger which has roughly equal protection ( though don't think they are vulnerable to Piats), roughly double the firepower and with 20% better mobility for an extra 40 fuel.

Hence why no fecker uses it.

Given it's design constraints in terms of firepower and mobility you'd expect to see it head and shoulders above allcomers in terms of protection.

6 inches of blued British steel should only penetrate when it wishes.

Bet you are thinking of opera singers again...

No way...
High armor and HP is too much.
AVRE is already a "must-buy" imo...

No way...
High armor and HP is too much.
AVRE is already a "must-buy" imo...

I haven't seen an AVRE for over 20 games.

I haven't seen a churchill for weeks.

Guess people don't like slow, over-priced,side-teched, under armoured and under gunned tanks for some reason...

No way...
High armor and HP is too much.
AVRE is already a "must-buy" imo...

No one uses AVRE, because you really need to fall asleep during a game not to dodge it.
Its vet feeder for AT guns, which can still fire a shot and safely roll away before it aims and shoots.

You confused it with Sturmtiger.

That's the whole point, it's armour isn't high by any meaningful comparison, unless you think a PIVs armour is high.

It fills an extreme position on the triangle with terrible mobility and poor firepower so merely being comparable in short term staying power makes it a poor choice which is aptly reflected in it's actual usage, or lack of, in game.

Not so sure about the nuke grenades I have to say but it's design is clear and as with all heavies should be able to break a deadlock. At the moment it just doesn't feel like an impact unit, just the big fat cousin of a PIV.

Course if relic fancy selling us another commander with a Black Prince you can consider my chequebook open.

jiggles...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va0FdsopJSI

Endgame Brits need something that can standup to the big cats, but the Churchill is AI focused.

Maybe if the 75 was swapped for the 6lb variant, good pen but poor AI it would make moresense.

It was hit by a triple nerf (health, armour and price increase).

One of them needs turning back, and Anvil engineers need their speed reduction removed.

Compare it to the kv1 and feel the pain of the soviets.

Hitpoints: 800.0
Armor: 270.0
Rear armor: 165.0
Max speed: 5.1
Pop: 14.0
Cost manpower: 420.0
Cost fuel: 145.0

Hey but soviets are always fine, don't they?

...and Anvil engineers need their speed reduction removed.

No really, that would make one of the toughest infantries in game have no drawbacks, turn the upgrade into a no brainier, and making the most cost efficient infantry have little or no drawbacks...
Removing the speed penalty need to be follow by some other sort of nerf...

KV1 was seriously heavy pre-war but outdated by 1944, the KV-2 and JS2 were derivatives. Soviets don't seem to struggle though, if anything they seem to be the go to faction.

"No really, that would make one of the toughest infantries in game have no drawbacks, turn the upgrade into a no brainier, and making the most cost efficient infantry have little or no drawbacks..."

What then do you get for your Anvil T4? A Churchill which is massively inferior to the Comet in everything except hp, upgrade for the useless base arty and a vision buff which I've never even noticed?

Hammer is a no brainer because the Churchill is so weak.

The grenade AoE needs to be reduced. Currently almost a guaranteed wipe on any weapon team, which is not good. Overall price should be reduced slightly as well to make it more attractive.

I think Cruzz mentioned that a Churchill grenade could 1 hit most buildings....

Which is funny but..... lol

Sadly there is no reason to go Anvil any more. Churchills are worse than StuGs, only the Croc is worth taking. The side benefits of Anvil are no longer any good.

Hammer is the only viable option because of the Comet being able to just about stand up to German Tanks.

No really, that would make one of the toughest infantries in game have no drawbacks, turn the upgrade into a no brainier, and making the most cost efficient infantry have little or no drawbacks...
Removing the speed penalty need to be follow by some other sort of nerf...

I'm not trying to argue but do you know the vet values of the royal engineers?
I do not think they have reduced received accuracy modifiers like IS/riflemen/conscripts
I only know they have increased repair at vet 2 and reduced reinforcement cost at vet 3.
I believe that hardly qualifies them as "toughest infantry".

Their default is 4 man squad and requires side tech for 5. any upgrades require munitions... a lot. Nobody uses defensive anymore as is and dropping 70 munitions for a slower infantry... isn't very smart. Sure, you gain increased repair speed but lose out on capping/laying mines because they move so slow. Their combat ability is not as good as IS/commandos/air officer.

Anyways, Churchill needs a buff or no one will use.

Sadly there is no reason to go Anvil any more. Churchills are worse than StuGs, only the Croc is worth taking. The side benefits of Anvil are no longer any good.

Hammer is the only viable option because of the Comet being able to just about stand up to German Tanks.

assuming you can force your churchill-croc to stop reversing towards the shrek blob:/

I'm not trying to argue but do you know the vet values of the royal engineers?
I do not think they have reduced received accuracy modifiers like IS/riflemen/conscripts
I only know they have increased repair at vet 2 and reduced reinforcement cost at vet 3.
I believe that hardly qualifies them as "toughest infantry".

Veterancy:
-30% cooldown WHEN IN COVER,+50% Reload WHEN IN COVER
Construction/Repair Rate increased by 30%
Reinforce cost reduced by 50%,received accuracy -33%

Size/RA: 0.8
Bonus while in light/heavy cover: 0.9

IIRC
+1 armor with upgrade (for reference shocks are 1.5)

With upgrades n in cover, toughest squad ingame.

Veterancy:
-30% cooldown WHEN IN COVER,+50% Reload WHEN IN COVER

Which applies only to their default weapons, which aren't optimal for fighting in cover.

We can't have them having useful vet1, can we.

On a sort of unrelated note regarding British armour, the Firefly needs its main gun buffed and the rockets to do less damage/perhaps be cheaper. It's a really strange unit right now.

Which applies only to their default weapons, which aren't optimal for fighting in cover.

I'm not here to argue that, rather than answering the guy's request.

We can't have them having useful vet1, can we.

This sadly applies to many things.

Back ontopic.