Jump to content


Thoughts on the Conqueror and S. Conq


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

DeadArashi #1 Posted 22 September 2017 - 07:21 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

I'm not great at reviewing things but I'll give it a crack because I'm actually liking the changed Conqueror and new S.Conq.

Edit: added Caernarvon into it and added my suggestion for the module tech tree of the British

 


 

Caernarvon

     The Caernarvon change is really simple. On the live server it encompasses everything that really are the British tanks in-game: a jack of all trades, but master of none. Armor was never great, but it could be used with the 10 degrees of gun depression and fought more like a medium then a heavy tank.

 

     The only really bad then about the Caernarvon would have to be the 20-pdr guns. They left a lot to be desired in the tank. Not so much in 9.20.1. Both 20-pdrs are gone and in the place a brand new 32-pdr gun has been added. Don't confuse it with the 32-pdr that was already on the casement TDs, this gun is much more with 220mm of penetration and 280 damage per shot. If that's not all they decreased the reload speed from 7.48 sec to 6.23. This means a DPM increase of 850, putting the DPM up to 2,695... and that's before you start using a rammer and vents which can push the DPM up to 3,085.

 

     Surely there's a downside right? Kind of... but not really: Accuracy only drops from 0.31 to 0.33 while aim time goes from 1.82 to 2.21 sec. That's completely acceptable.  The side armor of the hull is going from 50.8 to 76.0 which means 152mm guns and larger won't be able to over match it anymore, and this is going to carry across to the Conqueror and Super Conqueror. The turret armor is another story, the new 32-pdr turret is going from 198 to 254mm, however the side armor is thinned out, going from 152.4 down to 88.9mm.

 

     Overall the Caernarvon is getting a serious buff, fans of the British tanks will definitely enjoy the changes, even more so if you were planning to or currently are grinding down the line. If there was anything I would change about it it would have to be the ridiculous DPM of the tank. I would suggest they test a reload speed of 6.85sec which would give it a stock DPM of 2,452. This is still considerably better then the 20-pdr gun but not nearly as crazy as what it currently has.

 


 

Conqueror

The Conqueror has always been a decent tank. Like the Caernarvon before it, it's not the best at anything, but from the worst. The hull was no different to the Caernarvon but the turret was far more reliable. It had a decent power to weight ratio that could move it from one position to another with relative ease compared to other heavy tanks. 

 

Once again the 20-pdr guns have been removed and the 32-pdr has replaced it with a stock DPM of 2,969 or 3,399 when using a gun rammer and vents. 

 

The Centurion Action 10 turret has also been removed with the current Conqueror Mk II turret now being the stock turret, with a new "Conqueror Mk II ABP" turret. Armor wise the turrets are the same with the exception of spaced armor plates. 

 

The upper front plate of the hull has seen an increase from 130 to 152.4mm, and side armor has also increased from 50.8 to 76.2mm. 

 

So what's the downside to the very small armor buff: 

  • DPM of the 120mm drops from 2,383 to 2,215 
  • You require the Mk II ABP turret to mount to mount the 120mm gun 
  • Turret traverse drops from 35.46 to 33.37 deg per sec when using the upgraded turret. 

 

So are the changes worth the lose? The simple answer: no. In my opinion, from what I experienced, the Conqueror Mk II ABP turret is pointless. I found no situation where where the turret saved me where the Mk II turret wouldn't have, not to mention it's stupid to require the ABP turret to mount the 120mm when the 120mm and is mounted into the Mk II turret. 

 

I would honestly say keep the Conqueror stats as they are right now, replace the 20-pdrs with the 32-pdr, removed the Centurion Action 10 turret. 

 

Your guns are then the 32-pdr and the 120mm, you only have one turret; the Conqueror Mk II. Then give it the armor buff. The Conqueror is like the Caernarvon, it's, for want of a better word, mediocre enough to need a buff but not so good that it needs any nerfs to compensate for the buffs. 

 


 

Super Conqueror

And here we are, the replacement for the FV215b. I'll be honest, I like the tank. There's nothing wrong with it specifically, unlike the FV215b I've found myself using the Super Heavy Spall Liner because it compliments all the spaced armor really well.  

 

The problem with it lies with the Caernarvon and the Conqueror. WG are replacing the FV215b because they want the tier 10 to play like the other two tanks. The problem? The Super Conqueror doesn't play like either of them. If anything the FV215b is vastly more similar to the tier 8 and 9.  

 

So what do we gain with the Super Conqueror?  

  • 20mm of spaced armor on both the turret and upper plate on the hull,
  •  increased turret front armor to 279mm and  side hull armor increased to 101mm.
  • You also get 4 more rounds of ammunition..

 

and that's it.  What do we lose to gain this armor over the FV215b: 

  • 185 DPM
  • 0.3 sec aim time  
  • Worse accuracy on the move from 0.1 to 0.15 
  • Worse power to weight from 13.57 to 12.34 hp/t 
  • Much worse tank traverse across all terrains 

 

It really is an overall downgrade to the FV215b in basically every way other then armor.  It should also be noted that the aim time and accuracy while moving in the Super Conqueror are worse then that on the tier 9 Conqueror for some unknown reason. 

 


 

My Suggested changes to the modules

Caernarvon

Return the 20-pdr guns

 

Conqueror 

- Return 9.20 mobility

- Remove the Conqueror Mk.II ABP turret

 

S. Conq

- Give it the FV215b mobility 

- More gun depression (to -10 at most)

- Give it the FV215b gun handling OR replace the 120mm L1A1 with the 120mm L11A1

 


Edited by DeadArashi, 02 October 2017 - 01:32 PM.


conquisador21 #2 Posted 22 September 2017 - 07:50 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 14834 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012
Care to give thoughts about Brit meds & tds?

"One only dies once, and if one does not die well, a good opportunity is lost and will not present itself again." 


DeadArashi #3 Posted 22 September 2017 - 07:58 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

I haven't played the MTs yet, but you can definitly feel the buffs to the TDs. I'll make a proper post regarding them when i finish work. But the FV4005 buffs are incredible. The speed and gun depression will catch people off guard.

 

The Conway buffs are also great. The 5.5" isnt as bad as I though it would be on paper but I would always choose the 120mm over it



conquisador21 #4 Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:34 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 14834 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012
This makes me want to create an account just for Brit TDs before they (replace) the current Tier X FV215b 183. Just like what I did on Swede TD.

"One only dies once, and if one does not die well, a good opportunity is lost and will not present itself again." 


Hakim_Asrar #5 Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:49 PM

    Private

  • Member
  • 10235 battles
  • 4
  • [555] 555
  • Member since:
    11-25-2015

conqueror's speed and turret traverse speed is wise for it armor but not the dpm it should be same or it feel like m103.

 

super conqueror's armor is not wise it feel same like slower, and bigger t110e5 with nerf armor. if need add new engine like you do to is-7 to increase super conqueror hull traverse speed



DarkWalkerNZ #6 Posted 23 September 2017 - 08:45 AM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 39903 battles
  • 66
  • [NZAD] NZAD
  • Member since:
    10-22-2014

Doesn't matter if they buff the side armour, the hull itself is too obese like those USA heavy tank hulls(T29, T30, T34). You'll be either over angling or showing bits of your LFP.



Gani_GANz #7 Posted 23 September 2017 - 08:56 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 13627 battles
  • 456
  • [CRAZY] CRAZY
  • Member since:
    07-13-2016

View PostDarkWalkerNZ, on 23 September 2017 - 07:45 AM, said:

Doesn't matter if they buff the side armour, the hull itself is too obese like those USA heavy tank hulls(T29, T30, T34). You'll be either over angling or showing bits of your LFP.

 

you're doing it wrong

3 MoE : T29, T-34 || 2 MoE : T34(Next 3Mark target), T-54

Tanks Available in Garage

My Youtube Channel

 


DeadArashi #8 Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:23 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

View PostDarkWalkerNZ, on 23 September 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

You'll be either over angling or showing bits of your LFP.

 

That's the secret, you don't show parts of your lower plate. Had games on the test server where I block 5-6k damage in the S.Conq, something the FV215b would struggle to do with its commanders cupola 



DeadArashi #9 Posted 23 September 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013
putting some thought into it, can we swap out the 32-pdr for the 105mm L7? Let's face it, the 20-pdr guns were removed because they weren't competitive at tier 9, and while the 32-pdr might be good for a tier 8, it's still only 220mm of penetration which is completely inadequate for a tier 9. Raw DPM means nothing if you can't penetrate the target to actually damage them

DarkWalkerNZ #10 Posted 23 September 2017 - 04:42 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 39903 battles
  • 66
  • [NZAD] NZAD
  • Member since:
    10-22-2014
Nevermind I just found out the turret ring on the hull that's poking out is much thicker than 9.20 version, had a look at tanks.gg and Anfield's video, now you can really sidescrape on it.

Everytime i see a conqueror I always find a spot to pen no matter how you sidescrape, those spots aren't gonna get pen in the next patch.

Edited by DarkWalkerNZ, 23 September 2017 - 04:42 PM.


DeadArashi #11 Posted 23 September 2017 - 11:57 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013
After playing the S.Conq some more I'm starting to feel it needs something more to it. The increase armor over the FV215b doesn't make up for the drop in mobility and DPM. It also needs something to differentiate it more from the Conqueror, they're too similar. 

Might be worthwhile testing the 5.5" on the S.Conq?

DarkWalkerNZ #12 Posted 24 September 2017 - 08:07 AM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 39903 battles
  • 66
  • [NZAD] NZAD
  • Member since:
    10-22-2014

Yeah that's actually a good idea



DeadArashi #13 Posted 25 September 2017 - 12:49 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

So everyone's always comparing the S.Conq to the FV215b, which is fair enough, I did it myself. But I never compared it to the Conqueror at tier 9 which would make much more sense

 

So I did... and the Conqueror, while it got a DPM nerf, got an armor buff as well as a buff to hull traverse on different terrains. Overall, with the exception of the DPM and some armor, I would say the tier 9 Conqueror is far better then the S.Conq:

  • better aim time
  • far better ground resistences
  • more accurate during movement
  • far better power to weight

 

The FV215b was unquestionably a buff over the Conqueror... the S.Conq? Not so much. Overall I would class it as a downgrade. They should have just transferred the mobility and gun handling from the FV to the S.Conq. While it's not a bad tank, it's comparatively a downgrade to the tier 9 and I don't see why you would play the S.Conq over the Conq or the FV if you have it

 

Conqueror 9.20 | Conqueror 9.20.1 | S.Conq 9.20.1 | FV215b

Spoiler


Edited by DeadArashi, 25 September 2017 - 06:47 PM.


DeadArashi #14 Posted 25 September 2017 - 06:53 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

Ok so there's two suggestions I will make, one of which I have already suggested but here's a visualization of the suggestions compared to the current Super Conqueror

 

Suggestion 1 - make the tank more flexible. It's trying too hard to be a super heavy when its armor just isn't good enough

  • give it the FV215b mobility
  • give it the FV215b gun handling
  • -10 gun depression

 

Suggestion 2 - Offer something unique to set it apart from the FV215b and the Conqueror

  • give it the FV215b mobility
  • replace 120mm with 5.5-in gun

 



mttspiii #15 Posted 26 September 2017 - 07:19 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 26043 battles
  • 15,940
  • [CRAZY] CRAZY
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

Or you can give it the FV205's 123mm gun. The 140mm gun is more characteristic of the UK TD and JP HT's; it's too much alpha for a UK HT.

 

Plus SConq can overmatch STRV's with that gun (same as 140mm guns) but still retain a permatrack advantage of the 120mm's

 

As for lower-tier tanks, are Chally & Chariot fun now?


Edited by mttspiii, 26 September 2017 - 07:21 AM.

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


DeadArashi #16 Posted 26 September 2017 - 07:42 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

Honestly I'm still wondering whose [edited] they pulled the 123mm from because as far as I'm aware the British never had a 123mm. Well, regardless of which gun it gets, it needs the mobility of the FV215b. Right now the FV215b plays more like the Conqueror then the S.Conq does, which is ironic considering the point of the change was to make the playstyles similar.

 

Hell, I've found myself complimenting the spaced armor with a super heavy spall liner because the S.Conq is a HE magnet. It works well on the S.Conq because it's not that mobile to begin with. But the tier 9 Conq is mobile and doesn't get spammed with HE so a spall liner isn't needed. Never even considered using the spall liner on the FV215b, go figure. Leave it to WG to try to make a tank line similar in playstyle only to make it more different

 

and yes, the low tiers are fun. So much more versatile now


Edited by DeadArashi, 26 September 2017 - 08:01 AM.


mttspiii #17 Posted 26 September 2017 - 11:17 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 26043 battles
  • 15,940
  • [CRAZY] CRAZY
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

I'm not aware of any 123mm cannon, except for those that became 123mm because of production errors.

 

If WG is so bothered by overmatch issues they should just remove it. Or change armor models by 1mm; STRV with 39mm armor (120mm guns can overmatch), Tiger II forehead with 41mm (122mm guns cant overmatch), and so on. The Soviets managed to make a T-28 where one side is longer by 4cm compared to the other side; surely a 1mm armor adjustment wouldn't be a bother


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


DeadArashi #18 Posted 02 October 2017 - 01:35 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 11363 battles
  • 1,203
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013
Edited the OP making it a bit more detailed (?). I was going to turn it into a video and I might still do that. But this will be sufficient for now... assuming someone that can send this through does just that

mttspiii #19 Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:26 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 26043 battles
  • 15,940
  • [CRAZY] CRAZY
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View Postmttspiii, on 26 September 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

I'm not aware of any 123mm cannon, except for those that became 123mm because of production errors.

 

If WG is so bothered by overmatch issues they should just remove it. Or change armor models by 1mm; STRV with 39mm armor (120mm guns can overmatch), Tiger II forehead with 41mm (122mm guns cant overmatch), and so on. The Soviets managed to make a T-28 where one side is longer by 4cm compared to the other side; surely a 1mm armor adjustment wouldn't be a bother

 

I lied. I was aware of an intermediate gun between the 60-pdr and the 32-pdr gun, but I can't find the source or reference for it.

 

Now I may have found it: a 55-pdr gun was developed on the Tortoise project. I can't find any specifics on the gun, other than it's dropped early on due to improvements in 17-pdr ammo, so pen-wise it'd probably be ~230's since in-game 17-pdr APCR is at 239 pen. Caliber should be close to the 60-pdr's 127mm so we may have found our gun.

 

There's also other guns developed for the Tortoise project: a 3" gun with the Littlejohn, a 17-pdr going full-APCR, an 88mm (actually 3.45") 30-pdr,  a 3.7" AA gun developed into a 30-pdr, developed further to the QF 37-pdr EX1, before finally settling on the QF 32-pdr we have in-game.


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users