Some inconsistencies and Issues

I do feel a tiny increase in Comet pen or decrease in Panther armour (in the 10-20 range) would be a good thing - allowing the panther to beat the comet 1v1, but not by such a wide margin as we see now.

However I think there are other more pressing disparities in CoH right now:

Take the resupply planes for example, that there was an excellent article on here not long ago.

Calliope HP/damage and werfer damage vs Katyusha and awful Brit arty options.

Or Tank Hunter Infantry Section's AT nades - the only ones in the game to do 40 damage instead of 80, making them the ONLY tank snare that fails to disable light vehicles at 100% health

Comet/Cromwell smoke and AEC tread break is bugged to shit, requiring multiple commands to actually use

OKW getting free flak emplacements in their base that damage vehicles and act as AA. Because they're too good for bunkers like untermensch factions apparently...

I see MG42 crews doing that same thing occasionally (where the 3 non-gunners will move ahead and form a half circle) Never knew if this was an intentional change or not. It's kind of nice because the entire squad isn't bunched together but its also kind of strange to look at.

Maybe also adress healing times for various factions (didnt test Brits):

USF ambulance healtime:

5 squads all 49.9% - 100% health 20 seconds

Soviet/OKW/Ostheer healtime:

5 squads all 49.9% - 100% health 80 seconds

Maybe also adress healing times for various factions (didnt test Brits):

USF ambulance healtime:

5 squads all 49.9% - 100% health 20 seconds

Soviet/OKW/Ostheer healtime:

5 squads all 49.9% - 100% health 80 seconds

Try with 10 squads. I'm sure the numbers are gonna be higher.

Show Spoiler

Hello.

Comparing units taken separatly is cherrypicking.
To truly compare two units based on cost/efficiency you have to take EVERY costs you had to pay to get your unit.
If you take in account the teching cost, you may have the surprise to have something similar. I mean :
British T1T2T3 + hammer tech = more or less 660 MP + 195 fuel OK
OST T1T2T3T4 + T4building = more or less 660MP + 205 fuel OK
Quite similar isn't it?
Not really.
In a NormalGame™, an OST player cant afford to skip every tier until the fourth, even a single tier missing can be desastrous.
So in order to have the true cost to have a Panther, you need to add the costs of tier buildings, which add something like 480 MP and 105 fuel.
Indeed a panther is individually cheaper than a Comet, but you made a longer way to get one.
Of cource this last calcul is imprecise because it means that you never build any other units. The true cost imply that you divide your teching costs by the number of units you made into each tier.
I wont drown you into calculs, lets just say that the cost/efficiency of both are fair trade™.

Kozo.

No they are not. When pop cap is reached ,the game becomes a series of clashes between maxed out armies in which fuel often becomes insignificant. It is just fair to assume that units with the same task, similiar cost and same pop cap should perform the same on both sides.

Let's get into your calculuses: In case of a 1v1 with both factions rushing for Panther/Comet but still using the basics of coverage against possible new units (tanks, weapon upgrades), it will look like this (only fuel cost):

UKF: -20 + 30 + 15 + 35 + 115 + 50 + 185 = 410
Ost: -20 + 10 + 40 + 20 + 45 + 45 + 75 + 175 = 390

In terms of manpower (higher manpower start of Ostheer and higher manpower cost for UKF units neglected):

UKF: 180 + 150 + 100 + 280 + 200 + 500 = 1410
Ost: 80 + 100 + 200 + 100 + 100 + 260 + 490 = 1330

OKW on the other hand only needs 365 fuel and 1090 mp (or was it 1190?).

"But the Comet has free blitz and phosphor" - Indeed it has, and the Panther has better armor, better veterancy, a far better gun, better AI, unlockable Blitz and doctrinal smoke and binos.

"But you have to look at the overall faction performance" Indeed, I did - along with T4 comes the Brokenwerfer. Grenadiers can upgrade on the field, Ostheer can actually move mortars. Doctrines in general provide more diverse gameplay and offer very powerful cost effective options (fuel drop, stuka bomb, CAS, binos, smoke, call in units, real heavy tanks). The MG can actually suppress and engage light vehicles with vet1. Their light vehicles are useful to certain degree. Handheld rocket launchers which can even hit, vehicle snare ... and the list goes on...

to quote relic, and I'm paraphrasing here

Show Spoiler

Try with 10 squads. I'm sure the numbers are gonna be higher.

Show Spoiler

Ok ill do the math for you USF ambulance heals 4x faster than Soviet/OKW/Ost medics.

Not necessarily. The OST, OKW and Soviet medics heal individual units, with there being 3 medics doing the healing.

The ambulance gives off an AoE healing effect that has no bearing on how many units are there. I assume with 10 squads the USF will still take 20 seconds.

Let's get into your calculuses: In case of a 1v1 with both factions rushing for Panther/Comet but still using the basics of coverage against possible new units (tanks, weapon upgrades), it will look like this (only fuel cost):

UKF: -20 + 30 + 15 + 35 + 115 + 50 + 185 = 410
Ost: -20 + 10 + 40 + 20 + 45 + 45 + 75 + 175 = 390

In terms of manpower (higher manpower start of Ostheer and higher manpower cost for UKF units neglected):

UKF: 180 + 150 + 100 + 280 + 200 + 500 = 1410
Ost: 80 + 100 + 200 + 100 + 100 + 260 + 490 = 1330

I have noticed that your calculation inplies that you added to the UKF some T1 upgrades (something like bolstersquad and grenades whick add 50 fuel) and you denied the Ost to have his T3 building (which substract 75 fuel) which is kinda biaised (making a gap of 125 fuel) as you do not threat the two faction in the same way :/ (making one rush on panther and the other taking his time to have his comet).
I admit my defeat as your reasoning is correct in a situation where both factions beeline to T4 units. (btw skipping T3 building is absolutly acceptable in your calcul as you do not intend to spend fuel in T3 units)
In a situation where both faction tech and uses units from most tiers in a pure escalation i insist in my first calcul.

On a side note i am unsure about panther (with MG) beeing a better AI unit than the comet :/.

On another side note, you are right for rushing panther in OKW is indeed 1090MP and 375F at minimum, even if most of the time you wanna add another vehicle like a luch/puma or HT in your lineup. I am more sold in the safeness of this behaviour than in OST.

Kozo.

OKW needs the FRP, which is quite expensive, to remain on the map. The AEC is a cheaper version of the puma, don't use it as if it is the scott or stugE. Comet is better than the panther, rightfully so. FHQ is fine for the cost, being the only useful thing in the whole DOC.

-Revealed in FOW
When the unit is revealed and again FOW, 17 pounds shows his 'shadow', but not pak43.
IMO pak43 should show his 'shadow'.


-AA Suggestion (bofors/AA truck): Area of positioning should be an obstacle for construction on post (VP, Fuel, munition points). This way would cover only half the point of capture and would be less dangerous to capture.

-Revealed in FOW
When the unit is revealed and again FOW, 17 pounds shows his 'shadow', but not pak43.
IMO pak43 should show his 'shadow'.

This is likely, because emplacements are proper buildings, while PaK43 is only an AT gun that can't move(similarly to howitzers). Basically, building vs normal, but immobile team weapon and team weapons are not revealed in FoW.

-Revealed in FOW
When the unit is revealed and again FOW, 17 pounds shows his 'shadow', but not pak43.
IMO pak43 should show his 'shadow'.

I do agree with katitof when he says it is not a "proper building" but it feels like there should be a "ghost" indeed. Somethin' may be missing here.

-AA Suggestion (bofors/AA truck): Area of positioning should be an obstacle for construction on post (VP, Fuel, munition points). This way would cover only half the point of capture and would be less dangerous to capture.

That would makes them incredibly difficult to place on certain maps, even only placeable in your base. One of the point of those buildings is to protect points. Would make them FAR less useful, and even more difficult to have a return (bofor) or protect them(OKWtruck).

Kozo.

I do agree with katitof when he says it is not a "proper building" but it feels like there should be a "ghost" indeed. Somethin' may be missing here.

PaKs sandbags should ghost.

I have noticed that your calculation inplies that you added to the UKF some T1 upgrades (something like bolstersquad and grenades whick add 50 fuel) and you denied the Ost to have his T3 building (which substract 75 fuel) which is kinda biaised (making a gap of 125 fuel) as you do not threat the two faction in the same way :/ (making one rush on panther and the other taking his time to have his comet).
I admit my defeat as your reasoning is correct in a situation where both factions beeline to T4 units. (btw skipping T3 building is absolutly acceptable in your calcul as you do not intend to spend fuel in T3 units)
In a situation where both faction tech and uses units from most tiers in a pure escalation i insist in my first calcul.

On a side note i am unsure about panther (with MG) beeing a better AI unit than the comet :/.

On another side note, you are right for rushing panther in OKW is indeed 1090MP and 375F at minimum, even if most of the time you wanna add another vehicle like a luch/puma or HT in your lineup. I am more sold in the safeness of this behaviour than in OST.

Kozo.

Those numbers represent my experience I´ve had with the Brits. Those side techs are needed in order to compete with the power creep of the axis units. I´m talking about rifle grenades, snipers, LMGs, Obersoldaten, Panzerschrecks etc. , things which Ostheer and OKW don't have to side tech for.

The lack of t3 units can be compensated by a teammate or in case of a 1v1 by call in vehicles such as Stug Es or Pumas. Keep in mind that fielding medium or light armor will force the enemy to react or he will lose field presence. While T4 is not attractive in 1v1, it is a good choice in anything above (also thx to Panzerwerfer).

Regarding the AI, I probably overexaggerated a bit:
Comet works better on long range against units with low received accuracy while being stationary.
The Panther has better AI against units with high received accuracy and excels even better in close and mid range and on the move.

Currently Panther and Comet are too similiar to justify the massive power gap between those 2 units even though the Comet is more expensive and has the same pop cap. When pop cap reaches 100 and 1 player has better units for the same pop cap, he will win. The only thing that can excuse this issue are diversified armies and their different gameplaystyles. While this is the case for USF and Soviets, it's not the case for the brits who aren't very different from axis in lategame (core infantry and cost intensive medium/heavy tanks). In fact they have even less options (rocket artillery).

Those numbers represent my experience I´ve had with the Brits. Those side techs are needed in order to compete with the power creep of the axis units. I´m talking about rifle grenades, snipers, LMGs, Obersoldaten, Panzerschrecks etc. , things which Ostheer and OKW don't have to side tech for.

The lack of t3 units can be compensated by a teammate or in case of a 1v1 by call in vehicles such as Stug Es or Pumas. Keep in mind that fielding medium or light armor will force the enemy to react or he will lose field presence. While T4 is not attractive in 1v1, it is a good choice in anything above (also thx to Panzerwerfer).

Regarding the AI, I probably overexaggerated a bit:
Comet works better on long range against units with low received accuracy while being stationary.
The Panther has better AI against units with high received accuracy and excels even better in close and mid range and on the move.

Currently Panther and Comet are too similiar to justify the massive power gap between those 2 units even though the Comet is more expensive and has the same pop cap. When pop cap reaches 100 and 1 player has better units for the same pop cap, he will win. The only thing that can excuse this issue are diversified armies and their different gameplaystyles. While this is the case for USF and Soviets, it's not the case for the brits who aren't very different from axis in lategame (core infantry and cost intensive medium/heavy tanks). In fact they have even less options (rocket artillery).

I wonldn't be so absolute about the need for side upgrades. My own experience taught me they can be skipped and replaced by more T2 oriented strategy.
However, you are absolutly right, the addition of a even a single partner severly hamper my reasoning and shuffle the cards. Even more in 4v4 where the 100 Popcap is easily reachable.
I try to calculate the AI dps of the panther and the importance of the difference in penetration of both guns (when facing other tanks). Maybe the extra armor of the comet's ass is to be taken in account when they established the prices.

Kozo.

"But the Comet has free blitz and phosphor" - Indeed it has, and the Panther has better armor, better veterancy, a far better gun, better AI, unlockable Blitz and doctrinal smoke and binos.

Regarding the AI, I probably overexaggerated a bit:
Comet works better on long range against units with low received accuracy while being stationary.
The Panther has better AI against units with high received accuracy and excels even better in close and mid range and on the move.

You're delusional. The Panther main gun will not do shit against infantry, it will never hit them and needs to rely on the pintle mount. The Comet, however, has a very capable main gun for dealing with infantry. The Comet also has half the scatter, and 50% more accuracy on the move, so it can actually hit infantry and flank. It can actually wipe squads because it has a bigger AOE to hurt infantry. This makes up for the difference in AT performance.

Maybe the extra armor of the comet's ass is to be taken in account when they established the prices.

Well, the only one who would probably care about something like that is the P4. Every other german AT weapon/tank has >90% pen chance.

It can actually wipe squads because it has a bigger AOE to hurt infantry. This makes up for the difference in AT performance.

Personally, no, I don't think so. It has worse stats in almost every regard: veterancy, tech cost, individual cost, effective penetration and mid/near AI. Apart from that the faction itself does not have: access on effective heavy artillery,any mobile light artillery or rocket artillery -> blob counter/punisher, effective light vehicles, effective medium AI tanks. Is that everything a compensation for a better AI performance on long range?

Well, the only one who would probably care about something like that is the P4. Every other german AT weapon/tank has >90% pen chance.



Personally, no, I don't think so. It has worse stats in almost every regard: veterancy, tech cost, individual cost, effective penetration and mid/near AI. Apart from that the faction itself does not have: access on effective heavy artillery,any mobile light artillery or rocket artillery -> blob counter/punisher, effective light vehicles, effective medium AI tanks. Is that everything a compensation for a better AI performance on long range?

Why do you think it has better ai at long range, but worse at short range?

The main gun has 3 times the AOE, 50% less scatter, and 50% better moving accuracy. It is better at all ranges. Do you honestly think the Panther is an effective AI platform?

Does anyone else think its kind of weird that .50 Cals on Shermans are 70 Muni when MG42 Pintles are 50? Do they have that much better DPS?