Profile of Protos Angelus

The problem with your refusal to play Axis is that you end up with such ridiculously biased "opinions".

Comet and Panther anti-infantry performance are not "similar" at all. Panther has a serviceable amount of mg damage, it's okay and I wouldn't call it terrible. The Comet cannon actually gets kills and wipes - it literally has good AOE and scatter. It's hardly even comparable. With WP and grenades Comet can dominate team weapons, especially AT guns. You're basically calling a C+ and an A "similar".

I never said the Comet was a match for the Panther. I said its overall package is too good, and its armour is oppressive vs mediums while AT guns, shrecks, and Panthers can't pen reliably. Doesn't Panther have 200 far pen? I thought 220 was mid. It doesn't actually change my point, and especially the examples I used. It has heavy tank armour, medium tank speed, lots of utility, and literally no weaknesses. It probably got overbuffed a little the last time round. Should either undo the cost decrease it got previously or nerf some of its overperforming stats.

I never said Panther and Comet have nowhere close similar AI. Comet is superior in the fact that cannon has quite a larger AOE. I don't play axis competitively, I do play them generally.
"It has heavy tank armour, medium tank speed, lots of utility, and literally no weaknesses. It probably got overbuffed a little the last time round. Should either undo the cost decrease it got previously or nerf some of its overperforming stat".
With this I agree. It could do with either a price increase or utility removal. If I were to rank AI firepower of tanks.
A+ are Sherman HE
A is P4
C+ gets Comet
D gets Panther (D+ with pintle MG)

I completely agree that Comet should get a nerf. My only point is that the armour should not be touched. The best solution would be to nerf price, that is increase it. While Comet has no clear weaknesses, it also has no clear advantages.

If you want AI, AT, maneuverability in one general package, then Comet is the way to go. If the enemy is spamming infantry, you won't buy Panther and if the enemy is spamming panthers, you won't go for the Comets or Shermans. You'll go for fireflies and Jacksons and SU85s.
If you were to phrase it academically:
Comet has C+ in all classes but also has a B in practical classes, whereas it should have a C (Utility). Either increase the tuition costs or lower his grade in practical class. Unlearning the knowledge to cook grenades would also be viable along with a slight price increase.

Brits are in my book probably the most rounded faction concerning tanks. Cromwell is weak but has low profile and good maneuverability. Comet is a jack of all trades. Churchill is the breakthrough tank with not bad AT capability. Firefly is great vs all tanks when supported (super weak unsupported) and Centaur is good infantry support vehicle.

Compared to OST:
OST has specialist tanks in T4. Brummbar the heavy nuke launcher (better than churchill in breakthrough role but worse at AT, A SPECIALIST)
Panther, best AT tank in the game, poor vs infantry.
You have 2 specialist tanks and one rocket arty. Each excel in their field but lack in other. Does that mean that they should be nerfed/buffed? I don't think so. These are their roles.
I'm typing this as I have just played a game as OST and my werfer managed to miss most of the shots vs a 4 squad blob (13 kills out of potential (4*5)*3, capping a VP, 3 times in a row (Ptomnik airfield, mid VP). Still doesn't mean werfer is UP, just s*** luck. Same as every other thing in this game.

AI performance pretty much the same?

Have you ever used/fought a Comet before?


Even back when it was not very cost effective, it was still better against infantry than a Panther. Since then it got a cost decrease, mg buff, and a main gun buff vs infantry.

I like the concept of the Comet as a generalist battle tank with lots of utility. The armour is probably the problem, since it has a high chance of bouncing AT gun, shrecks, and even Panther shots. Stugs and JP4 aren't going to cut it either, although stugs still get used cos they're dirt cheap. 290 armour is basically heavy tank level armour, but it moves like a medium and has war speed.

It can get a slight cost decrease or minor buff in other areas to compensate if we nerf its armour, but 290 armour on a spammable speedy tank really should go now that the Comet is actually good vs infantry. Alternatively increasing its cost by 30mp and 10 fuel would put it closer to heavy tank costs, which is where its performance is approaching. For reference, the Comet handily defeats 2 x P4, and basically trades HP for speed, making it pretty much a Pershing with a worse main gun but more special abilities.

High chance of bouncing panther? At max range it's 25%. At close it's 10%. Those are not that high chances of bouncing, especially not vs an expensive tank. Point is, Panther wins vs Comet easily and can easily scare him away (like it can with any tank really). It's true that it's AI power is not bad. It's certainly better than Panther even with the MG upgrade (though not much). Panther has more HP, 30 less armour, and is generally the best tank fighting machine in the game, whilst being able to bleed infantry with it's pintle MG. Comet has more utility and better AI and 160 less HP. Also the MG buffs it received were mainly to deal with it's lackluster out of cover AI. Once there is yellow cover, all those MG buffs fade away.
.
It's got high armour but it's nowhere near invulnerable as you make it to be. It should only get a 10 fuel increase, while maintaining it's performance. It's not exactly spammable.

Absolutely agreed. I also find Comet a bit OP, specially in armor, acceleration and speed terms.
I think it should lose it AI power. Should be only good against tanks. Cannot be excellent at everything.

But it's not. It's OK vs AI and OK vs tanks. It's penetration is reliable close range. Why would anyone buy comet if it were only good vs tanks? The whole reason patches addressed comet AI through MG buffs was because comet was completely unreliable at killing infantry, especially with it's poor accuracy. It needs to lose utility and that's it.

SmGs at close range do seem to do allot of damage to light vehicles.

Mainly because of ROF. That's why Echelons had a "nerf" where their ROF/dmg was decreased but accuracy increased which meant better-ish vs infantry but worse vs Kubels (since every shot penetrated and hit, having better accuracy means s*** vs vehicles), and their overall DPS remained the same, sort of. So SMGs with good dmg and excellent ROF can take down light vehicles like front of AA HT or 2XX or Scout car, werfer, etc.

And considering the "T70 can bleed infantry in late" is... well... not completely true. It can do so in 1v1s where the forces are spread thin so it can attack flanks but in teamgames it gets destroyed quite quickly if not super careful (more people, more mines, AT, snares... on *slightly* larger maps). T70 cap function is not bad, still it's seldom used and only on flanks where it can safely cap and preferably get out if danger comes.

You do invest in AT solution in form of snares. Bazookas and piats are for mediums mostly. PTSRs are the best for light vehicles due to the possibility to come soon and they are OK vs infantry as well. 251 won't go down easily by small arms fire unless you blob. And if the 251 has a flame HT, then you are pretty happy if they blob infantry. Hell, Flame HT took out my captain squad in 3 seconds that it took them to get out of the building, de-clump and retreat. Poof, all 5 models gone.

Combine all that with the fact that 251 utility solutions are great, it doesn't need armor buff.

Generally I find the game punishes aggression too much, in contrast to what apparently happened in that game. You will hear more good players and casters yelling "don't overextend, don't get greedy" and pointing out stupidity in that regard than people yelling "Push, you idiot," as Hans apparently failed to do (haven't seen that game). It's for a good reason.

In my opinion the flaw in game design that makes this so is that snares are far too widespread and effective. I'd rather see armor be more expensive and more effective than they way the game has been designed.

Croatian name for a "clerk" and an American flag. You a spy?

Back to topic... It's true. People are usually afraid of diving with tanks since Axis infantry have a lot of tank snares. For allies, conscripts and royal engies are most dangerous since they have the fast throwing snare. USF snares are seldom and slow. Rifles take a long time to aim and fire so usually the tank can get out before it's snared, or the squad dies from 3rd party firepower during the "aiming" part. Worse if the guy that's snaring gets killed and the aiming is reset for another model. I remember a game on Fields on winnekendonk where my rifles were aiming at a P4 for a snare and it was on the bot munitions point. The snare went into cooldown around the house and the snare hit outside of the top base xD (good reverse from the axis enemy). For axis it's grens (which are usually massed), obers (also a lot of units). Combining that with high penetration shrecks and you have a lot of tank blood on your hands (or tank fuel I guess). Only tanks that can withstand such combinations are Panthers, breadcrumbs, comets and chinchillas. Maybe T34-85 as well if en masse. P4s, Shermans, T34s, Cromwells are usually played more in 1v1s since you need that tank power spike (whereas in teamgames, your ally can cover for you while you maybe go for indirect or something like that. I like to go ranger zooks for that early mobile AT power, as an example).