Tiger, worst tank in RO ?

[A complainer]

The main problems is that the game does not allow a realistc scenery warfare,it's just a 3d diorama with tanks and people fighting around.It's not like WW2online or whatever is called now

AB mutator is kinda strange,sometimes the T34/76 is able to survive to multiple Panther & Tiger shells fired at point-blank range.General damage system is kinda weird too,yesterday while tanking inside a T34/85 I blew an angled Panther with a single shell fired in the one hit one blow weak spot located in his flank just above the track,the shell as usual bounced off and Panther exploded.There it was no way to blow it out since I have fired at wrong side,at the wrong angle and at the wrong distance (over 500 meters),the Panther was even in shiny status.

I really don't understand how stuff works in this game and after that MoW is after the RO IS2 way,immortal IS2s that are able to one-shot everything that moves at any distance and angle

 

[Oldih]

Err what are you insinuating here? You should look at the amounts of tanks the Tiger's destroyed vs thier own losses.

If we really go that far, Rak does have a point. Sure Tiger has quite neat K/D ratio, especially with some tank regiments (over 10 kills to one tiger ratio), but just in theory and ignoring evidence acquired in practice, **** happens situations, unexpected moon position, shatter gap, bad shell quality, battle-damaged and reinforced vehicle, sunspot activity, the capricious whims of a mischievous God and so on, many tanks are able to pretty much 'kill' eachother under 1000m ranges in 1944. PzIVs vs Shermans, pretty much who has the beter aim, StuGs vs Shermans, again the same, StuGs or PzIVs vs T-34s, again pretty much the same. And against Tiger, somewhat the same, albeit you'll need some kind of tank destroyer with those ranges.

But then again, it has been noted and prooved that theory is not always correct. Considering that roughly 70% of Tigers KO'd in Normandy were due jabos, and sometimes sourced that even infantry knocked more Tigers out directly than tanks did, doesn't sound like theory matched up now does it?

Yeah, realistically it was possible for a Tiger to take out the IS-2 as far as 1500 meters...

Realistically indeed. Only problem that apparently RO devs were smoking too much crack with this subject back then, and main reason why AB mutator was born in the first place.

 

[Reddog]

You guys have to remember that tactics play just as important a role in KD ratio as armor quality and gun power. Especially in the Russian campaign the Germans employed their armor in such an effective way compared to Russians. So much so that in 1941 when Barbarossa began they were routing Russian tank divisions which had vehicles that overmatched anything the Germans had at the time (like the KV-1).

The Tiger was a great tank and when employed skillfully was near unstoppable. This is where it falls down in RO as often it is not employed skillfully at all. Too many players expect to jump into it and use it as an invincible kill box. You have to factor in that when talking about in game effectiveness. You also have to factor in that on a map like Arad for example you are facing the T34/85 at ranges 500m and under in which it could take out a Tiger frontally, you also have the IS-2 which can knock the Tiger out at several thousand meters (if it can hit it).

If you want to see how effective the Tiger can be play a map like 'Black Day July' against a German team that knows what they are doing. You'll quickly find you're ****ed as they won't let you get around the side or rear of it which is the only place you have a hope of taking it out from.

 

[Mindfield]

If you want some in-depth information about russian tanks, dig this site:
http://www.battlefield.ru
This site contains tons of information.


For developement of the T35-85 check this article, notice the trail report on a Tiger I.

http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/87/43/lang,en/

 

[slyder73]

Seriously why it sucks so hard, super slow tower rotate and even slower reload. Within 1 kwk36 reload t34 can shot 2 times what usually change out tiger into piece of junk even in front armor. Pz4 is far better than it, however usually dies in 1 shot from IS2, luckly in 2. Also russian tanks are imbalanced with their powershield stolen from some alien technology, their power of deflecting rounds is just magic

Best way to use a Tiger is to make sure you have 2 or 3 guys in it. Team tanking. That way you can call a direction, the driver can point the barrel towards the target so the gunner can fire. The tank will reload much faster with 2 or 3 players in it, and can move while reloading if you have both a driver and gunner, making it less of a sitting duck target.
Then again, this is the best way to use any tank, but the Tiger is especially vulnerable if a player gets in by himself and tries to fire and turn the turret etc.

 

[IS-234]

maybe people in the tiger should treat it more like a bolt action gun. US Americans tend to think of the tiger as the invincible Sherman killer. Charging t34's plays right in to the enemies hands where they can drive circles around you and reload quicker. So like anybody who knows how use a bolt gun should use the tiger in a similar ways

 

[jeffduquette]

It's worst cause the 90% of the maps are impregnated with a huge amount of IS2,if there were less IS2 the Tiger will do the trick,but out of 10 tanks 8 are IS2 and the rest are T34/85.That's the problem,forget about angling or anything just hope for bad aim and if not you will get blow in one shot

This is precisely the problem. Too many map makers that insist on saturating maps with IS2s and T34/85s. Some of the problem can be blaimed on armor penetration modeling\poor slope effects and post penetration projectile effects -- but the vast majority of the blaim can be dumped on map makers door steps.

Tiger-1 does very well in in more realistically constructed scenarios circa-1943 to mid-1944 in which the lions share of Soviet tanks should be T34/76s -- not IS2s and T34/85s. Try Maslova_G. The Soviets have only T34/76 and KV-1s on the map. The majority of German tanks are PzKw-III and PzKW-IV. There are only two Tiger-1s on the map and their employment is decisive to German success on the map.

And for map makers -- get a sense for actual unit TO&E and orders of battle for the action you are attempting to portray with your maps. Open a book on the subject -- try making scenarios that based upon histrorical battles rather yet another rendition of how many Tiger-1 and Is2s can I stuff onto a map. There is more to scenario building than opening someone elses map in the editor and adding waves of IS2s to the Soviet spawn areas. It's been done - over and over and over again -- and it is the reason why folks complain about the Tiger-1 being worthless in this game. How about trying to focus on a bit more realistic force mixes. This will put equipment advantages in their proper historical context. I mean really -- isn't RO supposed to be a bit more realistic than your average bang-bang shoot'um up first person nuke-fest.

 

[A complainer]

They will simple reply :

Maps need balance,we cannot put Tiger (heavy) and leave our winning side naked without a proper tank -> IS2 (heavy) and is brother in law ISU152,otherwise germans will win,cause they got the holy sh!t is a Tiger get in the cc and don't forget about Panthers too

 

[jeffduquette]

Hardly. There are numerous ways to balance a scenario that don't entail dumping IS2s or SU-152s or Tiger Tanks or Panthers onto a map.

And the question isn't scenario balance, the question was why is the Tiger-1 such a piece of crap in RO. Or did I read the thread title incorrectly?

The reason Tiger-1's "suck" in RO is simple, scenarios being made by RO mappers do not place Tiger-1s in a position to be the uber killing machines they were historically. If yoiu desire a scenario which puts the firepower and armor of a Tiger-1 into historical context -- you place three or four Tiger-1s on a map modeled after the open Steppes of Southern Russia. You have 2000 to 3000meter (+) clear lines of fire. The Gunners and TCs in these Tigers also need to have a clue about range estimation, tactical formations, use of terrain. Now give the Soviets 15 T34/76s. The T34 have to cross open terrain to capture some objective beyond this line of Tigers. In addition, the Russian tank drivers can't be versed in the gamey use of tank "angling". Slope effects in the game are a problem. Toss that all into a pot and Voila! Even RO will make the Tiger-1 look pretty damned uber in such a scenario.

Now lets take the average RO scenario "writer"\"map maker". Historical context -- forget it -- why bother. That would mean I have to open a book and learn sumpin'. Lets have 15-Tiger-1s vs. 15 IS-2s --yeah yeah -- that'll be so kewl. No one has ever done such a supremely cool scenario like this before Innovation in scenario preparation -- no way stick to the all uber heavy maps -- everyone else does.

That's why Tiger-1 aren't so uberlicious in RO -- cause' map makers can't be bothered with anything remotely resembling historical context. You know how many actual tank vs. tank combat occured between Tiger-1s and IS-2s? Neither do I. But we are probably talking less than 50 to 100 documented cases in the entire war. On an average RO tank map you are probably getting about 50 to 100 Tiger vs IS2 engagements per hour on a busy Steam Saturday.

A Tiger getting shreaded by a IS2 isn't the least bit "unrealistic". What is "unrealistic" is all of the RO scenarios pitting IS2 vs Tigers. Immagination in scenario development doesn't have to be dead. Try something besides another slight twist to Orel or Debrecen. They were nice maps, but lets move on.

 

[jeffduquette]

Also russian tanks are imbalanced with their powershield stolen from some alien technology, their power of deflecting rounds is just magic

Angling -- this trick is far more universally known and utilized by RO players than was ever the case with actual tankers. It's Gamey and the resultant of armor slope effects currently employed in RO. The Armor Beasts mod does a much better job in modeling armor and projectile slope effects. But I think the hard-core RO vets don't like the AB Mod because they have grown used to using the gamey angling technique. The angling thing gets old quickly for anyone that has studied this subject.

I once fired six rounds of 88mm pzgr at a T60 from a range of less than 500meters. All the projectiles bounced\ricocheted from the front of the T60 because the T60 driver knew the precise way of angling. Remarkable.

t/d ratio must be taken into consideration when modeling slope effects and compounded angle of attack. In short, angling your T34 when engaged by 50mm pzgr will have a great deal of effect on the projectiles ability to punch a hole in the glacis of a T34. Angling your T34 to 88mm pzgr will have some effect but not nearly the same level of effect as 50mm pzgr vs. the T34's glacis. The T70 vs. 88mm pzgr example suggests to me that there is no accounting for armor being overmatched by the caliber of the attacking projectile in RO.

 

[Capt.Marion]

Wait till you get around 800 metres from your target.

I get single-shotted regularly in T34/85s by Tigers at this range, angled and all.

While up close and personal it may seem the default armour values are off, when you get at any kind of distance, they seem just fine to me.

 

[DietOrange]

Even at 800 meters away angled I still have a problem with the IS2, but everything else seems to bounce off at that range while my shots hit home.

 

[jeffduquette]

Well...you shouldn't be too surprised if your getting your block knocked off on a routine basis if your in a Tiger-1 and insist on going head to head with an IS-2. Course in the AB-Mod I can actully kill an IS-2 with a frontal shot from 88mm pzgr. I have a much harder time of it in stock-RO -- particularly with angling.

The appearance of the IS-2 on the battlefield was a major shock to Tiger tank crews. Tiger crews had come to think of their wagon as pretty much invulnerable based upon a couple of years of fighting T34/76s. The appearance of the T34/85 and particularly the IS-2 forced the Germans into rethinking how Tigers were being employed in combat. Apparently this way of thinking has not yet taken hold of the RO-player collective.

One of the big things I have noticed between stock RO armor penetration modeling and the AB-Mod is that hull and turret aspect of a tank is modeled independently in the AB-Mod. There was a big disscussion here on this forum about this. In other words in the AB Mod, angeling helps, but invariably the Hull will be angled but the turret will be oriented toward the shooter. The "angling tactic" is therefore minimized in the AB-Mod.

 

[BlackLabel]

Course in the AB-Mod I can actully kill an IS-2 with a frontal shot from 88mm pzgr.

uhm thats easy even without ab..if hes frontal even a pz III can destroi a IS2...we once had that scenario in IronCrescendo. Pretty funny. I think AB-mod has way to many flaws plus its seems more suited for the boring 10x10km maps...

 

[A complainer]

Yep stock angling is quite lame,with a Stug I have managed to survive to 2 or more 122 shells while reverse driving and changing the angle on shell approach,shells were scoring an hit or just bouncing off and the tank was taking no dammage at all.

And as I said even AB or stock armor values are quite off,wanna talk about the immortal CCs,man sometimes they are even worse than the IS2,screw it wasted 3 AP rounds and 2 HE shells and that thing was still driving leaving a nice and black smoke trail behind,MG rounds were useless too,no heads off no cigar.I wonder if the germans were using AP rounds in their mgs or what.T70 is immortal too with a Stug on (B)Orel I have scored 4 perfect hits on it,engine,returning wheel,ammo storage box,turret and nothing stopped it at all,then somewhere ein panzer kommt and stopped that thing with a 88 round

 

[jeffduquette]

I think AB-mod has way to many flaws ...

uhmm...I don't

So a good scenario for you would be 10 PzKwIIIs vs. 10 IS-IIs. I'm sure it will be extremely fun to play and very popular amongst RO players...heh

 

[2fisted]

Some maps have been made specificly to work with the AB mod. Witch in turn beefs up the strength/armor of the Tiger I .

Priept Marsh is one of these maps, I think the idea was for the wave of Russian tanks to slam against a Stg/Tiger defense. But without the AB mod the German line gets crushed damn quickly. Debrechen is another AB mod designed map.
I like the AB mod, but I guess some servers have issues w/ it. Glad to see DH is implementing a form of "AB mod" of thier own tho.

 

[jeffduquette]

Pulled from Jentz’s Panzertruppen, it gives a pretty good idea regarding the decline of uberness of Tiger-1s…not likely to be read by most here, but at this point who cares. This topic rears its head so often I'm goona say my piece whether you all read it or not...

A Lessons Learned Report From the General Inspector of Panzertruppen

With regard to points 5 and 6 at a time when there are 12.2 cm tank guns and 5.7cm ant-tank guns on the Eastern Front, just like 9.2 anti-tank/anti-aircraft guns on the western Front and in Italy, the Tiger can no longer disregard the tactical principals that apply to the other types of panzers. Also, just like other Panzers, a few Tigers can’t drive up on a ridgeline to observe the terrain. In just such a situation, three Tigers received direct hits and were destroyed by 12.2cm shells, resulting in all but two of the crew members being killed. The principles of Panzer Tactics – that Panzers should only cross a ridgeline together, rapidly (leap-frog by bounds) and under covering fire, or else the Panzers must drive around the height – were definitely not unknown in this Panzer-Abteilung. Statements like “thick-fur”, impregnable, and the security of crews of the Tigers, which have become established phrases by other units and also partially within the Panzertruppe, must be wiped out and debunked. Instead, it is especially important for Tiger units to pay direct attention to the general combat principals applicable for tank vs. tank combat.

Anything practical to be learned here for all of us arm chair generals? Sure there is…

1) Stock-RO or AB-Mod -- IS-2s routinely kill Tiger-1s. If you – like me -- are seeing a lot of this sort of thing in RO than the game is realistically portraying tank combat between the Tiger and the IS2.
2) Bounding Overwatch – when was the last time you saw any sort of tactical formation being employed on RO Tank maps. Could this be part of the problem with the Tigers lack of uber-performance in RO? Could be.
3) For those of you (us) that enjoy playing 10Kmx10Km RO tank maps and are therefore perhaps a bit more qualified to discuss the tank combat simulation aspects of the game – How often do we see dudes in Tiger Tanks drive up to the highest ridge on the map and begin blasting away. No regard for finding a hull down position – no regard for concealment – no attempt to reposition between shots. This – if we are to take the General Inspectors comments at face value -- is exactly what real Tiger crews were doing. But these dudes did this based upon vast experience with fighting against inferior armor plate and inferior gunpower in the form of T34/76s. RO-players I think do it based upon their preconceived notions about the uber-legend surrounding the Tiger tank. But according to the Panzertruppen Inspectors comments, when real panzer crews did this in the presence of IS-2 they were apparently getting knocked-out relatively easily. This is pretty much what happens in RO -- stock armor effects or AB-mod armor effects.

Given all of the above, the game realistically captures the “crappyness” of Tiger-1s when the Tiger-1s are routinely faced with equal numbers of IS-2. Again the lesson is don’t blame the game. Blame yourself for poor tactical employment of your tanks; and not seeking hull down positions; and not looking for positions that might maximize potential for flank and rear shots; and not communicating with your team mates; and not using as simple as bounding overwatch. And of course blame the scenario\map designers who continue to think that a good tank scenario pits overwhelming numbers of Tiger tanks against equally overwhelming numbers of IS2s. And for wood-be “scenario designers” resist the temptation to open someone else’s map file for the sole purpose of dumping a bunch of Tiger tanks and IS2 onto the map. It’s very irritating – not to mention extremely rude.

 

[Tanuki]

Reasons the Tiger sucks in RO

1. You are not a highly trained crew of veterans that have been fighting together for years and are experienced in working together to get the best out of your vehicle. (especially if you are just jumping in a tank with a load of randoms on a pub server)

2. You are not attacking in large formations, isolated pockets of unprepared Russian armor.

3. you are typically fighting at close ranges, (sub 1000m) where the armor and gun advantages of the tiger don't count as much.

4. By the end of the war the Tiger 1 had been over taken by most Russian armor. (It just was not that good a tank any more. Indeed; if it was would the German forces have bothered to develop the Panther and tiger 2? )


So in summary the Tiger 1 sucks because it is being used by the wrong people in the wrong situations and for the most part at the wrong time in the war.

Personally I would love to see it make an appearances in a huge combined arms map set just after its introduction. Mostly opposed by AT guns and a KV-1 (if the Russians are lucky). That's the kind of situation where the Tiger legend was made, but unfortuanatly it wouldn't be a very balanced map.

 

[jeffduquette]

Some maps have been made specificly to work with the AB mod. Witch in turn beefs up the strength/armor of the Tiger I .

Priept Marsh is one of these maps, I think the idea was for the wave of Russian tanks to slam against a Stg/Tiger defense. But without the AB mod the German line gets crushed damn quickly. Debrechen is another AB mod designed map.
I like the AB mod, but I guess some servers have issues w/ it. Glad to see DH is implementing a form of "AB mod" of thier own tho.

We are sort of touching on a large number of aspects of the game here. While I haven't looked over the designers notes for RO, my guess is that the game wasn't intended as a uber-tank simulator. However, the stock design of RO does a good enough job as a realisitic tank combat simulator to get a lot of folks very interested in what it is doing. It is far more realistic than many games specifically designed as tank simulators. And it is certainly a major plus to have the combined arms capability aspects offered by RO. So I guess my question is how much more realism can be injected into the tank simulation part of the game. For me, AB-mod goes a long way in the right direction. Is it perfect -- no. But from my playing experiance the AB-Mod improves upon something that was already good (even with angling and lack of disinction between hull and turret aspect), but could be made better.