What Role Should Heavy Tanks Serve?

The problem there is unless you start getting to insane armour values, all you achieve is cementing tank destroyers as the only counter.

I don't know if this is even within the capabilities of the mod tools, but what if instead of more frontal armour, they had frontal damage reduction?

Say, they've got 720 HP like a premium medium, but 50% DR on the front, meaning attacking one head on gives it 1440 effective hit points (the same as a Churchill?).

That'd make them more effective at the spearheads they're designed for, but also much more rewarding to flank.

That would be a good idea if it was possible.

More so if you could adjust hitbox of tanks (50/50 can lead to scatter shots hitting back from the front.

There is no "tank destroyer" meta. Allied mediums and even "advanced mediums" are garbage, there is hardly any point in fielding them as they become redundant as Panthers start to roll out, fielding Tigers instead of Panthers does not change anything.

Nothing has fundamentally changed aside of useless allied units becoming more useless (and even more after similar changes will be done to allied heavies)

The real question what is the point of allied mediums in first place if they get hard-countered minutes after rolling out, as if T-34-85 losing to magical OKW P4 and its near Panther level armor wasnt enough

Pretty much a l2p problem.

T34-85 has higher penetration and better armour than standard mediums, giving it excellent odds vs OKW P4. T34-85's 65ish% chance to pen OKW P4 isn't much worse than the P4's 70 or so % chance to pen the T34-85.

And oh, T34-85 has a massive 125% health advantage despite costing less fuel. Statistically the T34-85 is dominant in head-to-head showdowns with the OKW P4.

And oh, T34-85 has a massive 125% health advantage despite costing less fuel. Statistically the T34-85 is dominant in head-to-head showdowns with the OKW P4.

I'm quite positive 34/85 doesn't have 1440 hp.

p4 180 armor Sherman 160 armor
p4 Penetration near
125
Penetration mid
115
Penetration far
110
Sherman Penetration near
140
Penetration mid
120
Penetration far
100

now add the 0.75 moving accuracy and all other things Sherman has (smoke, repair, etc)
Sherman does not have to deal with FF and jacksons

I love how people always rave on these topics, cry for numbers and stats, which you provide most generously. They then ignore this post and go on like it never happened lol.

just give all the heavies more armor so they can actually bounce some shells

just give all the heavies more armor so they can actually bounce some shells

Which shells?
They have no problems bouncing medium tanks shells, even premium meds.

They already bounce at least 35% of ATG shells or more.

Tank destroyers are meant to destroy tanks, that includes heavy tanks, if TDs bounce often enough on tanks, they don't do their job.

Heavy tanks have something of an identity crisis. They're in the game because they existed, but they don't cleanly fit into the game's design.
...

Imo one has to separate here heavy tank from Super heavy tanks that limited to 1 and I am under the impression that this thread is about Super heavy Tank.

The second think that imo one has to point out is that Super heavy tanks do not all need to serve the same role. One unit could be simply a oversized all-round unit while another could be tough unit with less of punch. One could be good AI and another good AT.

Finally I have to point out that imo the "role" is not the actual problem. Imo the problem is the trend to allow progressively more powerful unit early in the game and the theory that unit should be balance by "their rival" within the same faction.

This approach has buffed unit noticeably making early wipe easy and creating the conditions for snowball effects.

I love how people always rave on these topics, cry for numbers and stats, which you provide most generously. They then ignore this post and go on like it never happened lol.

well cause they are fan boy, they have the mentality of a flat earther "i deny scientifically proven fact and U have to bring proof that not only u are wrong, but im right, all by ur self, an if i make bet with real £ and lose who cares, it's not like i have to pay u "

I think heavy tanks are fine balance wise as they cost allot plus CP requirements. The general purpose for the heavy tank is to be an all rounder tank that can battle out with AT and AI and hold the line. I see people use them a bit too aggressively only to lose them to mines and AT grenades.

THAT right there is the issue.

Go to reality for a second. A T-34/85 getting behind a Tiger is an instant dead Tiger. No ifs or buts. Dead. Kaput.

Go to steel division 2, which is quite realistic in its portrayal of distances, flanking, combat capabilities etc. As long as you can pen a heavy tank, you can kill it as easily as a medium tank.

No go to coh2. You can pen the heavy tank as much as a medium tank, you can even get behind it, but none of that matters because of the gargantual health given to heavy tanks.

This is the root of the issue for me. Heavies got armour nerfs, but they have so much health to compensate that flanking them is not viable because they would take 6-7 shots from a medium tank to die, which gives plenty of time to bring help, shoot it back, have it miss shots while chasing etc.

This is not going to be popular, but I'd like to see Heavies trade health for front armour (and a subsequent nerf to repair rate to prevent faster repairs) in order to make flanking much more viable and lethal.

So far, all your ideas have been so on point, this one especially.

I would also love to see heavies trade HP for armour

I would also love to see heavies trade HP for armour

It was already said multiple times that this enforces and cements TDs having to be as strong as possible and it creates bad RNG for everything below TDs.

Maybe a rear damage bonus for all tanks on Heavy/super heavy (maybe except Churchill which is mean to be flanked).
something like x1.25 or 1.50?

You people are operating on false premise that damage modifier can be included partly to a unit.... it can't.

You people are operating on false premise that damage modifier can be included partly to a unit.... it can't.

How about someone from the balance teams says if it’s possible or not instead of you? The fact you keep repeating it doesn’t make it credible.

In game we could see text "Hit in Rear Armor" it means game engine somehow know difference between front and rear. At least some event and checker in code exist.
I think idea with damage multiplier the most effective. But IMHO it should afect on all armor. I also include damage from deflected shells too.

Like:

Inflicted damage if armor not penetrated:
1) 45mm guns and lower deals 10% damage from initial damage of gun
2) all medium guns deal 25% damage from initial damage of gun
3) guns of all heavy armor deal 50% damage from initial damage of gun

Rear bonus:
The same as deflected damage. It makes flanking very rewarding.

Also one experimental idea about heavies (those who limited to 1): they couldn't be destroyed fully. Only abandoned with heavy crits and destroyed tracks. That makes pushes with heavy very risky, if you lost it in enemy territory and enemy have enough time to repair it. If you have more than 1 heavy, repair speed of all your units decreased on 50%.

Also one old idea about all armor. You could extract from destroyed armor part of their initial cost (30% for light armor, 20% for mediums and heavies). This give possibility to player who destroy enemy tanks (or lost itself tanks) and save map control get some advantage.

You people are operating on false premise that damage modifier can be included partly to a unit.... it can't.

I suspected it when I wrote my message.


Imo heavy tank and many other mechanisms are doomed to never been balance.

There is an obvious will to represent Tigers or IS2 to be on par with what they were in the reality statistically wise. I mean the only stat that is probably completely different between reality and the game is the range of fire of those tanks, for the rest, armor, speed, turret travers, shell damage etc... are probably varying a bit for balance purposes but they are also reflecting a lot of what they were in reality : Strongs and devastators

Now when you look at mediums, you see where the dev team took most of what was the reality of those tanks far away to design something that suit the in-game design and balance. And the first of all is probably their quantity available for each heavy possibly fielded.

This game is about a story which doesn't really care about mediums, but heavy tank fights.

At the moment, Heavy tanks have no trade off, only a cost when they are available. Opposed to that, mediums have trade of the moment heavies are available, building one more medium will delay the heavy which is better in any ways.

Call me silly but I think old Tiger Ace cost trade off mechanism was the most interesting to evolve and apply to all heavies. Too bad the balance team took the opposite direction.
Second mechanism that should be applied to all "generalist" heavies is the amo switch. Keep the same damage profile but AI shells do only AI damage and AT shells do only AT damage so an opponent that goes combines arms can actually react the kind of shell and put his tanks first or infantry first.

They should apparently serve as an Axis get out of jail free card since Tiger Ace is sitting at 11 CP and Tiger I is at 9 while all Allied heavies are 13 CP or more.

They should apparently serve as an Axis get out of jail free card since Tiger Ace is sitting at 11 CP and Tiger I is at 9 while all Allied heavies are 13 CP or more.

Because they dont require tech? And still allow call in stall lul

Because they dont require tech? And still allow call in stall lul

Shhh, don't tell them most heavy call-ins will get the same treatment next patch and it will be the most glorious thing in this game's history.

Show Spoiler