State of the Kingtiger

Honestly I think the IS-2 could use a boost to 240 damage to make it in-between the Tiger I and Tiger II. It used to have 240 damage, but it was dropped (along with the awful 10 second reload) to make it more in-line with the Tiger I. With the Tiger II being a thing, I'd like to see it have a heavily armored large caliber challenger.

Honestly I think the IS-2 could use a boost to 240 damage to make it in-between the Tiger I and Tiger II. It used to have 240 damage, but it was dropped (along with the awful 10 second reload) to make it more in-line with the Tiger I. With the Tiger II being a thing, I'd like to see it have a heavily armored large caliber challenger.

Fun fact, back when the is-2 did 240damage its pen was so low that it could lose a fight to a Tiger at point blank, shooting at the tigers rear armour and getting a free shot in while the turret rotated... Gods it was bad back then...

Any thoughts on reducing is2 rear armor? Any reason why it need to be so high still?

Any thoughts on reducing is2 rear armor? Any reason why it need to be so high still?

Compare it to rear armor of king tiger then comeback here.

Compare it to rear armor of king tiger then comeback here.

he probably meant ISU

Honestly I think the IS-2 could use a boost to 240 damage to make it in-between the Tiger I and Tiger II. It used to have 240 damage, but it was dropped (along with the awful 10 second reload) to make it more in-line with the Tiger I. With the Tiger II being a thing, I'd like to see it have a heavily armored large caliber challenger.

The higher damage and super slow reload are more reflective of how the IS-2 performed in real life.

Would be interesting to see it return to this. I would be fine with the next balance preview offering it to be tested out. A unique flair when compared to the other heavies.

Dude the IS2 already has long reload and big damage in COH2. Can you stop posting this stuff now. This is thread is about the KT and not whether or not the IS2 in COH2 is "realistic".

high damage IS-2 has been tested:

IS-2

Heavy armor saw an increase in performance to better highlight its tech placement. When a player transitions from light to medium armor, there is a very clear differentiation in the power of medium vehicles vs. light. This change better highlights the transition from medium to heavy while still retaining the role of medium vehicles in the late game. Lower rear armor maintains the value of flanking while increased combat potential better addresses the tech level of the vehicle. The IS-2’s anti-infantry capabilities have been reduced and compensated with increased anti-armor.
Armor from 325 to 340
Rear armor from 225 to 205
Penetration from 170 to 220
Damage from 240 to 160
Reload from 9 to 6.2-6.6
Distance scatter max from 2.86 to 5.7
Manpower from 760 to 640
Fuel from 240 to 230

I did mean is2. Why should it get stronger front armor and the back armor is better than p4 pen? On vetted, it gains good abilities.

isu is another issue nowadays.

Same issue i said before, axis armor too strong, so nerf their rear to reward flanking. Yet IS, KV and Churchills are now the strongest armor tanks.

Wehrboos besides lack 60 range TD wall, their P4 is weakest pen values. E8, T3485. Even speedy cromwell, 0.75 accuracy shermans, works to flank better than P4.

It even has slightly improved mid AOE now (in the final patch) compared to the performance in the video (in the preview mod).

the way it can rotate like a t70 and move its turret so fast lol just crazy. a fire fly cant do none of that

the way it can rotate like a t70 and move its turret so fast lol just crazy. a fire fly cant do none of that

In the video I have enabled mobility cheats, that's why it moves and turns so fast.

high damage IS-2 has been tested:

IS-2

Heavy armor saw an increase in performance to better highlight its tech placement. When a player transitions from light to medium armor, there is a very clear differentiation in the power of medium vehicles vs. light. This change better highlights the transition from medium to heavy while still retaining the role of medium vehicles in the late game. Lower rear armor maintains the value of flanking while increased combat potential better addresses the tech level of the vehicle. The IS-2’s anti-infantry capabilities have been reduced and compensated with increased anti-armor.
Armor from 325 to 340
Rear armor from 225 to 205
Penetration from 170 to 220
Damage from 240 to 160
Reload from 9 to 6.2-6.6
Distance scatter max from 2.86 to 5.7
Manpower from 760 to 640
Fuel from 240 to 230

Its pen played a bigger role than anything in making the low ROF unsustainable.
It was an odd duck back then, able to nuke infantry every 10 seconds but could lose a duel with a p4 due to its pen. If I recall that was before range dependant pen as well eh? (damn this game has come a long way) so it could be tried again and better tuned now that it's aoe has been made more balanced and heavies are not unlimited and now tied to tech.

Not sure its necessary at all to do so but the game has changed so much since then that it didn't work then doesn't mean it wont work now.

Its pen played a bigger role than anything in making the low ROF unsustainable.
It was an odd duck back then, able to nuke infantry every 10 seconds but could lose a duel with a p4 due to its pen. If I recall that was before range dependant pen as well eh? (damn this game has come a long way) so it could be tried again and better tuned now that it's aoe has been made more balanced and heavies are not unlimited and now tied to tech.

Not sure its necessary at all to do so but the game has changed so much since then that it didn't work then doesn't mean it wont work now.

That is true, on other hand that would mean one would have to use the IS-2 with hold fire and move, fire, backpedal for 9 seconds, rinse and repeat and a doubt that would something player would like.

Anyway this thread is about KT and not IS-2. The KT seems a bit expensive compared to other Super heavies that currently seem to be used allot, since it has both a higher tech cost and higher price. It only advantage seems to it does not take a slot.

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.

Sorry, but too much of the game is very different than real life, and it would be extremely difficult to rebalance at this point. For example:

The Pack howie, M8 Scott, and SU-76 had operational firing ranges that were about 70-80& of a LEFH. Would you really want their barrage to have 120 range? Their shells only hit about 1/4 as hard so either their damage would go down or the LEFH would go up. Then would would you do to the ML20?

Open top TD's like the M10 and M36 were highly vulnerable to infantry small arms, grenades, and mortars. Would you want to have to return to base every time a mortar hit your M36 and pick up a new captain, gunner, and loader? I bet the real-life M10 never crushed a single Wehr soldier.

Hull-down was used for tanks only, and wouldn't have increased range, it would have simply decreased target size and anything mounted in the hull wouldn't be able to shoot. It basically turned a tank into a pillbox.

The game is fun as-is. If you want something that is more like a simulation then try Steel Division, which is a lot more accurate but not as much fun.

I haven't tried the new KT yet so don't really have an opinion. I watched replays of a couple of games that I was in where people were complaining about 2-hit wipes by KT's. Nothing really seemed that bad when I watched the replays. Other vehicles like the ISU are also pretty good at getting 2-hit wipes.

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

It's Pz4 that needs a nerf, not heavies that need a buff. Pz4s wiping half squads in one shot every 3 shots is ridiculous.

It's Pz4 that needs a nerf, not heavies that need a buff. Pz4s wiping half squads in one shot every 3 shots is ridiculous.

......... p4 has worse AI then sherman tho

I did mean is2. Why should it get stronger front armor and the back armor is better than p4 pen? On vetted, it gains good abilities.

because it has more front armor pen and rear armor than the tiger realistically speaking... and is balanced ingame by being the slowest and least maneuverable of the heavy tank triad

isu is another issue nowadays.

as much of an issue as the jagdtiger and elefant on teamgames really...

Same issue i said before, axis armor too strong, so nerf their rear to reward flanking. Yet IS, KV and Churchills are now the strongest armor tanks.

the two tanks youve stated dont have the best front armor either... and afaik the tiger has more rear armor than these two tanks... if you think the panther should have more rear armor than a KV or a churchill then not only are you a noob at this game but also a noob at history

Wehrboos besides lack 60 range TD wall, their P4 is weakest pen values. E8, T3485. Even speedy cromwell, 0.75 accuracy shermans, works to flank better than P4.

if you cant win with a panther then you need to l2p