Let’s not shift the argument. We are not arguing about which tank is better or not better.
For example, I am saying that even if the Tiger 2 is superior to the T34/85, it is still game design.
You are just complaining about the Tiger 2 being superior, but I am saying that it is unfair to criticize something that was designed with intent as being unfair.
1 Like
I am.
balance is needed, and that this was intended is highly unlikely.
How can the Devs not intend for a tank with 180 mm frontal armor to appear as a tank that cannot be easily destroyed from the front?
Clearly it is designed to be difficult to break through from the front, and for Soviet and US forces that tank is designed to require ingenuity to attack.
To begin with, if your argument is that the Tiger 2’s defenses are wrong, then the title of this thread should be “Lower the Tiger 2’s defenses”.
You are arguing to remove the Tiger 2, which means you understand that the Tiger 2 is a tank with that kind of performance, and you understand the intent of devs adding it.
Stop pretending you don’t understand that and creating a narrative as if the Tiger 2 is performing in a way the devs never intended.
no, and yet again if you could read, then you would know that the title is to remove the Tiger II H from the game, because it is unbalanced.
As you can see from my post, I understand that you are asking for the removal of Tiger 2. And I disagree with that.
And the fact that you are asking for the removal of Tiger 2 means that you know that Tiger 2’s performance is reasonable.
So your claim that “devs are unintentionally balanced that way” is negated by your first claim.
The devs intended for Tiger 2 to appear and the game balance was intended by the devs.
What balance ? Few months ago they tried to limit HVARs from 10 to 4 ( Aircraft suspended weapon rebalance (sent back for rework) ), now they increased them from 10 to 18 (10 for P-47 + 8 for AP-4C).
Developers do not care about balance, they only copy / paste vehicles from War Thunder, without understanding that this is different type of game.
Do not bring up unrelated matters.
On this forum, threads like this thread with requests for weakening or deletion that lack logic are created almost every day, which confuses developers. Like the old Battlefield V.
The aircraft nerfs you mention are just such a mess. Devs got nervous because users were shouting about weakening the P-47 on the forums. While it’s true that developers are easily influenced by user feedback and are tempted to make imprudent adjustments, this is also a user base issue.
And the “balance” I’m talking about is just a rebuttal to what the OP claims is "unbalanced.
The OP claims that the existence of Tiger 2 is “not intended by devs” and says it is “unbalanced”. I have an objection to that.
II think at least the developers understand what kind of tank the Tiger 2 is. Do you think they implemented the Tiger 2 thinking it was a medium tank on par with the Sherman tank?
devs 
:“I thought the armor was as light as the Sherman, but the were surprised that it was actually harder than the Tiger E!.”
It’s a nonsense.
Tiger 2 is a gimmick that says, “Germany has powerful tanks, and it’s a little difficult to counter them with tanks, and the other team has options to destroy them in an asymmetric way.”
That’s the developer’s intended design.
Basically, it’s the same as what we did with Tiger E. And the way we deal with it remains the same.
So “balance” is “OK”.
There’s no need for the OP to cry over Tiger 2, and there’s no reason to remove it.
What asymmetric way ?
For Western Allies - only 250 + 500 kg bombs, because HVARs are not working and bazooka will pen it only from the side. Germans do not have 250 and 500 kg bombs ?
For Soviets - everything is copy / pasted - Panzerfausts + bombs + mortars.
The only difference is that Tiger II shoots three times fast as IS-2.
1 Like
erm… i dont know how to say this to you… but you are wrong.
criticizing unfair design choices is what players should do. game needs to be balanced and not with asymmetrical balance. it simply doesnt work when 90% of the players are locked with 3+1 squads and counter is basically locked behind paywall.
1 Like
*still load faster than the IS2 122mm and have an extra 75mm
1 Like
Don’t make me explain the same thing over and over again.
The design makes it difficult to destroy the Tiger 2.
In the past, HVAR alone was enough for beginners to destroy Tigers, but it’s certainly a little more difficult now.
But a 500 pound bomb is enough to destroy it, not only the P-47 but even the P-51 fighter jet has it.
This is also irrelevant. Since the US and Soviet Union have a hard time destroying Germany’s high-tier tanks, should Germany also have a hard time destroying US and Soviet medium tanks?
The fact that the Tiger 2 is powerful is Germany’s advantage. Do you know what the word advantage means?
Give me the example of the “assymetric way”.
Like - one team has anti-tank mortar and the other not.
(HVARs are not working against Tiger II)
1 Like
Why do you keep asking questions that I have answered?
I have no obligation to help you with your lack of understanding.
The thing is, the german only gear advantage compared to other country is only the Big Cats at late tier
Cuz early tier tanks are just dogshite that even stock non-autocannon can pens them frontally(45mm soviet and 37mm US), you are pretty much using them as glass cannons, and even that you can face steonger opponent like the Jumbo and Soviet T34 and KV1
US advantage is the unrivaled CAS and the M2 carbine for Rifleman, also early available M1 Garand and great shotguns
The Soviet, dude, they don’t actually have any gear disadvantage at all, unless you consider the meme tank that is IS2 is one despite their playerbase asked for it…
But the real advantage is always the side with the better quality of playerbase, like the Japs and German(lots of shitty playerbase too)
1 Like
Give me example - mortar / rockets / bombs - which one team has and other has not.
Just one example.
If it makes you feel any better I still use Tiger E over KT P/H, its more aesthetically pleasing to my eyes.
It’s getting very unpleasant because you keep asking the same questions.
I think there’s no point in talking to you anymore, but I’d like to talk to you one last time.
The Tiger is difficult to destroy from the front, and no other team has a tank like this.
It is difficult to defeat them in tank battles, so it is necessary to use aircraft. This is Germany’s advantage.
The United States, on the other hand, has sophisticated aircraft equipped with 500-pound bombs that can reliably destroy a Tiger 2. Not only attack aircraft but even fighter aircraft are equipped with it. Tigers are large and slow, so once their whereabouts are known, survival is difficult. Unless American pilots are incompetent.
This is an example of asymmetry.
German fighters have WfrGr rockets to destroy US tanks, so bombs are not a difference here.
Examples of asymmetry:
- Bazooka = weaker Panzerfaust
- M2 mortar = weaker Kz 8 cm GrW
- Thompson = worse StG
- M2 Carbine = FG-42 II (they are somewhat equal)
- planes are similiar and tanks are unbalanced
Soviets are a copy / paste of Germans (AS-44 = StG-44) with exception of IS-2 shooting 3 times slower than Tiger II.
You think that developers are wise and knowledgeable people, who know what they are doing - in my opinion they use only short-sighted actions to temporary balance the game.
Before the merge - they gave paratroopers with flamethrowers because no one played Tunisia Axis.
After the merge - ALL flametroopers were nerfed and cannot run while using flamethrowers.
They did not add Tiger II H because Germans were loosing in Berlin, but rather - it was easy to copy / paste a historical vehicle from War Thunder.
Soon they will add Pershing / Super Pershing to counter Tiger II H and again - people will complain that the game is unbalanced (18 HVARs for Western Allies), but of course - Pershing will not do any help for Soviets.
1 Like
I don’t know what you want to prove. What does the Thompson SMG have to do with the Tiger II?
I simply said that the Tiger II was superior to American and Soviet tanks in some respects, and that this was probably an intentional design. What does that have to do with it?
It’s true that developers are sensitive to user feedback. They are responding in an ad hoc manner, which is creating confusion. I mentioned this in this thread as well.
However, my opinion is that this has nothing to do with the TigerⅡ. In fact I was doing a German grind just before Tiger II was added, and Berlin was still a German farm.
OP’s reaction to Tiger II is overkill. It is an upgraded version of the Tiger E, and while it is increasingly difficult to defeat it head-on in tank battles, it is still vulnerable to air strikes, and there are a number of ways to deal with it.
Players are also unable to have multiple Tigers on their team at this time. Another problem is that the frequency of Tiger appearances has increased dramatically due to the merge, but it is not something that can be solved by simply deleting Tiger II.
If Devs accepts the OP’s opinion (which I don’t think will happen) it will be another thoughtless and careless update.
That’s why I am posting a strongly opposing opinion.
2 Likes
Asymmetric balance which is not working…
One team has better tanks = the other has better planes and weapons
And current way to play Western Allies is to constant spam HVAR rockets (very boring).
Why ? One team can deploy two tanks on the battlefield and one player can have Tiger II P + Tiger II H.
Your strongly opposing opinion is exaggerated, removing Tiger II H would be a dumb decision.