0.7.9.Z.9 Patch Notes

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Yes

No they dont, stuh has 45 range while the cromm has 40
Stuh has a worse moving acc(useless i know) than the 95cromm
cromm has a half a second on average lower reload with 6,5-7,5 while stuh has 7-8
and finally aside from some minor supression crap the target tables are clearly in the 95s favor (loving that the cromwell is better against allied tanks than the stuh is)

This ofcourse relies on me readin the correct guns and crap but im quite sertain i am.
Didnt bother finding the sherman HE so ye.

[nikomas]

I bet a lot of people are firing the 95 crom while moving and somehow expect moving firing penalties not to apply, but feel free to prove me wrong.

[aeroblade56]

I bet a lot of people are firing the 95 crom while moving and somehow expect moving firing penalties not to apply, but feel free to prove me wrong.

ofc ppl use it while moving dafuq is the turret for if you can circle stuff?.

[nikomas]

ofc ppl use it while moving dafuq is the turret for if you can circle stuff?.

So you never stop to fire when using regular tanks, you always fire on the move, just because they have turrets?

[XIIcorps]

So you never stop to fire when using regular tanks, you always fire on the move, just because they have turrets?

ahem British tank doctrine was to fire on the move, dont be hating on aeros hes just following orders.

Give all brutish tanks better acc firing on the move! Problem solved

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Woops wrong thread

Anyways the patch overall seems good exept that the mirroring of the tiger and the persh seems is kinda repetitive.

[nikomas]

ahem British tank doctrine was to fire on the move, dont be hating on aeros hes just following orders.

Give all brutish tanks better acc firing on the move! Problem solved

So british tank doctrine was pretty shit then is what you're saying? If he wants to follow orders then he can have just as much fun as the real tankers had when they were firing on the move.

(Hint, it got a lot of crews killed)

[Hicks58]

I just want to clear up some personal confusion about the matching Pershing accuracy buff.  I definitely don't read RGDs as well as a lot of folks on here but the overall argument for a while now is that Tiger is considered mediocre and how we want to fix that.  Hicks has gone ahead addressed this in several ways.  Increases repair kit healing capabilities so that Tigers are able to maintain field presence seems like a good idea.  The 2nd is to buff accuracy against inf - bringing overall accuracy at standing to 63-64% at long range (40) and 85% at shorter ranges. Ok.

Now I will throw out the premise that there are a number of tank guns considered pretty good AI main tank guns.  We have a P4 75mm, the Sherman 75mm (76mm not quite as good), Cromwell 75mm.  All are very similar to each other vs inf.  Similar splash, similar damage, similar moving accuracy penalties, similar accuracy at long range (Crom has the worst accuracy at 48-49% but can buffed by a CCT for greater range, RoF).  RoF in ascending order Sherman --> P4 --> Cromwell.    

So what makes these guns different than the old Tiger 88 and Pershing 90mm against inf?  If anything it should be argued Tiger and Pershing guns are better right? Same .75 long range accuracy, same 0.75 accuracy vs inf armor types, same 40 range.  Better damage and splash.  Slower RoF than the P4 and Cromwell but the same as the Sherman.  (Edit - I was incorrect Tiger 88 and Pershing 90 have significantly worse moving accuracy)

Therefore the issues probably stem from the Tiger platform itself?  Slow speed, poor turret rotation, poor acceleration, large fuel muni mp cost.  We can see how effective the Tiger becomes with better speed, turret rotation, acceleration with the Tiger Ace.  However, baseline Tiger can't kite handheld AT as effectively as a P4, Sherman, Cromwell, Pershing because of its low speed. It looks like the accuracy vs inf was buffed since it's difficult to hit infantry at ranges shorter than long range because infantry can more effectively run away or the Tiger has to expose itself longer than other tanks to take shorter range shots.      

Why did Pershing's accuracy need to also be mirrored buffed when it already has the close to medium tank stats in terms of speed, turret rotation and acceleration that make Shermans, Cromwells, P4 effective AI platforms?

A well constructed and thought out response Ugly, thank you for taking the time to do so.

Most other people here were simply throwing around the usual "Why are you mirror balancing?" or bogus exaggerations rather than trying to put forward any kind of reasoning behind it.

Considering you've taken the time to put forward you're perspective in detail I shall let you know mine, and as to why the Pershing seemingly got the accuracy buff out of nowhere.

The Pershing and Tiger are 545/550 FU investments. For pure cost efficiency in either AI or AT roles, 2 upgunned Shermans or 2 skirted PzIV's are going to perform better than either single choice, whilst being a roughly equal investment. The pairs will out last either heavy in the long run with the potential for just one of them to end up as cost efficient as it's heavy cousin in capable hands and good circumstances.

They also have a disposable advantage. You can ram a 220/260 FU medium down an enemy's throat, destroy your intended target and still have potentially another 4 to play with (Or other assorted armour of your choice). You can't do this with a Pershing/Tiger. The tank MUST be used carefully and with support so long as heavy/long range AT assets exist. If you don't then half your FU just went down the shitter.

Super heavies also have the advantage that they either have enough health or armour that you can confidently ram it down your enemy's throat and expect it to get the job done whilst coming out alive. Standard heavies do not have this luxury. For all the health and armour they have, they are actually fragile pieces in the context of EiRR, where heavy AT is abundant.

So what does this mean for the Pershing/Tiger? It means you should be getting better performance out of a better tank. You're making a bigger investment, taking a bigger risk, and should have a potential for a bigger reward. As it stood, you had the bigger investment and risk, but a near equal reward as taking the alternative. Therefore, they were both brought up to have a potential for a bigger reward, in a way that both tanks were identical in the first place - Their accuracy.

A fair few of you may not agree with this logic, but this is the logic that was applied in making the decision. If the Pershing turns out to be too big of a problem with the accuracy buff then I will accept that a mistake has been made and it'll be reverted.

[tank130]

What confuses me is: There was a problem with the Tiger and a large number of the community brought forward that problem.

You have addressed the issues with the Tiger in an excellent way IMO.

The part that confuses me is there has not been a problem with the Pershing, no one asked for any significant changes, but as you have stated - out of the blue it gets buffed against infantry.

Used in the right hands, a Pershing has no real problem with infantry. The pershing is a fast and relatively nimble unit for a heavy tank and it is only fighting 3 or 4 man squads.

The pershing is also very good against Armor. Why are we making it great at both?

[aeroblade56]

What confuses me is: There was a problem with the Tiger and a large number of the community brought forward that problem.

You have addressed the issues with the Tiger in an excellent way IMO.

The part that confuses me is there has not been a problem with the Pershing, no one asked for any significant changes, but as you have stated - out of the blue it gets buffed against infantry.

Used in the right hands, a Pershing has no real problem with infantry. The pershing is a fast and relatively nimble unit for a heavy tank and it is only fighting 3 or 4 man squads.

The pershing is also very good against Armor. Why are we making it great at both?

I'm not super stats guy but saying the pershing is great vs armor is deffirent.

the tiger already does it's job vs penning tanks maybe not because it has the greatest of pen or what not but because Allied armor is generaly weaker than the axis. a tiger has the ability to consistently pen, m10's hellcats, sherman's, cromwell's, comet's, firefly's churchills and yes even the pershing armor.

The only problem it might have penning is vs a super pershing or something. the pershing does effectively take on p4s, stugs ,hetzers and is about a 50% chance to pen a panther ( it's probably better or worse).

But can it fight a jagdpanther or jagdtiger or maus or a kingtiger or a tiger ace? or a elefant. maybe in the right hands circling it could but for the most part no and there is alot of theory crafting that doesnt need to be said.


I think the tiger does need a increase in speed\ maneuverability.

On another note, i think bombing run might need a look at.

[XIIcorps]

Played a few games with dual tigers. And it still feels far worse then the pershing.
I know a unit needs to have flaws and drawbacks, the tiger has this with its speed and turret rotation.

The pershing on the otherhand for all intents and purposes is a medium tank that plays like a heavy.

Perhaps the tiger could use some sort of non doctrinal tank shock to curb the AB hordes

[Hicks58]

What confuses me is: There was a problem with the Tiger and a large number of the community brought forward that problem.

You have addressed the issues with the Tiger in an excellent way IMO.

The part that confuses me is there has not been a problem with the Pershing, no one asked for any significant changes, but as you have stated - out of the blue it gets buffed against infantry.

Used in the right hands, a Pershing has no real problem with infantry. The pershing is a fast and relatively nimble unit for a heavy tank and it is only fighting 3 or 4 man squads.

The pershing is also very good against Armor. Why are we making it great at both?

These are the kinds of posts I'm not too fond of. Not the phrasing, but the facts invoked. Ugly took his time to research each point.

Used in the right hands, a Pershing has no real problem with infantry. The pershing is a fast and relatively nimble unit for a heavy tank and it is only fighting 3 or 4 man squads.

Lets say you take a shot at a squad with a Pershing. 4 Man squad with 80hp per man (Grenadiers). Direct hit will kill a guy, medium splash leaves 31.825 health, long range splash gives 52.5 left over. Short range will hit the guy directly, medium will hit any adjacent and long will hit any further than that (Assuming standard squad formation in the open). You're looking at 2-3 rounds to kill the squad depending on which man is aimed for first, and how lucky you are on accuracy rolls for splash/criticals at yellow health.

Now lets take a shot at a squad with the Tiger. 6 Man squad with 55hp (Riflemen) per man. Guy hit directly goes splat, medium range guys go down to 6.9 health and long range splash guys go to 27.5 health. Again, 2-3 rounds to kill the squad depending on which man is aimed for first and your luck with splash accuracy/criticals at yellow health.

The point of all that? It doesn't matter that Allied squads are 5-6 and Axis squads are 4-5. The health is arranged in such a way that it takes a roughly equal amount of shells from either side to kill off an entire squad, for the Tiger and Pershing it's 2-3 rounds (3-4 for either sides larger squads/elite inf) to make a squad with standard spacing go splat depending on who in the squad it aims at. If the squads bunch up? You'll one shot half to all the squad, Tiger or Pershing. Accuracy for splash when firing at long range comes into play but it affects both tanks equally.

It seriously annoys me when people invoke the squad size argument when they clearly haven't looked into how the health of squads is arranged and how splash works.

The pershing is also very good against Armor. Why are we making it great at both?

The Tiger's gun is fundamentally better against Allied armour for penetration than the Pershing can ever hope to be vs axis. There are two targets (Not inc reward units) that the Tiger "Struggles" with (And only truly struggles with Jumbo...) and that is Pershing and Jumbo armour. Pershing armour isn't even that much of a struggle due to the 0.7 penetration when the Pershing has 0.5 penetration back at the Tiger. A slugging contest between a Pershing/Tiger will have it end VERY badly for the Pershing unless you've invoked some seriously good luck that day.

On the other hand? The Pershing struggles with StuG (At range), Panther, Tiger, KT, Hetzer and JP armour (Not inc reward units). The Pershing is only "Very good" against armour if you're opponent is running a PzIV company.

[tank130]

These are the kinds of posts I'm not too fond of. Not the phrasing, but the facts invoked. Ugly took his time to research each point.

Fair enough - It is unfortunate that it annoys you, but frankly, I don't give a shit. Not everyone who plays this game is going to spend countless hours memorizing or learning to "corsix" just to have a conversation with you.

In my opinion, you still have not answered why the Pershing received a buff that has never been requested and never really discussed in the community. it appears that in your efforts to correct the Tiger, that you some how felt it was necessary to mirror balance the Pershing to it.

A person whom I highly respect said this in regards to the two units:

The Pershing and Tiger are in essentials, the same unit. The Tiger has durability, the Pershing has a bit more speed. Take away these two facts and they are pretty much identical.

These two units are used against different units and used in a completely different play style. Buffing one because the other got a buff does not sound correct to me.

I respect the numbers you present to quantify your answer. But you buffed a unit that clearly (IMO) did not require a buff. The unit was doing just fine with out it.


Edit:
ps - fix the T57 before I have a fucking nervous break down....lol

[tank130]

But can it fight a jagdpanther or jagdtiger or maus or a kingtiger or a tiger ace? or a elefant. maybe in the right hands circling it could but for the most part no and there is alot of theory crafting that doesnt need to be said.

If you are using a heavy to take on super heavies...... you are doing it wrong.

[aeroblade56]

If you are using a heavy to take on super heavies...... you are doing it wrong.

Maybe so but that wasnt the point.

The point was the units the tiger/pershing face.  the allies have no super heavy aside from SP (if its a Sh) in which case the tiger performs its AT role just fine. as compared to a pershing that can be facing those potential units.

[clonetroopers]

Perhaps the tiger could use some sort of non doctrinal tank shock to curb the AB hordes

+1

AB hordes are god awfully annoying. To stop blobing maybe you could make it that same units types from the same player in a certain radius to one another revive more accuracy, damage, or something of the sort.
I know that Tommy and FatalSaint did that to snipers in Elite mod.

[nikomas]

The Tiger's gun is fundamentally better against Allied armour for penetration than the Pershing can ever hope to be vs axis. There are two targets (Not inc reward units) that the Tiger "Struggles" with (And only truly struggles with Jumbo...) and that is Pershing and Jumbo armour. Pershing armour isn't even that much of a struggle due to the 0.7 penetration when the Pershing has 0.5 penetration back at the Tiger. A slugging contest between a Pershing/Tiger will have it end VERY badly for the Pershing unless you've invoked some seriously good luck that day.

On the other hand? The Pershing struggles with StuG (At range), Panther, Tiger, KT, Hetzer and JP armour (Not inc reward units). The Pershing is only "Very good" against armour if you're opponent is running a PzIV company.

I have a few issues with this comparison to be honest.

- While you mentioned the speed/health difference before I can't help to feel that you're neglecting the mobility advantage the Pershing does enjoy over the tiger when comparing the weapon stats. Speed is one of the most important characteristics in the game when it comes to tank survivability. If we're talking AI ability here then while the tiger does enjoy a health the Pershing with superior maneuverability is much better suited to kiting infantry. Much for the same reason the idea of a Pershing standing up to a tiger in a 1-on-1 fight is not a realistic expectation anyone should have given it's entierly up to the Pershing if such a fight happens. The Pershing is also able to give chase while the Tiger is very likely to be unable to keep up with it.

- While it's true that on paper the Pershing does have sub-par penetration rates on heavy enemy targets compared to proper tank destroyers that's to be expected when you think about it. Pretty much all of the listed units are either dedicated tank destroyers (Panther, Hetzer, JP) or slow, heavy duty tanks (Tiger, KT) that the Pershing can either engage at will or avoid entirely and leave them to proper tank destroyers, all but the hetzer also comes at a similar or even higher price than the Pershing itself. The Tiger suffers much the same, if not worse against allied tank destroyers as they can quite literally dance around the tiger (M10) or kill it from a range were it cannot return effective fire (Hellcat, Firefly).

- Combined the above two lead to a very different threat environment for both the Pershing and the Tiger. The Tiger simply does not have a say in the matter when an allied tank destroyer decides to engage it since every single allied tank destroyer in the game is superior to the Tiger in either speed, range or both. The Pershing with it's superior maneuverability has a bit more leeway here as the only axis tank that can effectively hunt it down would be the panther. The panther (Post AI nerf) is a dedicated tank-hunter and the Pershing seems quite well off beating it when you think along the lines of "Generalist Vs. Specialist".

Simply put, while I'm not the best with words it's hard for me to see how the Pershing should be equal to the tiger in shooting things be it enemy vehicles or infantry when it can better pick fights. I left out light vehicles (LV/Clown) as while they are effective counters they require a pop-heavy swarm to seriously endanger either of the two heavies while at fighting strength, not to mention proper support as anyone using a heavy should have would wreck them.

[nikomas]

Since I cannot seem to edit my own posts here...

Maybe so but that wasnt the point.

The point was the units the tiger/pershing face.  the allies have no super heavy aside from SP (if its a Sh) in which case the tiger performs its AT role just fine. as compared to a pershing that can be facing those potential units.

Yeah, all the tiger has to face is the fact that just about every single allied tank destroyer is both faster and can shoot further than it can. Sure the Pershing has a lot of threats but the tiger is likely to face just as many in any single game.

[aeroblade56]

Since I cannot seem to edit my own posts here...
Yeah, all the tiger has to face is the fact that just about every single allied tank destroyer is both faster and can shoot further than it can. Sure the Pershing has a lot of threats but the tiger is likely to face just as many in any single game.

Maybe so, What is the pen of the m10 vs the tiger at long medium and close range?.

[XIIcorps]

Tbh the pershings biggest threat comes from stormies or clowncars.
the tigers on the otherhand is pretty well any mobile form of AT or HHAT.