So are they really nerfing the Churchill Tank?

Careful there, Hannibal, hit chance is a concept people never want to have to think about when they think about units they don't like.

Much easier to just point at the raw HP numbers and how much damage a shot does and scream abiut how OP it is.

but Churchill has horrible accuracy against a Stug and will miss at least half of its shots

Yeah...NO

MK VII 75mm
Accuracy Far: 0.025
Penetration Far: 105

StuG III G
Target size: 17
Front Armour: 140

Chance to hit : 0.025*17=0.425, ~43%. Not accounting for scattered shots.
Chance to pen = 105/140=0.75, 75% chance of a long range pen on an unvetted StuG

So not accounting for scattered shots, a 31.875% chance each shot will penetrate a max range StuG. Worse if it is vet 2.

A StuG has 560 health, which takes 4 penetrating hits to kill. With each shot having a 31.875% chance to hit and pen, that equates to a rough total of 12.5 shots on average to remove a StuG.


StuG 75mm
Accuracy Far: 0.04
Penetration Far: 170

MK VII
Target Size: 26
Front Armour: 240

Chance to hit: 0.04*26=1.04, 100% chance to hit
Chance to pen: 170/240=0.7083..., 71% chance to pen

A MK VII has 1400hp which takes 9 penetrating hits to kill. Every shot will hit and has a 70% chance to penetrate, that equates to roughly 12.9 shots on average to kill a MK VII.



None of the above is accounting for moving accuracy, scattered shots (only applicable to the MK VII or moving StuG), or nay bulletins applied.

@Derbyhat, i really agree with you, for some reason UKF timings are all messed up and its armor design is odd. Only with a good game secured by IS spam there is a chance to give UKF mediums some space to shine.

Somehow UKF armor has low rish/low reward balance, that makes them not appealing, cromwells are not bad at all, but they cant pull a good play on their own too, even when they are almost (in the very broad meaning of the word) Pz4 clones with smoke.

Churchills are truly safe bets because they are so durable and overall UKF is a slow paced faction. I know IRL facts never take place in balance discussions but it is worth saying churchills were outstanding good tanks.

UKF is also in a weird spot because of game timings, lategame allies often have better nondoc tools, but UKF falls short. IMO the faction itself is designed about good defense but bad versatiliy, wich hurts reactive gameplay a lot.

Comets could really use a utility/offensive buff paired with a utility nerf to churchills (to emphasize hammer tactics)

I'd be happy to start with changing the Comets vet bonuses to be more useful.

For the churchill maybe replace grenade with artillery flare? That way it doesn't simply delete at guns and there is a longer time to respond.

I think the smoke on churchill is fine but maybe could change it to an artillery smoke barrage too? On a shared cooldown with the flare. So it could cover a larger area but would take longer to call in so you can't just cheese it and reverse away.

Although I think the UKF on the whole needs revising. They're just not fun to play as imo.

MK VII 75mm
Accuracy Far: 0.025
Penetration Far: 105

StuG III G
Target size: 17
Front Armour: 140

Chance to hit : 0.025*17=0.425, ~43%. Not accounting for scattered shots.
Chance to pen = 105/140=0.75, 75% chance of a long range pen on an unvetted StuG

So not accounting for scattered shots, a 31.875% chance each shot will penetrate a max range StuG. Worse if it is vet 2.

A StuG has 560 health, which takes 4 penetrating hits to kill. With each shot having a 31.875% chance to hit and pen, that equates to a rough total of 12.5 shots on average to remove a StuG.


StuG 75mm
Accuracy Far: 0.04

Penetration Far: 170

MK VII
Target Size: 26
Front Armour: 240

Chance to hit: 0.04*26=1.04, 100% chance to hit
Chance to pen: 170/240=0.7083..., 71% chance to pen

A MK VII has 1400hp which takes 9 penetrating hits to kill. Every shot will hit and has a 70% chance to penetrate, that equates to roughly 12.9 shots on average to kill a MK VII.



None of the above is accounting for moving accuracy, scattered shots (only applicable to the MK VII or moving StuG), or nay bulletins applied.

You can also double some of the stats for the Stug as there should be at least two of them fighting a churchill at that stage at least.

You can also double some of the stats for the Stug as there should be at least two of them fighting a churchill at that stage at least.

It is also worth noting that the StuG reloads faster, but I was purely illustrating the parity in number of shots.

Why do u calc with the far range accu? Why not mid and near? this church istn buid for staying all the time at far range and wait to killed by stug. mostly it is easy to come in close range with it....unless you are not bad at playing.

Why do u calc with the far range accu? Why not mid and near? this church istn buid for staying all the time at far range and wait to killed by stug. mostly it is easy to come in close range with it....unless you are not bad at playing.

Because the post you yelled BUT NO UR WRONG at was about far range combat.

Which is where a StuG should be staying, if it is well handled. Not hard to keep backing up, which draws the churchill into your lines, where it is vulnerable to fausts.

Because the post you yelled BUT NO UR WRONG at was about far range combat.

Which is where a StuG should be staying, if it is well handled. Not hard to keep backing up, which draws the churchill into your lines, where it is vulnerable to fausts.

Oh ...than all this high rank players must be dumb, when you can see so many teamgames where the church comes easily in mid and close combat range....even to stugs (this is mostly the actions where you lose them)...right?

Oh ...than all this high rank players must be dumb, when you can see so many teamgames where the church comes easily in mid and close combat range....even to stugs (this is mostly the actions where you lose them)...right?

Two options

A) They're not good players
B) The tax of controlling their army means that they allow their StuGs end up in a bad spot

Poasible mention to C) They don't know how quickly accuracy drops off for the MK VII


Not that any of the above really matters. A pair of StuG are ample counter to a Churchill was the point, and it is correct to say as much.

And I thought that this topic is about the Churchhill ... which in some eyes is too weak / not too strong.

The reality is: this tank is nearly too good for its pricetag.
it hasnt only high HP and armor and a ok gun..no...it can even through grenades and smoke to cover it when it goes down.

two of them need a brutal amount of dmg to be destroyed...and a long time..which means the follow units have a better chance to make dmg

and u can`t ignoring them...they attack you with a TD in the back? it would be dumb to try the church first. you want the TD bring down...but sadly the stug has less range than allies TDs. so you must come near to the TD..wgich means you come near to the church...which is roflstomping to your line...

when you want to kill the chruch first...the enemy TD mbring your stugs easily down.....

oh..and you now comes with the argue: "but your AT guns" nice try. the church will bring them down fast. Yo this is the situation:

- your Stugs has less range than allies TDs
- church cant be killed fast enough..
- churchhill has a TD in back with high range
- chruchchill bring down AT guns easily


so you MUST go drive forwards to kill first alles TD and than try the chruch...which means the church can drive into mid/ near range from your stugs.

now you

Some clarification: 13 shots corrected for accuracy and pen chance at the units max range.
Stug only needs 4 shots to die, but Churchill has horrible accuracy against a Stug and will miss at least half of its shots, while Stug will always hit the Churchill.

You can't simply correct if for accuracy, because each shot that misses becomes a scatter shot which has a decent chance to hit (Churchill has slightly below average scatter). Best way to know the shots to kill is to let them face each other off sufficient times in cheatcommands on the test range map, making one of the two invincible each time.

1) It would be hilariously underpowered if meds stood a chance.
2) Why is a tank with vastly superior speed and range fighting head on a slow cow again?
3) Damage sponges are durable, yes, glad you noticed, not sure what for as that's well established already.
4) Its cheaper then a panther and can't engage every single unit in game and win contrary to panther, what's your point again?

well even if u flank it's no different from fighting a p4 with 1400 hp

btw ur bias is slipping out kat, i didn't know panther beats AT infantry AT guns and heavy tanks

just tested the points above

1 stug vs 1 Churchill max sight range Churchill wins all the times with around half health (i think the scatter helps it save missed shoots)

2 stugs vs 1 Churchill max sight range the stug every time wins sometimes with 1 or 2 but one with only 1 shoot of dying and the other full health or the 1 remaining only suffering from 1 shell

1 stug + command p4 aura vs Churchill max sight range Churchill wins every time with around 1/3 of its health


BTW Churchill has Accuracy multi 0.75 on the move

(Snip)

Aboslutely no point crediting this rambling mess with a formal response.

You can't just throw down some wild abstraction of multiple vehicles, infantry and support weapons all being used at once in tandem as 'proof' that the Churchill is too good. It's a void. It has no frouding in reality or asaumptions underpinning it.

What point of the game even is this? If you're facing at LEAST a churchill and a firefly you are a bare minimum of last tier and hundreds of fuel deep, not to mention that apparently this wild, hypotherical Ost army apparently can't snare, can't overlap AT sources and can't back up an AT gun with StuG cover that it aoparently has.


Hey, look, I can play wildly under explained test cases too! Turns out that churchills are bad because they can't do anything against a Tiger aupported by AT guns, because if you push your TD to fire at the tiger to make it back off the AT guns delete it, but the firepower of two PaK and a Tiger with faust inf in support is op. And if you buy AT guns a shotgun pakzerwerfer deletes them, and the Tiger deletes infantry. Tigers OP. See how easy it is to just spin crap?

Quantify your bullshit. Make some sort of viable in game comparison. A late gate combined arms approach of hundreds of fuel is going to be powerful.

Nobody is impressed by you correctly identifying that 300 fuel plus of top tier armour is good.

MK VII 75mm
Accuracy Far: 0.025
Penetration Far: 105

StuG III G
Target size: 17
Front Armour: 140

Chance to hit : 0.025*17=0.425, ~43%. Not accounting for scattered shots.
Chance to pen = 105/140=0.75, 75% chance of a long range pen on an unvetted StuG

So not accounting for scattered shots, a 31.875% chance each shot will penetrate a max range StuG. Worse if it is vet 2.

A StuG has 560 health, which takes 4 penetrating hits to kill. With each shot having a 31.875% chance to hit and pen, that equates to a rough total of 12.5 shots on average to remove a StuG.


StuG 75mm
Accuracy Far: 0.04
Penetration Far: 170

MK VII
Target Size: 26
Front Armour: 240

Chance to hit: 0.04*26=1.04, 100% chance to hit
Chance to pen: 170/240=0.7083..., 71% chance to pen

A MK VII has 1400hp which takes 9 penetrating hits to kill. Every shot will hit and has a 70% chance to penetrate, that equates to roughly 12.9 shots on average to kill a MK VII.



None of the above is accounting for moving accuracy, scattered shots (only applicable to the MK VII or moving StuG), or nay bulletins applied.

just tested the points above

1 stug vs 1 Churchill max sight range Churchill wins all the times with around half health (i think the scatter helps it save missed shoots)

2 stugs vs 1 Churchill max sight range the stug every time wins sometimes with 1 or 2 but one with only 1 shoot of dying and the other full health or the 1 remaining only suffering from 1 shell

1 stug + command p4 aura vs Churchill max sight range Churchill wins every time with around 1/3 of its health


BTW Churchill has Accuracy multi 0.75 on the move

like how you just casually ignore this. You cant just read some statistics and expect it to be identical ingame.

Best way to know the shots to kill is to let them face each other off sufficient times in cheatcommands on the test range map, making one of the two invincible each time.

For whoever is interested, I've tested this a few times, both at 40 range.

I = Penetrated
X = Bounced
O = Missed

Churchill vs Stug:
1. OIXOXIOOOXXXII (neo dodging Stug or the drunken Churchill)
2. XOIIII
3. IIXOIOI
4. IIII
5. XIXOII
6. IIXII
7. XXIIII
8. IIIOI
9. IXXXOOXIII
10. IIXII
11. IIXII
12. XIXXIII

So 80 shots total for 12 kills, which means 6,667 shots on average to kill a Stug at range 40.

15% of the shots were misses, 26,25% of the shots were bounces (or 30,88% of the shots that hit were bounces, which sounds about right if it statistically has 71% chance penetrate), 58,75% of the shots hit & penetrated.

Stug vs Churchill

1. XIIIIIIXXXIIXI
2. XXXIIIIIIXIII
3. IIIIXIIIII
4. IIIIIIIII
5. IIIIIIXIII
6. IXIIIIIIII
7. IXXIIIIIIIXI
8. IIXIIXXIIIII
9. IIIIIIIII

99 shots total for 9 kills, meaning 11 shots on average to kill a Churchill at range 40, (higher penetration than at range 50).

No misses, 18,18% of the shots were bounces, 81,81% of the shots penetrated.

Show Spoiler

like how you just casually ignore this. You cant just read some statistics and expect it to be identical ingame.

Do you know the exact penetration of the Stug at range 40 or how much scatter influences the hit chance of the Churchill? (Well the first one can be calculated I'm sure, but laziness doesn't help )

Why do u calc with the far range accu? Why not mid and near? this church istn buid for staying all the time at far range and wait to killed by stug. mostly it is easy to come in close range with it....unless you are not bad at playing.

What about you do the calculation yourself before you shitpost on stuff that you apparently don't know much about? It's not hard to do the math on that.
Also if a Churchill is able to overrun any of your tanks then maybe, just maybe, there are more serious problems problems than an assumingly OP Churchill.

You can't simply correct if for accuracy, because each shot that misses becomes a scatter shot which has a decent chance to hit (Churchill has slightly below average scatter). Best way to know the shots to kill is to let them face each other off sufficient times in cheatcommands on the test range map, making one of the two invincible each time.

I thibk it should be clear that the theoretical calculation does not account for scatter and is therefore somewhat flawed, but it is a way better and more comparable model thean just crying 'XYZ OP!'.

Testing is better if you have a sufficient sample size, and the theoretical calculation can give you an idea of how big your sample size needs to be to get reliable results.