Jump to content
Sgt. Pepper

Tiger 2 - the harder and slower Tiger 1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FlorbFnarb said:

Sorry, you said "useful", rather than "relevant"...but I don't see how that changes anything.  The T32, T29, Jumbo, Pershing, AT 2, Super Pershing and JT88 don't have useful armor on a western tank?

I don't consider use in organized play the relevant metric in determining the quality of a tank; there's probably a thousand pub matches played for every organized match.  Still, since when are the T32, Pershing and E 100 not useful in organized matches?

Also, in both English and German, "armor" can mean "tank" as well as literally "armor". :P

Compared to russian armor on the same tier, all the tanks you named are inferior to the same tier counterpart, except in specific conditions, which is my entire point. Western armor-layout is generally not designed for an open field confrontation and this becomes more and more obvious the further down the tier-line you go. Almost all western tanks are hulldown-backslope and/or ranged specialists, with armor that is next to useless on flat open terrain, while soviets are across the board designed to be much more offensive (that was the entire point of the beak-armor-design, to make their tanks more resilient in assaults). The outlyer is the AT2, but an exception does not disprove the general rule. Oh and I find it quite funny, how you choose the JT88 over the regular JT. The only reason for WarGaming to put the JT88 into limited(!) T8, where it's armor performs well enough (if hulldown, since quite a lot of T8s can shoot straight through your upper plate without too much trouble, which is not surprising, given your hull is essentially a Tiger II, which an IS-3 was designed to beat), is it's gun, which proves my point: Tanks are not tiered by their armor, but by their gun-selection (and by disregard to their design-intend).

As for you disregarding organized gameplay. Organized gameplay is the true test on whether a vehicle is really more powerful, within the confines of the game, than others. If a vehicle is considerably more often used than others or is even considered mandatory, than it is a clear sign that it vastely outperforms all other tanks in it's tier. Cromwell, IS3, T54LT, T110E5 and IS7 is all I'm saying. If this game's map were considerably more about range and vision control, you'd see Tiger IIs, T32s and TDs considerably more often in those modes. In a meta that revolves around 500m-ranged shooting at best, with nowhere to go once the sniper-spot became compromised and otherwise nothing but in-your-face brawling, this is not going to happen, outside of some very specific and very rare circumstances where maps allow some variation (e.g. T32s on Mines or E100s on city-maps). Randoms on the other hand, are just not a hallmark of power-reflection, because people conciously do not always choose the best, but choose what they like or what they find funny or drive what they feel like, as nothing forces them to use the best tank for the meta.

Also, last time I checked, this forum is english, not german. I'm quite aware that there are false friends and one can fall for a misstranslations, but I try to be as precise in the choice of my words as possible, since the written word is my only means of communication in a forum. Sorry wenn das pedantisch oder arschlöchrig klingt, es ist nicht böse oder arrogant gemeint, aber wenn ich Englisch schreibe, denke ich auch Englisch und nicht Deutsch ;)

 

1 hour ago, FlorbFnarb said:

The Tiger seems to do juuuuuuust fine in middle tiers...

Only because of it's overbuffed gun. It used to be a pretty bad tank, before the gun got it's ridiculous RoF. Conversely, give it the 88/L56 and see it become the laughing stock of T7. Give the IS-1 it's historical D10T and the IS-2 it's historical D25T and it shits all over the historical Tiger I... Oh wait... They already have those guns. THIS is what I am talking about. The Tiger wasn't designed to fight IS-1s and 2s, it was designed to fight B1s and Matildas and, to some extend, T-34s and Churchills.

A tank is, in essence, a package of armor, firepower and mobility. The ingame Tiger's armor is a "Defeat 6 pounders and short-barreled 75mm guns", it's gun a "Defeat Tiger armor" and mobility is roughly on par with the competition in T7. The IS on the other hand, is an armor of "Defeat 88 and 100mm guns", gun is a "Defeat Tigers" and mobility is roughly equal to Tiger. Do you see the problem there? Both tanks have guns that can defeat the other, but only one of them has the armor to beat the other at least a number of times, while the other is paper all the time.

Armor is about the only thing that is historical in this game, everything else is massively buffed compared to reality. If you stuff two tanks into the same tier, that fill the same niche, have identical guns and speed, but one of them has an outdated armor-layout, while the other does not, it's obvious why one vehicle is less desirable than the other and this is the case with german mid-tier vehicles. Tiger and IS have T7 guns and T7 mobility, but Tiger I has a T5 to T6 armor-layout, while IS-1 and IS-2, have a T7 armor-layout.

Share this post


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

Here, i corrected it for you. Just look for the jap tiger.

After the penetration-buff, it's alright in tier. Once WG gets their head out of their arse and adjust the APCR-pen as well (their figure is, just as the old AP-pen, based on a 30° sloping while the game-mechanics are based around a 0° sloping), it will do well in T7 fights and can still hurt T8s, as opposed to the current alright in tier/hurts T7s/is useless in T8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the fact that Soviets have 3 much better heavies same tier, along with Japs (derpening, pretty much immune to its retarded brother's same tier gold shells), USA and...pretty much everyone else.

Tiger at tier 7 is all about gun. remove the gun, and tank is at least 1.5 tiers lower. Tier 6 has good alpha tanks (T 150 - 300, great penn both shells), and OP KV-85 100 mm same accuracy, as Jap tiger...pretty much every other tier 6 heavy is balanced for bad position in mm (seeing tanks with 2x more hp all the time, and having to engage them directly in the same map areas), with a good gun (M6!), or at least a derp...so you die, but if you have some skill, at least you can take your pound of flesh out of tier 7/8 heavy tanks, and you absolutely dominate tier 6 battles.

In fact, most of limited mm tier 8 heavies have guns pretty similar to regular tier 6 tanks, it is mostly just a buffed ROF/soft stats and dpm.

That tank is at an unlucky tier where in tier 7 battles can do pretty much nothing against tanks that faces him - O-Ni, IS/2, T-29 hull hardly penetrable after HD...and they are retardedly popular...tier 8 is just dead meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2016 at 1:21 PM, Madner Kami said:

Compared to russian armor on the same tier, all the tanks you named are inferior to the same tier counterpart, except in specific conditions, which is my entire point. Western armor-layout is generally not designed for an open field confrontation and this becomes more and more obvious the further down the tier-line you go. Almost all western tanks are hulldown-backslope and/or ranged specialists, with armor that is next to useless on flat open terrain, while soviets are across the board designed to be much more offensive (that was the entire point of the beak-armor-design, to make their tanks more resilient in assaults). The outlyer is the AT2, but an exception does not disprove the general rule. Oh and I find it quite funny, how you choose the JT88 over the regular JT. The only reason for WarGaming to put the JT88 into limited(!) T8, where it's armor performs well enough (if hulldown, since quite a lot of T8s can shoot straight through your upper plate without too much trouble, which is not surprising, given your hull is essentially a Tiger II, which an IS-3 was designed to beat), is it's gun, which proves my point: Tanks are not tiered by their armor, but by their gun-selection (and by disregard to their design-intend).

As for you disregarding organized gameplay. Organized gameplay is the true test on whether a vehicle is really more powerful, within the confines of the game, than others. If a vehicle is considerably more often used than others or is even considered mandatory, than it is a clear sign that it vastely outperforms all other tanks in it's tier. Cromwell, IS3, T54LT, T110E5 and IS7 is all I'm saying. If this game's map were considerably more about range and vision control, you'd see Tiger IIs, T32s and TDs considerably more often in those modes. In a meta that revolves around 500m-ranged shooting at best, with nowhere to go once the sniper-spot became compromised and otherwise nothing but in-your-face brawling, this is not going to happen, outside of some very specific and very rare circumstances where maps allow some variation (e.g. T32s on Mines or E100s on city-maps). Randoms on the other hand, are just not a hallmark of power-reflection, because people conciously do not always choose the best, but choose what they like or what they find funny or drive what they feel like, as nothing forces them to use the best tank for the meta.

Also, last time I checked, this forum is english, not german. I'm quite aware that there are false friends and one can fall for a misstranslations, but I try to be as precise in the choice of my words as possible, since the written word is my only means of communication in a forum. Sorry wenn das pedantisch oder arschlöchrig klingt, es ist nicht böse oder arrogant gemeint, aber wenn ich Englisch schreibe, denke ich auch Englisch und nicht Deutsch ;)

 

Only because of it's overbuffed gun. It used to be a pretty bad tank, before the gun got it's ridiculous RoF. Conversely, give it the 88/L56 and see it become the laughing stock of T7. Give the IS-1 it's historical D10T and the IS-2 it's historical D25T and it shits all over the historical Tiger I... Oh wait... They already have those guns. THIS is what I am talking about. The Tiger wasn't designed to fight IS-1s and 2s, it was designed to fight B1s and Matildas and, to some extend, T-34s and Churchills.

A tank is, in essence, a package of armor, firepower and mobility. The ingame Tiger's armor is a "Defeat 6 pounders and short-barreled 75mm guns", it's gun a "Defeat Tiger armor" and mobility is roughly on par with the competition in T7. The IS on the other hand, is an armor of "Defeat 88 and 100mm guns", gun is a "Defeat Tigers" and mobility is roughly equal to Tiger. Do you see the problem there? Both tanks have guns that can defeat the other, but only one of them has the armor to beat the other at least a number of times, while the other is paper all the time.

Armor is about the only thing that is historical in this game, everything else is massively buffed compared to reality. If you stuff two tanks into the same tier, that fill the same niche, have identical guns and speed, but one of them has an outdated armor-layout, while the other does not, it's obvious why one vehicle is less desirable than the other and this is the case with german mid-tier vehicles. Tiger and IS have T7 guns and T7 mobility, but Tiger I has a T5 to T6 armor-layout, while IS-1 and IS-2, have a T7 armor-layout.

Okay, point by point:

  1. No, the tanks I named are not inferior to their Russian and Chinese counterparts.  A T29 is not inferior to an IS or IS-2, a T32 is not inferior to an IS-3, and neither the E5 nor the E 100 is inferior to the IS-7 or IS-4. 
  2. An IS-3's armor is not superior to that of a T32, and an IS's armor is not superior to that of a T29.  I find IS-3 armor quite easy to defeat outside of it being hull-down or perhaps sidescraped.  An IS has probably the weakest armor of any HT in its tier except the AMX; even a Tiger I is better armored due to having at least a very large gun mantlet.
  3. Tanks are tiered according to their overall performance, not their gun.  If they were tiered by their gun alone, the M6 would be a Tier 7, etc.
  4. Organized gameplay is meaningless because the bulk of the game is pubs.  You don't judge an organism by how it would do in an environment it very rarely sees, you judge it according to how it performs in an environment it actually sees.  Same with tanks; what matters is how the tank performs in the vast majority of matches - which means pubs - not how it performs in what is by contrast artificial conditions, organized play.
  5. " Sorry wenn das pedantisch oder arschlöchrig klingt, es ist nicht böse oder arrogant gemeint, aber wenn ich Englisch schreibe, denke ich auch Englisch und nicht Deutsch ;) "  You aren't being pedantic or assholish, you're just misunderstanding what I meant.  When you said "western armor" I thought you were saying "western tanks", because just as in German, in English armor can sometimes mean tank; it doesn't always mean the actual plate of armor.
  6. They could have kept the Tiger as a Tier 6 tank, yes, but it would need buffed pen to really be all that good with the short 88 - see the failure of the 3601.  As it stands it would suffer the same fate as the O-I Exp - fairly powerful against same tier and lower tier tanks, but essentially a bag of free XP for anything a tier higher.  (Yes, I've changed my mind on the 3601's viability.)
  7. As for your point about the Tiger's and IS's armor - the Tiger overall has better armor.  Slightly worse hull armor, significantly better turret armor because of a massive gun mantlet covering the entire face of the turret that is mostly 100mm thick.  The IS has cheeks even on the front of the turret, and a large hole in the turret right behind the gun mantlet.  The IS's strengths are mobility and alpha, not armor.

Share this post


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

The IS's strengths are mobility and alpha, not armor.

I would take Tigers gun on a IS hull and turret with tigers mobility any day as the best option. You underestimate the amount of dmg Tiger takes from low tiers if you wanna play aggressive, and that is what wins games. From arty, too.

Example: your own O-I exp can punch big holes on Tiger very easily, while if he meets IS, it is back to garage (good luck shooting turret hatches while he autoaims and smnapshots the biggest tank in game with 75 mm of flat armor). And please, do not "hull me down at 350 m, vision domination included", that story is long gone, and was never so good even back then...you have maybe 3 positions like that on 25% of maps, and after you are spotted first time, better abandon it, since arty will preaim it and wait 2  in for you to be spotted again.

I actually liked Tiger more than IS, but WR is a different story. Gun is so sweet, but chassis is too huge, almost impossible to sidescrape because too short (unlike panther, which has worse side armor, but it is longer, and smaller, but weaker turret. In fact, trying to sidescrape in tiger is a bad idea, since you risk losing your ammorack 3x in a game).

Tiger performance against higher tiers is of much less importance. 

To shorten up:

Ability of IS to dominate city/CQ maps in same tier (70% of maps, 30-40% of battles) leads to solid 60% WR, add a 2-3% of support in higher tiers and you have a nice 63-64%. Tiger have a lot of problems...better damage farmer, but less ability to influence the battle as a top tier...and that is where a heavy tank relies to get its WR mostly. 2nd line support and arguably the best TD in tier 7 just does not worth that much as a face-smashing-tier & heavies-eating-miracle of Soviet engineering. KV-3 (played it pre-HD only) even better. They are very crude machines, and most of the games you do not seem to accomplish much...but by sheer presence you often buy your lemmings on other flank the time, arty hits you for less, and pubbies do not rush you because:

1. They do not fire gold ammo

2. they are scared of alpha, but too dumb to go out 3 together against one 11 second reloading derp gun. T-29 is better Than both, with 105 in the middle, but can sidescrape, bully lower tiers, and even has the best gold round of heavies of same tier.

So, Tiger is great as part of pretty much any kind of platoon...it can shoot what meds spot, "trade" 2 for 0 if your meatshield gets shot at, even spot as a part of a heavy platoon if mm puts you at vision map (with just optics and, BIA and SIA you are at max view range)

but for solo WR padding, tot the best of the bunch.

Yust too many games you end with high caliber, and top dmg 2x than next from your team (and not camping, but supporting 50-100 m from front line...), but pubbies either leming, or they hard camp...leaving you without the ability to take incentive you could have taken in a "proper" heavy or a medium, along with some TDs (28 Concept, Su-152...)...and support does not win games any more.

P.S. watching unicums might prove pretty much anything, Gandaran is a living example, but Tiger, sweet as it is (and only tier 7 in my garage along T29 - who goes out very often alone, while Tiger as a part of a platoon to help others ppl tier 7/tier 6 light grind), is not so good solopub. Take some IS-2 B vids as a living example...with plenty of APCR, though...

But even firing only AP (or 122 mm HE) i would take my tomatoes driving CCCP tanks any day over Tiger. At least they would not die in 15 seconds, but in 1 minute, so i could farm at least 1000 dmg while they give off 3 shots before dying (one miss, one bounce, one track, and then "hacker" in chat...).  Purples too, since they know hot to use IS mobility+have money for gold shells.

Share this post


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

Stuff

Exactly. He gets it. For comparison's sake, this is how IS, IS2 and Tiger I look from the perspective of a M6 at a range of 200m. Please, Florb, tell me which tank is more likely to get a get-out-of-jail-free card when the M6 fires (green is autopen, white generally too, blue depends on the impact angle, red purple and darker yellow is immunity-zone)

nGbUtFGh.jpg

qpbHTDSh.jpg

5v7DgV3h.jpg

And those aren't even ideal angles for the ISes, while the Tiger doesn't get any better no matter how you angle it.

This gets even more lop-sided, when you let something with just ~120mm penetration fire at all three of them (T6 meds). The Tiger's penetration-areas don't change, while both ISes are basically painted in communist colour, from the viewer's point. That both can defeat the other's armor is not the point, that one can survive being beaten by 90% of the rest of the enemy team, while the other can not, is. And if you can find someone on this forum, who is supporting you in your view, that the IS3's armor is not better than T32s, I'd suspect a troll or a tomato.

Share this post


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

Exactly. He gets it. For comparison's sake, this is how IS, IS2 and Tiger I look from the perspective of a M6 at a range of 200m. Please, Florb, tell me which tank is more likely to get a get-out-of-jail-free card when the M6 fires (green is autopen, white generally too, blue depends on the impact angle, red purple and darker yellow is immunity-zone)

nGbUtFGh.jpg

qpbHTDSh.jpg

5v7DgV3h.jpg

And those aren't even ideal angles for the ISes, while the Tiger doesn't get any better no matter how you angle it.

This gets even more lop-sided, when you let something with just ~120mm penetration fire at all three of them (T6 meds). The Tiger's penetration-areas don't change, while both ISes are basically painted in communist colour, from the viewer's point. That both can defeat the other's armor is not the point, that one can survive being beaten by 90% of the rest of the enemy team, while the other can not, is. And if you can find someone on this forum, who is supporting you in your view, that the IS3's armor is not better than T32s, I'd suspect a troll or a tomato.

How is it better?  I pen the UFP of an IS-3 regularly.  The T32's turret is strong all around; the IS-3's only from the front, and it has a pennable roof if he gives the chance.  IS-3 has better side armor, but both have sufficient for sidescraping.

IS-3 has the better gun and moderately faster mobility.  But armor?  T32 wins that fight.

Share this post


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

How is it better?  I pen the UFP of an IS-3 regularly.  The T32's turret is strong all around; the IS-3's only from the front, and it has a pennable roof if he gives the chance.  IS-3 has better side armor, but both have sufficient for sidescraping.

IS-3 has the better gun and moderately faster mobility.  But armor?  T32 wins that fight.

The T32's only better armour is the turret. The overall armour profile of an IS3 is far better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2016 at 3:02 AM, KenadianCSJ said:

After the HD buff, definitely.

T32 turret is still famed because it can use it more often....IS-3 gun dep is bad...

however, in citz fights a lot of earth ramparts are too low to hide the whole T32 hull...while just enough for IS-3 to hull down/sidescrape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much many words but:

Tiger > any other tier 7**

**: it can be argued that IS-2B is better, due to the fact it gets a BIA crew + earns lots of credits, if you use the extra credit gain to run food and spam a bit more gold ammo your net income is on par with normal tier 7 tanks (and so is the mm) but your now a better tank. T29 vs Tiger depends on player, i myself cant stand the T29, i hate it with passion (while i like T34 and T30, so go figure). Its too slow for its armor (the hull is nothing special, its as bad as a tiger, except it lacks the hitpoints) while its gun is also awefull, you reload almost as slow as an IS, but you dont have the alpha dmg, your accuracy is also bad, and your aim time is also not good (yes, you can use v-stab, but an IS uses GLD, so thats alrdy 10% less aim time, compare IS-2B with food and bia with a T29 with normal crew:

Spoiler

IS_2b_t29.png

T29 gets better gun handling for worse mobility, alpha dmg, dpm and armor which is only better when hull down...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, we started the discussion because Florb said Tiger has the best armor...

Tiger has ONLY the best gun. Gun so good that it is probably the best (or at least tied with T29) heavy in tier.

But IS have better armor and mobility. T29 also have better armor...but I like the "mobility" of T29 more than Tiger. Especially its turning speed. Tiger could be circled easily, by a light of a fast med. T29 has much better traverse speed+faster turret. Autoaiming flankers derp many shots in turret or tracks, while Tiger has lower turret and higher hull, so shells land in your ammorack - another trait that T29 has no problems with.

320 Alpha is fine, reload is awful, but it has standard round as good as a Tiger, and gold is better. Punching IS-3s for 320 while hulldown (there is a hatch...but too high for IS-3 to hit...Tiger can pinpoint it pretty good, though) is simply too powerful trait because of IS-3 spam...and Tiger is not good fighting them on most maps.

Also, Gun handling With vstab is very good for close/mid range fights, 150-200 m, 300 m is already pushing with fully aimed T29. Tiger performance is up to draw range...

I have both Tiger and T29. I think solopub T29 is better, it can even sidescrape good, and hull can not be penned by tier 5s, and gives troubles tier 6/limited mm tier 8s at least 50% of time (track links, hide other half, angle well when not able to sidescrape) that shoot AP only.

But best is when you platoon them, Tiger DPM (more effective one, since T29 misses quite a bit)+t29 staying power is great, speed is pretty much the same, and they both have great view range...But spotting is better with T29, because you can pop ridges with impunity. But you need someone to kill targets you spot beyond 300 m.

I get much better WR with T29 than Tiger solopub. 63 vs 54% last 100 battles in each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Felicius said:

True, we started the discussion because Florb said Tiger has the best armor...

Tiger has ONLY the best gun. Gun so good that it is probably the best (or at least tied with T29) heavy in tier.

But IS have better armor and mobility. T29 also have better armor...but I like the "mobility" of T29 more than Tiger. Especially its turning speed. Tiger could be circled easily, by a light of a fast med. T29 has much better traverse speed+faster turret. Autoaiming flankers derp many shots in turret or tracks, while Tiger has lower turret and higher hull, so shells land in your ammorack - another trait that T29 has no problems with.

320 Alpha is fine, reload is awful, but it has standard round as good as a Tiger, and gold is better. Punching IS-3s for 320 while hulldown (there is a hatch...but too high for IS-3 to hit...Tiger can pinpoint it pretty good, though) is simply too powerful trait because of IS-3 spam...and Tiger is not good fighting them on most maps.

Also, Gun handling With vstab is very good for close/mid range fights, 150-200 m, 300 m is already pushing with fully aimed T29. Tiger performance is up to draw range...

I have both Tiger and T29. I think solopub T29 is better, it can even sidescrape good, and hull can not be penned by tier 5s, and gives troubles tier 6/limited mm tier 8s at least 50% of time (track links, hide other half, angle well when not able to sidescrape) that shoot AP only.

But best is when you platoon them, Tiger DPM (more effective one, since T29 misses quite a bit)+t29 staying power is great, speed is pretty much the same, and they both have great view range...But spotting is better with T29, because you can pop ridges with impunity. But you need someone to kill targets you spot beyond 300 m.

I get much better WR with T29 than Tiger solopub. 63 vs 54% last 100 battles in each.

Wait - I didn't say the Tiger has the best armor, just better than the IS because of the gun mantlet.

Share this post


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

Wait - I didn't say the Tiger has the best armor, just better than the IS because of the gun mantlet.

Still, IS has way better armor than the Tiger. Explained last few pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/06/2016 at 2:04 PM, Felicius said:

T32 turret is still famed because it can use it more often....IS-3 gun dep is bad...

however, in citz fights a lot of earth ramparts are too low to hide the whole T32 hull...while just enough for IS-3 to hull down/sidescrape.

Shot trap:cri:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheMarine0341 said:

Ive hit the shot trap several times, I simply dont go for it often because to hit it, you'll expose more of your tank than you should

Yeah, that's one of those weak spots where the question is "While you're sitting motionless carefully aiming at this tiny weak spot, how many tanks are gonna nail you?"

Share this post


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

It's a great and sadly underrated tank.

Sure. Put Caern in a mix for arty to snack something...

Shit tanks are considered shit for a reason. Yes, there are worse ones...but not that many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...