Instalează Steam
conectare
|
limbă
简体中文 (chineză simplificată)
繁體中文 (chineză tradițională)
日本語 (japoneză)
한국어 (coreeană)
ไทย (thailandeză)
български (bulgară)
Čeština (cehă)
Dansk (daneză)
Deutsch (germană)
English (engleză)
Español - España (spaniolă - Spania)
Español - Latinoamérica (spaniolă - America Latină)
Ελληνικά (greacă)
Français (franceză)
Italiano (italiană)
Bahasa Indonesia (indoneziană)
Magyar (maghiară)
Nederlands (neerlandeză)
Norsk (norvegiană)
Polski (poloneză)
Português (portugheză - Portugalia)
Português - Brasil (portugheză - Brazilia)
Русский (rusă)
Suomi (finlandeză)
Svenska (suedeză)
Türkçe (turcă)
Tiếng Việt (vietnameză)
Українська (ucraineană)
Raportează o problemă de traducere
Sometimes realism needs to make way for balance (specially in a MP focused game).
This is probably one of those cases.
Doesn't mean it's finalized (that KV-1)
Just be happy that not everything is 100% historical.
Ammunition distrubution would be hell for some tanks/guns.
They had 2 piece (propellant and projectile separate) ammunition. Think "supply trucks"
No need to change barrels for MG's.
Soldiers being able to carry 1200 rounds of ammo + a gun + grenades + shovel&bags etc.
Mortar crews would have 10 rounds tops.
If you looked at all factions, I think we could find a couple of 1000 "historical mistakes" (for the sake of game balance).
(Since when did the Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E (the final version of the Tiger) have an MG 42 installed at the commander's cupola? You only see it in impressions/paintings/plastic models... no such thing as a Tiger with MG42)
(Being able to carry and use a Browning .50Cal by just a single soldier, and carry 1000 rounds...)
(Soviet AT-Rifles were a lot less effective in reality then how they are portrayed in MoW)
(2 man gun crews for each faction? And being able to move those guns with just 2 guys???)
The things that make it not OP are.
1) Price is decent : at 550 MP you have a decision to make if you want to have stronger armor tank with a bad gun or a lighter armored t34 57 faster and better gun at 500mp.
2) Weakness : It does have a weakness as delta suggests, the turret.
3) Enemies - At 550mp, tank vs tank you will be going up against H. maybe 80% of the time i would actually prefer the H in a 1v1 scenario. Also at that time bradenburgers are out that can disrupt its movements.
Those things above make is not unbalanced.
4) CP cost.
The things that make it worth 550mp.. are
1) Strong hulll armor - You can use this as a safe distance shooter to fight enemy light vehicles such as 222's and luch. Other tanks will struggle to kill you at max range. This is where the KV-1 really shines in compeittive play , to protect your infantry safely from a distance from lights.
2) Early heavy tank - to do a safer push without being that worried of being killed.
3) Easier tank to use - this is a newb friendly tank. They don't need to know much about ambush, 50/50 play, angling or tank counters.. they can plonk it down somewhere and it won't usually die that easy. This is also the main reason it is deceptively thought of being OP. It is not. That being said, alot of new players do cry about balance this is OP.. That being the reason, you are complaining about a newb friendly unit.
I can see the trace of impact but it seems to go trought without causing damage.
I also have reason to believe it's a bug ...
Did you noticed this ?
So you could be right on that point.. if a pak43 is indeed unable to penetrate at close range then tahts a bit silly. That's the most powerful gun, what range are you talking? For a pak43, it should be able to penerate at 100m. a KV-1 shouldnt be able to LOB a HE round to a PAK43 whilst being invunerable, that is a balance issue for germans and the pak43 then...
For a 88, In AS2 ranges that is still far to medium imo for a 88 at100m
I think you can check it in the editor.
The KV i feel serves its purpose. Its not like the dam thing is rocking an 90 or 88mm cannon. For balance i feel its right where it needs to be.
Use the KV as a frontline tank and have your bigger gun behind it. Works wonders and the KV excels at dealing with the light armored tank destroy units.
On its own, its not much of a threat. Yea it takes a few rounds to take down. Welp, Rather
a) Shoot out its tracks.
b) try shooting somthing besides the frontal armor
or c) anti tank grenade it.
The game has its realism and its balancing pretty well, well balanced.
KT lower glacis was still 154mm effective, more than impenetrable to guns the Russians were using. Also, the KT was never penetrated from the front, ever, in WWII. This is a 100% fact. British 17pdr. APDS rounds could theoretically penetrate a KT from the front, but the reality was that APDS couldn't hit the broadside of a barn at even medium ranges, so the theory was moot.
The rest of your stuff I don't even care about, Russian armor may as well have been cardboard for all the good it did those tankers. If it's wrong, whatever, as long as guns that should penetrate said armor can still penetrate. My point is, the KV-1 is unhistorically well armored on the front. The KT should be nigh impenetrable, the KV-1... not so much.
When an 88mm has problems punching through a tank that a mid-war 75mm could punch through easily, something is wrong.
KV-1's hull armor is kinda bouncy if you are using the short 88mm(L56) or 75mm L48.
However, it's turret or any flat(non angled) armor is very easy to penetrate.
In other words, the new KV-1 model is completely screwy and bugged. Tested with the KV-85 and the KV-85 passes with flying colors, died on any surface. It just seems to be the KV-1.
So to anyone facing this tank in multiplayer. Aim for the driverslit/hull mount MG area if you want to successfully kill it, the flat bumper will not work. Turret and track it for reliable kills.
PS: Ivan you need to chill out, this is the second topic (and I'm sure there are more) where you've gone back and forth with someone over silly nonsense. No need to make these forums anymore hostile than they are already.