Profile of FelixTHM

I'd rather see the cost of volks increased if they get fausts. Seems like they always have a ton of infantry very fast in the early game considering they don't have to build any tech buildings and have cheap infantry. Why they aren't like 280 is beyond me, since they can definitely compete with vanilla riflemen and have a way better vet1.

Try actually looking at the stats. Vanilla Volks either tie or lose vs Vanilla Rifles at all ranges. And Rifles have vastly superior veterancy bonuses in terms of combat effectiveness.

Statistically Volks aren't that strong, but there are many in-game factors for Volks performing very well.

1) Sandbags, which Rifles don't get by default
2) Sturms dominate at the ranges in which Rifles are strong vs Volks
3) OKW starts with 100 extra mp in exchange for 15 less fuel, but combined with the Sturms vs RE dynamic - USF is behind by at least 1 combat-effective squad from the start. I often win engagements against 1 Volks squad only to be forced back by the next Volks that comes along. Volks aren't statistically superior, you're just getting outnumbered.
4) STGs and flame nades hit the field way earlier than Riflemen upgrades.
5) Riflemen design - Riflemen are extremely back-loaded in terms of their combat bonuses. Vet 3 Rifles are easily a match for Vet 3 Volks with STGs, and absolutely shred them when double BARed.

Basically you're using an infantry unit that only gains a lot of strength in the mid-late game to fight the most front-loaded faction. That's why it often feels frustrating for the USF player, and I definitely know how that feels.

However, the pricing of the two units is definitely in line with their statistical performance, so my suggestion would be to remove the starting MP bonus for OKW in exchange for a smaller fuel handicap.

Guys, I know you want easy wins, but IS balance is not to blame. Yes, they can be stronger than your cheaper infantry for the first few minutes of the game. For that IS pays the price of having the worse moving accuracy of all mainline inf and being the only mainline without a snare.

If you'd ever decide to give brits a go - you will encounter a very pleasant phenomenon mid game, when a cheaper up-gunned squad of volks can just run up to your bolstered five man squad in heavy cover and win the engagement.

As per sapper snare balance - the at gun has been nerfed accordingly while most other factions got a buff one way or another, so nothing to cry about here either.

Never experienced volks being able to defeat my IS behind heavy cover.....Did you sit in the flame nade for 10 seconds? Brits tend to dominate defensive engagements with ease. My issue is always with the lack of indirect fire, making it super hard to attack enemy territory. Axis defensive positions - sandbagged volks or garrisoned HMGs are always super problematic to flush out when I play Brits. In fact, Brits is the only Allied faction which I think has a super easy time fending off OKW early aggression but conversely struggles against enemy defenses.

Im not lying, you are just keeping your head in your butt. I didnt say p4 can handle comet or beat it. P4 can however normaly function on the battlefield while comet is around, still doing work around map and in case comet shows up just reverse with ease.

Compare it to panther presence on the field. Sherman/t34/cromwell will just be chased down by panther if they step out a little. Panther will penetrate them 100% times and requires 3 snares to get engine damaged.



Interesting. Thats excatly what im talking about. Comet tries to do the same things churchill does already, but for more fuel and with worse results. Thats why i suggested to turn comet into dedicated tank hunter, with better penetration, rate of fire and maybe healt in exchange for armor (dont need 290 to hunt mediums).

Wow, your head is so far up your rectum that you can't even see how retarded your own argument is.

"The P4 can still normally function" -> Just like how all tanks can "normally function" even though the enemy has anti-tank guns and tank destroyers, because all you need to do is reverse, right? You mention Allied mediums being chased down by Panthers - it's as if P4s can just town portal back to base whenever a Comet appears? If you're comparing an unsnared Panther that is given all the time and space it wants and needs to hunt down medium tanks, how is that any different from an unsnared Comet that doesn't have to face anti-tank guns, mines, or snaring infantry and gets all the time and space it wants and needs to hunt Axis mediums?

The Panther is indeed a better tank hunter, but the Comet has no issues bullying/hunting medium tanks at all. It reminds me of Asian parents saying that their child has failed because their child got a B and someone else got an A. Of course, you're also comparing the performance of a dedicated tank hunter fighting trash-cost tanks against a generalist super medium tank fighting premium mediums like the OKW P4. A more reasonable comparison would have been the Panther vs EZ8 or T34-85, but of course that would destroy your entire argument since a Panther has more difficulty killing an Allied premium medium than the Comet would have killing an Axis premium medium (OKW P4). In fact, any reasonable comparison would prove you wrong -> The Comet has a 100% pen chance on the Ost P4, which is more expensive than stock Allied mediums. And trash-cost mediums like a single Stug or Ostwind would get easily demolished by the Comet, relying entirely on AT guns and snaring infantry to secure its escape. But of course, being reasonable is way beyond you.

I definitely agree the Comet is in a bad spot and not an attractive option at all. It's just that your logic is atrocious. Even though I fundamentally agree with your recommendations I'm left with no recourse but to oppose you based on how incredibly biased (and pompous) you are in constructing your argument(s).

You cant build comet without blitz because its part of hammer upgrade. You pay fuel for it. Or else we consider comet price as 225 fuel and 700mp.

Comet playing support role overlaps heavily with cromwell and churchill while being worse than these 2. Its failed design.

Comet being "good matchup" vs 140 medium tank is not enough. It should either completly outclass okw p4 (if we want to keep it generalist) or straight up murder it. As for now its garbage in its role for its price.

Brits have fragile slow firing td thats good versus heavy armor but sucks vs mediums. Comet being redesigned as medium tanks hunter would fill different role.

The role you described at the end is excatly what churchill is for. Supporting push and keeping p4 and stugs at bay while being countered by panther. Currently comet tries to do the same, for more fuel, in worse sidegrade and with worse reault. Thats a failed design.

The Comet does indeed straight-up murder Axis mediums. No idea why you have this strange idea that a P4 can even remotely handle a fight against a Comet when the P4 has less health and about half the pen chance. The Comet is definitely not a good unit as it currently stands, but bare-faced lying certainly doesn't help your argument.

Two problems I have with the Comet are the sidegrade cost and the efficiency of the Churchill. I'd build it if it were available without Hammer tech. But the biggest reason not to get a Comet is that Churchills are simply better at anti-infantry, bullying mediums and spearheading/tanking (haha). I don't want to pay for a weird utility Panther when I can get a 1000+ hp anti-inf heavy tank for significantly less fuel.

Interested to hear other people's thoughts on this unit.

My thoughts are thought although it's very expensive and comes at T4, it just seems to overperform slightly. In terms of raw tank destroying potential it's up there with the best units in the game, but it has the mobility of a sherman and the armour of a heavy tank (not sure if the stats back this up but I think everyone has memories of Panthers in this game that just do not die). It just seems like such a get out of jail free card at times, and this is coming from someone who plays both Allies and Axis so I'm not biased against either.

I think everyone can agree that the current state of the Command Panther is a bit silly in that it doesn't require tech, but I think the raw unit is still slightly too good.

By raw tank destroying potential like "the best units in the game" you're referring to Allied TDs, like the 60 range SU85 which costs 2/3 the price, or the Jackson, which has 60 range, high pen, and is lightning fast?

The Panther is already incredibly expensive, and being in T4 makes it even more difficult to field, since your opponent will have multiple mediums already. Spending so much on a tank hunter means you need to win vs double-BAR/Bren Allied infantry without adequate AI tank support AND your infantry will be constantly terrorised by his medium tanks while you're teching and saving for a Panther.

The other thing is that many Allied players compare Panther (a tank hunter) to T34s/Shermans (generalist tanks with amazing AI). Basically they're complaining that a 485mp 185fuel 18 pop cap Rock is beating a 300mp 90fuel Scissors.

If you really wanted things to be fair, then we should just say "to hell with asymmetry" and make all tank destroyers 60 range, poor movement, low armour, and have similar tech costs and timing.

Most importantly, cost and timing are far more delicate in 1v1 and 2v2 than in larger team games, so there seems to be no perfect solution which can preserve balance in both the smaller as well as the larger game modes.