State of the Kingtiger

at least it should be better than an okw p4

Let's take a look at the numbers.




I'll assume everyone here knows how CoH 2's AoE system works: units standing closer to where the shell hits take more damage.

These are the damage values for the new King Tiger's main gun.



These numbers are quite hard to make sense of in this state, so I'll put them on a graph.





Compare this with the pre-patch King Tiger.



This makes the old gun look waaay better, but it's a little misleading. Infantry models only have 80 health, so anything over that is overkill.

Let's zoom in on 80 damage and below.



The point where the damage curve crosses 80 damage is the 80 Damage Radius. Any model closer to the shell than this gets killed in one shot.

As you can see here, the old KT has a substantially better 80 Damage Radius. It's almost double that of the new KT. If you're judging a gun on one-shot wipes, the old KT wins hands down.

But take a look at what happens after that. The old KT's damage drops off really fast. It kills what it hits, but does very little to what it doesn't hit.

If the 80 Damage Radius is a good metric for how good a vehicle is at one-shotting squads, the 40 damage radius is a good metric for how good a vehicle is at two-shotting squads. Look at how high the new KT's 40 damage radius is.

The new KT seems to be designed with a similar philosophy to the Brummbar: not much better than a medium tank at one-shotting, but lethal on the second hit.


Now let's address the OP's issue and compare it to the T-70.



The T-70 fires 2.6 times faster than the King Tiger, so I've added a line that multiplies the T-70's damage by that amount.

It paints a similar picture: 2.6 * T-70 has a similar 80 Damage Radius, so it'll feel about as wipey as a KT. However, the KT hits a much larger area.

I'll leave you with this: the New KT versus the High Explosive Shell Sherman.

So after testing all the heavy tanks in cheat mode now, I have come to the conclusion that they are all pretty much the same. Which I don't think is fair considering the price and lack of mobility of the KT. It should be a level above Pershing (probably the best AI gun of all heavy tanks), IS2 and Tiger.

Fair point, but do keep in mind that the King Tiger has several other outstanding traits that contribute to its cost. Namely stock availability, very high durability (1280hp + 375 armor), high damage versus vehicles (240, up to 312 with HEAT shells), remarkably good reload for such a high damage weapon, and now a very accessible Spearhead mode which gives improved sight range and decent suppression on the hull MG (as well as fixing a large part of its turret traverse issues).


One other thing to keep in mind is that HEAT shells actually have a noticeable effect on the new AOE profile now, so the standard profile can't be too good or HEAT shells would vaporize infantry.

Fair point, but do keep in mind that the King Tiger has several other outstanding traits that contribute to its cost. Namely very high durability (1280hp + 375 armor), high damage versus vehicles (240, up to 312 with HEAT shells) and now Spearhead mode being quite accessible which gives it improved sight range and decent suppression on the hull MG.


One other thing to keep in mind is that HEAT shells actually have a noticeable effect on the new AOE profile now, so the standard profile can't be too good or HEAT shells would vaporize infantry.

That makes no sense at all. The unit should be balanced around it normal performance not its doctrinal abilities.

If the doctrinal ability make it OP change the modifiers of the doctrinal ability.

New KT versus new Pershing, if it's helpful.

u forgot a very important detail, scatter

So after testing all the heavy tanks in cheat mode now, I have come to the conclusion that they are all pretty much the same. Which I don't think is fair considering the price and lack of mobility of the KT. It should be a level above Pershing (probably the best AI gun of all heavy tanks), IS2 and Tiger.

You going to ignore KTs armor, penetration, damage against vehicles and the fact its stock?
That's pretty convenient.

u forgot a very important detail, scatter

Its comparable(go read patch notes).

That makes no sense at all. The unit should be balanced around it normal performance not its doctrinal abilities.

If the doctrinal ability make it OP change the modifiers of the doctrinal ability.

Says the guy who was against any con buffs "because doctrines and doctrinal infantries".
Also, doctrines are reason why cons have 1 weapon slot, even further invalidating your argument.

You can't ignore doctrines in balancing a unit, because that's how you end up with OP units as well.

and realod

You going to ignore KTs armor, penetration, damage against vehicles and the fact its stock?
That's pretty convenient.

ISU:

Target size: 26 Sight: 35 Speed: 4.5 Accel: 1.4 Rotate: 16 Armor: 340/155 Health: 1040


AT Shells:
Range 5 - 70
Penetration near 260
Penetration mid 230
Penetration far 200
Deflection damage 120

HE-Shells:
AOE Radius 6
Distance near 0.25
Distance mid 1.1
Distance far 6
Damage near 240
Damage mid 60
Damage far 36



KT:

Target size: 26 Sight: 35 Speed: 3.8 Accel: 1.4 Rotate: 25 Armor: 375/150 Health: 1280

Range 0 - 45
Penetration near 240
Penetration mid 220
Penetration far 200


AOE Radius 4
Distance near 1
Distance mid 2
Distance far 3
Damage near 240
Damage mid 84
Damage far 12


THIS means:

KT is slower, more expansive, less range, more armor, more hp, less penetration, less AOE, have turret, nondoc unit...but needs huge investments

ISU has more range,more mobile,less hp, equal armor (front) back has more armor, more penetration, more AOE, no turret, is doc

and realod

Its also comparable.
Moving quickly back to scatter, vetted KT got better scatter then vetted pershing.

Also, the line from patch notes you missed in you insisting on Pershing comparison:

In order to maintian the Perhings role as the most lethal anti infantry havy tank , we have added the following change to it's near AOE.

...equal armor (front) back has more armor...

I'm not contributing anything informative here, but I really like how 340 vs 375 armor is "same" but 155 vs 150 armor is "more"

ISU:

Target size: 26 Sight: 35 Speed: 4.5 Accel: 1.4 Rotate: 16 Armor: 340/155 Health: 1040


AT Shells:
Range 5 - 70
Penetration near 260
Penetration mid 230
Penetration far 200
Deflection damage 120

HE-Shells:
AOE Radius 6
Distance near 0.25
Distance mid 1.1
Distance far 6
Damage near 240
Damage mid 60
Damage far 36



KT:

Target size: 26 Sight: 35 Speed: 3.8 Accel: 1.4 Rotate: 25 Armor: 375/150 Health: 1280

Range 0 - 45
Penetration near 240
Penetration mid 220
Penetration far 200


AOE Radius 4
Distance near 1
Distance mid 2
Distance far 3
Damage near 240
Damage mid 84
Damage far 12


THIS means:

KT is slower, more expansive, less range, more armor, more hp, less penetration, less AOE, have turret, nondoc unit...but needs huge investments

ISU has more range,more mobile,less hp, equal armor (front) back has more armor, more penetration, more AOE, no turret, is doc

It comes at 14 cp. While all the other heavy tanks come at 9 and 10. With the exception of elephant and jadtiger. Kt is non doctrinal and has no cp requirements of i am kot wrong.
Also you missed reload speed and price comparison. Care to elaborate the difference in reload speed as well?

I'm not contributing anything informative here, but I really like how 340 vs 375 armor is "same" but 155 vs 150 armor is "more"

loking at the low penetration from some AT units...its even more. a jp4 has headache to penetrate a ISU. Even panthers an AT guns bounce often on it....because it doesn't need to come close ...it can one shot most AT guns crews from range 70.

It comes at 14 cp. While all the other heavy tanks come at 9 and 10. With the exception of elephant and jadtiger. Kt is non doctrinal and has no cp requirements of i am kot wrong.
Also you missed reload speed and price comparison. Care to elaborate the difference in reload speed as well?

ISU one shot mostly squad from range 70. and has more penetration than KT....what do u need more? it bounce most shot from panthers and AT gun when they need to shot at ISU at long range...it has more side armor than KT..so even flanks are risky..

loking at the low penetration from some AT units...its even more. a jp4 has headache to penetrate a ISU. Even panthers an AT guns bounce often on it....because it doesn't need to come close ...it can one shot most AT guns crews from range 70.

So use adequate unit?
Why are you ignoring top tier TD for the faction and bring up mid tier TD against a top tier unit?

Do you also complain about Easy8 sherman armor after trying to use Puma against it?

JP4 is not supposed to fight heavies.
That's why panther exists.

You are comparing inadequate unit to prove a point that doesn't exist outside of your head.

And no, panther doesn't bounce often on ISU, even if you stay at max range for whatever mad reason, majority of shots pen it.

Also, if you want to bitch about ISU, make a thread about ISU.
Stop derailing this one.

that does not change the fact that okw panzer 4 has equal or better performance in AI, as i shown

reduce the max scatter or make the far aoe damage better

or reduce reload speed, but it will be better vs tank too

that does not change the fact that okw panzer 4 has equal or better performance in AI, as i shown

Two tests, in a scenario with perfect spacing at pretty close range that will rarely happen in a real match no less, do not really prove anything.

Also at that range, against vet 0 targets, the MGs on the Panzer IV will deal twice as much DPS as the KT's hull MG which is likely to influence the results significantly. The Conscripts facing the KT in your picture are in yellow cover even, further diminishing the KT's MG DPS to 25% of what the Panzer IV MGs deal.

...
Says the guy who was against any con buffs "because doctrines and doctrinal infantries".

You simply failed to understand what post so pls stop putting words in my mouth.

Also, doctrines are reason why cons have 1 weapon slot, even further invalidating your argument.

You can't ignore doctrines in balancing a unit, because that's how you end up with OP units as well.

Read understand respond once more you have completely missed the point. KT should be balanced on its own. If "heat rounds" KT proves OP then the ability should be balanced separately for KT. It is as simply as that.

Two tests, in a scenario with perfect spacing at pretty close range that will rarely happen in a real match no less, do not really prove anything. Also at that range, against vet 0 targets, the MGs on the Panzer IV will deal twice as much DPS as the KT's hull MG which is likely to influence the results significantly. The Conscripts in your picture are even in yellow cover further diminishing the KT's MG damage to 25% of what the Panzer IV MGs deal.

then increase the mg damage of kt ?

btw both cons to had yellow cover, they both were the left over of the earlier crater shoots

then increase the mg damage of kt ?

The MGs do not really have anything to do with the comparison, other than heavily influencing the tests you did. The KT's MG is fine.


The comparison should be about AOE, because that is the main damage dealer in the mid to late game versus vetted (low target size) squads with yellow cover abundantly available (at which point MG DPS is reduced significantly), in real game scenarios where squads are clumped up more often than not.

And against more clumped up squads, the new King Tiger's AOE is undeniably better at dealing consistent and high damage than the Panzer IV's. See Lago's comparison chart with the KT AOE vs the HE Sherman's and imagine the P4J AOE being much worse than the HE Sherman's.