i did a comparison a while back before the patch went live here, but that didn't include the correct aoe profile for the tiger, yet (the most recent post here does though). should probably update this.
Thanks for the link.
So if I read this correctly then we have to compare the Tiger data posted in this thread with the orange bars in the old thread?
This would mean that the Tiger lost about 20% AI capacity compared to 8,5% of the IS2 and 18% of the Pershing at range 20.
So compared to the IS2 it got hit harder while compared to the Pershing it is pretty much the same (longer ranges should equal it out since Pershing has worse scatter stats). |
snip
I can agree to most of the bullet points. Some additions though:
- The Tiger armor effect can be decently asessed. Against unvetted Allied TDs, 2 P4s need 8 penetrations to die while the Tiger has an expectancy value of 9,5. Against higher pen units, this will go more unfavourably for the Tiger, lower pen will make it more favourable. All this will then be tilted towards mediums due to the lower target size, the effect of this is very hard to check though.
- 2 P4s can potentially dish out more damage, however this is again armor dependent. Against low armor targets they are better, against high armor targets this bonus is almost completely gone. They have approximately half of the penetration of the Tiger, making them half as likely to pen against every unit with more armor than ~200.
- Tiger has higher base accuracy by about 5-10% at ranges 20-40 and lower scatter, so it's chance to hit is a fair bit higher. This chance is not armor dependent and will always work better than 2 P4s.
- One additional point pro Tiger is the +5/+10 range. The short range of mediums compared to Allied TDs has always been a point of criticism from Axis players. At least the 50 range allow the Tiger to quickly shoot back quicker and give less margin for error for Allied TDs, while the P4 needs to traverse 20 meters under fire to be able to punish TDs.
- As MMX already pointed out, P4s allow focused fire and therefore the higher firing volume can be negated quicker and you are more likely to lose resources.
I'll point something out since there seem to be some misconceptions:
I have never said that the Tiger is still the be all end all and best choice in all circumstances and should be taken over 2 P4s any time. This is clearly not the case. But the Tiger like all heavies seems to be in a better spot now than before, because this was exactly his role pre patch: The one and only choice that you had to make if you wanted a chance to win the late game. Previously there was no choice between these two play styles, heavies were just straight up better, also in team games (actually especially in team games because the walls of ATGs and TDs could often delete a medium within seconds. Seeing 3-4 anti tank units per player is often normal).
This is also why I disagree with the rest of you post. Yes, the Tiger is on 5 Commanders, but:
1. not all of them were played equally.
2. Diversity is not defined solely by commander use
Right now, mediums see way more play again. From what I can tell also again in larger modes. The fact alone that not everyone is locked in into 2 doctrines that have a heavy anymore makes the game more diverse in a different aspect. The current meta is also not perfect, but I would not say it is worse than previously. |
While the AI of the Tiger still remains far better than that of any medium or premium med in the game (yes, even the HE-Sherman), it did receive a slightly greater nerf to its Vet0 performance than other heavies in the latest patch.
I might have missed a post to this, but from the spoiler drop down you showed comparisons between the current and pre patch Tiger and the P4, but no data on other heavies.
I think I remember that there was a post to this, but I cannot find it anymore... |
snip
I am not sure if I got your main point right, but from what I understood you think the Tiger should be as good as pre patch because you expect it to be that way? If I understood this correctly, please correct me, because the rest of the post will build on that.
I find that to be a quite weak argument, as there is no reason for it. I can expect any unit to perform exceptionally good, yet it is no reason to buff it. The Tiger is still a generalist and like for every other heavy tank, a lot of its price comes from the health and armor. Saying it should need 3 shots max to make any infantry unit (and also medium) retreat means that you waant a highly OP unit. With the reload of the Tiger and especially the vet buff, the unit could drive anything off within 8-10 seconds. The game has gone a long way from moving away from these heavily one-unit-focused builds in which one single unit win or lose you the complete game. And in my opinion this was for good.
The exact performance for cost can be up to debate, but judging from stats and the times I saw the Tiger in-game, it's not too far from its sweet spot. MMX posted that it performs about twice as good as a P4 while also costing about twice as much (it does not have twice the health but way more armor). You get less mobility, but also less risk to lose your investment (a lost P4 generates cost, a half health Tiger does not) and more AT power. Actually very good AT power.
The Tiger overall is still very much in line with other heavies as well, performing usually a bit worse in AI but better in AT. I think the main problem at the moment is that the Tiger was very overperforming, so any reduction now comes with the mindset that it should still perform like previously (this is also where I locate your first statements under the condition that I understood them correctly) as well as players still buying Tigers when they want primarily an AI unit that can dish out damage against vehicles if it needs to. It has been tipped towards the other side: The Tiger is still exceptionally strong against all vehicles in the game and fights off all other heavies reliably. So if the Tiger wins in AT against similarly prices vehicles in similar roles, why should it not perform a bit worse in AI? |
Depends on what the faction is suppose to face.
For calculs: (60/(Reload time))*(damage per shot) with some approximation you have the true DPM (without pen/bounce/deflect damage/miss ect... which could turn the calcul into nightmare).
An heavy tank is meant to be reliable in every way and be really good at tanking damage in exchange for mobility. It is a balance really hard to achieve because, if it is not good enough, other more "specialized" unit are better. And since the only target a Tiger is better than the other against is other heavy tank, which also got nerfed and vanished, the Tiger is not a worthy AT option, so it remain AI. If its AI capabilities are good enough, it could be a viable "bigger" P4 in its role, but turns out it isn't, so building one is risky due to the high amount of ressource to spare and other inconvenience which goes along which the "BIG ONE" archetype which were told before.
The ISU isn't properly OP, even if its AI performance seems unfair. It is exactly what power an heavy tank should have to remain an option which overpass the medium spam. With the nerf, those 3 heavies (IS-2/Tiger+variant/Pershing) kinda lost their identities (the IS-2 case is a bit special).
So yes, those nerf were intended for 1vs1 and their effects weren't sure by the time of the patch release. We waited several mounth and tournaments to be able to see exactly what happenend. The results are that the Tiger is no more used in any game mode, whether it be the 1vs1 or 2vs2 tournament, or from my own 3vs3/4vs4 experience.
We can no longer say that those nerf were beneficial and anybody against is just a idiot Wehrboos relying to much on its "OP toy" to win. Whether it be the overall impression or the stats during big events, everything point out that those nerf were disproportionate. Maybe it solves the Heavy meta in 1vs1, but it destroyed the diversity every other gamemode, limiting the Ostheer with the Elephant or the Infantry doctrine. And I find it legitimate asking for a buff which could allow us to have acces to a greater variety of commander,whether it be for the Ostheer, the USF or the SU. ( 5 Ostheer commanders have the Tiger or a Variant)
Due to time constraints, I will make a more elaborate answer later and this one has to be shortened.
Apart from that formula not being correct, what you term "true DPM" does not account for one of the most important factor: penetration. According to your formula, a Puma (1870 DPM) would outperform even an SU85 (1770) and apparently also almost the Tiger and ISU by far (see your numbers). At max vet, it would have a whopping 3116 DPM and even beat a vet 3 Jackson (3018). Now this gets even worse if you would take the correct reload formula because the Jackson has wind up times which forther prolongs the reload. This number says absolutely nothing and you cannot make any serious point with that. And these "nightmarish" calculations for penetration are quite straight forward maths. The only "nightmarish" aspect is calculating scatter hits but you can easily take the next step towards penetration. If you are not willing to do this ask for someone to provide the values, but don't try to make a point with raw DPM that actually says more about the rate of fire than about actual performance.
Now to the point:
Tigers (like Pershing and IS2) are meant to be generalist heavies. We previously saw them in literally almost every game. There are two options for that: Either the faction is unplayable without it, or the unit is vastly overperforming.
This role however included that they should be jack of all trades, but worse than specialized units at their special task. Pre patch heavies wiped models and sometimes even squads like specialized AI vehicles (Brummbär, Bulldozer Sherman), being able to attack AT guns while still having enough AT performance to fight off any armor that was thrown at them.
Their AI has been toned down quite a bit. The extend of it is up for debate obviously, but these units were vastly overperforming. SOV and USF have seen only slight adjustments and the factions are absolutely fine even without a heavy, arguing that the previous AI profile of heavies was too strong. For OST, this point is not as easy to make since the whole faction has seen some buffs, but looking at the stats the Tiger's AI performance is not that bad (have to search for MMX's posts somewhere, he has good data) compared to other heavies while still being good at AT. |
(Talking about low ROF without taking into account damage is rather misleading a stug probably has better TTK than an Elephant vs a medium)
(accuracy is in line with Elephant and even get a vet bonus)
(ISU-152 has 120 guaranteed damage on hit vs any target regardless of armor)
If in your opinion it is not "great" I am fine with it, but saying that ISU-152 should be used Only for AI is simply BS.
I shortened this point a bit by saying the StuGs DPS against mediums is better. We can have the calculation now: StuG and ISU penetrate every shot vs Allied non doc mediums (also against the T34/85 which is the most prevalent doctrinal medium). So a StuG has 160 dmg with ~6 second total reload (I think the reload is 5,5 + aim times, I am not aware right know if there is additional wind up/down). The ISU has about 10,5 seconds total reload with 240 dmg, giving the StuG a DPS of 26,67 and the ISU 22,85. So the StuG is about 17% better assuming that all shots hit.
I can check this evening how the accuracy curves compare, but the ISU has 0,0425 at range 35 while the StuG has approximately this value (0,04) at range 50, so the StuG performs better accuracy wise and also scatter wise judging from all the scatter stats. In total, the StuG performs better versus mediums, the only thing that is does not have is 20 range.
Now considering that SOV have the SU85 which performs better in every way than the ISU when it comes to AT apart from 10 range, you should not buy an ISU for AT. You should switch the rounds if you fear to get overrun by enemy armor in a large push in order to get one or two more shots in. But in all other cases you should go for an SU85 if you need AT and keep the ISU on AI duty for as long as possible. If you buy the ISU for AT, you get an okay vehicle, but in the end you did not spent your resources cost efficiently. So in conclusion: The ISU can perform as an AT unit, but if it comes down to how you should (to refer to your post) use it, it is definitely the HE round.
Since this was quite a long excursion from the topic, I'd rather go back to the Tiger. Feel free to PM if there is more to discuss. |
This is what you wrote and is very poorly worded:
It implies ISU-152 AT performance is bad which is not. On the other hand its AI performance is OP but that does not mean that it AT performance is bad.
With long range, high penetration, deflection damage and powerful AT shot ISU-152 has great AT even if its AI performance is even better.
The unit should be used for AI when there are soft targets and AT when there are hard targets.
I would not agree that the ISU152 AT performance is "great". Up to an OST P4 it pens 100%, OKW P4 and JP4 are still in the range I'd term reliable to very reliable (about 90% pen chance +5% equivalent for deflection) But for everything above that the ISU is "okay". Not bad, not great, but alright. The deflection corrected pen chances lie between 75-90% for heavies/Panther. However, there is the factor of low accuracy (combined with VERY high scatter, especially in the fog of war which makes shot against mediums and even the Panther miss often, scatter collisions less likely and ground targeting a real gamble). Plus the long reload that makes even the StuG perform better against mediums when it comes to DPS, and against heavies it is okay but far from great.
The more you need to shoot AP rounds, the less your ISU will pay off. SOV has better AT options than the ISU, and even if you compare it to Axis units that need to deal with often different unit designs the Axis tank performs better.
The more you have to use your ISU as AT, the less it will pay off. |
Then saying that "it is not an AT option" is false, since it has 70 range, 240 dmg/shot, same pen as Tiger far,same ready to aim time, ISU even has slightly better accuracy.
Tiger DPM: 1920
ISU AP DPM: 1440
The ISU is 25% less effective than the Tiger, I find it quite fair considering its range, so "incomparably" is quite false too.
Unless you give any basis for this calculation, it is pretty much worthless (no offense intended).
There is no relation to a selection of exemplary targets with would take penetration into account and judging from the Panther vs Tiger discussion below I am not sure if you have applied the correct formula to calculate the time between to shots as well.
Due to the long reload, I could also claim that the Firefly is shitty compared to the Stug because the StuG destroys any light vehicle and any medium way faster than the Firefly. And this is essentially what you did (actually not even that since you did not specify a target). |
|
Did you use the exe file?
I encountered this issue too with some but not all units. The python file worked perfectly well.
However be aware that there is a code error that leads to accuracy not being calculated if one unit is firing between mid and short range.
Also someone once posted some ingame data of about 50 shots of a SU85 against (I can't remember) a Brummbär or something. Although not a huge dataset, I used it to check how far off the simulation is, and for this special setup it undrrestimated the hit chance by about 10%, most likely due to the hit boxes that are not the ones in game.
I might release at least the bug fix update together with the new data update this weekend, but in its current form I would highly advise against using the sim to get'hard data' for discussions. It can make some estimations and surely confirm larger differences, but I don't think it will really detect slight unit adjustments or be able to tell apart similar units where one might be slightly stronger than the other. |
Weirdly enough I was always under the impression that it was the case that units under fire have a chance to get blown up by mines they shouldn't trigger if under fire. I have seen full health M20s blowing up after putting down their mine (and triggering their own mine) just after I hit them with a single Shrek. I have also experienced my own P4 being blown up by my halftruk mine whilst it was retreating and being hit whilst rolling over my own mine. I guess there is a hidden mechanic somewhere down the rules.
Might be.
But Panzerschreck and similars have enough penetration to pen the mine (I don't know about the armor value of the mine though, Vipper is usually quite good at these hidden and rarely used stats) and possibly also some AoE effect and penetration.
When something like this happened, I usually though that the AoE effect triggered the mine. Same thing if I drive over my own mines and they blow up. From the times that this happened, there was always something else happening. A long range tank/ATG shot or mortar fire.
If there really was a 0.01% chance of triggering your own mine, I think we would (weirdly enough) see this more often and also hear more complaints.
People drive over their mines all the time, and with so much RNG patched out of the game already, I think this would be way more prominent. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
