Can You Please Fix Churchill Crocs Rear Armor ?
Posts: 556
Those are my inspections from my last game where a single croc carried the brit from ultimate disaster.
Posts: 88
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.
Posts: 1794
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.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 556
Posts: 556
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.
Posts: 818
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.
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.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 556
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 ?
Posts: 1794
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.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 960
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.
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?
Posts: 960
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.
Posts: 2358
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.
Posts: 960
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.
Livestreams
84 | |||||
36 | |||||
27 | |||||
12 | |||||
6 | |||||
5 | |||||
176 | |||||
13 | |||||
10 | |||||
3 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.839223.790+2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.592234.717-1
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.922406.694+1
- 9.1122623.643+3
- 10.265138.658+2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Baqis73421
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM