[ALL][ALL] Armour penetration bias

#1
2 months ago
BogeyfoxBogeyfox Posts: 147
edited January 6 in Balance Feedback

Armour penetration bias or the magic number 160:

There are two important numbers to understand why I think there is a bias between allies and axis units concerning armour penetration. One is 160 and the other is 640. Why are those 2 numbers important? The 1st number is the penetration and armour value and the 2nd is health.

Pls note, all pen value numbers apply to far range, because they are the worst. Closer range leads to better pen-values.

Most t3 tanks have 640 health and most allied tanks have an armour of 160. To calculate if a hit pens the tank the penetration value of the attacking unit is divided by the armour value of the tank. So, if a unit has a 160 pen value and the armour has 160 armour the outcome is 1. So, any randomly generated number between 0 -1 will include 1, i.e. every hit will deal max damage of the weapon. Now most tanks deal 160 damage. Jacksons and Fireflies deal 200 dmg.
Now to the fun facts: PzSchreck weapons have also a 160 pen value, i.e. any hit will pen tanks with 160 or less armour, i.e. Jackson, Firefly, Sherman, T34/76…. 640 is a multiplier of 160, i.e. any unit dealing 160 Damage needs 4 hits to kill a tank with 640 health. And guess, PzSchreck have 40 damage which add up nicely to 640.
What about allied tanks and infantry? Despite the fact that Jackson and Fireflies deal more damage, it won’t result in less hits to destroy a 640 health tanks, i.e. Panzer IV. They will also need a 4th hits. Bazookas and Piats have a 110 pen value and PTRS only 70. Their damage ranges from 33 (Piats; 26 Bazookas) -14, PTRS.
While PzSchrecks scale to the late game due to their damage and pen abilities, allied counterparts play almost no role. Even if they pen rear side armour, they lack the damage of Schrecks.
AT-crew weapons have 160 Pen value so they are a little bit worse than a Jagdpanzer (170).
The graphs below show how penetration odds are distributed across different units. In the ‘odds to pen armour graph’ Dots show armour values of units and lines show the odds of the unit across different armour values. To determine the odds for a specific tank against another, find the dot (armour) of the to hit tank and look where the line of the other tank is. If you look at the green line (T34/76) you’ll find the dot at a 150. Now if you want to know the odds of a Brummbaer to pen the T34 search for the line of the Brummbear, i.e. red line, and determine the Y-value, i.e. about .66. So, 2 out of 3 shots the Brummbaer will pen the T34/76. Vice versa, the T34/76 will hit 1 out of 33 (Red dot – green line = .31 y-value).
If you wanna know how many hits are needed to bring a tank down look for the Pen-odds against the other unit and then look at lowest graph for the shots. E.g. T34/76 vs. Panzer IV. Odds for the T34 against P4 are .45. So we take .5 odds 160 DMG line. 640 health means 8 Hits needed to kill the P4. The other way around. P4 pen odds are .75. So last graph .75 odds line 160 DMG et voilà 6 shots. So the T34 will have to make 2 more shots just for pen reasons.
Important! Note these graphs do not include the odds of hitting a target. It shows what lies beyond hitting. They also do not show reload times and DPS!

Range of weapons. Range of weapons play (imho) at the current stage a little to no role in games with more than 2 players. With a speed 6+ for most tanks of they receive in worst case 2 hits to get to range 0. 2 Hits are not enough to bring down a tank at least u need 4 and Panther even need 6; all neglecting acc-odds.
Churchill: The Churchill is the only regular tank giving axis infantry unit a hard time to pen front side. The problem is, it’s so slow and has only a pen ability of 110 which makes it pretty poor to counter enemy tanks. With a speed of 4.8 it is significantly slower than other tanks. Even the Brummbaer has 5.7. So, getting the Churchill snared will make it slower than infantry. Because of its lack in damage, the Churchill can simply be ignored and kill after “the” storm or the attack. Its only useful if axis player attack it because they think it’s a threat.

In my opinion either allied infantry weapons need to scale to late game, i.e. their pen values must be at least 180 (Pz IV Armour) or reduce PzSchrecks pen value to 110. Schrecks still have a higher damage output justifying their increased costs.
TDs are a much bigger issue. It’s hard to find a solution for them without changing the overall mechanic. Allied TDs are much too vulnerable to any kind of AT enemy and are slower than a panther. Dealing “only” 200 damage doesn’t help them on 640-health tanks and they still need 5 hits on a Panther. Due to lack in pen chances it’s even 6 shots on average, still neglecting the odds to hit.



«1

Comments

  • #2
    2 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 211

    These are so deep info, that I never look into it.

    From winter 2017, Jackson damage is 200 decreased to 160 for it's 480hp to 640hp, and its reload time is faster, also higher pen

    • Testing SU85, Jackson & Firefly shotting on 3 Panzer4. Firefly surely does more damage, but its reload time is too slow that make it kill a Pz4 slower ~6sec than SU85 (fastest of 3 TD)
    • Testing SU85, Jackson & Firefly shotting on 3 King on rear (testing the speed to deplete high hp tank, not pen). The result is SU85 also is the fasted of all 3; 4sec faster than Firefly (also the slowest)

    => So, Firefly does 40 more damage is totally pointless, for it doesnt make less than 4 shot on Medium (4x200 to deplete 640), or less than 3 shot on Light (4x200 to deplete 480), or less than 2 shot on Halftrack (2x200 to deplete 320). SU85 fastest fire-rate will do a better job on open field, while Jackson with turret can easily flank on urban. The only using for Firefly is to make a 2/4 Hp tank stunned with Tulip after it take another 1/4 Hp so it can shoot the finish round.

    Giving example if giving Firefly does 240damage (x1.5 than others). It still also take 4 rounds if Firefly combine armed with a Cromwell (240 + 160 = 400damage per turn), next round will be from Cromwell for it's faster fire rate (560damage), then Firefly shot its 2nd round to finish.

    I feel the damage of Tanks in Coh2 is not various. Same damage, same health (for most Medium). Only various in pen. Even if Firefly does 200 or 240 damage doesnt make it different in round required to take down a Medium, and just make it even worst than 160damage TD counter part for its super slow fire rate.

  • #3
    2 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,711
    edited January 6

    1) PzIV are more expensive because they have more armor.
    2) Without relaod and chance to hit you have half the picture
    3) Check again when veterancy bonus penetration kick ins for allied tanks
    4) And there is also the issue of mobility

    Finally Axis tank are better by design as allied infantry are better by design.

  • #4
    2 months ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 3,999
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > And guess, PzSchreck have 40 damage which add up nicely to 640.

    You lost me here. Try playing the game and testing your theories instead of just trawling through numbers. What you have here is the Panzerschrecks damage *against infantry*.
  • #5
    2 months ago
    Sander93Sander93 Posts: 28
    edited January 7

    Are you just going to conveniently ignore that Allied TDs have 210-325 penetration at 60 range with an 80-125% chance to penetrate a Panther?

    The Panzershreck's penetration and damage is balanced by the fact it has the mid-long range accuracy of a sawn off shotgun, and a very long reload compared to bazookas.

    Also arguing that 60 range does not play a role is completely wrong, as it always gives Allied TDs 1) the opportunity to fire at least 1 shot before Axis tank comes into range, 2) allows them to safely hide behind ATGs/heavies/snare infantry and 3) enables them to effectively kite anything that isn't a Panther.

    Also also, the Jackson does 160 damage, only its AP shell ability does 200. And dealing 200 or 240 damage still greatly influences the combined arms approach as 3 shots of 200 damage - as opposed to 160 - will leave the tank with low enough HP (40HP) that it can be killed by a snare (100 damage) or any form of handheld AT (80-100 damage) or PTRS (40 damage).

  • #6
    2 months ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,558

    @Sander93 said:
    Are you just going to conveniently ignore that Allied TDs have 210-325 penetration at 60 range with an 80-125% chance to penetrate a Panther?

    The Panzershreck's penetration and damage is balanced by the fact it has the mid-long range accuracy of a sawn off shotgun, and a very long reload compared to bazookas.

    Also arguing that 60 range does not play a role is completely wrong, as it always gives Allied TDs 1) the opportunity to fire at least 1 shot before Axis tank comes into range, 2) allows them to safely hide behind ATGs/heavies/snare infantry and 3) enables them to effectively kite anything that isn't a Panther.

    Which allied unit has 300+ penetration at 60 range?
    Only units capable of that are super TDs on axis side.

    Also also, the Jackson does 160 damage, only its AP shell ability does 200. And dealing 200 or 240 damage still greatly influences the combined arms approach as 3 shots of 200 damage - as opposed to 160 - will leave the tank with low enough HP (40HP) that it can be killed by a snare (100 damage) or any form of handheld AT (80-100 damage) or PTRS (40 damage).

    It might come as a surprise to you, but contrary to pshrecks, allied handheld AT doesn't come close to 100% pen chance at either, max or close range against even medium axis tanks, so you're making here some healthy assumptions in regards to that.

    You're not wrong, you're just ignoring penetration and armor.

  • #7
    2 months ago
    Sander93Sander93 Posts: 28

    Jackson vet 3 with AP shells has 390/364/325 penetration.

  • #8
    2 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,246
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > Dealing “only” 200 damage doesn’t help them on 640-health tanks.

    To be blunt, the fact that you believe this means you need to play the game more and you are deeply unqualified to be making any balance claims at all. I'm sorry to put it that way, but as @Sander93 already pointed out, with combined arms ANY difference in damage is a huge deal.

    In other words, if you are actually microing something else besides your HVAP Jackson, those 200 damage shots can set up tanks to be killed by lighter AT. Hell say it's a 2v2. All you need is 1 shot from a ptrs/Boys rifle to penetrate during the fight and that's a dead p4 to 3 HVAP shots.
  • #9
    2 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 211

    3 HVAP shot from a single Jackson (total shooting time ~13sec start from the 1st round), will be enough time for Pz4 to retreat. And 1 Ptrs round will require the closer range to shoot the 4th shot on Pz4. It still require 4 shot, with even closer range. I would use double Jackson instead.

    Even with HVAP, it will take 7 rounds if pen everytime (8 default rounds if pen everytime), not much a different, I use HVAP only to make sure it pen everytime on a retreat heavy tank.

  • #10
    2 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,246
    @C3Tooth You're missing the point by a lot. The point is that this game is about combined arms and NOT about units soloing each other. So saying that 200 damage is still 4 shots on a p4 is a stupid point to make. If you have literally anything else in the area, than the difference of that damage matters. The specific scenario is not the relevant issue here.

    BUT, even in the specific scenario, I don't know where you get the idea that the p4 can easily retreat against the Jackson. The Jackson outspeeds and outranges it. And the ptrs doesn't have to be the 4th shot, I have no idea what you're talking about there. 40 damage is 40 damage no matter when it happens
  • #11
    2 months ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    @Vipper said:
    1) PzIV are more expensive because they have more armor.
    2) Without relaod and chance to hit you have half the picture
    3) Check again when veterancy bonus penetration kick ins for allied tanks
    4) And there is also the issue of mobility

    Finally Axis tank are better by design as allied infantry are better by design.

    i agree.

    except Volks grenadiers kind of says otherwise in terms of efficiency.

  • #12
    2 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,711
    edited January 8

    @Beardedragon said:
    i agree.
    except Volks grenadiers kind of says otherwise in terms of efficiency.

    Well the V.G.s St44 is badly designed, but lest try to stick to armor and not infantry.

  • #13
    2 months ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 9

    @Vipper said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    i agree.
    except Volks grenadiers kind of says otherwise in terms of efficiency.

    Well the V.G.s St44 is badly designed, but lest try to stick to armor and not infantry.

    except you mentioned infantry. allied infantry were better by design. yet 1 out of 2 axis faction has more efficient and dare i say better main infantry because of it, than allied nations do.

  • #14
    2 months ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 3,999
    edited January 9

    @Beardedragon said:

    @Vipper said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    i agree.
    except Volks grenadiers kind of says otherwise in terms of efficiency.

    Well the V.G.s St44 is badly designed, but lest try to stick to armor and not infantry.

    except you mentioned infantry. allied infantry were better by design. yet 1 out of 2 axis faction has more efficient and dare i say better main infantry because of it, than allied nations do.

    It's universally accepted as an OP unit that needs a nerf to fit back in the design philosophy, so I don't see what your point is.

    Ignoring infantry, Vipper made 4 other totally valid points that still stand whatever your opinion on Volks - but to add to that pile, because fuck it why not? The graph is deliberately using max range slug fests - the mode of armored combat that favors Axis and I can't help but think that's not an accident. Maybe also do a graph of min range stats just to better reflect how people actually use their mediums.

    Also range is important. While you are allowed to have the opinion that range doesn't matter your opinion is wrong because range exactly matters and if you want that to be evident play Ostheer with no OKW or Elefant up your sleeve.

  • #15
    2 months ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    @Lazarus said:

    @Beardedragon said:

    @Vipper said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    i agree.
    except Volks grenadiers kind of says otherwise in terms of efficiency.

    Well the V.G.s St44 is badly designed, but lest try to stick to armor and not infantry.

    except you mentioned infantry. allied infantry were better by design. yet 1 out of 2 axis faction has more efficient and dare i say better main infantry because of it, than allied nations do.

    It's universally accepted as an OP unit that needs a nerf to fit back in the design philosophy, so I don't see what your point is.

    Ignoring infantry, Vipper made 4 other totally valid points that still stand whatever your opinion on Volks - but to add to that pile, because fuck it why not? The graph is deliberately using max range slug fests - the mode of armored combat that favors Axis and I can't help but think that's not an accident. Maybe also do a graph of min range stats just to better reflect how people actually use their mediums.

    Also range is important. While you are allowed to have the opinion that range doesn't matter your opinion is wrong because range exactly matters and if you want that to be evident play Ostheer with no OKW or Elefant up your sleeve.

    If the developers dont accept it as an OP unit (because i dont see any nerfs to them) then its, according to them, not an OP unit. and after its changes to get STGs rather than shreks, they are, by design, made to be much more efficient than allied infantry.

  • #16
    2 months ago
    BogeyfoxBogeyfox Posts: 147

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    BUT, even in the specific scenario, I don't know where you get the idea that the p4 can easily retreat against the Jackson. The Jackson outspeeds and outranges it.

    P4 Speed 6; Jackson 6.5. 1st: This is not that much considering an infantry has a speed of 3. 2nd: Jackson is vulnerable to any kind of AT infantry including snares and also to FLAKS. 3rd. What kind of vision has the Jackson....

    @Vipper said:
    1) PzIV are more expensive because they have more armor.
    2) Without relaod and chance to hit you have half the picture

    I never claimed it's the full picture. Not sure why you come up with it?
    I wrote this: Important! Note these graphs do not include the odds of hitting a target. It shows what lies beyond hitting. They also do not show reload times and DPS! Not enough?

    3) Check again when veterancy bonus penetration kick ins for allied tanks

    So I need to feed my allied tanks to have a chance against axis? The problem is I can't replace such a vet tank once killed. Axis has no such problems. That's a balance issue for me.

    4) And there is also the issue of mobility

    Which one? That axis has 6.6 on the panther and a Jackson has 6.5 as T34...

    Finally Axis tank are better by design as allied infantry are better by design.

    Axis tanks - sure. Infantry - not so sure; esp. snaring tanks....

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > Dealing “only” 200 damage doesn’t help them on 640-health tanks.

    To be blunt, the fact that you believe this means you need to play the game more and you are deeply unqualified to be making any balance claims at all. I'm sorry to put it that way, but as @Sander93 already pointed out, with combined arms ANY difference in damage is a huge deal.

    Oh - nice comment. How many games have you played in 4vs4 or 3v3? The big problem with what you say is, that under a lot of conditions it's balanced, i.e. vet upgrades etc. These are conditional effects. If one condition is not met, balance fails, e.g vet tank... While these assymetric fails are small in 1vs1 they add up in 4vs4. And in a 4vs4 you can't hide your Jackson or Firefly behind something. It's open to all sides. It's no corridor like 1vs1.

  • #17
    2 months ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 3,999

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Oh - nice comment. How many games have you played in 4vs4 or 3v3? The big problem with what you say is, that under a lot of conditions it's balanced, i.e. vet upgrades etc. These are conditional effects. If one condition is not met, balance fails, e.g vet tank... While these assymetric fails are small in 1vs1 they add up in 4vs4. And in a 4vs4 you can't hide your Jackson or Firefly behind something. It's open to all sides. It's no corridor like 1vs1.

    Actually, you'll find that the only condition for a balanced engagement is you use the right tool for the right job. I.E. if you use a TD to fight a tank, the TD will win. It's the same from 1 v 1 all the way up to 4 v 4. Prove me wrong with a replay if you insist.

  • #18
    2 months ago
    BogeyfoxBogeyfox Posts: 147

    @Lazarus said:

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Oh - nice comment. How many games have you played in 4vs4 or 3v3? The big problem with what you say is, that under a lot of conditions it's balanced, i.e. vet upgrades etc. These are conditional effects. If one condition is not met, balance fails, e.g vet tank... While these assymetric fails are small in 1vs1 they add up in 4vs4. And in a 4vs4 you can't hide your Jackson or Firefly behind something. It's open to all sides. It's no corridor like 1vs1.

    Actually, you'll find that the only condition for a balanced engagement is you use the right tool for the right job. I.E. if you use a TD to fight a tank, the TD will win. It's the same from 1 v 1 all the way up to 4 v 4. Prove me wrong with a replay if you insist.

    Simply no: a Firefly will not win against a panther or jagdpanzer without using special abilities..... or a spotter while the panther/jagd won't move.

  • #19
    2 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,246
    edited January 14
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > Simply no: a Firefly will not win against a panther or jagdpanzer without using special abilities..... or a spotter while the panther/jagd won't move.

    Try using it against KingTigers, Tigers, or even the two heavy TDs (in 2v2s and up have your partners distract it while you hammer it with tulips).

    Of course it can't Solo a panther, it's cheaper by 30 fuel while outranging it and having lower health. To anyone with a brain, that means you need a spotter. Or a snaring squad to at least screen the tank from rushing your glass cannon. It's designed for the beefier slower targets.

    @Lazarus literally just tried to tell you about using the right tool for the right job, and you immediately gave him an example of using the wrong tool while not even using that tool properly.
  • #20
    2 months ago
    mlkmlk Posts: 36

    the usual defender of the German cause is here.
    nothing to hope.

  • #21
    2 months ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 3,999
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > @Lazarus said:
    >
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    >
    > Oh - nice comment. How many games have you played in 4vs4 or 3v3? The big problem with what you say is, that under a lot of conditions it's balanced, i.e. vet upgrades etc. These are conditional effects. If one condition is not met, balance fails, e.g vet tank... While these assymetric fails are small in 1vs1 they add up in 4vs4. And in a 4vs4 you can't hide your Jackson or Firefly behind something. It's open to all sides. It's no corridor like 1vs1.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Actually, you'll find that the only condition for a balanced engagement is you use the right tool for the right job. I.E. if you use a TD to fight a tank, the TD will win. It's the same from 1 v 1 all the way up to 4 v 4. Prove me wrong with a replay if you insist.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Simply no: a Firefly will not win against a panther or jagdpanzer without using special abilities..... or a spotter while the panther/jagd won't move.

    We are in agreement. You have to USE the right tools for the right job. Using a firefly to counter a Panther does indeed include the minimum effort of having a scout and pressing the reverse key.

    Dont know why you brought up the JagdPanzer. I definitely never said counter TDs with TDs. Use the 6-pdr ATG to fight that.
  • #22
    2 months ago
    BogeyfoxBogeyfox Posts: 147
    edited January 18

    @SkysTheLimit said:


    Of course it can't Solo a panther, it's cheaper by 30 fuel while outranging it and having lower health. To anyone with a brain, that means you need a spotter. Or a snaring squad to at least screen the tank from rushing your glass cannon. It's designed for the beefier slower targets.

    Well it only has 640 health and limited AI abilities. So what do I pay 30 fuel less for. The ability to pen a super tank? Well if i need 3 more shots for 30 less fuel it's quite a joke. And range which will give me at best 1 more shot is not rly worth 30 less fuel. What you miss is, that panther can attack multiple targets alone and with its speed it's even faster than infantry while crippled. The Firefly has only the ability to counter tanks and attack buildings. As soon as there is an AT infantry it has to move giving a .5 penalty on accuracy doubleing the shots needed to kill an enemy tank. And it's no unit to go after a wounded tank - too expensive too vulnerable and even slower than the panther....
    And any kind of spotter unit will make the combination of FF and Spotter more MP expensive than the panther. Where's the balance here. And wait any OPEN spotter can easily be killed by the enemy and a sniper is quite an investment only working well in a tube setting... Won't work in 3v3 and 4vs4....
    And most of all, the pen chances for a FF vs Panther is .8 while the Panther has 1 at any range.....
    30 fuel more for higher armour, more health, better AI abilities + upgrades, better pens and higher speed with less chances to hit at far range and 40 less dmg....

  • #23
    2 months ago
    BogeyfoxBogeyfox Posts: 147

    Why does a brummbaer has a size of 22 and a Firefly a size of 24?
    Seems quite strange....

  • #24
    2 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,246
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > Well it only has 640 health and limited AI abilities. So what do I pay 30 fuel less for. The ability to pen a super tank? Well if i need 3 more shots for 30 less fuel it's quite a joke.

    I can't believe you're still not getting this. You're not paying 30 fuel less to pen "super tanks", it's more like 80-150 less fuel for those (KingTiger, Tiger, Heavy TDs). As I just told you, the Firefly is designed to fight slower harder targets. The panther is not slow. Plenty of other high armor tanks are. Use it to fight those

    Brumbarr has a smaller target size than Firefly because it can't really fight back against tanks unless it has a LOT of support, and even then it'll still probably miss the tank it fires at.
  • #25
    2 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,640
    I would argue that the firefly has a larger target size because it has a longer range meaning if it gets into range of enemy AT its supposed to punish that. It has +10 range on all Ost stock armour and the se range as the pak. If somehow it comes under return fire it's punishment for allowing that to happen.
  • #26
    2 months ago
    BogeyfoxBogeyfox Posts: 147
    edited January 20

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > Well it only has 640 health and limited AI abilities. So what do I pay 30 fuel less for. The ability to pen a super tank? Well if i need 3 more shots for 30 less fuel it's quite a joke.

    I can't believe you're still not getting this. You're not paying 30 fuel less to pen "super tanks", it's more like 80-150 less fuel for those (KingTiger, Tiger, Heavy TDs). As I just told you, the Firefly is designed to fight slower harder targets. The panther is not slow. Plenty of other high armor tanks are. Use it to fight those

    There 's a 17lber for the hard shells..... And what's the counter of the panther then? The Cromwell or the Comet?

    Brumbarr has a smaller target size than Firefly because it can't really fight back against tanks unless it has a LOT of support, and even then it'll still probably miss the tank it fires at.

    Hmm - The logic is a Brum gets Tank protection beyond its armour and health. That's cool. Size is accuracy related. So a slow Super AI/Structure tank should be hard to hit (i.e. not pen) to be good against tanks? LOL btw. the acc-stats for a Brumm are the same as for a t34....
    A brumm has 140 health and 100 armour more than a Firefly... Compared to a Churchill it has 600 Health less but has 20 more armour front, 4 points less in size and is 1.7 faster.
    Front side a PZSchreck has still a pen chance against a churchill of .65, i.e. 2/3. A PIAT has .40 vs Brumm. Guess the 600 more health does not help against AT infantry wepaons. Shrecks need 54 (74 shots) hits and PIATs 61 (92 shots). There's no acc difference between those two wepaons except for far range (74 vs 92 shots). In mid and near range both have an ACC of over 1. So the homing PIAT has no advantage at mid and close range....

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    I would argue that the firefly has a larger target size because it has a longer range meaning if it gets into range of enemy AT its supposed to punish that. It has +10 range on all Ost stock armour and the se range as the pak. If somehow it comes under return fire it's punishment for allowing that to happen.

    And size is a special bonus for certain units.... LOL
    You do realize that a panther is faster than a Firefly and has better accelaration... And +10 range is at best 2 shots while moving backwards...

  • #27
    2 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,640
    @Bogeyfox you do realise that the panther costs more right? It costs more and has less range meaning it needs to have a leg up SOMEWHERE. Support your armour and that 2x shots will prevent them from diving. The firefly hits like a truck. As a result being caught out of position is punished. This isn't a Jackson we are talking about that's designed tosurvive with 2/3 as much health. This is the firefly designed with tulips on its turret.
  • #28
    2 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,246
    edited January 21
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > You do realize that a panther is faster than a Firefly and has better accelaration... And +10 range is at best 2 shots while moving backwards...

    You do realize that this game is about combined arms and not fictional scenarios where tanks solo each other right? If your Firefly is regularly engaging a panther without support, that means you're not playing well.

    Dude if stuff this basic is going over your head, you really gotta play more. And watch casts by tightrope too, he might be one of most helpful people in the community for learning about the game

    Here is a link to his channel:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFxEIyV5AcCT7FycvczUUCA

    His casts are great, and his "micro tips and tricks" videos are great too.
  • #29
    1 month ago
    BogeyfoxBogeyfox Posts: 147

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > You do realize that a panther is faster than a Firefly and has better accelaration... And +10 range is at best 2 shots while moving backwards...

    You do realize that this game is about combined arms and not fictional scenarios where tanks solo each other right? If your Firefly is regularly engaging a panther without support, that means you're not playing well.

    Dude if stuff this basic is going over your head, you really gotta play more. And watch casts by tightrope too, he might be one of most helpful people in the community for learning about the game

    Dude if you never played a 4vs4 late game then what? Your scope is 1vs1 only. Well let's put it this way. You are right for 1vs1 and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. But what you neglect is, that in a 4vs4 or 3vs3 you don't have the chance to go in with a FF it's too vulnerable. So I retreat AXIS get's the point puts up some "Pueppchen" and an MG and then? I have to build a Crom for smoke?
    And what support are you talking about? Sappers to snare it or what? Ok i can waste fuel on a Crom or upgrade for a Comet and then? Or the sniper which is still slower than the panther....

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @Bogeyfox you do realise that the panther costs more right? It costs more and has less range meaning it needs to have a leg up SOMEWHERE. Support your armour and that 2x shots will prevent them from diving. The firefly hits like a truck. As a result being caught out of position is punished. This isn't a Jackson we are talking about that's designed tosurvive with 2/3 as much health. This is the firefly designed with tulips on its turret.

    We are talking about balance. The range thing again. AS soon as I move the FF it gets a .5 acc penalty. At best I need 5 shots to kill a Panther. A Panther needs 4 shots. But wait: Panther 4 x 5.5 secs = 22 secs. FF: 5 x 8 secs = 40 secs. So my super TD needs almost twice as much time under perfect conditions to kill the Panther.... Oh yes i have +10 range. which gives me a +2 sec bonus if the panter comes with full speed.
    If i have 2 FFs I need at least 3 Shots to kill the panther, i.e. 3 * 8 = 24 secs. Still worse than the panther.
    But hey it hits so hard....

  • #30
    1 month ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 3,999

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Dude if you never played a 4vs4 late game then what?

    Nobody ever said Skys never played a 4 v 4 game.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    We are talking about balance.

    Yes. And all of the things TheDarkArmadillo said are still true, and are about balance. Address them.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    The range thing again. AS soon as I move the FF it gets a .5 acc penalty.

    Funnily enough, so does the Panther. But none of this matters because the second you press S the .5 penalty goes away so you can kind of cruise and shoot.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    At best I need 5 shots to kill a Panther. A Panther needs 4 shots. But wait: Panther 4 x 5.5 secs = 22 secs. FF: 5 x 8 secs = 40 secs. So my super TD needs almost twice as much time under perfect conditions to kill the Panther.... Oh yes i have +10 range. which gives me a +2 sec bonus if the panter comes with full speed.

    There are plenty of people other than you who manage to kill a Panther with a Firefly so clearly it is possible. Also, Panthers don't start at full speed. I recommend Greyshot Productions youtube channel as he plays pretty much exclusively 4 v 4s so you'll see lots of games with him getting a TD and killing a Panther, and more importantly, having a team of people get TDs to fight a team of people getting Panthers.

  • #31
    1 month ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,246

    I have seen fireflies work fine in team games. Its easier to get more than 1 in team games, and in groups they are super threatening.

    They have a range advantage on just about everything, and its main gun hits hard. Being unable to use a FF is only excusable on certain urban maps where they are impractical, it has little to do with the number of people playing. If you feel they are too vulnerable then you're not spotting for them well enough.

    Whatever problems the brits have, destroying late game armor isnt one of them.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.