OKW Panther vs UKF Comet

UKF Comet (AI as well as AT capabilities):
Cost(effectively 500/185

Dude don't forget Hammer upgrade cost 200MP and 50FU, Comet hit the field way later than OKW Panther and Panther got better vet while Comet vet is all about AI gimmicky: WP shells (which is bugged as hell), nade thrower which has 2s fuse. Vetted Panther can kite Comet all day long. Play 1v1 and tell me how many match OKW build Panther and how many match Brit build Comet.

Is the new meta to make new accounts just to make whiny x is OP threads

Is the new meta to make new accounts just to make whiny x is OP threads

...

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

this is my first account, im not whining, as stated

The economic advantage of one faction has no bearing over a fight between the two units when they are on the field, the OKW having less fuel income does not actually affect the Panther's ability to be a tank hunter.

its a simple 1v1 face off and if one unit is overperforming for its cost than a expensive unit in same class theres a preoblem here
and lol to whoever said because you have a panzershreck army

Cost(effectively) 490/232

>calculating fuel penalty as "effective" fuel cost
>2015
>I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

yes please dont bring out the fuel penalty becausye okw gets 5 vets right guys..relic said that right guys...guys..???

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

I can understand you are frustrated but what you have described is really the result of rng going against you. 1 on 1 things like this can happen. The panther is generally superior to the comet AT wise and usually wins. Try 3 panthers vs 3 comets in cheat mode or something and you will see what I mean

this is my first account, im not whining, as stated

You are somehow trying to say that just because a comet is a worse panther when it comes to AT, it means that the comet is OP even though it's more expensive?


??????????????

Comet is more AI oriented than Panther, 2 Stug can give it trouble and Jpz if it can get the 1st shot from camo can kill Comet without breaking a sweat.

>calculating fuel penalty as "effective" fuel cost
>2015
>I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

feel free to write a short mathematical proof why my assumption is incorrect 0o

if tommorow, there'd be a new patch and USF got only 50% fuel income with vehicle costs staying exactly the same, wouldn't everyone here state the obvious, that the vehicles now cost twice as much fuel?

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?

You're going way overboard with exaggeration and here is why:

Units are balanced around cost effectiveness performance in relation to other units and their intended roles.

If you have 2 exactly the same unit in 2 completely different armies with 2 completely different economies, then these two same units will still be balanced with the same cost effectiveness relation. 100 fuel unit will perform like 100 fuel unit, regardless if you get 100%, 2000% or 5% of fuel income.

If Ost panther and Ost Ostwind didn't existed, then MAYBE you'd have some leverage to argue their performance, but these units exist.

OKW fuel penalty exists to limit vehicle presence of OKW given same map control as opponent, it doesn't mean their units will suddenly perform 50% better because you go and try to slap invisible cost to cost effectiveness equation-it doesn't work that way.

100 fuel Ost Ostwind and 100 fuel OKW ostwind is still exactly the same Ostwind, OKW one won't be 50% more effective because of fuel penalty.

So yet again-OKW panther costs 175 fuel, its cheaper then comet, it have greater AT stats and protection.

What you aren't getting because of fuel penalty, you make up for with superior scaling, superior teching with free side bonuses all other armies have to pay for or pick a doctrine for and pay on top of it again and superior menpower based force(inb4 some mad man pops with volks again-they are NOT AI squads, you have multiple other AI squads for AI combat, USE THEM).

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

I don't think you whine and I never said you do.
I simply believe you don't understand how cost effectiveness in relation to unit stats works and what its based on.

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

its 175 fuel right?

1- Price of a unit is the one listed, not the one with "convertion". It matters for timing and number field, not performance. (There's a reason OKW has cheapest teching)

2- You are doing the math wrong. You don't multiply by 33%. You divide by .66 or if you want to do exact maths .72 or .7
.72 is for a 50/50 resource distribution. Even if you control 100% of the map, it doesn't go lower than .69

3- PV RoF is 7.5s and i guess the comet is 6.5 or 6.4

4- Panther vs Comet at vet0 is basically RNG based.

5- People underestimate DPS coming from the 3 MGs on the tanks. Main gun shells is not all that matters.

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.

In such case the army with more, weaker but cheaper units would be totally disadvantaged. Why? Because imagine that one big unit clashes with 3 weaker ones. During the slugfest it will eventually kill one of 2 of them, then both players will realise that they may loose the engagement and will fall back. That is a huge win for player with stronger unit, as he can repair it while his opponent has to rebuild his unit. Which means your understanding of assymetric ballance is bad.

The only existing definition of asymetric ballance it that 2 armies are completely different but have same chances to win. There is no flawless concretisation of this.

1- Price of a unit is the one listed, not the one with "convertion". It matters for timing and number field, not performance. (There's a reason OKW has cheapest teching)

2- You are doing the math wrong. You don't multiply by 33%. You divide by .66 or if you want to do exact maths .72 or .7
.72 is for a 50/50 resource distribution. Even if you control 100% of the map, it doesn't go lower than .69

3- PV RoF is 7.5s and i guess the comet is 6.5 or 6.4

4- Panther vs Comet at vet0 is basically RNG based.

5- People underestimate DPS coming from the 3 MGs on the tanks. Main gun shells is not all that matters.

rare satisfying answer, good arguments alright, still, i feel the panther is slighty under-performing, but then again, it seems to be general consesus on this forum that OKW needs a buff/overhaul

5- People underestimate DPS coming from the 3 MGs on the tanks. Main gun shells is not all that matters.

Wasn't there a video of a panther soloing a zis gun with its machine guns?

feel free to write a short mathematical proof why my assumption is incorrect 0o

if tommorow, there'd be a new patch and USF got only 50% fuel income with vehicle costs staying exactly the same, wouldn't everyone here state the obvious, that the vehicles now cost twice as much fuel?

If Relic wanted them to cost more fuel, Relic would increase the fuel cost. Simple as that. OKW fuel penalty is not meant to reflect that the unit is more effective.

Your argument has one crucial flaw: The Ostheer Panther. Does it cost 232 fuel? No? In fact it costs exactly as much as the OKW Panther does. This is a clear indicator that a unit of Panther's effectiveness is considered to be worth 175 fuel. Do you have a counterargument to this?

You want mathematical proof? You want to talk effective income? Okay. Let's talk teching costs of prerequisites to field OKW Panther and Comet.

OKW T2/3 + T4 - starting fuel = 80 OKW fuel (around 112 "regular" fuel)

Brit T2 + T3 + Hammer - starting fuel = 200 fuel

This is assuming nobody goes for any sidegrades (in reality, Brits will probably spend even more fuel on HQ infantry upgrades), whereas nobody going for a Panther would go for a tiering sidegrade).

It is unfair to price the OKW Panther at 232 fuel, i.e. at every step calculate in the penalties OKW has, but turn a blind eye to all the advantages the OKW gets, such as incredibly cheap and flexible teching when compared to the other factions, especially ostheer/soviets. Teching in effect further mitigates OKW fuel penalty.

How tank with better penetration and better armor can loose to tank with worse pen and worse armor? Really how.

Also comet cost 10 more fuel.

Don't build panther.Build Jagdpanzer,only OKW armour worth using except jagdtiger and pz 4.Panther just has too low dps for its cost.