It surprised me too.
I guess it's partly because the Churchill has decent scatter. I forgot how it works exactly, but the Churchill's vertical scatter is 6, while most generalist tanks have around 6,5-7,5. Besides that it has a scatter offset of 0,3, which means the scatter area is displaced 30% further, while most generalist tanks have a scatter offset of only 0,25.
It also depends how the scatter values are calculated, so basically if the game just takes a random number in between the scatter boundaries (so each spot in the possible scatter area gets hit with equal probability) or if there is a normalized distribution around the center. We (or at least I) don't know enough about scatter to be able to calculate it |
It's more than somewhat flawed, to the point the results are close to useless.
In my ingame test the shots that hit & bounced the Stug were 30,88%, which is reasonably close to the 29,17% the Churchill statistically has to bounce it. -> Good!
Meanwhile, 15% of the ingame shots missed, which is far better than the 57,5% chance to miss without accounting for scatter would suggest. -> Bad!
I think we can agree in this case my small sample size gives far more accurate results than comparing the two statistically while ignoring scatter as a factor.
Indeed, the good measurement accurary on the pen chances suggests that the real miss and scatter-hit chances are fairly accurate as well.
While the test will always work out in favor of the Churchill (since StuG always hits), I did not think that it would be that severe, especially since the StuGs model is not that big. |
You can't simply correct if for accuracy, because each shot that misses becomes a scatter shot which has a decent chance to hit (Churchill has slightly below average scatter). Best way to know the shots to kill is to let them face each other off sufficient times in cheatcommands on the test range map, making one of the two invincible each time.
I thibk it should be clear that the theoretical calculation does not account for scatter and is therefore somewhat flawed, but it is a way better and more comparable model thean just crying 'XYZ OP!'.
Testing is better if you have a sufficient sample size, and the theoretical calculation can give you an idea of how big your sample size needs to be to get reliable results. |
Why do u calc with the far range accu? Why not mid and near? this church istn buid for staying all the time at far range and wait to killed by stug. mostly it is easy to come in close range with it....unless you are not bad at playing.
What about you do the calculation yourself before you shitpost on stuff that you apparently don't know much about? It's not hard to do the math on that.
Also if a Churchill is able to overrun any of your tanks then maybe, just maybe, there are more serious problems problems than an assumingly OP Churchill. |
??? the stug needs 4 shoot to die and only has 140 armor the Churchill has 1400 hp that's 9 shoots and only if they all pen
btw it's not that vulnerable to snare thanks to its vet 3 and having such an absurd Health pool as the tank need be below 75% of it's health to get snared so 1050 (2 shells are need to pen before u can snare it)
Some clarification: 13 shots corrected for accuracy and pen chance at the units max range.
Stug only needs 4 shots to die, but Churchill has horrible accuracy against a Stug and will miss at least half of its shots, while Stug will always hit the Churchill.
This leads, due to the Churchills unique design, to the funny situation that the most cost effective counter to the Churchill heavy tank is the lighter version of the tank destroyers.the Churchills design makes it a breakthrough unit that is meant to drive almost literally into the enemy defense where it has a high risk the get overrun by snare-infantry.
To the general discussion:
I think the price of the first Churchill is fine (you basically buy the side tech for the Churchill and sappers that are desperately needed if you have to repair a Churchill), but the tank might be too easily replacable. Just a thought. |
|
The thing is that the Churchill is hard to compare, as there is no other unit in the game that has the same concept. The Churchill is not a very potent fighter, its just made to soak so much damage until it gets so close that you NEED to deal with it.
On the other hand, it's super vulnerable to snares, as it can't really run away from enemy infantry and does not pack the firepower to deter an enemy squad before they can snare. And then it's just a sitting duck with speed slightly above a recrewed abandoned tank.
Compared to the Cromwell, you trade 150 MP, 50 FU and rate of fire (plus partial side-tech cost) for a shit ton health and decent armor.
But to be fair, a StuGIII can pen the Churchill with 70% chance at range 50, they both need on average 13 shots to kill each other. So StuGs and also JP4s are very decent counters if you're able to set up an elastic defense. |
|
OKW:
Jäger Light infantry / alternatively overwatch flares + goliath
Valiant Assault
Infiltration nades
HEAT rounds
command panther |
that they have snares, and the fact that mines (that were not part of the discussion) don't snares don't make them worse at snaring vehicles
both side have equal tools, and the smoke nades even slow tanks for usf (Enemy vehicle will have 0 sight and -50% speed for 8 seconds. This will last even when the vehicle backs out of the smoke.)
Yes, I do agree with you on that, but I also never said that USF did not have snares. I even said they had the best options apart from Soviet cons.
But I think mines should be a part of the discussion as well. Snares are there that your units can not get overrun by enemy tanks so that your AT gun and TDs can finish the enemy tank off. Mines do the same stuff, more unreliably but do not require as much micro after placement. So the availability of mines to a faction does have an influence on the interaction with enemy tanks (extreme example: a faction that could place engine-critting mines for 5-10 mun might seriously not need a infantry based snare, since it could just spam mines across the whole map).
Does USF smoke really slow vehicles? I did not know that. But this is only the case for USF, isn't it? |
mmmhhh do u play the game or only usf ? ukf okw and soviet miens are all the same they all deal the same damage and snare..... only usf has light mines but they have other tools and the doc mines, btw cons are better in my opinion for snare but rifle man get zook with snare
I don't get your point. This is is exactly what I wrote.
Cons are better to snare (I also already wrote this is my post), but Soviet builds usually favor T1 even despite the current patch so you often don't face cons. Riflemen, hated or not, are still the backbone for most USF builds (and I know that there are viable assault pio and pathfinder builds). In a normal game, you have (as I already wrote) 3-4 Riflemen out, which are apart from a Soviet con build more units with snare than any other normal Allied build.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, since basically I already covered most of what you commented on. Please elaborate on that. |
|
Regardless of balance implications etc, to say that Allies have more snares than Axis is either misleading or just plain wrong. What counts is not the number of different unit types that can snare, but the number of units that is on the field at a given time. Technically, UKF always had a infantry available snare (sniper), but this is not equal to 4 Volks running around the field with a faust.
Axis usually have better snare availability since their mainline can use snares after normal teching (Volks) or from the get go (Grenadiers). There is only one viable Ostheer build where you don't have snares, and that is Assault Grenadiere into Panzergrenadiere. In a normal game (at least at my skill level), there are 4-5 Volks or 3-4 Grenadiere running around for the whole match.
Allies have a more limited snare availability. Only standard USF and Soviet T2 Conscript builds after vet/side-tech have widely avaiable snares with about 3-4 Riflemen/Cons. Soviet T1 build usually don't have that many upgraded Penal squads (I'd say 1-2 from what I have seen, as you usually try to avoid upgrading your Penals. Also, you trade range for damage which can give high rewards, but also enables the Axis tanks to move more freely), UKF for the most part have 1-2 engineer squads on the field. Only cons can generate a very high snare-threat in combination with Ooohra.
Additionally, both Axis factions have access to engine-critting mines. USF, the Allied faction with the best snare availability, has only light mines that don't crit the engine.
So all in all, Axis have the better toolbox(es) to snare a vehicle. If this might be necessary or not due to a usually more aggressive LV play by Allies is actually the more important point, not how many different types of units could theoretically snare or not. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
