Kuroi's Ranking of the Tier 2 Tanks - post 0.9.10 meta

[Kuroialty 446]

Now that the biggest shifts in tier 2 play have come and things have finally settled down, I've managed to update my rankings of the tier 2 tanks.  Let this be a guide for anyone looking to jump into low tier play.

You can find the old rankings and discussion here.  I'm creating a new thread for the new list because the old meta and discussion surrounding it is so different from what exists now that I want each topic to be separate.

Rules:

- 1-10 scale.  Assumed best module/equipment loadout and moderate gold usage.

- No fixing of ratings to hit a target average.  Very good and very bad tanks can set the bar to skew the rest of the table.

- I haven't played every tank, but I've matched up against them all enough in my time to have a feel of how good they all are.

- This chart primarily applies to random battles, but the rankings could transfer fairly well for skirmishes/tournaments, with some exceptions.

- My experience is entirely with solo pubbing, but the rankings should transfer fairly well for platoons, with some exceptions.

- Tanks will be listed with their change in rating from the old list and the recommended gun to use.

- Arty is unimportant and not covered, but wouldn't fit on the same scale anyways.

 

THE RANKINGS (0.9.16):

 

10 (*) - Type 89 I-Go/Chi-Ro (5.7cm Type 97) - This tank is not fast.  This tank is not hard to hit.  This tank is not particularly well armored.  What this tank is is the holder of the strongest gun in the tier, a 2k DPM slayer of everything.  The front-mounted turret allows it to naturally poke forward out of cover without exposing most of itself, it turns fast enough not to be circled by anything, and it can three-shot most tanks from full health in under five seconds, faster than most clips can empty and reload.  It may be difficult to properly position this tank and manage the different ammo types, all of which are useful, but if successful, there's no better way to lay waste to the opponent than to drive one of these.

 

9 (-1) - Cruiser III (40mm Pom-Pom) - The Cruiser III remains a strong tank in the new meta.  While it isn't as great as it was as a sniper, the Pom-Pom does a good job of dispatching close-range targets.  Though the reload is a bit long, the penetration and clip damage are solid.  The speed allows it to get where it needs to be to always be relevant. 

 

8 (+1) - Cruiser I (40mm Pom-Pom) - The slower, more accurate counterpart to the Cruiser III.  Its slowness may not allow it to reach some fights soon enough to matter.

8 (+4) - Pz. II (2cm Flak) - The Pz. II is much more at home in this meta.  It has the speed to get around and fair frontal armor to bounce enemy autocannons.  Its own autocannon has some of the best penetration and quickest reload in autocannons for the tier, though the burst is a bit tame at only an average of 110.  The penetration is what allows this tank to take down enemies others cannot.

 

7.5 (+1) - M2 LT (20mm Birkigt Gun) - Better off in a climate where it can put its great speed to use.  Turning is a bit poor though.  The gun has good burst, but penetration is lacking and reload is a bit long.  The armor has some potential to ward off some autocannon hits.

7 (-2.5) - Pz.Kpfw. 38H 735 (f) (3,7cm L/34) - A monster in the old meta, this tank has become rather tame.  It lacks the speed to get places, which can lead to the terrible situation of the team crumbling around it and getting picked off last.  Though the gun it has is better than anything available to the French tanks, it's not the kind of burst dominating the meta.

 

6.5 (±0) - Pz. 35t (2cm Flak) - Slow and frail, but with just as strong a gun as the Pz. II.  Still lacking in turret traverse, but like the Type B, this is less of an issue when not sniping.

6.5 (-1) - T2 MT (37mm Browning Semiauto) - Good at getting around and has a fair 150 average burst, but lacks any great survival traits.  The rear-mounted turret was workable in the vision meta, but becomes a liability in this one.  It takes too much time to be constantly turning the tank to get into a good position, and the part that sticks out from cover when firing isn't even that well armored to bounce much or tiny enough to avoid being hit.

6.5 (+1.5) - VAE Type B (40mm Pom-Pom) - The Type B also sports the Pom-Pom found on the Cruisers, but not as well.  Specifically, this tank critically lacks turret traverse.  This downside is much more painful in a sniping meta where the turret can't keep up with distance targets, but less so now when tank traverse can help without fear of turning off binocs.

6 (+2.5) - H35 (25mm Raccourci) - Speed is just as much an issue for this tank as it is for its premium counterpart.  The Raccourci is a much better gun for close-range fighting than the SA38 ever was for sniping.  Its high penetration keeps the tank relevant in all fights it can get to, even if the damage overall is a bit weak.

 

5 (-1) - BT-2 (20mm TNSh) - A fair tank in the old vision meta, but didn't get to put its speed to use.  It does so now, but with its frail hull and losses in firepower, it amounts to less than before.

5 (+2.5) - T2 LT (20mm Birkigt Gun) - Just an inferior M2 LT.  The extra speed isn't worth less health and armor.  Also, the MM still sucks and probably doesn't belong on the tank anymore.

 

4.5 (+2.5) - D1 (25mm Raccourci) - A less mobile, less armored, easier to hit H35.  The armor being both weaker and flatter makes this much less capable of deflecting autocannons, particularly from the side.

4 (-2.5) - T-26 (45mm 20K) - Doesn't have the Pom-Pom of its Chinese counterpart or the pep of the BT-2.  Lost its autocannon in 9.14, relegating it to weapons that don't fit the meta.

4 (-2.5) - M2A4 (Browning MG) - While the American M2 has a respectable autocannon to fall back on, the British M2 only has its stock autocannon.  This is at least better suited for the meta than the M5, but leaves it only with firepower comparable to the T7 Car or Light VIC.  It's slightly better than either of those thanks to its fair armor and shortest reload.  320 average damage in a burst is not worth the long vulnerability period while reloading.

4 (+1) - R35 (37mm SA38) - A slow tank with very weak DPM and penetration.  Equipping the Raccourci would solve penetration problems, but leave it with two-thirds to a half of the DPM of any same-tier tank that could reliably pen it.  The armor is its saving grace, but doesn't amount to much.

4 (-1.5) - Tetrarch (2-pdr Mk. IX-A) - Shifts in the meta never seem to benefit the Tetrarch.  Getting away from the vision meta allows it to escape the problem of its 260m view range, but leave it with a bigger problem of a slow firing gun that doesn't fit this meta either.  It at least still has good speed for getting around, and the gun's naturally high penetration will be helpful with all of the extra French tanks running around.

 

3.5 (+2.5) - T1E6 (37mm Semiauto M1924A1) - An inferior T2 MT.  By comparison, the gun falls behind in aim time, accuracy, and penetration.  The only advantages it has is its speed, which hardly matters, and its faster reload, which can be made up for on the T2 by equipping a rammer.

3.5 (-1.5) - T-60 (20mm TNSh) - The sloped front of this tank protects it somewhat well from autocannon fire, but only from the direction it faces.  The autocannon is premium tank tier, having little penetration, poor accuracy, and long reload, though not as long as the actual premium tanks.

3.5 (+2) - Pz. I (2cm Breda) - The 132 average burst of this tank has the fastest reload of any autocannon in the tier.  It comes out rather slowly though, and penetration is on the low side.  The hull has no protection.

3.5 (+0.5) - Light VIC (15mm BESA) - Boasts a very large burst averaging 360 damage, but much of that can go to waste with its low penetration.  The tank is quick and frail.

3.5 (-2) - Type 95 Ha-Go (5.7cm Type 97) - The Type 98 was a serviceable option in the vision meta.  Now this tank must fall back on the slow projectiles of the Type 97, putting it closer to on par with the Chi-Ni.  It's still more maneuverable than the Chi-Ni, which isn't saying much.

3 (+2) - Pz. II D (2cm Kw.K. 30) - The undisputed worst tank of the vision meta, this tank is inferior to its tree counterpart in every way that matters.  Both tanks benefit, but this one much less so.  It still has the worst penetration of the tier, though unlike other premiums, it can use premium ammo to have decent penetration at a high credit cost.  It can't do anything about its bad accuracy though.  Still faces tier 3 tanks despite not at all being suited for it.

3 (+0.5) - T7 Combat Car (Browning MG) - Wields the most extreme autocannon of the tier - an average burst of 400 that takes over a third of a minute to reload.  The reload is more dangerous to its own survival than the gun is to most opponents.  Supposedly mobile, but those terrain resistance values drag it down far from how it looks on paper.

3 (*) - T-45 (45mm 20KL) - Sets the new low for DPM in the tier.  It's absolutely atrocious.  The saving grace of this tank is the front profile that is even more bouncy than the T-60.  Even the worst DPM can stand up against autocannon tanks if all of their shells bounce off.

3 (+0.5) - FCM 36 (37mm SA38) - Much the same story as the R35.  This tank gets its armor more from the slopes in the armor rather than actual thickness, which can lead to problems when enemies close in and shoot it from above.  The pointed edges of the side armor are spaced armor and deceptively good at eating shells.

3 (-0.5) - Chi-Ni (5.7cm Type 97) - A far cry from the I-Go, despite having the same gun.  It might be a bit faster and have a little more armor, but one second of reload time is a big difference when reload times are already short.  While the I-Go can pump out enough damage to compete with autocannons, the Chi-Ni simply cannot work at the same pace and falls far behind.

3 (-2.5*) - T3 HMC (75mm Howitzer) - A relatively new tank, but totally deserving of comparison to the T18 it replaces.  While the T18 was fearsome for its tough front that most tanks struggled to penetrate, the T3 has no such kind of armor.  While the T18's howitzer had deadly accuracy at times and could be dangerous from the moment it rounded a corner, the T3's howitzer is nowhere as precise.  In fact, in the time it would take to wind down to reasonable accuracy after turning a corner, something could easily clip out the T3.  The T18 wasn't as good as its fear factor either, but the strength of the T3 may only be in its fear factor.

3 (*) - LT vz. 35 (37mm Skoda A8) - This tank wouldn't have fared so poorly in the vision meta.  It has rather nice penetration, accuracy, and view range.  Unfortunately for it, that is no longer the world we live in.  Instead, it suffers from poor speed, poor DPM, and no burst.  It's a worse Pz. 35t, much like the relationship between the Ha-Go and the Te-Ke, the VAE Type B and the T-26, and the American and British M2s.

 

2.5 (-2) - Te-Ke (37mm Type 98) - Basically a Ha-Go without the option to change its loadout to adapt to the new meta.  There are actually tanks worse off than this one.

2 (±0) - Vickers Mk. II (6-pdr Mk. I) - If being big and weak wasn't enough of a liability in the vision meta, it certainly will be in this one.  It's not all bad though.  The wide selection of guns all having slow projectile speed didn't fit in a meta where fights often took place across distances greater than 250 meters.  They're all a bit more workable now, but only for the brief period that it doesn't get used as easy target practice.

2 (*) - L-60 (20mm akan m/Madsen) - Autocannons need to either be effective or scary in order to work.  Pz. II, M2 LT, and T2 LT are examples of effective autocannons.  T7 Car and Light VIC are examples of scary autocannons.  This tank's autocannon is neither of those things.  The mobility of the platform is pretty good, but that just means it will have an easy time getting places where it will have nothing to do with its awful gun.  Matchmaking spread is yet uncertain, but this doesn't belong anywhere near tier 3.  Given WG's history, I'm assuming you'll see it there anyways.

 

1.5 (-4.5) - PzJg I (4,7cm L/43) - With sniping being the only suitable job for this tank, it now finds itself out of work with little hope for recovery.  Out of the bottom TDs, this has the weakest alpha and perhaps potentially the best penetration, though having as much as it does ceases to have value at some point.  One of the more mobile bottom TDs, which is the only quality it has that makes it any better.

1.5 (-4.5) - UC 2-pdr (6-pdr AT Gun Mk. I) - Another tragic loss to the extinction of the vision meta.  More mobile than other TDs keeps it from being on bottom.  It might be fast, but it has nowhere to go.

1 (-3) - AT-1 (76mm L-10S) - The only hope for this tank is that it gets in a few strong slugs with its high alpha gun before it succumbs to being shredded apart.

1 (-3.5) - Renault FT AC (25mm automatique) - Just because it has an autocannon doesn't mean it's any good.  All of the other tanks with autocannons aren't as much of sitting ducks as this one is, nor do they have the restricted gun arc like they're wearing a dog's cone collar.

 

 

Why and how the meta has changed:

The metagame before 9.10 was dominated by vision play.  In 9.10, the maps normally available to tier 2 tanks changed to put much less emphasis on vision.  I've covered this in-depth once before here.

Removed (Province, Malinovka, Prokhorovka, Karelia, Ensk) - Province and Malinovka stand out as the two maps that lent most towards vision play.  Prokhorovka and Karelia also suited vision play well, but their geography and increased size restricted the influence of any one sniper.  Additionally, while Province and Malinovka both had ample hard and soft cover mostly everywhere, Karelia was relatively lacking in soft cover and Prokhorovka relatively lacking in hard cover.  Ensk is the only map lost that wasn't dominated by vision play.

Kept (Mines, Himmelsdorf, Mittengard) - Mines and Himmelsdorf each have avenues where snipers can be effective, but nowhere as well as with the maps lost.  Face-to-face engagements are much more the norm.  Mittengard is a somewhat recent arrival (9.5), but is entirely sniper unfriendly.

Added (Ruinberg) - Ruinberg's big city is a great place for close fights.  The fields to the east would be suitable for snipers were it not for the small town atop a hill that splits the middle, which is just another area better suited for close-range fighters.

What's the result of all of this?

Sniping has lost its value - As mentioned in my last list, one important quality of a tank is how versatile it is.  The best tanks in the last meta were excellent snipers, but had traits to fall back on to be effective at close-range too.   Handling both situations was important.  In the new meta, close-range engagements are the norm and long-range engagements rarely happen or matter.  Good tanks need to be good in the close-range engagements, but lacking the tools to fight at long-range is no longer a considerable drawback.

Vision has lost much of its value - Even if you couldn't do a good job at sniping, tanks with high view range could always run binocs, sit somewhere that oversaw a large area of the map, and provide information to teamates.  With more players fighting in close-range and fewer ways to spot large areas, spotting as a supporting role loses value in almost every respect apart from closing out a game.

Autocannons reign supreme - Autocannons have always been the most lethal weapons of the low tiers, but they were primarily kept in check by destroying the targets that carried them before they could even get close enough to matter.  Without that check in place, autocannons and semi-autos get to bring their full force to every fight.  In fact, the most effective way now to deal with dangerous autocannons is to run your own and clip down the enemy before they can retaliate.

Good armor is more important - Low penetration is a common characteristic of autocannons.  Since avoiding autocannons is basically impossible now, measures to mitigate the effect of hits taken from autocannons are more important.  Killing the other guy faster is one aspect of this, but high armor also fits this role.  It gets more mileage now than in a meta where you could avoid getting hit altogether.  Of course only the armor that is good enough to reliably bounce autocannons is actually good enough.  20-25mm armor is better than nothing, but hardly stops enough to be of real value.  In any case, since armor is a passive trait and not an active one, it serves more at a litmus test for skill and preparedness in your opponent than a means to exercise your own skill.  This can result in some swingy performance.

Long reloads are an enormous liability - It was bad enough having a long reload under the old meta, but in the current climate, it's a death wish.  You could get away with longer reloads before because the slower meta allowed it.  Now that so many tanks which reload their burst of >150 damage in four to six seconds are running around, the tanks with longer reloads, all being  close-range autocannons, are much more vulnerable than before.

An overall loss in potential - It was possible to get a lot of mileage out of each tank in the vision meta because of how it facilitated being effective without being in danger.  Spotting and sniping from bushes was an excellent way to get things done without losing health needed for taking risks in closing out games.  Without such a method available now, every tank gets grinded down much more, bringing down the upper bound of what is possible, or at least of what can be expected.  So, the best tank of the new meta is not as good now as the best tank of the vision meta had been, and the worst tank of the new meta is not as good now as the worst tank of the vision meta had been.

Which tanks' rankings moved the most?

The Pz. II had a four point jump, from somewhere between good and bad up to near the top.  The strong front armor, high penetration autocannon with short reload, and good mobility are all much more valuable traits in this meta.  The VAE Type B had a one-and-a-half point jump thanks to its Pom-Pom.  The T2 LT sees a two-and-a-half point jump and the Pz. I, Pz. II D, and T1E6 each see a two point jump for their better suited weapons.  The H35 and D1 each climb two-and-a-half points for their strong armor.

Every TD lost at least three points, save for the T3 HMC which is down two-and-a-half points compared to the T18.  Every TD was a huge loser because they are all frail, lack significant burst, and lack a turret.  The only quality of value among the TDs is the T3's howitzer, but it's so unwieldy in its inaccuracy that its fear factor is greater than its impact.

 

 

Please remember to club responsibly.

Last revised on October 18, 2016.

[no_name_cro 2,034]

TIer 2 has meta? LOL.

[westybig 1,393]

 

TIer 2 has meta? LOL.

@aaveq

[Assassin7 4,319]

Im surprised the Tetarch isn't higher. its a seriously good tank. I look at my tier 2 garage, and out of all of the tanks, its the only one I would want to play consistently. especially being lower than tanks like the BT-2 and Pz 35t...???? wat

[aaveq 899]

 

[SchnitzelTruck 3,529]

Behold!

Imbalance and poorly thought out gameplay at its finest!

[Cunicularius 4,542]

Rip UC-2 pdr, that thing was fun :c

[lt_lolcat 305]

 

Im surprised the Tetarch isn't higher. its a seriously good tank. I look at my tier 2 garage, and out of all of the tanks, its the only one I would want to play consistently. especially being lower than tanks like the BT-2 and Pz 35t...???? wat

It's because of the change in maps that tier 2's see.  They only get little maps anymore.  The days of being able to skulk around and club seals on Malinovka and Province are long gone.

[lavawing 413]

 

Im surprised the Tetarch isn't higher. its a seriously good tank. I look at my tier 2 garage, and out of all of the tanks, its the only one I would want to play consistently. especially being lower than tanks like the BT-2 and Pz 35t...???? wat

Rip the glory days on Malinovka. Now I'm stuck trying to abuse camo on Mittengard against a bunch of autocannons.

I feel that by replacing all the vision maps with brawling arenas WG is trying to lower the skill floor and limit the skill ceiling. A 5 skill Leichtraktor can abuse its camo and viewrange to obtain a disproportionate carry potential in the earlier meta. Now the ability to play a decent vision game has become more or less worthless. Of course, skills like smooth ride and snapshot still give you an edge in clubbing seals, but they don't swing games around like chai-sniping in a bush used to.

[Rexxie 10,706]

 

Im surprised the Tetarch isn't higher. its a seriously good tank. I look at my tier 2 garage, and out of all of the tanks, its the only one I would want to play consistently. especially being lower than tanks like the BT-2 and Pz 35t...???? wat

I'm not sure why the Tet would be good. All it offers is high pen. With the T18 gone, there's barely any reason to have that much pen. Minimaus/Somuas, I guess? That's not a very good reason. When they and the T18 were literally everywhere, the Tet had a reason to exist. It's shit outside of its pen - miserable DPM, no view range, no hp, horrible gun handling. It's just small and fast, that's all.

[Assassin7 4,319]

 

I'm not sure why the Tet would be good. All it offers is high pen. With the T18 gone, there's barely any reason to have that much pen. Minimaus/Somuas, I guess? That's not a very good reason. When they and the T18 were literally everywhere, the Tet had a reason to exist. It's shit outside of its pen - miserable DPM, no view range, no hp, horrible gun handling. It's just small and fast, that's all.

Im of the opposite opinion. Compared to other tier 2 tanks, the gun handling isnt bad, its about average. neither is the DPM, its got a 2.5 second reload? For 45 alpha or something. Or am I just used to playing tier 1s and 2s with 50% crews because wasting however many credits on 5-10 games worth of grinding has no point? 

 

Also, with the view range thing, unless you come up against seal clubbers most of the people you will be facing will have 50% crews and have worse view range than you anyway.

 

I will say, most of my tier 2s are the shitty gift tanks, which all have low pen spam cannons. I rate the tet muxch higher than every single one of them, frankly. (also the T2 LT, which cant pen anything thats slightly angled)

[Rexxie 10,706]

The gun handling is certainly pretty shite compared to similar T2s. Cruiser III has the same gun with 150 more DPM, nearly half a second faster aimtime, and far better bloom. Tet vs Ha-Go is pretty similar - Ha-Go has far better gun handling and ~175 more DPM. Tet vs T-26, same deal - far better gun handling on the T-26, 100 more DPM. The Tet is more on the level of tanks like the BT-2, Pz35t, Te-Ke, M2 Light, etc. Tanks that aren't really about the gun.

Basically it's supposed to be "gun centric" but actually isn't and just ends up being a really shitty cross between a gottagofast tier 2 and a support tier 2 that has nothing except the pen of one.

[Casas5591 58]

@Kuroialty Do you think the meta is appropriate for the sake of newbies or do you have better and alternative solution as to what WG should of done to low tier gameplay?

 

Fast as T-50-2 with O-I X damage every 5 seconds with Pz 2 armor for lowbies, unfortunate how that is the only thing that makes lower tiers worth playing, today.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Casas5591
1st question answered in OP post but I'll leave the 2nd^

[GehakteMolen 2,016]

played some t2 (french tanks, new us tds, panzerjager I and jap tanks) and can confirm, its terrible

Machine gun spam everywhere, TDs are useless and anything with real paper armor (tetrach or so) is also worthless.

I think that these changes are good for newbs, since all you need to do is drive around spray at people, while rage inducting for expierenced players, it means ``good`` players wont sealclub anymore, and with T18 gone, tier 2 might be ``fixed``

ps: tier 4 is still fkn bad, and tier 3 is also mweah, but its atleast something

[MacusFlash 2,270]

90% of these tank names are new to me. BTW France has shit tanks on the bottom of the list both II and IX tier 

[The_direwolf 167]

IMO M2 LT should be higher. 38mm of frontal hull and 25mm sides means you can sidescrape against single shot, and rambo against auto-cannons. The gun is also consistent and has good numbers in all the important stats.

 

Besides that pretty accurate list. The Japanese tier 2 is just dumb.

[RichardNixon 835]

 

IMO M2 LT should be higher.

Skill-adjusted interval results agree. The US M2 is top by a distance for unicums, actually followed by the British one. Thin data, but still interesting.

The meta change really is enormous. Tanks like the Cruiser III and PzJag used to come top, but now the TDs and the paper snipers are trash, and it's all autocannons and armour. Previous junk tanks like the H35 and R35 come out pretty high.

[Kuroialty 446]

 

Im surprised the Tetarch isn't higher. its a seriously good tank. I look at my tier 2 garage, and out of all of the tanks, its the only one I would want to play consistently. especially being lower than tanks like the BT-2 and Pz 35t...???? wat

I basically would echo everything Rexxie said.

The Tetrarch was best when it first came out and has gone nowhere but down ever since.  It was released into a climate of new French tanks when premium ammo for silver didn't exist and sniping was the way to go.  It wasn't even that strong of a sniper at that time though, and once the Cruisers were released and premium ammo was made available to everyone, it didn't have much reason to be played over other tanks.  It has even less of a reason now with no burst and no armor.

It still seems that people play it a lot and do well with it, which is a little bizarre to me.  I remember realizing how important view range was after sinking 500+ games into the thing and never looked back at it since.  The "you'll be playing against newbs with bad crews so it's okay to have bad view range" argument never seemed like anything to me except license to be walked all over when you eventually do run into someone who isn't asleep at the wheel.

 

Do you think the meta is appropriate for the sake of newbies or do you have better and alternative solution as to what WG should of done to low tier gameplay?

If anything, the new meta is more retard friendly than it is newb friendly.  Here's a pretty logical approach to this game:

• This game is a shooter.
  • I should try to shoot the enemy and not get shot by the enemy.
    • If I want to get shot, I should drive forward out into the open and expose myself from all sides.
    • If I don't want to get shot, I should hug rocks and walls to hide behind and block enemy shots.
    • (Advanced) I was actually paying attention to the game and noticed that tanks often show up behind bushes.
      • If I don't want to get shot, I should hide behind bushes and shouldn't fire until I'm okay with being seen.

Voila, fucking five minutes into playing this game and I already understood these concepts.  In fact, once someone recognizes that they're playing a shooter, basic monkey-brain survival instincts should kick in to tell them what they should or shouldn't do if they want to survive.  That should have given anyone playing in the old meta enough time to recognize that everyone else who understood these concepts (by paying attention to other people hugging rocks and sitting in bushes) was sniping, and from there should come the realization that the best players are the best snipers and if you want to be better at the game, you should become a better sniper.  Of course there's more to it than that, but that's at least a start, yet tons of people apparently couldn't grasp those ideas.  Those people aren't (just) newbs, they're retards.

Instead, we now have the current meta which, while it hardly plays into any of those survival instincts to the same degree as before, is great for satisfying the bloodlust of wanting to get into your enemy's face and tear them to shreds.  Somehow, this is a more natural playstyle to people picking up this game, and if I wanted to look into biology and philosophy, I could probably find an excellent explanation for why that is.

As far as a "better" or "alternative" solution goes, I learned a valuable lesson a long time ago in playing another game about the stress of becoming emotionally invested in looking at what "should be" rather than what "is".  What I think "should be" in a game is typically motivated by things or a pursuit for something that has nothing in common with the motivations of the businesses making the game, which results in a lot of wasted time and energy and negative feelings from pushing your ideas onto someone that is in no way open to be convinced, no matter the value of those ideas.  It's not really important to me to think about what low tier gameplay should be like or think of how it could be improved.  Actually, it would be more true to say it's important for me not to think about such things, because I'm not interested in getting burned by another poor time investment.  I could be extremely bitter over the changes to the tier 2 meta, or I could just embrace them and figure out what's good again since much of what makes tier 2 better than everything else in the game is still completely intact.

I'll mention a bit on what I've said before: if the problem with low tiers is that there are too many experienced players ragging on new players, there needs to be an acceptance that what exists in the game right now isn't pulling those experienced players away.  Higher tiers and competitive play at higher tiers isn't going to cut it.  Removing participation in weekend events and missions isn't going to cut it.  Destroying the vision meta over a drawn out period before killing it completely is their latest attempt and still isn't going to cut it.  Until they understand the motivators for why clubbers exist, they're not going to get rid of them.  And if that's not the problem with low tiers, then I don't see anything else that could be wrong with it.  Except tier 3 and 4 matchmaking.

 

IMO M2 LT should be higher. 38mm of frontal hull and 25mm sides means you can sidescrape against single shot, and rambo against auto-cannons. The gun is also consistent and has good numbers in all the important stats.

 

Besides that pretty accurate list. The Japanese tier 2 is just dumb.

I'm a little wary of the M2's low-midrange penetration and deceptively bad turning at times.  Sure, the armor is good enough to bounce some autocannons, but playing too recklessly with that in mind can screw you big time against the person who chooses to spam gold with their autocannon.  It doesn't take much to be left on 30-50 health and be only one dive away from being clipped out by another enemy.

Just to compare it to the Pz. II for a moment, whether you like one or the other more I see mostly as a matter of preference.  It's a choice between a small burst that reloads quickly or a large burst that reloads slowly.  Both tanks have good speed, maneuverability, and frontal armor.  The higher base penetration is what gives the Pz. II the edge in my mind though.

Another thing which is keeping the Pz. II and M2 LT from getting higher on the list are the Cruisers, which I didn't test.  I played the VAE Type B though and had some absolutely sick results from it.  It only made sense from that that the Cruisers would be better.

And of course, the I-Go is stupid good.  I've still not run into more than a handful of good players who have played it, but every time I'm on the receiving end of it, I think, "Oh, so that's what that feels like."

[lt_lolcat 305]

hmm... I might have to give the I-Go a try.  I do have a good jap medium crew sitting idle as I gave up on the line after finding out awful the Chi Ri is. 

 

on second thought, nah... playing tier 2 is pointless

[Valan 16]

 

90% of these tank names are new to me. BTW France has shit tanks on the bottom of the list both II and IX tier 

Cough, cough... your doing something very wrong if you think all French tier 2 vehicles are shit:

 

Kurio's list is fine, granted it has a few blind spots or omissions on what's workable.  For example, zero artillery coverage insight and artillery vehicles do vary in their outcomes even at tier two.  Next no discussion of platoon vehicle combinations for the few maps given.  That said, the Cruiser III, Cruiser I, Pz II, Pz II Aust D, T2 Med, M2 Light, T1E6, FT BS, Te-Ke and even the unmentioned tier two Czech tank are each excellent.   Though, he seems to want to promote the use of low penetration value auto-cannons, auto-loaders a bit too much in my view, given many vehicles have fine alternative guns choices.  Nor does he directly discussion the impact of relative 'aim times' for given situations.  Yes, armor can and does matter at tier two.  But so does vision, camo values, gun depression/elevation, vehicle mobility, a given team's relative deployment, a team's firing angles, alpha per shell et la.  Point being Kurio has a preferred playing style, and his given rankings for tier two vehicles reflect those preferences.

 

Did I have any deeds similar to Kurio? 

Occasionally I'll enter a tier two tournament and do okay calling it.  Bit of a time sink herding everyone up, meanwhile preparing for a competition.  If your going to do it, make it worth everyone's time.  Though granted I was carried a bit further in my stock crew's Japanese Te-Ke win rate than Kurio has in a British Cruiser III.  Damage output isn't everything, at the end of the day. 

 

[RichardNixon 835]

 

For example, zero artillery coverage insight and artillery vehicles do vary in their outcomes even at tier two.

On recent skill-adjusted results, the order is Renault BS > SU-18 > T57 >> Lloyd GC >> G.Pz IV. The top three are pretty close. Oddly enough, tier 2 arty perform far better than they did before newbie MM, which suggests that newbie MM doesn't apply to them.

[MacusFlash 2,270]

 

Cough, cough... your doing something very wrong if you think all French tier 2 vehicles are shit:[...]

Clicking machines are not tanks; they're still clicking machines.

[Valan 16]

 

On recent skill-adjusted results, the order is Renault BS > SU-18 > T57 >> Lloyd GC >> G.Pz IV. The top three are pretty close. Oddly enough, tier 2 arty perform far better than they did before newbie MM, which suggests that newbie MM doesn't apply to them.

Feedback mechanisms are one reason for your 'skill-adjust results' for tier 2 artillery.  The German tier 2 is subject to larger R.N.G. factors than the French tier 2 FT BS is.  Additionally the smaller map sizes are rather ideal for shorter range tier 2 artillery, than what the the German tier 2 G.Pz IV was designed for.  The Pit map rewards lower aim time vehicles & quicker reload cycles greatly.  

 

Bit surprised, the Lloyd GC ranks so lowly your results RichardNixon.  When was your data taken from?  Before or after, the mapping rotation system was altered?

 

Many people have complained about various bottlenecks found on maps used for battle tiers 8 to 11, and yet the very same map situation is perhaps worst at battle tiers 1 to 3 currently.  It's a structural weakness by design, which seeks to impose limits upon more mobile vehicles -- I'm argue.  Nerf by mapping department.

 

Remember what once was found, on many of the lower battle tier maps?

Oh, yes... trees! 

Where are the trees, on the newest map in the game? 

 

Anti-tree-ism appears to be in full swing, for Wargaming Inc.  Tree, tree, oh where are you hiding dear tree?

 

[Felicius 170]

Tier 2 arty is actually pretty devastating. It can one shot almost any tank, but more often you lose 2/3 hp. On a sub 10 sec reload it is very efficient (imagine arty killing one tier X tank every half a minute) Maps like Mittengard or Mines have one or two key areas. Best players must go there and conquer that position (hill on Mines), but are vulnerable to arty. I play Pz. II a lot, and xvm sniping is what wins matches as arty. When i see after battle results, arty did 300 dmg, but it was on me and the other green/blue guy.

I often make 700-800 dmg if there is no arty, because i can hulldown like a champ (Pz. II is actually "turret down", because there is maybe one third of the turret visible, and half of that is the autobounce angle). I often do that damage even on tier 3 on Himmelsdorf, if i can get hulldown on the hill. I spam shells on Chech turrets, evading return fire so i do maybe 20-30 per clip, but it adds up fast. Like a shotgun that fires every 3.5 seconds. Many times i won the tier 3 match that way, by keeping 5-6 tanks in check, while my teammates uselessly died near the castle. After battle i would see i did 800 dmg, and tier 3s from my team did 300 at most, but we won. Buti am totally exposed to arty at all times.

There is also 2-3 key piles of rubble on mittengard you must take...and no real arty cover.

Position which is barely arty safe is the rock on the ascent to the hill on mines. You have to hug it really tight, and shoot through the hole in the rock. Butt hat means you must not have some fast enemy like bt-2 or tetrarch on the hill putting side shots in you.

So yea, arty actually prevents good players to carry tiers 2-3 very efficiently. I often co city on Mines, and sometimes i do up to 900 dmg there, but i am exposed to rushing by tomatoes.

If the whole team is red, than arty does not impact winrate. But when it can pick targets it is devastating. Imagine if you could kill just one or two top enemy players with any given tank? You will not be purple, but wr would be at least 75%. So i always look if arty has xvm or not.

Ruinberg is a relief actually, both range and arcs are insufficient to make an impact. A lot of corner fights are arty safe, and when they are not, at least there are more of it, and not just one or two key areas.

 

[Felicius 170]

Regarding your ranking, I-Go is dangerous if it spams HEAT. But if it is not, i can clip him in 2 clips, and I usually take 2 30 dmg shots in return (HE). Often ppl shoot AP, which can not penetrate Pz. II  frontally, and HE does meager damage. Pom-Pom clip i fear the most, if the Cruiser is near enough. Along the penetration, i think it is the soft stats that make the Pz. II  so good. The 2 cm flak is more accurate and has better aim time than many 37 mm guns, and i often autoaim the snapshot, and at 50 m i hit with almost half the clip. Try doing that with any other single shooter...from 20 shots you will get maybe one hit, and it would be tracks. I-Go is particularly easy to clip- it is big, slow and soft.

>For a soft tank it is not so great . I-Go deserves at most 7 in my opinion. Guess it works even for only the minority of unicums, huh. In pub hands it is the autocannon fodder. 

Not that the minimum time exposure is always best tactics-gun is offset to the left part of the turret, and turret is offset to the left, so i could sidescrape into showing 20% or less frontal armor, and many hits i receive are eaten by tracks or autobounce.