You are right, I redid the calculation and the TTK (with accuracy absent) is more in favour of the IS-2.
All vet 2
Panther vs IS-2:
7/(220/340)x6.65 = 72s
IS-2 vs Panther
6/(210/289)x6.65 = 55s
Ingame test however shows that out of 32 match ups, the IS-2 won 16 fights decisively, 4 barely, and lost 10. Both vet 2, at 50 range.
So the IS-2 definitely has the edge in the vet 2 match-up, as I stated it did, but it is not as big as the TTK makes it seem because the Panther's accuracy does seem to compensate.
Not that it matters that much, but Panther should shoot 0,125 secs slower than the IS2 (have not tested their specific setup, but for similar setups you see them going out of sync) and both tanks need a bit more time to reload in total (0,125 for the IS-2 and 0,25 for the Panther). You also need to deduct one shot since the first shot in the engagement does not need a reload cycle prior to shooting it. I also realized that I have a mistake in my calc though that makes the Panther's reload longer...
Cool that you did the testing for some actual data! How large were the differences when the Panther won? |
The Panther has 10 more range, it can easily fight an IS-2 until that one gets vet 2. At which point it becomes a roughly even fight slightly in favour of the IS-2 with a TTK of 53s vs 58s, though this is disregarding accuracy, which is going to be in favour of the Panther.
Tank classification has no universal parameters and completely depended on the owning army's own parameters. Its RL classification serves no point in these discussions. It was reclassified a medium within a year of service anyway.
I am not going to argue about the 10m range advantage at vet0, but in a duel the IS-2 should win by a decent margin. Especially when the range advantage is gone with veterancy.
I am also sure your numbers are wrong. Even with the classic TTK and neglecting accuracy I get 73 secs for Panther to kill the IS2 and 43 secs for IS2 shooting the Panther. At vet3, Panther needs 55 secs to kill the IS2 and 33 the other way around.
The IS2 has better rate of fire than the Pershing, especially at vet, needs a shot more and has way better armor. The downside in a direct duel is having 3-6% less pen chance vs the Panther.
While I think the overall accuracy will slightly favor the Panther, I assume the real advantage will be about 10% (maybe 15%) more hits than the other way around due to Panthers high scatter.
But even if you count all "scatter shots" as misses, which is the best possible calculation for the Panther, the IS2 still has a (very slight) edge in the TTK times.
This is a myth. The Axis do have a few outliners (Tiger II, Jagdtiger and Elefant), but otherwise the Allies are just as stocked when it comes to medium to heavy armor values. The only difference is stock versus doctrinal availability, but that is why the Allies get 60 range high pen TDs while the Axis do not. See below.
I'd like to point out though that Allies face Axis high armor absolutely regularly and have to plan for that every single game, while as Axis you only have to fear high armor units on a regular basis when playing vs Brits. Everything else is doctrinal and often limited to one unit. This context matters a lot. |
What do you think about the price adjustments and positioning the Pershing explicitly as a better AI panther?
Tough nut.
At least make the Pershing cheaper for its price. If we assume population defines combat value and the price should reflect that, it should be somewhat between Panther and Pershing.
Apart from that, I would not compare it with the Panther at all. Pershing needs to be an focused AI unit. First, due to the lack of late game AI in the USF lineup. Second, because they already have the Jackson plus doctrinally the Easy8 and 76mm Sherman as AT focused specialists.
If the Pershing is made stronger, then after thinking about all of that I'd probably go with a tiny ROF buff. It gives it a bit more AI as well as AT, since Pershing (with increased pop), Jackson and a Sherman already eat a lot of population that you can't use anywhere else (plus the 5 pop that you are somewhat forced to take with the major and the ambulance. Although they give value, they make the whole build more rigid). |
Could one not plug the game parameters into a statistical model? Should be possible to model this mathematically without having to run thousands of simulations, no?
Depends. It would at the very least be a huge amount of work.
The first issue is how many shots you allow in the first place. Technically, unless Relic rounds their RNG based values at some point, you'd get almost endless possibilities per shot. For the alpha damage calcs that MMX mentioned, I already restricted this to (simplified) 10.000 shots per square meter of scatter area, resulting in often 100.000 possible outcomes for a single shot. Now raise this to the power of shots you need for your calculation. Unless you use a way more coarse method, you'd end up at easily >10^20 different outcomes. For every possible outcome, then calculate the damage done on single model and squad level and summarize the data. So that's not viable. The other possibility would be to use a more geometry based approach for each model, but then you need to deal with more advanced geometry and a lot of other issues.
(EDIT: The above described method is not purely statistical, but running a purely statistical method is quite complicated and requires a lot of expertise of what you're actually doing.)
Long story short:
Just sitting back and let the sim run for 5-15 min is usually the more viable approach. MMX showed how the data converges after a couple of hundred samples. If this sub-dataset can represent the larger picture well enough, I'd rather work with 1000 data points rather than hundred billion billions. |
The Pershing's AoE is absolutely superior to that of the Tiger, while scatter is a bit worse. I'm not sure how Serealia calculates the AoE score, but if it's something akin to average AoE damage times ROF divided by scatter area then the Pershing should still come out on top. The saving grace for the Tiger is the higher ROF, which as it turns out puts it quite close in terms of performance to its allied peers.
Buffing the MGs would suffer from all the drawbacks you've listed of course, and if AoE adjustments aren't ruled out that would be an even better way to approach things. However, MG damage, as negligible as it may be in the late game, does add a layer of consistency by finishing off wounded models in between shots, which is especially helpful for heavies with their huge AoE damage output but relatively tiny OHK radius. It might also be a much safer option than tinkering with AoE values as the results are easier to extrapolate and also affect single models only.
However, if a slight AoE remodeling is possible I'd probably increase the OHK radius a tiny bit (either by increasing AoE near damage or distance) to make the Pershing a bit more wipey than it is now. The exact amount could be quite easy to determine if the desired % relative increase is decided on.
I think pretty much this.
Both tanks have a very hard time missing completely a shot given their low scatter distance and their max AoE, at least when stationary and shooting at loose formations.
I also find the MG damage quite crucial to finish off models, I would not underestimate their effectiveness. Games are often decided by bleeding your opponent out, and it doesn't help you as much if the enemy squad runs away with half health but (almost) full model count.
EDIT:
One thing with the Pershing though is that its POP needs to go up if it is buffed.
The Pershing (if I see correctly) has 19 POP cost, the Tiger 21. Naturally, the Tiger should be better. A cost reduction might also do it. If we go for the "stronger" Pershing, a tiny ROF buff might be work alternatively. |
You can se that i did mention beta "buffs" as im fully aware of those change. But if the question is will the repair time buff can bring the Pershing up to par then my and many others answer is NO.
Alright then. I thought you were referring to Sanders suggestion to switch with REs as a form of "beta" (second grade) buff. |
|
Idea for Heavy Cav Commander:
In case the Pershing needs better repair and/or the current repair buff does not work out:
The Field defenses could be swapped out with the Urban assault kit. This way there would be proper benefit in having two REs on the field if one gets the grenade launcher.
However this change implies multiple other changes (less defensive to more offensive layout) that affects the whole commander just to "fix" the Pershing. So not sure overall, just a thought. |
Which mean you dont have any plan to improve the unit itself outside of those beta "buffs" ?
You do realize that the Pershing is part of the current patch and gets actual repair time buffs? |
Sorry I don't get the point. Why it has less pen if it focuses on heavier units?
I'm pretty sure spike dps rise due to tullps are evened by slowest ROF(I'm talking about 8+ sec. here. About 1.5 times slower than usual tanks)
BTW, good to see you saying pak40 outclasses 57/zis. I'm pretty sure I had some arguments over this in another thread. However I think pak40 has better skill than a 6 pounder, but nothing important here.
The Firefly has increased base damage that does not really help much vs mediums (unless you can snare), but reduces the shots needed against heavies. The damage bonus with vet improves again vs both targets. Another notable thing is that the mid distance is 45 meters instead of the expected 30. Combined with high mid penetration the Firefly has better penetration at most ranges than the Jackson for example. AT least until the Jackson vets up.
The tulips again feed into the anti heavy role, since those are easier to hit and do not run away that quickly. The ROF is one of the slowest in the game, which is compensated by higher damage. (Jackson needs almost 7 seconds to reload too, Firefly 8,375).
The only difference between the PaK40 and the 6 pounder is the vet1 ability (apart from maybe some vet, not 100% sure). I personally think these are the best ATGs since I do not like the muni sink of the 57mm. But other player's have other opinions and that's fine, I am not the be all end all reference for CoH2. |
So out of 3 allies TD, one is OP, one is the best gun with case mate, and one is FF. K...
You shouldn't forget that the Firefly is backed up by a carbon copy of the Pak40 which outclasses the 57mm and the ZiS. The Firefly focuses on heavier units against which it performs only slightly worse offensively. The Tulips are mighty strong though. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
