Wehr weak penetration

And then, there is comet and M4C sherman.

The M4C has better AI than the Cromwell.

The Comet's a jumped up T-34/85 for the price of an IS-2.

comet has great ai now and easy 8 has great ai with almost no scatter on the move

Same for the 76 mm as it has 2 shells a d 1,5 moving scatter

Comet AI is ok, wouldn't say it's great but that's a general brit thing
And E8 same thing. Just cause it will hit doesn't mean much if it's not spreading the damage around. It's primarily an AT tank (only non Pershing usf tank that will be bouncing shells and great pen, but it's not like a t34/85 where it's just a better standard medium) it's AI isn't a reliably stand out feature is what I mean. Compare to the m4 for example...

?

Normally units have 0.5 scatter and accuracy multiplier on the move, most USF vehicles have 0.75.

So its 1.5 vs 2 if anything.

Nope that's accuracy look for scatter

Easy 8 should have the lowest moving scatter followed by Sherman variants and kv1 then all other at 2

Comet AI is ok, wouldn't say it's great but that's a general brit thing
And E8 same thing. Just cause it will hit doesn't mean much if it's not spreading the damage around. It's primarily an AT tank (only non Pershing usf tank that will be bouncing shells and great pen, but it's not like a t34/85 where it's just a better standard medium) it's AI isn't a reliably stand out feature is what I mean. Compare to the m4 for example...

The Easy Eight has better AI than the Cromwell. It's comparable to the Panzer IV's.

The stock Sherman isn't a good AI benchmark because it has HE shells, which double the AoE of its main gun.

It's more in the Centaur and Ostwind's league than the Panzer IV's.

The Easy Eight has better AI than the Cromwell. It's comparable to the Panzer IV's.

The stock Sherman isn't a good AI benchmark because it has HE shells, which double the AoE of its main gun.

It's more in the Centaur and Ostwind's league than the Panzer IV's.

I did point out that brit tank AI isn't great.

The standing of a premium medium should primarily compared against its own factions standard medium, it overcomes the problems of each faction having different traits.

Sort of like how the commisar squad is squishy for a Soviet squad but durable for a wehr squad. You get different results based on what you are comparing it to so it's by far easiest to compare to the unit it's intended to replace. It transcends price point problems too because it's relative to the factions economy (like the t34/85 being "cheap" for its stats but ignoring that it's a heap more expensive than the 76 variant and that is primarily the difference that matters)

Its OK to compare stock units inter-factionally because they have to be balanced against each other first, but doctrinal units need to be balanced against the units they are to replace primarily.

That whole wall of text is to say that just because the E8 has comparable AI to the p4 doesn't mean it has great AI for the faction. It SHOULD be compared to the m4 because that's what it's competing with as an AI tank. You are not choosing between an E8 and a p4 so that comparison is less important aside from establishing a baseline, which assuming the m4 and p4 are balanced is irrelevant

...
The Comet's a jumped up T-34/85 for the price of an IS-2.

That is a bit of an exaggeration, the price of of Comet is 480/175 while the price of the IS-2 is 640/230

The standing of a premium medium should primarily compared against its own factions standard medium, it overcomes the problems of each faction having different traits.

Then every USF medium will be considered lacking because the basic M4 is a generalist tank and an anti-infantry tank bundled together.

The Panzer IV is considered a good AI unit, and the M4C and E8 are on par with it. I don't think it's fair to consider them lackluster just because the faction has an incredible AI tank too.

That is a bit of an exaggeration, the price of of Comet is 480/175 while the price of the IS-2 is 640/230

And the sidetech to unlock it is 200 MP 50 FU.

...
And the sidetech to unlock it is 200 MP 50 FU.

Both units have a tech now. Taking into account only the "hammer" cost and damping all the cost in the production of single vehicles is simply misleading especially since the vehicle is not even limited to one. One could easily argue the cost of the IS-2 includes the cost of T4 applying the same logic.

In addition "hammer" provides Hammer trucking, Gammon bombs and "warspeed" and it actually one of the most cost efficient tech (and not exactly a side tech).

Both units have tech now taking into account only "hammer" cost and damping all the cost in the production of single vehicles is simply misleading especially since the vehicle is not even limited to one.

In addition "hammer" provides Hammer trucking, Gammon bombs and "warspeed" and it actually one of the most cost efficient tech (and not exactly a side tech).

You tech Hammer to get the Comet.

If you don't want the Comet, you usually don't tech Hammer. You put the 225 FU into more Cromwells and Centaurs or go Anvil for the Churchill.

The exact same thing happened with Ostheer T2 last patch: if you wanted a 222 you had to build T2. T2 cost an extra 200 MP 20 FU.

If you didn't want a 222, the new teching position of PGrens meant you didn't have to build T2.

So people didn't.

Nobody wanted to pay 400 MP 50 FU for a Scout Car.

There isn't a faction in the game that can choose between a Jackson and a Panther.

The Panther competes with the JPIV and the Panzer IV, the Jackson competes with the Sherman and the Scott.


As for the Panther/Jackson matchup, the Panther's armour doesn't do much, no.

What does do a lot for it is its extra HP: it kills a Jackson in four hits whereas a Jackson kills a Panther in six.

In a head to head battle, the Panther has a slight edge.

But the problem is that withvpanther you have to dive. M36 will shoot first and kite drawing you into mines, at guns, at hand held at and snares. So range, mobility, accuracy far, penetration, and repairs together with being cheaper make the matchup much less likely in panther's favour. IMO panther should become a premium medium generalist tank. It should probably be the best of mediums but also most expensive. Stug should be main 60 range at. Panther should be more like 50 range medium with decent penetration but rather a flanker but logical anty infantry performance. It should have two kinds of ammunition maybe.

Not for current stug stats - 160 dmg per shot, high accuracy, 540 HP (it still need 4 shots to die) and 90 fuel cost.
Also OST have 60 range tool that completely counter any stock ally TD - pak40. It always penetrate them and have enough accuracy to not miss.

I don't agree with pak decription. Allies have good infantry which clears team wepon very quickly. This paired with lots of stock smoke options and fire, indirect fire, offmaps such as flame arty clear at guns quickly, or makes them run unable to shoot. Lack of a 60 range TD hurts a lot.

You tech Hammer to get the Comet.
...

An over simplification that is misleading.

One techs to Hammer and most of the unit benefit. Vehicles get hammer trucking and warspeed and tommies gammon bombs.

They also get access to Croc. Now what is the price for a Croc is it 880 and 320?

Does the price of the Tiger includes the BP3 upgrade? Is suddenly Tiger more expensive than IS-2?

One can make the same claim, one techs to T4 to get IS-2 now the IS-2 cost 880 and 320

its a premium medium first not a tank destroyer...

It is an awkward TD with added mg. It should engage tanks long range and ram infantry as mgs are only somewhat effective close range. A bit like flying cow - not much sense unless only to prove that high price is justified

it also wins any engagement with allied TDs provided they dont begin to run... no its armor may not bounce allied TD rounds but its large HP pool and high speed means it can duel with allied TDs cost effectively in good hands... in bad hands yeah its gonna lose... but moreso for the allied TDs

Well, a big nope from me. If allied player can kite, panther will be lured into a snare, at, or mine. Panther wins only in isolation or when alled player blunders.

and dont forget that the panther as a premium medium can actually do damage vs infantry... allied TDs cant do that...

Close range only, which makes it rather pathetic - running a tier 4 expensive tank with 50 ammo added to it just to try to crush infantry and hope for some dmg from mgs. Compare to similarily priced comet. It would be so much better to have so HE rounds on the main gun.

I think a slight pen buff, +20 at all ranges, is in order for the panther. Specifically the Ost panther, because despite it being more expensive to tech to, it's actually the inferior panther with only 3 levels of vet and an inferior blitz. The cost differential between panther and allied TDs only pays for more health and armor (defensive stats), its offensive stats are all inferior less range, less pen than some, less accuracy, less RoF.

The SU85 gets pen buffs with vet, Jackson gets AP rounds, etc. I think the panther should get something to more reliably counter heavies too. Because we don't get panthers to counter medium spam. This pen buff will only affect allied heavies anyway.

If giving +20 is too much off the bat (which i doubt), I'd suggest making it a vet bonus.

Does the price of the Tiger includes the BP3 upgrade? Is suddenly Tiger more expensive than IS-2?

One can make the same claim, one techs to T4 to get IS-2 now the IS-2 cost 880 and 320

The price of the Tiger includes BP3 if you'd stay in T3 otherwise.

Same goes for Soviet: if you otherwise planned to stay in T3 for some reason, an IS-2 would set you back 880 MP 320 FU.

The price of the Tiger includes BP3 if you'd stay in T3 otherwise.

Same goes for Soviet: if you otherwise planned to stay in T3 for some reason, an IS-2 would set you back 880 MP 320 FU.

Then you original claim that "The Comet's a jumped up T-34/85 for the price of an IS-2" does not hold water in 1vs1 games where one can afford to built 1 (maybe 2) T4 apart from IS-2, in most cases....

It's frustrating. It seems that this thread has boiled down to people telling that they are not accurate about throwaway line, some english schemantic, or wrong something else completely off-topic. "you're inaccurate" - that's all it is about in every thread on every page??? Thread is completely derailed on purpose.

I think it's best if this thread was closed. It has gone on many tangents in its lifetime, and if you wish to discuss other topics, new threads may be opened

/locked