Im not lying, you are just keeping your head in your butt. I didnt say p4 can handle comet or beat it. P4 can however normaly function on the battlefield while comet is around, still doing work around map and in case comet shows up just reverse with ease.
Compare it to panther presence on the field. Sherman/t34/cromwell will just be chased down by panther if they step out a little. Panther will penetrate them 100% times and requires 3 snares to get engine damaged.
Interesting. Thats excatly what im talking about. Comet tries to do the same things churchill does already, but for more fuel and with worse results. Thats why i suggested to turn comet into dedicated tank hunter, with better penetration, rate of fire and maybe healt in exchange for armor (dont need 290 to hunt mediums).
Wow, your head is so far up your rectum that you can't even see how retarded your own argument is.
"The P4 can still normally function" -> Just like how all tanks can "normally function" even though the enemy has anti-tank guns and tank destroyers, because all you need to do is reverse, right? You mention Allied mediums being chased down by Panthers - it's as if P4s can just town portal back to base whenever a Comet appears? If you're comparing an unsnared Panther that is given all the time and space it wants and needs to hunt down medium tanks, how is that any different from an unsnared Comet that doesn't have to face anti-tank guns, mines, or snaring infantry and gets all the time and space it wants and needs to hunt Axis mediums?
The Panther is indeed a better
tank hunter, but the Comet has no issues bullying/hunting medium tanks at all. It reminds me of Asian parents saying that their child has failed because their child got a B and someone else got an A. Of course, you're also comparing the performance of a dedicated tank hunter fighting trash-cost tanks against a generalist super medium tank fighting premium mediums like the OKW P4. A more reasonable comparison would have been the Panther vs EZ8 or T34-85, but of course that would destroy your entire argument since a Panther has more difficulty killing an Allied premium medium than the Comet would have killing an Axis premium medium (OKW P4). In fact, any reasonable comparison would prove you wrong -> The Comet has a 100% pen chance on the Ost P4, which is more expensive than stock Allied mediums. And trash-cost mediums like a single Stug or Ostwind would get easily demolished by the Comet, relying entirely on AT guns and snaring infantry to secure its escape. But of course, being reasonable is way beyond you.
I definitely agree the Comet is in a bad spot and not an attractive option at all. It's just that your logic is atrocious. Even though I fundamentally agree with your recommendations I'm left with no recourse but to oppose you based on how incredibly biased (and pompous) you are in constructing your argument(s).
The cutoffs on this map are really problematic in design, imho. The narrow entrance already makes it incredibly easy to MG-pin someone's cut off, but the shotblocking train carriage really takes the cake. It allows CQB squads to hide behind a green cover sightblocker while taking the enemy cutoff. It's impossible to force enemy squads off since you need to be ON the cutoff itself in order to even engage/fire at the decapping squad. Most games on this map are won/lost based on abusing the sightblocker on the cutoff strat pt.
This is basically reverse Kharkov, isn't it? Instead of miles of negative cover on the path to defending your cutoff, in Deutz you can't even attack the enemy units decapping/holding your cutoff unless you're close enough to knife them.
You cant build comet without blitz because its part of hammer upgrade. You pay fuel for it. Or else we consider comet price as 225 fuel and 700mp.
Comet playing support role overlaps heavily with cromwell and churchill while being worse than these 2. Its failed design.
Comet being "good matchup" vs 140 medium tank is not enough. It should either completly outclass okw p4 (if we want to keep it generalist) or straight up murder it. As for now its garbage in its role for its price.
Brits have fragile slow firing td thats good versus heavy armor but sucks vs mediums. Comet being redesigned as medium tanks hunter would fill different role.
The role you described at the end is excatly what churchill is for. Supporting push and keeping p4 and stugs at bay while being countered by panther. Currently comet tries to do the same, for more fuel, in worse sidegrade and with worse reault. Thats a failed design.
The Comet does indeed straight-up murder Axis mediums. No idea why you have this strange idea that a P4 can even remotely handle a fight against a Comet when the P4 has less health and about half the pen chance. The Comet is definitely not a good unit as it currently stands, but bare-faced lying certainly doesn't help your argument.
Two problems I have with the Comet are the sidegrade cost and the efficiency of the Churchill. I'd build it if it were available without Hammer tech. But the biggest reason not to get a Comet is that Churchills are simply better at anti-infantry, bullying mediums and spearheading/tanking (haha). I don't want to pay for a weird utility Panther when I can get a 1000+ hp anti-inf heavy tank for significantly less fuel.
You are the only one understand. It's stupid when falls can just beat non-upgrade paratroopers at max range while being cheaper. They scale up extremely well with its long range fire power and vet. Simply CQC unit like commando and shocks are nowhere comparable. Thus, they need to sink some munition like paratroopers for their long range power.
Commandoes and Shocks are indeed nowhere comparable since they're assault units, and Falls are a glass cannon 4 man squad. Their Vet bonuses are mediocre, with minimal combat bonuses in the first two levels.
Falls are already hardly used, since the rest of the commander is balls. Nerfing Falls (which are the only thing good about the Commander) would make the commander downright unusable.
If I see Falls I'm usually rejoicing, because that means no infiltration nades and no Command Panther.
Interested to hear other people's thoughts on this unit.
My thoughts are thought although it's very expensive and comes at T4, it just seems to overperform slightly. In terms of raw tank destroying potential it's up there with the best units in the game, but it has the mobility of a sherman and the armour of a heavy tank (not sure if the stats back this up but I think everyone has memories of Panthers in this game that just do not die). It just seems like such a get out of jail free card at times, and this is coming from someone who plays both Allies and Axis so I'm not biased against either.
I think everyone can agree that the current state of the Command Panther is a bit silly in that it doesn't require tech, but I think the raw unit is still slightly too good.
By raw tank destroying potential like "the best units in the game" you're referring to Allied TDs, like the 60 range SU85 which costs 2/3 the price, or the Jackson, which has 60 range, high pen, and is lightning fast?
The Panther is already incredibly expensive, and being in T4 makes it even more difficult to field, since your opponent will have multiple mediums already. Spending so much on a tank hunter means you need to win vs double-BAR/Bren Allied infantry without adequate AI tank support AND your infantry will be constantly terrorised by his medium tanks while you're teching and saving for a Panther.
The other thing is that many Allied players compare Panther (a tank hunter) to T34s/Shermans (generalist tanks with amazing AI). Basically they're complaining that a 485mp 185fuel 18 pop cap Rock is beating a 300mp 90fuel Scissors.
If you really wanted things to be fair, then we should just say "to hell with asymmetry" and make all tank destroyers 60 range, poor movement, low armour, and have similar tech costs and timing.
Most importantly, cost and timing are far more delicate in 1v1 and 2v2 than in larger team games, so there seems to be no perfect solution which can preserve balance in both the smaller as well as the larger game modes.
It just goes to show how single minded the one faction wonders are that they think this is a buff to OKW. It'd cripple it.
If you take Volks out of HQ, OKW has to build its core out of Sturmpioneers and Kubels. It loses the early aggression it relies on and has to play defensively. If anyone thinks a no-Volks opening is strong, I encourage you to try it.
If it goes Mechanized, it gets no suppression, all its infantry are glass cannons and it has no snares. It doesn't stand a chance.
If it goes Battlegroup, it gets all the support weapons, a shock vehicle and AT infantry but no vehicular AT until medium tank tech. Sound familiar?
If you make OKW a faction that's got to play defensive in the early game and is focused around compensating for squishy infantry with support weapons, you've made it Ostheer.
And then why not just play Ostheer?
@Lago because Ostheer is already too dominant in 1v1
So I want to play an Ostheer with far worse support weapons. Don't forget how this will make Volks under-vetted and outnumbered vs other mainlines.
It's amazing how people who only play one faction think that OKW getting T0 raketen is an advantage when it's literally the only way to make the faction playable. It'd be hilarious watching OKW bleed 50,000 manpower vs UC or getting entire battalions of Volks clown car chase-wiped if we were to remove the raketen from T0, but basically OKW playerbase would then drop to 0.
I am beginning to doubt anyone is actually consulting the table to evaluate statistics, I am going to try and correct this by reminding everyone there is a link at the beginning of the post that gives you the most UP-TO-DATE information, pulled directly from the game files. Now I do not expect people to painstakingly take the time to create a table like this (website people, fix this please), but if we could base our responses on statistical information and not fanboy'isms, we could all get more out of this then just being angry that people disagree with them. Evaluate the below example.
An example with light anti-tank vehicles early game:
|Vehicle||HP||Armor||Pen F||Pen M||Pen C||Damage||Range||Acc F||Acc M||Acc C||Manpower||Fuel|
|Puma (both factions)||400||25||80||120||160||120||50||0.025||0.0375||0.05||270||70|
Puma vs Stuart
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Damage: Stuart comes up short by needing to land 5 instead of 4 shots to score a kill.
Range: Puma (by 10)
Conclusion: Given the mobility and slight range edge, the Puma wins this match by numbers. I do feel like 10 range is negligible, though some say it makes a world of difference. I wish I could post a GIF showing the ever so slight difference but despite my personal judgement, we'll keep count of the range differences (first hit potentially).
Puma vs Armored Car
Mobility: Puma (slightly)
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Range: Puma (by 10)
Acc: Car far Acc is superior
Cost: Puma costs 10 more fuel, 10 less MP, edge goes to Car
Conclusion: The Car wins this match due to the superior accuracy from far (which is the most important), and having a 10 less fuel cost. Even though the Puma has a small edge in mobility and superior range, the chance to hit when taking into account that if either of them land one, the shot is going to pen, the accuracy means everything here.
Puma vs SU-76
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Range: SU-76 (by 10)
Cost: SU-76 costs 5 more fuel, 10 more MP, edge goes to Puma
Conclusion: First off dropping the T70 into this comparison would be unfair, even though no one builds the SU-76 anymore. Given the clear mobility advantage of the Puma versus the SU-76's fixed turret and slow rotation speed, the edge goes to the Puma. Even though the SU-76 has better range, its ability to utilize that is more positionally dependent when compared to the movement and turret rotation capability of the Puma. Cost is just icing on the cake to feed a win to the Puma here.
Final Thoughts: I will reiterate my previous comments of the gaming being asymmetrical, and I will even note that reload times, time to aim, and even speed & acceleration would be valuable statistics to include here. Maybe I will get into adding more to the tables to help with better comparisons. This was supposed to be an example of every factions anti-vehicle vehicle early game. The Puma (to me) appears to be a superior buy and/or financial investment.
I've already comprehensively rebutted your points. You're the one who's refusing to engage with an argument that contradicts your own.
tldr for my earlier post:
1) It's unfair to compare generalist tanks with tank hunters (eg Pershing vs Panther)
2) You fail to understand the importance of range in this game (10 range is a massive difference)
3) You completely ignored the fact that the "superior health and armour" of Axis vehicles come with a significant manpower, fuel and pop cap premium. (eg P4 vs T34-76)
LOOK AT THIS TABLE: List of all tank values HERE
I pieced together a table of the most current values of relevant tanks from all of the factions. I was hoping to stir up some dialog within the community here and see how people feel about the way the tank game plays out in the current meta.
Formula: Penetration/Armor * 100 = % chance to deal damage
Example w/Panther vs Pershing: Panther's penetration from far away is - 220, the Pershing's armor is 230, so the formula would be: 220/300 * 100 = 73% chance to deal damage.
My OPINION: The game's AT guns are in a fine state, but the cost to value ratio of the German armor compared to the allied armor is disproportionate. You would think the natural answer to tank inferiority is the use of AT guns, but the counter to team weapons is artillery. Fortunately the Axis powers have access to mobile artillery pieces that allow for hit & run type tactics, this in-turn leaves very few options to the Allied player to respond to having their vital AT guns hit with artillery:
- Respond with some sort of flanking, hit & run tactic with their tanks. Doing this is risky, attempting to out maneuver your opponent with some sort of wide flank in hopes you track down his artillery piece before you hit a mine or become discovered is a less than ideal solution.
- Counter artillery is the obvious answer, in order to keep your team weapons alive, you spit back from just as far away with the same tool, but there is a complication. Artillery is only really available to the Soviets non-doctrinally which leaves the USF and UKF is a poor state of affairs. The USF's pakhowitzer is a temporary short-range solution that suffers from decrewing problems (the UKF landmatress likewise) due to its lack of mobility such as a stuka or panzerwerfer.
All of this effort is towards the goal of maintaining your AT guns as an allied player so you are able to fend off the superior penetration and health values of the axis armor.
I spent some effort in making this table since I had to manually piece it together via the attribute database in the tools section of steam. I am starting to draw the conclusion that the panther is just a step above ridiculous when it comes to health, armor, penetration. The first counter to my conclusion is "its range is inferior to other tank destroyers". So lets compare the 60 range SU-85 vs the 50 range Panther. It is very possible the SU-85 will get the first shot off, but the difference between 10 range leaves no room for any sort of shot evasion tactic from the SU-85, so it is highly likely that if an SU-85 (far less maneuverable) engages a panther, 10 range does not decide if there are free hits being dished out. Now lets look at the amount of hits to destroy the opponent.
SU-85 dies in 4 hits (with a 157% chance to deal damage if hit by panther)
Panther dies in 6 hits (with an 84% chance to deal damage if hit by SU-85)
The next counter argument is that the SU-85 is a cheaper tank. The problem I take with this, is the game being about veterancy. Keeping your units alive, gaining XP, (panther gets increased armor with vet), and eventually overwhelming your opponent with the units you were able to preserve. This sort of dynamic between tanks offers the Axis a huge amount of breathing room in terms of cognitive awareness of the battlefield. Allowing an Axis player to recover from what would have been a non-micro blunder with a 50% more time to react window.
How about we just buy a bigger tank on the allied side. Well... that one is kind of complicated, there are some, with advantages and disadvantages, mainly doctrinal choices if you want to go bigger, and even then, you are limited to a single one of them, while the Axis player is free to spam as many 960HP panthers as they see fit and give them a modicum of anti-infantry with an MG-42 upgrade (Jackson's would die to have this).
I understand the game is supposed to be asymmetrically balanced, and it does occur to me that the Axis do not win every game. I am simply trying to better understand why things are the way they are, since I am inclined to draw conclusions from the raw data I see. I am also aware that veterancy and commander/vehicle abilities strongly influence the dynamics of tank combat.
TL/DR: I'll leave it at that, there are plenty of more tank match-ups that can be compared, and I encourage everyone to do so. I spent a lot of time piecing together this table manually, I hope you guys make some use of it. I am interested to hear your conclusions. Most surprisingly to me, was the sheer amount of vehicles that actually deal 160 damage!
There's a couple of pretty serious problems with your line of analysis though. In your example, you mentioned that "10 range will not give any ability for the SU85 to evade the Panther". This presupposes a very low level of player skill AND assumes that battles in COH2 occur in vacuum of strange 1 tank vs 1 other tank situations. Because in such strange hypothetical situations, a single T34-76 will easily defeat an Elefant or Jagdtiger, even with a low level of micromanagement skill.
In reality, 10 range is MASSIVE, and usually results in dozens of unretaliated shots across a whole match. The Panther(s) will get shot at the moment they pokes their heads out by the SU85s (notice how they are in the plural form, because a 1 Panther vs 1 SU85 scenario is not a reasonable test). The Soviet player should reverse his tank destroyers if the Panther(s) push forward, and the Panthers would need to commit to a chase to even attack the SU85s. Since COH2 is heavily based around infantry play, the chasing Panthers will often be threatened by infantry units with snares. If the Panthers don't move closer, they can't hit anything. The penduluum only swings one way, because the SU85s doesn't need to get exposed to fausting-infantry in order to attack Axis tanks. Basically you don't just let a Panther waltz in and claim an easy 1vs1 victory against an SU85 - at least not at a reasonable level of player skill.
The second problem is that your horribly flawed conclusion was based off a comparison of generalist tanks with tank-hunter(s). This is a favourite pasttime of players who have only played as USF, in which they compare the Pershing to the Panther, as if the Panther had a main gun that guaranteed multiple wipes of enemy infantry squads per game, and could throw grenades to defend/attack. The Panther also has an inferior chance to penetrate, worse armour, inferior moving acc, and inferior reload time, and requires a very expensive tech path, but hey let's only look at the Panther's slight movement advantage and 20% increased health. All in all I'd say the Panther is slightly better in the tank vs tank matchup against a Pershing, but that is simply a comparison of his chicken being tastier than your fish.
Not to disparage your efforts, but all of your claims hold no water. You even go so far as to claim that the Axis armour is more cost-effective, for which there isn't a single piece of evidence. The "Axis superiority" in terms of armour comes at a steep price. As an example, the P4 is objectively superior to a T34-76, but the P4 has a 133% fuel price premium and costs more manpower and pop cap. And if all I wanted was a medium tank to bully infantry squads and bleed my opponent, the T34-76 does the job for much cheaper.
In a game which you have already acknowledged is about asymmetrical balance, you've spent most of your efforts cherry-picking the strengths of Axis armour whilst ignoring the weaknesses, and purposefully contrasted it against Allied weaknesses while ignoring Allied armour's strengths. Hopefully you'll reflect on that.
Bringing back Puma would result in a buff for Ost, so no way.
Agreed. We should only have 4 viable factions at any one time. Previous patch, Brits were rubbish, the one before that was USF, and some time before that it was OKW, so it's Ostheer's turn to languish in the rubbish zone now.
God forbid we make all factions viable!
In a fight to the death the Kuble will outlast any other t0 infantry it faced in 96% of the tests. I'd call that being able to fight. It's a part of an army though, not the whole thing. Use it to cap and use its mobility to help goon enemies.
Also cons are not cheap as they cost 240mp and then another 205mp in sidegrades (that do nothing but stuff for cons so it is a direct cost increase to them) and 35 fuel. That's half a T70 EXTRA just for a full kit.
The Kuble costs 210mo and can beat 280mp in an outright fight. Cons cost 240mp and can lose against 250mp infantry.
Rather questionable testing a kubel against infantry on negative cover.