I always look at Cruzz's AoE score on his dps sheet as a quick and dirty way to check how good an AoE weapon is against infantry.
I take it at face value, because it's usually in-line with my own experience, altough I have no idea what the exact calculation behind it is. I only know it takes all AoE damage values and scatter values into account, but not accuracy and reload time.
For Comet:
For Cromwell:
For Panther (note that accuracy hits aren't included with this score):
Would be nice to know what he is calculating there, but it is very dangerous to take some value for granted without having any explanation behind it. Especially since AoE is such a complicated issue to solve.
However the score does not help much for this special discussion, since we don't know what units it is in if it has units at all. The initial question was how the Comet's gun compares to the Panther's MGs, and this value does not help at all with that.
this one is valid too but remember its 1.11 for an OHK radius... this translates to 15% greater OHK radius which gives us a falloff (intercept) radius of 1.33663 to the damage of the comet... while it would still hardly translate to a valid MTTK value its still noteworthy to say that the T-34-85 has comparable AOE... ill admit it has better scatter though...
From what I can tell based on theoretical calculations the OHK capability is slightly better on the T34/85 against whole squads. Again, looking at only the OHK radius is valid if you talk about 1 shot at a full health squad. It can be a very rough indicator, especially for alpha damage, but does not say too much about overall AI capability.
not really... i assumed aoe would on average splash/damage a model equivalent to 80 damage in around 1 to 2 shots depending on the formation... since by observation it usually takes 1-2 shots to kill 0-1 models at least for the T-34-85 vs something like a grenadier at range 30...
the brummbar has much larger aoe/splash to the point where it does can easily exceed 80 per shot... it usually doesnt kill a model in its first shot but 2 shots can easily wipe off 4-5 models off a conscript... thats an average of 180 damage split off 4 models...
You were mentioning the AI capabilities of T34 (initially actually Panther) and Comet in general.
Your assumptions are just very far fetched. 1-2 shots is already a very rough estimation, the single model is the second assumption that is not representative. And full health infantry is another assumption that is fair to make for a first calculation, but falls flat if you then neglect that the remaining models only have half health on the Comet while being fine on the T34 (slight exaggeration) after those 2 shots have been taken.
And that is the whole point of my Brummbaer example. Your initial argument was based on OHK and the estimate that 1-2 shots should be enough to kill a single model squad. Brummbär has the same OHK radius at the T34/85. As you said the first shot is not more deadly on a healthy squad that anything else, but the second and third shots are the ones that hit hard because the Brummbaer has a flat AoE curve that retains a lot of damage on the edges. Same thing with the Comet, although not as pronounced.
Against damaged squads (by MGs and other small arms), it should do even better since lower HP models are more often killed.
Conclusion is: The Comet's gun is way more effective than the pintle of the Panther.
Please just go to cheat mode and park the two tanks at 90 degree angles to a Volks squad and check how they are doing. Best case, disable the coaxial MGs via a mod, but in fact the coaxial MG should scew the test in favor of the Panther.
the T-34-85 has 2.5 aoe with a oneshot radius of 1.11 the comet has 2.5 aoe with a oneshot radius of 0.96...
Yes, and the T34/85 falls off steeply after the OHK radius to finally 8 damage while the Comet retains 32 at the very outer border. Plus the scatter means that the T34 will miss more shots.
correct breaking it down to single model damage isnt entirely accurate... due the amount of variables involved it would require measured MTTK ingame as this cannot be adequated simulated through mathematics alone... but a very rough model can be approximated at the very least...
MMX has done some theoretical simulations on that but unfortunately the compendium he published does not work with real ingame formations (which is understandable due to the work load) plus it neglects the MG damage (which heavily prolongs the TTK since the MGs can finish off low HP models easily). But judging from that the Comet is about 25% better.
Taking a single model is quite misleading to draw conclusions from. For wipes as a final shot on retreating squads (that often only have 1-2 models left), maybe, but overall it does not help much. With that calculation I could prove to you that a Brummbaer performs worse than the T34.
the comet has 2.5 aoe with its main gun while the panther has 0.5... this means the comet has the same AOE and ROF as a medium such as the T-34-85 which can kill a model in around 1 or 2 shots at range 20-30 depending on the formation of the infantry... this gives it a theoretical "DPS" of 6.5...
the panther has a total machinegun DPS of 16.517 and around 11.65 for the comet at range 30... as you can see the total DPS of the pintle+coax is comparable to the main cannon...
Sorry, but this calculation is hilariously bad.
Comet has WAY better AoE than any T34. Better scatter too. Plus you completely neglect that AoE damage actually does what the name says: cause and area of effect. So just breaking it down to damage to one single model is straight up wrong.
I think we are basically arguing around the same point and agreeing with different words.
No one said that EHP is the "end all" stat to define the class and quality of infantry units. But it is a decent stat to compare beefyness of units and how much beating they can take vs small arms.
On the sniper example my intention was to highlight that the EHP of the sniper correctly tells you that it is not meant to be used on the front lines in direct shoot outs.
On the other hand EHP can roughly indicate if a unit is well placed. Shortened and very simplified examples that leave out other factors etc etc to not drag this discussion on any further: Shock troops and commandos are both meant to be used at short range to burst down the enemy. But Shocks don't have camo to approach the enemy, so they get more EHP to compensate that they will be under fire for the whole approach.
Again, no one said that EHP is the only thing that infantry squads should be judged by. I don't know why this blew so out of proportion.
Yes you can't fully judge effectiveness via endgame stats, but you can gain a piece of the overall perspective. When you are putting out way more damage and still struggle, there is an imbalance. It doesn't mean the higher damage or higher k/d team should win, but battles and risk/reward should be playing out differently.
The endgame stats are trash for judging a game.
The damage is next to arbitrary. In the sense that it is not even the actual damage you dealt in game, but economic damage. Killing an Obersoldat model will give you more "damage" than killing a Volksgrenadier (even just damaging the model will give different results).
Same goes for vehicles. Damaging a Panther is worth more than a Sherman. The damage values do not correspond to "who did better" in the fight. It just tells you who fought the most against vehicles because they usually account for at least two thirds of your total damage. But damaging a tank does not bleed anything off your enemy, while a couple of models will cost you your late game MP income for a minute. Still the damage on the tank is valued higher although no real "harm" was dealt.
And what just came to my mind are all the off maps and muni abilities like snares and grenades that completely lead this approach ad absurdum. Since technically they should be partially counted as economic damage towards the user because he spends mun. Afaik they do not though.
Does it get a special bonus against lights? Otherwise this is what the stats tell me and I think also what I saw in the game. OST ATG fires about every 5 secs, USF ATG about every 4,5 (all vet0).
And while the "take aim" is cool, it is useless in the late game due to the low pen. With those ~50% pen chance against a Panther I will have to assume that I will often bounce that shot anyway. In my eyes these abilities make mostly sense if combined together.
Yes, the USF ATG is ambiguous, but it is on a quite muni starved faction that already lacks in AT if they do not buy a Jackson. Those muni abilities are nice but they should be occasional. In the case of the USF ATG I would go as far to say that this ability is the only thing that makes it usable in the late game.
But well, Coh2 won't see much changes anymore in that regard. Towards the end of the Pershing, I already suggested to bump the middle AoE up to 80 dmg (50% modifier). This way the OHK radius is in between the old version and the current one, while the rest of the profile is minimally affected. Even this unit would be way worse then the previous "Two shot that squad" Pershing but gain more specific AI power.
It ignores the role the unit is intended to perform, though.
Snipers, for example, have very poor EHP, and by merely looking at that you might be led to believe that they are beyond worthless, and would be killed immediately in a fight.
The fact that they're not intended for frontline duty, and in fact if they are being shot at all you are doing something entirely wrong, isn't reflected if you talk purely about "EHP". It's part of a bigger picture, but some people seem to think it's the only thing that matters for an unit. Snipers are an extreme example, of course, but I hope it serves to illustrate my argument.
I don't think it illustrates it well.
Snipers ARE killed basically immediately in a fight. EHP shows effectively that they are squishy as intended. There are some other factors such as camouflage and extended sight that would allow a unit to have less EHP than an otherwise identical unit, but for comparisons within the same unit category they are an okay mark. If some stats are "too low" (whatever that means) for the price of the unit, you can deduce that they need to make up for it in utility. To stay with the snipers: They are very squishy and expensive compared to front line troops, therefore they make up for it with high range, sight, camouflage and insta kills. The EHP correctly shows that they would lose a 1v1 despite being more expensive.
The comparison of Obersoldaten and Commandos is quite off in most cases, but Stormtroopers fit quite nicely into the picture.
Arguably some of this is the fault of the somewhat flawed USF design document. Hiding AT snares behind vet is silly, they should instead be unlocked permanently along with Grenades (And/or for free with the second tier Captain/Lieutenant upgrade). Isnt the USF ATG the best in the game though, assuming you spend the muni it craves? It has a higher firerate and arc, so it begins being very good against Light Vehicles, and retains this arc and firerate when you use the HVAP ammo, while having superior penetration to all the other ATGs. It's admittedly not much higher pen, and is diluted when you consider OST and OKW have higher Armour values across the board, but the increased firerate, self-spotting, and increased arc helps alleviate this.
I am not sure about the exact values of the firing arch although I think the USFs is slightly better, but not sure by how much.
As USF, you buy a relatively cheap ATG but then basically have to spend mun every time to bump your ATG up to about normal ATG performance (with 10% higher ROF of 4,5s compared to ~5 of OST ATG).
Self-spotting + extra range only exists if you invest another 30 mun, which would be 60 mun in total. Spending 30 mun once or twice is fine, but overall that is too much for the whole game to use it regularly. Personally, I would say that the shitty ATG is the root cause of most of USFs design problems (together with the inital tech split of MG and ATG). I don't want to go off topic too much here so I will leave it at that.
The Pershing needs to carry USFs late game AI though. USF has the best TD. If they need AT, they can just buy the Jackson. The only reason to get a Pershing would be either very high durability (which it never had) or very good AI (which it does not have since the heavy nerf). It's still okay-good, but I can get okay-good AI performance as USF for a much better price in the Calliope and Sherman.
Popcap especially is a hard thing to argue regarding USF, due to their inbuilt (And in my opinion terribly designed) ability to circumvent popcap restrictions. If this could be done away with somehow then I think this would leave room for further changes.
Ideally, vehicle crews would share the population space of their parent vehicles (Unless the vehicle is destroyed/captured), at which point the crew's population would revert to the current "Crew Pop". A side benefit of this would be, if implemented correctly, that the Pershing might be able to have a crew without causing issues with allowing you to double up on Pershings. Honestly in an ideal world USF would be able to call in replacement Vehicle Crews, and empty vehicles for crews they salvaged to occupy.
I'm really not sure how feasible this is though, it would be a very complex thing to implement, and likely cause unfortunate bugs,
While I agree, this would probably cause a ton of bugs. I know there are players who scam popcap as USF, but truth is that this is very micro heavy and from what I can tell (without any backup data obviously) I would say it is a very minor fraction of players.
I'd stand by my point that the crews get used as they should be in a normal match and that USF is pop capped to 100 like any other faction.
the USF privilege of actually complaining about needing an engineer to heal the tank is unbelievable... an engineer that can get AT or BARs to support no less. most factions do that actually, and less than half the others can slap guns onto their engineers to make them more than repair bots. and as DREADFUL as it is to take 30 whole seconds to heal 320 damage, that's actually kind of the point of dealing damage...
I think the issue is that you still need 1-2 Jacksons to fill the AT department regardless of the situation because the Pershing alone won't cut it. USF also has relatively few snares (usually 3 RM but late game might need replacements due to wipes + it is by far the worst snare in the game), practically no mines or late game stun abilities plus a ATG that does not help much against late game armor (unless you spend all your munis on it). USF is prone to being pushed and overrun because there is not much back up.
Your build for team games at least would likely consist of 2 Jacksons + Pershing + 2 RET for repairs. That was possible when the Pershing carried the AI department so the remaining 40 POP of Riflemen and team weapons don't have to do all the lifting. With the AI nerfs though I feel the Pershing is incredibly hard to fit into the build. Better just get a Sherman on HE shells and PaK Howie/Calliope instead. Saves resources, population and micro since your Sherman can crew repair. That's why it dropped out of favor in my opinion.
Regarding a similar Axis setup with Tiger, P4, 2 ATGs and 2 Pios (1pio plus base repair for OKW) it is slightly heavier on MP I think, but way better on fuel and especially popcap.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
