Jump to content


Swedish Heavy Tanks: Why the unhistorical balance?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

DeadArashi #1 Posted 29 November 2016 - 10:25 AM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13049 battles
  • 1,728
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

Currently there are really 2 sets of stats for the Swedish HTs armor-wise. We have the historical values and the current in-game values. The current values definitely do NOT reflect the historical values despite the historical values being arguably more balanced. So let's begin.

It seems like they didn't understand the intended purpose of the tanks and tried make them  hull down auto-loaders, almost part of the "Breakthough" class from the Sandbox server. They were intended to be a mobile ridgeline tank with moderate armor that utilized the angle to improve the effective armor to keep the weight down and the extreme gun depression to let it work the ridges in the hilly Swedish terrain. These tanks are definitely meant to be fire support tanks if anything.

NOTE: all thicknesses are calculated with the angle working off the horizontal using trigonometry formula of Sine (The closer the angle to 0 the steeper the angle)

Emil 1

Spoiler


Emil II
Spoiler


Kranvagn:
Spoiler


It honestly feels like WG haven't understood what the true purpose of the Swedish heavy tanks were. The armor in a head on clash is good, but not amazing, but they weren't designed for that, they were designed to run ridges with their good turret angling and gun depressing and relocating with their mobility... but WG have focused on making them insane hull down tanks that dominate ridge-lines but ended up taking away the two things the Swedish tanks had which was good gun control and great mobility.

All 3 heavy tanks; the Emil I, Emil II and Kranvagn need to get their historical mobility and armor so that they can perform the intended roll of the tank as a fire support vehicle, not a breakthrough tank.

And the nerf to the guns was seriously not needed either, the gun stats and mobility of the tanks were actually really good, what made them over powered was the unhistorical armor.

So, how to balance them? Return gun stats back to what they where initially, give them their historical engine/power to weight and historical armor. Instantly it's a machine that sits nicely, not something that has an underwhelming gun and only has armor going for it.


Edited by DeadArashi, 29 November 2016 - 05:55 PM.


MadHouse10101 #2 Posted 29 November 2016 - 01:46 PM

    Legit T-22 btw

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 22510 battles
  • 886
  • [DUCKY] DUCKY
  • Member since:
    01-08-2014

WG probably felt the need to make the line have a big difference over the 50b and t57 so they made the turret like it is now with it being overly armoured and little gave it little engine power to move it. 

 

I think the best way WG can balance the tank is to keep it how it was with its mobility and gun performance but give its turret different armor values in different areas, say the bottom of the turret is penetrable but the top half is, say a player that knows this will use the tank is the perfect hulldown making it not be able to be penned but if he was to move to much up a ridge it will expose the weaker bottom of the turret allowing people to be able to pen it making it so you need to know what you have to do and learn the tank instead of just picking it and all you have to do is go to a ridge and you win.

 

Another thing they could do is just keep the turret all over strong but give it weak areas like how the e5s lower plate is easier to pen as you go more and more to the corners than if you were to shoot the middle. so if you wanted to pen the kranvagan you would have to shoot the far left and right of the turret but this might be to much of a weak spot ruining the tank. Its something that WG should of tested instead of just making it OP than just changing the simple values nerfing it to much and making it not much of a viable tank because of its new trash tier engine.


          

                       

                                                                                                                                                                                    


DeadArashi #3 Posted 29 November 2016 - 06:11 PM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13049 battles
  • 1,728
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013
Well it would be unique even with the historical armor because the Emil II and Kranvagn both have -12 deg of gun depression compared to the T57 and AMX 50 B that only have -8 deg. When you start working ridge lines with it your turret armor would then become too thick to pen even to premium rounds. With the turret armor at 170mm ssloped back at 44degs then putting in gun depression of -12 deg makes the effective armor of the historical turret 320mm. Hell even the Emil I using the historical -14 deg gun depression would have an effective armor of 291mm. The uniqueness of the tanks was their superior ability to work in hilly terrain, for more so then the T57 and AMX 50 B that wouldn't be able to stay out in the open even on ridge lines like the Swedish would be able to
 

madhouse10101

 I think the best way WG can balance the tank is to keep it how it was with its mobility and gun performance but give its turret different armor values in different areas, say the bottom of the turret is penetrable but the top half is, say a player that knows this will use the tank is the perfect hulldown making it not be able to be penned but if he was to move to much up a ridge it will expose the weaker bottom of the turret allowing people to be able to pen it making it so you need to know what you have to do and learn the tank instead of just picking it and all you have to do is go to a ridge and you win.

 

I agree here but i would say that give the turret the historical turret armor and keep the hull weaker. Then you have a tank that can't fight in the open because the hull would be penetrated easily and is decent but not the best in hull down, as on flat ground you only have 246mm effective. It's meant to be mobile and effective only in the hills where other HTs would suffer. The T57 is more of an ambush tank as it has insane clip reload and short time between shots. AMX is a hit and run tank that uses its speed. The Kranvagn would have been unique with its historical armor

Roby1Kanobie #4 Posted 29 November 2016 - 07:30 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 60799 battles
  • 415
  • [DUCKY] DUCKY
  • Member since:
    07-23-2012

1 WG bring stupidly OP tanks into the game.

2 Everybody gets prem time and exchanges gold for free exp.

3 Tank is nerfed about 2 to 3 month later once everybody has grinded it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Nothing new here.



DeadArashi #5 Posted 29 November 2016 - 07:57 PM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13049 battles
  • 1,728
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013
probably, although the only thing overpowered for the HT is the front turret armor. Gun is trash compared to the T57 and AMX and the mobility isn't that great now either. No reason to want to go to the Kranvagn with it's current stats.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users