KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage

Can we move off the topic of "what is objectivity"? At least reference the fact you're in a thread about the KV-1 and Churchill in your posts.

by that logic shouldn't the panther have superb rear armor ? as it's meant to counter them ?

You have to look at all factors for both vehicles. The Panther has a much better gun and speed than the churchill so that offsets its rear armour values vs the churchill to most players.

You have to look at all factors for both vehicles. The Panther has a much better gun and speed than the churchill so that offsets its rear armour values vs the churchill to most players.

then again chitchuil alredy has much more hp and better AI and it cost less

then again chitchuil alredy has much more hp and better AI and it cost less

Churchill have additional tech cost and lock out other unit/abilities. Let move on.

Churchill have additional tech cost and lock out other unit/abilities. Let move on.

same for panther it's tier 4 after all

then again chitchuil alredy has much more hp and better AI and it cost less

And much worse AT, shorter range, you can go back and forth all day. Thats because the units have completely different roles so there's very little value in comparing them.

The Panther can damn near solo a Pershing. The Pershing costs more. Is the Pershing UP? Clearly not, it might be the best tank in the game

same for panther it's tier 4 after all

The cost not say much, it is the timing of the unit that really matter. My point was we should stop compares them thought.

The cost not say much, it is the timing of the unit that really matter. My point was we should stop compares them thought.

i actaully tried to compare to brumbar before as it's role is pretty similar, but kat is kat

by that logic shouldn't the panther have superb rear armor ? as it's meant to counter them ?

Panther isn't slow damage sponge with med tank pen.
Its a very mobile brawler that is advantaged against every single stock tank and most doctrinal ones.
If it was damage sponge, then yes, another part of its frontal armor would land as its rear armor and its penetration would be half of what it is and its range would be 40 instead of 50.

No you do not. You simply need the value of the unit with similar role that you use as benchmark.

Tell you what, find what unit have more acceleration and rotation than Churchill and we can continue this.

The unit of similar role is KV-1, which happens to have a high rear armor since forever and what it lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility.

same for panther it's tier 4 after all

Does building a panther prevents you from building any brummbars until the end of the game and vice versa?

i actaully tried to compare to brumbar before as it's role is pretty similar, but kat is kat

But brummbar and churchill roles are nothing alike....
They both are stock units with high survivability compared to medium tanks, but that's all the similarities between the two.

Churchill is a damage sponge and cover(smoke) for infantry, its a spearhead unit able to support infantry push while not being cracked up by AT instantly like regular meds.

Brummbar on the other hand is a very reliable infantry nuker, if 1st shot will not wipe squad, that squad is going to have 10% or less health. Churchill can't do that, unless you blob hard.

For the Churchill:

I reckon shift 60 armour from the back to the front (300/120), reduce hit points to 800, 0.8 received damage.

That gives it 1000 effective hit points and +25% repair speed. That's a seven shot kill from an AT gun, same as the IS-2, Tiger, Croc and AVRE. (The live Churchill is a nine shot kill).

Move the smoke shell from the Crocodile to the standard Churchill. The Croc has a flamer: it doesn't need to blind anti-tank guns. The standard Churchill, however, would definitely appreciate it.


For the KV-1:

Give it the same armour values as the KV-2: 300 frontal, 120 rear. That makes the KV-1 a little better at range, but rewards flanking it.

I think the Churchill is fine. KV1 though is OP cuz its faster to tech to and cheaper. The higher armor than Churchill almost makes up for it's less health. It's rear armor is also very thick but the aspect that makes it op is the speed of the KV1 is it's speed advantage over the Churchill as well as the faster repairs that they get.

So to fix KV1, either nerf the speed down to around the Churchill speed or remove the faster repairs perk.

For the Churchill:

I reckon shift 60 armour from the back to the front (300/120), reduce hit points to 800, 0.8 received damage.

That gives it 1000 effective hit points and +25% repair speed. That's a seven shot kill from an AT gun, same as the IS-2, Tiger, Croc and AVRE. (The live Churchill is a nine shot kill).

Move the smoke shell from the Crocodile to the standard Churchill. The Croc has a flamer: it doesn't need to blind anti-tank guns. The standard Churchill, however, would definitely appreciate it.


For the KV-1:

Give it the same armour values as the KV-2: 300 frontal, 120 rear. That makes the KV-1 a little better at range, but rewards flanking it.

I like these changes.

For the Churchill:

I reckon shift 60 armour from the back to the front (300/120), reduce hit points to 800, 0.8 received damage.

That gives it 1000 effective hit points and +25% repair speed. That's a seven shot kill from an AT gun, same as the IS-2, Tiger, Croc and AVRE. (The live Churchill is a nine shot kill).

Move the smoke shell from the Crocodile to the standard Churchill. The Croc has a flamer: it doesn't need to blind anti-tank guns. The standard Churchill, however, would definitely appreciate it.


For the KV-1:

Give it the same armour values as the KV-2: 300 frontal, 120 rear. That makes the KV-1 a little better at range, but rewards flanking it.

I liked them as well. However this will also cause problems with the JP4/StuG usage because of their low penetration at max range. but those are topics for another thread.

I liked them as well. However this will also cause problems with the JP4/StuG usage because of their low penetration at max range. but those are topics for another thread.

One might argue those 2 units arnt particularly designed to counter meat shields. Stugs are already terribly effective against mediums, wouldn't want to fall into the error of having more omnipotent TDs.. Similarly the JP4 is fantastic at hitting enemy TDs and mediums. Both axis factions have access to panthers for reliable heavy AT. The issues with allied TDs stand on their own, lets not follow suit with the axis factions.

No you do not. You simply need the value of the unit with similar role that you use as benchmark.

Tell you what, find what unit have more acceleration and rotation than Churchill and we can continue this.

..

The unit of similar role is KV-1, which happens to have a high rear armor since forever and what it lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility.

....

If you are going to quote me at least say something relevant to my point, we where talking about acceleration and not rear armor.

And as since brought KV-1, it is nice to see that you actually agree with me that Churchill's acceleration is too high since its x219% higher than KV-1s although according to you "what it (KV-1) lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility".

IMO

It's not philosophy. It's literally the definition of the word 'objective'.

It is philosophy, if there is no universal truth than nothing is objective.

If you say your opinion is a fact you're either mistaken or lying.

That is your opinion and not a fact.

If you're unable to tell the difference between actual facts and your opinions then you have no place on a balance forum.

Unless you are moderator or repeating forum rules it is not your place to say who has a place on a balance forum

All your 'too high' claims are opinions. They may be well-researched and reasoned opinions but they are still opinions. They are not facts.

Unless you capable to defining what is objective and until you define what is objective everything is an opinion. That is a fact.

Pls move on.

One might argue those 2 units arnt particularly designed to counter meat shields. Stugs are already terribly effective against mediums, wouldn't want to fall into the error of having more omnipotent TDs.. Similarly the JP4 is fantastic at hitting enemy TDs and mediums. Both axis factions have access to panthers for reliable heavy AT. The issues with allied TDs stand on their own, lets not follow suit with the axis factions.

Stugs AREN'T terribly effective vs even mediums which is why it's getting a small buff.

If you are going to quote me at least say something relevant to my point, we where talking about acceleration and not rear armor.

If your reading attention span lasted over 4 words, you'd find the relevant part.
In regards to acceleration, you've been over this already with conscript accuracy vet.
High acceleration to low top speed isn't a big deal and high acceleration doesn't make the unit mobile - speed does. Rotation helps, but its all about speed at the end.

This is why we don't consider slow units to be very mobile, regardless of how fast that top speed is achieved.

If your reading attention span lasted over 4 words, you'd find the relevant part.
In regards to acceleration, you've been over this already with conscript accuracy vet.
High acceleration to low top speed isn't a big deal and high acceleration doesn't make the unit mobile - speed does. Rotation helps, but its all about speed at the end.

This is why we don't consider slow units to be very mobile, regardless of how fast that top speed is achieved.

A) Are you stating facts or expressing personal opinion here? Because if you want to provide your personal opinion you should use "imo" more often.

B) As I have explained to you before quoting one comment on something (like acceleration in this case) and then talking about something completely irrelevant (like rear armor in this case) is something you should stop doing. It is misleading and it can tantamount to laying.

If your reading attention span lasted over 4 words, you'd find the relevant part.

No that this is not the case:
"The unit of similar role is KV-1, which happens to have a high rear armor since forever and what it lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility."

If you theory was correct that KV-1 "lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility."
it would mean than Churchill should have lower or equal speed lower or equal rotation and lower or equal acceleration.

There is no justification for Churchill to have more than double the acceleration of the KV-1 and thus the value is simply too high.

You last 4 words prove you wrong while proving nothing relevant to what I have posted. Pls once more stop quoting me and writing irrelevant things.

This is why we don't consider slow units to be very mobile, regardless of how fast that top speed is achieved.

Who is this "we" or do you simply refer to yourself as "We"?

There is no justification for Churchill to have more than double the acceleration of the KV-1 and thus the value is simply too high.

What about the KV1 having a higher top speed? And lower cost?

You can have great acceleration all you want. If your max speed tops out at 2/3 the speed of most medium tanks, then its not that great of an advantage.