State of the Kingtiger

Anything but reload and penetration. No way should a vehicle as fast and mobile as a Jackson have 338 near pen with the regular rounds or 325 far pen with HVAP. Same as SU 85 with its 286 far pen and 312 near pen.

What would you suggest to replace it for? Reload would made it even stronger (as it was before).

Current alternatives:
-30% reload, -30% scatter
+30% armour, -10% reload
-20% reload, +20% speed, +20% rotation speed, +20% ac/de-celeration
-+10% armour, +25% HP, +35% sight range
+20% speed, +20% rotation speed, -20% reload
-25% reload, Weapon rotation+ 35%

As far as the Su85 goes, more rotation rate and/or a more forgiving moving accuracy penalty would always be nice. It already has good sight, pen and reload.

The Allies have to contend with Axis having Panthers stock, lethal tank hunters with great armor, and OKW has the Tiger II as a stock unit. This means the SU-85 and M36 Jackson must be able to contend with both of these effectively, as it is the allies strongest defence. The King Tiger is highly effective in it's Spearhead mode, and the Panther is the undeniable Dive champion. If the SU-85 and M36 cannot shock these units, then the SU-85 and M36 themselves will fall prey to the vehicles they exist to counter.

Panther has 260 armor , so the logic of having 300 pen does not make sense for it

[Spearhead mode]
I think it gives 50 vision b/c you can see farther than you can shoot.

Spearhead gives
- +50% sight range (from 35 to 52.5);
- +67% turret traverse (from 12 to 20);
- a noticeable amount of suppression on the hull MG;
- but locks the turret to a cone of 45 degrees to either side.


Especially the extra sight and the extra turret traverse make it a very good option.

i used the KT once yesterday, it was just the last view minutes and he only got to shoot 8 times.... he missed 6 out of 8 , i dont think i will call him again, even if it was just ultra bad luck.

I like the new King a lot. Harder to keep it alive though with vet3 being the Blitz.

You might find it weak against infantry at vet0. I recommend using attack ground, somewhat like a Brummbar. You'll see it do seriously better with that, though that obviously means it requires much more attention than X heavy tank.

its 45 and always was

I'll be damned, it is 45. I can't believe the IS2 has 40 range LUL.

I'll be damned, it is 45. I can't believe the IS2 has 40 range LUL.

IS-2
+50% weapon rotation speed, +25% range, +20% accuracy
-30% reload, +20% rotation speed, +20% speed, +20% ac/de-celeration

Tiger PzKpfw VI
+5 range, +20% accuracy, -20% scatter
-30% reload, +20% rotation speed, +20% speed, +20% ac/de-celeration

Both End with 50

tiger 2 remains at 45 like Pershing

The Allies have to contend with Axis having Panthers stock, lethal tank hunters with great armor, and OKW has the Tiger II as a stock unit. This means the SU-85 and M36 Jackson must be able to contend with both of these effectively, as it is the allies strongest defence. The King Tiger is highly effective in it's Spearhead mode, and the Panther is the undeniable Dive champion. If the SU-85 and M36 cannot shock these units, then the SU-85 and M36 themselves will fall prey to the vehicles they exist to counter.

At least with USF there is an exeption. On all the other factions, doctrinal units are better than stock ones but Jacksons are able to beat any USF doctrinal counterpart, OKW having stock KT is just the mirror balance. Both balance each other.
Panthers on the other side are meant to be the superior option amongst all mediums and each factions has its solution for them. Thats why panthers are not stock heavy tanks but rather premium medium with good AT, the armor nerfs it has received proves my assumption.
SU-85 is pretty balanced by itself and promotes combined arms tactics.

Therefore there is no real issue if we also consider all heavies are tech bound now

I didn't even know the IS2 got 50 range at vet1. This doesn't make any sense realistically as the IS2 had to have its barrel raised every time it was reloaded, and its optics and magnification were inferior to the King Tiger's. Both of these factors made it very ineffective at long range engagements, and very difficult to land follow up shots and properly zero the gun. It also had an absurdly slow reload time as the shell was separated from the case. It was really only effective in short ranges where accuracy wasn't critical, and its long reload time didn't cause a huge problem since you were more likely to hit on the first shot. At longer distances it was an utterly ineffective tank and a King Tiger would outshoot it both in fire rate and accuracy in no time at all.

The IS2 makes more sense as a building buster and infantry butcher, as its large HE shells were very effective at that, but it was nothing near a long-range Tank Destroyer that CoH seems to imply it was.

Seeing the King gain range on Vet and the IS2 lose it, maybe compensated with more effectiveness against buildings and emplacements, could be good for balance and show inspiration from the real combat effectiveness of these vehicles.

I didnt even know the IS2 got 50 range at vet1. This doesnt make any sense realistically as the IS2 had to have its barrel raised every time it was reloaded, nd its optics and magnification were inferior to the King Tiger's. Both of these factors made it very ineffective at long range engagements, and very difficult to land follow up shots and properly zero the gun. It also had an abaurdly slow reload time as the shell was separated from the case. It was really only effective in short ranges where accuracy wasnt critical, and its absurdly long reload time didnt cause a huge problem since you were more likely to hit on the first shot. At longer distances it was an utterly ineffective tank and a King Tiger would outshoot it both in fire rate and accuracy in no time at all.

The IS2 makes more sense as a building buster and infantry butcher, as its large HE shells were very effective at that, but ot was nothing near a long-range Tank Destroyer that CoH seems to imply it was.

Seeing the King gain range on Vet and the IS2 lose it, maybe compensated with more effectiveness against buildings and emplacements, could be good for balance and show inspiration from the real combat effectiveness of these vehicles.

None of this has any relevance for COH2 balancing.

None of this has any relevance for COH2 balancing.

I subscribe to the belief that CoH2 should take inspiration from how things work in real life, and use this to influence balance, but not dictate it outright. It also should not totally contrast real life. Or maybe you'd like Lee Enfields to penetrate a Tiger; reductio ad absurdium etc. This is the problem I see with IS2 having a ton of range.

Anyhow if you re-read my final PG it does pertain to balance and offers my suggestion for both King and IS2.

Anyhow if you re-read my final PG it does pertain to balance and offers my suggestion for both King and IS2.

Vet bonus against structures sounds very unexciting, who will go "oh boy, I can destroy that bunker 20% better now!" ?

I subscribe to the belief that CoH2 should take inspiration from how things work in real life, and use this to influence balance, but not dictate it outright. It also should not totally contrast real life. Or maybe you'd like Lee Enfields to penetrate a Tiger; reductio ad absurdium etc. This is the problem I see with IS2 having a ton of range.

Anyhow if you re-read my final PG it does pertain to balance and offers my suggestion for both King and IS2.

IS2 in COH2 is already inspired by the actual IS2. It has long reload and big scatter. Giving it drastically less range than other tanks will make it useless. So no, your idea about "realism" makes no sense.

IS2 in COH2 is already inspired by the actual IS2. It has long reload and big scatter. Giving it drastically less range than other tanks will make it useless. So no, your idea about "realism" makes no sense.

The fact it has more range than other Heavies is what I take issue with, and it makes no sense either.

Vet bonus against structures sounds very unexciting, who will go "oh boy, I can destroy that bunker 20% better now!" ?

OKW has its bases, and world buildings would ideally die much faster too (you know, the ones soldiers tend to occupy?)

The fact it has more range than other Heavies is what I take issue with, and it makes no sense either.

The whole aspect of units having 'max range' is nonsense to begin with, all weapons IRL have ballistic trajectory, so a KT could shoot from one side of the map to another by adjusting the tilt of the cannon, sturmtiger was able to fire the heaviest payload at at least 800m if not more. The game is just a game.
IS2 is the model of the heavy SU tank with a big ass gun. It outranges other tanks because as its role of heavy tank it needs to

The fact it has more range than other Heavies is what I take issue with, and it makes no sense either.

It doesn't unless you account for Veterancy, then the IS-2 and Tiger I both get 50 Range; the Tiger II and Pershing do not get range bonuses.

IS-2: 40
Tiger: 45
Tiger II: 45
Pershing: 45


The IS-2 actually starts with less range than default.

It doesn't unless you account for Veterancy, then the IS-2 and Tiger I both get 50 Range; the Tiger II and Pershing do not get range bonuses.

IS-2: 40
Tiger: 45
Tiger II: 45
Pershing: 45

Hmm, then maybe all should be standardized. Vet0 45m, vet2 50m. Vet1 is often reserved for the extra ability.

All heavies who get extended range through vet, get it by vet 2.

Tiger and KT got vet0 45 as a way to "buff" their performance compared to IS2.