Rear armor of some vehicles needs to be reduced

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 00:24 AMThe Blue Falcon

Just to be clear all the Allies HEAVY tanks need to have their armor lowered, but the Hetzer which uses the chassis of a T-38 needs to be rasied...your logic is undeniable.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 10:17 AMwandererraven

I see My Friend Clip About Kv-1 Armor
75 % chance to Finish KV-1 by shot back side armor But RNG God Curse It
poor Pz4

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 10:32 AMStug life

the problem is that if u nerf the rear armor of churchill and kv1 u gotta buff something else , cause they are meant to be flanked (slow, crappy gun, mediocre frontal armor) they are the meat shield of the faction

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 10:37 AMinsaneHoshi

What isnt "meant to be flanked?"

No other tank got buffs in order to compensate for reduced rear armor.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 10:32 AMStug life

the problem is that if u nerf the rear armor of churchill and kv1 u gotta buff something else , cause they are meant to be flanked (slow, crappy gun, mediocre frontal armor) they are the meat shield of the faction

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 10:59 AMStug life

unlike heavy tank they dont have a powerfull gun or good frontal armor

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 11:07 AMVipper

Turretless TDs are also meant to be flanked yet their rear armor is less than half.

Churchill and KV-1 could easily have their rear armor lowered to 140-130 and still would not be penetrated 100% by a PzIV even at point blank.

KV-1 performance can be improved by different vet bonuses and ability.

In the end of they if the change makes this unit under-perform I wouldn't disagree to buffs.

But I really doubt it.

KV-1 is rather cost efficient compared to OKW PzIV.


KV-1 has 10% less armor than the Tiger, it is rather good.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 11:26 AMEsxile

I guess the point is they are mean to be in the middle of the battle unlike other tanks. Exposing their flank and rear is part of their function.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 11:07 AMVipper

Turretless TDs are also meant to be flanked yet their rear armor is less than half.

Churchill and KV-1 could easily have their rear armor lowered to 140-130 and still would not be penetrated 100% by a PzIV even at point blank.

KV-1 performance can be improved by different vet bonuses and ability.

In the end of they if the change makes this unit under-perform I wouldn't disagree to buffs.

But I really doubt it.

KV-1 is rather cost efficient compared to OKW PzIV.


KV-1 has 10% less armor than the Tiger, it is rather good.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 12:25 PMStug life

they are much slower than tiger or p4 if u really want to nerf the rear amror of churchil and kv1 u need to buff their mobility at the very least (main gun or frontal armor too) ex: remove 40 armor form the rear of the churchill and add it to the front

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 12:33 PMVipper

No they are not.

Tiger max speed is 5.2
KV-1 max speed is 5.1

Again if KV-1 need more armor that should come via veterancy.

As for Churchill I would rather have it become better at supporting infantry and have some more utility like the WP smore move to it as vet 1 ability.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 12:56 PMJohnSmith

The arguments to lower the armor due to axis having had theirs lowered is crumbling apart. There's absolutely no reason to blanket change something that doesn't need changing at all. These Allied tanks already have got other drawbacks for having slightly better back armor.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 13:29 PMKatitof

When was last time anyone have seen KV-2 again?
You are debating on nerfing a unit that no one ever wants to use for purpose other then pure lolz and 'you are so bad I can field KV-2 against you'.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 13:51 PMStug life

is that why they nerfed most of okw team weapon, the sturm tiger, the arve,etc ? no they were nerfed for consistency

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 13:57 PMKatitof

What...
ISG had to be nerfed to allow for pit nerf, otherwise it would be OP by outranging it with Basic fire and ist not like it was not already 2nd best indirect light weapon in game.
HMG43 Crew was OP as it were regular volks instead of usual gimped Crew models for all other weapon Teams.
If you did not believed 50 range ST to be OP, you most likely could not use it correctly.
AVRE is short cooldown AI precision strike against which you had Little time to react and it did too good vs armor being primarily AI.

As you can see, all of the changes were justified very well.

No consistency here, each of them was a different can of worms and each of them was handled differently, in single case to allow a nerf of powerful static piece everyone complained about.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 13:57 PMKatitof

No consistency here, each of them was a different can of worms and each of them was handled differently, in single case to allow a nerf of powerful static piece everyone complained about.

Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 15:13 PMZombiFrancis

And still the forest was missed for the trees.