KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 15:17 PMdistrofio

Imho, chirchuils tanks are great, I just can't say they are OP, but as other sponge tanks, they always get a 'extra' function rather than the one they are meant. It's the critical mass role. In other words if you are dumb enough to let your opponent get two churchill's, it's almost game over. They both need a royal amount of countering to stop them. Team games can exploit that.

Other than that the tank is fine.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 15:18 PMLago

Sure, but that's true of vehicles in general. If you let your opponent amass too many and you don't build the units to counter them, you lose.

That's a basic fact of the game, not a balance issue.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 14:53 PMLago

That's the thing: it doesn't have comparable front armour to the super heavy tanks. Its front armour is barely better than an OKW Panzer IV, which has 234.

All the Churchill's abilities are geared towards close combat: short range grenades, SMGs on the side, smoke emitters originally designed to make a pathway for infantry. Therefore it sacrifices high frontal armour in favour of high rear armour.



What makes it so tough is the metric shit-ton of hit points it has.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 15:41 PMStug life

tiger 300 churchil 240
seems pretty close for much less fuel non doc heavy tank while having the rear armor = to p4 frontal armor

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 15:46 PMSeductiveCardbordBox

The difference is literally strapping an extra 1/4 of the churchills front armour onto the front of it again.

And, for the extra fuel investment of a tiger, you get a vehicle with better mobility, better pen, better vet, and a substantially better gun that is effective at long ranges versus all targets.

Seems fine.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 15:50 PMStug life

no just remove 30-40 armor from the rear, that's it
for the tiger u are doc locked and cost much more while still having less hp, and the gun of the churchil is no way bad as it's almost a copy of the cromwell if u really want to do acomparison there is the brumbar who deal more AI while having less HP and r armor and almsot no AT

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 15:50 PMStug life

no just remove 30-40 armor from the rear, that's it

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 14:53 PMLago

That's the thing: it doesn't have comparable front armour to the super heavy tanks. Its front armour is barely better than an OKW Panzer IV, which has 234.

All the Churchill's abilities are geared towards close combat: short range grenades, SMGs on the side, smoke emitters originally designed to make a pathway for infantry. Therefore it sacrifices high frontal armour in favour of high rear armour.
...
What makes it so tough is the metric shit-ton of hit points it has.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 15:41 PMStug life

no just remove 30-40 armor from the rear, that's it

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:04 PMVipper

240 armor is high a Stug which is a dedicated AT units has around 71% to penetrate it at max range

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:34 PMblvckdream

If a 90 fuel T3 TD has 71% chance to penetrate even from the front at max range with good accuracy and ROF then how is the 160fuel T4 slow heavy tank effective? Bringing up those numbers was a bad idea because it basically proves your whole point wrong.

Churchill is good but other than maybe removing the grenade ability it´s balanced no matter how many Axis tears are going to be shed in this thread.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:40 PMSkysTheLimit

240 armor is not high at all for a heavy tank. Its rear armor is high because its really easy to flank. This unit is clearly fine, no one used it before comet nerf and its stats were essentially the same. Popcost and its speed while launching smoke were the most significant changes since.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 15:41 PMStug life

tiger 300 churchil 240
seems pretty close for much less fuel non doc heavy tank while having the rear armor = to p4 frontal armor

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:44 PMVipper

That claim is incorrect, Churchill has high acceleration and rotation and is not easy to flank.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:44 PMVipper

That claim is also incorrect Churchill has received a number of buff like lowering fuel cost and defensive smoke.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:40 PMSkysTheLimit

This unit is clearly fine, no one used it before comet nerf and its stats were essentially the same. Popcost and its speed while launching smoke were the most significant changes since.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:49 PMSkysTheLimit

...
No it was correct, you just need to learn to read.... I was talking about changes SINCE the comet nerf. Check the log

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:43 PMVipper

The cheaper Su-76 has 69% chance to penetrate Brumbar (or a Panther) range 60 (not 50 as the Stug) and so I guess by your logic both the Brumabar (or the panther )as T4 slow unit is not effective.

Bringing up this argument was a bad idea because it basically proves your whole point wrong.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:55 PMVipper

Comet nerfed APRIL 25th UPDATE 2017

Churchill buffed for the last time in DECEMBER 19th 2017

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:40 PMSkysTheLimit

Popcost and its speed while launching smoke were the most significant changes since.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 16:55 PMLago

As of the next patch, the SU-76's chance to frontally penetrate a Brummbar or a Panther at max range is 62%.

That drops to 56% for the Panther and 47% for the Brummbar when they get their skirts.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2019, 17:01 PMVipper

Now do the math for range for 50 and keep in mind that SU-76 is cheaper than Stug.

My point simply Churchill has a comparable chance to be penetrate by axis units with the Panther and Brumbar have. Describing Churchill as low armored vehicle and Panther/Brumbar vehicles is simply misleading.