Hmmm thats odd because I enjoy using Mechanized in 4v4s mainly. Its always on my roster. I know other factions have their niche but in a fuel heavy game mode, Mechanized Company really shines to me. They have an answer to almost everything and they have one of the best generalist mediums imo being the 76 Sherman.
My main complaint with the 76 is that HVAP still sometimes bounces rounds and with the reduced fire-rate, really makes it not a good choice. Why fire a better round when it still can bounce? I would rather fire more rounds with a higher bounce chance. Pretty sure if someone took the statistics on fire-rate + pen rate, normal rounds are probably better vs Panther. It certainly feels that way.
Perhaps Balance team needs to increase the fire rate on HVAP to compensate the reduced fire rate on normal rounds.
I think this is pretty much the case. If you factor in ROF and penetration only, the normal rounds perform roughly the same in terms of TTK vs a Panther compared to the HVAP shells (median is 45.5 s and 44.5 s at 10 m and 50.1 s and 50.8 s at max range for AP and HVAP, respectively, so HVAP is slightly better up close but things are pretty even at long range).
However, HVAP rounds also have much better accuracy than the normal AP shells and you actually gain an up to 40% higher chance to sore a natural hit (accuracy roll, not scatter hit) at max range. That's IMHO their greatest benefit and it's easily worth to switch to HVAP during most long-range tank engagements because of this alone. The ROF decrease in the beta widens the performance gap even further, so I'd expect to see HVAP being used even more frequently if these changes make it into the live game (if the M4C will still be viable then, that is).
That being said I'm still kind of on the fence towards the ROF change, though after running the numbers the effect on the AI performance isn't all too great (mostly only a ~8-10% loss). Guess we'll have to wait and see how this turns out after a bit more testing.
|
Just did some quick tests in the game. G43s are literally utter trash. [...]
oh well, guess this is another great example that in-game perception and "feels" can be quite deceptive at times.
kudos for doing the tests and happy to hear that this case also appears to be a pretty good validation for your infantry comparison model.
G43 myth busted!
I used to upgrade exclusively shreked pgrens with the g43s for the extra vision and the knowledge that they shouldn't be anywhere near an infantry fight anyways and maybe the awesome g43 sound will scare off a squad or 2 as they fire from range. Can't tell you if it's smart but it's what I doo
didn't know about the extra vision. this might be a redeeming quality for an otherwise pretty meh "upgrade". or were you talking about the interrogation ability?
|
[...]
PGrens:
- I know some people like them. They were also used in previous tourneys, but I can't remember when I saw them last in the competitive scene. Personally, I also found them underwhelming. They are supposed to specialize PGrens at all ranges and add more DPS long range. But their DPS only gets better on the last 5-7 meters. Even if we include moving DPS, it is still the same. Standard PGrens win big on closer ranges.
- Power-wise the same thing: Less DPS, same EHP (or did I forget something) -> less power.
There is just no good reason to get G43s on PGrens. You just pay mun, gimp their DPS on almost all ranges while giving... interrogation? Really? That's probably the most expensive ability unlock there is.
If they are supposed to be all range specialists with good moving DPS, they need better long range DPS. Or the StG needs a more refined profile to have higher short-mid DPS while decreasing faster on the long range. Otherwise they won't have a niche.
interesting analysis. i've always felt that the G43 upgrade turns my PGrens into terminators, but maybe that was just due to the flashy firing sound of the rifles. if the only gain is merely a bit more DPS at range 30+ and the occasional chance for interrogation, i feel the mun cost together with the drastic DPS loss on mid to low range make PGren G43s a really awful upgrade. |
That's some top class analysis right there!
Is that all in the new ScatterThis? I have to admit I have not tried it in some time.
thanks!
yeah for the most part everything used for these graphs is included in the most recent release. though meanwhile i've updated the MG damage approximation to simulate variance as it would occur ingame (before it just used a flat average DPS between main gun shots) and fixed a handful of bugs/errors here and there. i was actually planning to release an update with the correct unit stats for the current patch once the mod tools are up to date... but that hasn't happened yet unfortunately. |
I really do like about 90% of the soviet changes, many of them bringing diversity and new gameplay options. There was a lot of work put into that will be great fun to play. Thanks for that!
One thing I want to remark about the last patch: I do think that the 0,75 seconds reload nerf on 76mm Sherman hits Lend Lease too hard, since the Sherman is the main selling point. There was so much work put into this Doctrine that I like to see it work out. But 76mm has to compete directly with T34/85 commander choices and after this last nerf I do think T34/85 comes out on top always.
T34/85 versus standard shells of 76mm Sherman with upgraded 50.cal:
T34/85 has slightly better frontal AI vs infantry with target size 1 already and way better AI vs infantry with lower target size or versus infantry that are not in front of all the MGs. The reason for that is the way better AOE of the main gun. Especially in late game T34/85 is a bigger thread to vetted infantry.
T34/85 standard shell has better penetration
With 800 hp T34/85 can take one hit more (which is often the difference between survival and destruction) and has slightly less target size
Yeah, I do know it is 5 fuel and 2 population more (and 60 MU less), but that should be always worth it. I don’t think the 6 seconds shell switch, smoke pods or 25% better moving acc make up for the raw allround power and survivability of T34/85. Choosing 76mm was always about highspeed RoF. Now it gets “standardized” without a compensation at AoE for example.
Keep in mind both 76mm doctrines (AEF and Soviet) come without doctrinal indirect fire or offmap, so their power is centered mainly around the 76mm.
completely agree to the mc4 part. the ROF nerf makes the sherman and lend lease in general a much less attractive choice compared to t-34/85 or kv-1 doctrines. i understand it was slightly overperforming in mechanized, but i wish something else would be considered (e.g. price increase) to reduce the overall effectiveness of the 76mm instead. |
Wow that is quite a bit of work you put into there. It is a lot more visual that way. Thanks for doing that!
I personally wouldn't nerf the AI of Panther put I do think Comet could get a small AI buff that is not depended on the use of WP or grenade which cost munition and micro each time you use it. Obviously this gets worse in bigger games with multiple units where the AI value of Comet is bound to your micro skills in the outcome. Something like a MG upgrade for munition (you pay only once of course) or a small AOE buff that brings it main gun AI performance closer to PZIV/T34 for example. This would reflect the 18 population a lot better.
thanks a lot!
with respect to the main gun AI, you'd probably be surprised that the Comet's gun is pretty much on par with that of other generalist mediums, if not even better. it has lower scatter and deals quite a bit more AoE damage per shot than, for example, the Pz.IV-H's 75 mm cannon (even after the last patch), although the OHK radius is a bit smaller. so it kills a bit less on average with the first shot, but overtakes the main gun of the Pz.IV after a couple more shots fired, in particular vs clumped squads.
the reason why the Pz.IV seems to perform better overall is that it has more MG DPS, but that advantage shrinks quickly against targets with low received acc. only vs squads in heavy cover the Comet is strictly inferior, since there the AoE(n) distance and damage of 0 and 120, respectively, make it take ages to kill anything in comparison with other mediums.
therefore i'm not sure if more main gun AI would be a good choice for the Comet, as that might make it too efficient at wiping squads in the late game. a slight buff to its MGs would be better imho, although i'd refrain from increasing accuracy and buff damage per bullet instead. otherwise the Comet would easily be able to mow down low-HP models weakened by WP shell damage with impunity. |
Isn't it quite surprising that Panther, despite what people think, actually gives pretty well AI dmg?
Those vids I provided was created almost two years ago for Korean coh2 community to punish axis fanboy who cried for AI buff for panther.
From what I remember, I tested 3~5 for each,(but only posted 1) and all results were similar.
Panther is one of the few base tank(no commander required) that can kill AT in head-to-head.
And comet is not that good in AI without skill such as WP. (hence acquired it's nickname "WP discharger")
Well, as said above I've indeed been quite surprised myself that the Panther performs quite on par with the Comet in the clips you've shared. However, context matters - and I'd wager in the test scenario the conditions were rather favorable for the Panther overall. As pointed out by Miragefla a few posts above the effectiveness of MGs scales pretty badly the longer the game progresses due to abundant crater cover and received accuracy for infantry with vet. Furthermore, against a more clumped squad formation the much greater AoE of the Comet would prove more effective as well, so I'm not really convinced the Panther fares that much better under real game conditions as the test would suggest.
That being said, I'm kind of on the fence towards the clip showing the frontal attack vs the AT-gun. I've never seen this happen on a regular basis ingame, though I have to admit that I haven't bothered to test it thoroughly thus far. So if the Panther is really that effective (possible, as weapon team entities should have an even larger target size than regular infantry after the latest patch) this would be worrisome. Not quite sure how much the stats of the other units involved changed within the 2 years since the videos have been recorded, but at least the Comet's main gun received quite a number of changes to its AoE and scatter, iirc. |
As I read this I thought never, ever is this true. This really can't be true. It would destroy what I thought this two tanks are balanced around completely. Both are at 18 population. so they have to be somehow compareable in population efficience.
Panther: more range, overall better survivability, higher penetration -> wins vs Comet in 1vs1 situation
Comet: does way more damage to Infantry to be more like an allround premium brawler
I tested it multiple times in CheatMod at different ranges. Vet0 Panther always with Pintle upgrade, Vet0 Comet with Tank Commander Upgrade.
Result: The result was pretty close with Panther having the edge over Comet overall at killing infantry
How is this even possible? Where is the way better AI of Comet?
Throwing grenades? -> situatuional/very short ranged/watch out for snares
Smoke shell? -> versatile, but prevents your maingun from shooting of course
WP shell at Vet1? -> is it all about this munition costing ability?
Oh man, Comet really should have higher AI base damage as a pintled Panther or be able to upgrade a turret mounted MG by itself, this is shocking.
I have to admit that I was a bit puzzled by these vids as well, so I've done a bit of number crunching myself.
Though I wasn't able to recreate the conditions in the first test to 100% (not sure what the exact engagement range was and the formation used in the simulation is slightly different), I think the theoretical results displayed in the graphs below should be quite comparable to what's been shown in the tests.
In the simulated engagement (the graphs show the average over 1,000 repetitions @ 35 m range) against the squad with no bonus to target size (TS = 1.0) the Panther and Comet are quite close with respect to damage dealt (left) and models killed (right) over time, though the Comet has a slight edge despite lower MG DPS (assuming all MGs firing at the target at all time the Panther w/ pintle has 40-60% more combined machine gun DPS at all ranges). However, the Panther relies almost to 100% on its MGs to deal damage, whereas only 60% of the Comet's DPS is dealt by the hull/coax.
Hence, when moving to a more realistic test scenario, i.e. against infantry with a target size of 0.5 (corresponding to mid to late game due to light cover or vet bonus to received accuracy) the Panther's AI falls short behind that of the Comet by quite a lot. In fact, it would take the Panther 34% longer on average to kill the whole squad under these circumstances.
The difference in raw AI may not sound like a lot, especially when compared to other generalist mediums and premium meds, but the Comet's WP shell and crew grenade more than make up for this in my opinion. These would make a huge difference in the AT-gun fight shown in the 2nd video as well, not to mention that in this clip the Panther got extremely lucky.
|
|
like the change to the wc50. the self-repair is a good compromise between vehicle crews and the current situation. this might give the dodge a bit more breathing room in the early game without ending up being too strong.
however, i'm completely baffled by the m4c changes; the high rof was what kept this unit kind of unique and used to be the biggest selling point over just getting a regular sherman. both AT and AI (which already took a hit as a result of the .50 standardization in the last patch) receive a pretty hefty nerf with the reload increase without any compensation, which imho makes it hard to justify spending the extra fuel over a regular sherman (or t-34 variant).
now i get that the m4c may have been a bit too effective in the past, especially once reaching critical mass, but a small cost increase would arguably have been the better call.
|
"Latest tank" does not really mean much since T-34/76 and Panther can both be considered "Latest tank".
Churchill has a cost,a timing and role that weight more than the title "Latest tank".
not sure why you're arguing semantics here honestly. i hope you'd agree that reducing the churchill's main gun to 120 damage would be quite a stupid move, no matter how early or late it comes out with respect to other tanks |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
