panthers reload speed

If that's the position your going to take. Without doing what you literally always do, and by that I mean toss red herrings into the dicussions to trip up the opposing arguement when ever it is against your beloved allies, how do you explain the performance differance between the ost P4 and the T34/85 considering the difference in price is literally negligiable, but the t34/85 performs better in both an AI role and an AT role and overall having a much greater utility to the player? Or how a T34/85 is usually 1 or 2 rear armour hits away from killing a panther 1v1, yet it costs so much less and has much better AI capabilities? Do you think the opportunity cost of the oh panther is inline, considering it's tech and cost are almost equivilent to two P4s? And on what emperical metric are you basing you considerations on?

That's easy.

34/85 is not a stock tank, you're committing yourself to a doctrinal choice.
Plus, when the tank was single call-in without tech, it had costed 140 fuel and its balanced like that, having to tech to get doctrinal unit already puts some strain on the eco, play USF or soviets once in a while, you'll see it.

And no, 34/85 does NOT perform better AI-wise, that still goes to P4.

And last but not least, while if your panther is 1-2 hits from death against singular 34/85, you might want to actually move and micro it next time as each 34/85 shot have less then 50% to pen it, while it will always pen 34/85 while not having that much longer reload then 34, so you're talking either, horrible micro case or extremely bad RNG.

You're also completely ignoring designated role of the panther.
You're supposed to use it vs heavily armored units, which 34/85 is not, StuG excels vs meds and below, Panther excels vs heavies, if you're fighting opponent who spams meds, don't go panther, go StuG, unless you're poor on micro, then go for panther.

what's this nonsense about an autoloader on the panther? those never even go into production

If we start adding in never existed upgrades for the panther, then the british should be getting their centurion and the soviet should be getting the is-3.

and before someone mention pershing, those actually fought.

what's this nonsense about an autoloader on the panther? those never even go into production

If we start adding in never existed upgrades for the panther, then the british should be getting their centurion and the soviet should be getting the is-3.

and before someone mention pershing, those actually fought.

Well, IS-3 actually fought as well, just on far eastern front

I don't think that is true at all. 10 shots from a t34 landed on a kubel (ts 14) a 100% of the time at max range. At max range against a panther's side the t34 only "missed" 8% of the 25 shots. Do you have any source on this being the way it's calculated? It doesn't line up with anything I've seen in testing.

Sources:
- Cruzz
- Miragefla
- Just about anybody that has ever meddled with the stats

Target size is native, vet0 received accuracy bonus for all entities. Tommies have 0.8 target size at vet0, which makes them so difficult to hit.

What I said was that at max range:
- 60% of the shots will be direct hits (accuracy rolls)
- Some shots will miss their accuracy rolls, but still manage to hit
- Thus, the percentage of shots landing will be at least 60%
- 10 samples is no samples

Direct hit chance depends on accuracy vs target size
Scatter hit chance depends on angle (scatter) vs hitbox size

Read my response again.

I ran my simulator again for the T-34. At max range:
- Accuracy hits have a 60% chance to land against the panther
- Scatter hits have a 55% chance to land against the panther (if the Panther is on a 90° angle at max range)

If we use conditional probabilities, we can infer that the outcome of each attack is:
- 60% direct hit (either front, or rear armour, 100% of the time, depending on the precise positioning)
- 22% (40% * 50%) scatter hits (half of these will probably land on either side)
- 18% misses

You can see that 73% of the hits are going to be direct hits; not scatter rolls.

Panther side armour exposed attacking ground. T34 at max range and everytime the panther's health went below 50% I bumped it's health up.

If you used attack ground, of course you have a good chance to hit the side armour. Attack ground counts as scatter shots. And scatter shots could land anywhere.

However, as I said:
- The vast majority of the hits are going to be direct hits (accuracy), and are NOT going to threaten rear armour
- The rest of the attacks will make a scatter roll
- At max range, you can actually dodge scatter rolls; they are not heat-seeking
- You cant use attack ground mid-fight. It requires micro and makes your tank halt
- Since Panthers are such racecars compared to T-34s, if you halt, you are never going to catch up with them.

Even if there is no "side armour", the game has been specifically desgined to take side armour in account by distrubiting front armour and rear armour evenly across the side of the vehicle. Because of the way scatter works, any hits from the scatter table have a 50-50 chance of landing on either side, which means mathimatically the side armour of a panther tank is roughly 215 ( (320(f)+110(r))/2) at a 90 degree angle.

If I was the one to come up with the law of probabilities today, I'm pretty sure I'd have a nobel prize in physics.

My god, how are you people so bad a simple math. I should probably start explaining things in pictures.

No, no and no. Are you even serious at this point?

This game has been specifically designed with front and rear armour only. THERE IS NO SIDE ARMOUR IN THIS GAME.
What's more, because of this specific front/rear armour design it is very common for a shot to count as front armour shot even if you could swear your tank was hitting enemy's rear. It happens because the division line between front and rear armour goes exactly through the middle.


Before you start teaching anyone try to grasp the art of logic first.

No, no and no. Are you even serious at this point?

This game has been specifically designed with front and rear armour only. THERE IS NO SIDE ARMOUR IN THIS GAME.
What's more, because of this specific front/rear armour design it is very common for a shot to count as front armour shot even if you could swear your tank was hitting enemy's rear. It happens because the division line between front and rear armour goes exactly through the middle.


Before you start teaching anyone try to grasp the art of logic first.

So, you don't understand statistics?

Sources:
- Cruzz
- Miragefla
- Just about anybody that has ever meddled with the stats

Target size is native, vet0 received accuracy bonus for all entities. Tommies have 0.8 target size at vet0, which makes them so difficult to hit.

I meant do you have a link, I can't find any substantial information on this and I want to no exactly how it works. Every sample I've done (a few hundred now) does not behave like like you suggested.

If you used attack ground, of course you have a good chance to hit the side armour. Attack ground counts as scatter shots. And scatter shots could land anywhere.

However, as I said:
- The vast majority of the hits are going to be direct hits (accuracy), and are NOT going to threaten rear armour
- The rest of the attacks will make a scatter roll
- At max range, you can actually dodge scatter rolls; they are not heat-seeking
- You cant use attack ground mid-fight. It requires micro and makes your tank halt
- Since Panthers are such racecars compared to T-34s, if you halt, you are never going to catch up with them.

The panther was attacking ground so the t34 could get free shots. My bad.

what's this nonsense about an autoloader on the panther? those never even go into production

If we start adding in never existed upgrades for the panther, then the british should be getting their centurion and the soviet should be getting the is-3.

and before someone mention pershing, those actually fought.

Auto-loader on the panther is a troll idea.

I meant do you have a link, I can't find any substantial information on this and I want to no exactly how it works. Every sample I've done (a few hundred now) does not behave like like you suggested.

Actually, you are right to question the source.

I don't think that anyone truly knows what's truly going on in the engine (obviously not Relic either). Your best bet is to go through this thread:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/36347/cruzz-s-the-more-you-know

.. and if you can't find an answer to the question you ask God himself (Cruzz). Now, it is likely that our understanding of the engine is wrong, but that model is the thing we have the closest to what's going on.

Our assumption here is that Cruzz's understanding of the game engine is correct (we know that this is better than Relic's understanding, at least), and that every aspect of the implementation follows common-sense rules and is bug-free.

Now, if you want to invest the time to run a statistics validation/invalidation of this approach:
- Pick a T34,
- Place it on the far side of a Panther (90% degrees angle)
- Take a screenshot of the positioning (obviously, you shouldn't relocate either tank; at all)
- You record the outcome of every single shot fired (say 100 shots):
> penetrating-hit (front)
> penetrating-hit (rear)
> non-penetrating-hit (not sure if you can tell front or rear
> miss (to the sides)
> miss (falling short)

Then, you present your results in the Cruzz thread, and ask for an interpretation.

Now, if your results disprove that model, it means that we are either ignoring some detail Relic put in (which would be useful to know), or some aspect of game mechanics contains a bug (which would be, again, useful to discover).

Actually, you are right to question the source.

I don't think that anyone truly knows what's truly going on in the engine (obviously not Relic either). Your best bet is to go through this thread:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/36347/cruzz-s-the-more-you-know

.. and if you can't find an answer to the question you ask God himself (Cruzz). Now, it is likely that our understanding of the engine is wrong, but that model is the thing we have the closest to what's going on.

Our assumption here is that Cruzz's understanding of the game engine is correct (we know that this is better than Relic's understanding, at least), and that every aspect of the implementation follows common-sense rules and is bug-free.

Now, if you want to invest the time to run a statistics validation/invalidation of this approach:
- Pick a T34,
- Place it on the far side of a Panther (90% degrees angle)
- Take a screenshot of the positioning (obviously, you shouldn't relocate either tank; at all)
- You record the outcome of every single shot fired (say 100 shots):
> penetrating-hit (front)
> penetrating-hit (rear)
> non-penetrating-hit (not sure if you can tell front or rear
> miss (to the sides)
> miss (falling short)

Then, you present your results in the Cruzz thread, and ask for an interpretation.

Now, if your results disprove that model, it means that we are either ignoring some detail Relic put in (which would be useful to know), or some aspect of game mechanics contains a bug (which would be, again, useful to discover).

Not a bad idea. It would be incredible easy to do if I could write some scripts.

Not a bad idea. It would be incredible easy to do if I could write some scripts.

Actually, to save you the effort, I already ran the test myself, and I think you have a point. I'll write the post on Cruzz's thread and see if he can investigate it.

To give you a hint of what I found:

I used a T-34 (far penetration = 80) from two slightly slanted positions, and that slight displacement (one slightly to the front, one slightly to the right).

If I applied probability correctly, then:
- For the first pic 70% of the attempts (both penetration and hits) were made against the front armour
- For the second pic, 40% of the attempts were made against the front armour (thus 60% against the rear armour).

Thus, there might exist a statistic notion of side armour. I'll explain this in better detail at Cruzz's thread shortly.

Slightly to the front (Picture)
Show Spoiler

Slightly to the back (Picture)
Show Spoiler

Well done!

Actually, to save you the effort, I already ran the test myself, and I think you have a point. I'll write the post on Cruzz's thread and see if he can investigate it.

To give you a hint of what I found:

I used a T-34 (far penetration = 80) from two slightly slanted positions, and that slight displacement (one slightly to the front, one slightly to the right).

If I applied probability correctly, then:
- For the first pic 70% of the attempts (both penetration and hits) were made against the front armour
- For the second pic, 40% of the attempts were made against the front armour (thus 60% against the rear armour).

Thus, there might exist a statistic notion of side armour. I'll explain this in better detail at Cruzz's thread shortly.

Slightly to the front (Picture)
Show Spoiler

Slightly to the back (Picture)
Show Spoiler

Well done!

I like your gridded map, I was looking for one but picked the green screen to eliminate any issues with uneven ground.

AS the angle deviates from 90 degrees there should be an increasing statistical difference on wether front or rear armour is hit. Therefore, if your shooting against the front armour of a panther and the panther is 15 degrees off it's axis (showing a little side) there is still a chance to get a rear armour hit. If we could learn the exact mechanic of scatter and accuarcy, I could easily quantify it.

This, of course, flies in the face of ballistics, where as you move away from 90 degrees of side armour, the ability to penerate it gets exponentially harder in either direction and IF the above mentioned 15 degree of axis panther took a hit to side armour it should have a greater armour equivelent than front armour due to the angle it was hit at.

I hope that CoH 3 developes an engine that can handle the concept of angels role on penetration because for me anyways, seeing ballistics get ignored breaks my imersion in the game. And I love this game (casually since 2006).

I made a post at Cruzz's thread (with more details), and now I am waiting for the master's response.

I like your gridded map, I was looking for one but picked the green screen to eliminate any issues with uneven ground.

I had this map, custom-made for me by Tric:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=703184792&searchtext=range

Grid lines in the mid come in 10-unit range increments. Grid lines near the edges come in 5-unit range increments.

So, you don't understand statistics?

I understand statistics very well. Don't you worry about that.

I understand statistics very well. Don't you worry about that.

Then why are you finding a concept in stats 100 so difficult to comprehend?

That's easy.

34/85 is not a stock tank, you're committing yourself to a doctrinal choice.
Plus, when the tank was single call-in without tech, it had costed 140 fuel and its balanced like that, having to tech to get doctrinal unit already puts some strain on the eco, play USF or soviets once in a while, you'll see it.

I can use this exact arguement to advocate for a buff to OH and OKW tank call-ins. I.e. committing to a doctrinal choice. I don't see any axis call-ins performing above their cost like the T34/85 does.

The T34/85 is in 3 of the more widely used soviet doctrines, including the most used doctrine in the ESL tournement.

And no, 34/85 does NOT perform better AI-wise, that still goes to P4.

Well that is just not true. The T34/85 has better scatter stats and because of this gets much more DPS from it's main gun. I believe this negates any recieved acc. buffs from vet. Comparitively, it's also much better against 4 man squads and it gains more advantage from squads clumping up. Killing models is more important than DPS.

Evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr7h0txMUPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4koTutTHuHE

And last but not least, while if your panther is 1-2 hits from death against singular 34/85, you might want to actually move and micro it next time as each 34/85 shot have less then 50% to pen it, while it will always pen 34/85 while not having that much longer reload then 34, so you're talking either, horrible micro case or extremely bad RNG.

This is a straw man arguement. I've ran numerious samples on exactly this. The point of the testing is, that if the two tanks are able to attack each other, what is the comparible difference in performance in AT. You don't consider the difference in accuaracy as the panther has much greater scatter and the t34/85 is a smaller target. Overall the T34/85 may penetrate less but it hits it's the panther more often than the panther hits it. The panther's poor DPS against infantry, the lackluster DPS against AT, and high scatter (effects accuarcy) make it overpriced by any emperial metric when compared to the t34/85.

The choice to go panther over stugs or P4 is represented in it's loss of AI capabilities and therefore should have greater AT dps to account for the loss of AI utility.

I will conceed that the position that I'm taking does infer that the IS-2 has a serious cost issue aswell. It should, for it's cost, get a damage buff. It's 122mm kanone, although inaccurate, is a beast and any penetrating shots should be devesating. It should have high scatter, high damage and high penetration.

You're also completely ignoring designated role of the panther.
You're supposed to use it vs heavily armored units, which 34/85 is not, StuG excels vs meds and below, Panther excels vs heavies, if you're fighting opponent who spams meds, don't go panther, go StuG, unless you're poor on micro, then go for panther.

Whose definition of designated role? Yours? The panther is a Tank Hunter, for it's place in t4 and the cost of the unit, the performance should represent that. 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.

You also didn't answer my question about the opportunity cost of the panther to stugs and P4s.

And since I've been playing Coh2 casually since it's release (my adhd keeps me form playing seriously), I have been reading the forums since then and noticed that you have always had an anti-axis bias. I'll admit, I've played pretty much strictly as axis regardless of wether they're OP or UP, mostly beacuse I've gotten my fill of ww2 games from an american perspective. But your shameless 9000+ post of fanboying for allies with out compelling arguements to support your positions has to stop. It's incredibly destructive to the community and even to the game if any of your bias posts were ever taken into consideration for balance.

Here's my player card:156428225
Let's see yours.

This extensive discussion on the minutae of panther armour is redundant,what should be discussed is its DPS.

Then why are you finding a concept in stats 100 so difficult to comprehend?

Because I can't really see what are you trying to prove here?

Because I can't really see what are you trying to prove here?

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.

This extensive discussion on the minutae of panther armour is redundant,what should be discussed is its DPS.

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.