universally agreed to be essentially the best mainline infantry in team mode games and probably in 1v1s as well --->>>> "But...bro...they aren't cost effective!!" (they are)
It seem that you have trouble understanding what you reading.
PF before being upgrade cost 270 manpower, are 5 men squad with worse DPS than VGs. That makes them on the least cost efficient mainline infatry.
Rifles need weapon rack unlock and double bars to compete which make them more expensive and Penals are a tech choice which is cost a building, constructing said building and then building 290 mp unit. The only restriction on PF is that it requires a commander choice aside from that they can chooses meds or mech.
No matter how much spin you put at it Penal cost 290 and G43 FP cost 295 manpower+80 mu. When it come to tech cost PF have more expensive tech so they Penal are clearly cheaper.
Comparing cost they really are only expensive compared to cons/grens. Only at the beginning of a match are they
the worse main. But they come with a tech less snare that helps cover a major faction weakness. And the requirement of a tech truck being set is for time gating the upgrade. It does not factor into cost as the building would be needed regardless of strums/JLI/VG.
In sort the are clearly more expensive than grenadiers,vg , conscripts and Penals so you original claim of similar price simply does not hold water.
But this thread is about Pathfinder and PF, if you want to talk about PF I suggest you start a thread about them.
I guess the question is are they elite compared to what. Compared to Falls/Obers they fall short of being elite but compared to other mainlines they are significantly better.
Compared to most mains they have better vision, better damage while moving, similar damage stationary, similar price, flare, sprint, similar durability to Allied squads, techless AT nade.
They are all around better than VG while only being weaker than them for the first 4-5 mins of the game which truly is not that much time.
....
Not really:
The cost of g43 PFs you are comparing is 295 manpower+80 mu and one has to set up a track before one can even upgrade them.
So compared to most "mains" they more expensive.
Ungraded PF at 270 are simply one of the worse "main" when it come to cost efficiency.
Apparently upgraded fusilers arent considered elite infantry even tho they can toe to toe with vet3 1919 airborned and ultimately surpass them with vet if you consider mp and pop cost (easily blobable unlike airborne)
True they are no considered elite infatry:
"Panzerfusilliers
The way Panzerfusiliers are deployed has been changed to better match their role as an alternative mainline infantry to Volksgrenadiers. They will be slightly weaker than Volksgrenadiers at the start but have access to the Anti-Tank Rifle Grenades, slightly better combat veterancy, and more powerful upgrades, giving them increased power in the late game. This should make for interesting choices and compositions."
Unless you're in a super late game 4v4 scenario and floating 400+ fuel, anyone would exchange 10 MP for 20 FU without even thinking twice about it if he had the chance.
Not really.
Why are comparing a AI tank with main battle tank? if you want to compare it with something you need to compare it ostwind which is also an AI tank and cost 60 manpower less and same fuel.
Again, we're not talking combat performance here, since this would be a biased comparison. Just plain and simple costs.
The reason why the Command P4 costs 10 MP does not matter. Both units have seen changes since then. The question is: Is the cost unjustified? I don't think so.
Also there is nothing wrong with the Command P4 being bought as the second or third unit. That's only logical when you - by the design of it being a COMMAND vehicle with an aura - get the most benefit from it.
Cost does matter especially in small modes since it make the unit less attractive than stock options.
I fully agree on this and never said anything contrary.
But given the fact that they at the moment have the same vet bonusses, they should also vet up similarly. Which means lower XP threshold for the Command P4 or shared vet.
The should vet with similar speed which they do not. PzIV vets faster, way faster. The unit is comparable to ostwind and it should have an XP value that adjusted to how it compares with ostwind.
It is a gun against infantry.
Also the accuracy is not bad, it is the standard accuracy profile that every medium and many light vehicles use. It has bad penetration, which does not matter against infantry. It has bad damage, but also a high cadence to offset this, compensating for lower damage against infantry.
Again, the lack of AT is by design. If you give it AT, you need to jack up the price.
Its accuracy is bad because it can not hit light tanks especially on the move. Combined with low penetration it makes the AT performance one of the worse in game for cost. Its AT capabilities even against a light tank like Stuart is inferior to that of an ostwind.
On average it needs around a minute of chasing around a Stuart to kill (range 35/moving)
Currently it has one of the worse guns in game and other units with similar guns had their weapon improved (like the valentine and KV-8). There is no real justification of a gun this bad.
Should it be able to fight medium tank and win? obviously no but is should brought inline with other vehicles.
Yes, but why would you do that?
I also don't buy a Scott and complain that I would have gotten better AT with a Stuart. Why do you keep focusing on the combat strength of a utility and support vehicle that's major plus is a very strong aura?
It's not supposed to be good at fighting, but it grants better performance to everything around it.
I am not focusing on anything, I am simply pointing out the issue with performance of the unit, if in your opinion the aura is too strong I suggest you make the suggestion to nerf and provide your arguments. I have already explained my point of view on auras.
If the unit is not cost efficient in fighting role there is little reason to use it in 1vs1. In addition if the unit can not fight it can not gain veterancy. It end up being something left in the rear with little reason for player to actually move it the front line.
Imo units should allow player that use them better get more out of them and that should including gaining veterancy with bonuses that help it support role (currently only applies to mark target).
...
In that order:
1. Overall cost is reduced. The tank is overall cheaper. You're framing it as if it were more expensive. You pay 10 MP more and 20 FU less.
Not really you pay more manpower and less fuel for AI vehicle. Not an all around tank. Actually the only reason C.Pz 4 more expensive manpower wise is that when PzIV got a cost discount someone forgot about the C.Pz IV.
In small one has to ask is better to invest on ostwind or a more expensive C.PzIV or all around tank like the PzIV or the 20 fuel cheaper AI mainly C.PzIV,?
The answer is usually not C.PzIV.
One can consider C.PzIV as hit third (maybe second vehicle)
3+4. Yes. The P4 has a very strong aura. You're comparing functionally different units there, there is no reason why one should be used as a benchmark for the other. You can't straight up compare them, because they do different things.
C.PZ4 has one of the worse mainguns in AT than any other medium tank even light tank like valentine. Even KV-8's 45mm gun has at least good penetration near.
The gun is simply bad with bad accuracy/bad penetration and bad damage and there nothing to justify that.
They are the same arguments you used from the beginning in this thread, and your main argument is still that the Command P4 is not as strong as a combat vehicle (name the P4) despite having roughly the same cost. Again: You're comparing functionally very different units, with different roles on the battlefield. Why?
Compare the PzIV with any unit with similar cost its gun is simply BAD in the AT role.
I can see some virtue in making the Churchill a command tank, but on the other hand this is a huge waste of resources. This tank is quite expensive, and you're basically halving its fighting power. Although you can keep it in the fight for longer, I somehow don't think it is a good move.
In game I have seen Churchill being used I guess because the loss of fighting power is not that great to begin with.
I suspect that the Croc would make a good command vehicles since the debuffs probably effect main weapon only that in the cases of Croc is probably the flamer although I have not checked.
All of these comparisons are lopsided. The 2xFF+AEC combo is so expensive, almost every tank will die quickly. That's how its supposed to be if you pour a ton of resources into pure AT vehicles.
IS with the aura are quite capably of providing the AI and in large mode the AT of the combination is very useful. FF can fire from distance and AEC can stun diving tanks.
You still did not convincingly say why the Command P4 needs buffs in the first place. Your only arguments so far were that
1. It were too expensive for a support unit
2. It does not have the fighting power of dedicated combat vehicles.
The first is not a point at all. The cost depends on how useful a unit is, not an alleged class. The second one is self-explanatory by the fact that you get a ton of utility out of it.
I repeat myself: You get the durability of a normal P4, you get the AI capability of a normal P4, you get slightly decreased cost, and you get a good aura buff for not only you but all your allies as well.
What you don't get is the AT of a normal P4. That's what the utility has to compensate, and especially in larger modes it does.
C.Panzer is not really that good in small modes. That changes I suggest will improve its performance in those mod and not really effect larger mode.
Allow me to reverse your the question:
Is there a reason why the C.PzIV should have higher manpower cost than PzIV?
Is there a reason why the C.PzIV should gain veterancy so much slower than PzIV?
Is there a reason why a AI vehicle should have the same pop as all around medium tank?
Is there a reason why Valentine should have a better gun than C.PzIV?
Vipper is trying to defend how a buff that gives 10% free hp to already durable tanks (with 960 hp non doc and well over 1k hp on doctrinal heavy tanks) that ALSO applies on allies is balanced because the p4 isnt like the okw command panther and cant fight it's own battles. Some of the doctrines also include spotting scopes and/or panzer tactician, so you know, must need a buff
Personally it should be like a standard wehrmacht panzer 4 F2 so it can not only make elefants, tigers or massed panthers even tankier, but also apply the buff on itself and kill your hopes and dreams in team mode
Your personal suggestion is would be bad for the game.
Actually there a number of changes that should applied to all command vehicles like:
Seperate aura into two parts. One passive with low impact one active with higher ones so that it requires player input to become more effective.
Custom made vet bonuses so that aura and support increases with veterancy.
Specifically for the PzV chance could include:
Lower manpower price
Lower XP value
Lower pop
Increase accuracy so it can hit light vehicles
Increase penetration to about Valentine levels
optional:
add 2 fire modes:
indirect high explosive similar to stug E with range of 40 (uses the same gun)
direct with hollow charge rounds for AT similar to how it now work but with little AOE
- Royal Engineer and Tactical support provide UKF same fromula meanwhile 5 OST doctrine give you 5 different way to play your army ?. Your point is pointless after all.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are simply factually wrong and there two UKF doctrines with Command vehicles and not just one as you claimed.
And no Royal Engineer Regiment and Tactical Support Regiment do not have the "same formula" or even play the same. Actually the only common thing they have are 1 ability.
Talk about CMD unit itself:
- CMD pz 4, CMD panther can stand on it owns legs and this their job done.
C Pz4 can not stand on it own legs since it will lose to any medium tank at any range even at a T-34/76 although it more expensive. So it needs to be supported
- UKF CMD vehicle need to sastified a vehicle power to exchange it with powerful buff. Turn out only UC (old) and AEC is only choice. That thins makes tactical choice worthless.
No vehicle is "sacrificed" (I guess is what you mean).
Churchill can be used also at command vehicles and even vet 1 Centaur since the can still use their ability to damage infatry. AEC is the most cost efficient choice but that is not a bad thing, in the case of the C. Pz4 there is simply no choice...
How about everything around it:
- CMD Pz4 give Axis side a huge improvement they need: stay longer on the field. You thing 10% is small ?. Take extra 1 or 2 hit is extreme big advanatage For Axis. They just need to stay longer on the field. That is.
C.Pz4 allow to survive damage that would be lethal otherwise but I doubt that many people would risk 8 HP entities and 64 HP medium tanks and risk them in a fight.
- Doctrine also a big +, there are many doctrine combine with CMD Pz4 from defend to offense. Even Mobile defend was Offense doctrine back then. Some combination in teamgame is consider OP with CMD pz4 doctrine. - In orther hand, UKF only have one which is... bad.
There are two UKF commander with c. vehicle upgrade not one. Royal Engineer Regiment and Tactical Support Regiment. There 5 ostheer commander with C. Pz4 and given the fact that there more the twice Ostheer commander than UKF it makes sense so again no "bad thing".
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
