Login

russian armor

Churchill is garbage

26 May 2016, 08:41 AM
#81
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911

Doesnt it still have the nuke nade?
26 May 2016, 08:57 AM
#82
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

Both the kv-1 and the churchill needs buff. I am quite convinced that the solution is really just the matter of buffing their armor and HP.

turning the churchill into a command tank is just sidestepping the issue of how to make meatshield tank decent, unless the kv-1 get turn into a command tank as well.

and the british already have the option of using the churchill as a command tank with certain doctrine.
26 May 2016, 09:30 AM
#83
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Give it 350 armor and 1080HP with vet bonus for 1280HP.
It shares the gun with Cromwell, right? If so, it does not need anything else.

Still Churchill is less garbage than KV1. KV1 needs more health and total veterancy rework. Maybe even small armor buff.
26 May 2016, 09:32 AM
#84
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1

I would say churchill should have less HP but compinsate it with armor, rather then compinationg huge HP with bad armor. Give it like 800-1000 HP, drop fuel cost, but increase frontal armor dramaticly.
26 May 2016, 10:49 AM
#85
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

Give it 350 armor and 1080HP with vet bonus for 1280HP.
It shares the gun with Cromwell, right? If so, it does not need anything else.

Still Churchill is less garbage than KV1. KV1 needs more health and total veterancy rework. Maybe even small armor buff.
...... Non doc non capped heavy tank and cheap
26 May 2016, 10:57 AM
#86
avatar of Crystal

Posts: 97

In my opinion, the KV-1 is performing better than the Churchill. I'd rather call a KV-1 on the battlefield than a Churchill, really.

But I agree that both of them need to be adjusted.
26 May 2016, 10:59 AM
#87
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

jump backJump back to quoted post26 May 2016, 10:57 AMCrystal
In my opinion, the KV-1 is performing better than the Churchill. I'd rather call a KV-1 on the battlefield than a Churchill, really.

But I agree that both of them need to be adjusted.
kv1 to tier 4 with 140 pen
The Churchill can edgier be a heavy tank like AM stayed but need to be capped at 1 on the field or make it cheaper than right now
26 May 2016, 12:04 PM
#88
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

Churchill's in a weird spot as a veterancy feeder that also gives no damns if its flanked since its low armour is compensated by its high health pool. It lacks proper firepower and mobility as well. It also costs quite a bit and for some reason is more population than a Panther.

I like the idea of a meatshield/shield but:

-Company of Heroes 2 AT lethality is high and in the late game double ATGs are common and will strip quickly HP from even the mightiest of tanks.

-Unless you can do something, you just eat shots. Churchill's not threatening enough with the grenade being fixed and no longer being a nuke and has a slow rate of fire.

-You can probably ignore the Churchill for the most part and shoot at the glasscannon units.

I'm wonder if giving the Churchill some sort of aura would be an idea, either passive or timed. Not to improve effectiveness of units, however. Instead, a de-buff that would hinder the enemy and weaken their effectiveness. It could maybe work on both vehicles and infantry and would force units to shoot the Churchill to get rid of the de-buff. This indirectly makes the Churchill harder to kill indirectly as well as nearby forces which it should be supporting.

I'm not sure what sort of de-buff we'd be talking about, that's my idea aside from a few suggestions of increasing armour so it can deflect, but reducing health.


I am not in favour of aura units, for many reasons. One of them is that they scale too well in larger modes. Even if you confine the bonuses to work only for the owning player:
- Standing armies in these modes are bigger, and can be more specialized
- Most players' forces are clustered around the same area

Thus, the benefits of any aura unit would be massive.

If a pure-meatshield Churchill wouldn't work, I would prefer a buff in one of the following areas:
- Increase Churchill's utility. (e.g., decrease smoke penalties; not sure about cooldowns). In order to make Churchill work, it requires a lot of support from the rest of your forces. Churchill gives no utility back in return. If Churchill had access to White Phosphorus/Smoke shells, that would be OP as fuck (also because the player will not be exposing the Churchill to danger). We could reduce/remove smoke penalty as a way for Churchill to really support advancing troops/flanks.
- Improve Churchill extreme-close-range lethality vs something. This could be as simple as one of the following:
- Reduce the cooldown of grenade toss at higher Vet levels (grenades are -really- the main gun of this tank, and they cost munitions).
- buffing sten gun's extreme-close DPS vs infantry. That way, the defending player has the choice of ignoring the Churchill for starters, but he can't ignore the Churchill forever, as it will eventually close the distance to their infantry/support guns. You could make crew-defense a pay-to-activate ability (e.g., pay X munitions for Y seconds). That way you can't spam Churchills into victory.
- An alternative idea would be to increase Churchill gun penetration to 200-ish for ranges 0-10, but that wouldn't work out as well (everything is faster than the Churchill, except for KT, and you don't want massed Churchills countering KTs. or do you?)
- If you want to go for something over-the top, you can make Churchill crew start tossing out grenades out of the side-hatches at Vet3, Comet-style. I don't recommend this though :)
- Shake up its Vet (engine-repair) If the engine-damage-negating perk at Vet3 would come any sooner, I would definitely see Churchills being used more aggressively to smash pak walls. Currently, it takes too long to reach that Vet level, and you don't want to be risking your vetted tanks like that after you attain that level. Thus, I don't don't see that perk being useful in a tactical sense (it's more of an oh-shit option).


320 armor (panther)
1280 hp (king tiger)
510 mp 185 fuel
16 pop (panther)

there.




That + removal/reduce moving speed when using smoke, I would already see Churchill being a high utility tank, since it can create a long lane of smoke for your forces (with removal of the speed penalty, the lane will be lengthened):
- A tank column could go through safer
- Heavy Sappers, whose speed is reduced to a crawl when attacking/being attacked would have the opportunity to reposition to better cover mid-fight
- The fact that most useful abilities (grenade, smoke) cost munitions means that the benefits will not scale that well if you spam the unit.
- Vs late-game tank destroyers, the Churchill could reverse itself into battle. However, since the gap between front and rear armour is now bigger, there is, now, actually a tradeoff to make.

The question is what is a fair price for a tank with those stats?

I would say churchill should have less HP but compinsate it with armor, rather then compinationg huge HP with bad armor. Give it like 800-1000 HP, drop fuel cost, but increase frontal armor dramaticly.


The main problem with the Churchill currently is that it doesn't pay off to keep it alive. You are better off freeing popcap for something else as the game progresses.

With that speed and the fact that the game has Elefants/JTs/Pak43/Schreck deflection damage, that would make the Churchill even worse off than it currently is. This will exacerbate Churchill's late-game relevancy issues even further. To give you a concrete example, the KV1 has better armour than the Churchill, and about 800 HP. It's just terrible.
26 May 2016, 18:26 PM
#89
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

300 frontal armor, 1600 hp, 185 fuel. Fix bugged anvil ability.
26 May 2016, 20:06 PM
#90
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

jump backJump back to quoted post26 May 2016, 18:26 PMNEVEC
300 frontal armor, 1600 hp, 185 fuel. Fix bugged anvil ability.
...........CAPPED AT 1 RIGHT ?
26 May 2016, 20:45 PM
#91
avatar of Zyswen

Posts: 149 | Subs: 1

churchill fine but too much price
27 May 2016, 05:35 AM
#92
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

...........CAPPED AT 1 RIGHT ?


If okw KT will be limited to 1 per game. (You can't call second if lost first).

If okw panter will be limited to 1 at once.

Than okay.
27 May 2016, 08:36 AM
#93
avatar of Crystal

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post27 May 2016, 05:35 AMNEVEC


If okw panter will be limited to 1 at once.


:huhsign:

For the KT i agree, because it's a very powerful tank with a great survivability, so 1 per game should be great and balanced i think. ( Even though its tech is long and expensive )

But Panther ? Why would you limit this one ?
27 May 2016, 08:43 AM
#94
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 May 2016, 08:36 AMCrystal


:huhsign:

For the KT i agree, because it's a very powerful tank with a great survivability, so 1 per game should be great and balanced i think. ( Even though its tech is long and expensive )

But Panther ? Why would you limit this one ?


Why should we limit churchill to one? It never will be in line with pershing, is-2, kt, etc.
27 May 2016, 08:48 AM
#95
avatar of SUCKmyCLOCK

Posts: 207

jump backJump back to quoted post27 May 2016, 05:35 AMNEVEC


If okw KT will be limited to 1 per game. (You can't call second if lost first).

If okw panter will be limited to 1 at once.

Than okay.


Huh are you loco bro? First off KT is limited to 1 on the field per player, its cost is astronomical, why would you limit it to one shot per game and why is that relevant here? As for your panther suggestion just LULZ......

Back on topic,

Current Churchill sure, have 10+ on the field np. But if you buff it to the levels suggested here (and it defo needs some sort of buff), then 100% it should be limited to 1 on the field per player at a time. It is a no-brainer, all heavy tanks (bar a select few) have the same limitations and rightly so.
27 May 2016, 08:50 AM
#96
avatar of SUCKmyCLOCK

Posts: 207

jump backJump back to quoted post27 May 2016, 08:43 AMNEVEC


Why should we limit churchill to one? It never will be in line with pershing, is-2, kt, etc.


And it is not suppose to be, it has the same gun as the Cromwell,you are comparing apples and oranges?? With above said buffs and said costs the Churchill should 100% be limited to one
27 May 2016, 09:33 AM
#97
avatar of RiCE

Posts: 284

people still want to revert the old bullsh*t stats?!

IF churchill need to be buffed, then it must be a small price decrease, but not stat buff.
27 May 2016, 09:48 AM
#98
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post27 May 2016, 09:33 AMRiCE
people still want to revert the old bullsh*t stats?!

IF churchill need to be buffed, then it must be a small price decrease, but not stat buff.


I am curious. How come you oppose the idea of buffing Churchill's stats to match their price (and maybe increase the price too)? Churchill is an end-game unit, and it should be made worthwhile to field one (currently it's not).

Technically, UKF deserves a King Tiger-like Churchill tank as much as OKW deserves their stock King Tiger. Except for a few overbuff proposals, most of the ideas in this thread are about how to create a worthwhile meatshield tank with a weak gun (e.g., by increasing Churchill's utility).
27 May 2016, 12:48 PM
#99
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

jump backJump back to quoted post27 May 2016, 08:43 AMNEVEC


Why should we limit churchill to one? It never will be in line with pershing, is-2, kt, etc.
non doc cheap haevy tank with 1600 h and 300 armor
27 May 2016, 12:58 PM
#100
avatar of Crystal

Posts: 97

Ok it's a big piece of steel, so what ?

Its damage is inexistant, and his support potential too. It just sponges AT shots, and after ?

The Crocodile has potential, the AVRE has potential, but the MK.VII has not.

If we give the Churchill a real support role ( like infantry buffs etc. ) and turn it into an interesting support Heavy Tank then yes, we should limit it to 1. But for now, i don't know why we should.

And currently the Churchill cost what ? 180 fuel ?

And you call that "cheap" ? For such a big trashy tank ? Hmm...
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

479 users are online: 479 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
20 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49668
Welcome our newest member, Mckifcdvllip
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM