Just replace a few T-34/85's with JSII's or add on top of whats already there?.......
.......Sound fair?
Well first and foremost until finished this tank is obviously an unknown quantity for me, so it's hard to imagine the correct balance.
How good the KT is in RO will be entirely down to you- but I am presuming you will adhere to it's real capibilities: starting from scratch rather than, for example, simply scaling up the effectiveness of the
RO's Tiger's '88 (which most would agree is underpowered probably for the sake of gameplay) as a result of stepping up model from 36 to 43 and the increase from 56 calibres to 71 on th KT
. Using the in-game Tiger 1 values as your base will off course result in an underpowered KT (for which you wont be popular!)
So assuming a clean sheet of paper what will we have, in comparison to the IL2 - (The most powerfull Russian tank, which has even been declared by some German tankers to be too powerfull even to a point of being a gameplay killer)?
According to my limited reading of books (that I imagine are certainly a lot cheaper, tattier and less comprehensive than Stiner's!)
Firstly theres a total outclassing of the the IL2 gun (a dedicated tank killer as opposed to a compromise between this and inf. support). The round simply cuts through anything it hits at any angle at ranges we commonly play at in RO. At reletivly long ranges (1000m+) there is a chance the KT will not penetrate the IS2 first hit, but some may say this is doing a disservice to the KwK 43.
Nearly 3x the ROF of the Russ tank, meaning the ability to fire off 4 rounds (21secs) in a fraction above the time it takes the IL2 to fire 2 (20secs)
Armour protection that is certainly not worse, and probably a bit better than the IS2. (leaving aside the unquantifiable and therefore frankly pointless 'limited availabilty of quality alloys' debate)
That said, in game the IS2 can be frontally destroyed by one shot of a P4-h @ 500ish , will the KT be equally vunerable?
Speed similar- KT a touch faster roadspeed, if less manuvaourable (although this quality does not really show up in RO)
So there you have it - no advantages for the IS2 (as far as tank combat goes)and a clear win in what is in my opinion the most important point of the tank performance 'triangle', firepower.
In the hands of decent tankers, the ability to destroy other tanks quickly is the most telling edge you can have, and with the ROF advantage of the monsterous KwK 43 the tank will tear through the opposition.
Also for what it's worth, the addition of a hull MG allows for better protection from infantry, or taking down unbuttoned enemy tankers.
Everyone knows the tank was good, but I think people forget just how superior it was at the time, only conquered by overwhelming numbers, aircraft like the Hawker Typhoon, and it's own mechanical problems which was no time to iron out.
These factors don't figure in RO, and I believe the one of the closest matches for it around that time was possibly the IS3- which itself caused NATO to crap themselves for years after the war.
Now most of this was a given anyway- so how to introduce the armour in a fair manner (As I said and Nestor agreed, possibly the hardest part of the whole project.)
On maps with even numbers of tanks available on both sides, you probably can't really add more than 2. I believe 1 TK should often be able to destroy 2 IL2s, even if one of the Il2s get first shot (because a decent gunner will fire on the other one, knowing he will still have 1 shot for his attacker before Reload)
And I believe as you increase number of tanks engaging, the odds swing to the KT even more, as the ROF advantage gets multiplied further. 2 KTs may be able to take 5 IS2, and therefore 4 should certainly see off 10 I would say.
So on full tank maps like arad, the KT gets introduced like the Panther- under represented and somewhat out of place (a shame after the hard work of developing it) Plus as mentioned you get the tank squables, which are bad enough with the panther. Even then, it's going to totally blow the balance without other serious armour adjustments on both sides.
Now if you did want 4 or more KTs, they would just about have to be the only tanks for the germans, or phaps accompanied by a couple of P4-hs (nothing more powerful!) But though you can throw up loadsa IS2s if you want, once you get past eight you lose twin crewed tanks. 2 man KTs vs single crewed IS2s on short range maps with cover like arad/ogle mean big trouble for Russians, as they get out-manouvered. Obviously on longer range open maps it's all over for Russians anyway.
So for maps which are either strictly or primarily tank orientated, it's gonna be hard to make it work. But even if you severly outnumber the German tanks to compensate, it leads to what I believe is another problem. What do the other German players who dont get KT do? They become bit-players and their enjoyment diminishes. As for Russian, who wants to use inferior armour to become tank fodder for the main attraction? Sure your numbers/higher reinforments etc may help, but people dont want to repeatedly die in games, especially if there equipment is inherently inferior.
People naturally want to play as the outnumbered but better armed hero, and the format of most games relflect this, so obviously those who get to crew the KT many will love the experience, which is fair enough, but whos willing to play the part of their quarry?
When tanking myself I like the fear that vunerablility brings to the experience, and worry this feeling will diminish when using the mighty King Tiger. I like to think I am at least to some extent outfoxing the enemy, carefully avoiding exposing myself while working hard to line up effective shots. (why I love the p3) This may naturally make me want the challange of facing the KT of course, but on puplic with minimal teamwork you don't want to try punching too far above your weight.
I think this tank may work best in maps that are specifically designed for it, as it will change turn the tank game on it's head. At a risk of repeating myself, I believe a for example a defending German team with say 3 KT's as non replaceable objectives (mandatory or not) would be one decent solution. Then when the Russians finally do overpower it, they don't get deflated by the knowledge that it's fresh replacement is about 10 seconds away.
Obviously I appreciate once complete you are gonna want to get this tank running asap without making new maps, so failing my suggestion I would say at least mix the tank only with P4-h at best, and perhaps adjust reinforcments, win conditions or the time limit to keep things even, a tricky balancing act.
It's probably easier to implement fairly in combined arms maps (Konig a good example of a good map it can be tested on), with cover for antitank infantry and obstacles that can hinder it- but this only a part what we all want the King Tiger to be doing.
I have to point out I'm not trying to crap on your picnic here- I'm just trying to point out what I believe are going to be the difficulties of it's implementation. I appreciate I may be off the mark with some of this, as I'm not an expert when in the company of some members of these forums, but you get the general idea.
My point of view is that of a casual player on public servers of late - who sees less of his good teamworking buddies nowadays, and who's interest in tank maps has wained somewhat due to teamstacking a percieved lack of decent fair battles.
Obviously if I was against it's introduction, I would simply avoid maps featuring it and would have no need to comment here. On the contrary I would love to see it, but after the hard work of making it happen, would hate to hear complaints that it's presence actually made the game less enjoyable, especially if I agreed.
), or whatever, I would imagine it takes lots of time and dedication.
