About KV-2 in Patch

KV-2 Reload

Tank Mode: 9 (Currently in the Revamp)
Siege Mode: 10/12 (Same numbers as live)

Wait shouldn’t siege mode reload be faster than normal mode?

KV-2 Reload

Tank Mode: 9 (Currently in the Revamp)
Siege Mode: 10/12 (Same numbers as live)

So after this thread being created and all this arguing this was the stats.... lol

Wait shouldn’t siege mode reload be faster than normal mode?

This is before reload modifier kicks in

So after this thread being created and all this arguing this was the stats.... lol

Thats pretty much what I said it was before Vipper started making up stuff.

Thats pretty much what I said it was before Vipper started making up stuff.

Dear Kirrik you actually started making stuff up.

...
It's nice to have a reality check once in a while, especially once you start claiming hilarious things like KV-2 having a faster attack speed than ISU when it was nerfed to 9 seconds this patch as well as comparing KV-2 ammo deflection to ISU's HE instead of AP. ....

KV-2 actually does have faster reload than ISU, with 7.5-9 (and not 9 as you claimed) while ISU-152 has 9-11.

Now pls move on.

I personally find the approach to siege mode a bit confusing.

First its confusing why Relic chose to use 2 different weapons but use a modifier for reload bonus. I guess they might had use one weapon and add the modifiers to create the siege mod but at some point decided it would be easier to use 2 weapons and modifier was left.

What I also find confusing is why someone who actually wanted to change the reload would change the modifier instead and not change the original values to 15-18 or even better get rid of the modifier completely (to make the life easier for people checking the data) and simply change the values to what he wanted.

And why would someone standardize the value of reload in tank mode but leave the value of reload in siege mode to fluctuate. I personally like some element of RNG in the results, so I am not a big fan of standardization.

KV-2 Reload

Tank Mode: 9 (Currently in the Revamp)
Siege Mode: 10/12 (Same numbers as live)

Thanks for clarifying and bringing a swift end to this. I just wanted to say keep on the awesome work. Big ups for making the KV2 viable again!

This thread is complete madness. KV2 was never used and now people complain it´s OP because the revamp team tries to make it a viable unit? Jesus Christ. Vipper just stop with spamming this Allied fanboy crap.


You complain about OP KV2 meanwhile Ost has 150 fuel 340 armor Brummbär that rapes Allies every game and it´s completly fine for some reason.

Wait does it actually have 340 armor? I knew it was high but jeez. And they can get an elefant at the same time and have tellers to back it up. 0_o

Wait does it actually have 340 armor? I knew it was high but jeez. And they can get an elefant at the same time and have tellers to back it up. 0_o

.

yes at vet 2... before it has 260

.

yes at vet 2... before it has 260

KV-2 has 300/180 armor with 1040 HP
Brumbar has 260/105 with 800 HP

KV-2 has 300/180 armor with 1040 HP
Brumbar has 260/105 with 800 HP

Brummbär has low veterancy requirements and gets to vet 2 in no time. Then it has 340 armor while being non-doc costing 150 fuel and having better mobility than KV2 that costs 230 fuel and is tied to only 2 doctrines. KV2 in revamp mod is easy to kill because once it´s snared it´s so slow that it can´t get away from anything + it gets penned by Raks, Pak40s, Panthers, even Stugs and JP4s with high %. Meanwhile the only thing a vetted Brummbär has to fear is massed TDs, especially because Ostheer has a number of doctrines that have Panzer Tactician.

KV2 should be a better Brummbär with less mobility but better survivability and damage despite slower reload. The way it was changed in the revamp mod is alright, although I still think it´s either a bit too expensive or a bit too easy to kill. The damage in siege mode and regular tank mode is good enough vs infantry and also tanks.

In my opinion 1080 HP + 300 armor is not gonna cut it for a super slow, late game vehicle that is tied to 2 questionable doctrines. Maybe make the 0.8 recieved damage modifier a vet 2 thing. From testing the new KV2 it seemed a very long way to get it to vet 3. Plus it´s acceleration is slower than that of the KT, which is a bit shocking and unexplainable. Makes it hard to manoeuvre, turn, etc. KV2 has decent max speed but acceleration is more important to get out of bad situations while getting flanked, having to rotate to get frontal armor to enemy etc. That´s one of the good things about Churchills they have very good acceleration.

Here is KV2 speed in comparison to other tanks just to show what I mean:

KV2 4.9/1.3
Brummbär 5.7/1.9
Tiger 5.2/1.8
Kingtiger 3.8/1.4
KV1 5.1/1.6
IS2 5/1.7
Crocodile 3.8/3.5
Churchill 4/3.5

Brummbär has low veterancy requirements and gets to vet 2 in no time.

Brumabr has an XP value of 2040 and does not even have low veterancy requirements as you claim, since they are inline with other units of similar cost like the Churchill at 2080 XP value.

Brumabr need 4080 XP to reach vet 2 which would mean around 51 conscripts to reach vet 2, I guess you are entitled to believe that a brumbar can kill 51 conscripts in no time (although I am not sure what mode you talking about).

Then it has 340 armor while being non-doc costing 150 fuel and having better mobility than KV2 that costs 230 fuel and is tied to only 2 doctrines. KV2 in revamp mod is easy to kill because once it´s snared it´s so slow that it can´t get away from anything + it gets penned by Pak40s with super high %.

One has to tech to T4 to get brumbar and has to spend allot of fuel to do so. KV-2 has no tech cost.

Try to snare a KV-2 and see how long your infantry will last or how many faust you need to get an engine damage.

The chance to penetrate a KV-2 with a pack at max range is 63% but I guess in your are entitled to believe that 63% is Super high. Even then a pak need 7 penetrating shot to kill a KV-2 but again I guess you have the right to call that easy.

For a thread you described as "complete madness" you do seem to post allot in it.
(I have responded to you original post but since then you have edited it)