Tiger's perk price

[sethipus]

I'm not sure we should assume it would be most appropriate for the perk price to be based on a simple k/d ratio.  If that were so, things like the 262 shouldn't cost nearly as much as they do, and I think the perk value of the 262 is just fine.

One of the benefits of perk requirements is to prevent people from upping that vehicle all the time rather than the other planes.  In that respect, the 262 and Tiger perk prices succeed, but the Sherman perk price fails.

The question is, how much should the Sherman be perked in order to prevent people from just upping it all the time, for every fight?  Would 10 points do it?  12?  15?

[moot]

I'm not basing the argument that the perk price should be reduced on just the M4/Tiger K/D (that k/d is 1.4:1 and I'm arguing more like 4:1). Its proportions just support my argument and refute that the Tiger dominates the M4.

I don't have any experience in the /85.  Isn't it at least as good as the M4?  Or is there more difference than the better armor and lesser ballistics?

15 is probably too much for an M4.  10 would probably be good enough.

[sethipus]

I'm not basing the argument that the perk price should be reduced on just the M4/Tiger K/D (that k/d is 1.4:1 and I'm arguing more like 4:1). Its proportions just support my argument and refute that the Tiger dominates the M4.

When I said in an earlier post that the Tiger was dominating the Sherman, I was referring to the Tunisia scenario specifically, given the very long-range desert terrain.  At short to intermediate ranges, the Tiger is still more effective against the Sherman, but not be nearly as much of a margin.

I don't have any experience in the /85.  Isn't it at least as good as the M4?  Or is there more difference than the better armor and lesser ballistics?

The T34/85 gun is not as effective as the Sherman Firefly's 17lber.  The M4's gun is significantly more powerful.  The T34/85's gun seems to be maybe a third of the way up between the Panzer IV's 75mm gun and the Firefly's 17 pounder in armor-piercing effectiveness.  Some might argue that point, but I'm probably not that far off.

The Sherman has an infinitely more robust turret than the T34/85 (though it shouldn't, arg).

The Sherman has the widest-angle main gunsight in the game, allowing one to zoom out to take in a large field of view, then zoom in on specifics, whereas the T34/85's gunsight is like looking down a soda straw.

The Sherman also has a pintle gun, for what that's worth (not a lot IMHO).  The T34/85 travels much faster, and the turret traverses more quickly, and I believe elevates higher, or at least similarly.

There are so many tradeoffs between the two tanks, and both have advantages and disadvantages compared to the other.  Overall, the Sherman is probably easier to succeed with than the T34/85.  The T34/85's advantages probably require more experience to really come into play.  That said, assuming very experienced tank drivers, I believe personally that the T34/85 is the most useful tank in the game.  Its speed is probably the biggest reason I say that. 

15 is probably too much for an M4.  10 would probably be good enough.

I think 10 perks for the M4 would be appropriate, and 20 for the Tiger.  Leave the T34/85 as it is.  For as useful as I think the T34 is, it requires more tank experience to really use well, and it has a colossally weak turret.

[StokesAk]

Well seeing i have bouy 3 GV perks......PERK THE M4 MORE!!

[Karnak]

I'm not basing the argument that the perk price should be reduced on just the M4/Tiger K/D (that k/d is 1.4:1 and I'm arguing more like 4:1). Its proportions just support my argument and refute that the Tiger dominates the M4.

I don't have any experience in the /85.  Isn't it at least as good as the M4?  Or is there more difference than the better armor and lesser ballistics?

15 is probably too much for an M4.  10 would probably be good enough.

Firefly should be 20 or 25 perks.

[Banshee7]

There are plenty of good tank fights.  What's lacking is not good tank fights, it's good tank fights far enough away from airfields that the A-20 and IL-2 bozos can't come and dork it up.

My point.  Example the other night:  Was on the rooks for a change and noticed a town flashing and hear the explosions of buildings from the tower.  I see no air cons so I up a Sherman.  I head to a spot between the spawn and the town because by the time I got up another friendly.  I was set-up a good 3k from the spawn.  The enemy vehicles had to come over a hill to get to town or base, and I couldn't see the spawn.  This gave the enemy a fair chance to get away from the spawn and not get "insta-poofed" and returned to the tower.  I sat and waited, 1st victim...1 shot lands short, so he finds me and shoots back.  He misses as well, so I finish.  Not 3 seconds after his death I look up and see a friendly A-20 and a few friendlies in heavy fighters, not to mention the 2 or 3 friendly GV's headed to the spawn.  So I wait it out to see exactly where they go...of course...it's the spawn.  It seems like spawn camping is the "in" thing to do.  

[Belial]

The T35-85 is bar none the best tank in the game, if I am getting battered in a gv fight guess what I bring out?  No not a Tiger or M4 a little old t34, the thing is a juggernaut.


You let me get a round of supps out and a small dirt mound and I will fend off multiple tanks alone.  Being that the turret is so weak its not worth more than 3-5 perks though.

The sherman is my main ride simply because I can cover such a wide area with the view it has down the barrel, it is not worth more than 5-10 perks.


In conclusion, have you ever noticed how when a gv mission rolls to an airfield the t34's are targeted last?  That is because IL2's cant pop it 1 pass, the tanks gotta hit it square, and the Tiger looks so much juicy er.

[JunkyII]

I heard of this happening alot lately but I had an il2 strafe my Tiger once and kill me....I really didnt think il2 wwas that great of plane in WW2 but i guess so. Il2s should be 5 eny and tigers should be about 15 perks when M4s are at like 7

[Lusche]

I roll the 34/85 when speed is cruical - to get to a town flooded by wirbels for example.
Also in very "fluid" battles in mixed terrain (esp hedgerows) with a lot of ambushs & repositioning.

Everything else -> Tiger über alles

I rarely use the M4, I dislike it's gunsight. I have my head positions moved all the way forward in all tanks. You can't to that as much in the M4, so the range marks in the gunsight are very different for me from all the other tanks - whats at D8 for me in Panzer, Tiger & T34 is at almost D16 in the Firefly.

I heard of this happening alot lately but I had an il2 strafe my Tiger once and kill me

Tiger can be killed quite easily by the Il-2s guns.

Two things have changed the ground war massively in recent times: The Wirbel and the introduction of the 37mm Il-2 version.

[Chalenge]

I would love to see the Sherman perked to 24 or 25 because it can lob shells (HE even) from the spawn to any field if you have the clear line of sight. You dont have to move from the spawn even. Experimenting with this I found that 6 shermans can take down a vehicle field in minutes without the field flashing or anyone hearing the shells land from the tower of the vfield. If its timed right all three hangars will explode almost simultaneously and its a milkrun from there.

Increasing the perks of the sherman makes more sense.

[Hazard69]

I miss the good ole days when the only thing that could kill a tiger was a 1000lb down its turret or a (HV?)AP round up its rear. 

I don't LW much, more often I'm in MW and there the Tiger is still king. But as quoted above the problem with effectively using a tiger is you need a vast expanse of relative flat terrain with less hills. Ive fended off GV attacks and won 6 vs 1 in a tiger once. Only reason that was possible was the enemy had a large section of relatively flat ground to cover.
In most normal battles though, even in MW, a Tiger gets killed easy to close range shots. I only up Tigers when my chess piece is heavily outnumbered and the perk price is like 5-10. Otherwise Ill take a panzer or a T34-76 over a tiger any day.

I agree on the firefly perk price being too low. I say raise the firefly's perk cost and introduce a plain M4 for the sherman buffs. That would be fair. T34/85 is almost as capable as a sherman, but with poorer optics, gun and survivability. I think it wone be used much as long as the sherman stays cheap.

[Swatch]

I enjoy rolling the M4 and even I agree the price is too low...    I think a price of 15-20 seems reasonable.

[moot]

I think that's too high, but as far as I'm concerned that'd be an improvement over what we have now.

[waystin2]

No need to change the Perk on the Tiger.  However I do think it's damage model needs to be upgraded a bit.  Seems to me that it is not quite as fearsome as it once was in comparison to other vehicles out there.

[moot]

Supporting evidence?