Brit tank scatter

I don't doubt this test, but just saying 2 tests isn't enough to go to the conclusion of "NEEDZ BUFF NAOW". Also why mention "tanks set to AT" when the only tank which can change its shell is the sherman, which is missing from here?

If you done 100 tests i bet they would be similar as it was only the mgs from the tank firing and not rng from the main canon.

Ah, that would make sense on what he said, but why he did it I do not know.... He was shooting conscripts not armor.

Because people were querying the dps of the mgs so i didnt want the canon firing. Maybe read the thread and you would understand where i was coming from.

If you done 100 tests i bet they would be similar as it was only the mgs from the tank firing and not rng from the main canon.

Ohhhh I didn't know you weren't using the main cannon. Now prioritize vehicles makes sense.

Because people were querying the dps of the mgs so i didnt want the canon firing. Maybe read the thread and you would understand where i was coming from.

The thread is titled "brit tank scatter" not "MG DPS". Clarity on your end would have helped instead of assumptions.

Ohhhh I didn't know you weren't using the main cannon. Now prioritize vehicles makes sense.



The thread is titled "brit tank scatter" not "MG DPS". Clarity on your end would have helped instead of assumptions.

Well everyone else seemed to understand it just fine but im not getting in to slagging match with you lets leave it.

The thread is titled "brit tank scatter" not "MG DPS". Clarity on your end would have helped instead of assumptions.

Following the conversation helps a lot. As an alternative to the piss poor scatter and general RNG of tank AI MG buffs were suggested.

About steady MG damage: If light cover is the problem, because that reduce scaling, you could always make it so that it ignores it.

No one sane stays bunch up in cover to reduce MG damage because been hit by the main gun is more dangerous.

I've already said it, but for CoH3, player generated light cover through explosives, should not give the same properties as other yellow cover.

About steady MG damage: If light cover is the problem, because that reduce scaling, you could always make it so that it ignores it.

No one sane stays bunch up in cover to reduce MG damage because been hit by the main gun is more dangerous.

I've already said it, but for CoH3, player generated light cover through explosives, should not give the same properties as other yellow cover.

To an extent. Things like a b4 howitzer should provide great cover... Mostly so it would then serve SOME purpose...

About steady MG damage: If light cover is the problem, because that reduce scaling, you could always make it so that it ignores it.

No one sane stays bunch up in cover to reduce MG damage because been hit by the main gun is more dangerous.

I've already said it, but for CoH3, player generated light cover through explosives, should not give the same properties as other yellow cover.

The real argument is whether the cromwell should get a buff to its main gun or a buff to its mg.

merely changing the cromwell mg performance against cover doesn't make sense. None of the other tank mg have such characteristic. The pz4 and t34 mg are potent enough without needing this special rule. Both the pz4 and t34 certainly doesn't need this kind of buff.

the british as a whole have the worse coaxial and hull mg on their tanks. This is simple facts if you consider relic's DPS calculator to be the source of truth.

Mmmm. According to this, you have to invest 50 MU on a MG for your P4 to have the same DPS of a T34/76, (which is already 35 FU cheaper than the P4)... This does not sounds very balanced at all by Relic.

P4s also got more armor, is more accurate(scatter) and got better penetration.
P4 actually hits with main gun and T34 is not that effective in armor engagements unless massed.

That's why T34 got MG buff, to be effective at something.

It does prove my point, Cromwell is still at the bottom of the pile in AI despite costing about same as Sherman.

Handing picking and comparing specific stats does not help. Compared to Sherman Cromwell is allot more mobile.

Nothing in that all of text seems to address or even attempt to justify why Cromwell AI is worse than any other tank despite costing more. Nerfed commander upgrade doesn't add the DPS of MG42 or 50.cal and HE shells.

Again the pintle mg cost Munition making these vehicle more expensive than Cromwell. Why are you complaining about the Cromwell having worse AI than the PzIV and not about the PzIV having to spend munition to get the same AI as the cheaper T-34/76?

Once more my, point was not that Cromwell may or may not need a buff but that the buff you suggested is simply too high. And once more, if Cromwell in your opinion should have similar DPS with its 2 hmg as the PzIV has with 3 hmg while firing at smaller size squads than the pintle mgs should come free.

Now tell me if T-34/76 is so OP and cheap for the cost then why do we hardly see them built compared to KV or 85's?

T-35/85 are superior while using the exact some OP mgs, making them one of the most cost efficient medium tanks.

KV-1 where simply over-buffed having low repair time and very high rear armor.

You're literally the only person I've ever seen argue they are OP, the fact is they were useless before the MG buff.

Making Cromwell and comet worth their cost is not producing "crutches" any more than the panther MG buff or t-34 mg buff turned it into a "crutch" by your theory crafting.

I did not claim T-34/76 are OP I claimed their mg are. T-34/76 are very cost effective units, especially if you compare them with Ostwinds for about the same price.

And once more what I said is that your suggestion of buffing Cromwell's mg to " at least on par with t-34/76" is simply too high.

Handing picking and comparing specific stats does not help. Compared to Sherman Cromwell is allot more mobile.


Again the pintle mg cost Munition making these vehicle more expensive than Cromwell. Why are you complaining about the Cromwell having worse AI than the PzIV and not about the PzIV having to spend munition to get the same AI as the cheaper T-34/76?

Once more my, point was not that Cromwell may or may not need a buff but that the buff you suggested is simply too high. And once more, if Cromwell in your opinion should have similar DPS with its 2 hmg as the PzIV has with 3 hmg while firing at smaller size squads than the pintle mgs should come free.


T-35/85 are superior while using the exact some OP mgs, making them one of the most cost efficient medium tanks.

KV-1 where simply over-buffed having low repair time and very high rear armor.


I did not claim T-34/76 are OP I claimed their mg are. T-34/76 are very cost effective units, especially if you compare them with Ostwinds for about the same price.

And once more what I said is that your suggestion of buffing Cromwell's mg to " at least on par with t-34/76" is simply too high.

Yes it does prove my point, every time you defend the current numbers you point out how useless and bottom of the pile Cromwell MG's are! It's not rocket science!

I see you've ignored the fact the T-34/76 DPS in insistent on the hull gun being able to fire too. MG42 might cost muni but its upgrade cost is cheap as chips lategame and gives you 360 coverage while you flank and chase down units for wipes.

This is the reason it was buffed so high, both guns aren't as mobile as dshk/MG42/50cal Turret gunners.

All the Cromwell mg buff would be doing would be putting it on par with PIV and t-34/76 in as the test earlier ITT showed. This is not producing a "crutch", P4 will still have it's armour advantage and have AI better than 76 and although same maingun scatter as Cromwell much better armour. Put Cromwell back to 120f and it would be fixed, rather than a 110 rng cannon that can currently flank paks or chase down units and spend 20 odd seconds not hitting anything while jolly Wehr sniper jogs to base.

Buffed mg's and more reliable ai dps would fix this, revert the fuel change. Not sure why you think this would be so OP but I expect another reply pointing out how awesome Cromwell mobility or tank commander is so no changes to the unit needed.

Yes it does prove my point, every time you defend the current numbers you point out how useless and bottom of the pile Cromwell MG's are! It's not rocket science!

I see you've ignored the fact the T-34/76 DPS in insistent on the hull gun being able to fire too. MG42 might cost muni but its upgrade cost is cheap as chips lategame and gives you 360 coverage while you flank and chase down units for wipes.

This is the reason it was buffed so high, both guns aren't as mobile as dshk/MG42/50cal Turret gunners.

All the Cromwell mg buff would be doing would be putting it on par with PIV and t-34/76 in as the test earlier ITT showed. This is not producing a "crutch", P4 will still have it's armour advantage.

The fact remain coaxial and hull of the Cromwell are about average. If that in your opinion is problem you should be asking for a Pintle mg upgrade for the Cromwell to become available.

The test proves very little do. Do the same 10 with a Cromwell vs a grenadier and a PzIV (without pintle) vs a Tommie. You will probably find out that the time to kill are about the same.

What you are asking is that:
Cromwell should have the same DPS as an up-gunned PzIV while still be able to upgrade with commander gaining sight 45 and better accuracy and still be cheaper than the PzIV. And you base your argument on the fact the Cromwell is more expensive than T-34, while Cromwell is cheaper than PzIV so your argument does not really make any sense.

The test proves very little do. Do the same 10 with a Cromwell vs a grenadier and a PzIV (without pintle) vs a Tommie. You will probably find out that the time to kill are about the same.

What you are asking is that:
Cromwell should have the same DPS as an up-gunned PzIV while still be able to upgrade with commander gaining sight 45 and better accuracy while still being cheaper than the PzIV. And you base your argument on the fact the Cromwell is more expensive than T-34, well Cromwell is cheaper than PzIV so it does not really make any sense.

Again you're ignoring the fact the P4 mg is a pintle and can do more DPS in most engagements than a hull mg that can only fire forwards.

Again you're ignoring the P4 still will keep it's superior armour allowing it to bully infantry.

I listed the pros and cons, but go ahead and post the Cromwell mg buff required to even put it on par with the 76 and prove my point for me again

Again you're ignoring the fact the P4 mg is a pintle and can do more DPS in most engagements than a hull mg that can only fire forwards.

Again you're ignoring the P4 still will keep it's superior armour allowing it to bully infantry.

I listed the pros and cons, but go ahead and post the Cromwell mg buff required to even put it on par with the 76 and prove my point for me again

And you are ignoring that PzIV is more expensive, less mobile, has less sight, has less penetration (if I remember correctly)...

The Cromwell can easily stand against a PzIV where it can use its superior mobility and sight to flank a PzIV or break the engagement if things do not go its way.

Vs infantry Cromwell can again use the same advantages to kite Ostheer infantry easier.

All that while Cromwell still being cheaper than the PzIV and UKF AT infantry being more cost efficient.

My point is that, you chose a single stat and compare it across different factions and units and thus your conclusion are simply wrong.

Using your logic I would come to the conclusion that the PzIV should also have its hull/coaxial mg buffed to T-34 level since it much more expensive than the T-34 or have AP rounds since the cheaper Sherman has them along with another number of perk like stock smoke and disembarking crew. Balancing simply does not work that way.

The fact remains that T-34 have some of the best (if not the best hull and coaxial mgs) and the fact that other tanks can upgrade with pintle does not justify making tanks that can not (upgrade to pintle, costing MU) get the same DPS as T-34. If that was the case you should be asking for OKW doctrinal commander upgrade to also buff the Tanks mg to T-34s levels, provide sight +10 and increase accuracy.

And you are ignoring that PzIV is more expensive, less mobile, has less sight, has less penetration (if I remember correctly)...

The Cromwell can easily stand against a PzIV where it can use its superior mobility and sight to flank a PzIV or break the engagement if things do not go its way.

Vs infantry Cromwell can again use the same advantages to kite Ostheer infantry easier.

All that while Cromwell still being cheaper than the PzIV and UKF AT infantry being more cost efficient.

My point is that, you chose a single stat and compare it across different factions and units and thus your conclusion are simply wrong.

Using your logic I would come to the conclusion that the PzIV should also have its hull/coaxial mg buffed to T-34 level since it much more expensive than the T-34 or have AP rounds since the cheaper Sherman has them along with another number of perk like stock smoke and disembarking crew. Balancing simply does not work that way.

The fact remains that T-34 have some of the best (if not the best hull and coaxial mgs) and the fact that other tanks can upgrade with pintle does not justify making tanks that can not (upgrade to pintle, costing MU) get the same DPS as T-34. If that was the case you should be asking for OKW doctrinal commander upgrade to also buff the Tanks mg to T-34s levels, provide sight +10 and increase accuracy.

I literally listed those things in my posts friend, at least you can admit you ignored my points though. Btw wehr pintles can also shoot down recon planes, I'll pick apart your argument with a detailed response tonight.

Did you know the Sherman has better AI than the okw p4 and is CHEAPER? Gosh horror, must be op

I literally listed those things in my posts friend, at least you can admit you ignored my points though. Btw wehr pintles can also shoot down recon planes, I'll pick apart your argument with a detailed response tonight.

Did you know the Sherman has better AI than the okw p4 and is CHEAPER? Gosh horror, must be op

(Sherman also has better penetration, stock smoke and a crew than can disembark.)

On the other hand, you are the one that has based your suggestion on cost difference cherry picking the only OP stat T-34s have, not me.

I also seems to me that you are taking a balance issue too personally, this a forum for people to give their opinion. "Picking apart" others people arguments should not be ones priority.

The game is probably in stage where in most cases small to medium changes are need no more over-buffs and over-nerfs. A x200% (plus) buff as you propose is simply way too much.

(Sherman also has better penetration, stock smoke and a crew than can disembark.)

On the other hand, you are the one that has based your suggestion on cost difference cherry picking the only OP stat T-34s have, not me.

I also seems to me that you are taking a balance issue too personally, this a forum for people to give their opinion. "Picking apart" others people arguments should not be ones priority.

The game is probably in stage where in most cases small to medium changes are need no more over-buffs and over-nerfs. A x200% (plus) buff as you propose is simply way too much.

we are not discussing AT here or pen but AI, raving over 200% buff us pointless unless you can judge that stats they are based from, and the base stats are already as poor as old t-34/76 stats.

Buffed Cromwell would seem to do same DPS level as PIV if all guns are facing, but with a hull gun having half your DPS the P4 and Sherman are always going to be better here.

Mobility and rotation was actually nerfed a while back on the Cromwell, it was given fast turret rotation as a counterbalance to stop crushing.

UK AT infantry? Lol you mean Tommy or sapper piats I presume? Because AT Tommies are all but extinct now they and the doctrine have been hit hard with nerfs. Piats are straight up inferior to shreks when it comes to mediums. No argument here their accuracy sucks just as bad and you have no snares to back em up so it's very very easy for P4's to push them around while mg's get to work.

I compare Cromwell to t-34/76 because a mg buff is what it needs, current t-34 is not op and nore would a Cromwell be with better MG. 120 fuel would just make it a slightly premium t-34/76 but with exactly same weaknesses. You just wouldn't be able to walk through its mg fire anymore without taking losses.

I may remind you again t-34/85 and Sherman still exist, both would still be better tanks than a Cromwell with buffed mg's.

we are not discussing AT here or pen but AI, raving over 200% buff us pointless unless you can judge that stats they are based from, and the base stats are already as poor as old t-34/76 stats.

And that is cherry picking. One can not safely compare a single stat and come to conclusion that it needs a major buff in that stat.

Buffed Cromwell would seem to do same DPS level as PIV if all guns are facing, but with a hull gun having half your DPS the P4 and Sherman are always going to be better here.

Mobility and rotation was actually nerfed a while back on the Cromwell, it was given fast turret rotation as a counterbalance to stop crushing.

And the PzIV with pintle would still be more expensive both in Fuel and MU.

The nerfs to mobility where completely justified (to prevent crushing) and actually irrelevant since the Cromwell remain far more mobile than PzIV.

In addition even if Crom and PzIV had the exact same mgs, Cromwell's mgs would be perform better since they would be firing on weaker targets.

UK AT infantry? Lol you mean Tommy or sapper piats I presume? Because AT Tommies are all but extinct now they and the doctrine have been hit hard with nerfs. Piats are straight up inferior to shreks when it comes to mediums. No argument here their accuracy sucks just as bad and you have no snares to back em up so it's very very easy for P4's to push them around while mg's get to work.

If you are losing your Cromwells with its 45 sight and superior mobility to Shreck PGs you are probably doing something wrong.

I compare Cromwell to t-34/76 because a mg buff is what it needs, current t-34 is not op and nore would a Cromwell be with better MG. 120 fuel would just make it a slightly premium t-34/76 but with exactly same weaknesses. You just wouldn't be able to walk through its mg fire anymore without taking losses.

You are not comparing Cromwell to T-34, you comparing a single stat and especially the one T-34 has that over-performs.

A "slightly premium t-34/76" make little sense as an argument when you talk across factions. It is same argument that was used when Penals, USF mortars and VG's ST44s where introduced with disastrous results.

Also check your stats Cromwell is 110 fuel not 120.

I may remind you again t-34/85 and Sherman still exist, both would still be better tanks than a Cromwell with buffed mg's.

Once more T-34/85 is doctrinal, already uses the exact same mgs, is more expansive and is arguably one of best medium tanks.

Sherman is far less mobile than Cromwell and in faction that does not have stock access to Churchill and Comets.

I am not sure why you keep bringing more things into the debate. The facts are simple, you are suggesting a massive buff to the DPS of the MGs that goes up to nearly x2.5 times more. Solutions like that usually end up creating more problems than they solve.

I just did a test in cheatmod. 2 times per tank against cons in neutral cover. The tanks were set to AT.

T34/76

24 secs
31 secs

P4 no mg upgrade

48 secs
52 secs

P4 with mg upgrade

26 secs
29 secs

Cromwell

1 min 12 secs
1 min 2 secs

Just done a test against grens with the exact same setup as before.

T34/76

24 secs
24 secs

P4 no mg upgrade

42 secs
35 secs

P4 with mg upgrade

20 secs
17 secs

Cromwell

57 secs
1 min 7 secs

If anyone does not believe the results then try it yourselfs.

Seems as we are discussing Brit Tanks poor anti-inf, I took the liberty of comparing the Comet's AI performance against the OKW/OST Panther.

Experiment Setup:
Test was performed against a single volks squad (they have middle ground squad size and RA), stationed in neutral cover at approximately mid range. Distance between tank and volks was keep constant between each test run. Tank always started the test already directly facing the squad. The different possible tank configurations where tested, starting with hull MG only (tanks set to AT priority only).

Stated values are the following, given in seconds:
min | mean | max | standard deviation

Comet, hull MG only, number of measurements: 5
64 | 73 | 82 | 6.5

Panther, hull MG only, number of measurements: 6
45 | 48 | 50 | 1.8

Comet, normal attack, with tank commander upgrade, number of measurements: 8
26 | 34 | 42 | 5.7

Panther, normal attack, no pintle MG, number of measurements: 4
30 | 32 | 34 | 2.1

Panther, normal attack, with pintle MG, number of measurements: 4
15 | 20 | 24 | 3.9

Observations:
- The coaxial MG does not fire when both tanks are set to AT priority , likely because the main gun is not aiming at any of the squad members.
- All tank guns will target the closest squad model and focus on a single model at a time.
- Comets main gun was able to hit models more often than the panther but its was still the MG's that do the vast majority of the damage. The main cannon often hit badly damaged models, due to all guns targets the same model, results in overkill.

Comments:
The Comet intended role was that it was supposed to have decent all round abilities and be decent against infantry, while the Panther is good against other tanks but weak against inf. Tests show that Panther, even without its pintle MG upgrade, is better against inf. With the pintle MG its flat out better.

The Comet is a comically bad tank, but the fact is worst than Panther in every way while still being more expensive and having worthless vet is just insult to injury. The Comet does get the smoke/WP shell and tracking over the Panther but the usefulness is debatable.