the jumbo is weak

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 27 Nov 2018, 11:33

Shanks wrote:Could you be clearer? when you say "you're trying to win this dispute" ... I'm also looking for a balance

What I see from you, is the splitting the facts to not make the overall picture and making your whole arguement on that

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 27 Nov 2018, 11:46

What facts did i divide? ...that the PZ F2 drilled the Jumbo and that the Jumbo destroyed a tiger 1v1?

the first fact is probable, but the second is proven, I do not really know what you mean right now

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Viper » 27 Nov 2018, 11:50

can axis get a tiger tank for 800 manpower only?

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 27 Nov 2018, 11:52

You're being the awful person to have a constructive dialoge with, I've had to do the Warhawks and Figree way to ignore you...
Viper wrote:can axis get a tiger tank for 800 manpower only?

If only Tiger could be killed by 76mm Sherman from max range with APCR rounds on

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Viper » 27 Nov 2018, 12:00

ok. so cheap tiger tank = weak tiger tank. right?

so if the jumbo is cheap for only 780 manpower, then why people are crying that it is weak?

cheap jumbo = should also be, weak jumbo. no?

if you want real jumbo. it will cost 100 fuel at least.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 27 Nov 2018, 12:19

Viper wrote:ok. so cheap tiger tank = weak tiger tank. right?

so if the jumbo is cheap for only 780 manpower, then why people are crying that it is weak?

cheap jumbo = should also be, weak jumbo. no?

if you want real jumbo. it will cost 100 fuel at least.

Jumbo having same shit 76mm Sherman gun stats. Only your armor saves against Stugs, sometimes pzshreks and standart non-bought AP ammunition even on medium tanks. While on BK doctrine you get for same price two fully equiped unit, where each of call-in tanks can kill Jumbo just for 50 ammunition. If you want it cost 100 fuel, let people pay for Battlegroup additional 80 fuel, as you do not need to upgrade units :)

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Viper » 27 Nov 2018, 12:35

the tanks bk doctrine get for the same price cant stand a chance vs pershing. and cant bounce off 90mm but the jumbo can kill tigers and panthers thanks to good armor.

so. now it is balanced.

but if you want to have more than 1 jumbo and be able to bounce off enemy guns even more reliably. then jumbo should be available in tank depot for 700 or 800 manpower and 100 fuel.

it is an easy equation.
you cant have super cheap unit with magic performance.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 27 Nov 2018, 12:41

Jumbo can't stand standart Panther ammunition, Tigers or Pz4 with APCR enabled.
Battlegroup offers armor, as well as infantry presence for the battlefield with FULL upgrades. And this is not just against Armor doctrine, that you could never though actually, lol.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Viper » 27 Nov 2018, 12:47

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Jumbo can't stand standart Panther ammunition, Tigers or Pz4 with APCR enabled.
Battlegroup offers armor, as well as infantry presence for the battlefield with FULL upgrades. And this is not just against Armor doctrine, that you could never though actually, lol.

some correction is needed:
battlegroup offers weak armor, as well as infantry presence for the battlefield with HALF upgrades. who told you they are full upgraded? they are not.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 27 Nov 2018, 13:20

Jumbo is a mirror image of a tiger tank. U wait for it for a long time, it finally comes with high hopes, then it get's "unluckly" killed by literally anything. Of course I had my jumbos killed by stugs, by marders, one-shot by hetzers, not to mention anything with bigger gun. But it's same with tiger. M10, cromwells, hellcats and for the love of god any call-in you can imagine.

My point is, those two "iconic" tanks, are just crap. In both cases waiting for a panther or pershing is not only matter of choice. It's logical, because those units are so much better. The only way jumbo and tiger could gain some value and become something more than crappy replacement cuz of lack of fuel is either:
1. Allowing them much sooner (jumbo has acutally been even delayed, which made it even more obsolete. Now jumbo is only picked when allied player has no fuel for pershing). Tigers could cost less cp, considering how crapy they truly are.
2. Making them cheaper. Even though jumbo is quite cheap, the cost of tiger is a joke. The mod has ammassed huge ammount of changes regarding tanks: speed, vision, received damage vs arty etc. But the cost of tiger still remains from the very old times. It doesn't fit reality now. For a like a half a year I have not seen a game where tiger would do anything useful. I am not joking or exagerrating.

One more point to make is armor. Jumbo is insanely overnerfed in terms or armor, and Tiger is quite ok right now. If I was a dev, I'd either leave current jumbo armor and make it available earlier - early breathru tank like a churchill, but possessing characteristic punch of 76mm gun. Or I would give it KT armor, and leave it as late unit. So it could become sort of crocodile unit, iconic damage soaker that leads the charge. Right now it does't serve any purpose.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 27 Nov 2018, 16:19

I would like to know what Markr thinks about these comments, or if some other dev is interested in answering and saying something like, "the Tiger and the Jumbo will have a better performance in the next beta5 "

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2537
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby MarKr » 27 Nov 2018, 16:22

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Jumbo can't stand standart Panther ammunition, Tigers (...)
"can't stand" sort of sounds like "gets penetrated every time" which is not true:
Panther vs Jumbo:
60%/55.8%/48%/43.2%
With AP:
79.8%/74.2%/63.8%/57.4%

Tiger vs Jumbo:
50%/46%/41.5%/38%
With AP:
66.5%/61.1%/55.1%/50.5%

I would say the main thing is not the armor but rather the gun. Even if your Jumbo deflects a shot from Panther/Tiger, you have a lot lower chance to penetrate them frontally and so you have little chance to destroy the opponent before he fires another shot. So it would require to rework the gun to make it more intimidating to Panthers/Tigers and that is unlikely to happen because it would mean giving same changes to all US 76mm guns which would in turn mean significant nerf for Axis because 76mm Shermans or 76mm AT guns are in all US doctrines.
The New BK Champion wrote:If I was a dev, I'd either leave current jumbo armor and make it available earlier - early breathru tank like a churchill, but possessing characteristic punch of 76mm gun. Or I would give it KT armor, and leave it as late unit. So it could become sort of crocodile unit, iconic damage soaker that leads the charge.
If you give it "KT armor" you will end up reworking armor on all tanks because soon people will start bitching that "Jumbo is impenetrable but KT can get penetrated by XYZ" and you will turn the current tank combat upside down. So making Jumbo accessible sooner would probably be better but it would probably make Axis more likely to rush Tigers/Panthers as soon as possible (to have a good counter to Jumbo) and this would make it for Armor doc player better to rush for Pershings (rather than Jumbo) to counter those Tigers/Panthers.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 27 Nov 2018, 16:34

MarKr wrote:
The New BK Champion wrote:If I was a dev, I'd either leave current jumbo armor and make it available earlier - early breathru tank like a churchill, but possessing characteristic punch of 76mm gun. Or I would give it KT armor, and leave it as late unit. So it could become sort of crocodile unit, iconic damage soaker that leads the charge.
If you give it "KT armor" you will end up reworking armor on all tanks because soon people will start bitching that "Jumbo is impenetrable but KT can get penetrated by XYZ" and you will turn the current tank combat upside down. So making Jumbo accessible sooner would probably be better but it would probably make Axis more likely to rush Tigers/Panthers as soon as possible (to have a good counter to Jumbo) and this would make it for Armor doc player better to rush for Pershings (rather than Jumbo) to counter those Tigers/Panthers.

But this exactly how it looks like now. People rush pershin and panthers. So why not make it more interesting by adding some steps in between? That's exactly what you did with churchills, right? In one patch u buffed them considerably and people complained. Now people forgot that there was a chruchill armor buff ever. I just want jumbo to be something more than just "worse-pershing-when-I-cant-afford-to-spend-fuel".

I'd really like to enourage you to drop prices of tigers though.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 27 Nov 2018, 16:40

What I would like to suggest, is that sacks of sand and sacks of sand with concrete, have a reduction of the cost, something like 200 MP-15 fuel for both , and raise the cost of the chassis of the easy 8 to 35 fuel and that the Jumbo is kept like this now, but that you can call two of these units (one comes, after a while you can call another one again)

And that they reduce the price of the tiger, that has greater accuracy and has a slightly increased damage (I do not know if in the beta they changed something to the tiger)

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2537
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby MarKr » 27 Nov 2018, 17:10

The New BK Champion wrote:But this exactly how it looks like now. People rush pershin and panthers. So why not make it more interesting by adding some steps in between? That's exactly what you did with churchills, right? In one patch u buffed them considerably and people complained. Now people forgot that there was a chruchill armor buff ever. I just want jumbo to be something more than just "worse-pershing-when-I-cant-afford-to-spend-fuel".
You compare it to Churchill changes but there are some difference that should not be forgotten - Jumbo is faster (so it is not so easy to outmaneuver it), it has better cannon than any Churchill (the 76mm gun is not really strong but still a lot better than the 6pounder or 75mm gun) so it poses some threath to Axis medium tanks, it also has top MG which provides it with better protection against infantry in comparison to Churchills.
I don't remember what it was but there was some reason for the "Jumbo delay" request (I think it was something like "it comes too soon and it is very hard for Axis to counter it"), also AP ammo has no longer damage buff in 5.1.6 so it is less likely that Axis TDs with L48 guns will one shot Jumbo.

I am not against making units useful but it would be good to avoid any "omg omg omg Jumbo immortal, Axis weak pls nerf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" situations.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 27 Nov 2018, 18:58

MarKr wrote:
The New BK Champion wrote:But this exactly how it looks like now. People rush pershin and panthers. So why not make it more interesting by adding some steps in between? That's exactly what you did with churchills, right? In one patch u buffed them considerably and people complained. Now people forgot that there was a chruchill armor buff ever. I just want jumbo to be something more than just "worse-pershing-when-I-cant-afford-to-spend-fuel".
You compare it to Churchill changes but there are some difference that should not be forgotten - Jumbo is faster (so it is not so easy to outmaneuver it), it has better cannon than any Churchill (the 76mm gun is not really strong but still a lot better than the 6pounder or 75mm gun) so it poses some threath to Axis medium tanks, it also has top MG which provides it with better protection against infantry in comparison to Churchills.
I don't remember what it was but there was some reason for the "Jumbo delay" request (I think it was something like "it comes too soon and it is very hard for Axis to counter it"), also AP ammo has no longer damage buff in 5.1.6 so it is less likely that Axis TDs with L48 guns will one shot Jumbo.

I am not against making units useful but it would be good to avoid any "omg omg omg Jumbo immortal, Axis weak pls nerf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" situations.


Yes it's faster and has better gun, but on the other hand churchill costs only 1 cp... Jumbo is also vulnerable to shreck rushes. Some tweaks like removing timed HE (all other 76mm have single-shot HE) could also come with this, so it wouldn't become op.

I'd like to invite you to discussion about some kind of tiger buff :D.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Nov 2018, 20:54

MarKr wrote:
OK, whatever...
StuG gun vs Jumbo:
42.75%/31.4%/28%/24.5%
400 - 600 damage (Jumbo has 750HP)

With AP ammo:
56.8%/41.7%/37.2%/32.5%

First shot from camo:
53.4%/39.2%/35%/30.6%
Damage 500 - 750

Camo + AP:
71%/52.2%/46.5%/40.7%

Jumbo vs StuG (no skirts):
140%/117.6%/93.8%/75.6%
With AP:
215%/180%/144%/116%

StuG with skirts:
130%/109.2%/87.1%/70.2%
With AP:
200%/168%/134%/108%


________________________________________

Panther vs Jumbo:
60%/55.8%/48%/43.2%
With AP:
79.8%/74.2%/63.8%/57.4%

Tiger vs Jumbo:
50%/46%/41.5%/38%
With AP:
66.5%/61.1%/55.1%/50.5%



anyone else sees the error?
Jumbo is supposed to be a breakthrough tank but at the end a stug/hetzer/marder from ambush kills it just as good as a Tiger would do. In fact a stug/Hetzer from camo has a better chance to win the battle bc it fires two times before the jumbo can see it.

Conclusion:
Jumbo sucks as "breakthrough tank".

Meanwhile we still have that 76 mm lottery gun which often makes you feel that Tank IV, Tigers and Panthers have all the same armor.
Conclusion:
You cant break defenses but you have "call in of last resort" which with some luck helps you to beat Panthers.

I might add further numbers:
Tank IV vs Jumbo max range pen:
25%
Tank IV vs Pershing:
20%

Panther vs Jumbo max range:
43,2%
Panther vs Pershing:
57,6%



So how is it possible that Tank IV is better vs jumbo as vs Pershing but Panther better vs Pershing as vs Jumbo.
We are in very weird situation here and the reason is inconsistency.


I think the Jumbo should be the choice when you need armor, the Pershing the way if you need gun with reasonable armor. Pershing should be better in terms of armor than a jackson but worse than a jumbo.

The Jumbo was designed to be resistant against the main stay axis weaponary which usually was the 75 mm /L48 gun. In game it proofs to be more effective to call a jumbo when you need a counter to panthers and tigers as as to call it when you need to get over defenses.

So we ended up with this:


The New BK Champion wrote:"worse-pershing-when-I-cant-afford-to-spend-fuel".






The New BK Champion wrote:Jumbo is a mirror image of a tiger tank. U wait for it for a long time, it finally comes with high hopes, then it get's "unluckly" killed by literally anything. Of course I had my jumbos killed by stugs, by marders, one-shot by hetzers, not to mention anything with bigger gun. But it's same with tiger. M10, cromwells, hellcats and for the love of god any call-in you can imagine.

My point is, those two "iconic" tanks, are just crap. In both cases waiting for a panther or pershing is not only matter of choice. It's logical, because those units are so much better. The only way jumbo and tiger could gain some value and become something more than crappy replacement cuz of lack of fuel is either:
1. Allowing them much sooner (jumbo has acutally been even delayed, which made it even more obsolete. Now jumbo is only picked when allied player has no fuel for pershing). Tigers could cost less cp, considering how crapy they truly are.
2. Making them cheaper. Even though jumbo is quite cheap, the cost of tiger is a joke. The mod has ammassed huge ammount of changes regarding tanks: speed, vision, received damage vs arty etc. But the cost of tiger still remains from the very old times. It doesn't fit reality now. For a like a half a year I have not seen a game where tiger would do anything useful. I am not joking or exagerrating.
One more point to make is armor. Jumbo is insanely overnerfed in terms or armor, and Tiger is quite ok right now.



And so far i agree with TNBC.

The Jumbos shall come late and with proper armor, generally better than Pershing. The reason for this is the better turret armor for the jumbo (esspecially from sides) and less weak spots or design flaws such as the Pershings area between hull and turret with shells bouncing upwards from the hull hitting the lower part of the of the gun mantlet.


The Jumbo should be available only in armor doc and working as its main breakthrough tank, the pershing more as counter to heavy tanks with good gun (and armor) but more vulnerable than a jumbo.
So the axis 75 L/48 can stay at its 20, perhaps even going to 25% pen vs pershing at max range, but should be weaker against jumbo while the 50 mm shouldnt really be a threat at all to a jumbo (except this rocket shot)

The Jumbo 76 would then be a reward for the 75 mm Jumbo and its time HE replaced by a single shot HE.
The 76 jumbo would perhaps be producable instead call in and costing 780 MP and roughly 100 fuel and limited to one. The 75 limited to two units as it is now.

The player would have to choose between a Jumbo that can take on any medium tank easily and able to beat tigers with HVAP and Panthers sometimes but which needs support of HE units, or having two HE Jumbos that are great against overruning AT guns and emplacmants but suck against other tanks and need 76 mm and 90 mm gun support.
The axis 75 mm would have approx 15% pen chance or less against Jumbos front armor.

Stopping a Jumbo effectively would either require a Jagdpanzer IVA or 70 with Panther gun (Th, def doc) or the bigger 88 guns (KT, JP etc) or laying an ambush with schrecks or waiting for the jumbo to close in and use close range pen and and AP boost.
Or getting Panthers.


The Tigers need to become cheaper in terms of CP. And i wouldnt make them cheaper, bc that would twist things too much. The Tiger was not known for its cost efficiency but rather for its capabilties.
The accuracy got boosted, thats good, sadly not for all 88 guns. KT and Jagdpanther have currently a piss-poor accuracy compared to tiger and Panther.


One nice thing could be that Tigers cost less cp to unlock and the spared CP could be used in some sort Tiger boosts such as "Tiger veterancy crew" or something like that. The Terror tiger could have S-mine launcher like the ace has it, that would be great.

I am going now so far as to rework the axis Terror and BK doc tank unlock line and would make it as follows:

Panther 3 CP<-Tank IV H/J 1 CP-> Tiger 2 CP->Tiger ace/ King Tiger 3-4 CP.


The Panther would get transformed into a medium tank that has simply powerfull frontal armor. That means HP dropped to 700-750 and the US 76 gun would have 30-35% pen chance from max range instead of currently 25%.

The cost would drop to 660-700 MP and approx 110 fuel.
The Panther would thus become axis main stay medium tank that replaces the Tank IV in its main medium tank role. Thus the Tank IV (esspecially H/J) would get an armor nerf (against 76 mm guns) as it would be more a mid game placeholder and later just a support role for Panthers.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 27 Nov 2018, 21:24

Warhawks97 wrote:anyone else sees the error?
Jumbo is supposed to be a breakthrough tank but at the end a stug/hetzer/marder from ambush kills it just as good as a Tiger would do. In fact a stug/Hetzer from camo has a better chance to win the battle bc it fires two times before the jumbo can see it.
[/quote]


this is legendary ... is not the goal of "ambush" supposed to be a big blow? ... it's the same as me coming here to say that my Panther "G" was destroyed by an Achilles in "ambush". ..or that I carry my SP in front of a Narshon in "ambush" .. are not you supposed to have observers or inf that come in first? .. maybe a bit of arty and smoke before entering?.. you see your error? ... I did not read the rest of your post, you should summarize your ideas in a few paragraphs. i think

ok, I read it all, the explanation was very good, I agree with some points, but not with the Jumbo has too much armor

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 80
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 27 Nov 2018, 21:36

I don't like the Jumbo-Call In anyway. It's like it wants to treated like it's a super special weapon that armor company can only grant you a single time because of how powerful it is. But it's just a gimmick unit you throw at the Germans until they finally destroy it and then you switch to Pershings. At least calliope has a very good reason for why it's only limited to 1 unit. Why should armor company only be able to get a single jumbo tank while US Inf doc is running around with 2 jumbo HE tanks?

90% of the time no one in US cares about fuel costs for a tank. If there was buyable jumbo from tank depot that was 650 mp and 100 fuel, the only thing that makes the US player think twice is the manpower cost, not the fuel cost. It's just the way team games work as brits usually set up on fuel points and depending on games. That can be a super big advantage because every allied player is now +5 or +10 fuel above every other axis player in the game after that. You are incentivized to have more fuel as armor company thanks to the fuel supply upgrades in any case.

So jumbo should stop being a call-in unit and be buildable from the tank depot with a limit of 2. That way it's no longer about rushing jumbos because you are playing on low fuel maps. It will be a further extension down the sherman tree which should represent the strongest armored tank US can have. If it takes removing jumbo from inf doc. That's fine because Inf doc does not need jumbos as much as more AT inf options; Only 2 AT teams (same as all other US docs) and no other source of good AT available to inf (even airborne have more AT thanks to double bazookas on 82nd squads)? Not how I imagined infantry company would work.

My problem with Churchills also comes down to this 'armor' they have. It is unhistorical because it's not even the frontline tanks they were using in 1944-1945. I know it's because they are only 1 CP. But why should those be the only possible frontline tanks they can have before Ace Crocodile Churchill with the MK VII Churchill armor comes in? RE doc should have these older Churchill models available at 1 CP to work as early breakthrough, than later get MK VII Churchillls. So Churchills don't simply disappear from the game when panthers, upgunned tanks, and 88's start to come into play.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Viper » 27 Nov 2018, 22:00

i wholeheartedly disagree that panther tanks should lose hp and become weaker vs 76 guns in return of cheaper cost. terrible idea. very terrible idea. and i hope not see this idea again. it is very disturbing.

but it's good to see how the people agree to make 76 jumbo available in tank depot for 100 fuel cost. maybe for a limit of 2.

tigers should not be cheaper. tigers were known to be expensive. but i agree they need some buff. maybe more range?

i agree churchill mk.vii should be available to deploy for fuel price too.

but 75 jumbo should stay in infantry doctrine. or the doctrine will be very weak.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 27 Nov 2018, 22:14

Just give the German heavy tanks more upkeep, much of their buffs later will just be payed by it.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Nov 2018, 22:25

Shanks wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:anyone else sees the error?
Jumbo is supposed to be a breakthrough tank but at the end a stug/hetzer/marder from ambush kills it just as good as a Tiger would do. In fact a stug/Hetzer from camo has a better chance to win the battle bc it fires two times before the jumbo can see it.



this is legendary ... is not the goal of "ambush" supposed to be a big blow? ... it's the same as me coming here to say that my Panther "G" was destroyed by an Achilles in "ambush". ..or that I carry my SP in front of a Narshon in "ambush" .. are not you supposed to have observers or inf that come in first? .. maybe a bit of arty and smoke before entering?.. you see your error? ... I did not read the rest of your post, you should summarize your ideas in a few paragraphs. i think

ok, I read it all, the explanation was very good, I agree with some points, but not with the Jumbo has too much armor


Puh :roll:

Yes, ambushes shall kill and stop enemies, true. But then the enemie develops not only tactics, but also units and weapons to overcome them.
People started building fortresses? Others started using canons.
The defender started using anti tank guns in massses from ambushes? The attacker invented tanks with armor that could withstand them.
The churchill was some sort of "answer" to axis 50 mm (anti-tank) guns. The sherman was later also well enough armored to withstand 50 mm guns at ranges frontally. The 62 mm armor was 62 mm bc the 50 mm couldnt overmatch the armor plate anymore. The 57 mm anti tank gun was btw the other way arround and having 57 mm to overmatch the 50 mm armor of tank III and IV´s (which had 50 mm bc most anti tank guns were 37-47 mm in calibre like 2 pdr gun)

The Tiger was an answer to the 42 onwards anti tank weapons and tank guns such as 57 mm (churchills) and 75 mm (sherman) guns. Both the first churchills with their 101 mm armor and Tiger Tank didnt provide enough protection against 43/44 weapons such as the long axis 75 mm L/48 guns (that also overmatched most sherman armor).
In 1944 they upgraded churchills with MK VII with 152-172 mm armor in order to protect the tanks against the then mainstay anti tank and tank weaponary such as 75 mm Pak 40/Kwk40 etc. The Germans came up with King Tigers as the normal Tiger wasnt up to its main task anymore in 44 as breakthrough tank against defenses and to withstand ambush anti tank guns.
And the Jumbo was definitely a design of 44 that should withstand the then present anti tank weapons such as kwk/Pak 40.
The Axis upgraded their 88 mm gun to L/71 and even the panther gun was supposed to be lengthened to 100 calibre length (L/100) but didnt made it into service.


So when you say that a 17 pdr punches holes into a Tiger then its correct bc the Tiger was the answer to 75 mm and 57 mm guns. (Developments however begin with expecations of enemie gun improvments and not when the enemie already got a better weapon... at least usually, not always). The 17 pdr in contrast was the answer to Tigers while the KT was the answer to 17 pdr and other high performance anti tank guns.
So the Jumbo might be something in between Tiger in KT. Designed to withstand maintstay anti tank weapons up to normal 88 guns, not so much the longer 88 gun. The KT armor was enough to withstand any western ally anti tank gun (However russian ISU 100 was very powerfull).


MenciusMoldbug wrote:I don't like the Jumbo-Call In anyway. It's like it wants to treated like it's a super special weapon that armor company can only grant you a single time because of how powerful it is. But it's just a gimmick unit you throw at the Germans until they finally destroy it and then you switch to Pershings. At least calliope has a very good reason for why it's only limited to 1 unit. Why should armor company only be able to get a single jumbo tank while US Inf doc is running around with 2 jumbo HE tanks?

90% of the time no one in US cares about fuel costs for a tank. If there was buyable jumbo from tank depot that was 650 mp and 100 fuel, the only thing that makes the US player think twice is the manpower cost, not the fuel cost. It's just the way team games work as brits usually set up on fuel points and depending on games. That can be a super big advantage because every allied player is now +5 or +10 fuel above every other axis player in the game after that. You are incentivized to have more fuel as armor company thanks to the fuel supply upgrades in any case.

So jumbo should stop being a call-in unit and be buildable from the tank depot with a limit of 2. That way it's no longer about rushing jumbos because you are playing on low fuel maps. It will be a further extension down the sherman tree which should represent the strongest armored tank US can have. If it takes removing jumbo from inf doc. That's fine because Inf doc does not need jumbos as much as more AT inf options; Only 2 AT teams (same as all other US docs) and no other source of good AT available to inf (even airborne have more AT thanks to double bazookas on 82nd squads)? Not how I imagined infantry company would work.



Ok, good the others share my point of view. Perhaps the 76 and 75 mm jumbo could really become reward units in armor doc, depending what player prefers.

My problem with Churchills also comes down to this 'armor' they have. It is unhistorical because it's not even the frontline tanks they were using in 1944-1945. I know it's because they are only 1 CP. But why should those be the only possible frontline tanks they can have before Ace Crocodile Churchill with the MK VII Churchill armor comes in? RE doc should have these older Churchill models available at 1 CP to work as early breakthrough, than later get MK VII Churchillls. So Churchills don't simply disappear from the game when panthers, upgunned tanks, and 88's start to come into play.


We had a discussion about it (perhaps you remember). I still liked the idea of unlocking the IV and VI in a single unlock, then MK V (95 mm version of it), then MK VII and finally the MK VII crocc).


Viper wrote:i wholeheartedly disagree that panther tanks should lose hp and become weaker vs 76 guns in return of cheaper cost. terrible idea. very terrible idea. and i hope not see this idea again. it is very disturbing.


I have a problem with this idea of Tiger->Panther-> KT idea bc the Panther was not the successor of the Tiger and served an whole different idea. The Panther was a medium tank just 7 tons heavier than the late war e8 sherman.

It was supposed to replace Tank IV´s, not Tigers which were a total different branch with different idea behind it.
So i think Panther should become a mainstay late game axis tank and not just one of these "rare" super units. Simply a formidable medium tank, not more not less.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 27 Nov 2018, 22:59, edited 1 time in total.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 27 Nov 2018, 22:33

Reward units are not really that great. Better is just to let players buy upgrade for 76mm to deploy Shermans with such weaponry, as it was in vcoh.
Once you have bought this upgrade, you no longer can deploy short barrel Shermans, but on other hand you can handle medium and probably heavy tanks on the field...
This will also solve the problem of expensive 2 CP Sherman and M10

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Nov 2018, 23:03

This way you make units disappear which had a puorpose. This way you would have to upgrade all short barreld tank IV´s in game as will into long barreld one bc they didnt ran in parallel production.

As for the game these units have a different purpose and do different things. The 75 mm may replaced the 76 in production in real life but not its frontline service. In game such change would make 75 mm disappearing as a whole.
Shermans also never received a field upgrade with guns but thats what such an upgrade does.

And what 2 CP problem do you mean?
We spoke about why the M10 cost 2 CP while it should be a 0 cp unit next to normal sherman just like stugs and stubby tank IV´s. Thats what we talked about.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 27 Nov 2018, 23:51

Warhawks97 wrote:Puh :roll:

Yes, ambushes shall kill and stop enemies, true. But then the enemie develops not only tactics, but also units and weapons to overcome them.
People started building fortresses? Others started using canons.
The defender started using anti tank guns in massses from ambushes? The attacker invented tanks with armor that could withstand them.
The churchill was some sort of "answer" to axis 50 mm (anti-tank) guns. The sherman was later also well enough armored to withstand 50 mm guns at ranges frontally. The 62 mm armor was 62 mm bc the 50 mm couldnt overmatch the armor plate anymore. The 57 mm anti tank gun was btw the other way arround and having 57 mm to overmatch the 50 mm armor of tank III and IV´s (which had 50 mm bc most anti tank guns were 37-47 mm in calibre like 2 pdr gun)

The Tiger was an answer to the 42 onwards anti tank weapons and tank guns such as 57 mm (churchills) and 75 mm (sherman) guns. Both the first churchills with their 101 mm armor and Tiger Tank didnt provide enough protection against 43/44 weapons such as the long axis 75 mm L/48 guns (that also overmatched most sherman armor).
In 1944 they upgraded churchills with MK VII with 152-172 mm armor in order to protect the tanks against the then mainstay anti tank and tank weaponary such as 75 mm Pak 40/Kwk40 etc. The Germans came up with King Tigers as the normal Tiger wasnt up to its main task anymore in 44 as breakthrough tank against defenses and to withstand ambush anti tank guns.
And the Jumbo was definitely a design of 44 that should withstand the then present anti tank weapons such as kwk/Pak 40.
The Axis upgraded their 88 mm gun to L/71 and even the panther gun was supposed to be lengthened to 100 calibre length (L/100) but didnt made it into service.


So when you say that a 17 pdr punches holes into a Tiger then its correct bc the Tiger was the answer to 75 mm and 57 mm guns. (Developments however begin with expecations of enemie gun improvments and not when the enemie already got a better weapon... at least usually, not always). The 17 pdr in contrast was the answer to Tigers while the KT was the answer to 17 pdr and other high performance anti tank guns.
So the Jumbo might be something in between Tiger in KT. Designed to withstand maintstay anti tank weapons up to normal 88 guns, not so much the longer 88 gun. The KT armor was enough to withstand any western ally anti tank gun (However russian ISU 100 was very powerfull).


excellent explanation, but in BK is a bit difficult to balance this unit (but if it was with the SP, I do not think there are many problems with the Jumbo). If the Jumbo is more stronger against 88 mm for example (I say "more" , because recently there was a case where the Jumbo destroyed a 1v1 tiger, and the first shot of 88 mm with charged AP bounced, and it is not the first time in my experience), the most likely is that the panther can not easily deal with the (in fact, i destroyed the luft panther with the Jumbo on several occasions, although we know that it is the weakest panther, but even so the Jumbo can pierce the Panther armor "G" too, and if you have more armor with the Jumbo could definitely destroy the Panther "g", and not only that, the Stug and the PZ "H" would no longer be rivals for the Jumbo), that I want mean is that the Jumbo should no longer be called only by MP, and I think that would complicate things again in armor doc


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest