So are they really nerfing the Churchill Tank?

And here we agree. The panther is not but is should be a hard counter to stuff like churchill (with support of course). BTW the whole combined arms are not the answer. Chrchill simply is OP. Brits have too easy life with this unit. I can't believe how ppl can even suggest churchill is too weak. Remember the game is about pushing you off the VPs. Axis can't be constantly moving away from churchills and fireflies kiting them.

Solution options:
1. Give panthers some munition paid tungsten rounds;
2. Give some axis units satchels to deal some decent damage when chrchill just overextends;
3. Increase the munition cost of those OP abilities such as grenades and smoke repairs. It should be emergency repairs not making sappers do other jobs instead of repairs (lots of players combine both sappers and smoke and repair them too fast).

Panthers ARE ahard counter to Churchills. Panthers pen with 92% change while only being penned with 44% (and at range 40 they'd pen close to 100%). If every Churchill shot hits, a Churchill still needs 15 shots while the Panther needs only 10 shots on average (both pen corrected). Panthers are just not the most cost effective unit to use, StuGs are better for that purpose.

Other points:
1. Why? They fare well against all Allied heavies except maybe the IS-2. There's no need for an "Panther will always pen with 100%"-button. Also, since you mention doctrinal abilities in point 3: Panther already has access to HEAT rounds.
2. Axis have very cost efficient TDs for the Churchill. Faust it and you can shoot at it for almost an eternity
3. Grenade cost is absolutely standard and has short range. Smoke repairs is fairly priced. Brit players send additional sappers to a heavily damaged Churchill since the smoke repair only repairs half of the Churchill's health.

Oh, but it is most certainly a hard counter against churchill.
Its simply not efficient hardcounter since churchill doesn't require reliably penetration every 6 seconds, but volume of fire, which panthers will never be able to deliver, unless its 4v4 and you have multiple on your side, because you know, churchills role is to SOAK damage.

then it’s a soft counter or a counter at most, an hard counter is a mortar to an mg

Panthers ARE ahard counter to Churchills. Panthers pen with 92% change while only being penned with 44% (and at range 40 they'd pen close to 100%). If every Churchill shot hits, a Churchill still needs 15 shots while the Panther needs only 10 shots on average (both pen corrected). Panthers are just not the most cost effective unit to use, StuGs are better for that purpose.

Other points:
1. Why? They fare well against all Allied heavies except maybe the IS-2. There's no need for an "Panther will always pen with 100%"-button. Also, since you mention doctrinal abilities in point 3: Panther already has access to HEAT rounds.
2. Axis have very cost efficient TDs for the Churchill. Faust it and you can shoot at it for almost an eternity
3. Grenade cost is absolutely standard and has short range. Smoke repairs is fairly priced. Brit players send additional sappers to a heavily damaged Churchill since the smoke repair only repairs half of the Churchill's health.

1. Panthers need too much time to inflict enough dmg to make it back off. They are hard countered by at units including tanks (firefly/jackson/su85) and have to back off much more quickly. Basically the hard counter to panther dmages it more quickly than the panther dmgs churchill (in proportion to its health pool).
2. With brit arty options and infantry sections you won't have that much time.
3. High health pool plus fast repairs give it too much power as it will come back fighting more quickly than more fragile azis tanks.

Option: Just make it more expensive, say similar price to a panther.

Oh, but it is most certainly a hard counter against churchill.
Its simply not efficient hardcounter since churchill doesn't require reliably penetration every 6 seconds, but volume of fire, which panthers will never be able to deliver, unless its 4v4 and you have multiple on your side, because you know, churchills role is to SOAK damage.

Ok, i am confused now.

A panther IS or IS NOT a hard counter to churchills?

A panther will pen, even frontally, a chirchill but its the volume of fire the needed aspect to kill churchills. Its a technicality but to say panthers are hardcounters is wrong if they lack whats needed to kill churchills at least in a real game situation, in 1v1 and/or in most even scenarios.
Thats why a couple of stugs are a reliable solution and a sidenote, only 1 wont cut it, but its reasonable since the costs involved result more balanced, 2 stugs vs 1 churchill.

Why a allied TD has to easily displace panthers if that is what they are intended, but not the other way around? Im not being a fan of panther, i just found a dent in your logic.
By your opinion katitof, are panthers TD or not?

1. Panthers need too much time to inflict enough dmg to make it back off. They are hard countered by at units including tanks (firefly/jackson/su85) and have to back off much more quickly. Basically the hard counter to panther dmages it more quickly than the panther dmgs churchill (in proportion to its health pool).
2. With brit arty options and infantry sections you won't have that much time.
3. High health pool plus fast repairs give it too much power as it will come back fighting more quickly than more fragile azis tanks.

Option: Just make it more expensive, say similar price to a panther.

1. Thank you for confirming Katitof's and my point. The Panther is NOT THE MOST COST EFFICIENT COUNTER. It will fight it back, but take quite some time, that's what we said and why we suggested StuGs or whatever. You're complaining about a unit that is not perfectly suited for a certain situation to be not perfectly suited for said situation. Whats your point? Also, if your Panther gets immediately (at the beginning of the fight) countered by enemy TDs, you should work on your unit and frontline spacing. Panthers are not the first unit your enemy should see. With almost the same logic, I could say that Allies can't counter the heavier Axis tanks, since the TDs that I park in front of my troups get shredded first and after that I (obviously) don't have that potent AT anymore. A Churchill is a beefy unit, you need to adapt by falling back in a controlled fashing -> elastic defense.
Btw, if your enemy has Churchill and Firefly, you should have a Panther and a JP4/Tiger+Stug+some fuel left. And since we apparently can generate situations as we wish to support our arguments: JP4 counters firefly, Panther counters Churchill -> EzPz win.
2. That's a completely new point. Please elaborate how IS sections and artillery hinder your Panther to shoot at the Churchill.
3. OKW can power repair as well with upgraded Sturmpios and the Mechanized HQ. Just OST is slightly on the weak side repairwise. Always has been. But then again for 35 mun you can always stun the Churchill with your PaK to get another salvo of free rounds into it. That ability is vet1 but non-doc. And you gain 5 muni compared to your enemy.

Ok, i am confused now.

A panther IS or IS NOT a hard counter to churchills?

A panther will pen, even frontally, a chirchill but its the volume of fire the needed aspect to kill churchills. Its a technicality but to say panthers are hardcounters is wrong if they lack whats needed to kill churchills at least in a real game situation, in 1v1 and/or in most even scenarios.

That's basically the difference between efficiency and efficacy. In language use, they're often mixed up (I do it as well), but they're different.
You can also buy a Firefly to kill a horde of Luchs'. Firefly hard counters the Luchs. Is it effective? Yes. Is it efficient? No. A Cromwell would do the same job for less cost.

1. Thank you for confirming Katitof's and my point. The Panther is NOT THE MOST COST EFFICIENT COUNTER. It will fight it back, but take quite some time, that's what we said and why we suggested StuGs or whatever. You're complaining about a unit that is not perfectly suited for a certain situation to be not perfectly suited for said situation. Whats your point? Also, if your Panther gets immediately (at the beginning of the fight) countered by enemy TDs, you should work on your unit and frontline spacing. Panthers are not the first unit your enemy should see. With almost the same logic, I could say that Allies can't counter the heavier Axis tanks, since the TDs that I park in front of my troups get shredded first and after that I (obviously) don't have that potent AT anymore. A Churchill is a beefy unit, you need to adapt by falling back in a controlled fashing -> elastic defense.
Btw, if your enemy has Churchill and Firefly, you should have a Panther and a JP4/Tiger+Stug+some fuel left. And since we apparently can generate situations as we wish to support our arguments: JP4 counters firefly, Panther counters Churchill -> EzPz win.
2. That's a completely new point. Please elaborate how IS sections and artillery hinder your Panther to shoot at the Churchill.
3. OKW can power repair as well with upgraded Sturmpios and the Mechanized HQ. Just OST is slightly on the weak side repairwise. Always has been. But then again for 35 mun you can always stun the Churchill with your PaK to get another salvo of free rounds into it. That ability is vet1 but non-doc. And you gain 5 muni compared to your enemy.

1. Most of the stuff you write here are basics and I agree with them. I still think churchill gives advantage to UK. The health pool makes it too potent.
2. It will render most support weapons useless including paks.
3. As a heavy tank with such immense health should be repaired relatively slowly, not faster than most axis tanks.

Ok, i am confused now.

A panther IS or IS NOT a hard counter to churchills?

A panther will pen, even frontally, a chirchill but its the volume of fire the needed aspect to kill churchills. Its a technicality but to say panthers are hardcounters is wrong if they lack whats needed to kill churchills at least in a real game situation, in 1v1 and/or in most even scenarios.
Thats why a couple of stugs are a reliable solution and a sidenote, only 1 wont cut it, but its reasonable since the costs involved result more balanced, 2 stugs vs 1 churchill.

Why a allied TD has to easily displace panthers if that is what they are intended, but not the other way around? Im not being a fan of panther, i just found a dent in your logic.
By your opinion katitof, are panthers TD or not?

Effective: it will perform the job you are asking for.

Efficient: will perform the job you ask but fast or using the least amount of resources.

That's basically the difference between efficiency and efficacy. In language use, they're often mixed up (I do it as well), but they're different.
You can also buy a Firefly to kill a horde of Luchs'. Firefly hard counters the Luchs. Is it effective? Yes. Is it efficient? No. A Cromwell would do the same job for less cost.

Anyway, panthers deal damage to churchills too slowly and tank destroyers deal dmg to panthers (let alone poor stugs) much more quckly.

1. Most of the stuff you write here are basics and I agree with them. I still think churchill gives advantage to UK. The health pool makes it too potent.
2. It will render most support weapons useless including paks.
3. As a heavy tank with such immense health should be repaired relatively slowly, not faster than most axis tanks.

Anyway, panthers deal damage to churchills too slowly and tank destroyers deal dmg to panthers (let alone poor stugs) much more quckly.

3. The smoke repair is doctrinal. As Axis, just put down your doctrinal repair bunker and power rep your tank as well. To be honest, the repair discussion is pretty tedious as we're both lacking real arguments in terms of "how long does the tank need to repair" with/without abilities/1/2 engineers.

1. So maybe give structure to the discussion by discussing how much you want to nerf it then.
1+2. If your enemy assaults with artillery (mun investment or MP+FU investment), most of his infantry (MP) and an expensive amount of resource investment in vehicles, then maybe he deserves win the fight if you're not willing to pay as much?
The Brit arty is not super instant. The most threatening part is if he attacks your AT guns, but your AT gun can normally dodge the arty if you take care, so there's only a limited window of opportunity for him to attack. Also, you made a mistake by letting his IS get close to your AT gun.
If you're talking about Sextons -> where's your stuff? The enemy obviously had enough fuel to pump out a Sexton, Churchill and a Firefly, so you should have a Tiger and a Panther/King Tiger and JP4 by then. Now please don't try to tell me that a King Tiger can't stop a Churchill and a JP4 can't threaten a Firefly. At this point you probably don't even need support weapons to win that fight.

I did already know your guide, but thanks nevertheless.
The point it does not cover (and that was also the point of question in my post) is how the shots are distributed in the possible scatter area. Basically how the program picks the randomized values.

All point with in the scatter area left and right of the target should have equal chance of being hit, most rounds fired at long range should land near distance scatter max since it is a "hard" limit.

The problem is not where the projectile will land but if it will collide with the hitbox before landing.

Effective: it will perform the job you are asking for.

Efficient: will perform the job you ask but fast or using the least amount of resources.

Oh i understand perfectly.
I agree with you on the meaning of efficiency about how well resources are used to perform a task, but i slightly disagree on assuming the job gets done.

A shotgun is efficient but not effective if you want to hit a bird but not the entire tree.
A rifle is effective at it but accuracy can make you miss some shots, therefore not as efficient (and more expensive too)

A churchill vs panther scenario:
A panther is rather expensive, *not efficient but effective counter. Is it worth saying it counters churchills at all? It might counter most of tanks but in this case it doesnt.

Its pretty fair to compare panthers to fireflies in this specific case.
As fireflies struggle vs highly mobile tanks and the common Pz4 it is often described as bad, because it lacks of efficiency in its role.
Now panthers struggle against specific fundamental allied units such as churchills, jacksons and SU heavies.

IMO A hard counter must be both, efficient and effective, given the correct situation, in other words most of times (not being flanked or ambushed)

All point with in the scatter area left and right of the target should have equal chance of being hit, most rounds fired at long range should land near distance scatter max since it is a "hard" limit.

The problem is not where the projectile will land but if it will collide with the hitbox before landing.

Alright, thanks!
And what is the "scatter offset" value? Someone just mentioned it in this thread today, but I was not sure what he meant. Also the unit of the angular scatter (left/right) is I assume degrees, while scatter distance is in meters?

Oh i understand perfectly.
I agree with you on the meaning of efficiency about how well resources are used to perform a task, but i slightly disagree on assuming the job gets done.

A shotgun is efficient but not effective if you want to hit a bird but not the entire tree.
A rifle is effective at it but accuracy can make you miss some shots, therefore not as efficient (and more expensive too)

A churchill vs panther scenario:
A panther is rather expensive, *not efficient but effective counter. Is it worth saying it counters churchills at all? It might counter most of tanks but in this case it doesnt.

Its pretty fair to compare panthers to fireflies in this specific case.
As fireflies struggle vs highly mobile tanks and the common Pz4 it is often described as bad, because it lacks of efficiency in its role.
Now panthers struggle against specific fundamental allied units such as churchills, jacksons and SU heavies.

IMO A hard counter must be both, efficient and effective, given the correct situation, in other words most of times (not being flanked or ambushed)

Off-topic:
Something that is not effective cannot be efficient, since it does not get the job done. The shotgun is neither effective nor efficient, since it does not meet the requirements of the job.

On-topic:
I get your point, and the question is valid. The answer is highly subjective, as the question is basically "Can the unit fulfil or significantly contribute to the job in an acceptable amount of time?". And what is "acceptable" depends on the player and situation.
My stand on this is: The Panther is not helpless against the Churchill. It would win in a shoot-out, and it puts reliable base-damage onto the Churchill in an in-game-scenario. Also, if the Brit player misjudges the situation and stays a bit too long, the Panther can counter attack and reliably finish the Churchill. The Churchill can take 8,75 (so basically 9) shots. Given the slow speed of the Churchill, the Churchill must retreat after eating ~4-5 shots, otherwise it might not make it out.
So basically: How long does it take the Panther to pen 4-5 times? That's approximately 5 shots, Panther has a reload time of 5,4s (so with aim times etc maybe 6-7s between shots, don't have the complete stats on that). That would lead to ~30s that the Panther must dedicate towards the Churchill.
That's not quick enough to stop the Churchill before it reaches your position (which would be weird, as this is basically its purpose), but it's surely quick enough to significantly damage the Churchill in this single fight. The Churchill won't be in a great condition afterwards, while your Panther should be alright and you should get a window of opportunity to consolidate and push back.
It's a large gray area, but it's not like the Panther would perform horribly.

To the Firefly comparison: I would rather compare the situation to a Firefly-Tiger fight (although bigger resource disparity): The Firefly "is made" to fight heavy armor, but does the slow rate of fire combined with the beefiness of the Tiger make it not a hard counter? It surely struggles, but if you manage to intelligently fall back while getting shots off, the Tiger must fall back sooner or later. But you probably won't manage to stop the Tiger before it penetrates your front line.

Off-topic:
Something that is not effective cannot be efficient, since it does not get the job done. The shotgun is neither effective nor efficient, since it does not meet the requirements of the job.

A little off-topic plus:
Agreed on the first part. The shotgun efficiency example was related on how easily and how cheaper it is compared to a rifle shot at hunting a bird.
Since efficiency definitely improves effectiveness, sort of a multiplicative way. As related as they can be, they are both different concepts.

I also agree on this next part, but with a different point of view. So...

On-topic:
I get your point, and the question is valid. The answer is highly subjective, as the question is basically "Can the unit fulfil or significantly contribute to the job in an acceptable amount of time?". And what is "acceptable" depends on the player and situation.
My stand on this is: The Panther is not helpless against the Churchill. It would win in a shoot-out, and it puts reliable base-damage onto the Churchill in an in-game-scenario. Also, if the Brit player misjudges the situation and stays a bit too long, the Panther can counter attack and reliably finish the Churchill. The Churchill can take 8,75 (so basically 9) shots. Given the slow speed of the Churchill, the Churchill must retreat after eating ~4-5 shots, otherwise it might not make it out.
So basically: How long does it take the Panther to pen 4-5 times? That's approximately 5 shots, Panther has a reload time of 5,4s (so with aim times etc maybe 6-7s between shots, don't have the complete stats on that). That would lead to ~30s that the Panther must dedicate towards the Churchill.
That's not quick enough to stop the Churchill before it reaches your position (which would be weird, as this is basically its purpose), but it's surely quick enough to significantly damage the Churchill in this single fight. The Churchill won't be in a great condition afterwards, while your Panther should be alright and you should get a window of opportunity to consolidate and push back.
It's a large gray area, but it's not like the Panther would perform horribly.

On the first part, the subjective definition of answer and the player skill involved said, has been the most meaningful truth told in the whole thread in the best objective way i have ever seen. If this sentence were the starting point of all balance thread, the whole forum would be 100x much more productive.

Its true there is a subjective part, but also an objective one. Since facts come from actual gameplay and game design. Each player intends its units for a purpose, if they align more the actual intended purpose the unit efficiency and effectiveness is as clear as clean water. (Using AT squads against other inf is plain retard but also source of many badly developed discussions here too).

Now instead of void-comparing panthers vs curchills hit points (or shots) let me try to explain my point of view on how effective a churchill does its job. Its main tool its durability

IMO Churchill intended role is sort of spearhead heavy tank, focusing on team weapons and infantry (this last one is Axis lategame weak point) and it does its job pretty well. Some might say it could do it better and its arguably a good suggestion. Its durability allows him to "receive panthers attention" leaving out gaps for other tank to dish in damage, since churchills gun is actually capable of damage a panther on close range.
Its slowness is attached to its durability and cant be changed. Its frontal armor is good enough and its rear armor too, because of the game engine incapability of differentiate real back shots from lateral back half shots. The armor has to keep as it is too. It has smoke to either use it defensively or offensively (rarely seen used like this but it could hide a tank in it) and the grenade can threaten any anti tank gun nearby.

Churchills durability is like a bridge, on a river of incoming fire, if it can withstand and get up close can be really dangerous. If a panther is present on the other side, there is no real threat to it front to front and because churchills are so slow, normally axis players back up, hitting the churchill along the retreat path. That is the churchill main weak point, it is easily kited. But at the same time, the axis frontline was displaced and the churchill support can advance, to secure the tank and to hold the new place.
Churchills are not tank killers (no need to buff its gun further), are frontline tools.

A single panther would not stop that from happening (A couple of stugs will). Thit shows that a panther is not efficient (and therefore not effective) vs churchills. Panthers are not hard counters. Braindead players comparisons are out of this scope please. Even when 1v1, a panther will have a hard time fighting off a churchill in tight spaces, but this case is very situational, like a flanked MG, meanwhile in open map snares and support units will kill any chasing panther. Loosing both units at best.
If a frontline is well defended vs AT (2 stugs, lots of ATG) is reasonable that a single churchill wont do, but there is no reason for churchills to be infalible either. Using artillery or flanking is the solution there.

To the Firefly comparison: I would rather compare the situation to a Firefly-Tiger fight (although bigger resource disparity): The Firefly "is made" to fight heavy armor, but does the slow rate of fire combined with the beefiness of the Tiger make it not a hard counter? It surely struggles, but if you manage to intelligently fall back while getting shots off, the Tiger must fall back sooner or later. But you probably won't manage to stop the Tiger before it penetrates your front line.

I agree with the concept but IMO it is not efficient enough to deal with heavies even when considered the cost and unit tier differences. Its like a stugIII vs a is2 situation.

Sry for the long post. Here's a marine potato
Show Spoiler

3. The smoke repair is doctrinal. As Axis, just put down your doctrinal repair bunker and power rep your tank as well. To be honest, the repair discussion is pretty tedious as we're both lacking real arguments in terms of "how long does the tank need to repair" with/without abilities/1/2 engineers.

1. So maybe give structure to the discussion by discussing how much you want to nerf it then.
1+2. If your enemy assaults with artillery (mun investment or MP+FU investment), most of his infantry (MP) and an expensive amount of resource investment in vehicles, then maybe he deserves win the fight if you're not willing to pay as much?
The Brit arty is not super instant. The most threatening part is if he attacks your AT guns, but your AT gun can normally dodge the arty if you take care, so there's only a limited window of opportunity for him to attack. Also, you made a mistake by letting his IS get close to your AT gun.
If you're talking about Sextons -> where's your stuff? The enemy obviously had enough fuel to pump out a Sexton, Churchill and a Firefly, so you should have a Tiger and a Panther/King Tiger and JP4 by then. Now please don't try to tell me that a King Tiger can't stop a Churchill and a JP4 can't threaten a Firefly. At this point you probably don't even need support weapons to win that fight.

1..Smoke repair is doctrinal but heavy sappers are not. Still having super repairs and such tanks in one commander makes it OP. Chrchill will deal dmg to crew weapons, tanks etc. and will come back fighting before those units have a chance to replace lost squad members or repair their own tanks. Churchill will start dealing dmg again with max health too quickly pushing axis off WP too easly. You just can't kite it forever.

2. I already explained what should be done imo (4 options): these repairs should be much more expensive, or panther should get tungsten rounds (similar to jacksons), or give ost/okw a satchel charge (could be panzergrens with shrecks or okw panzershreck sturmpios to prevent crushing them and punish parking it in the middle of at units), or make it simply more expensive to reflect its actual performance.

1..Smoke repair is doctrinal but heavy sappers are not. Still having super repairs and such tanks in one commander makes it OP. Chrchill will deal dmg to crew weapons, tanks etc. and will come back fighting before those units have a chance to replace lost squad members or repair their own tanks. Churchill will start dealing dmg again with max health too quickly pushing axis off WP too easly. You just can't kite it forever.

2. I already explained what should be done imo (4 options): these repairs should be much more expensive, or panther should get tungsten rounds (similar to jacksons), or give ost/okw a satchel charge (could be panzergrens with shrecks or okw panzershreck sturmpios to prevent crushing them and punish parking it in the middle of at units), or make it simply more expensive to reflect its actual performance.

From my experience with the chill, when it damaged, it will have to fall back, the tank is rather slow and if snared, it will take about an haft of hour to get to some place where i can safely repair it without risking my engi taking arty, weffer or stuka. Then,after all the repair, it will take another haft of hour to drive the tank up to the line again. Somke repairs turn tank into a sitting duck ao pop it up in the front line is not a good idea.

Meanwhile Heavy sapper still repair slower than sweeper stumpio, plus OKW have a stock auto repair building.
Heavy sapper is a 60 amo upgrade lockes behind latest teck, while stumpio come out with support package from the stat.

My point is, the churchill doesn't come back to action supper quick as you clame.

From my experience with the chill, when it damaged, it will have to fall back, the tank is rather slow and if snared, it will take about an haft of hour to get to some place where i can safely repair it without risking my engi taking arty, weffer or stuka. Then,after all the repair, it will take another haft of hour to drive the tank up to the line again. Somke repairs turn tank into a sitting duck ao pop it up in the front line is not a good idea.

Meanwhile Heavy sapper still repair slower than sweeper stumpio, plus OKW have a stock auto repair building.
Heavy sapper is a 60 amo upgrade lockes behind latest teck, while stumpio come out with support package from the stat.

My point is, the churchill doesn't come back to action supper quick as you clame.

From my experience it does come back more quickly. Often it seems to get back the hp under smoke too quickly to get destroyed. Of course you need to figure out and it takes some skill to repair it close to front line but far enough not to get killed.

Still, it's not a sitting duck if properly supported. When axis units concentrate on a churchill, all other UK unis deal with them pretty quickly decrewing paks etc. The amount of dmg it can sustain makes it possible for other units to mop up. Usually it is the axis (especially ost) that need to withdraw and chrchill can repair and continue the push.

1..Smoke repair is doctrinal but heavy sappers are not. Still having super repairs and such tanks in one commander makes it OP. Chrchill will deal dmg to crew weapons, tanks etc. and will come back fighting before those units have a chance to replace lost squad members or repair their own tanks. Churchill will start dealing dmg again with max health too quickly pushing axis off WP too easly. You just can't kite it forever.

2. I already explained what should be done imo (4 options): these repairs should be much more expensive, or panther should get tungsten rounds (similar to jacksons), or give ost/okw a satchel charge (could be panzergrens with shrecks or okw panzershreck sturmpios to prevent crushing them and punish parking it in the middle of at units), or make it simply more expensive to reflect its actual performance.

We need to know what the repair speed of the units are. Some time ago, this was posted on reddit/transfered to the forum:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/50442/repair-rate-comparison-all-factions

I assume that every faction has 2 pioneers out, which is fairly standard for the mid to late game.

According to the Link, 2 fully upgraded+vetted Brit engineers could repair with a speed of 50; 2 upgraded OKW + OKW base with 49, Ost has 20,8. So Ost falls short.


(I never searched for repair speeds in the attribute editor before, please someone correct me if I'm reading the wrong values. But my values correspond to the stuff in the patch notes and Harolds numerical vet description mod, so it should be fine. Also this would mean that the Link is wrong, if there are no other modifiers. Please correct me if I'm wrong with the stuff below.)


UKF:
I find (for Brit engineers) the following values: 1. heal action 1,6; 2. heal action 0,5; 3. heal action 0,525
Which are 1. base repair; 2. vetted squad, 3. Heavy sapper upgrade.
-For a 5 man squad, this would lead to repair speeds of 8, 10,5 and 13,625, respectively.
The smoke repair ability has a repair speed of 11.
-> total speed of 13,625/squad; 27,25 for 2 squads + 11 ability repair = 38,25

OKW:
Pioneer repair speed: 2; vet2 bonus 0,75; upgrade bonus 0,5; combined vet+upgrade bonus (apparently there is one, I did not know this before) 0,1875.
-> Makes a total speed of 13,75 per squad, or 27,5 for two. Plus mechanized HQ repairs that I don't know about. Or approx 27 without the shady combined bonus.
I don't find anything about the base pioneers, so maybe they're the same?

OST: uses the soviet repair ability
repair speed: 1,6; vet2 conus: 1; (there's also an upgrade bonus of 0,3 for breakthrough package, but I'll leave it out due to doctrin)
-> Makes a total speed of 10,4/squad or 20,8 for two squads.

So OKW and UKF are pretty much tied, OST lacks behind


Repairing 5 pens (800HP) on the Churchill with 2 squads + ability would take 21s or 30s without ability plus time to drive back and forth.
Repairing 800 HP of the Panther would take 30 seconds for OKW and 39 for OST plus driving. Due to higher speed of the Panther it will gain some seconds as advantage.

Please keep in mind that in this setting, OKW has no Mechanized repair activated and Brits need to pay munitions, so there should be an advantage for them. Also everything is calculated for maximized repair speeds. And I assume that the charging Churchill does not take more damage than the defending Panther, an assumption that favors the Churchill.

I'd say OKW has no problem at all, since the time to get a Panther back to the frontline is pretty much equal to the Brit's Churchill. For OST, there's only a disparity if the Brit player uses the smoke repair ability.

Addition:
Finally found it:
The Mechanized HQ spawns a "repair engineer" (not even the multiplayer version) with a repair speed of 3. I think 3 models are spawned, so 9 additional repair speed for OKW