Jump to content
Valachio

112 vs IS-6 - Big Debate

Recommended Posts

no

 

 

oh good loard

 

I know that, that was the entire point - I have a KV-5 so I see no point in buying an IS-6, I don't need a pad tank for the sake of padding I need a tank to train Chinese heavy crews.

 

Just like I won't buy the T-34-3 not because it's fairly rubbish but because I already have a type-59.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jingles posted a very good review of the 112 on his youtube channel (sorry I can't link to it atm).

In a nutshell, the upf is strong without weakspots but the lfp is very weak. The cupolas are larger than the IS-6's and if the driver angles the upf he creates a shot trap right above the upper corner of the upf where shots bounce down from lower edge of the turret ontothe 25mm upper deck. Jingles shows how he gets penned there.

My conclusion is that the 112 is on par with IS-6. Neither clearly better nor worse, similar but different.

The 110 however seems clearly better except for credits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh good loard

 

I know that, that was the entire point - I have a KV-5 so I see no point in buying an IS-6, I don't need a pad tank for the sake of padding I need a tank to train Chinese heavy crews.

 

Just like I won't buy the T-34-3 not because it's fairly rubbish but because I already have a type-59.

lol dw im not that dumb, just too lazy to write anything else

Link to post
Share on other sites

The movement bloom stats are now in the Android app, clear victory to the IS-6 in that department.

                                           112      IS-6
Max gun movement dispersion @ 100m         1.67m    1.32m
Max suspension rotation dispersion @ 100m  2.99m    2.75m
Max tank movement dispersion @ 100m        5.18m    3.7m

This is with, mind you, identical 3.4 second aim times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The movement bloom stats are now in the Android app, clear victory to the IS-6 in that department.

                                           112      IS-6
Max gun movement dispersion @ 100m         1.67m    1.32m
Max suspension rotation dispersion @ 100m  2.99m    2.75m
Max tank movement dispersion @ 100m        5.18m    3.7m

This is with, mind you, identical 3.4 second aim times.

We can safely say the IS-6 gun is definitely much better.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, the 112 felt like crap when I tried it. The gun handling was appallingly bad, the HEAT was underwhelming, people were penning even the upper glacius. Yes, it's the test server, but the IS-6 still felt bouncier even on the test server. Catches fire a lot, easy weak points, slow shell travel and reload, just bleh. I've played the IS-6 a bit and it just feels like the better tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I decided to get the is-6 based on these reasons: While playing on the test server, it seems any penning shot the the ufp is a fire, and anything to the side is  an ammorack. The is-6 was a little slow, but then again, I was playing alot of desert maps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm only a couple matches in, but I feel like its surface similarities to the IS-6 are deceiving. The IS-6 can knife fight with the best of them thanks to the all-around armor. The 112 has to be rather more circumspect, but given how it mounts a blunderbuss it still has to be relatively close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's troubling when have to take a defensive module to make the tank be on par with it's peers over taking an offensive module that gives you an advantage over similar tier tanks.

 

German frontal transmission, you can't even take a defensive module to make up for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Played a few quick games, terrible teams but you get that and went full potato in the first game.

 

VertStab, GLD, Rammer

 

Plays similar to the IS-2 except with frontal armour so it will do fine. Bounced Lowe, IS-3 etc without much trouble.

 

Suspect IS-6 players will get penned in the side a lot because they think they are in a n IS-6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspect IS-6 players will get penned in the side a lot because they think they are in a n IS-6.

 

That's been my biggest issue so far. The urge to get in there and gut some bastards is overwhelming, and the thing's faster than an IS-6 so it's even easier to do.

 

Then I die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been running my 110 crew in the 112, and they don't have preventative maintenance or safe stowage. Considering the flammability of the 112, would it be worth getting those skills for my 110 crew, or the wz 111 crew I'll be eventually getting? 

 

More on topic, this thing does seem capable of soaking allot of damage, assuming it doesn't get hit in the sides or lfp. Wiggling seems to help too, though not too much as the sides are paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Safe stowage I run on pretty much any combat vehicle as the first loader skill. There's a couple exceptions, like the T49, but the most part absolutely.

 

I do have preventative maintenance, but I'm not sure how much it helps. Chinese tanks get fires from fuel tanks, not engines, and both the wording of the skill and rumors I've heard suggest preventative maintenance only helps with engines. No convincing evidence for this, though, just hearsay. vOv

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the test server I played around with these in a training room with Maclay (not a baddie). I was able to pen the 112 with my IS-6 reliably with gold and fairly often firing standard AP. He on the other hand could not pen me with standard AP and angling I could often get his HEAT to bounce. We switched vehicles and it was fairly similar, we were at a standard 100 meters out. Granted, we spent this time during the first iteration of the test but it was enough to convince me that I did not need the 112 because I already have the IS-6 and while I do have the tier 9 Chinese heavy, grinding the 113 isn't very high on my list of things to do.

 

One thing that may have made a difference was that my IS-6 crew is better, they have bia, whereas my Chinese heavy crew doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Safe stowage I run on pretty much any combat vehicle as the first loader skill. There's a couple exceptions, like the T49, but the most part absolutely.

 

I do have preventative maintenance, but I'm not sure how much it helps. Chinese tanks get fires from fuel tanks, not engines, and both the wording of the skill and rumors I've heard suggest preventative maintenance only helps with engines. No convincing evidence for this, though, just hearsay. vOv

 

Preventative Maintenance does nothing for fuel tank fires. Read the Perk text. Reduces chance of Engine Fires. Nothing complicated about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Preventative Maintenance does nothing for fuel tank fires. Read the Perk text. Reduces chance of Engine Fires. Nothing complicated about that.

 

Because the in-game text is so often correct.

 

VLHFm9D.jpg

 

This, for instance, pretty much says skills and perks don't work or work with reduced efficiency, when in fact nothing of the sort is true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the in-game text is so often correct.

 

VLHFm9D.jpg

 

This, for instance, pretty much says skills and perks don't work or work with reduced efficiency, when in fact nothing of the sort is true.

 

Everything everywhere about Preventative Maintenance says that it only affects fires caused by shots to the engine, not the fuel tanks.

 

If you want to imagine that the text and functioning of PM have been bugged since they were added and the Perk also affects Fuel tank fires then that's your business.

 

As for your screenshot, can you be a bit more clear? It looks like your Maus Commander is in your TigerP and the game is telling you that he can't use his Perks and Skills because he's not trained to operate a TigerP. Is there something I'm missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your screenshot, can you be a bit more clear? It looks like your Maus Commander is in your TigerP and the game is telling you that he can't use his Perks and Skills because he's not trained to operate a TigerP. Is there something I'm missing?

 

The fact that the game is completely wrong. This is not an isolated thing, either, for instance. The specifics of controlled impact have never been correct in game. Brothers in arms says it improves "all skills", when in fact it only improves the three common skills.

 

Don't believe the game tool tips until you have independent confirmation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the game is completely wrong. This is not an isolated thing, either, for instance. The specifics of controlled impact have never been correct in game. Brothers in arms says it improves "all skills", when in fact it only improves the three common skills.

 

Don't believe the game tool tips until you have independent confirmation.

 

Can't you give me a nice compiled list with evidence then?

 

Thanks :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel tank fires happen 100% of the time when the fuel tank is destroyed and 0% of the time when it isn't, how would preventative maintenance reduce the chance by 25%?

CO2 increases module health, it doesn't say "reduces chance of fuel tank fire by xx%".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel tank fires happen 100% of the time when the fuel tank is destroyed and 0% of the time when it isn't, how would preventative maintenance reduce the chance by 25%?

CO2 increases module health, it doesn't say "reduces chance of fuel tank fire by xx%".

 

Good point...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got both the IS-6 and the 112, and although my IS-6 stats are pretty good - compared with other tanks I play - my 112 currently has my best stats of any tank I own. Sample size is only 22, so yeah, not representative yet, but still: I've achieved my highest XP score ever in the 112.

 

So, compared to the IS-6: the 112

+ is significantly faster,

+ has much better UFP and turret

+ has much better pen

+ good gun depression (for a chinese tank)

 

but also, the 112 has

- much worse side armour

- noticably lower reload

- much weaker LFP

 

Make of that what you will: I've found the increased pen to be very noticeable, and I've not found the decreased accuracy on the move to be that noticeable. However, what I have noticed, and I think this is the weakness that WG put into the tank after the first round of supertesting showed that it was a beast, is that the 112 burns like a candle. If the LFP gets hit, there's a really high chance you'll burn - I seem to be burning every 3rd game or so, and in one game I burnt twice. In the game with my best xp score, I was exposing only the turret and UFP; if the LFP is showing then it's a very different story.

 

For reference, I've owned every Chinese tank except the WZ 111 1-4 and the 113, and although the T-34-1 and -2 burnt, they're nothing like the 112. I'm currently working my way up the German Tiger and Panther lines, and even the TIger doesn't burn like the 112. It's not as bad as the T-34-3, but vbaddict is showing (on a shortage of data) that the 112 is burning 20% of games. I'm seriously considering removing the Premium Fire Extinguisher, because I'd rather take the extra fire damage than the extra 17k credit hit in a tank that supposed to be a money-maker.

 

So yeah,  the 112: I prefer it over the IS-6, except when it comes to close-quarters brawling. If things can shoot your sides, you take damage; if they can shoot your LFP you burn - but if they can only shoot the UFP and turret, you can take shots all day, and the extra pen means that you can hurt anything you face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel tank fires happen 100% of the time when the fuel tank is destroyed and 0% of the time when it isn't, how would preventative maintenance reduce the chance by 25%?

CO2 increases module health, it doesn't say "reduces chance of fuel tank fire by xx%".

 

Decrease chance of module damage? Increased hitpoints? Could just be shitty writing.

 

vOv

Link to post
Share on other sites

People are looking at it from the wrong angle. The reason the is6 is such a good carry tank is because although it has mediocre gun, running full gold will yield good results while breaking even/making a profit even on a loss.

 

The reason the 112 is a bad tank is because it has the same shitty ass standard ammo as the is6, but its prem rounds are prohibitively expensive, ensuring a constant credit bleed, even if they are marginally stronger.

 

If we are to ignore the credits, and look at it as a stats farmer alone, it fails there too since the terribad aim time, reload time and accuracy ensure your damage windows will not be utilized as much as with the is6. It also significantly limits its brawling ability - you cant brawl if anything can reload faster than you. you will lose the shots game every time, and armor is irrelevant when you are side to side/rear as it is assumed 100% damage chance per shot in that situation.

 

And that's why gents, is6> 112.

 

 

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...