god i hate this fucking game but i cant stop
THIS FUCKING GAME GOD
ammo rack ded, next game forget to buy an extinguisher and get a fire on the first hit
28 sec reload yay
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39518122]storm is literally hitler[/QUOTE]Hitler would try to buff his own shit.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;39518252]The conqueror has the same armor as the caernarvon, but the only problem is the guns are far larger. The conqueror does have armor, but it's only really viable at range, when you have something cover your lower hull. Outside that, its best to play as you have little. It can bounce the odd shell or two, even from the highest penetration guns. Just don't rely on it to save you.
I'd go as far to say the 120mm on the conqueror, relative to its tier (at tier 9), is the best gun in the game.[/QUOTE]
Conqueror has actually slightly worse UFP angle than Caernarvon.
[QUOTE=Rollup;39518263]Hitler would try to buff his own shit.[/QUOTE]
hitler would implement every single german tank ever
but then they'd be broken and unable to do shit because he didn't think shit through
and then we'd all whine about shtity german superheavy tier 20 tanks that get buttraped by everything else
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39518285]Conqueror has actually slightly worse UFP angle than Caernarvon.[/QUOTE]I kept the Caern and literally flicked between the stock Conq' in garage. I really couldn't see any difference between the two models. The hull and turret appear identical, even in the detailed stuff.
Didn't realise there was a different UFP angle, and tbh it makes little difference, as neither seem to bounce [U]ever[/U] for practical purposes (bit of an exageration, but you know what I mean).
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39518285]Conqueror has actually slightly worse UFP angle than Caernarvon.[/QUOTE]
Both have 130mm plates sloped at 60 degrees from vertical.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;39518260]god i hate this fucking game but i cant stop
THIS FUCKING GAME GOD
ammo rack ded, next game forget to buy an extinguisher and get a fire on the first hit
28 sec reload yay[/QUOTE]
auto resupply ffs
[editline]8th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rollup;39518263]Hitler would try to buff his own shit.[/QUOTE]
if he gave the Maus it's 3k or so health back then maybe the world would forgive him for WWII
[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;39517781]It was an awful long time ago.[/QUOTE]
Ah, alright. So German tanks are only buffed on a semi-annual basis. 75mm L/43, L/48, and L/70 a while back, and now the Panther lower glacis.
[quote]- Storm says Jagdpanzer E100 statistics are fine[/quote]
[I]Strictly[/I] semi-annual.
[img]http://sinus.cz/~milan/CampervagonUFP.png[/img]
Conqueror is in blue.
The hulls are different.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39518482][img]http://sinus.cz/~milan/CampervagonUFP.png[/img]
Conqueror is in blue.
The hulls are different.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if it's actually the case IRL, since the Caernavon is an earlier model. It's probably too much vodka in WG's modeling department though.
[QUOTE=ze beaver;39518516]I wonder if it's actually the case IRL, since the Caernavon is an earlier model. It's probably too much vodka in WG's modeling department though.[/QUOTE]
I think the later is true in this case, as the Conqueror model is generally weird.
For example, it has that "UFP plate has it's value overreach onto the side" thing which only few tanks have, and Caernarvon doesn't, but for example E-100 does. I think it was maybe two modellers doing the models? I have honestly no real idea how they did this.
[QUOTE=Fyhlen;39518480]Ah, alright. So German tanks are only buffed on a semi-annual basis. 75mm L/43, L/48, and L/70 a while back, and now the Panther lower glacis.
[I]Strictly[/I] semi-annual.[/QUOTE]
Although the buffs to those individual guns were nice, they also took the L/70 away from the Panzer IV, completely neutering the tank and making it redundant to the Sherman and T-34. The Panzer IV now fills a unneeded and mediocre niche that tries to be the Sherman or T-34 depending on what gun you have, but failing to live up to either of those tanks.
[QUOTE=Why485;39518548]Although the buffs to those individual guns were nice, they also took the L/70 away from the Panzer IV, completely neutering the tank and making it redundant[/QUOTE]
Having the l/70 made the StuG redundant, there was no need for that gun to be on the PzIV. Honestly it's better now with the 105. And the l/48 is still perfectly adequate.
The Conqueror has just enough armor to be useful if you're really careful, which is to say, you can't be in front, not even in tier 9's games, not even if you're the only tier 9. You really have to play like a high tier French tank, sit back, shoot tanks who aren't paying attention to you, or (if you can) find a nice place to hull down as the turret seems rather bouncy, but perhaps that's because no one knows where to shoot it. The main problem is it's really hard to hard carry a team because, in most cases, it's armor is useless.
That said, it's easily my favorite tier 9 heavy, and I don't even have the top engine (nor do I plan on getting it).
[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;39518647]Having the l/70 made the StuG redundant, there was no need for that gun to be on the PzIV. Honestly it's better now with the 105. And the l/48 is still perfectly adequate.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think a high profile medium tank and a low to the ground tank destroyer with moderate stealth are comparable. Not to mention the TD version of any gun always better in every way than the tank mounted version.
The L/48 is adequate, yes. But if you want a decently mobile medium tank with sort of okay armor and an accuratish gun the T-34 is better because it's smaller with more accuracy, penetration, and rate of fire.
The 105 is good, yes. But if you want a decently mobile medium tank with a great 105mm HE gun, the Sherman has a higher rate of fire and is significantly more accurate due to a higher muzzle velocity and other soft stats such as on the move accuracy.
There isn't anything the current PzIV can do that those other two tanks can't do better. I won't deny that the L/70 equipped PzIV was one of the stupidest looking tanks in the game, but it really lost what made it special when they took away that gun. If they had buffed the L/48 to make it closer to the old L/70 I would have been fine with that, but they didn't. You instead have a gun that is at best comparable to the M1A1 on the Sherman and the ZiS-4 on the T-34, but not really better.
Was the L/70 removed because of 'historical accuracy'? (FYI: An attempt to meld the Panther turret and L/70 with the Panzer IV, but it was scrapped to actually make the Panther).
finally a panther buff
my ersatz M10 is happy now
[QUOTE=Why485;39518776]I really don't think a high profile medium tank and a low to the ground tank destroyer with moderate stealth are comparable. Not to mention the TD version of any gun always better in every way than the tank mounted version.
The L/48 is adequate, yes. But if you want a decently mobile medium tank with sort of okay armor and an accuratish gun the T-34 is better because it's smaller with more accuracy, penetration, and rate of fire.
The 105 is good, yes. But if you want a decently mobile medium tank with a great 105mm HE gun, the Sherman has a higher rate of fire and is significantly more accurate due to a higher muzzle velocity and other soft stats such as on the move accuracy.
There isn't anything the current PzIV can do that those other two tanks can't do better. I won't deny that the L/70 equipped PzIV was one of the stupidest looking tanks in the game, but it really lost what made it special when they took away that gun. If they had buffed the L/48 to make it closer to the old L/70 I would have been fine with that, but they didn't. [b]You instead have a gun that is at best comparable to the M1A1 on the Sherman and the ZiS-4 on the T-34, but not really better.[/b][/QUOTE]
Congrats, you found the meaning of balance.
Hah, guns that fit to the other in the tier, what will the kids come with next time? Wanting a KV-1S rebalance? So silly.
[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;39518876]Congrats, you found the meaning of balance.[/QUOTE]
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My problem with the loss of the L/70 is not the L/70 specifically, it is that the Panzer IV was the mid tier medium sniping tank. Now it excels at nothing and is instead just "okay" at everything. It gets boring when tanks start to get redundant with each other and if you want to call that balance, that's fair. However, there are many tanks in the game that have specific niches, roles, and quirks that make them stand out and I think the game is worse off now that it lost one.
To use the tier 5 mediums as an example, each of them (that I've played) has a standout feature. The Sherman has its accurate and devastating 105mm HE. The T-34 has an accurate machine gun-like cannon with decent penetration. The Crusader is a low profile hill humper with a machine gun cannon and above average camo due to being a light tank. Meanwhile, the Panzer IV is something in between the Sherman and T-34 but can't do anything better than those two can already do.
[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;39518876]Congrats, you found the meaning of balance.[/QUOTE]
The M1A1 and ZiS-4 are basically better than the L/48
It's like a mediocre shitty cobination of both, I think it should have some original attribute.
Right now Pz IV is a sherman wannabe, a really boring tank.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39518540]I think the later is true in this case, as the Conqueror model is generally weird.
For example, it has that "UFP plate has it's value overreach onto the side" thing which only few tanks have, and Caernarvon doesn't, but for example E-100 does. I think it was maybe two modellers doing the models? I have honestly no real idea how they did this.[/QUOTE]
I saw a post for Chieftain about this, it's to do with the the number of vision blocks and how they sit in the armour. I'll see if I can find it.
Here: [url]http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/68517-t110s-armor/page__st__45220__p__3416306#entry3416306[/url]
I find the Pz4 to be a rather good tank, balanced against the other tanks.
Anyone at or with a tier 5/6/7 (Preferably 6/7) tank platoon with me on EU?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;39519287]I find the Pz4 to be a rather good tank, balanced against the other tanks.[/QUOTE]
I agree. While its 75 isn't as good as the 57 or the 76, it's got a lower profile and better armor than the Sherman, and better front armor than the T-34.
Someone PLEASE play with me
I cant take this shit anymore
some info about 8.4
[quote]Storm: Supertesters report that the FPS rose by 5-10 percent with this patch for them. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Crumpet;39519590]Someone PLEASE play with me
I cant take this shit anymore[/QUOTE]
1. Where you from
2. Can you play in a few hours
3. Would you be cool with a D. Max
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39519724]1. Where you from
2. Can you play in a few hours
3. Would you be cool with a D. Max[/QUOTE]
I think you should be asking instead whether or not he's cool enough for the Dick.
If this is true, the AT-2 will have 8 inches of front armor
[img]http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/l/slavamakarov/th_AT-2.jpg[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
