KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage

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.

I have clearly pointed out that Churchill's acceleration is abnormally high.

Show Spoiler
Can we now PLS stop this silly game of who is wrong or right and get back on how we can improve the design of the Churchill.

So what is your suggestion about that improvement? I asked a similar question 2 pages ago.

What would you change about the churchill?

edit: I'll reiterate my point -- I think it's HP is too high. I liked what was suggested earlier to lower the HP but give it the KV-1 treatment of damage reduction so it's fewer shots to kill but also doesn't take an eternity of repair time.

Though that's neither a buff nor a nerf, it's more like a "simplification".

I think the church has high acceleration because it's 70 feet long and that means it it has to deal with pathing more. Being able to get up to walking speed quickly isn't an issue if it's only every going to be going maybe jogging speed...

A Croc/Firefly combo costs about 1080 MP 385 FU.

Two Panthers costs 980 MP 370 FU.

You forget cheap and efficient Brit teching vs Expensive unefficient Ost teching. Good luck skipping t3 as Ost, you'll die.

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.

Why don't just make it more expensive and revert the popcap change, in the case of the Churchill. I'll say it again, i think it's gonna be easier to balance both the Churchill and the Comet if we treat them as a single other heavies, with only 1 been able to field on board.

If you nerf by 400HP the Churchill, you will basically have to reduce the cost which would still lead to spamming them in order to be effective.

You forget cheap and efficient Brit teching vs Expensive unefficient Ost teching. Good luck skipping t3 as Ost, you'll die.

Good luck skipping AEC and cromwell then.

Why don't just make it more expensive and revert the popcap change, in the case of the Churchill. I'll say it again, i think it's gonna be easier to balance both the Churchill and the Comet if we treat them as a single other heavies, with only 1 been able to field on board.

If you nerf by 400HP the Churchill, you will basically have to reduce the cost which would still lead to spamming them in order to be effective.

I'm again limit Churchill to 1. Brit dont need a KT clone.

I'm again limit Churchill to 1. Brit dont need a KT clone.

KT clone is a bit of a fuckin stretch there champ....

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.

The churchill and KV-1 won't be worth using at range suddenly just by giving them more RNG dependant health pools, nor will making the Church a random gamble on it dying before it even gets close enough to throw a grenade.


The Tiger/Pershing as heavy tanks work with the high front armour but more punishable flanks/hp pool because they have two important characteristics.

1) A good gun that is punishing at all ranges
2) Decent speed so they can engage and disengage when they need to


Neither the KV or the Church have either of these. Without them they have no job or purpose trying to be used at long range. Their entire design philosophy is contrary to a style of play where they are used at long range. The Churchill has most of its AI in a dang grenade throw.

By contrast, the KV2 (and ISU, its nearest counterpart) and Brummbar all have high front armour, mediocre mobility, but an enormous amount of firepower. Also not something you can say about the Churchill or KV-1, so they can't fill that role either.


Making their HP pools more RNG dependant with more armour and less effective HP, you're making their actual job a coin toss on just being an immediate death without the mobility to ever be able to retreat, because they're also too slow to retreat if the bounces don't work in your favour when you push.

So unless you want to up their front armour, lower their rear, add a 17pdr to them both with a decent AI profile... and then up their cost and call them KindaATiger? No. Sensible sounding changes that would only make both units garbage.


Flanking a tiger using its range properly is bloody hard
Flanking a churchill using its grenades properly requires moving forwards five feet

So what is your suggestion about that improvement? I asked a similar question 2 pages ago.

What would you change about the churchill?

edit: I'll reiterate my point -- I think it's HP is too high. I liked what was suggested earlier to lower the HP but give it the KV-1 treatment of damage reduction so it's fewer shots to kill but also doesn't take an eternity of repair time.

Though that's neither a buff nor a nerf, it's more like a "simplification".

If the question is directed to me and you are asking my opinion it can be found on page 10 at post 181.

I would be a bit skeptical about swapping HP for effective HP since Heavy sapper are one of the faster repairing units in the game, unless one also redesign heavy sappers.

In addition I am against damage reduction as passive ability. I would rather see it as an active timed ability that would allow the unit to take more damage but for a limited time.

That would make the ability easier to balance easier to explain it to player, it would require more player input , while it would also allow for some counter play.

According to many POV chiurchuills are a though version of cromwells, a late game heavy tank, a skill based anti infantry tank, a versatile tank that supports other units instead of needing support itself.
Because of that it has to have high armor, hp pool, smoke pots, AI skills, high acc (with low final speed tho), high rotation speed (i disagree with this) and be cost effective.

I think the unit design is overloaded with features and posible uses, its a noob+pro tank, it has low punishment for mistakes (has lots of HP, self smoke), has anti ATG features (the turret and the grenade) and is able to fight axis mediums 1v1 not being cost effective and late game TDs being same cost effective (to receive hits and doing nothing in return is not being considered though)

If you consider axis tools to deal with such a behemoth, its possible to understand it is overperforming. Some might say that it HAS to have such advantage, others pretend to know what is going to happen with chiurchulls if they receive a nerf and others even dare to say such a well positioned unit should receive damage buffs.
IMO it doesnt need buffs, simply because brits already rely too much on it. But to nerf any of their current skills means its no longer a temptative option, simply because they are not great all-arounders anymore.

If you want to clone other unit design, then i would suggest not to. Chirchulls have a unique aspect of them worth saving, but it can changed in such a way that either high skilled players get the most of them or being toned down to a good all-arounder withouth many features, suitable for newer players
the worst case is when combined arms are supported by the heavy tank and vice versa.

IMO if brits should depend on a unit to define their lategame, churchills must not be the one. Since they are half the options for lategame and since they are designed for a specific role, a more defensive oriented one. Sure it can beat a panther 1v1 but even a shield can be used as a weapon given the oportunity and if you can buy time with it. I'd say that cromwells or fireflies are better candidates for a core unit rather than churchulls.

Weapon sponges are hard to 'balance' because getting hit is not a desired feature, but if the objective of such unit is to secure its survability, it can be useful. Hence better armor instead of HP pool. Panthers got an armor/HP trade off to become better brawlers. Chiurchulls are meant to be brawlers too?

*Edited: removed some unneccesary details and changed some wording to let a clearer opinion.

According to many POV chiurchuills are[...] a versatile tank that supports other units instead of needing support itself.

Woah, I see you're on a roll here, but I'm gonna stop you right there.

We have well established that churchill does need plenty of support, mainly in the field of AT as its own gun is pretty impotent against late game vehicles as well as it does need some minimal infantry or at least anti infantry support to not get fausted as that means certain death for it(its not going to crawl back with that massive, overpowered, imbalanced acceleration, when its top speed drops from pathetic 4 to standstill 2).

Woah, I see you're on a roll here, but I'm gonna stop you right there.

We have well established that churchill does need plenty of support, mainly in the field of AT as its own gun is pretty impotent against late game vehicles as well as it does need some minimal infantry or at least anti infantry support to not get fausted as that means certain death for it(its not going to crawl back with that massive, overpowered, imbalanced acceleration, when its top speed drops from pathetic 4 to standstill 2).

I agree with you and i might me overlooking a lot of things. I dont pretend to know more than anyone here.
But both teams should have at least a few troops able to support their tanks, or at least other units aswell.

But i tried to say that churchills need a little less support than other heavy tanks.

Edit: Damn i would even say that panthers should not be as nearly as effective against churchills as they have always been. Because of that is really hard to pull a good balance. Nerfing panthers because of this is a bit too much though

Edit2: I understand that a big HP pool helps with such a low speed and when snared it can give precious seconds to try to save the tank from becoming a husk. Im not against that at all, i think its good for the unit design too. High acc is a must too, because that way the speed curve is similar to any other tank. I wonder if churchills could be buffed with a self critical repair skill to figth that crawlspeed could be possible.

Woah, I see you're on a roll here, but I'm gonna stop you right there.

We have well established that churchill does need plenty of support, mainly in the field of AT as its own gun is pretty impotent against late game vehicles as well as it does need some minimal infantry or at least anti infantry support to not get fausted as that means certain death for it(its not going to crawl back with that massive, overpowered, imbalanced acceleration, when its top speed drops from pathetic 4 to standstill 2).

There is little reason to refer to yourself as "we", it rather confusing.

Which is this "late game vehicles" you are referring to? because if you are referring to the Panther I really hope you are not suggesting that the Churchill should perform better vs a more expensive AT oriented unit.

Can you pls inform us how many faust must hit a Churchill before it gets an engine damage?
Churchill is not weaker than other vehicles vs snare, it even remove critical at vet 3.

It takes 1 Faust to engine damage a church, any more than that and it's a waste of munitions. You certainly don't try and bring a tank to crit threshold with muni costing snares except in rare cases as they can be better used elsewhere. You certainly don't want to sit there shooting fausts at a unit you know has a tonne of health.

The churchill and KV-1 won't be worth using at range suddenly just by giving them more RNG dependant health pools, nor will making the Church a random gamble on it dying before it even gets close enough to throw a grenade.

I suggestion was lower the health by two AT gun shots so it's the same as the majority of heavy tanks, including the KV-1.

In return, it gets the KV-1's +25% repair speed (so it's on the field more rather than spending most of its time eating up your entire repair capacity) and frontal smoke shells. That gives it the ability to blind AT guns and HMGs.

It's still a Tiger's worth of hit points and armour for 165 FU, but now it can do more than eat shells.

I personally think that's a net improvement.

I wonder if churchills could be buffed with a self critical repair skill to figth that crawlspeed could be possible.

They've got a veterancy ability where they repair their own engines.

There is little reason to refer to yourself as "we", it rather confusing.

Which is this "late game vehicles" you are referring to? because if you are referring to the Panther I really hope you are not suggesting that the Churchill should perform better vs a more expensive AT oriented unit.

Panther, vetted ost P4, OKW P4, JP4(if it'll ever get in range, which it won't with that op acceleration and up speed).
Also, it appears you have just found a way to deal with churchill yourself, congratulations, mission accomplished.

Can you pls inform us how many faust must hit a Churchill before it gets an engine damage?
Churchill is not weaker than other vehicles vs snare, it even remove critical at vet 3.

The sole existence of this question screams that you should not be in balance discussion, but on a strategy forum, learning the basics of using fausts on 400+ health units(it also explains why you seem to struggle so much against churchill - you just throw grenadiers and fausts at it instead of building 1 PaK and a pair of StuGs).

Also, when was the last time you've seen vet3 churchill? Its not going to get much vet with that low mobility, weak gun and massive exp requirements.

Why you keep saying Churchill gun is impotent? Do you consider p4 gun impotent too? Churchill may have 15% longer reload, but it is 50% more accurate on move, 28% faster tracking, pens panther 'rear' at all ranges, and better far aoe against infantry.

While i wont 1v1 Churchill against panther, i also say panther is no hard counter against it. You need heavy micro to keep its 260 armor facing its fast turning high accurate gun... funny you think that panther shouldn't go against allies td, but here the situation, panther are not effective counter.

Btw i do think p4 gun is impotence against late allies tanks, especially heavies. Hence we got this topic.

How you guys think of this match, double kv1, axis player no choice to drop. And that's with the sov afk for few minutes!
https://youtu.be/4RQaPq9wZ84

Its pretty clear axis, especially Wehr is handicapped against high hp high armor allies heavies. It is akin to making allies td to 50 range/or no pen vet/ap rounds. Imagine playing with this kind of td stats.

The jadpanzer while have the range, its pen is bad, still more worthy than a stug though

I think the churchill is just the icing on the cake for a very potent faction as the brits. Out of context, Churchill is ok, maybe it should be able to take one shot less for the price. The problem is when u pair it with IS blobs of death, potent at guns and firefly. Something needs to be toned down a bit for the brits. And they should definely buff Comet. Comet being UP is more noticeble that Churchill being OP. Just my 2 cents.