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)
Simplified (Historical vs In-game): Turret - 150/30/30 vs 180/30/30 (the "Side, front" armor is classed as frontal armor in the form of "cheeks" in game) Hull - 70/20/30 vs 100/20/30 (frontal hull lower plate isn't shown here)
Simplified Effective (Historical vs In-game): Turret - 212/30/20 vs 254/35/30 Hull - 187/20/30 vs 174/20/30
Verdict:
They buffed the turret but nerfed the hull and gun depression. Due to the size of the vehicle I would class this closer to a medium then a HT if anything. 212mm of effective armor thickness might not sound like a lot but at tier 8 when working a ridgeline with the historical 14 deg of gun depression that 212mm of effective goes up to 291mm of effective which is insanely good and would have been more balanced then what it currently is in the live server. The engine power, and subsequently the power to weight is also been nerfed from historical values making them far less mobile then they should be. Would have been more of a heavy medium then a HT.
Simplified: Turret - 170/60/30 vs 215/60/30 Hull - 95/30/40 vs 80/60/30
Simplified Effective: Turret - 246/60/30 vs 321/60/30 Hull - 224/30/40 vs 189/60/30
Verdict:
Only thing going on here is the the incorrect armor values... is what I want to say. They actually had the correct engine power and power to weight and they nerfed it? My head hurts with this one. What I think happened here is that the tank was to agile for the massive effective armor they gave it so rather then giving it the historical armor to balance the tank they made it less mobile... really? There's a level of questionability here and it's making me lose brain cells at an alarming rate.
Kranvagn:
Spoiler
Historical: Turret:
Front - 170mm @ 44degs = 246mm effective
Side - 80mm
Rear - 37mm Hull:
Front, upper plate - 95mm @ 25deg = 224mm effective
Front, lower plate - 145mm @ 38deg = 236mm effective
Side - 37mm
Rear - 37mm Engine Power: 900hp Power to Weight: 20.22
In-game: Turret:
Front - 225mm @ 42degs = 336mm effective
Side - 70mm
Rear - 37mm Hull:
Front, upper plate - 90mm @ 25deg = 212mm effective
Front, lower plate - 115mm @ 38deg = 186mm effective
Side - 70mm
Rear - 37mm Engine Power: 700 Power to Weight: 15.73
Simplified: Turret - 170/80/37 vs 225/70/37 Hull - 95 /37/37 vs 90/70/37
Simplified Effective: Turret - 246/80/37 vs 336/70/37 Hull - 224/37/37 vs 212/70/37
Verdict:
I really can't comprehend why the turret armor is so overly buffed to the point of being impenetrable to everything. And it had the right engine power as well until it got nerfed. Overbuffed armor that causes the rest of the tank to be nerfed purely because WG decided that historical values are pointless and went off and did their own thing despite having historical data handed to them. The only other tank that I can think of that has been so unhistorically changed is the VK45.02b.
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.
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.
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
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
