panthers reload speed

AT DPS and cost are the issues. The ally fan boy counter arguement is "but armour" or "but vet 2" and these have to be deconstructed to show that the armour isn't much of an advantage when the Panther has bad accuarcy, AT DPS, AI DPS and is overpriced.

+ It can´t be used as a meatshiled despite the armor because of the HP pool. Using it as such will end in an immediately destroyed Panther versus any real AT. I would be fine with that if it at least dished out some damage. But it doesn´t.

That there is a statistical difference between shooting at the side armour compared to the front and back. And the difference changes according to the angle of the origin of the shot to the side armour.

Yes, and as I explained it to you earlier it is because the division line between front and rear of the unit runs through the middle and due to scatter or accuracy some shots are registered as front and some as rear armour shot. What is more the game will quite often produce irregular results (not sure if due to bug or glitch or some unknown factor) and shot that looked like a front shot will end up being rear one and vice versa. All this due to lack of side armour.

Remove the armour buff at vet 2 and shave off 2.5 seconds off its reload.
Or increase dmg to 240 if current reload is kept.

Panther doesnt need insane vet bonuses,it needs to pay for its price and have something akin to an impact.

A tank hunter cant 'hunt' shit if it takes 7-8 seconds to fire its gun and will miss 1 in 3 shots.Especially on the move while its chasing its target.

Yes, and as I explained it to you earlier it is because the division line between front and rear of the unit runs through the middle and due to scatter or accuracy some shots are registered as front and some as rear armour shot. What is more the game will quite often produce irregular results (not sure if due to bug or glitch or some unknown factor) and shot that looked like a front shot will end up being rear one and vice versa. All this due to lack of side armour.

What Sinthe has found, and I now believe to be correct, is that there is no such division line such that:
- Beyond that, 99% of the hits are front armour (and 1% are irregularity)
- Before that, 99% of the hits are rear armour (and 1% are irregularity).

Instead, the angle determines the probability of which half of the armour will be used.

If you fire from a 90% degree angle, there's 50% chance of hitting rear, 50% of hitting front.

Thus, statistically, there actually exists the notion of side armour on the game.

However, everyone sit tight and wait until Cruzz verifies this.

It's not as easy to say that the armour of the Panther is (320 + 110)/2 (it depends on the penetration of the attacker), but:
- Attacking angle does matter
- Those rear armour hits from the front were not a bug; they were a feature.

Remove the armour buff at vet 2 and shave off 2.5 seconds off its reload.
Or increase dmg to 240 if current reload is kept.

Panther doesnt need insane vet bonuses,it needs to pay for its price and have something akin to an impact.

A tank hunter cant 'hunt' shit if it takes 7-8 seconds to fire its gun and will miss 1 in 3 shots.Especially on the move while its chasing its target.

The vet 2 bonus used to be at vet 0. Placing it at vet 2 was a nerf a year or two ago.

What Sinthe has found, and I now believe to be correct, is that there is no such division line such that:
- Beyond that, 99% of the hits are front armour (and 1% are irregularity)
- Before that, 99% of the hits are rear armour (and 1% are irregularity).

Instead, the angle determines the probability of which half of the armour will be used.

If you fire from a 90% degree angle, there's 50% chance of hitting rear, 50% of hitting front.

Thus, statistically, there actually exists the notion of side armour on the game.

However, everyone sit tight and wait until Cruzz verifies this.

It's not as easy to say that the armour of the Panther is (320 + 110)/2 (it depends on the penetration of the attacker), but:
- Attacking angle does matter
- Those rear armour hits from the front were not a bug; they were a feature.

the working of front and rear armor is already known.

there's front half and rear half of a vehicle/tank. enemy shooting at your "side" is bad because the shot can potentially land at your rear half but it's not a guarantee.

Yes, and as I explained it to you earlier it is because the division line between front and rear of the unit runs through the middle and due to scatter or accuracy some shots are registered as front and some as rear armour shot. What is more the game will quite often produce irregular results (not sure if due to bug or glitch or some unknown factor) and shot that looked like a front shot will end up being rear one and vice versa. All this due to lack of side armour.

The Ostheer Panther should get the OKW Panthers stats. There is not much to argue about. Ostheer Tier 4 was meant to be an additional and powerful Tier. Yet it has worse stuff than both OKW and Brits.

There was a pie chart that showed all the factions intended strenghts. Ostheer was shown as strong lategame. Yet I have yet to see them perform on the level of Brits or OKW at that stage of the game.

What Sinthe has found, and I now believe to be correct, is that there is no such division line such that:
- Beyond that, 99% of the hits are front armour (and 1% are irregularity)
- Before that, 99% of the hits are rear armour (and 1% are irregularity).

Instead, the angle determines the probability of which half of the armour will be used.

If you fire from a 90% degree angle, there's 50% chance of hitting rear, 50% of hitting front.

Thus, statistically, there actually exists the notion of side armour on the game.

However, everyone sit tight and wait until Cruzz verifies this.

It's not as easy to say that the armour of the Panther is (320 + 110)/2 (it depends on the penetration of the attacker), but:
- Attacking angle does matter
- Those rear armour hits from the front were not a bug; they were a feature.

Almost correct. The only nit pick is that the when targeting another tank center of mass is determined to be a direct hit. Ie. a direct hit on a tank 45 deg off center (forward facing) will register at front armour and the opposite is true if the tank is rotated 180. It has to do with the geometry of the tank. If the direct hit is center mass but the armour is determined by side impact the angle of the tank to the origin of the shot determines likely hood of the shot hitting the front or rear.Show Spoiler

there's front half and rear half of a vehicle/tank. enemy shooting at your "side" is bad because the shot can potentially land at your rear half but it's not a guarantee.

That's what I'm saying as well.

However, what I am starting to believe is that the chance the shot lands either on front half or rear half depends entirely on the angle. That is to say, the angle determines the probability function to use; it's not fixed.

Thus, say you have a gun with 160 penetration.

Front Panther armour is 320. Rear Panther armour is 110 (doesn't matter since your pen is higher than rear).

This means that your chance to penetrate is:
- 50% if hitting front
- 100% if hitting rear

If the angle is 90 degrees, this means that the split between front and rear is 50-50. Thus, you have a 75% chance to penetrate a panther, shooting at a side, with an 160 weapon. This means that Panther's effective armour from a 90-degree angle becomes 213-ish; it's neither 320 nor 110.

Different angles will yield different results. I don't know the exact relation between angle and effective armour though.

Almost correct. The only nit pick is that the when targeting another tank center of mass is determined to be a direct hit. Ie. a direct hit on a tank 45 deg off center (forward facing) will register at front armour and the opposite is true if the tank is rotated 180. It has to do with the geometry of the tank. If the direct hit is center mass but the armour is determined by side impact the angle of the tank to the origin of the shot determines likely hood of the shot hitting the front or rear.Show Spoiler

That's what real world physics implies. That's not necessarily what relic implemented for their game. Real world also doesn't have heat-seeking projectiles for instance (direct hits).

I know that I have seen enemy tanks facing 10-degrees angles for me and I have still scored rear armour hits (however rarely). So, let's see how this turns out to be.

That's what I'm saying as well.

However, what I am starting to believe is that the chance the shot lands either on front half or rear half depends entirely on the angle. That is to say, the angle determines the probability function to use; it's not fixed.

Thus, say you have a gun with 160 penetration.

Front Panther armour is 320. Rear Panther armour is 110 (doesn't matter since your pen is higher than rear).

This means that your chance to penetrate is:
- 50% if hitting front
- 100% if hitting rear

If the angle is 90 degrees, this means that the split between front and rear is 50-50. Thus, you have a 75% chance to penetrate a panther, shooting at a side, with an 160 weapon. This means that Panther's effective armour from a 90-degree angle becomes 213-ish; it's neither 320 nor 110.

Different angles will yield different results. I don't know the exact relation between angle and effective armour though.



That's what real world physics implies. That's not necessarily what relic implemented for their game. Real world also doesn't have heat-seeking projectiles for instance (direct hits).

I know that I have seen enemy tanks facing 10-degrees angles for me and I have still scored rear armour hits (however rarely). So, let's see how this turns out to be.

shot home in at the center of a tank when the tank roll a hit. If a tank have 100% accuracy, the shot will hit the closer side of the tank.

however, tanks rarely have 100% in this game. If the tank roll a miss, the scatter takes over and stray shot might hit the farther side of the tank.

That's what real world physics implies. That's not necessarily what relic implemented for their game. Real world also doesn't have heat-seeking projectiles for instance (direct hits).

I know that I have seen enemy tanks facing 10-degrees angles for me and I have still scored rear armour hits (however rarely). So, let's see how this turns out to be.

As the angle changes so does the armour that falls into front and rear, assuming the direct hit hits center of mass. Ie. closer to 90 deg = equal distribution between front and back.

Imo your test has a major flaw...

You are assuming that the hitbox is centered to the model and that may not be the case...

Imo your test has a major flaw...

You are assuming that the hitbox is centered to the model and that may not be the case...

Direct hits being center of mass is consistent with testing.

Imo your test has a major flaw...

You are assuming that the hitbox is centered to the model and that may not be the case...

That's a good observation. However, the tests I have made don't show that firing at 90-degree angle will yield you 50% rear, 50% front. What they show is that the angle determines the probability.

Yes. It is entirely possible that scatter shots contribute to that skewed probability (instead of always front always rear).

However, the T-34 should have 60% accuracy at the range I used it. In both cases, the dominant side from where I fired the T-34 had at most 60-70% hits coming to it. Thus, if we go for the theory that:
- Dominant side determines direct hits
- Scatter hits spread according to angle

.. all scatter hits must have landed in the rear, which makes no sense.

Thus, there is probably something else going on.

What Sinthe has found, and I now believe to be correct, is that there is no such division line such that:
- Beyond that, 99% of the hits are front armour (and 1% are irregularity)
- Before that, 99% of the hits are rear armour (and 1% are irregularity).

Instead, the angle determines the probability of which half of the armour will be used.

If you fire from a 90% degree angle, there's 50% chance of hitting rear, 50% of hitting front.

Thus, statistically, there actually exists the notion of side armour on the game.

However, everyone sit tight and wait until Cruzz verifies this.

It's not as easy to say that the armour of the Panther is (320 + 110)/2 (it depends on the penetration of the attacker), but:
- Attacking angle does matter
- Those rear armour hits from the front were not a bug; they were a feature.

No, as I said you're trying to create a theory that isn't there. Yes, angle does determine what kind of shot you will get but you can not call it a side armour. It is simply a side effect of implemented system. If you want to see real side armour look at Warthunder or Men at War.In CoH2 is projectile lands in the front half of the unit it will count as front hit and if in the rear will count as rear hit accordingly. Basic geometry dictates that this is angle dependent.

No, as I said you're trying to create a theory that isn't there. Yes, angle does determine what kind of shot you will get but you can not call it a side armour. It is simply a side effect of implemented system. If you want to see real side armour look at Warthunder or Men at War.In CoH2 is projectile lands in the front half of the unit it will count as front hit and if in the rear will count as rear hit accordingly. Basic geometry dictates that this is angle dependent.

In this game, armour (vs penetration) define a chance of penetration.

If the angle of the attack (not just a binary front-rear) changes the odds of penetrating something, isn't this functionally equivalent to the game having side armour?

The real way to settle this is:
- Somebody make a mod and bump T-34 accuracy to 100%
- Repeat the test I did
- Post results

That's a good observation. However, the tests I have made don't show that firing at 90-degree angle will yield you 50% rear, 50% front. What they show is that the angle determines the probability.

Yes. It is entirely possible that scatter shots contribute to that skewed probability (instead of always front always rear).

However, the T-34 should have 60% accuracy at the range I used it. In both cases, the dominant side from where I fired the T-34 had at most 60-70% hits coming to it. Thus, if we go for the theory that:
- Dominant side determines direct hits
- Scatter hits spread according to angle

.. all scatter hits must have landed in the rear, which makes no sense.

Thus, there is probably something else going on.

I didn't clarify. Angle determines the statistical distribution between front and back based on scatter because of the geometry of the tank.

it probably easier to completely remove accuracy as a factor since one does not know where a tank aim at and use attack ground that also seem to have less scatter...

One can probably also use this method to determine where is the line that separates front from back

I don't see any axis call-ins performing above their cost like the T34/85 does.

First of all, i'll say they are "fine" but if you want to see mention some other tanks that "overperform" for cost.
1-New JT vs Ele (this would be an axis vs axis comparison although)
2-Command PV (call in without tech and insane mark vehicle bonus)
3-Command PIV (fine on 1v1, broken as we add players)
4-M10
5-M4C (call in without tech)
6-Not a tank but M5 HT from USF (timing and cost compared to SU)

If a panther is designed to take on heavies, it would follow that it should be even more effective against mediums, which it is not.

Not really. Look at new Su85. Pen is good against heavies, rof against mediums.

Let's see yours.

https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198009261973

The vet 2 bonus used to be at vet 0. Placing it at vet 2 was a nerf a year or two ago.

More or less a change of role and adjustments. Cause it then received several buff to armor, penetration and mp cost IIRC.


If someone wants my opinion on PV. I'll be fine with it not missing it's shots, not necessarily a Rof Buff.

First of all, i'll say they are "fine" but if you want to see mention some other tanks that "overperform" for cost.
1-New JT vs Ele (this would be an axis vs axis comparison although)
2-Command PV (call in without tech and insane mark vehicle bonus)
3-Command PIV (fine on 1v1, broken as we add players)
4-M10
5-M4C (call in without tech)
6-Not a tank but M5 HT from USF (timing and cost compared to SU)

In a nuts shell, I have no idea how these things get priced. The more I learn about the mechanics and play-test the more I realize this game is a patched up franken-monster.

I would like to see all call ins tied to buildings for starters. If you wanted to keep their "on the field quick" bonus you just adjust the build time.

I agree with you mostly on most of your points. Command Panther is just a panther with an aura, marked target and stripped of most of it's vet.

If everything gets costed properly I think we can eliminate the blob fest and encourage combined arms.

Not really. Look at new Su85. Pen is good against heavies, rof against mediums.

Good point. Su85 does have good range though.

https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198009261973

I wasn't asking for yours. I wanted to see kat's playcard.

More or less a change of role and adjustments. Cause it then received several buff to armor, penetration and mp cost IIRC.

With this back an forth with Mr.Smith, I have been thinking that there should be a way to standardize costs of units based on utility.

They're has to be a way to balance the game without sacrificing so much of the flavour and immersion. It kills me that over the life of this game soviet tanks have lost the flavor of their design. They are supposed to be cheap, underdesigned and numerous. The German tanks are supposed to be expensive, over designed and few in number. And as the balancing process continues the tanks are becoming more and more homogeneous. I have an entire theory about balance based on firearm calibers determining damage, rof determined by actual rate of fire, armour determined by the real armour thicknesses and using cost an accuracy to balance. (I love tanks, btw)

For example, the IS-2 stats profile has turned more and more into a panther over time. And that doesn't make any sense to me. It has a 122mm gun on it. It should be doing almost twice as much damage as 75mm gun. But the drawback to that gun is two fold, the large projectile creates a huge drop in velocity over distances and the gun was incredibly inaccurate. This can easily be captured in the game with a damage buff to 400, a huge increase in scatter, reduction in accuracy, and an increase in pen for the profile of the gun. It's armour would need a huge bump to reflect the actual thickness of it's armour. If a panthers armour is 320 an IS-2s armour should be closer to 400 with rear armour around 200. Now if it's costed based on utility you have a completely unique feel to the IS-2 instead of it feeling like a discount panther. Soviet armour generally performed like a lumbering giant, no precision just raw force.
/mini rant

If someone wants my opinion on PV. I'll be fine with it not missing it's shots, not necessarily a Rof Buff.

I think a RoF buff is a cop out. For it's current price, a scatter value of 4 is likely to fix most of it's problems.

Overall, I want to see everything priced properly. I don't mind losing as long as it's to skill not game exploits or cheese. And if pricing gets standardized to utility there should be no dead units (i'm looking at you OKW AAHT).