OKW Panther vs UKF Comet

Hello there,

For the record, i have been playing coh 1 since 2008 being constant top 100 2on2 and have 1 month in coh2 so far with a positive winrate.

In one of my first coh2 games, my freshly built panther lost to a full-hp comet in a 1on1 without any inteference from other units, all shots against each tanks front. fair and square. was quite shocked. recently i remembered that particular fight and found a website which contains the stats for the british units:

OKW Panther (dedicated AT-Tank):
Cost(effectively) 490/232
HP 800
Armor 320
Penetration 260/240/220
Damage 160
Cooldown-Average 7.38 sec
Range 50

UKF Comet (AI as well as AT capabilities):
Cost(effectively 500/185
HP 800
Armor 290
Penetration 240/220/200
Damage 160
Cooldown-Average 6.32 sec <====
Range 50

Can anybody explain to me in non-"lelic" terms how the panther, a dedicated AT tank without any AI capabilites except for crushing, can perfectly well loose to an non-AT unit that deals good damage to infantry and is even almost 50 fuel cheaper? they have the same range as well, so you can't even kite the comet. how are people complaining about vet 3 rifle blobs (granted, they are slightly OP) but not lamenting this fact? Unit A, supposed to counter Units like B, has a more than moderate chance of losing to B, which is supposed to be only decent against units like A and B while being far cheaper. what the hell
the same problem also exists between the OST panther and the comet, but with the cost difference being sliiiiightly in the panthers favor at 10/10. the fundamental problem persits even in that case though.
its like a sherman or cromwell winning against a jagdpanzer 4 at long range

because your entire fucking army has panzershrecks?

because your entire fucking army has panzershrecks?

...while he's got the Paks with superior range AND penetration, your point?

On top of that, each schreck built reduces the already bad DPS of Volks further by 20%

...while he's got the Paks with superior range AND penetration, your point?

No, what's your point?

No, what's your point?

UKF having stronger Paks cancelling out OKW having better infantry held AT obviously?

For clarification, PAKs are only German, AT gun is the correct term, just so you don't confuse people.

Also don't do this whole "OKW fuel" thing, it still costs less fuel than the UKF Comet, it doesn't matter that there is a fuel penalty because with proper map control you'll always get the Panther out before the Comet because the Comet costs more.

UKF having stronger Paks cancelling out OKW having better infantry held AT obviously?

Lol how does a 6 pounder cancel out volk squads with schreks?

They instantly die when they see a 6pounder?

Can anybody explain to me in non-"lelic" terms how the panther, a dedicated AT tank without any AI capabilites except for crushing, can perfectly well loose to an non-AT unit that deals good damage to infantry and is even almost 50 fuel cheaper?

Yes.

OKW Panther (dedicated AT-Tank):
Cost(effectively) 490/232

Because you've completely skewed completely your comparison with this.
Soviet infantry don't and shouldn't magically perform 40% better because they "cost" 40% more when you select industry commander and are hit with menpower penalty.
Ost tanks also don't suddenly cost 900+ fuel just because you called-in TA which reduced your fuel income.

No matter how you want to look at it, Panther is 490mp 175fu tank with greater armor, greater penetration and pintle MG upgrade, while Comet pays more resources, gives up penetration and armor to fight infantry as well.

Also, panther can counter smoke and shoot over hedges with attack ground while comet is completely incapable of such feat.

For clarification, PAKs are only German, AT gun is the correct term, just so you don't confuse people.

Also don't do this whole "OKW fuel" thing, it still costs less fuel than the UKF Comet, it doesn't matter that there is a fuel penalty because with proper map control you'll always get the Panther out before the Comet because the Comet costs more.

>paks

ah yes, forgot that

>proper map control, panther coming out first

how does it matter, which unit comes out first, since both are late game units? im not saying that comets are a major balance upset in the OKW - UKF matchup, nor that there is no other counter, but that the panther is WAY underperforming when compared to that unit.
also i strongly disagree with your assertion of balancing units/factions according to "map control".
following that same logic, the king tiger should cost 175 since okw, from early to mid game, usually controls less or at max equal territory than ally factions, due to poor AI performance of Volks when compared to ally infantry, resulting in less overall fuel income on top of not being able to build fuel caches.

Panther not really worth building right now, why pay 175 fuel for one dedicated AT tank, when you can get a dedicated AT (Jagdpanzer) and AI (Luchs) combo for the same fuel price?

The Panther v Comet matchup is balanced at the moment imo. Panther with a top mount mg is decent against infantry while the Comets main gun is RNG based. If a Panther loses to a Comet in a 1v1 matchup, it is probably just bad RNG. The Panther is a specialist unit but it is not worthless against infantry. The Comet has the Phosphorus round which melts infantry while the Panther has Blitzkrieg and Smoke.

We an make the "Why does this (insert unit) lose to (insert unit)" argument ALL BLOODY DAY MATE. M3 cars have gone 2 years without thier original desgin concept (the annoying sniper cars) but rather than beef then up they just remain a very ineffective unit.

In this case, the comet is a superior tank, so you'll need some backup, rakets, shreks so forth. And if he's spamming paks well Stuka him to death at will.

asymmetric balance anyone? if you want panther vs panther play custom mirror matches

...and Smoke.

doctrinal

asymmetric balance anyone? if you want panther vs panther play custom mirror matches

my understanding of asymmetrical balancing would be two armies a,b with one having a unit that costs 300 that wins exactly against the 3 units of the other army costing 300 in total. thats asymmetrical balance to me. not one of the 3 units costing 100 beating the unit for 300 which is allegedly justfied because Army A gets a good counter to that in late game.

i dont want both units to cost the same while having the same performance i want the more expensive one to counter a unit that is cheaper and it is supposed to counter, is that really so hard to understand?

We an make the "Why does this (insert unit) lose to (insert unit)" argument ALL BLOODY DAY MATE. M3 cars have gone 2 years without thier original desgin concept...

i'm not here to cure cancer and save little children in africa, if you have a problem with the m3, make a thread, this thread is about the panther - comet matchup.
also me being told this conversation is unjustified because other units underperform in your opinion is like a victim of burglarly being told to shut up just because someone in another part of the city just got mugged

i dont want both units to cost the same while having the same performance i want the more expensive one to counter a unit that is cheaper and it is supposed to counter, is that really so hard to understand?

No matter how you want to look at it, Panther is 490mp 175fu[...]

Panther is cheaper and you won't spin it otherwise

The matchup between these two units is fine, the way of getting around and exploiting the matchup is via micro. The Comet has the advantage at being faster but if a Panther out-micros the Comet then it'll most likely win.

I don't think this discussion is worthy of balance it's more of a strategy issue.

From what I learned on Propagandacasts's channel when he was reviewing the Comet, he explains that in a 1v1 fight the Panther wins. (Slug Match) However, the Comet beats the Panther in one aspect, having better accuracy on the move in comparison to the Panther.

If we had a video or a replay it would be nice to see how both units fought each other and understand the situation and other factors that affected combat.

my understanding of asymmetrical balancing would be two armies a,b with one having a unit that costs 300 that wins exactly against the 3 units of the other army costing 300 in total. thats asymmetrical balance to me. not one of the 3 units costing 100 beating the unit for 300 which is allegedly justfied because Army A gets a good counter to that in late game.

i dont want both units to cost the same while having the same performance i want the more expensive one to counter a unit that is cheaper and it is supposed to counter, is that really so hard to understand?

you make assumptions about 2 units battling in a vacuum. yes, thats something i dont understand

so if okw had 5% of normal income and brits had 100 percent normal income, it would be still considered balanced? you'd still consider it cheaper even if OKW had 1 fuel/min and had to wait over 2 hours to build a panther? no? then where draw the line?

also, i'd like to state again, i'm in no way whining or thinking the match-up between these factions is broken or anything, i just dont agree with the panthers and comets respective stats considering their costs