Login

russian armor

KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage

PAGES (19)down
21 May 2019, 09:34 AM
#41
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 09:26 AMVipper
And that does not justify having more rear armor than they do while having less frontal armor.

How exactly? All of those tanks have significantly better guns or frontal armor to protect themselves. If the Churchill was easily destroyed by a cheap flanking medium tank, no one would ever build it. Its survivability is literally all it has, compared to the doctrinal heavy tanks who all have significantly better offensive capabilities.


jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 09:26 AMVipper
Your claim that because a tank is label "heavy" it should win over a "medium" is simply flawed. Heavy tanks simpy not "hard" counters to mediums tanks.

Given the fact that the generalist heavy tanks KV-1 and Churchill will confidently win in the majority of fights versus the generalist medium tank P4J that costs approximately the same I'd say my point is pretty much proven, but yeah whatever I'm sure it's "simply flawed" for unknown reasons.
21 May 2019, 09:47 AM
#42
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1


How exactly? All of those tanks have significantly better guns or frontal armor to protect themselves. If the Churchill was easily destroyed by a cheap flanking medium tank, no one would ever build it. Its survivability is literally all it has, compared to the doctrinal heavy tanks who all have significantly better offensive capabilities.

I did not claim that a Churchill should be easily be destroyed be a cheap flanking medium tank. It should however have a worse penetration chance vs a flanking PzIV.

Keep in mind that the same applies to those other heavy tank, they had the rear reduced so flanking with mediums would be more rewarding. Relic simply forgot to apply the same change to some units.


Given the fact that the generalist heavy tanks KV-1 and Churchill will confidently win in the majority of fights versus the generalist medium tank P4J that costs approximately the same I'd say my point is pretty much proven, but yeah whatever I'm sure it's "simply flawed" for unknown reasons.

These tank are slower than a PzIV who will simply disengage from the fight, just because they can win that does make them a "hard counter."

The role of these unit to spearhead attacks or hold the line soaking up damage, it is not to hard-counter mediums.

The fact that they are perform so good vs mediums is an indication that they OP not that they designed as hard-counters to mediums.

But feel free to have your own opinion.
21 May 2019, 12:02 PM
#43
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 08:40 AMVipper

It nice theory but it also applies to Tiger, KT, IS-2 which are heavy tanks and Elephant, JT, ISU-152 and all of these unit have (some significantly) lower rear armor than Churchill.

All of these units are also limited to one and have (some significantly) higher frontal armor then churchill.
Church can be knocked down frontally by ATGs or StuGs/JP4s, others you've mentioned are at best hard to counter frontally, at worst impossible to(ele/JT) and to keep balance, they still need a weakness.

Churchill weakness is its very slow speed and while good, hardly excelling frontal armor for a heavy tank.


The claim about Rock-paper-scissors does not apply between PzIV and Churchill these unit do not hard counter each other.

I'm quite positive that if there is a churchil around, P4 can't do much about it.
And just because it won't die to it, doesn't mean its not a hardcounter, infantry escape from being hardcountered all the time, I'll never understand why people think that if vehicle isn't destroyed in first engagement, then it doesn't face a hard counter.

On the other hand a PzIV managing to flank a Churchill should at least have penetration chance advantage over it.

Why? Churchill literally can't contest anything above P4 with its gun(and even that is hard vs vet2 ost P4 or OKW P4) and it costs MUCH more then P4.
21 May 2019, 12:26 PM
#44
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1793

As ost 2v2 player, these tanks are headache to kill. Churchill gun has much better chance to pen p4 than opposite, i say it contest favourable well against p4. Hell Churchill gun can reasonably damage vet2 panthers armor..also Churchill rotates and reposition super fast, faster than panther if im not wrong.

I think its 16 popcap is too generous considering 5 man IS is just 1 popcap from 4 man grens..
21 May 2019, 12:39 PM
#45
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 12:02 PMKatitof

All of these units are also limited to one and have (some significantly) higher frontal armor then churchill.

The fact that Churchill is not limited to one makes it even more OP.

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 12:02 PMKatitof

Church can be knocked down frontally by ATGs or StuGs/JP4s, others you've mentioned are at best hard to counter frontally, at worst impossible to(ele/JT) and to keep balance, they still need a weakness.

If you losing a Churchill to a single RF, a Pak or Stug is rather hard to achieve.

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 12:02 PMKatitof

Churchill weakness is its very slow speed and while good, hardly excelling frontal armor for a heavy tank.

Slow speed means little when it hardly provides opponent with an advantage. The unit has very fast rotation, acceleration, stock smoke, a tone of HP and high rear armor reducing the effect of the slow speed.


jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 12:02 PMKatitof

I'm quite positive that if there is a churchil around, P4 can't do much about it.
And just because it won't die to it, doesn't mean its not a hardcounter, infantry escape from being hardcountered all the time, I'll never understand why people think that if vehicle isn't destroyed in first engagement, then it doesn't face a hard counter.

The role of the KV-1 and Churchill is that of a break thru tank, it's role is not that of a hard counter to medium tanks. There are other units for that role available to the faction.

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 12:02 PMKatitof

Why? Churchill literally can't contest anything above P4 with its gun(and even that is hard vs vet2 ost P4 or OKW P4) and it costs MUCH more then P4.

Because flanking should be rewarded in similar manner it is rewarded for other heavy tanks being flanked by mediums.
21 May 2019, 13:00 PM
#46
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1093

They should just give the churchill the same gun as a cromwell and call it a day.
21 May 2019, 13:03 PM
#47
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

I personally dont have a problem with Churchills. The Stug spam or JagdPanzer can easily do good amount of damage against slow Churchills and easy to faust after. Kv-1 is a complete joke and I never ever worry about this tank.
21 May 2019, 13:07 PM
#48
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

I personally dont have a problem with Churchills. The Stug spam or JagdPanzer can easily do good amount of damage against slow Churchills and easy to faust after. Kv-1 is a complete joke and I never ever worry about this tank.

Well according to Sander93 the Kv-1 has around 85% chance to win vs the OKW PzVI and that make it hardly a joke.
21 May 2019, 13:33 PM
#49
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2019, 13:07 PMVipper

Well according to Sander93 the Kv-1 has around 85% chance to win vs the OKW PzVI and that make it hardly a joke.


If they are fighting in a total vaccum, sure.

But that is a SLOW fight with their respective guns and armour. Meanwhile, the PzIV is much more mobile and comes with a better overall infantry punishing set of weapons.

The KV1 is totally unable to chase and finish enemy vehicles unless they're crippled and snared, so while yes, the KV1 can slug it out with mediums, its not that much use otherwise.

At least the churchill has side port sten guns and a grenade/smoke mix to let it support. The KV is just kind of a brick. A useful thing to have, but not individually all that powerful.
21 May 2019, 13:54 PM
#50
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Meatshield tanks are not intended to chase. That's not their role. Saying they suck because they can't chase is like saying the firefly is garbage because it can't fight infantry. It's not its job. Meatshield are supposed to command the area around them. Both do that job exceptionally
21 May 2019, 13:57 PM
#51
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

Russian KV-series are fine(totaly not biased because of nationality :sibHeart: )

Churchills are, on the other hand, OP. While KV have higher armor, Churchill have 600 hp more(800 vs 1400 if believe to coh2db) and better gun in terms of AOE and pen, thus more prone to kiting your forces and not just throwing itself into any holes of your defences. And let's not forget the glorious vet1 "self-defence" bren's all over the hull. And let's not forget Firefly-Churchill combo, that inflames my butt every time I see that sweet couple toughter.

Both heavvy flamers are absolute cancer and not fun to play against them. However, if kv-8 is rare sight, Crocodile is in meta.



And how much MP and fuel is a firefly and Churchill?

Axis can field a brumbar and panther for roughly the same price and popcap, which you can argue is just as potent.

Obviously 400+ fuel in tech and tanks will be strong
21 May 2019, 13:59 PM
#52
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1

Meatshield tanks are not intended to chase. That's not their role. Saying they suck because they can't chase is like saying the firefly is garbage because it can't fight infantry. It's not its job. Meatshield are supposed to command the area around them. Both do that job exceptionally


My point was that the Churh is a lot better at it than the KV1, and is considered a better unit because of it.

The KV1 is still useful as a battering ram, terrain clearer and damage soaking brick, sure. But not focusing on the KV doesn't really cost your opponent much.

Leaving a churchill ignored lets is get close to grenade, drop smoke walls, and open fire with a lot of automatic AI fire by comparison. It demands attention because letting it get into point blank unchecked hurts.

That reliance on knife fights is also why the rear armour isn't paper. Other heavy tanks like the Tiger anď KT deal punishing damage at any range, while the UKF one has no such distant firepower. But I digress.

The KV kinda doesn't have that same impact. Not terrible, just underwhelming, IMO.
21 May 2019, 15:26 PM
#53
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



If they are fighting in a total vaccum, sure.

But that is a SLOW fight with their respective guns and armour. Meanwhile, the PzIV is much more mobile and comes with a better overall infantry punishing set of weapons.

The KV1 is totally unable to chase and finish enemy vehicles unless they're crippled and snared, so while yes, the KV1 can slug it out with mediums, its not that much use otherwise.

At least the churchill has side port sten guns and a grenade/smoke mix to let it support. The KV is just kind of a brick. A useful thing to have, but not individually all that powerful.

You seem to agree me and disagree with WingZero who described the KV-1 as "complete joke and I never ever worry about this tank" and you should probably be quoting him and not me.
21 May 2019, 16:18 PM
#54
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

People defending high rear armor because when you get flanked you want RNG to save you instead of actually having to support your tanks. The L2P is strong in this thread.

If you get flanked = it is your fault.

If you lose your tank to a flank = you did not support it well enough.
21 May 2019, 17:12 PM
#55
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1

People defending high rear armor because when you get flanked you want RNG to save you instead of actually having to support your tanks. The L2P is strong in this thread.

If you get flanked = it is your fault.

If you lose your tank to a flank = you did not support it well enough.


I defend it on the Church and the church only.

Its armament and abilities mean it is designed quite literally to drive up to grenade throwing range to be its most effective, and fire ports on both sides with AI guns sticking out means you get most milage aiming for the middle of your enemy's line. It's also slow to get there, and slow to get out, and anvil never gets war speed.

Flanking an advancing churchill is trivial. Almost expected. Unlike a Tiger, the Church cannot stay at long range and still have a big impact with a high pen, infantry busting main gun.

Positioning still matters, because the rear armour is a lot lower. But when your tank has to get THAT close, and doesn't even have the huge punch of something like the Brumm, the rear armour that can take some hits makes sense.
21 May 2019, 17:41 PM
#56
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

People defending high rear armor because when you get flanked you want RNG to save you instead of actually having to support your tanks. The L2P is strong in this thread.

If you get flanked = it is your fault.

If you lose your tank to a flank = you did not support it well enough.


Maybe we should start with KT then

KT rear armor 150

Church rear armor 160

But I don't really see how nerfing vanilla church rear armour will change much, it wins engagements vs P4 due to health pool. But hey guys I'm throwing more fuel on the fire so let's keep it going
21 May 2019, 17:47 PM
#57
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Maybe we should start with KT then

KT rear armor 225


King Tiger's rear armor is 150.
21 May 2019, 17:47 PM
#58
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833



King Tiger's rear armor is 150.


Yea I just searched the patch notes, still pretty comparable with 10 difference

21 May 2019, 17:53 PM
#59
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474



They are not immune to flanking. Their rear armor is 160 and 180. With 125 near pen a p4 should be able to pen is reasonably well imo. A panther deffinetly wil. A wel supported kv or churchill however is hard to flank. But so are tigers kt`s panthers etc.
yes but tiger and panther have lower rear armor, hell the is 2 has less rear armor than kv1
21 May 2019, 17:58 PM
#60
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

I have to say I agree with further nerfs to rear armor on KT, KV-1 and Churchill down to panther or comet level for bringing common game mechanics in line

But at the same time can you imagine the axis freakout on the steam forum as KT recieved another nerf. It might go nuclear
PAGES (19)down
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

497 users are online: 497 guests
18 posts in the last 24h
44 posts in the last week
100 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44647
Welcome our newest member, Vassarh9
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM