King Tiger/Ferdinand/Elefants/Panthers (Merged)

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

King Tiger/Ferdinand/Elefants/Panthers (Merged)


  • Total voters
    131
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
He's Right Ive read dozens of sources which have stated the same about the Tiger II:

Armor site said:
Numerous statements have been made that the Tiger II was too heavy, too big, too slow, "a casemate", etc. One is left with the impression that it was lucky to move at all. These banal generalities, stated as incontrovertible facts, are never substantiated by actual specifications, test reports or after-action accounts from the units that used the Tiger II. In spite of these frequently repeated remarks, the capability of the Tiger II to negotiate obstacles and cross terrain was equivalent to or better than most German and allied tanks.
The Tiger II initially experienced numerous automotive problems which required a continuous series of minor modifications to correct. These problems can be traced to two main causes: leaking seals and gaskets and an over taxed drive train originally designed for a 40 metric ton vehicle. The problem of keeping a Tiger II in running condition was compounded by a shortage of skilled drivers many of whom may have never experienced driving any vehicle prior to entering the service. In addition they were provided only limited driver's training, and then usually on a different type of panzer, and received their own Tiger II usually within a few days before being shipped to the front. But, with mature drivers, taking required maintenance halts, and modification of key automotive components, the Tiger II could be maintained in a satisfactory operational condition. Status reports from the Western Front, dated March 1945, showed that the percentage of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw IV and as good as or better than the Panther
:)
 

Colt .45 killer

Grizzled Veteran
May 19, 2006
3,997
775
113
its true really, history is written by the victors. not by historians. therefore, one might want to take what ye learn with a spoonfull of salt, it might just be bull. the tiger 2 had problems with turning as i hear, rotation the tank in one spot was aperantly a nono, the tank could do it, but it could cause problems.
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Yeah, keep it out of the game.

That would be tantamount to denying the Soviets their beloved T-34/85 or IS-2.

Now as for "balancing" heres my questions:
Is it really necessary? We have so many "Balance" type games already out was Ro not ment to be more "realistic" based than "balance"??
realistically speaking:

1. The Tiger II's side armor is still penetrable even by the medium tanks like the T-34/85. *
2. Its rear is still penetrable.
3. Although they were all sent to the front and distributed well so they seemed common
there were only about 500 were bulit so per map there only should be about 1 or 2.
4.Although it was very manuverable like its predessesor overwhelming it with tanks should prove effective.
5.Since it is late war the Germans are on a defensive so even with this "uber" tank the Soviets should still have the advantage.
6. The PTRD in game still shoots nuclear bullets which Im sure it would probably penetrate the front side and rear of the Tiger II.
7. Ba-64 satchelers or just satchelers in general can easily satchel it.
8. Because the Germans are on a defensive they are limited to not moving very much more of a "hold this area" deal making all German Tankers more subseptable to Artillery attacks and flanking actions.
9. 1 tank or even 2 tanks ultimately dont make much of a difference perfect examples: RO-Orel (2 Tigers vs T-34/76's) and RO-Berezina (medium PzIVf1 and PZIII vs heavy Kv-1 tanks). Its when they are added in excess that they present a problem.
10. The Soviet side should really get an ISU-152 or something similar to counter all the "animal types" of tanks Panther,TigerI and, TigerII.
11. The IS-2 can counter the Tiger II pretty good according to battlefield.ru accounts

* Really all you have to do is try not to take attack it frontally which should be your tactic for every tank!!!
So right now a realistic Tiger II doesnt present that big of a challenge to destroy it may even inspire more team work and tactics for the Soviet side which in my book is a plus. So why balance why make a great tank like the Tiger II act like an Overglorified PzIV?
 
Last edited:

ROMMEL34

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 21, 2006
184
0
0
Pittsburgh
Yeah, keep it out of the game.

Poor Soviet fool. Afriad of a Tiger II tank. Why should it be kept out of the game??? The Soviets get their best and latest tanks such as the T-34 85 and IS-2's (breakout tank) which was not even intended to engage enemy tanks. What do you think the Germans have? Nothing! A Tiger II is needed to counter the IS-2. Also it would be neglegent and an insult to the German side not to add the Tiger II because it is the German's best tank and it is a historically important vehicle. If the Soviets have their best and latest tanks then the Germans should also. Keeping it out of the game would be like ignoring its existance and a blow to realism and realism fans everywhere.
This thread was about balancing Tiger II's. Instead of contributing something useful to this thread all you managed to type was something ignorant/arrogant like: Yeah, keep it out of the game:confused: :confused: . If you have nothing good to contribute please do not post it.
 
Last edited:

M_W

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 10, 2006
104
0
0
The ISU-152 is a howitzer (short barreled)...nothing to do with anti-tank task.
 

D3terioNation

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 15, 2005
3,959
82
0
41
West Sussex, UK
Game doesnt need the Tiger 2 mmmkay! More early war tanks mmmkay!

FFS cant you people see how adding this tank will only help destroy RO's efforts at realism! :rolleyes:
 

Solo4114

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 12, 2006
1,608
38
0
How many Tiger IIs were actually produced and used on the eastern front? I'm curious, actually.

As for balancing it, you could give it not-so-great armor. I've heard that while the numerical stats for the armor sound impressive the actual quality of the armor plate itself was considerably less than advertised, mostly due to manufacturing problems and shortages.

Or you could play with ratios like one Tiger II for an entire map, no respawns, while the soviets get plenty of artillery support and T34s. Or you could, at random times, burn out your engine or cause it to slow down considerably. You could require the same level of skill driving the thing that was required of real-life drivers and make it so that people have to stop periodically to prevent overheating of the engine.

OR we could focus on earlier war vehicles and engagements instead of the end of the war ubertanks people seem to get all in a tizzy about.
 

D3terioNation

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 15, 2005
3,959
82
0
41
West Sussex, UK
Why should the Devs spend ages noobifying the tank, just so that the game can remain balanced, when they can just concentrate on more content altogether by adding all the other vehicles that played a MASSIVE role in the campaign?!!
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
a bit harsh but true
Just to add to that the german late war tanks are
1.PzIV H
2.Panther G
3.Stug III G
4.Tiger II

Seeing as the Pz IV H is excatly the same as the F2 except with eyecandy nonfunctioning sideskirts (against PTRDs) and has inaccuaracies like the 2 piece hatch ,ect. Its gun seems to perform the same as the F2's even though it was higher velocity!. The Panther's gun has more penetrating power than the Tiger I's 88mm L56. Yet in game your lucky if you get a 2 shot kill on a T-34 (45mm of armor). We dont even have the Stug III G which is quite ironic since in the late war all broken or disabled tanks were being replaced with StugIII G's. The Tiger I we have modeled in game currently is a very early varient ( the first) with the early commander's cupola and early Tiger engine only 250 (model 1942) of these were made and they were promply upgraded. So as of yet we are lacking the Tiger II and the Stug III G. This is like missing the T-34 and IS-2 since the Stug III G was very common and the Tiger II had a very imorpant role in the late Eastern front conflict.:)
 

snakedude24

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2006
1,042
0
0
Ubertanks are about as much fun as watching Pong. You shoot, I shoot, you shoot, I shoot.


Early tanks r0x0rz.
 

Maschine Pistole-38

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
683
0
0
33
Oregon
That would be tantamount to denying the Soviets their beloved T-34/85 or IS-2.

Oh man, are you trying to pull my leg or are you serious?

Here lets line up a hundred Soviet tankers and a hundred German tankers. Now we should ask the Soviet tankers if they ever saw a Tiger II, now lets ask the German tankers if they ever saw a T-34/85 or IS-2. Based off JUST the production numbers, i'd say the Germans would have a 99.9% response of yes. Must I say more for the Soviets?

1. The Tiger II's side armor is still penetrable even by the medium tanks like the T-34/85. *
2. Its rear is still penetrable.
3. Although they were all sent to the front and distributed well so they seemed common
there were only about 500 were bulit so per map there only should be about 1 or 2.
4.Although it was very manuverable like its predessesor overwhelming it with tanks should prove effective.
5.Since it is late war the Germans are on a defensive so even with this "uber" tank the Soviets should still have the advantage.
6. The PTRD in game still shoots nuclear bullets which Im sure it would probably penetrate the front side and rear of the Tiger II.
7. Ba-64 satchelers or just satchelers in general can easily satchel it.
8. Because the Germans are on a defensive they are limited to not moving very much more of a "hold this area" deal making all German Tankers more subseptable to Artillery attacks and flanking actions.
9. 1 tank or even 2 tanks ultimately dont make much of a difference perfect examples: RO-Orel (2 Tigers vs T-34/76's) and RO-Berezina (medium PzIVf1 and PZIII vs heavy Kv-1 tanks). Its when they are added in excess that they present a problem.
10. The Soviet side should really get an ISU-152 or something similar to counter all the "animal types" of tanks Panther,TigerI and, TigerII.
11. The IS-2 can counter the Tiger II pretty good according to battlefield.ru accounts

I can guarantee 5 minutes after the Tiger II is added, we will see the fanboi's coming out of the woodworks complaining that their Tiger II isnt some unstoppable killing machine.

Poor Soviet fool. Afriad of a Tiger II tank.

Please, if you are going to lay bait make sure you put on some sort of camoflauge so I don't immediatly fall of on the floor laughing at it.

Why should it be kept out of the game??? The Soviets get their best and latest tanks such as the T-34 85 and IS-2's (breakout tank) which was not even intended to engage enemy tanks.

Lets see here, T-34/85 had a production number of around 25,000 and the IS-2 about 3,000. Compare that to the AMAZING 400 Tiger II's. Thats why, the Soviets had the numbers and RO represents that.

What do you think the Germans have? Nothing! A Tiger II is needed to counter the IS-2. Also it would be neglegent and an insult to the German side not to add the Tiger II because it is the German's best tank and it is a historically important vehicle.

Right now the only tanks that should defeat the IS2 are the Panther and Tiger. But in RO every tank can penetrate it frontally, from what I see you don't need the Tiger II unless the devs fix that little problem.

If the Soviets have their best and latest tanks then the Germans should also. Keeping it out of the game would be like ignoring its existance and a blow to realism and realism fans everywhere.

The Soviets do not have their best, they have one very good tank. The IS-2, in the meanwhile the SU-85, SU-100, SU-152, and ISU-152 are left out. But we don't see those threads, because us 'Soviet fools' are happy with the current load outs.


It seems most of the people in here want the Tiger II so they can sit up on a hill and laugh as they dominate the entire map because the Soviets can't touch them. But if by some miracle or bug they are destroyed, they come running to the forums asking for a fix because they died in the most powerful tank in WW2.
 

karl stiner

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 18, 2006
1,205
8
0
51
Ireland
Stop hating on the king tiger...

And you make it sound like they never worked, and for your information the king tiger's armour was by far the best in the entire war when it came to keep it's crew members safe.

And no, they weren't slow when you take into account their size... 38km/h on road is a nice speed for such a large piece of steel. And when it came offroad speed, they were actually a wee bit faster then the Tiger I. And contrary to popular belief, they were from what i have read quite manueverable for their size.

And freakin hell they should be in game, these are two of the most monstrous and prolific pieces of equipment the war had to offer, and they weren't a needle in a hay stack per say... especially at the end of the war.




Why don't people think.


With even teams, more tanks for the russians wouldn't do a damn thing... except for ensuring that they'll always be a tank to hop into upon spawning.

I'd still play for the Germans, if it meant 20 t-34's vs. my king tiger... They wouldn't stand a chance ;)


oh and to the original poster, yes it has been discussed many times... Use the search button to find exactly how many :p
very Good post you are dead right Maus;):cool: well done
 

Ricky(SCO)

FNG / Fresh Meat
Just my tuppence worth. Assuming the King Tiger was added with no addition to the Russian side to counter it, all you have to do is suggest that 4 or 5 tanks join you, in going round the long way, and attacking its flanks all at the same time. I regularly ask for this on Black day when a Tiger sits far back on one of the flanks and owns that side of the field. Even then we sometimes dont last, but I'll tell you what, its great fun... and the Tiger crewman usually appreciates it as well.
Because they arent so cocky afterwards!
 

jedinstven-o crni Wuk

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 3, 2006
937
0
0
germany
the Tiger II's problem was never its speed. It was the mechanic that just could not handle the heavy weight! The engine was reliable, but the gear box was not and very complicated. You have to think, to move the tank around, the tigers inner mechanic was always on its limit cause of the power you needed to move around 70 tons. And of course if i drive now 70 tons or 37 tons (not totally sure about the IS2 weight) through mud is a difference.

Tiger II is a tank of extremes! A vehicle with great advantages, but on the other hand at the same time with great disadvantages. The IS2, was just the better alround tank, compared to the Tiger II.
 

Colt .45 killer

Grizzled Veteran
May 19, 2006
3,997
775
113
tiger 2 went about as fast as the 1 .. i think it was about 3km/h faster actually...

with a skilled driver none of the parts would break, but if you cranked on em hard then stuff would break