Login

russian armor

Can You Please Fix Churchill Crocs Rear Armor ?

12 Oct 2019, 15:26 PM
#1
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 556

The unit currently is meant to be countered by tanks yet its absurd HP prevents it from being purely countered with tanks so you need "volume of fire" as Katitof said (Which means Pschrecks Paks) but let alone flamethrower kills the volume of fire part since it is anti infantry. Armor and HP makes up for the tanks. So we are left with a unit almost uncounterable.

Those are my inspections from my last game where a single croc carried the brit from ultimate disaster.
12 Oct 2019, 15:33 PM
#2
avatar of Freestyler1992

Posts: 88

Hm, it is a very expensive unit. But I can see your point. Reducing its rear armor could be done, but then it's cost should be lowered slightly.
12 Oct 2019, 15:35 PM
#3
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 556

Hm, it is a very expensive unit. But I can see your point. Reducing its rear armor could be done, but then it's cost should be lowered slightly.


I am all in for that. Last game I managed to take 2 Pschreck shots to its rear + 1 Panther shot yet it bounced them all at once and I was like shocked pikachu.
12 Oct 2019, 15:48 PM
#4
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

Of course.
Not just Churchills, but also IS and KV tanks.
Even the Comets and Pershing have better rear armor than Panther.

Allies have stronger TD, 60 range + great AT vet bonus.

This problem i have identified many times.
Allies armor is simply more effective, the later the game gets. The cost and pop costs.

I just had a 3v3 and Ukf just keep spam Churchill, ATG and Commando and Land mattress.
12 Oct 2019, 15:49 PM
#5
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

4 paks and just keep stunning it.
12 Oct 2019, 15:49 PM
#6
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 556

4 paks and just keep stunning it.


:snfPeter::snfPeter::snfPeter:
12 Oct 2019, 15:51 PM
#7
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 556

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2019, 15:48 PMmrgame2
Of course.
Not just Churchills, but also IS and KV tanks.
Even the Comets and Pershing have better rear armor than Panther.

Allies have stronger TD, 60 range + great AT vet bonus.

This problem i have identified many times.
Allies armor is simply more effective, the later the game gets. The cost and pop costs.

I just had a 3v3 and Ukf just keep spam Churchill, ATG and Commando and Land mattress.


Well axis armor and handheld at also has more pen so other allied armor is not a problem but croc can counter all with ease thats why it needs a nerf not others.
12 Oct 2019, 16:16 PM
#8
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818

The churhchill croc has 180 rear armor

Panther has 220 Penetration far
Shreks have 160 pen far and 180 pen close.

It's impossible to bounce a rear armor panther shot and shreks bouncing are quite unlucky. Are you sure you hit the rear armor?

That said it is slightly more Rear armor than say the tiger and IS2 both at 140, or the King tiger at 150. It is the same as other churchill variants at 180.
12 Oct 2019, 16:32 PM
#10
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 556

The churhchill croc has 180 rear armor

Panther has 220 Penetration far
Shreks have 160 pen far and 180 pen close.

It's impossible to bounce a rear armor panther shot and shreks bouncing are quite unlucky. Are you sure you hit the rear armor?

That said it is slightly more Rear armor than say the tiger and IS2 both at 140, or the King tiger at 150. It is the same as other churchill variants at 180.


I am %100 sure i hit the rear armor.

Edit : But ingame rear armor and front armor shots are quite buggy tho maybe thats the reason. But there is no point of that much HP and armor on a flamethrowing tank that can change to main gun instantly.
12 Oct 2019, 16:39 PM
#11
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2019, 16:32 PMJilet


I am %100 sure i hit the rear armor.

Edit : But ingame rear armor and front armor shots are quite buggy tho maybe thats the reason. But there is no point of that much HP and armor on a flamethrowing tank that can change to main gun instantly.


1) It doesn't "change" to main gun, main gun and flamethrower are 2 completely different weapons, flamer is on hull, gun is separate.

2) It has less durability then tiger, same health, less frontal armor.

3) It costs as much as tiger and it needs to live up to that cost, it obviously doesn't have fast reloading 45 range, 200+ pen main gun nor does it have good mobility, so yes, there is a point to that much hp and armor on a flamethrowing tank.
12 Oct 2019, 17:15 PM
#12
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 556

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2019, 16:39 PMKatitof


1) It doesn't "change" to main gun, main gun and flamethrower are 2 completely different weapons, flamer is on hull, gun is separate.

2) It has less durability then tiger, same health, less frontal armor.

3) It costs as much as tiger and it needs to live up to that cost, it obviously doesn't have fast reloading 45 range, 200+ pen main gun nor does it have good mobility, so yes, there is a point to that much hp and armor on a flamethrowing tank.


So a "counter all" but don't be countered unit is well justified then ?
12 Oct 2019, 17:24 PM
#13
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

The issue is practical.
For ages, many have called out axis strong armor, and so they got nerfed in the rear. Besides that, allies are given 60TD with strong vet bonus.

I wonder why are allies heavy armor tanks still holding to stronger rear, all round armor.
12 Oct 2019, 17:27 PM
#14
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2019, 17:15 PMJilet


So a "counter all" but don't be countered unit is well justified then ?


If your army is 100% infantry focused and you never get anything more potent then P4 for AT, yes.
12 Oct 2019, 18:13 PM
#15
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2019, 16:16 PMCODGUY
Oh no you found another Allied unit that Wehrmacht and OKW can't mop the floor with, get out the nerf hammer!


It's normalization, not a nerf random nerf. The June 21st 2016 patch had this specific section:

Developer Comments: We felt the risk associated with flanking a Heavy Armored Vehicle was much too great because of the high rear armor. To help balance this risk vs reward we are reducing rear armor on all heavy armor across the board.

Soviet IS-2 rear armor reduced from 205 to 140
Wehrmacht Tiger & Tiger Ace rear armored reduced from 180 to 140
Wehrmacht Elefant rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW Jagdtiger rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW King Tiger rear armor reduced from 225 to 150
British Comet Tank rear armor reduced from 180 to 130


For some reason the Churchill was missed, and still sits at 180 rear armor - significantly higher than any other heavy, both in terms of raw value, and in terms of front:rear armor ratio.
12 Oct 2019, 18:24 PM
#16
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 888



It's normalization, not a nerf random nerf. The June 21st 2016 patch had this specific section:



For some reason the Churchill was missed, and still sits at 180 rear armor - significantly higher than any other heavy, both in terms of raw value, and in terms of front:rear armor ratio.


Well it doesn't matter if it happens to have the highest rear armor of any other tank that's irrelevant. What does matter is how much more does it have than the next highest tank and what is that?
12 Oct 2019, 18:26 PM
#17
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2019, 18:24 PMCODGUY
Well it doesn't matter if it happens to have the highest rear armor of any other tank that's irrelevant. What does matter is how much more does it have than the next highest tank and what is that?


What? Yes, the value does matter. Tanks were brought down from exactly 180 rear armor (and higher) because it was making flanking too unrewarding. That +40 rear armor over other heavies might not seem like a lot, but it actually is, since a TON of AT sources sit between 140 and 180 pen.
12 Oct 2019, 18:28 PM
#18
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

Why not nerf the main gun damage and its flame dots? If there is a reason for its armor then nerf other aspect of the unit
12 Oct 2019, 18:31 PM
#19
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



What? Yes, the value does matter. Tanks were brought down from exactly 180 rear armor (and higher) because it was making flanking too unrewarding. That +40 rear armor over other heavies might not seem like a lot, but it actually is, since a TON of AT sources sit between 140 and 180 pen.

And all of the tanks that got this treatment had very potent main guns that never bounced off of mediums.

Why not nerf the main gun damage and its flame dots? If there is a reason for its armor then nerf other aspect of the unit

Go read up on patch notes.
Flamer was nerfed so hard in the past that main gun had to have its damage buffed to keep it at current cost.
12 Oct 2019, 18:34 PM
#20
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2019, 18:31 PMKatitof

And all of the tanks that got this treatment had very potent main guns that never bounced off of mediums.


They're also all doc-locked and significantly more expensive units, too; of course they're going to be more powerful. It doesn't excuse the churchill sitting far above the curve.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

600 users are online: 600 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49065
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM