Comet

They should just delete British, US, and Soviet factions.
Then everyone would play Germany, and people would finally stop whining about balance.
Also German factions could be buffed +100000% and it'd still be balanced.

Imagine their joy at all allied factions being deleted.
100% Pure Germany victory, no matter what side wins. Glorious.

lmao

Why pay the same price? for a mediocre unit.

Its fair to compare the two as they share a similar cost and hit the field in the same time meaning engagements are bound to happen.

IMO the problem is the comet doesn't have anything special about it to make it 'asymmetrical' or require some way of beating an equally priced panther. Its not closing the distance on a panther nor does flanking as a blitz can happen or you are ez pz snared. The ranges are 45 and 50 with panther having slight edge so kiting comets is easier. Panther gun has higher pen ratio to the comet 74~% vs comet to panther 51~% making the engagement more lopsided in the AT department.

This would be fair if the Comet made up for its lack in AT department with better AI capability or had a lower price. As it stands now however. its just not a fair resource investment.

The devil is in the details. lumping the current panther into the same group as the pure TD is a gross simplification at best, and a complete disregard for reality at worst.

It's a tank hunter.

It's a tank hunter.

a label is useless without a definition behind it.

the jp4, su85, jackson, and Firefly are all useless against infantry. They lack the maneuverability to crush infantry (there's a reason why the m10's rotation rate got nerfed), their gun lack AOE, and lack mg ( firefly have one weak coaxial).

The old wehr panther would have been a tank hunter/destroyer as its mg before their mg was buffed.

And the mgs are important. Both the panzer 4 and t34 have mgs to supplement their main gun.

The comet (and cromwell)'s main gun had probably the best scatter in the game, but no longer. It makes a big difference in how well they kill infantry.

and really if the gun AOE is that important, nerf the panther range to 45 and give it the same aoe as the 76mm sherman.

Why pay the same price? for a mediocre unit.

Like the Panther you mean? which is not cost efficient compared to the Stug.

Its fair to compare the two as they share a similar cost and hit the field in the same time meaning engagements are bound to happen.

Using the same criteria one can compare the Ostwind and the T-34/76. One will find the Ostwind lucking.

IMO the problem is the comet doesn't have anything special about it to make it 'asymmetrical' or require some way of beating an equally priced panther. Its not closing the distance on a panther nor does flanking as a blitz can happen or you are ez pz snared. The ranges are 45 and 50 with panther having slight edge so kiting comets is easier. Panther gun has higher pen ratio to the comet 74~% vs comet to panther 51~% making the engagement more lopsided in the AT department.

Kitting Comet is easy?
Comet has an edge over the Panther is most things needed to for kiting.
Comet has more vision, more speed and better chance of hitting the Panther. Panther has over Comet 5 range which without vision is useless.

This would be fair if the Comet made up for its lack in AT department with better AI capability or had a lower price. As it stands now however. its just not a fair resource investment.

Better AI to deal with what? It can already kite AT SP, At ST and AT PG and is one of the MBT that can deal with ATG easily.

Do you actually want to turn it into a Croc or Pershing?

Like the Panther you mean? which is not cost efficient compared to the Stug.


Using the same criteria one can compare the Ostwind and the T-34/76. One will find the Ostwind lucking.


Kitting Comet is easy?
Comet has an edge over the Panther is most things needed to for kiting.
Comet has more vision, more speed and better chance of hitting the Panther. Panther has over Comet 5 range which without vision is useless.


Better AI to deal with what? It can already kite AT SP, At ST and AT PG and is one of the MBT that can deal with ATG easily.

Do you actually want to turn it into a Croc or Pershing?

Do you ever tire of over-exaggerating everyone's argument and using oversimplification and unfair comparisons? Its almost like you work at Buzzfeed at this point.

First your sturmpio argument is dumb as they are a support AT are -supposed- to be a defensive AT along with others such as PIATs -with bazookas being the exception-. AT guns are not an easy target without WP and the only AT that might be an issue is reketen but that gets cloak, good ROF, and retreat. Pak is also decent as long as you spot for it with 60 range.

Implying that AT guns should spot for themselves and a lack of trying to argue for a combined arms or a rock paper scissors balance outcome is depressing and only dilutes what makes coh 'good'. All of your "panther without vision is useless" is dumb as closing in with the comet means that 45 range is still firing at max range vs the panthers 50. Therefore the panther already has an edge on accuracy and pen as the fall off for pen and range calc for hit isn't as high due to closer distance for engagement.

Another dumb thing you are are undermining the armor value of the panther STILL after I pointed it our as the comet might get more rounds off, only a half of the fired shells might pen vs the panthers connected 75%.


My suggestion called for the comet to be better at one thing rather than being mediocre at both since we should have to choose between Churchill or Comet. Both should bring something to the field. Maybe we make the comet better V tanks with better pen but we could keep its range. Make Churchill good Vs inf. with better ROF or AOE?

Why pay the same price? for a mediocre unit.

Its fair to compare the two as they share a similar cost and hit the field in the same time meaning engagements are bound to happen.

IMO the problem is the comet doesn't have anything special about it to make it 'asymmetrical' or require some way of beating an equally priced panther. Its not closing the distance on a panther nor does flanking as a blitz can happen or you are ez pz snared. The ranges are 45 and 50 with panther having slight edge so kiting comets is easier. Panther gun has higher pen ratio to the comet 74~% vs comet to panther 51~% making the engagement more lopsided in the AT department.

This would be fair if the Comet made up for its lack in AT department with better AI capability or had a lower price. As it stands now however. its just not a fair resource investment.

EXACTLY

a label is useless without a definition behind it.

the jp4, su85, jackson, and Firefly are all useless against infantry. They lack the maneuverability to crush infantry (there's a reason why the m10's rotation rate got nerfed), their gun lack AOE, and lack mg ( firefly have one weak coaxial).

The old wehr panther would have been a tank hunter/destroyer as its mg before their mg was buffed.

And the mgs are important. Both the panzer 4 and t34 have mgs to supplement their main gun.

The comet (and cromwell)'s main gun had probably the best scatter in the game, but no longer. It makes a big difference in how well they kill infantry.

It's a tank hunter. It's well armored and mobile, and designed to hardcounter tanks.

You way overstate the usefulness of the machine guns. Get in light cover and the dps is cut in half. If it's hurting you too much retreat and get that sweet -60% accuracy. If you get in cover versus a comet you just increase the chances of getting wiped. That's the thing about the AI difference, you will never ever wipe something with the panther unless the opponent is braindead. The comet will rng wipe squads all the time, like any other AI tank it forces opponents to leave cover or die. Then you have the white phosphorous to counter AT guns and set up for more wipes, and the grenades. Comet is obviously a generalist tank. It is good at both AI and AT. The tank hunter happens to be better at AT, that's not a balance problem.

This would be fair if the Comet made up for its lack in AT department with better AI capability or had a lower price. As it stands now however. Its just not a fair resource investment.

stug pen 185 4 sec reload
comet pen 190 6 sec reload
wow we should really buff the stug right now is the worst TD in the game such lackluster AT capability
give comet a 20% scatter bonus at vet 2 and maybe a 15% reload at vet 3 and close it

First your sturmpio argument is dumb as they are a support AT are -supposed- to be a defensive AT along with others such as PIATs -with bazookas being the exception-. AT guns are not an easy target without WP and the only AT that might be an issue is reketen but that gets cloak, good ROF, and retreat. Pak is also decent as long as you spot for it with 60 range.

Implying that AT guns should spot for themselves and a lack of trying to argue for a combined arms or a rock paper scissors balance outcome is depressing and only dilutes what makes coh 'good'.

The Comet can deal with enemy ATG better than the average medium/premium medium even without WP.

Since it has access from Vet 0 to:
45 SR, "warspeed", smoke and grenades it can easily use smoke to close-in and grenade the ATGs.

Think we agree that unless Axis AT infantry are cloaked in ambush or the Comet overextend the really are not very threatening to it.

So once more I do not see why Comet need more AI since it can deal better than average with most soft targets.

All of your "panther without vision is useless" is dumb as closing in with the comet means that 45 range is still firing at max range vs the panthers 50. Therefore the panther already has an edge on accuracy and pen as the fall off for pen and range calc for hit isn't as high due to closer distance for engagement.

You are simply wrong:
The chance of Comet scoring a "natural" hit on a Panther at range 45 is 79.2%
The chance of Panther scoring a "natural" hit on a Comet at range 45 is 72.6%


The chance of Comet scoring a "natural" hit on a Panther while moving at range 45 is 39.6%
The chance of Panther scoring a "natural" hit on a Comet while moving at range 45 is 36.3%
(You simply did not factor in the accuracy bonus of the commander and the difference in target sizes)


Panther is a unit that is not in a good spot (and generally Ostheer T4). There is little point in comparing the Comet with a unit the needs tweaking.

In addition imo one has to first fix/give a role to the Panther and then move to Comet.

Show Spoiler

Last time I used a Comet I just cleared ATGs by throwing grenades. No main gun needed.

Alright then, let me enrich this wonderful thread with hard numbers
(if the site is up to date by now for the concerned units):

some of those number doesn't look right.

wehr panther:

cool down: 0
window down: 1
fire aim time: .125
reload: 5.6 - 5.2 (5.4)

total: 6.525

comet:

cool down: 0
reload: 6.4 - 5.9 (6.15)
wind down: 0
fire aim time: .125
total: 6.275

6.275/ 6.525 = .961

However, Comet AOE is actually 2.5. 2.5-1.5 from the center deal 20% damage (32)

the listed penetration is for their mid range. 20 for the comet and 25 for the panther. At 20 meter, the penetration on the panther is 244. Conversely, comet penetration at 25 meter is 185.

It's a tank hunter. It's well armored and mobile, and designed to hardcounter tanks.

You way overstate the usefulness of the machine guns. Get in light cover and the dps is cut in half. If it's hurting you too much retreat and get that sweet -60% accuracy. If you get in cover versus a comet you just increase the chances of getting wiped. That's the thing about the AI difference, you will never ever wipe something with the panther unless the opponent is braindead. The comet will rng wipe squads all the time, like any other AI tank it forces opponents to leave cover or die. Then you have the white phosphorous to counter AT guns and set up for more wipes, and the grenades. Comet is obviously a generalist tank. It is good at both AI and AT. The tank hunter happens to be better at AT, that's not a balance problem.

the fact the panther have effective mg still give them a leg up on the pure td that's basically useless against infantry.

Comet sacrifice AT power for AI power in comparison to the panther. That is a clear intention. The question is the trade in value.

Comet sacrifice AT power for AI power in comparison to the panther. That is a clear intention. The question is the trade in value.

The comet isn't sacrificing anything. It's still got about the same penetration as a Stug, more than any other medium tank in the game. The Panther is a tank hunter, it's not even in the same league as the comet. It's like complaining that the puma beats the t-70. The Panther is intended to counter it. The comet already rapes any other tank, you don't need to buff the AT.

The comet isn't sacrificing anything. It's still got about the same penetration as a Stug, more than any other medium tank in the game. The Panther is a tank hunter, it's not even in the same league as the comet. It's like complaining that the puma beats the t-70. The Panther is intended to counter it. The comet already rapes any other tank, you don't need to buff the AT.

Puma vs stuart/AEC is actually more suitable comparison. Maybe AEC less since all of its nerfs, but it still isn't being picked in response to armor, but to harass infantry.

But yes, I don't think Comet needs more at the time.

rollback comet and Churchill nerfs and limit to 1.

rollback comet and Churchill nerfs and limit to 1.

This would make sense and I would think could be easily added in with the way brits tech "t4"

I was also in favour of limiting the church/comet to 1 in favour of making them really good. Similiarily with emplacments. Spam is the death of balance.

The comet isn't sacrificing anything. It's still got about the same penetration as a Stug, more than any other medium tank in the game. The Panther is a tank hunter, it's not even in the same league as the comet. It's like complaining that the puma beats the t-70. The Panther is intended to counter it. The comet already rapes any other tank, you don't need to buff the AT.

it is appropriate that you used the example of t-70 vs puma, because it highlight one of the fundamental flaw of your argument: cost. (the US stuart is also cheaper than both. AEC is cheaper than the okw for sure.)

the t-70 is cheaper than both the wehr puma and the okw puma, unlike the Comet which is more expensive than either the wehr panther or the OKW panther.

if you are sincere with your comparison of t-70 vs puma, then perhaps the comet should be cheaper than the panther?

it is appropriate that you used the example of t-70 vs puma, because it highlight one of the fundamental flaw of your argument: cost. (the US stuart is also cheaper than both. AEC is cheaper than the okw for sure.)

the t-70 is cheaper than both the wehr puma and the okw puma, unlike the Comet which is more expensive than either the wehr panther or the OKW panther.

if you are sincere with your comparison of t-70 vs puma, then perhaps the comet should be cheaper than the panther?

I was comparing their roles, not their performance.

The comet has better performance than the Panther when you consider all the factors, not just straight AT performance. Cost is justified.