[Vehicle] Have we just stopped talking about the Vanguard shield?

ColonelChingles' equation has the same result as mine. I say to kill a shielded side armor vanguard you have to deal 24000 damage to it, Chingles says that a prowler can do that damage in 5 AP shots and the magrider in 3 AP shots.

He's just doing the other side of the equation, the damage dealt. Something that is important to know, but the end result remains the same;

You have dealt 24000 damage to that vanguard in order to kill it.

There is nothing silly or misleading about it as long as you calculate the proper damage modifier for the weapon you're using to deal that damage as well.


However, don't take this as me saying it's overpowered. It's definitely strong and I just want people to understand exactly how it works and adds up with resistances so they don't go around believing that it breaks in two hits.

I dont think thats a good solution. A better one would be a turret-shield that you aim. It shouldnt be big enough to protect the Vanguard completely so enemies can try and shoot around it.
Alternatively the shield could increase resistances so that the shield isnt a bailout method and needs more foresight to Use.
Other alternatives are just adding different abilities. For instance an ability that deals damage to vehicles that you touch, a recharging av rocketlauncher, temporary increased weapon stats etc.

All that leaves is upgrading the Vanguard Base chassis to rival that of the other two without requiring an ability to do so.

Against threats that aren't smart tanks the only thing I would say the shield is good at counting is harassers. Air just hovers over you, tanks with the upper hand will often steamroll you and C4 can just wait. But a burst of hp on the retreat isn't bad it's that you're vulnerable the rest of the time because you are slower than the other two tanks hands down.

Wow, people are still complaining about the worst performing MBT huh? Vanguard shield lasts total of SIX seconds. Do you know what the vanguard can do offensively during that six seconds? Fire it's main gun once, start it's 4 seconds reload process, and maybe fire one more time before the shield is gone, if it hasn't been dissipated by enemy fire already. If you died to a vanguard because of it's driver activated it's shield. You would've died either way.

PART 1/2:

And if it's 2/2 vs. 2/2, and the Vanguard fires first, you can beat an Anchored Prowler. If the Prowler isn't Anchored to begin with, you can win if both fire at the same time.

And if you are smart enough to be able to counterplay the Prowlers main weakness (reliance on sustained fire) and/or being stationary, it is even easier. At close-ranges you should be able to drive in close and force the Prowler to un-Anchor or take rear/side shots, effectively winning you the fight. At longer ranges it is trivial to use cover between reloads, greatly reducing the Prowlers DPS advantage. Just saying.

If you are in a MBT as 1/2, you are doing it wrong, sorry. That being said, I'm not against tweaking the favorable (in terms of the Prowler) 1/2 balance, and I've actually been suggesting such changes for years, literally.

Unless you, you know, try to limit the Prowlers favorable DPS by utilizing the tools are your disposal.

I haven't seen anyone showing the Vanguard has the overall largest profile, in fact, I recall the Magrider winning that award. I'd also argue that a box design (Prowler) is much more predictable and I honestly find the Prowler much easier to hit overall, with the Vanguard sometimes being easier to hit from the side. I do believe you missed a "this is just my opinion and not hard facts" in there.

The Vanguard is actually pretty fast in terms of top speed (faster than the Magrider) but is lacking in acceleration. Luckily, any remotely competent driver of the Vanguard will know about the gear-skipping mechanic, which greatly increases your acceleration, making it quite managable. The Vanguard does lack somewhat in the turning department while under forward momentum, but standstill/reverse-turning is decent, assuming you know that you should be utilizing the reverse key in tandem with turning.

That's just plain old baloney there. The Vanguard is perfectly capable of retreating, as long as you haven't overextended. I assume that it where your problem lies. I have no issues retreating, even without using Shield often.

From the front (the most dangerous side) and the rear (the most opportune side) the Prowler has a larger profile. Overall the Magrider has the largest profile. The Vanguard might be slightly larger than the Magrider from the side, but I doubt it. Sure, the Magrider is hovering, but that doesn't change the profile. I personally find a box/square easier to hit than a rectangle in most situations.

The velocity is also higher than the Magrider, meaning it is going to need less ranging shots than the Magrider. If the Vanguard is fighting a Prowler it shouldn't need many ranging shots, due to the Prowler being stationary by virtue of Anchor. And if you miss? Just reset the fight, it's not like the big bad Prowler is coming to get you, since it's Anchored.
If the Prowler ISN'T Anchored, then the Vanguard needs to correct less for drop etc than the Prowler does. Meaning the Vanguard is actually LESS likely to miss than its counterparts. The Prowler having a shorter reload (and double-fire mechanic) doesn't make the Prowler less likely to miss (I assume that's what all you numbered points should argue towards, which this one doesn't).

Concerning the 25-50% remark: First of all, this is only relevant for the Prowler, as the Vanguard only has a ~6.5% slower reload than the Magrider. If you had only mentioned the Prowler, sure, but you didn't explicitly write "than other faction tanks". Secondly, your numbers seem weird. This is how I would calculate it:

• Prowler cycle: 2½ (base reload) - ½ (reload certification) + ½x2 (re-fire delay x2)
  • = 3 seconds cycle time
• Prowler cycle: 2½ (base reload) * 0,52 (Anchor increases reload speed by 48%) - ½ (reload certification) + ½x2 (re-fire delay)
  • = 1,8 seconds cycle time
• Vanguard cycle: 4 (base reload) - ½ (reload certification) + ½ (re-fire delay)
  • = 4 seconds cycle time.

Meaning the Vanguards cycle time is between 33% - 122% slower than the Prowlers cycle time.

The Prowler also has recoil, which is especially relevant for quick follow-up shots. Especially on un-even terrain this effect can be very pronounced and can drastically throw off your aim if you aren't quite experienced at countering it (and positioning properly to avoid such occurences).

Impossible? For you maybe, but please don't claim their are impossible for everyone. Firing on the move on flat terrain is perfectly doable. I personally find the Vanguard easier to use for firing on the move than the Prowler (which I know you didn't mention) due to only having to fire once every 4 seconds or so, compared to the Prowlers much higher rate of fire. This leaves more brain-power to maneuvering, situational awareness etc etc.

Another thing that renders the "impossible" claim silly is the fact that you CAN actually get a stabilized primary weapon turret in the Vanguard/Prowler, you just have to be in 3rd person view to achieve that. With some practice, firing while on the move in 3rd person view is pretty doable if you aren't fighting at long range (and I didn't use ANY kind of overlay for it, I imagine it is MUCH easier with such a thing).

Don't go around fighting Magriders at ranges where they can reliably dodge without having cover available for yourself. Just reset the fight if you miss a couple of shots. Within ranges where the Magrider cannot reliably dodge, you shouldn't miss (150m or so), and if you are, the fault is on your aiming, not the opponents platform. Aim at center mass at 150m and you are going to hit the Magrider (of course this is easier said than done, but you have the tools available right there infront of you).

I'd argue that the Vanguard has it better than the Prowler in such a situation, due to the fact that if the Prowler isn't Anchored, the Vanguard has it better due to higher velocity (meaning the maximum range for reliable dodging is further and it is simply easier to hit). If the Prowler is Anchored, it is stationary, meaning the Magrider is going to have 100% accuracy against the Prowler, whereas the Magrider is free to move into cover between reloads, and pop out at differing positions every time, keeping the Prowler crew guessing, and not knowing where to keep their crosshairs while the Magrider is in cover. The Prowler also dishes out drastically lower DPS in such a scenario (especially if it has the GK equipped as well).

That is an exaggeration. How much have you used both weapons if I may ask? The Vanguard only has 15% more drop than the Prowler. For reference, the Magrider has 9% more drop than the Vanguard.

Let's do the math. Both the Titan-AP and P2-120 AP have a "projectile gravity" value of 4. For reference, the Halberd has a value of 4 and the Gatekeeper has a value of 3. Now, the amount of "drop" a given weapon has at a given point in time, is a mathematical function of projectile gravity / time.

An example is 2 weapons with equal "projectile gravity" scores, but one weapon has a significantly higher muzzle velocity than the other. This means, that after 1 second, each weapon/projectile has "dropped" by the same amount, but one projectile has traveled much further than the other one. This is often interpreted by the human brain as one weapon "having more drop than the other". Adding something like "projectile acceleration" (while lowering the muzzle velocity) slows the average velocity of the projectiles down, meaning the projectiles drop more per time spent in the air. Such a thing is showcased brilliantly by the Gatekeeper changes, where acceleration was added. Suddenly, without changing the "projectile gravity" of the weapon, the projectiles started dropping much closer, and thus people had to correct for drop more to compensate.

Now, explanations aside, lets dig into the math. Since we have concluded that the "projectile gravity" values are the same for the two weapons (4), the only other factor left to consider is the projectile velocity. The P2-AP projectile velocities are 250 (unanchored) and 325 (250*1,3). The Titan AP has a projectile velocity of 275. This results in the (Anchored) Prowlers projectiles being ~18,2% faster, meaning the projectiles are going to have 18% less drop / distance traveled. In other words, the Vanguard has 15% more drop than the Prowler. I wouldn't personally signify something having 15% higher drop as having "a hugely greater drop", but that's just my opinion of course.

Also, you shouldn't ever be stationary in a long-range fight against an Anchored Prowler, unless you have the advantage (via getting in the first shot for instance). Use cover damnit!

Same argument as before, I don't consider the 15% slower velocity to be THAT much of a difference, at least not something worth denoting as being "hugely lower". For reference, the Magrider has a 9% slower muzzle velocity than the Vanguard.

First of all, all tanks are **** at long range (250-300+m). Anyone losing their tank to another enemy tank at such ranges either massively fudged up (for example by overextending, rushing headfirst, lack of situational awareness etc. etc.), or needs to re-evaluate their tanking strategies (and maybe their tanking careers). Sure, you can sit at such ranges and farm noobs, but that's mostly it. Only the worst people are going to lose their vehicles at such ranges, and you certainly aren't going to be able to engage any of the targets actually important for having an impact on any significant fight. Such targets can be (but aren't limited to) well-placed Sundies, Stealthed Sundies, experienced enemy MBT-crews, trapping enemy vehicle-reinforcement routes etc etc.

I also have something to add that I feel you are neglecting, since you are seemignly focused on the weak-points of the aspects, instead of also considering what good they can do you. For instance, the slow reload comes with a benefit, a huge Alpha-strike potential, which is a godsend when you are flanking (and flanking really is what you should be doing in ALL three tanks, not sitting at 250+m being useless to your faction). It lets your bring the hurt when you need it, in order to either take advantage of your favorable positioning (your flank) or exploit any mistakes made by the enemy with a huge hit.

If you are intent on fighting at closer ranges, the Mjolnir is actually decent now (with the proposed changes), and you will win ANY CQC-fight if you don't fudge up, or meet some weird-*** Prowlers (like a AP-Vulcan-Anchor Prowler). The Vanguard is THE CQC-tank, but just like with the others, you have to be vary not to overextend when comitting to CQC fights, as it of course isn't invulnerable.

If anything, the Magrider needs cover to fight the other tanks, unless the enemies are bad. They can be bad in several ways:

1. Fighting at long range. I've already explained that this is futile, and only farmers do this. If you want to not be useless for your faction, then move in closer and flank the enemy, using your skill and situational awareness to get you through it. Be smart, don't do this.
2. Cannot aim properly. Within 150-200m, just aim center-mass of the Magrider, and you WILL hit it, meaning a coverless Magrider is a dead Magrider as a Magrider loses any even trade with another MBT.

This is such a generalization that I hardly know how to respond. There are plenty of situations a Vanguard can win without resorting to using cover. For goodness' sake, I often don't even have to use my Shield for winning fights!

Vanguard vs. Magrider:
Within 150-200m the Vanguard wins against a Magrider easily, unless the Vanguard crew cannot aim properly. At longer ranges, you generally shouldn't lose a tank, and that goes for both you and the enemy.

Vanguard vs. Prowler:
Against Prowlers I agree that using cover is a good option, depending on the situation, which is very often the case against Prowlers as you have to evaluate the situation quickly in order to know what is the correct procedure. For instance:

• Did your crew get in the first volley? You are good to go, and can face-tank the Prowler despite Anchor Mode and win
• Was he Anchored when the fight started?
  • Did you fire at the same time? Reset the fight by backing into cover before you die (you could also try to pick the fight by using cover, I will often try such things if I'm not pressured by other targets). The Prowler has 2 options now:
    1. Keep looking at your position, rendering it inable to engage any of your allies, allowing them to push forward
    2. Start engaging your allies, allowing you to get in the first shot. See my first point for this situation.
  • Did you fire first? See above.
• Was he not Anchored when the fight started?
  • Is it a fair fight (firing at the same time at the same directional armor)? You should be able to win such a fight
  • Did you fire first? Should be an easy win for the Vanguard.

Then there are of course such aspects as whether the Prowler is close enough for you to rush, forcing him to unanchor etc.

Luckily you have Shield for that. Any enemy tank rushing you without a massive advantage will lose such a fight. A Prowler won't stand a chance without such an advantage, due to the Prowler being forced to fight without Anchor, and you should still have your Shield. You can also typically repair a couple of seconds before the enemy breaks into your cover, requiring an already greater advantage for the enemy to best you.

PART 2/2:

The thing is, the Gatekeeper (as the TR Long range ESAV option is called) isn't really as awesome as many people make it out to be, at least with the current changes coming. Even prior to the nerf, I wasn't personally actively using it in ANY of my loadouts, simply because of the ineffectiveness of long-range tanking for anything else than farming combined with the ease of countering the weapon for the enemy. It should be noted that I'm a tanker, not a farmer. The thing is, countering the GK is accomplished via the same tactics that counter the Prowler in general, namely utilizing cover between reloads, rendering the weapon practically useless for fights between even semi-competent tank crews. But I've gone off on a tangent, and I'll leave it at that.

I wouldn't call the new Mjolnir bad, as it seems to simply be an improved Vulcan. The Vulcan might have a smithereen longer effective range (like 20-40m, but nothing as drastical as the Aphelion) while the Mjolnir has much higher DPS/burst. Whether you are sporting the Vulcan or the Mjolnir, you are using such a weapon with the intention of fighting at super-close range (otherwise, why equip the weapon in the first place?). Now, that being said, if that is my intention, I will generally value higher effectiveness in the niché I'm equipped for over slightly longer range. If I'm worried about being engaged at range, I will equip my default secondary, the Halberd.

That isn't neccesarily a bad thing. Just look at my example regarding the Prowler and the GK. According to you, it should be a match made in heaven, as they both rely on the same thing, namely sustained fire. However, that brings with it an inherent weakness that is easy to exploit, and is one of the primary reasons why I don't actively use the GK. It's simply too easy for the enemy to take advantage of your one-dimensional loadout and counterplay accordingly, without you being able to do much other than retreating (I'm a cross-faction tanker, so I've tried it from both sides). There is syngergy, and then there is too much syngergy, especially if the latter comes at the cost of flexibility. And then there is an different aspect that I'd like to bring forward, namely the difference between synergy between weapon systems (like the GK and the Prowler synergy) and then the synergy with a given weapon and common tanking strategies employed by experienced tank crews (like taking cover between reloads).

Even if that was the case, luckily for you, the Halberd is still generally the best weapon for most experienced tank crews. It is incredibly versatile, almost impossible to counterplay and synergizes perfectly with the aforemented tanking strategies. Sure, I'm not a fan of all the ES weapons, but I don't worry about them THAT much, as long as the Halberd is as good as it is. You know what's also great about the Halberd? It synergizes perfectly with the Vanguards primary weapon.

That's one way to use it, but you have to have good situational awareness in order to not simply get picked off after by the other enemies nearby that noticed your bumrush. The Vanguard is surprisingly effective as a flanker, especially if employed in a group of 2 to continually rotate the threat of the Shield. Forget Side/Front armor, NAR etc and equip Stealth. You thrive off forcing 1v1's in your favor, which people know they cannot win, so they won't even try to fight back. Ever try flanking a Vanguard? Many of the buggers will actually try and turn, fighting back, meaning you are taking significant damage (and it requires MUCH more time compared to flanking other tanks), whereas if a Vanguard flanks them, most people are going to bail immediately. Meaning you don't even have to use Shield in such situations.

The high Alpha-strike potential is also great, especially if you equip the Halberd like I recommend. Often with a little experience (or the correct implant) you can insta-gib slightly damage vehicles before they even realize what happened. Great for flanking maneuvers!

While I mostly agree here, there is one thing you aren't considering which I think is an important aspect of the Shield. Which is, that it isn't always the Shield effect itself that keeps you alive, but sometimes even the threat of the Shield alone is enough to discourage people from bumrushing you, despite them having the advantage. Especially if there is more than Vanguard such a threat can be daunting. But I completely agree that the Vanguard needs the Shield to remain competitive, but on the other hand it sure doesn't need the Shield in EVERY single fight (like I feel your comment implied).

The Prowler is by far the best MBT for farming, and the Vanguard is easily the worst MBT for farming.

There, fixed it for you

If you ask me, a big portion of it stems from the fact that there are significant differences in the tanks overall. Like the Prowler being BY FAR the best farming platform out there, with a major contributor being the incredible 1/2 potential due to the combination of double-shot mechanic and Anchor. This farming effectiveness drastically impacts the stats, and skews them, without showing the real effectiveness of when the tanks actually go up against one another head to head (not neccesarily slugging matches, I just used the phrase for ease of understanding). So on one side you have people having real issues dealing with a Vanguard for instance, but on the other side you have people showcasing the stat differential between the Prowler and the Vanguard (ALWAYS without considering the improved farming capability of the Prowler). The thing is, you are never going to reach a good conclusion in a discussion with 2 sides using such drastically different arguments, as they aren't mutually exclusive. This leads to a sort of weird situation in where no one is neccesarily RIGHT, but not one is really wrong either.

That is part of why I've been advocating for years that Anchor should be changed.

Well, there is the risk that you use it too early, and the enemy will be able to simply take cover, and you have it on cooldown.
Meanwhile, Magburn doesn't inherently have a risk of being shot in weaker armor, as I will for instance at times be Magburning outside of enemies line of sight (to reposition, escape etc), or simply Magburning FORWARD, either to get into cover infront of me, or simply to close the distance for a kill. In fact, Magburning correctly often makes it HARDER for the enemy to actually hit you.

Really ? The 2000HP (after reductions) being absorbed have no impact in any fights? The Vanguard would be as good without the Shield as it is with the Shield? Wow, I'll have whatever you are smoking, as my **** seemingly isn't even remotely as strong as whatever YOU are smoking

It's not like being able to fire 50% of the shots it take to kill a Prowler/Magrider from the side has ANY value right?

If you think a realistic tank vs tank scenario is two stationary tanks slugging it out unsupported. Then yeah, I suppose 2000 temporary HP on the least maneuverable tank with the slowest cannon reload in the game would seem crazy powerful to you.

Unfortunately the prowler wins the peekabo fights as well, as it will be able to put more dps out in the time it takes for a rival tank to come out, shoot, and then retreat behind cover. If I in a prowler get 4 shells out thanks to anchor whilst you only get 1 titan AP per cover cycle, you will loose that dps race. You can always say "well i'll just repair" to which I counter, so can I & then we are back to square one, repeating over and over again.

I don't agree. It will mislead people, as a bizarre amount of people don't know that there are extra modifiers on the ammo types. Also, ColonelChingles his part is the same coin, but rolled a bit further. The HP on itself tells us little. The weapon effectiveness on each MBT and the Vanguard with shield is simply the next steps.

I mean really, how many people would think you would need 24000/AP damage=amount of shots, instead of 24000/(AP damage*modifier)=amount of shots? Although in % both would have equal difference, the amount of shots would lead to wildly different TTK.

A story with more parts told will in general be less misleading.

This is true. The "effective HP" argument works if you're looking at the number of shots to kill, which in that case functions like my method.

But when you use the "effective HP" argument to make claims like x tank has an increased HP of y%, then it's a useless number. Because HP does not necessarily correlate to STK.

I don't think I can support Pat22's initial statements about comparing the effective HPs of the tanks simply because such numbers are misleading. It's one thing to throw out numbers like the Shield is worth 8,000 HP, but it starts to seem less significant when you realise that a Magrider does an "effective damage" of 2,107.45 per shot.

When ya put it that way I suppose resistances are irrelevant verses TTK and shots fired. Like how it takes 2 c4 to kill one flak max verses one to kill a harasser even if the harasser has more hp.

Hey look, the way I see it, I'm saying "Vanguard takes 24000 HP to kill" and you're saying "AP gun takes X amount of shots to deal 24 000 damage" which are two parts of an equation you need to know how durable your tank is or how effective your weapon is against that tank.

I left out the second part of the equation simply because it's a different number every time you use another weapon, but you're right. It is more accurate to include it and have a final "shots to kill" count.
As I said before, all I wanted to demonstrate initially was that the Vanguard's shield was considerably more durable than some people seemed to believe. It won't drop in a single volley, it's going to tank quite a few shots for you.

I also really like the 24000 to 12500 effective HP comparison because it shows how big the HP difference between the shielded Vanny and other MBTs ( even though other MBTs rarely use directional armor so they won't even have that 12500 ).

If you apply the weapon damage half of the calculation in a tank versus tank comparion, the result will remain that the Vanguard can take twice as many hits, give or take 1(?) than other MBTs .

I think you'll find that all 3 MBTs are despised. They are all despised for being MBTs, but they are also each despised for their unique differences. And each unit type in the game will often have 1 MBT they hate more than the others, and this will change from unit to unit (or player to player).

I don't especially hate the Vanguard Shield. As Infantry, I hate the Mag mobility the most. As an ESF I hate the Vanguard OHK Primary the most. As a Sunderer driver, I hate all 3 MBTs pretty evenly for being MBTs and being able to kill Sunderers fast and chase them and keep up if needed while doing it. None of this hate makes me feel they should be nerfed: they seem to fit the game well.

Who said anything about 2 stationary tanks slugging it out unsupported? That's right, YOU did. Don't put words in my mouth please Also, where did I write I believe the Shield is "crazy powerful"? Again, those are YOUR words, not mine. Please don't put words in my mouth Feel free to elaborate, just please refrain from making assumptions about things you have no clue about, and thereafter put words in my mouth. Now, onto the topic:

You wrote that dying to a Vanguard that used its Shield would have resulted in your death anyways. That means you are implying that the Shield is useless, as any fights the Vanguard wins, it wins without the Shield anyways. Is that really what you are claiming? That the Shield cannot win you a single fight?

Note: It's not like I'm arguing that the Vanguard is invincible, or that the Shield is too strong etc etc. I'm simply responding to your silly claim that the Shield is useless. I can definitely get usage out of the Shield when I'm in a Vanguard, and often the threat alone of the Shield is enough to be able to move more freely than it would've been possible without the Shield in the Vanguard. But then again, I'm not some little kid that has only played a single faction and has no idea about the weakness'/strengths of the other factions.

That comment wasn't only about the Vanguard, but more in general. Both the Lightning and Magrider can easily pull off such maneuvers whilst only allowing the Prowler a single salvo/cycle without much practice/experience. The Magrider uses cover so efficiently that there is no way a Prowler will be able to land the follow-up shots in time, and you also have the added benefit of being able to "surface" from your cover in unexpected angles easily, without impacting your aim. Such a small thing adds time to the Prowlers effective reaction time, giving him less time to return fire before you are back in cover. The Magrider being able to fire "through" terrain also helps in that aspect.

I've been able to do it with the Vanguard as well, but it really requires good momentum control and also requires you to be able to land an accurate shot during the "bumpy" momentum-shift from forward to reverse. I can see why some people will find it hard to pull off, but the key is to only expose the bare minimum of your tank giving you the least exposure time possible. Another aspect that is VERY useful in such a situation is using "low" cover to cover your tank partially whilst you are moving out of cover, greatly increasing the skill requirement for the Prowler crew to be able to land quick follow-up shots on you, due to recoil etc.

That isn't my argument in that regard, but it does have some weight to it. If I seek cover and reset the fight, the Prowler is forced to either keep looking at my potential position, meaning it won't be able to engage my allies, OR allow me to get in the first shot, removing the neccesity of even using cover between reloads, as I can straight up win the fight, or at least force the Prowler back, in which case the Prowler has a distinct disadvantage, as it would have to Anchor up prior to being able to effectively re-engage.

Actually it can be almost dropped in a single volley. 2 Prowler AP hits from the rear will leave the Vanguard Shield with ~1% of the starting HP.

Even in the "best case" scenario of all frontal hits, the Shield can only tank 2 and a half salvoes of Prowler AP. Which if the Prowler is also using its utility, can come rather quickly.

Well sure you would like it. But when translated to STK or TTK, that "massive" HP difference suddenly is not that massive anymore. Especially when you consider that the Prowler comes with a significant DPS boost while the Magrider's special attributes are both offensive and defensive in nature.

I believe I've run the numbers before, and an AP Prowler and an AP Vanguard just shooting eachother in the face usually results in a Prowler win by a few good seconds.

In some cases the Shield can be almost depleted in about 0.5 seconds, so the amount of time bought with the Shield isn't particularly significant.

As a Prowler driver myself I used to think the Prowler sucked in comparison to the other MBTs. I ended up upgrading it a lot though and I have completely changed my mind. None of the tanks currently are bad or overpowered. I win 1v1 duals vs Vanguards if I manage to get the 1st shot off while deployed. The problem with the Prowler is that it does not have any escape/defensive mechanisms so if you get caught your only option more or less is to fight. But if you play very defensively and carefully it really helps with this issue.

A problem for new Prowler drivers is that greed is punished much more than in the other MBTs. So discipline is key. Always pull out if you don't have the initiative.

I prefer to fight Vanguards personally since they are easier to hit (I have **** aim), Magriders are annoying with their strafing but are still manageable if you fight carefully.

As for the discussion of this thread, I've lost count of the amount of shielded Vanguards I've blown up as a Prowler driver, and I've lost count of how many times they have blown me up. So I don't have a problem with its current state. Always play the vehicle to its strengths. Just my 2 cents.

And that's what's misleading.

Let's say you are up against an Anchored Prowler with a Vulcan on top. You round the corner, find that thing wedged in between some stuff and have to do a full-frontal attack.
"The Vanguard is going to win! It's got 24000 EHP and the Prowler 12500 EHP!"
Well... No.
The Prowler is going to turn the Vanguard into scrap metal. The Prowlers TTK against the Vanguard is shorter, especially when the secondaries of both MBT´s are added. This is something that many players overlook, the Prowler DPS when anchored outmatches the extra health that the Vanguard gets.

But there´s more lies in this thread, for instance the opposing side mentions things like "but the Vanguard can only fire one more shot in that time!". No, you fire two shots (first shot doesn't need a reload), they are also ignoring the use of a secondary canon, not to mention the Magrider and Prowler will be firing multiple shots during that time. All which will be effectively negated by the shield.
Ofcourse that barely matters since in most cases the TR/VS can just pop behind cover, repair up for the 6 seconds the shield is active (less now that you've driven behind a piece of cover), after that the Vanguards capabilities dry up. While the Prowler has more ease-of-use, less punishment for a miss and higher DPS and the VS has the ability to strafe, have accurate fire while on the move and can have it's front armor aimed at the opponent all the time (not to mention the ability to afterburn behind and get a rear shot in), the Vanguard is almost completely useless. It's got some armor boost, but that's completely irrelevant if the Maggie can dodge even one shot and the Prowler's standard higher DPS outmatch the added protection.

And this is the problem. The stock Vanguard sucks. It's underpowered in each and every way compared to the other two factions. Exra DPS is handy no matter how many tanks you field. The maneuverability and dodge capabilities of the Magriders are constant useful traits that allow for more MBT's to be fielded in the same space and better accuracy while moving into or away from a fight. But the Vanguard is hardly maneuverable, only slightly faster than the Magrider and it's armor is only useful for the one getting hit. The only saving grace is it's shield. That shield is the most used MBT ability, and yet the Vanguard barely takes the top anywhere, the Vanguard share's it's top MBT hunter spot with the Prowler for crying out loud! And that's sort of the only real thing that the Vanguard excells in, discounting the AA duty that Vanguards can fill since even though they are the best at it compared to the other two, they still kill practically no aircraft compared to just about anything remotely AA.

Solution: The Vanguard stock chassis needs some strong boosts. Such as the ability to reverse almost as fast as go forwards, be capable of pushing enemy vehicles out of the way, deal more damage ramming opponents, have extreme acceleration or something. The shield itself also needs changes so it's fun to combat while still boosting the Vanguard capabilities. Frankly I would just add new abilities to all tanks.

Once again I assume you are talking about 1/2 tanks right? I honestly feel like you need to spell it out as to no risk confusing people. More info is NEVER a bad thing, and I feel like you are deliberately holding back information by not stating the conditions for which your calculations/assumptions are valid, and for which they are not.

Out of interest I did some basic calculations, but I suspect I've made a mistake somewhere.

• One obvious factor is I couldn't recall the re-fire delay for the Halberd (if it has one) so I just assumed it was equal to the reload certification upgrade. I gave both vehicles a Halberd.

I'm assuming a Vanguard vs Prowler duel, both 2/2 with Halberds equipped with the Prowler being Anchored initially, both firing at time = 0. All weapons are assumed fully upgraded. I'll start off with the Halberd calculations:

1000 dmg / shot * 1,5 * 0,32 = 555 effective damage against a Prowlers front armor = 170,77 effective DPS
1000 dmg / shot * 1,5 * 0,37 = 480 effective damage against a Vanguards front armor = 147,70 effective DPS

Next I'll touch upon the Prowler:
P2 AP has a cycle time of 2,5 (base reload) * 0,52 (Anchor) - 0,5 (reload certification) + (2x0,5 Re-fire delay) = 1,8 seconds. Is where my error lies in the sense that the reload certification is added prior to the multiplative Anchor benefit? If so, the calculation is as follows: (2,5 - 0,5) * 0,52 + (2x0,5) = 2,04. I don't see how that would change it.

P2 AP deals 2500 damage / cycle
Effective damage: 2500 * 1,13 * 0,32 = 904 effective damage per cycle (or 452 effective damage per shot) = 502 effective DPS
The DPS relationship between the Prowlers primary and secondary weapon:

• 502 + 147,7 = 649,7 total effective DPS
• [(649,7-147,7)/649,7]*100% = 77,27% of the DPS lies with the primary weapon

Now, extrapolating to how much damage the primary and secondary weapons have to deal in order to kill a Vanguard, assuming a Vanguard has 6000HP (4k base + 2k Shield):
The primary weapons will deal 6000*0,7727 = 4636,2 damage
The secondary weapon will deal: 6000*(1 - 0,7727) = 1363,8 damage
Table below shows the damage done by the Prowler after various time indents:
As can be seen, the Prowler requires 9 seconds to kill a fully shielded Vanguard from the front.

Next I'll touch upon the Vanguard:
The Vanguard has a cycle time of 4 - 0,5 + 0,5 = 4 seconds.

Titan AP deals 2075 damage per cycle.
Effective damage: 2075 * 1,15 * 0,37 = 882,9 effective damage per cycle = 220,725 effective DPS
The DPS relationship between the Vanguards primary and secondary weapon:

• 220,725 + 170,77 = 391,495 total effective DPS
• [(391,495 - 170,77) / 391,495] *100% = 56,38% of the total DPS lies with the primary weapon

Now, extrapolating to how much damage the primary and secondary weapons have to deal in order to kill a Prowler, assuming a Prowler has 4000HP (4k base):
The primary weapons will deal 4000*0,5638 = 2255,2 damage
The secondary weapon will deal: 4000*(1 - 0,5638) = 1744,8 damage
Table below shows the damage done by the Vanguard after various time indents:
As can be seen a Vanguard needs 8 seconds to destroy a Prowler from the front.

Care to take a look at my calculations and see where the error is? Assuming both use the Halberd I simply cannot see how the Prowler wins.

I'd also like to add that your statement about the secondaries is misleading. Using the weapon "especially" implies that the difference is further increased by adding secondaries, which is only the case if you are adding mis-matched secondaries (like the Vulcan versus VG-Halberd). If both tanks use the same secondary, the TTK is reduced significantly more (percentage-wise) for the Vanguard. The Halberd simply deals MORE damage to the Prowler than the Vanguard, while also being a larger portion of the overall DPS, due to a lower DPS of the VG's primary weapons.

Maybe you should try and use this sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l8JeVML2mLB54vMYAjqiqi-MxWJ9aPOvr9AA7KtuP20/edit?usp=sharing

(I hope it works like this)
It's fairly simple. you fill in the stats of the weapon and let the TTK's roll out. You can see various TTK's, such as shots from the front, back, sides, top, with shield, without shield for just about any vehicle. The excell sheet will even add a maximum of 6 seconds to the TTK if less than 2000 damage is dealt within 6 seconds so that the shield doesn't add more TTK than it should.

If you want to do a 2/2 MBT, you first fill in the two weapons you want, check which side you are attacking, add the TTK for both weapons and divide it by 4 (divide it by two for the average TTK and again to get the TTK if both weapons are firing).

That makes checking calculations and stuff easier. Unless the damage resistances have wildly changed the excell sheet should be accurate.

It requires I have a Google account for some reason in order for me to edit the data Any chance you could plot in for me?

This seems rather imprecise as the weapons aren't continous fire, but are rather affected by the reloads. Meaning one set of weapons might need 40 more damage (like the case for the Prowler), which adds a significant amount of extra time. The time-distribution of the Prowler shots isn't equal either, meaning the damage is frontloaded, but not completely.

For some reason my tables did not make it into my previous post, how does one edit in pictures? They worked fine in the preview, but for some reason I cannot see them in my post now. EDIT: It seems it isn't possible to directly upload pics from your drive, which I was sure I could recall doing previously. Ah, guess I'll have to do it the hard way