Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

User avatar
WWWallace71
Lieutenant
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 23:22
Location: Bermuda
Contact:

Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby WWWallace71 » Mon 9 Apr 2012 17:05

It's actually quite simple when you get down to it. and I think it's the reason people don't see challengers on the field.

Let me get some numbers (put aside the strength of these tanks for a second and just look at the numbers)

Most NATO tanks don't have many variants available to them (exceptions are the Patton/Leopard 1)
Most PACT tanks have 3 - 5 variants.

take the challenger 1. this takes up one of the tank slots for a persons deck. BUT you can only get four tanks out of the one slot. Pact have the T-80 series which is designed to combat the heavier MBTs. however:

T-80: 4
T-80B: 4
T-80A: 4
T-80BV: 2
T80U: 2

that, deployment points aside is 4 Challenger 1s, or 16 T-80 and variants.

take a NATO comparison, again using the Challenger 1, against the Leo 2.

Challenger 1: 4

Leopard 2: 8
Leopard 2A1: 4
Leopard 2A4: 4

by this logic, why would anyone ever use the Challenger 1, as it has absolutely no variants (I know it was the newest tank of the time, and the Challenger 1 never really had too many variants IRL but anyway) especially in long engagements, I would definitely rather have 16 tanks on my side rather than 4 for the same deck slot. I suggest upping the amount of Challenger 1s to maybe 8? or am I just being stupid and patriotic to Britain?
Gopblin wrote:(Considering Wallace once posted pics of actual, honest-to-god human excrement to show his attitude towards me, I'm betting bad laughter)

Self-proclaimed rap god of the forums. #spit.

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby Mitchverr » Mon 9 Apr 2012 17:14

Could always add the chob armored experamental tank as a "cheap chally" for before it, i dont remember its name(edit: The FV4211 'Aluminium Chieftain' MBT iirc), though iirc it was basically a chieftain with the new armor. Considering the amount of experamental tanks ingame, this wouldnt be a major outside the box.

Or have the vickers mk 5 and 7 in there with it, theres plenty of other british tanks which could go in with it. Would also offer a nice light/medium/heavy british tank tree and more for your slot.
Image

User avatar
WWWallace71
Lieutenant
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 23:22
Location: Bermuda
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby WWWallace71 » Mon 9 Apr 2012 17:47

Mitchverr wrote:Could always add the chob armored experamental tank as a "cheap chally" for before it, i dont remember its name(edit: The FV4211 'Aluminium Chieftain' MBT iirc), though iirc it was basically a chieftain with the new armor. Considering the amount of experamental tanks ingame, this wouldnt be a major outside the box.

Or have the vickers mk 5 and 7 in there with it, theres plenty of other british tanks which could go in with it. Would also offer a nice light/medium/heavy british tank tree and more for your slot.


would be nice. there's another thread about the Centurion tank up at the moment, that's what triggered me to put this thread up in the first place.
Gopblin wrote:(Considering Wallace once posted pics of actual, honest-to-god human excrement to show his attitude towards me, I'm betting bad laughter)

Self-proclaimed rap god of the forums. #spit.

User avatar
quigglebert
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 871
Joined: Fri 2 Mar 2012 18:45
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby quigglebert » Mon 9 Apr 2012 17:54

I almost always use a pair of challengers every game, too expensive to really use more but they are usually the centre of my offencives as they usually laugh off most attacks and in a pinch are the toughest speed bumps in game if you need to save a very large offencive, now if there were 8 available I would see no real change to their useage, what I want to see is the chieftain marksman variant, a badass ass to kill AA tank
Image

chester267
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat 7 Apr 2012 15:47
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby chester267 » Mon 9 Apr 2012 18:08

The Vickers Mark 7 was based on the hull of the leopard 2, and used its engine as well. They shouldn't include it though because it's development was ending in the late 1980's, so would be slightly out of the time of the game. Maybe in an optional dlc that extends to the 90's we might see it and the challenger mark 2.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vickers_mk7.htm this site shows some pictures of the mark 7 and some info about it.
Last edited by chester267 on Mon 9 Apr 2012 18:21, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
WWWallace71
Lieutenant
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 23:22
Location: Bermuda
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby WWWallace71 » Mon 9 Apr 2012 18:14

well the only reason I can see someone using a Chally over a Leo 2 (there's a 5 point difference), is the higher side armour. every other statistic is identical, if not worse than the Leo2A4. it's gun is more accurate doing 1 more damage, its faster, higher fuel capacity, and a higher operational range.
Gopblin wrote:(Considering Wallace once posted pics of actual, honest-to-god human excrement to show his attitude towards me, I'm betting bad laughter)

Self-proclaimed rap god of the forums. #spit.

onceover
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 21:27
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby onceover » Mon 9 Apr 2012 18:15

Its worth having for its massive amount of armour imo if you are playing a defensive games, stands up well to most artillery

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby Mitchverr » Mon 9 Apr 2012 18:18

chester267 wrote:The Vickers Mark 7 was based on the hull of the leopard 2, and used its engine as well. They shouldn't include it though because it's development was ending in the late 1980's, so would be slightly out of the time of the game. Maybe in an optional dlc that extends to the 90's we might see it and the challenger mark 2.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vickers_mk7.htm- this site shows some pictures of the mark 7 and some info about it.



Page cant be displayed for me, but the information i have for it is that it was able to be produced from 85, like alot of other tanks in the game.

edit: nvm working now i fixed it my end lol,

BTW i know it was based off the leo 2 hull, but honestly, that to me doesnt matter, i would rather have the ability to produce more tanks if it means ignoring that because to be frank as posted in the first post, 4 tanks vs 12-16 for others seems a little, UP especially at the cost too and iirc the cost of some other assets is lower because they have less of a choice in their tanks.
Last edited by Mitchverr on Mon 9 Apr 2012 18:24, edited 1 time in total.
Image

chester267
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat 7 Apr 2012 15:47
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby chester267 » Mon 9 Apr 2012 18:22

there link works now. It was my fault. There is also a video showing it in action.

Dobb
Master Sergeant
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu 9 Feb 2012 09:46
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby Dobb » Mon 9 Apr 2012 18:32

I feel bad for saying this but: I still don't see any good reason on using heavy tanks like the Leo2s, Chal, and such because of the routing system.

There's no point in having the Challenger in a stand up fight if they're gonna rout or panic when they got hit by 4 accurate SPG-9 shots.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests