Why does the Firefly have to suck so much?

Just stats from cruzz spreadsheet. You can simply calculate it yourself and you will get the same results.

As an exmaple:

Firefly against P4: It takes 4 hits to destroy the P4 because 4x200=800 HP and P4 has 640. There is no reload on the first shot so it´s 3x reload at 8 seconds = 24 seconds.

Things are a bit more complicated since there also time to aim and wind up wind down and not only reload.

On the other hand you still do not calculate Tulips or the fact that FF once vetted can kill a medium with 3 shots instead of 4.

In addition FF is a T3 TD with less tech cost.

In the end of the day do UKF need a stronger TD? It does not seem so since they have great ATG, great hand held AT and many other AT assets.

It will still take the Firefly way more time to hit 3 shots on a medium tank than it takes any vet 3/5 TD to hit 4. As a matter of fact the Firefly has still 6 seconds reload at vet 3 while Jacksons, SU76, Stug and the JP4 can reload under 3 seconds. So do the maths please.

Alpha damage is arguably as important if not more important than raw DPS. It's not something you should forget to mention when you're doing a comparison.

Also Jacksons reloading under 3 seconds? You do know that rate of fire is more than just the reload? Jackson is about 5 seconds at vet 3. Jagdpanzer has around 3,5 seconds at vet 5, but has attrocious penetration. StuG has 50 range. SU-76 has 120 alpha damage.

The JP4 isn't bad, it's redundant.

You want a quick counter to enemy mediums? You get the OKW P4. It'll beat them and is your best anti-infantry medium. You want a tank-killer, you almost always spend the extra 45 FU on a Panther, which has AI capability and will never become outclassed by the deployment of enemy heavies.

The JP4's only really good against enemy TD spam, because it matches range with them and cloaks.

Being the only stock axis vehicle that can return fire with allied TDs is hardly what I would call redundant.
OKW has a TD for every role and piece point. Each fills a specific role very well and others decently. Redundant would be giving them a 2nd variant of the Panther insteadd of the the JP4.

On the topic at hand firefly can be hidden behind the some of the most durable units in the game. How wild one counter a Jackson level TD behind a churchill with 50 range TDs pray tell?
Balance isn't just 1 unit, it's the supporting composition as well.
Brits now have snares, and on a cheap and durable squad too making the FF more a threat than ever and allows you to better defend it than ever.

OKW has a TD for every role and piece point.

Where as the firefly is a TD for every role. Requiring one TD vs mediums and one VS heavies is not an advantage unless the specialist exceed, but the JP4 and the Panther just do OK in their roles.

Where as the firefly is a TD for every role. Requiring one TD vs mediums and one VS heavies is not an advantage unless the specialist exceed, but the JP4 and the Panther just do OK in their roles.

You don't NEED one of each. Generally you are going to try for a panther since it offers mostly the best blend of stats and can fight infantry if you need to, but you can adjust your build as needed. The panther will get munched on by allied TDs, but the JP4 can return fire. As far as specialists go I would say the the JP4 is the most cost effecient unit the axis have for shooting out to 60 range would you not?

You can look at it how you please really and the grass will always be greener on the other side. Axis with they could field a single purpose TD and brits with they had more DPS in a cheaper unit to deal with mediums. Can't win.

Keep in mind okw used to have a single AT unit in each tier, that's why they have SO many options. So they could still field fuel AT even if a truck got destroyed. Personally I'd like to return to something similar as teching med and losing a schwere leaves at options really lacking, and while slightly off topic of you are interested I could link a thread I made on the official forum where I tried to come up with a more flexible OKW teching that presents choice and still brings the tools they need.

+1 on this. JP4 has low pen values for it to be a turretless TD (it should be either cheaper

Nope if u need better pen values then buy panther. Low pen values means nothing on axis side when most alies tanks has paper armor.only is2 is exception. Jagpanzer is nearly op when vet and u want it cheaper nice try.

Nope if u need better pen values then buy panther. Low pen values means nothing on axis side when most alies tanks has paper armor.only is2 is exception. Jagpanzer is nearly op when vet and u want it cheaper nice try.

Only allied mediums have have low armor. Allies have a long list of durable vehicles with high armor values.

Only allied mediums have have low armor. Allies have a long list of durable vehicles with high armor values.

Comet ? Easy8 ? They suck.

Things are a bit more complicated since there also time to aim and wind up wind down and not only reload.

On the other hand you still do not calculate Tulips or the fact that FF once vetted can kill a medium with 3 shots instead of 4.

In addition FF is a T3 TD with less tech cost.

In the end of the day do UKF need a stronger TD? It does not seem so since they have great ATG, great hand held AT and many other AT assets.

Less tech cost...

If you run around with vanilla 4 man Tommies and let yourself get stomped by stg volks. Realistically as Brits you can't afford to be to sink at least a little fuel investment in side grades, 5man being mandatory most games.

Anyway not sure where the calls for serious buffs are coming from, most posts in this thread are calling for a small price decrease or stuff like a bit extra mobility.

Comet ? Easy8 ? They suck.

Maybe they suck maybe they do not but that does not make axis tanks having more armor.

Less tech cost...

If you run around with vanilla 4 man Tommies and let yourself get stomped by stg volks. Realistically as Brits you can't afford to be to sink at least a little fuel investment in side grades, 5man being mandatory most games.

That does not change the fact that FF is a T3 TD thus has less tech cost.

Anyway not sure where the calls for serious buffs are coming from, most posts in this thread are calling for a small price decrease or stuff like a bit extra mobility.

Imo allied TD are OP and that is why in most cases you see infatry blobs support by TDs, so I really see not reason to buff allied TDs more especially since the argument is basically FF is not as cost efficient as M36 or Su-85.

A Croc and FF is a very strong combination and I see no reason for it to become stronger.

A Croc and a FF is 385 fuel.

You can get a King Tiger, Flack HT/Puma/Luchs/Stuka and IR truck at that less than that fuel cost, of course it's going to be a strong combination.

The Firefly still has an awful damage output for its cost and that does matter - a lot.

Being able to burn a boat load of munitions every single engagemrnt to push back axis armour is not a useful expense.

Alpha damage means nothing whenn the tme to kill an enemy tank gives them a huge window to cause bleed, and thr sluggish reload and movement speed give tanks a large grace window with which to escape after they hit the 1-hit threshold.

At vet 3 it starts to really pay for itself, but the journey to get there is awful.

A Croc and a FF is 385 fuel.

You can get a King Tiger, Flack HT/Puma/Luchs/Stuka and IR truck at that less than that fuel cost, of course it's going to be a strong combination.

The Firefly still has an awful damage output for its cost and that does matter - a lot.

Being able to burn a boat load of munitions every single engagemrnt to push back axis armour is not a useful expense.

Alpha damage means nothing whenn the tme to kill an enemy tank gives them a huge window to cause bleed, and thr sluggish reload and movement speed give tanks a large grace window with which to escape after they hit the 1-hit threshold.

At vet 3 it starts to really pay for itself, but the journey to get there is awful.

Check your numbers on your fuel calculation they are simply wrong.

A firefly using Tulip can delete anything bellow a PzIV in around 10 secs so the claim it has "awful damage output" is simply misleading.

Once more the UKF do not really seem to have any trouble dealing with armor and thus there is no real reason to buff the FF.

Redesigning the unit to be more consistent (basically redesigning Tulips) might improve the game but that is another issue.

Firefly does 240 damage per shot and jacksons costs 400 mp

Firefly does 240 damage per shot and jacksons costs 400 mp

200.
240 is at vet3.

Check your numbers on your fuel calculation they are simply wrong.

A firefly using Tulip can delete anything bellow a PzIV in around 10 secs so the claim it has "awful damage output" is simply misleading.

Once more the UKF do not really seem to have any trouble dealing with armor and thus there is no real reason to buff the FF.

Redesigning the unit to be more consistent (basically redesigning Tulips) might improve the game but that is another issue.

Croc is 230, FF is 155, combined total 385.

KT is 260. IRHT is 5. That's 265 between them. The most expensive of the alternative third vehicles I listed is the stuka at 100, bringing the bet cost to at most 365 - 20 under the cost of a Croc and Firefly.

The tulips are absolutely not a standard vehicle calculation and please stop acting like A) thet they always hit and B) that there isn't a minimum of 150 mu invested into a potentially wasted ability in order to get there.

Tips aren't free. Tulips don't track or autofire. They're a huge munution sink that sort of comoensates for the FF being hideously cost inefficient. I would much rather spend the MU on an IR pathfinder barrage for more damage and crits than have to buy a 155 fuel lackluster TD for the generous ability to then also spend hundreds of MU when a JgPz or Jackson don't need to spend a dime.

Comet ? Easy8 ? They suck.

It's not like Churchills or pershings are meta or anything

Croc is 230, FF is 155, combined total 385.

KT is 260. IRHT is 5. That's 265 between them. The most expensive of the alternative third vehicles I listed is the stuka at 100, bringing the bet cost to at most 365 - 20 under the cost of a Croc and Firefly.

The tulips are absolutely not a standard vehicle calculation and please stop acting like A) thet they always hit and B) that there isn't a minimum of 150 mu invested into a potentially wasted ability in order to get there.

Tips aren't free. Tulips don't track or autofire. They're a huge munution sink that sort of comoensates for the FF being hideously cost inefficient. I would much rather spend the MU on an IR pathfinder barrage for more damage and crits than have to buy a 155 fuel lackluster TD for the generous ability to then also spend hundreds of MU when a JgPz or Jackson don't need to spend a dime.

KT isn't 260 fuel, your calculations are still wrong.

And last time I checked three OKW tiers cost more than 2 UKF tiers.

KT is 260.

King Tiger costs 280 fuel. And 235 fuel to unlock.

Low pen values means nothing on axis side when most alies tanks has paper armor.only is2 is exception.

Comet ? Easy8 ? They suck.

The Jagdpanzer IV has 200/185/170 pen.

Comet has 290 armor.
Churchill has 240 armor.
Churchill AVRE has 290 armor.
Churchill Croc has 290 armor.
KV-2 has 300 armor.
KV-1 has 270 armor.
KV-8 has 260 armor.
ISU-152 has 340 armor.
Pershing has 300 armor.

The IS-2 is not the only Allied tank with high armor.

The Jagdpanzer IV has 200/185/170 pen.

Comet has 290 armor.
Churchill has 240 armor.
Churchill AVRE has 290 armor.
Churchill Croc has 290 armor.
KV-2 has 300 armor.
KV-1 has 270 armor.
KV-8 has 260 armor.
ISU-152 has 340 armor.
Pershing has 300 armor.

The IS-2 is not the only Allied tank with high armor.

And JP4 is not the unit intended to engage high armored units. Its why Panther exists.
What's your point?

The main benefit of the firefly is that you can use it to prop up your churchill due to the comet being absolute shit.