E8 is a generalist premium tank.
P4J is regular generalist, not premium class anti tank specialist.
Comet is premium generalist(having all stats, price including, significantly higher then any other GENERALIST that isn't limited to 1).
Panther is premium AT specialist(having all stats but range significantly higher then any other AT specialist that isn't limited to 1).
Please stop embarrassing yourself. This is getting painful to read and is no longer funny.
E8 is anti tank specialized with some anti infantry capability. Sound familiar?
Its funny because I distinctly recall you extolling the virtues of how wonderful the panther's Anti infantry is with its machine guns and pintle upgrade. You change your mind all of a sudden?
Comet vs panther is the exact same thing as T-70 vs Puma or ISU vs Elephant.
If you don't get that by now, you're too dense for it.
More like comparing E8 to P4J. Just because a unit isn't specialized does not mean it isnt the best in class for performing a particular duty. If you want a tank to do tank hunting duty(panther playstyle), the comet is the best option for the allies. Despite the fact the panther does this better does not diminish the comets superiority at it over all OTHER vehicles in the game. You may as well be arguing that assault grenadiers and sturmpioneers are not good units to compare since you buy sturmpioneers for repairing and sweeping.
No, the main thing that makes the firefly and panther comparable is that they are build for destroying armor, u dont build panther to kill inf, you dont even build panther to support against infantry. You build it to destroy armor, identical thing with firefly, you build it to destroy armor.
If one has worse hp/armor/range/mobility that does not mean they are not comparable, it means they are designed to have different play style but with same goal, get it? Panther is AT build for chasin, hit and run, FF is build for snipin from afar. Different style.
Comet is quite decent in the anti tank role. Sure its not as good as the panther but if you wanted to buy a vehicle to mimic the panthers style, the comet would be it. The firefly on the other hand is largely only a defensive tool. Comparing the panther to the firefly is like comparing the ostwind to the M8 Scott. Not a good comparison.
Because.... Panther primary role is to kill tanks.... and FF primary role is to kill tanks... while Comet is a generalist, like P4.
Panther can damage infantry.
It can't fight any, it contributes, but its not primary damage dealer, because its AT specialist.
StuG with MG upgrade is more comparable to Panther then Comet.
Stats reflect HOW the unit is supposed to engage enemies.
FF destroys tanks by sniping them from long range with low DPS.
Panther destroys tanks by outlasting them and chasing them down.
The sole fact that some people compare comet to a panther is a testament to cluelessness of these people who are utterly ignorant about role of the unit.
Comet is a middle point between med tank and heavy tank, just like panther is in context of TDs.
The comet is the closest analog to the panther in terms of cost and stats. Are you disagreeing with me just to disagree? The only thing comparable between the panther and the firefly is their penetration and main gun aoe. In literally every other category, the panther is FAR closer to the comet than the firefly.
But for the sake of argument let's use their playstyles. The panther is a tank hunter, using its speed range and durability to bully and chase enemy vehicles down. So between the comet and the firefly, which is better at performing in a similar role? Its not the firefly is it. In fact, point to an allied vehicle that can do it better than the comet.
I had fresh 6 man cons wiped by p4 when they bunched up.
If u want to compare UKF tank that is comparable with panther, its the firefly not comet.
I dont know how you can even compare brumbar and comet, i mean, you must be trollin.
How is the firefly more comparable to the panther than the comet?
The comet and panther have similar armor, similar cost, similar range, similar mobility and both can fight against infantry. The firefly has notably better range, substantially worse armor, substantially worse mobility, almost nonexistant anti infantry, and dies in 4 shots compared to 5 for comet and 6 for panther.
I think PGrens would be much better balanced back in Tier 2 now. Pretty sure when they were in Tier 2 they still had Medpacks as their vet 1 ability and didn't get that passive boost around vehicles. They have been buffed since then so it makes sense they don't arrive in the first few minutes of the game. My main problem with Pgrens is the insane wipe power of the bundle Grenades, especially when they are running around with Shreks.
None of the buffs they received is relevant to their timing shock value. Combined arms requires a vehicle and vet 1 to work and if you rush pgrens out you won't have either.
They received the Combined Arms passive ability which buffs them when they are around vehicles and their popcap was reduced to 8 from 9 which can allow you to go for 2-3 squads of them. They get their vet earlier and have really good later vet bonuses which makes them scale pretty well into the late game. They just come too early right now and even though their timing is better since Ostruppen require Tier 1, the Assault Grenadier Tier 1 skip is still a strong strategy which can get you extremely fast P-Grens.
Pgrens have recieved no COMBAT STAT BUFFS for years.
The combined arms is great but realistically you won't have your light vehicle next to them most of the time. You certainly won't have a light vehicle by the time your first pgren hits the field, and combined arms requires vet 1 anyway. Combined arms is largely a moot point if thats being used as an argument against their current timing.
The pop reduction is helpful... 15 mins into the game when you are hitting the pop cap. It is not relevant at the timing they hit the field.
Vet bonuses spread across multiple vet levels is also useful but not relevant to the specific time that they hit the field.
I am not arguing for pgrens to stay as is. But these specific examples do not support moving pgrens to T2.
Otherwise Tier 2 would probably be fine since P-Grens have recieved multiple buffs since those days and Tier 2 is only 100 mp now instead of the 200 mp when P-Grens used to struggle in Tier 2.
Pgrens have recieved no combat stat buffs for years. They've had their vet shifted around and their reinforcement cost reduced, but nothing that would make them stronger in a shootout upon first purchase.
I don't recall that. Is it still when it could random death crit and was like 10mu?
I don't know when that changed. There has been a lot that's been changed. CP timings, tech structuring, cost changes etc.
Ostheer being required to go tier 1 helped make it viable, since they were the only faction you would face as soviets, and I remember snipers actually being viable against soviets.
The infantry phase tended to last a little longer.
When brits released. I remeber that. It was the only time I actually saw people teching molitovs...
3-4 con molo used to be a fairly common soviet build before WFA.
The unit does pay for itself.
No one uses it, because its not in overpowered meta doctrine.
I disagree. The unit is underwhelming. Its hard to fit it into army compositions 1v1 or otherwise. If it were a standard P4 with an aura it might be used.