Login

russian armor

So are they really nerfing the Churchill Tank?

PAGES (10)down
16 Jul 2019, 19:53 PM
#61
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

again with this meme, every ukf tank is good from stock, the centaur rapes infantry and LV, the ff has 200 damage 60 range and moving turret, Cromwell is a better Sherman without AI related ammo and moving accuracy, the comet is a mini tiger but it could use a vet 1 reload buff (and check if the main gun has a projectile), it already has very good pen and armor(both almost tiger lvl with only 10 less armor and 30 less pen at all ranges), 45 range and 800 hp, and obv almost as fast as the Cromwell (to the people who feel that the AI is alcking, it's just that the damage is shifted more to the mid range but has less one shoot potential ex.: the tiger does only 26 damage at mid range AOE while the comet does 64, both cromwell and churchil are similar, sacrificing one shoots for more consistant damage)


Not saying they're bad, but they're decent at best:

Centaur? Give me an Ostwind that's far faster so it can actually get away while having similar AI/AT.
Cromwell? Give me a P4 that can actually damage inf with its pintle, while having better combat stats.
Firefly? Give me a Jackson that has better rof and speed and is effective without being a muni sink.
Comet? Give me a Panther that has better AT and survivability and a pintle that also gives it better AI.
Churchill / Crocodile? Gimme dat.

Centaur can be given a pass because it has its merits, but I would not ever call the Cromwell, FF or Comet the best in their class (price/performance wise).

Also, about Comet vs Tiger AoE: compare AoE distance please.

16 Jul 2019, 20:59 PM
#62
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474



Not saying they're bad, but they're decent at best:

Centaur? Give me an Ostwind that's far faster so it can actually get away while having similar AI/AT.
Cromwell? Give me a P4 that can actually damage inf with its pintle, while having better combat stats.
Firefly? Give me a Jackson that has better rof and speed and is effective without being a muni sink.
Comet? Give me a Panther that has better AT and survivability and a pintle that also gives it better AI.
Churchill / Crocodile? Gimme dat.

Centaur can be given a pass because it has its merits, but I would not ever call the Cromwell, FF or Comet the best in their class (price/performance wise).

Also, about Comet vs Tiger AoE: compare AoE distance please.

well centaur has 50 more armor and have 0 accuracy problem on the move for LV

they have about the same combat stats, with the Cromwell scarifying armor for speed and being better at mid and near range

ff is just as effective without muni sink, it has 200 damage not 160, for medium tanks is not that much unless us use any snare as at that point it becomes a 3 shoot unit (isntaed of 4) but from panther and bigger is around 1-2 less shoot needed to kill a tank

panther has lower armor for more hp, that's it, the pen is - 50 at all ranges but it still hit infantry, tho it comes with 45 range instead of 50 (but is fair cause it's only for at), btw the better ai is a meme it will beat panther AI in all but open road where infantry models are 4 meters from each other (an unlikely scenario these days)

well u are right, that's why u play 230 fu for tiger and is doctrinal, did u expect to be worse or the same as comet ??:romeoPls::luvDerp:
16 Jul 2019, 22:03 PM
#63
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

well centaur has 50 more armor and have 0 accuracy problem on the move for LV

they have about the same combat stats, with the Cromwell scarifying armor for speed and being better at mid and near range

ff is just as effective without muni sink, it has 200 damage not 160, for medium tanks is not that much unless us use any snare as at that point it becomes a 3 shoot unit (isntaed of 4) but from panther and bigger is around 1-2 less shoot needed to kill a tank

panther has lower armor for more hp, that's it, the pen is - 50 at all ranges but it still hit infantry, tho it comes with 45 range instead of 50 (but is fair cause it's only for at), btw the better ai is a meme it will beat panther AI in all but open road where infantry models are 4 meters from each other (an unlikely scenario these days)

well u are right, that's why u play 230 fu for tiger and is doctrinal, did u expect to be worse or the same as comet ??:romeoPls::luvDerp:


FF has 160 up to vet 3, then it has 200 damage. So a medium tank will still be 4 shots, but at vet 3 you gain the possibility to kill the enemy with a snare. "3 shotting" is only possible if you upgrade with Tulips, then you need two shots and both tulips to hit.

EDIT: Wrong numbers, FF does 200 standard damage; thanks Shadowlink

I think the "Comet has bad AI" stems from its unreliability. When it hits, it can hit quite big and wipe 2 models with ease. But from my game experiences it misses very often and hits nothing at all, which is very frustrating for a not very cheap tank. To be honest, these are ingame observations, I don't have the scatter and AOE values at hand at the moment.
16 Jul 2019, 22:10 PM
#64
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4



FF has 160 up to vet 3, then it has 200 damage. So a medium tank will still be 4 shots, but at vet 3 you gain the possibility to kill the enemy with a snare. "3 shotting" is only possible if you upgrade with Tulips, then you need two shots and both tulips to hit.

I think the "Comet has bad AI" stems from its unreliability. When it hits, it can hit quite big and wipe 2 models with ease. But from my game experiences it misses very often and hits nothing at all, which is very frustrating for a not very cheap tank. To be honest, these are ingame observations, I don't have the scatter and AOE values at hand at the moment.


FF deals 200 per shot and then at vet 3 it becomes 240, capable of 3 shotting stock mediums.

I agree with the comet observations though :)
16 Jul 2019, 22:14 PM
#65
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

Whoops, then I had the wrong numbers on that one. My mistake.
16 Jul 2019, 22:15 PM
#66
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



Not saying they're bad, but they're decent at best:

we both agree on that

As a foreword, i apologise for going straight to the point, dont take it personally.

Centaur? Give me an Ostwind that's far faster so it can actually get away while having similar AI/AT.
Cromwell? Give me a P4 that can actually damage inf with its pintle, while having better combat stats.
...
Comet? Give me a Panther that has better AT and survivability and a pintle that also gives it better AI.
Churchill / Crocodile? Gimme dat.
...

Play Axis then. You seek the wrong unit role or performance.

Firefly? Give me a Jackson that has better rof and speed and is effective without being a muni sink.

We all know Jacksons are the best option of allies TD
16 Jul 2019, 22:53 PM
#67
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474


we both agree on that

As a foreword, i apologize for going straight to the point, don't take it personally.

Play Axis then. You seek the wrong unit role or performance.

We all know Jacksons are OP
fixed it for u ;)
16 Jul 2019, 23:11 PM
#68
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3


Play Axis then. You seek the wrong unit role or performance.


The Ostwind is the only tank with similar design as the Centaur and I prefer it because the Centaur's 160 armor only helps it against a P4 at best, not against any other Axis AT weaponry. The Ostwind being 20% faster than the Centaur helps it against all AT weaponry.

The P4 was an example, I'd actually take any stock medium tank over the Cromwell. You trade some speed for more AI (both P4's, Sherman and T34/76), more AT and survivability (both P4's) or far lower cost (T34/76).

The Panther is the only stock advanced medium besides the Comet, so they're most closely comparable. Easy 8 is on a shitty doctrine and for the cost of your first Comet a Soviet could get two T-34/85's.
17 Jul 2019, 03:39 AM
#69
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

@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)
17 Jul 2019, 14:57 PM
#70
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

Dear everyone. To me it's a bit like that. Allied tanks don't seem to shine to many players cause allied infantry is simply very good. Allies often don't have to rely on them so much. Especially p4 for ostheer is often treated as a long avaited survival tool. In fact it is not as potent as some allied players think. Very often it seems very potent because of a better player commanding it. Allied tanks have so many cool abilities that add so much more power to those units. Just experiment with them. Very often thay can become really deadly especially to 4 man squads. Take, for example, smoke or phosphorous round on UKF tanks. Coming back to the point, churchills are in my opinion a bit too resistant to at fire. An option could be to give satchel charges to some axis units.
18 Jul 2019, 12:17 PM
#71
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

i dont get why some ppl think here the church has a crap gun. Its actually not that bad...it can penetrate most mediums easily and have good chance to penetrate the heavys in close and midrange...very good AI....and dont forget its fast reload...so its ok to not penetrate every shot.
18 Jul 2019, 14:55 PM
#72
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1

Crap gun is a comparison.

Compared to any other heavy tank, the gun IS garbage. A tiger, pershing or IS-2 blow it out of the water.

Which they should, given they cost more.

But for its fuel cost, the firepower of the Churchill is poor. It doesn't bring any more gun than the cromwell. With unlocks accounted for you can almost get two cromwells for one churchill, which would do a lot more damage.

The firepower is crap... for how much you pay to get one.

But its a danage sponge, so that's fine.

People bring it up because the poor gun stata for its cost are what offsets its high hp pool.
18 Jul 2019, 15:01 PM
#73
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

i dont get why some ppl think here the church has a crap gun. Its actually not that bad...it can penetrate most mediums easily and have good chance to penetrate the heavys in close and midrange...very good AI....and dont forget its fast reload...so its ok to not penetrate every shot.

Because the gun is crap for that kind of price point compared to literally any other vehicle of generalist role that isn't stock med? The cost is balanced because of durability, the gun would be unacceptably bad if not for durability.

Also, that "fast reload" is very standard tank reload. Literally nothing exceptional compared to any med or premium med tank.
18 Jul 2019, 15:02 PM
#74
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

Crap gun is a comparison.

Compared to any other heavy tank, the gun IS garbage. A tiger, pershing or IS-2 blow it out of the water.

Which they should, given they cost more.

But for its fuel cost, the firepower of the Churchill is poor. It doesn't bring any more gun than the cromwell. With unlocks accounted for you can almost get two cromwells for one churchill, which would do a lot more damage.

The firepower is crap... for how much you pay to get one.

But its a danage sponge, so that's fine.

People bring it up because the poor gun stats for its cost are what offsets its high hp pool.
ok then let's compare it to the cromwell, similar gun, much and I mean MUCH more hp, more armor and even the rear has more armor than the front of the cromwell, slower max speed but fast acceleration (to allow maneuverability), has stock smoke
for all this u pay about 100 more mp 50 fuel and the tech cost (200 mp 50 fu) but u get all the bonus of the tech (heavy RE, vision on points, air burst sheels)
18 Jul 2019, 21:40 PM
#75
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

A single churchill will displace any medium whether its gun be crappy or not. It is not accurate to compare churchill gun vs other heavies since churchills are ment to support infantry, not killing tanks.

Add:
If having durability means to have a big gun, that explain why KT has such a great durability, oh wait it doesnt
18 Jul 2019, 22:07 PM
#76
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

The thing is that the Churchill is hard to compare, as there is no other unit in the game that has the same concept. The Churchill is not a very potent fighter, its just made to soak so much damage until it gets so close that you NEED to deal with it.
On the other hand, it's super vulnerable to snares, as it can't really run away from enemy infantry and does not pack the firepower to deter an enemy squad before they can snare. And then it's just a sitting duck with speed slightly above a recrewed abandoned tank.
Compared to the Cromwell, you trade 150 MP, 50 FU and rate of fire (plus partial side-tech cost) for a shit ton health and decent armor.
But to be fair, a StuGIII can pen the Churchill with 70% chance at range 50, they both need on average 13 shots to kill each other. So StuGs and also JP4s are very decent counters if you're able to set up an elastic defense.
18 Jul 2019, 23:24 PM
#77
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

But to be fair, a StuGIII can pen the Churchill with 70% chance at range 50, they both need on average 13 shots to kill each other. So StuGs and also JP4s are very decent counters if you're able to set up an elastic defense.
??? the stug needs 4 shoot to die and only has 140 armor the Churchill has 1400 hp that's 9 shoots and only if they all pen

btw it's not that vulnerable to snare thanks to its vet 3 and having such an absurd Health pool as the tank need be below 75% of it's health to get snared so 1050 (2 shells are need to pen before u can snare it)
19 Jul 2019, 06:01 AM
#78
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Jul 2019, 15:01 PMKatitof

Because the gun is crap for that kind of price point compared to literally any other vehicle of generalist role that isn't stock med? The cost is balanced because of durability, the gun would be unacceptably bad if not for durability.

Also, that "fast reload" is very standard tank reload. Literally nothing exceptional compared to any med or premium med tank.



The church can deal with every medium tank and even panthers have problem in a head on head dog fight.

than lets not forget the smoke, the grenades, the KT healthpool, the p4 armor, the sides MGs, the enormous advantage together with ANY allies TD....it wipes easily squads, has enough armor and Hp for sooaking up heavy dmg and even can deal with tank by itsself...and its cheaper than a panther
19 Jul 2019, 07:06 AM
#79
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8




The church can deal with every medium tank and even panthers have problem in a head on head dog fight.

than lets not forget the smoke, the grenades, the KT healthpool, the p4 armor, the sides MGs, the enormous advantage together with ANY allies TD....it wipes easily squads, has enough armor and Hp for sooaking up heavy dmg and even can deal with tank by itsself...and its cheaper than a panther

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?
19 Jul 2019, 07:10 AM
#80
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

??? the stug needs 4 shoot to die and only has 140 armor the Churchill has 1400 hp that's 9 shoots and only if they all pen

btw it's not that vulnerable to snare thanks to its vet 3 and having such an absurd Health pool as the tank need be below 75% of it's health to get snared so 1050 (2 shells are need to pen before u can snare it)

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.
This leads, due to the Churchills unique design, to the funny situation that the most cost effective counter to the Churchill heavy tank is the lighter version of the tank destroyers.the Churchills design makes it a breakthrough unit that is meant to drive almost literally into the enemy defense where it has a high risk the get overrun by snare-infantry.

To the general discussion:
I think the price of the first Churchill is fine (you basically buy the side tech for the Churchill and sappers that are desperately needed if you have to repair a Churchill), but the tank might be too easily replacable. Just a thought.
PAGES (10)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

873 users are online: 873 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49120
Welcome our newest member, truvioll94
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM