Profile of general_gawain

The Cromwell is 110 fuel, so it's cheaper than the Ostheer P4. It also has significantly lower tech costs, particularly in teamgames where it's doable to skip bolster.

UKF without side techs: 145 fuel for tech + 110 fuel for Cromwell = 255 fuel
Ostheer without T2 building: 155 fuel for tech + 120 fuel for PZIV = 275 fuel

But this is not realistic at all. Since UKF normally will build bolster and an AEC (and maybe grenades or weapon rackets) while Ostheer will build T2 and a 222, the PZIV will show up before the Cromwell does. You will have to fight the PZIV with AEC + 6pdr. That is a lot more realistic.

UKF: 145 + 35 + 20 + 60 (+ 10 / + 15) + 110 = 370 fuel (380/385)
Ostheer: 155 + 20 + 30 + 120 = 325 fuel

The Firefly does not have low DPM at all, it's similar to the Jackson. ROF is only an issue against certain targets like 640 mediums, where its 200 damage leads to overkill damage, artificially lowering its TTK. The TTK against a Panther is actually similar to the Jackson and only slightly worse than the SU-85. Vetted, it has the highest DPM of all TDs at 2304. Its vet 3 240 damage makes it significantly better against all targets (mediums from 4 to 3 shots, Panthers from 5 to 4, etc.).
This is excluding the Tullips and the doctrinal Command Vehicle bonus.

Technically Jackson has higher DPS, here for Vet0 to Vet1 at least:

Jackson: 160:4,675 = 34,22
Firefly: 200:8 = 25

At vet2 both gets a reload bonus, this will lower the technical difference in DPS, because the FF profits more. At et3 FF gets 40 more damage, Jackson gets a further reload speed. Technically Jackson still has some more DPS at Vet3, although FF always has higher alpha damage from Vet0 to Vet3.

Since - as you said - FF generates overkill versus some targets its real DPS is even lower. I'm not calculating with tulips for FF and AP-rounds for Jackson, although AP-rounds generate somehow guaranted damage with a great Penetration boost while tulips often do not connect (sometimes just because of terrain).

But the main thing is that battle situations are not static. If you get assaulted by tanks like Descolata wrote about for example, Jacksons will handle that situation significantly better. Same if you want to pursue a crippled tank. Speed, Accleration and moving acc have a way bigger influence on real DPS than the slightly better acc of FF when not moving or its higher mid range.

how so? the cromwell's main gun ai performance is superior to the majority of the medium tank roster, and with the recent buff to its hull/coaxial mgs it shouldn't be far behind in that department, either.

Sherman, PzIV and T34/76 all kill infantry way better.

PZIV has the biggest 80dmg kill radius with maingun
T34/76 falls short of that, is very close to PZIV and has better MG to make up for that
Sherman has HE-shells

Cromwell has nothing of that AI power, its 80dmg kill radius is tiny, compared to all three of them. Your best chance is to run over infantry.


Lets just not talk about AT power. It only has speed, but it doesn't kill or penetrate a thing. Cromwell is really the worst of all medium stock tanks.

1) yes that was not correct it 1020 for 3 PGs sqauds.
2) And even 3 pgs onyl soft counter a churhcill according to you so I fail to see the issue.
3) Yes if one's opponent has invested so much in AT infatry one should not make tanks. Same goes for ATG, your point thou?

1) and even less for Fussis
2) The problem is, that they are no softcounter for this T4 lategame tank. Instead they own him, even by standing in the open. Only units like PAKS and TDs should be like this, because they have the big weakness versus infantry (and indirect fire in case of PAKs). PGs and Fussi have no real weakness and have a lot more of utility by capping points, throwing grenades and so on. So they should be a softcounter.
3) No, you still can make tanks, but you need mobile ones which are able to kite. Again this is an argument for going Hammer with Comet. Inspite of its health the Survivability of a Churchill is seriously hampered by its speed and accleration.

And the Panther is way more expensive the Churchill so again your point?

My point was that you put two tanks versus each other that are in different tech levels. Panther is in the same tech as Churchill at least, although it is more expensive.

A FF in range on enemy AT is using the unit wrongly.

So where is the reason for a Churchill as a damage sponge then, when my FF will be never in range of enemy AT unless I failed it? So I need the churchill for my personal failure? What a bad designed unit.

Claiming that Churchill need buff because Comet is better is not a solid argument since these vehicles do not fight each other. If choice A is better than choice B that design issues and not balance issue. This can fixed with add utility not with buffs.

They don't have to fight each other, still they are competing with each other about the ressources like population, fuel and manpower. This isn't only about utility. I always would choose a Tiger over a Kingtiger for example (there is one commander where you have the choice actually). Not because of greater utility but of greater combat performance.

That is one way to look at it. Another would be it more than twice the durability for about 1.5 times the pop...

But it is not enough to just scale durability. All other heavy tanks (including half-heavy Panther) scale durability and combat performance. And in the end it even hasn't more than twice the durabilty because speed/accleration is an important part of durability.

Chuchill is a cost efficient Tank. Should the pop be reduced? probably but then the power level of the unit should be decreased also unless you want to go back in meta where multiple Churchill where used.

That meta was completely fucked up. Churchills were completely op, noone wants to go back there. Just make it a tank with some decent AI damage output and cap it a 1 (maybe shared with Crocodile/Avre). A unit is only efficient if it deals more damage than it takes. Anything else is a misconception.

No sh**. Did you really take the scenario just there and that? Of course there might be a pak near by, supporting infantry. Maybe a werfer or supporting ally... A lot of things can be there. Of course, same applies for the UKF. Point is, for it's role and stats, it's cost effective.

No reason to get salty. We just discussed, stay calm please.

As I said: Not for population, 19 is way to high. If the Churchill stays as it is now people will pick Comet for good reasons. Sad for game diversity.

So if a player has invested 1340 manpower , 24 pop and 300 ammunition in AT infatry it can chase away a singe tank. And that is unbalance because?

1. 1340 manpower? What do you bought?
2. AT-infantry should only be a soft counter to tanks, TDs and PaKs should be hard counters.
3. AT-infantry is available way sooner, it is somehow redundant to build a Churchill, when its counters are on the field for a long time and vetted already.

But that is hardly the case Churchill inflict enough damage to take out PzIV 1vs1.

PZIV is at a different tech level. Fighting a Panther is more of a realistic case. In addition the PZIV is able to pick the fight or not, the Churchill can't choose.

If one's FF is in range of AT assets. The Comets performance is irrelevant since it does not fight the Comet.

Don't understand this comment...

The question one has to ask is "is the unit cost efficient"? and the answer is yes.


There is a huge difference between no damage and firepower of medium tank.


Do I really need to point the differences?, ok will just point out the obvious:

Stock vs Doctrinal
Limited to 1
Around 1.5 the fuel cost

Churchill is a cost efficient unit.

I talked about population. 19 population is not cost efficient for such a low damage output. It is about 1/5 of your army for the damage output of a medium tank.