ZXrage

9.20: M46/M48A1 Changes

64 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, ThomChen114 said:

rather than scaling back the over buffed armor of certain tanks *cough* Maus *cough* Type 5 Heavy *cough* and the increasing proliferation of gold ammunition, WG is instead interpreting the medium tankers' whines and complaints as "we want armor buffs too because we also want to feel the love and attention heavy tanks have been enjoying and please keep throwing premium tanks at us since we love buying pixel tenks"

god this formatting is cancer, have an upboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I await the football mode T62A to be released with its HE ammo and 999 armour values. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the poor Cent series of tanks remain unloved and have increasingly had their old gimmick (tough turret, which was all nerfed with HD) taken over by all the other NATO meds.

Otherwise, I see WG is continuing with their adherence to the old Blizzard approach to balancing from Starcraft Brood War: when everything is OP, nothing is OP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Unavailebow said:

That probably did not help. He was questioning about the word, where "tumor" applies to.

The massive cupola, machine gun cupola to be exact, is referred as a tumor because it is prominent and shot welcome. The picture above has a later version turret.

Is it still relevant to call it M48A1 then... even though WG has always been messed uo with names and parts and such...

Thanks, I thought that, but I wasn't sure.

21 hours ago, Hally said:

The giant cupola that sticks out on top got much smaller. As the bottom of the cupola can be hidden by your turret face when cresting over a hill, it presents a much, much smaller target when compared to the old cupola.

And thank you too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Balthazars said:

Meanwhile, the poor Cent series of tanks remain unloved and have increasingly had their old gimmick (tough turret, which was all nerfed with HD) taken over by all the other NATO meds.

WG hates Brits. Notice how they have announced exactly zero changed to British tanks for 9.20, even though the patch is supposely a major balance patch and there are tons of British tanks that needs love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, leggasiini said:

WG hates Brits. Notice how they have announced exactly zero changed to British tanks for 9.20, even though the patch is supposely a major balance patch and there are tons of British tanks that needs love.

<rant>

When they make a premium that has nearly the same (probably better) stats out of a regular 8 MT as a PREMIUM for ANOTHER nation.

WG hate them so much by giving false hope on a tank people have been waited for years, and make the stats so OP to pretend they can't actually put in it. :kappaross:

inb4 "We cannot touch Centurion series tanks as they have not enough data" (too few players drive them)

</rant>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Unavailebow said:

<rant>

inb4 "We cannot touch Centurion series tanks as they have not enough data" (too few players drive them)

</rant>

Oh, a low blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they change the M60 too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the rate of release, give it time. There might be some buffs unreleased yet. I'd start the Fuck WG train regarding brit mediums (and caravan) when 9.20 test server gets announced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

Given the rate of release, give it time. There might be some buffs unreleased yet. I'd start the Fuck WG train regarding brit mediums (and caravan) when 9.20 test server gets announced. 

Dont forget other British heavies e.g. A45, all Churchill variants. Then we could really shoot for the moon and ask for high tier British LTs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CardinalMite said:

Dont forget other British heavies e.g. A45, all Churchill variants. Then we could really shoot for the moon and ask for high tier British LTs...

"A45 is better than its credit counterpart so we cannot touch it":bigdoge:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Unavailebow said:

"A45 is better than its credit counterpart so we cannot touch it":bigdoge:

Ironically it is. In particular it scores in the one area where the Black Prince could easily get a substantial throw-away (read: needs no testing) buff that wouldn't end up risking overall balance: DPM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Madner Kami said:

Ironically it is. In particular it scores in the one area where the Black Prince could easily get a substantial throw-away buff that wouldn't end up risking overall balance: DPM.

17pdr... DPM... 17pdr... DPM... :microdoge:

 

It was never a DPM problem so DPM won't fix it anyway.

It is.

17pdr :doge:

Again purely rant, they have put the trashes among the jewelries. Heavy line started off with enduring the Churchill development for three tiers than suddenly you are up to a hulldown medium but too fat for the job, once you complete your masochist test, ding a laser heavy.

The medium lines give you a respectable Cromwell and then a meme tank, then grow up to be the if the biggest medium with the smallest gun. Not to mention the best part of your armour has a hole in it. And your bigger brother at Tier 9 also has it as well.:kappaross:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Unavailebow said:

17pdr... DPM... 17pdr... DPM... :microdoge:

 

It was never a DPM problem so DPM won't fix it anyway.

It is.

17pdr:bigdoge:

I nowhere said it would fix the tank, but it is one of the key-areas in where the vehicle lacks severely. Until fairly recently, the gun was at least accurate enough and had enough punch, to get through all the weakspots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Madner Kami said:

I nowhere said it would fix the tank, but it is one of the key-areas in where the vehicle lacks severely. Until fairly recently, the gun was at least accurate enough and had enough punch, to get through all the weakspots.

Maybe. For these low calibre low alpha guns effective dpm is unstable. Since we are talking about BP here, the platform itself does not support the gun enough for continuously firing, e.g. the hull armour requires constant hard cover, yet too slow to move. Also everybody can take a shot a run away before it can do anything worse, two shots are only going to be ~300 dmg anyway, and it takes 4 more seconds than a T29 to do it, providing it can penetrate. And there is also module dmg...

I was trying to comment it does not lack DPM as a slower tank (hopefully well armoured) rely less on their DPM. They are only few occasion where the listed DPM can be unleashed to full. Small alpha is worse to be with a slow platform. Surely the more DPM the better, but it does not have the reliability to unleash it (hard cover brawl), or create chances for itself to unleash it (re-position). Mle45 has less DPM but still less painful to drive because it higher alpha guns require less exposure to achieve their listed DPM.

But if your point is to buff its alpha to achieve higher DPM, yes I agree that would work, way better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Unavailebow said:

Maybe. For these low calibre low alpha guns effective dpm is unstable. Since we are talking about BP here, the platform itself does not support the gun enough for continuously firing, e.g. the hull armour requires constant hard cover, yet too slow to move. Also everybody can take a shot a run away before it can do anything worse, two shots are only going to be ~300 dmg anyway, and it takes 4 more seconds than a T29 to do it, providing it can penetrate. And there is also module dmg...

I was trying to comment it does not lack DPM as a slower tank (hopefully well armoured) rely less on their DPM. They are only few occasion where the listed DPM can be unleashed to full. Small alpha is worse to be with a slow platform. Surely the more DPM the better, but it does not have the reliability to unleash it (hard cover brawl), or create chances for itself to unleash it (re-position). Mle45 has less DPM but still less painful to drive because it higher alpha guns require less exposure to achieve their listed DPM.

But if your point is to buff its alpha to achieve higher DPM, yes I agree that would work, way better.

I'd buff both to be honest. Give the tank the 20 pounder and balance the DPM to ~2k. Next buff the top speed to 25km/h and allow it to carry a sturdy version of the Centurion-turret (both changes would also be historical, since fitting the larger engine we have in game was projected to propell the tank at that speed and the Centurion-turret was a prospected upgrade). Both the 20 pounder and the Centurion-turret would allow for an easier and smoother stock grind on the Caernarvon, plus giving even more reason to get the L7A1 onto the Caernarvon as a top gun, which would also help with the Conqueror stock grind as well.

That would basically fix the Black Prince, improve the Caernarvon and help the stock grind on the Conqueror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

I'd buff both to be honest. Give the tank the 20 pounder and balance the DPM to ~2k. Next buff the top speed to 25km/h and allow it to carry a sturdy version of the Centurion-turret (both changes would also be historical, since fitting the larger engine we have in game was projected to propell the tank at that speed and the Centurion-turret was a prospected upgrade). Both the 20 pounder and the Centurion-turret would allow for an easier and smoother stock grind on the Caernarvon, plus giving even more reason to get the L7A1 onto the Caernarvon as a top gun, which would also help with the Conqueror stock grind as well.

That would basically fix the Black Prince, improve the Caernarvon and help the stock grind on the Conqueror.

Too...much...logic

:notlikethis:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CardinalMite said:

Dont forget other British heavies e.g. A45, all Churchill variants. Then we could really shoot for the moon and ask for high tier British LTs...

British lights are not a question of finding the tanks, just a question of them actually getting around to putting to them in.

18 hours ago, Unavailebow said:

"A45 is better than its credit counterpart so we cannot touch it"

On the note of the A45, there are a whole range of improvements they could give the tank due to it being a longer running project. Additionally, the depression over the front is restricted to 8 degrees because wargamming wasn't able to code the depression being 8 degrees just over the machine gun blister.

17 hours ago, Unavailebow said:

suddenly you are up to a hulldown medium but too fat for the job

That picture of the caernarvon floating around with the different mantlet? That was a resilient mantlet trialed on a centurion along with mounting a 32 pounder. The 32 pounder underperforms dramatically from it's historical performance in game. It was both more accurate and penetrated more than the 20 pounder in real life.

16 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

I'd buff both to be honest. Give the tank the 20 pounder and balance the DPM to ~2k. Next buff the top speed to 25km/h and allow it to carry a sturdy version of the Centurion-turret (both changes would also be historical, since fitting the larger engine we have in game was projected to propell the tank at that speed and the Centurion-turret was a prospected upgrade). Both the 20 pounder and the Centurion-turret would allow for an easier and smoother stock grind on the Caernarvon, plus giving even more reason to get the L7A1 onto the Caernarvon as a top gun, which would also help with the Conqueror stock grind as well.

That would basically fix the Black Prince, improve the Caernarvon and help the stock grind on the Conqueror.

Regarding the black prince, there is a historical basis for mounting the 32 pounder, or one of the guns which proceeded the development of the gun (IE 3.7" or 37 pounder). As for top speed, the planned mounting of the meteor engine included a redesign of the transmission allowing the tank to hit mid 30's. Sadly, wargamming did exceptionally little research on the initial British tree, and many of the numbers, such as penetration is almost universally too low. There are more than a few sources which confuse @30 degree penetration with @0 degree penetration. For instance, the Mk VII is 171mm pen for standard ammo, where the ammo that the gun uses in WOT was actually 190mm of pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ogopogo said:

British lights are not a question of finding the tanks, just a question of them actually getting around to putting to them in.

On the note of the A45, there are a whole range of improvements they could give the tank due to it being a longer running project. Additionally, the depression over the front is restricted to 8 degrees because wargamming wasn't able to code the depression being 8 degrees just over the machine gun blister.

That picture of the caernarvon floating around with the different mantlet? That was a resilient mantlet trialed on a centurion along with mounting a 32 pounder. The 32 pounder underperforms dramatically from it's historical performance in game. It was both more accurate and penetrated more than the 20 pounder in real life.

Regarding the black prince, there is a historical basis for mounting the 32 pounder, or one of the guns which proceeded the development of the gun (IE 3.7" or 37 pounder). As for top speed, the planned mounting of the meteor engine included a redesign of the transmission allowing the tank to hit mid 30's. Sadly, wargamming did exceptionally little research on the initial British tree, and many of the numbers, such as penetration is almost universally too low. There are more than a few sources which confuse @30 degree penetration with @0 degree penetration. For instance, the Mk VII is 171mm pen for standard ammo, where the ammo that the gun uses in WOT was actually 190mm of pen.

Wasn't it at least proposed for the A45 to carry a 4.5 inch gun? I remember a proposal being mentioned in the passing, but not sure about the specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ogopogo said:

That picture of the caernarvon floating around with the different mantlet? That was a resilient mantlet trialed on a centurion along with mounting a 32 pounder. The 32 pounder underperforms dramatically from it's historical performance in game. It was both more accurate and penetrated more than the 20 pounder in real life.

You don't happen to have a picture-link at hand? That's the first time I read this. Though I need ot admit, despite the 32 Pounder being able to carry a larger explosive filler and thus better alpha ingame, between having a gun that fires a projectile at a pedestrian ~880m/s and one that fires a smaller APDS slug at ~1,400m/s, with the APCBC flying at just above 1,000m/s, my choice would be clear for use in the game. But then again, there would be no reason to not implement both and let the players choose what they think fits best. One with more Alpha and higher base penetration but slow shell velocity (and possibly firing a HEAT shell as a premium round or *gasp* not having a premium shell at all) and the other with lower base pen and alpha, but considerably higher shell velocity and a high pen "APCR" (read APDS) premium round. Sounds like a good choice to present players with, especially if the high alpha gun gets low DPM and the low alpha gun gets high DPM.

Personally I think, the 17 pounder->20 pdr->105mm->120mm progression feels more natural, but choice and alternatives are good, allowing for different playstyles of the same tank.

5 hours ago, Ogopogo said:

Regarding the black prince, there is a historical basis for mounting the 32 pounder, or one of the guns which proceeded the development of the gun (IE 3.7" or 37 pounder). As for top speed, the planned mounting of the meteor engine included a redesign of the transmission allowing the tank to hit mid 30's. Sadly, wargamming did exceptionally little research on the initial British tree, and many of the numbers, such as penetration is almost universally too low. There are more than a few sources which confuse @30 degree penetration with @0 degree penetration. For instance, the Mk VII is 171mm pen for standard ammo, where the ammo that the gun uses in WOT was actually 190mm of pen.

Do you have a source for the mid-30km/h? The highest expectation with the Meteor I know of, was 24 to 25km/h. Of course, technically, I do not see a reason that the Black Prince, having roughly the same weight as a Tiger I and a similar contact-area with the ground, shouldn't be able to reach 30+ with an engine that produces nearly the same amount of horsepowers, after all, Tiger Is could easily reach 40+ on road. Same for the penetration. That they fucked up the tables for the german guns is a well known fact, but I wasn't aware that the british used a similar test-setup to the germans. So far I thought they had a 0° impact angle setup for their numbers (with a slightly more complex definition on what is a reliable full penetration and what is not). Do you have a source for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Madner Kami said:

You don't happen to have a picture-link at hand?

vqr2XrIEMCY.jpg

mzGdCCgCc7c.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 6:28 AM, Madner Kami said:

I'd buff both to be honest. Give the tank the 20 pounder and balance the DPM to ~2k. Next buff the top speed to 25km/h and allow it to carry a sturdy version of the Centurion-turret (both changes would also be historical, since fitting the larger engine we have in game was projected to propell the tank at that speed and the Centurion-turret was a prospected upgrade). Both the 20 pounder and the Centurion-turret would allow for an easier and smoother stock grind on the Caernarvon, plus giving even more reason to get the L7A1 onto the Caernarvon as a top gun, which would also help with the Conqueror stock grind as well.

That would basically fix the Black Prince, improve the Caernarvon and help the stock grind on the Conqueror.

The BP is much better than the Churchill VII already, the turret is not the issue. In fact the turret of the BP is better than the Cent I or 7 currently. The Caern is also a better tank (for me) than the Cent due to better hull and the action X turret. I think a more unique solution would be increased ROF, that's what makes the Church III unique & fun is a machine gun for a cannon. For the BP I would increase the UFP to 195 ish and make the reload 4.2 seconds, additional DPM for the Caern, and put the STRV 81 turret on the Cent 1 and Cent , as well as lower the turret bloom to 0.12. That would address a lot of the issues with these tanks. The church III gets near 2050 DPM, no reason why the base DPM for BP couldn't be >2100 and the Caern >2200. Leave the Church VII as a dog / experience dump.

The E50 is effective with the 88 L/100 with 2880 base DPM before rammer/food/bia/vents (and 3695 DPM !!! with) so the Brits heavies could have a similar, effective playstyle. This has shown to work with the T26E5 patriot as well...if you can track and reload before your opponent shoots once, you are ahead.

BTW the Chinese Patton could be really nice if it gets the M48A5 turret along with the other buffs, which are on a separate post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ogopogo said:

British lights are not a question of finding the tanks, just a question of them actually getting around to putting to them in.

On the note of the A45, there are a whole range of improvements they could give the tank due to it being a longer running project. Additionally, the depression over the front is restricted to 8 degrees because wargamming wasn't able to code the depression being 8 degrees just over the machine gun blister.

That picture of the caernarvon floating around with the different mantlet? That was a resilient mantlet trialed on a centurion along with mounting a 32 pounder. The 32 pounder underperforms dramatically from it's historical performance in game. It was both more accurate and penetrated more than the 20 pounder in real life.

Regarding the black prince, there is a historical basis for mounting the 32 pounder, or one of the guns which proceeded the development of the gun (IE 3.7" or 37 pounder). As for top speed, the planned mounting of the meteor engine included a redesign of the transmission allowing the tank to hit mid 30's. Sadly, wargamming did exceptionally little research on the initial British tree, and many of the numbers, such as penetration is almost universally too low. There are more than a few sources which confuse @30 degree penetration with @0 degree penetration. For instance, the Mk VII is 171mm pen for standard ammo, where the ammo that the gun uses in WOT was actually 190mm of pen.

This would help bring diversity as well. A 32 pounder with 238-242  pen and DPM  comparable to current BP / Church Gun carrier as an optional gun for the BP and a 1950 DPM option for the Caern would be pretty cool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lavawing said:

Wasn't it at least proposed for the A45 to carry a 4.5 inch gun? I remember a proposal being mentioned in the passing, but not sure about the specifics.

Yup, among other guns, and applique armour upgrades.

 

7 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

You don't happen to have a picture-link at hand? That's the first time I read this. Though I need ot admit, despite the 32 Pounder being able to carry a larger explosive filler and thus better alpha ingame, between having a gun that fires a projectile at a pedestrian ~880m/s and one that fires a smaller APDS slug at ~1,400m/s, with the APCBC flying at just above 1,000m/s, my choice would be clear for use in the game. But then again, there would be no reason to not implement both and let the players choose what they think fits best. One with more Alpha and higher base penetration but slow shell velocity (and possibly firing a HEAT shell as a premium round or *gasp* not having a premium shell at all) and the other with lower base pen and alpha, but considerably higher shell velocity and a high pen "APCR" (read APDS) premium round. Sounds like a good choice to present players with, especially if the high alpha gun gets low DPM and the low alpha gun gets high DPM.

Personally I think, the 17 pounder->20 pdr->105mm->120mm progression feels more natural, but choice and alternatives are good, allowing for different playstyles of the same tank.

The British made a lot of different tank shells for most guns. Often times a gun might have 5 or 6 different AP/APDS/APCR shells all with different shells. If you've ever noticed the firefly in game having several guns, it's more just each gun "using" different rounds. That said the 32 pounder had shells which ranged from high end 17 pounder AP pen (around 190mm) to high 200m (like >280 high) for APDS rounds. Potentially even higher too. All depending on which rounds you are looking at. The 32 pounder also has weird damage considering the 3.7" howizter on the cromwell (which mounted the 95mm, not the 3.7") has 280 damage HEAT versus the 240 AP and APDS. Shell velocity isn't entirely accurate either, as I recall, though I would have to go searching the numbers again.

How the 32 pounder is presented in the game, however, is as it was on the tortoise. I have a document of firing trials comparing the 32 pounder (tortoise) APCBC to the 20 pounder APDS (I'll check later to see exact mark of the APDS). Among other things, the accuracy of the 32 pounder was noticeably better than the 20 pounder, and it penetrated more armour at 1400 yards than the 20 pounder did at 800.

For gun progression, if you introduced more gun marks in the form of different ammo it could easily end up being (in terms of progression of pen)

17pdr->3.7"->17pdr->3.7"->32 pdr->20 pdr->32 pounder->105mm->120mm

And this is without even touching the prototype guns, which the British almost have none of in WOT. These would include the 21 pdr, a 120mm (designed for 20 pounder mount), 17 pdr squeezebore (the British designed squeezebores all the way up to 152mm), APCR rounds for the 17 pdr and 77mm, 8 pdr, 13 pdr, 37 pdr, and the variety of demolition guns, to name a few. Then there are modifications to existing guns, such as the David gun or the extended again barrel of the 6 pounder, and the 6 pounder squeezebore.

11 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

 

Do you have a source for the mid-30km/h? The highest expectation with the Meteor I know of, was 24 to 25km/h. Of course, technically, I do not see a reason that the Black Prince, having roughly the same weight as a Tiger I and a similar contact-area with the ground, shouldn't be able to reach 30+ with an engine that produces nearly the same amount of horsepowers, after all, Tiger Is could easily reach 40+ on road. Same for the penetration. That they fucked up the tables for the german guns is a well known fact, but I wasn't aware that the british used a similar test-setup to the germans. So far I thought they had a 0° impact angle setup for their numbers (with a slightly more complex definition on what is a reliable full penetration and what is not). Do you have a source for that?

I do somewhere, but I have to find it again. As I am aware, it was the redesigned transmission in concert with the meteor that would allow the speed to reach low-mid 30's.

As for the British guns, it wasn't quite fair of me to say that it was simply a matter of different angles. One of the people whom I do some research with, noticed that on more than a few occasions, the penetration numbers from a primary British gun document for a 30 degree angle would be or virtually be identical to the numbers listed in a book. Further confusing the mess is the number of shells for each gun. For instance, technically it's not incorrect to say the 6 pounder could penetrate some 137mm of armour, but that particular shell would generally shatter after 114mm. And there are at least 6 other AP shells. The numbers wargamming used (back when guns tended to be roughly historical pen numbers) just don't line up with the primary British documents and fall quite close to the numbers which seem to be more of the @30 degrees numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, General_6 said:

The BP is much better than the Churchill VII already, the turret is not the issue.

Though I do agree, that doesn't say much or anything really. Churchill VII is probably the worst tank in the entire game. It could do with an overhaul all of it's own. I'd suggest starting with putting the 17 pounder on it.

7 hours ago, General_6 said:

In fact the turret of the BP is better than the Cent I or 7 currently.

That is why I suggested a stury version of the Centurion turret. The old Caernarvon-turret was better armored than the current Centurion-type turrets (I know the Caearn-turret was a Cent-turret, but it was distinct in armor thickness and, in certain places, angling, making it noticibly effective than those) and I know for fact, that the Stridsvagn will have an uparmored Centurion-turret and I was aware of projects that uparmored the Cent-turrets even more, see the pics posted by Ogopogo. I've seen them in the past, but wasn't aware they were also showing the 32 pounder mounting. Those potential turrets could also carry over to the Caernarvon, which, despite me being an absolute fan of the looks of the CAX-turret, just should not carry that turret. But that is besides the point. The main reason for wanting a Cent-turret on the BP is historical accuracy and allowing to fit a gun with good depression, which just would not jive with the BP's current turret as it is rather restrictive in terms of internal space, compared to a Centurion turret.

7 hours ago, General_6 said:

The Caern is also a better tank (for me) than the Cent due to better hull and the action X turret.

Ever since they improved the speed of the Centurion, the Caern is just dead in the water. Between numerous buffs to multiple armors, you are stuck with a sluggish tank, a gun with originally really good but nowadays unremarkable AP penetration at the cost of really bad DPM and meager premium APCR. In the past, the speed advantage of the Centurion was too small, imo, to justify using that tank over the Caern who had a better turret, a better gun and a better UFP. Nowadays though, the Caernarvon is just flailing about like a fish on dry-land. it got proxy-nerfed so often (and started out weak in several places to being with), that it's just not funny anymore. Throwing the tank a bone via the CAX-turret was a nice gesture, but they completely failed in giving the tank a fighting chance.

7 hours ago, General_6 said:

I think a more unique solution would be increased ROF, that's what makes the Church III unique & fun is a machine gun for a cannon.

That works on the lower tiers with limited matchmaking, but not in today's T7+ meta anymore. The Black Prince frequently sees Defenders, Chrysler Ks and O-Hos for crying out loud. It could have 5000 DPM and it would not matter, as it just is no threat to any of these tanks. 171 base pen with some 150 alpha is a joke to any of those. IS3s were bad enough, but at least you got through the UFPs flinging gold reliably, but not even that works anymore, not to even talk of the costs compared to the damage the APCR does.

7 hours ago, General_6 said:

For the BP I would increase the UFP to 195 ish and make the reload 4.2 seconds, additional DPM for the Caern, and put the STRV 81 turret on the Cent 1 and Cent , as well as lower the turret bloom to 0.12. That would address a lot of the issues with these tanks. The church III gets near 2050 DPM, no reason why the base DPM for BP couldn't be >2100 and the Caern >2200. Leave the Church VII as a dog / experience dump.

I am no fan of ahistorical upgrades. I do not mind fictional upgrades that would be logical, plausible, possible or projected (like putting the Cent turret on the BP). Tank armor should stay were the real values were in reallife. I do not mind fiddling with weakspots if a tank needs it, but uparmoring like that is just a huge red flag. As for the DPM, as I said above, I would expect a BP with a 20 pounder to have 2k DPM to be competative in the least. Pretty much the only T7 heavy that has less DPM, is the O-Ho with the 100mm gun and the T29 fitting the 105. Everything else trumps the BP for some reason, on top of getting more alpha, which is just bonkers if you think about it and, to add insult to injury, in many cases they get even more base penetration in addition to more alpha and more DPM. Whatever WG was drinking the day they balanced the Black Prince, should be legally banned by the UN.

And what a substantial DPM-buff does to a mediocre to bad vehicle is a history one can learn from the Tiger I; which went from total flop to middle-top due to changing a single number in a table.

7 hours ago, General_6 said:

The E50 is effective with the 88 L/100 with 2880 base DPM before rammer/food/bia/vents (and 3695 DPM !!! with) so the Brits heavies could have a similar, effective playstyle. This has shown to work with the T26E5 patriot as well...if you can track and reload before your opponent shoots once, you are ahead.

Alone the DPM-progression in relation to hitpoints is broken on so many levels, that it warrants an entire overhaul of the tech-tree to begin with, but that is a different problem. The notion that a low alpha gun should be able to track a vehicle and cycle a new shot before the target repairs it's track, should be obvious, in particular if said target has a gun that has almost three times the alpha.

P.S.: I'm still trying to wrap my head around the DPM-progression of the british heavy line anyways. You get the Churchill I, which is pretty well balanced all things considered and upgrade to the Churchill VII, which has, for all intends and purposes, still the same gun but gets +300 DPM and +32% HP. Then you upgrade to the Black Prince, which gets 68% more health and 15% better penetration, but somehow looses 150 DPM, to then further upgrade into a tank that gets +10% health, but looses another 50DPM. All things considered, you come from a well balanced gun to basically the exact same DPM you had at T5 in an environment that gets more than twice the health and generally has twice or more than twice the alpha. What? How is that even remotely supposed to make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.