Erm, nope, according to https://coh2.serealia.ca pios do ~ 27 (4x mp40) dps at close range while pathfinders do 20 (2x carbine) + 17 (2x sniper) = 37 dps
Serealia doesn't properly list the dps of the pathfinder snipers. While outdated, coh2db.com actually has a few things serealia doesn't such as the cromwell and proper Pathfinder sniper stats. The actual close range dps of the scoped garand is about 2 with a very shallow upward curve towards long range.
Are you seriously going to compare the combat efficiency of pioneers and Pathfinders?
The XP value of Pathfinder is simply too low.
Did my post mention exp values? Or over all combat efficiency?
I know you don't like being misrepresented, please don't misrepresent me.
|
Both versions have an XP value of 340 which is actually lower than that of pioneer while their DPS is allot higher.
Not at all ranges. At ranges under 13m pioneers do outdps standard pathfinders. |
Just checked. Fields of winnekendonk, mid VP, max range cover to cover vet3 rifles vs vet5 volks. Both max upgraded. Volks won 8/10 fights.
I'm quite baffled as well at these results. There mustve been some other variables in play.... even if neither squad ended up with weapon upgrades, vetted rifles should edge out at long range due to superior vet.
At vet 0 no upgrades, volks trade roughly evenly with rifles at max range-which ends up being in their favor as they are a cheaper squad.
But volks should not be "winning" in the way you've described unless there's something else going on. |
or redesign ostwind to be cheap and better vs light tanks since currently it sucks.
Sucks vs light tanks? or sucks in general... |
we could always not give it a price hike....
that would allow it to be at least as cost effective as a panzer 4 which would give the soviets the much needed medium generalist with the added flavor of being cheaper in exchange for raw performance... buffing its performance then giving it a price hike basically turns it into a P4 clone... wouldnt want that exactly...
keeping it cheaper but equally efficient to a P4 would at least retain its flavor as an attritional unit while making it directly competitive against the P4...
The T-34 has other unique characteristics which distinguish it. More offensive vet, better mobility, ability to cap and of course ram. A cost increase would not make it a p4 clone, anymore then the cromwell is a P4 clone. |
the T-34 could be made into that lategame "complete kit" we need with a simple penetration buff...
And of course, a corresponding price hike.
My point is, and always was that the t-34's stats are to be expected from a 90 fuel vehicle, but the timing may be off. I never said it was as or more cost effective then a Panzer 4, only that at 90 fuel, it isn't cost ineffective.
If the T-34's penetration needs to be increased along with a matching price increase, then so be it, but the point is that a price increase would be needed because its performance would outstrip its cost. |
the brits have proper lategame tanks to rely on thus the need for a medium tank that can frontally challenge the P4 would be unnecessary... the T-34 in its current state would be efficient so long as ram were not removed...
if the brits did NOT have the comet or churchill then id probably start at 120/110/100 at 90 fuel...
There's the concrete answer I've been asking for.
Now the problem is the Cromwell which has 135/120/105 but for 110 fuel. Why would I get the cromwell when I could buy this nameless medium tank for 20 fuel less, but with only a small hit to long range and mid range penetration? But if this nameless tank had say... 80 long range penetration, there might actually be reason to weigh the costs involved.
Now regarding the soviets having an incomplete kit. Yeah, the soviets currently crutch heavily on the Su85 and doctrinal vehicles to get them through the late game I agree. That however is completely separate to whether or not the T-34 is "worth" 90 fuel. |
again how many times do i have to repeat my answer... again and again and again and again
"increase its penetration to the point that it no longer loses a 3v2 against a panzer 4"....
i dont know if its penetration needs to be increased by +10 or +20... it needs to be tested out as to what the ideal number should be SINCE THE ANSWER REQUIRES A SIMULATION... but whatever that ideal number is its the point where the T-34 starts winning against the panzer 4 in a 3v2 shootout....
now if you REALLY REALLY want an exact number as to what i think the answer is then id have to create my own mod to test it out... thats gonna take more time that i have to spend right now
Maybe if you answered the actual question you wouldn't end up repeating yourself.
For 90 fuel, what is a reasonable amount of penetration for a generalist medium? Do you see T-34 in there? I dont... So lets say that its a generalist medium that can be built from the tier 3 HQ for the brits since you seem to be getting hung up on the T-34 bit. |
the point is that timing is also a major factor to the effectiveness of a unit and that cannot be ignored...
in any case the valentine should not be compared to the T-34 when the T-34 is intended to compete with the panzer 4... the valentine is not... plus the T-34 is also the most powerful stock tank of in the soviet arsenal... the valentine meanwhile is supplanted with far more powerful lategame alternatives like the comet and churchill...
wanna give the T-34 the valentine treatment? fine... give the soviets a proper core lategame tank and make the T-34-85 nondoc...
You seem to have lost my point with the rocket artillery. The katy comes later then the Land mattress. Does that mean the katy is worse? Does that mean the two units can't or shouldnt be be compared?
it doesnt change the fact that for a medium tank generalist the tank underperforms badly when compared to contemporaries like the P4/sherman/P4J...
Except that you've already stated the M4 is blatantly OP and shouldnt really be used as a comparison. So are you advocating instead for an M4 and a Panzer 4 nerf?
in exchange the T-70 not only comes earlier but kills infantry much faster at a lower price... the increased armor and damage per shot the T-34 is not relevant of many of its matchups since as a T-34 you would be avoiding any medium armor like the plague anyways while the T-70 has good light armor DPS due to its ROF... there is only once case where a T-34 is superior in a matchup to the T-70.... and that is fighting the ostwind... thats it...
You again seem to be operating under the assumption that the T-34 has something like a 10% chance to penetrate a Panzer 4 at all ranges.
its not just outclassed... its outcosted... 3 T-34s cost 270 fuel and 2 P4s only cost 240 fuel... yet the T-34 loses to the P4 and that shouldnt be the case...
And 2 panzer 4's lose to a single comet at 40 range. Should the panzer 4's be buffed?
again how many times do i have to repeat my answer... increase its penetration to the point that it no longer loses a 3v2 against a panzer 4... i dont know if its +30 + 20 + 10 or even +5 it doesnt matter so long as it WINS a 3v2 as intended...
The question was: Is 120/100/80 penetration ok for a 90 fuel generalist tank whether its for soviets or USF or UKF or whatever. Stop dodging it and answer. I don't see T-34 in that question, do you?
But just to be clear, I do think its a fair amount of penetration for 90 fuel. If you said that it should be +10, I would say that the fuel needs to be increased correspondingly-and you might agree. Except at that point we would be talking about a 100 fuel vehicle, which is outside the scope of the question.
So I am going to repeat again:
For 90 fuel, what is a reasonable amount of penetration on a generalist medium? |
1. Comparing absolutely numbers between performance of guns of Allied and Axis armour doesn't make any sense, because both sides face different targets with different armour values. You need to use the difference in penetration to armour ratios instead: T34 vs P4 at mid range is for example 0,56 vs 0,77. So in reality P4 has 37,5 % advantage over T34 in AT performance, which is a lot more than you suggest.
2. Mutiple numerical advantages stack mutliplicatevely, not cumulatively or by avarage. By lacking in mutiple departments, the T34 doesn't perform ~ 13,5 % worse. The total disadvantage is ultimately something like 0,87*0,9*0,83, so again about -35 % overall. This is how scaling works with mutliple factors, but this realistically still isn't the ideal way to represent difference in performance, because...
3. ...COH2 doesn't work with fractions. It's just result A (hit) or result B (no hit). Tanks are not some massive damage sponges, so having by 37,5 % lower theoretical DPS against P4 for example, the T34 doesn't get to damage a P4 just by amount this lower and perform 37,5 % worse overall. It means that result B happens significantly more often for T34 and P4 has proportionally higher chance to get result A, which overall means that under vast majority of statistical scenarios, T34 fails and has to retreat/get repaired or dies right away, while the P4 has vastly increased map presence.
This is why T34 feels so much worse to use as an actual tank compared to other mediums. I'm writing this just to show how important it is to work with the numbers in proper context.
I don't disagree that there is a greater context. Perhaps a better comparison would be to the M4 or cromwell since they face the same foes as the T-34? And honestly, the stats would skew more in favor of the T-34 if we did this.
Except that the M4 has already been dismissed as broken op and apparently the cromwell too except for being underpowered (not by me). I chose the comparison to the Panzer 4 because neither the other options was deemed acceptable to compare to.
Would you say the T-34's stats are warranted given its cost? Or do you believe it needs a buff in this department? |
United States
λυκεπραισεστονε
Serrith
Conscript reporting
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
