RE Doc?

[Shanks]

What is the use of this doctrine now? ... nothing, in my opinion, and I do not say it because I lose with this doctrine, but because 90% of people who play with RE can not do much ... how i do to this conclusion ??? ... it's simple, from my experience of day to day in pvp, anyone who uses RE, is at a disadvantage ....... why? ... to answer this, you must first answer other questions .... what is its function? .... is supposed to be tank support to break the enemy front ..... but this is true ??? .... no, and that's the answer why ... if you think carefully, even the simple stug 4 is much more effective than a churchill at the time of moving forward, and worst of all, is able to beat in 1v1 the first churchill, which assumes that it should to be able to destroy it ... for more incredible that it seems, it can not !, in any way! I was doing the tests with a friend, stug 4 vs churchill, the two with AP ammunition, in 70% of the cases , approximately, stug 4, comes out victorious, which for me is unacceptable! ..... this churchill is supposed to be the support tank, but it is not, and worst of all, if the stug 4 suffers damage, "you can simply go back ", the churchil will not be able to reach you, it's very slow! ... Obviously we are omitting other factors here, but if we include it, the axis has everything to gain ... now well, in the last stage of development of this doctrine does not help much either, even having the churchill of 95mm it is difficult for you to move towards enemy lines, keeping in mind that you wait a lot, for the "comet", which ends up disappointing you, literally, any stug, could kill you, even a single shot ... why ...? ... as far as we know, it does not have a good armor, and in this type of doctrine, you depend a lot on the armored support ,and you should not change, a tank, in a tank -hunter, I know, many will say, "hey shanks, the comet is cheaper now, and you can destroy a panther g, with these (tank?) "... it may be, but in practice this is so unreal, it's like saying that I'll get behind the house to kill a panther with piats," because the piat can be outside the range of that shot tank, and you can shoot with them in the same way, "it is unlikely that this will happen, I hope you understand my point, and my English ;..... solution ??... I think the comet should be as before, but with the difference that to be able to use flanking speed, must have veteran 3, and that the firefly, is available before, instead of the aquilles, if someone thinks otherwise, that RE is fine as it is now and would like to respond with arguments in pvp , or if you have another idea, I would like you to mention it here, anyway all the arguments are welcome, I am willing to discuss, about what I believe, that seriously affects the balance in BK

[Warhawks97]

from my experience, and i played this doc before churchills or comets had any kind of armor, it is a nice support in a team but you are not self relying.

That thing can stand for example 50 mm and also 75 mm shots. Its supposed to draw fire. The best is to use the one with 75 mm HE and supported by 17 pdr tanks. Also you can reinforce infantry neabry. I used to combine these tanks with inf doc. Thats the best you can do.

I my main "hate point" is that you get hammered nonstop by arty. And everything outranges your 95 mm tanks. Thats why i repeatedly asking for a arty rework. When a 95 mm churchill with unlock etc and super vulnerable to arty has to get as close as 120 distance, why can even hotchkiss fire from 175 range?

If these rocket arty types, the main threat to RE (let it be 210, walking stuka, hotchkiss) can bomb you from afar, any long term game as RE is doomed to fail bc you cant "slowly build up and push" when getting hammered. I am not asking for 120 for rocket arty.... just 200 (nebler) or 175 for the heavy rocket arty seems just stupid and unfair at some point. 140-160 would be enough for them. You woudlnt reach them outright with yours but you would get far less often hammered and bashed by rocket arty spam.

[MarKr]

.... is supposed to be tank support to break the enemy front ..... but this is true ??? .... no, and that's the answer why ... if you think carefully, even the simple stug 4 is much more effective than a churchill at the time of moving forward, and worst of all, is able to beat in 1v1 the first churchill, which assumes that it should to be able to destroy it ... for more incredible that it seems, it can not !

So...RE is meant to be tank SUPPORT doctrine, StuG can destroy first Churchill and because of that Comets should be returned to the state they were?

If you remember the Churchills before they got armor buff you will know that they were easily killed even by 50mm guns. Now 50mm guns have very little chance to penetrate them and 75mm L48 guns have about 20% to penetrate churchill at max range (more with AP active). But the first chuchill is armed with 6 pounder gun. 6pounder is exactly the same gun as US 57mm gun. How ofthen do you kill StuGs with 57mm guns or with T48?

20% penetration chance from StuG to Churchill is not really that much. Churchill gets vs StuG actually 45,5% (no skirts) and 38,5% (skirts) chance. So your chances with Churchill are higher, though StuG deals more damage per shot, that is true. If you get closer, penetration chances on both sides go up, since StuG deals more damage it is not wise to try to close the distance between Churchill and StuG (at least from Churchill's perspective).

Churchills are slow, heavily armored but have crap guns. They are meant to work as "bullet magnets" while your more vulnerable units (Firefly, Achilles, Comet) get to shoot with less danger for themselves. Also the word "support" tank means that it is not meant to work on its own. Churchill is not Tiger/Panther.

[Shanks]

@hawks... churchill 75mm+HE + 17 Prd (aquilles or ff),it's not a bad idea ... but how long do you have to wait to do this?, finally, the time factor makes this idea not so good ... you understand me ... in all that time the axis could have more things, or even you would be forced to use other units before, how cromwell, ..... that's what I mean friend, this doctrine takes too long to develop!


@Markr....In short you tell me that churchill stinks and that this doctrine needs to be complemented (with another doctrine), and that it is not necessary to have the old comet back, despite proposing that it has flanking speed, only from veteran 3. ... well if I did not understand you wrong, I would like to tell you that you are wrong, friend ... why? ... if we are going to talk about balance, you need to first compare doctrines, Bk, Terror, TH, Def, Luft, SE, they do not need to be complemented, in most cases, because they have everything basic, good tank or basic tank-hunter, like hetzer or stug, good artillery, like stuka, maultier or mortar bombing (inf bk), and obviously good infantry, everything necessary to advance, all this, many times very fast ..... then, if the 6 doctrines of the axis, has this power of attack ... why RE should depend on other doctrines ?? ... I honestly do not understand it, so what I proposed, I would only balance the game, in my opinion ... do you understand my point? ... so for you know, I use all the doctrines and all the factions, and I do not think I'm a bad player, I know how each doctrine works, so I hope you read what I wrote before answering ... please ... I'll repeat again , RE takes too long to develop, and then you wait for a 9CP unlock tank (comet), which can be destroyed by a basic unit of the shaft (hetzer or stug), it does not have sense to me, a doctrine of these characteristics

[Redgaarden]

Churchills are slow, heavily armored but have crap guns. They are meant to work as "bullet magnets" while your more vulnerable units (Firefly, Achilles, Comet) get to shoot with less danger for themselves. Also the word "support" tank means that it is not meant to work on its own. Churchill is not Tiger/Panther.

They cost way too much for what they do. If you gave it more arty resistance and enough health to not be one hit killed by bigger guns. Then it might be worth something.


The good thing for me as RE is their improved resource gathering, which makes it my favourite infantry doctrine. Since you can actually afford both guns and artillery, and some nades too if you want to.

[Kr0noZ]

@hawks... churchill 75mm+HE + 17 Prd (aquilles or ff),it's not a bad idea ... but how long do you have to wait to do this?, finally, the time factor makes this idea not so good ... you understand me ... in all that time the axis could have more things, or even you would be forced to use other units before, how cromwell, ..... that's what I mean friend, this doctrine takes too long to develop!

So they are slow to build up, as are most tank doctrines, and being the CW with their notoriously high prices for most things makes it worse - that's what you're saying? All that means is that you need to be very picky about what to get and when to go for it.

@Markr....In short you tell me that churchill stinks and that this doctrine needs to be complemented (with another doctrine), and that it is not necessary to have the old comet back, despite proposing that it has flanking speed, only from veteran 3. ... well if I did not understand you wrong, I would like to tell you that you are wrong, friend ... why? ... if we are going to talk about balance, you need to first compare doctrines, Bk, Terror, TH, Def, Luft, SE, they do not need to be complemented, in most cases, because they have everything basic, good tank or basic tank-hunter, like hetzer or stug, good artillery, like stuka, maultier or mortar bombing (inf bk), and obviously good infantry, everything necessary to advance, all this, many times very fast ..... then, if the 6 doctrines of the axis, has this power of attack ... why RE should depend on other doctrines ?? ... I honestly do not understand it, so what I proposed, I would only balance the game, in my opinion ... do you understand my point? ... so for you know, I use all the doctrines and all the factions, and I do not think I'm a bad player, I know how each doctrine works, so I hope you read what I wrote before answering ... please ... I'll repeat again , RE takes too long to develop, and then you wait for a 9CP unlock tank (comet), which can be destroyed by a basic unit of the shaft (hetzer or stug), it does not have sense to me, a doctrine of these characteristics

This nicely shows what I'm gunning for in the 1st part of this comment: You "absolutely have to" wait around for the Comet even though it has nothing that can't be done by a firefly except being faster? Why? This thing is more like the icing on the cake, not the filling - that should be churchills and fireflies alongside your basic infantry (which, being CW, isn't too shabby despite playing a doctrine that doesn't have any strong upgrade) and your emplacements (which are, of course, currently not so great due to Axis having too much arty in almost all doctrines, but that problem is known and being look into).

They cost way too much for what they do. If you gave it more arty resistance and enough health to not be one hit killed by bigger guns. Then it might be worth something.

Well, that part about being slightly more resilient to oneshots I could understand, as that is generally an issue in my opinion. More arty resistance however might not be needed if the issue mentioned above gets resolved.

[MarKr]

They cost way too much for what they do. If you gave it more arty resistance and enough health to not be one hit killed by bigger guns. Then it might be worth something.

What bigger guns? They are not meant to be super resitant to everything they encounter from start to the end of the game. Except for Crocodile (which is more durable) Churchills have solid chance (48 - 57%) to bounce off even flak36 shells (also Tiger I shells) at maximum range. Anything stronger simply go through these easily (Panthers penetration chance is ~75%; 88mm L43 ~90%) . By that time you can already have Crocodile - it is very resistant to everything up even Panther gun (about 19% to penetrate it at max range) and stronger guns are still effective though (88mm L43 about 85% chance) - still can easily be used to penetrate defenses because only the new PaK43 emplacement in Def doc has some good chance to stop, but appart from that it can go through defenses easily. To kill the strongest stuff of Axis arsenal you can still use Comets - Comets are significantly faster and cheaper than the super heavy stuff of Axis so even if you lose one Comet but destroy one KT/JP etc. the loss for you is smaller than for your opponent.

Artillery is being revised in general though...

if we are going to talk about balance, you need to first compare doctrines, Bk, Terror, TH, Def, Luft, SE, they do not need to be complemented, in most cases, because they have everything basic, good tank or basic tank-hunter, like hetzer or stug, good artillery, like stuka, maultier or mortar bombing (inf bk), and obviously good infantry, everything necessary to advance, all this, many times very fast ..... then, if the 6 doctrines of the axis, has this power of attack ... why RE should depend on other doctrines ??

And this is the reason why Axis doctrines are getting reworks.
btw: Can I quote this next time somebody asks me why we want to rework doctrines?

In short you tell me that churchill stinks and that this doctrine needs to be complemented (with another doctrine), and that it is not necessary to have the old comet back, despite proposing that it has flanking speed, only from veteran 3. ... well if I did not understand you wrong, I would like to tell you that you are wrong, friend ...

I think you understood my point wrong - you don't need to be complemented by other doctrines, only by other UNITS - combine units together to get the advantage. Churchill comes first, takes hits from tanks/AT guns and Achilles/Firefly/Comet comes in once the Churchill reveals target - Churchill gets shot at, other stuff with stronger guns gets to shoot at the attacker. No need for other doctrine, the point is that unlike Axis heavily armored tanks - which have strong armor and also strong guns which to a certain degree allows them to work as "one unit army", Churchills need to work in combination with other units.

And this is exactly the core of your "problem" - people want one unit that combines durability and high killing power because these are less micro-heavy. And that is why people cried about Comet change - it was changed form "hyper speed black prince (churchill with 17 pounder) to Cromwell with 17 pounder. Now it is easier to lose it and it is no longer the "powerhouse" it used to be.

[Warhawks97]

They cost way too much for what they do. If you gave it more arty resistance and enough health to not be one hit killed by bigger guns. Then it might be worth something.

Well, that part about being slightly more resilient to oneshots I could understand, as that is generally an issue in my opinion. More arty resistance however might not be needed if the issue mentioned above gets resolved.

Well, had this discussions already. Give me one reason why a tank IV F2 or E takes less arty damage than a sherman or churchill. Even Puma light armored vehicles receive less damage (they have less hp, true)

What i would like to see is that allis have same arty resistance as axis. A jumbo takes more damage than a tank IV. Axis heaviest have a 50% damage cut, in PE doc with zimmerit even more. A hetzer there can survive more arty hits than jumbos or pershings.

Only the heaviest churchill and SP have an arty resistance comparable to Puma and stugs. They have more HP which makes them take more relatively but the damage taken is equal.

This is not just an RE issue, its a general "arty fairness" issue. But RE suffers most. All heavy armored tanks get hammered by artillery and they are too slow to get out of that. One or two deadly arty strikes (grille, walking stuka, ST, def doc off map, Hummel, hotchkiss, 210 nebler) and RE is unable to recover.

Churchills might get really a bit cheaper since they are supposed to be used among other units. And the arty issues need to be solved which in my opinion is the main problem for RE to keep usefull and competetive in the long term.

[Shanks]

@kronoz...that's why I said, that the firefly should be in the place of the aquilles, in the tree of doctrine .... and why need an armored com? .. It is obvious, so that it does not kill a simple stug, and be a weapon of attack and a tank !!!, right now the comet is a tank-hunter, and that's wrong, in my opinion, it's something practically, unusable


@Markr....using the churchil as a shield is a good idea, but as I said before, it does not give good results, because it takes you to develop to the point of having a firefly, in particular, I would prefer to use a churchill 95 mm, and infantry to advance together to aquilles or firefly, it is much better !!!! ....... generally the doctrines of tanks take time to develop? are you sure @BK ARMOR TH ?? .... you talk about that the comet was OP, that's a lie, there were always ways to kill him, only that people of the axis, came to mourn, why did he lose a tiger ??? omg, good is another history hahaha ..... so that to modify the doctrines of the axis, they are very well now !!!, it would be better to modify a doctrine (RE), that 6 of the axis

[Kr0noZ]

I take it you're not familiar with the concept of power creep.
Your logic goes: Why find flaws in the design and "nerf" axis doctrines by making them less flexible/all-round if you can just make the other stuff stronger.

That might sound simple enough, but it leads to a constant spiral of buffing until some units reach a point where you can't balance them anymore. We're not there yet, but there are fringe cases already.

[Redgaarden]

Redgaarden wrote:
They cost way too much for what they do. If you gave it more arty resistance and enough health to not be one hit killed by bigger guns. Then it might be worth something.

Well, that part about being slightly more resilient to oneshots I could understand, as that is generally an issue in my opinion. More arty resistance however might not be needed if the issue mentioned above gets resolved.

Well, I only proposed arty resitance since I see it as a viable count to the churchill since its mediocre healthpool and snail speed, And I think i exxagerate a little bit when I say it gets one hit killed. Sure alot of axis stuff does more than 750 dmg per hit. But you can over-repair it so it doesn't get one hit killed. And generally, you wont get churchills to fight against Panthers/Tigers.

Redgaarden wrote:
They cost way too much for what they do. If you gave it more arty resistance and enough health to not be one hit killed by bigger guns. Then it might be worth something.

What bigger guns? They are not meant to be super resitant to everything they encounter from start to the end of the game. Except for Crocodile (which is more durable) Churchills have solid chance (48 - 57%) to bounce off even flak36 shells (also Tiger I shells) at maximum range. Anything stronger simply go through these easily (Panthers penetration chance is ~75%; 88mm L43 ~90%) . By that time you can already have Crocodile - it is very resistant to everything up even Panther gun (about 19% to penetrate it at max range) and stronger guns are still effective though (88mm L43 about 85% chance) - still can easily be used to penetrate defenses because only the new PaK43 emplacement in Def doc has some good chance to stop, but appart from that it can go through defenses easily. To kill the strongest stuff of Axis arsenal you can still use Comets - Comets are significantly faster and cheaper than the super heavy stuff of Axis so even if you lose one Comet but destroy one KT/JP etc. the loss for you is smaller than for your opponent.

Artillery is being revised in general though...

I didn't talk about penetration modifiers, and more about the raw damage these guns put out. I have no complaints about the armor of the vehicle.
It's a fun vehicle early game, where axis can't pen it using AP ammo, and need schercks or special abilities to take it out. When Panthers/Tiger come out the churchill simply becomes obsolete. And as you said, only the crocdile stands a chance to tank shots from those vehicles.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hi Shanks,

in my humble opinion I think that 95mm Churchill is actually one of the best arty units in the game, not expensive at all.. very precise, and does a lot of damage! Also the barrage is very cheap... Just it doesn't have much range, but in return; it does have much armor!
Actually, the 95mm Churchill can 1 shot 150mm rocket launcher trucks such as "Opel Maultier" and can also destroy bunkers quite reliably.

I prefer the Comet much more than in the past now, it's faster.. cheaper and still quite powerful (can still bounce off 50mm and Pak40 sometimes).
Just it does no longer bounce off 88mm or 75mm L/70 cannons or PanzerShrecks somehow!

RE doctrine is still capable of beating Blitz doctrine in a head to head battle, and possibly Terror doctrine too.. that's if you manage to produce your Churchills early enough... Churchills already are way too cheap for what they can do early game!
And by the way, realistically... They would be much more expensive than that.. just saying.

Also, as always RE doc can do both defensive and offensive tasks very quickly almost in every stage of the game... You can be offensive early game with Churchills and later Fireflys as well as Comets combined with Achilles, or you can be defensive with 17pdr emplacements which you can still construct in no time.. in addition; you gain A LOT more resources than anyone else in the game after the improved HQ trucks unlock.
Other doctrines can only be aggressive and constantly attack but can't really defend at the same time, such as Blitz doc...

Shortly that's my opinion, thanks for reading!

[Shanks]

Hi Shanks,

in my humble opinion I think that 95mm Churchill is actually one of the best arty units in the game, not expensive at all.. very precise, and does a lot of damage! Also the barrage is very cheap... Just it doesn't have much range, but in return; it does have much armor!
Actually, the 95mm Churchill can 1 shot 150mm rocket launcher trucks such as "Opel Maultier" and can also destroy bunkers quite reliably.

I prefer the Comet much more than in the past now, it's faster.. cheaper and still quite powerful (can still bounce off 50mm and Pak40 sometimes).
Just it does no longer bounce off 88mm or 75mm L/70 cannons or PanzerShrecks somehow!

RE doctrine is still capable of beating Blitz doctrine in a head to head battle, and possibly Terror doctrine too.. that's if you manage to produce your Churchills early enough... Churchills already are way too cheap for what they can do early game!
And by the way, realistically... They would be much more expensive than that.. just saying.

Also, as always RE doc can do both defensive and offensive tasks very quickly almost in every stage of the game... You can be offensive early game with Churchills and later Fireflys as well as Comets combined with Achilles, or you can be defensive with 17pdr emplacements which you can still construct in no time.. in addition; you gain A LOT more resources than anyone else in the game after the improved HQ trucks unlock.
Other doctrines can only be aggressive and constantly attack but can't really defend at the same time, such as Blitz doc...

Shortly that's my opinion, thanks for reading!

Hi tiger,

I was waiting for you haha .... I can win with bk doc to RE easily, and if I use terror, it's a 90% chance to beat, because I know the great weakness of RE (it's slow in every way), besides, I was not complaining about the churchill 95 mm, in fact, it is my favorite unit of RE, the question is simple tiger 1996, you can not wait for 9CP, for a unit like the comet, which is basically an unusable unit, you tell me that 50 mm bounces sometimes ... mmm ..... of what ,helps you rebound sometimes?, if in most cases it destroys the cannon or the engine ??? ... is it bad luck ??? ... the comet does not work , it is simple, and in any case, if it does not destroy the gun or the motor, it is a unit that remains with a damage already done ... easy to finish! ..... now ........ What do you think of what I proposed ??? Would it affect the balance too much ??? Answer me this first, I really want to know what you think

[MarKr]

using the churchil as a shield is a good idea, but as I said before, it does not give good results, because it takes you to develop to the point of having a firefly, in particular, I would prefer to use a churchill 95 mm, and infantry to advance together to aquilles or firefly, it is much better !!!! ....... generally the doctrines of tanks take time to develop? are you sure @BK ARMOR TH ?? .... you talk about that the comet was OP, that's a lie, there were always ways to kill him, only that people of the axis, came to mourn, why did he lose a tiger ??? omg, good is another history hahaha ..... so that to modify the doctrines of the axis, they are very well now !!!, it would be better to modify a doctrine (RE), that 6 of the axis

I am getting lost in this...so using Churchill + some other unit takes too long to unlock but getting Comet (which you want to change back to what it was) is faster? To unlock Comet you need 6CP, to unlock Churchill (6pounder or HE) + Achilles takes 3CP, Churchill(6pounder or HE)+Firefly takes 5CP. If you build the HE version + Achilles/Firefly, you unlock it faster, and you have stronger combination of anti-infantry/buidling and AT than with Comet.

I did not say Comet was OP, I said that people liked it more because it combined strong armor with strong gun and speed (that is why I called it "powerhouse" = you have all in one). Now it has same speed, same firepower only lower armor + lower cost. It is easier to get destroyed but also easier to replace or produce in pairs or more. Comet costs 470MP 60F; Tiger 950MP 160F, Panther A 770MP 140F, KT 1400MP 210F. For one Tiger you get 2 Comets, I dare to say that Comets will win - one might get destroy but in most situations the other Comet destroys Tiger. One Panther is cheaper in MP but still costs more in fuel - still I would say Comets would win. KT? For the cost of one you can field almost 3 Comets - I'd still say they would win. From all I read here it simply seems to me that you want the old Comet back because it was easier to use, not because "now it is useless".

[Krieger Blitzer]

the question is simple tiger 1996, you can not wait for 9CP, for a unit like the comet, which is basically an unusable unit, you tell me that 50 mm bounces sometimes ... mmm ..... of what ,helps you rebound sometimes?, if in most cases it destroys the cannon or the engine ??? ... is it bad luck ??? ... the comet does not work , it is simple, and in any case, if it does not destroy the gun or the motor, it is a unit that remains with a damage already done ... easy to finish! ..... now ........ What do you think of what I proposed ??? Would it affect the balance too much ??? Answer me this first, I really want to know what you think

Well, to be honest I think the Comet armor can not be the same as in the past ever once again.. but I can agree that 6 CP (not 9 CP btw) are perhaps a bit too much for the Comet now... Though, let's not forget that the Comet was late war tank after all, also; the Comet is harder to hit when compared with many other tanks by the way! So, most of the time the AT guns will miss against the Comet tank.. however, maybe 5 or 4 Command Points would be enough for the Comet, that's what I think

[Devilfish]

Hey guys,
I keep it straight and plain, without walls of text.

Churchills are more or less useless in pvp (except croc and 95mm - slow arty is still an arty).
Pros - can bounce 75mm L/48 kinda, anything below reliably
Cons - it's slow, panzerfaust, schreck, L/48 APCR, anything above L/48, slow, easy to engage with handheld weapons because it's slow, easy to hit with rocket arty because it's slow and did I mention it is slow af?

It's basically Jumbo which is super slow and with worse HE rounds.
The 6pdr is useless, PE needs just hetzer, BK pz4H/J, Def JgPz l/70 Terror kinda nothing till tiger/panther but well still schrecks,fausts,50mm at gun heat thing, rocket arty.

So yea.

[Shanks]

@markr....if not was OP the comet ..... because they took off his armor ????

@tiger1996....I said 9 CP, because normally the 95 mm churchill is not omitted (3 CP +), I also think, that even if the comet, is available with 4 CP, it would still be useless, but you could try this ...

@devilfish....I love to this people hahahaha person, if it is correct, you can also use stug 4, to kill churchill, too

[Redgaarden]

I kinda wanted to talk about the AVRE. It has low range, innaccurate, Pay to shoot, Splash is kinda ok but 95mm has better, dmg is meh, it's later avalible than 95mm, cost more manpower, has problems shooting past obstacles.
I would like to suggest a slight range improvement, to maybe 75. And make it a little more accurate. And make it deal more damage to Bunekers/Empalcements. If it abesloutly has to do better vs tanks, I think a stun mechanic with its shells would do fine instead of high raw damage, since Hit & Run is going to be removed/reworked.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I kinda wanted to talk about the AVRE. It has low range, innaccurate, Pay to shoot, Splash is kinda ok but 95mm has better, dmg is meh, it's later avalible than 95mm, cost more manpower, has problems shooting past obstacles.
I would like to suggest a slight range improvement, to maybe 75. And make it a little more accurate. And make it deal more damage to Bunekers/Empalcements. If it abesloutly has to do better vs tanks, I think a stun mechanic with its shells would do fine instead of high raw damage, since Hit & Run is going to be removed/reworked.

Totally agreed.

I also made a similar post about this before on a different topic... viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2544&p=24324#p24314

[Shanks]

@markr...so ..... you could try to bring back the old comet?, with the difference that you have to have veteran 3 to use flanking speed, and move to the aquilles--firefly? Could you try ???

[MarKr]

I would like to suggest a slight range improvement, to maybe 75. And make it a little more accurate. And make it deal more damage to Bunekers/Empalcements. If it abesloutly has to do better vs tanks, I think a stun mechanic with its shells would do fine instead of high raw damage, since Hit & Run is going to be removed/reworked.

I thought that AVRE one-shots emplacements and deals serious damage to bunkers...after checking I see I was wrong, I don't know where I got that idea Anyway I would be for icreasing damage vs emplacements and bunkers to the level where it would be able to one-shot emplacements and cause serious damage on bunkers (maybe with some small chance to completely destroy them too). The idea was it should work this way but the low range was meant to be a trade-off - you can quickly destroy defenses at the cost of taking risk and coming close. I think the range could stay. The "stun" effect on tanks does not sound bad either.
Also the 95mm Churchill will get some tweaks too so it won't be so superior to AVRE anymore either.

@markr....if not was OP the comet ..... because they took off his armor ????

Because it effectively acted as Black Prince (Churchill with 17 pounder) with high speed. There is a reason why Churchills are slow in the game - Allies are not meant to have super-durable tanks with huge firepower, that is domain of Axis. So CW has durable tanks with low firepower. Comet used to be durable, had huge firepower and o top of that also speed. This way it falls more in line with the general real-life performance while it does not break balance.

@markr...so ..... you could try to bring back the old comet?, with the difference that you have to have veteran 3 to use flanking speed, and move to the aquilles--firefly? Could you try ???

I am sorry but we will not do that. As I said:

From all I read here it simply seems to me that you want the old Comet back because it was easier to use, not because "now it is useless".

And you haven't even tried to deny this suspicion of mine, so I guess I was right.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I would like to suggest a slight range improvement, to maybe 75. And make it a little more accurate. And make it deal more damage to Bunekers/Empalcements. If it abesloutly has to do better vs tanks, I think a stun mechanic with its shells would do fine instead of high raw damage, since Hit & Run is going to be removed/reworked.

I thought that AVRE one-shots emplacements and deals serious damage to bunkers...after checking I see I was wrong, I don't know where I got that idea Anyway I would be for icreasing damage vs emplacements and bunkers to the level where it would be able to one-shot emplacements and cause serious damage on bunkers (maybe with some small chance to completely destroy them too). The idea was it should work this way but the low range was meant to be a trade-off - you can quickly destroy defenses at the cost of taking risk and coming close. I think the range could stay. The "stun" effect on tanks does not sound bad either.
Also the 95mm Churchill will get some tweaks too so it won't be so superior to AVRE anymore either.

Well, that's good to hear!
You could also tweak the shell price of the AVRE in case the damage would be too much more reliable against bunkers.

[Redgaarden]

I thought that AVRE one-shots emplacements and deals serious damage to bunkers...after checking I see I was wrong, I don't know where I got that idea Anyway I would be for icreasing damage vs emplacements and bunkers to the level where it would be able to one-shot emplacements and cause serious damage on bunkers (maybe with some small chance to completely destroy them too). The idea was it should work this way but the low range was meant to be a trade-off - you can quickly destroy defenses at the cost of taking risk and coming close. I think the range could stay. The "stun" effect on tanks does not sound bad either.
Also the 95mm Churchill will get some tweaks too so it won't be so superior to AVRE anymore either.

bit
Well, just dont nerf te 95 too hard so it can't even kill mortar halftracks. And I'm looking forward for the AVRE getting a role in emplacement desturction. But I have a slight concern in accuaracy. It seems the shell often goes way over its target, but I have to test it a bit, I have a feeling you can hit targets alot farther than 70 range if it's downhill.

[Shanks]

From all I read here it simply seems to me that you want the old Comet back because it was easier to use, not because "now it is useless".

And you haven't even tried to deny this suspicion of mine, so I guess I was right.

at all times I said that the comet is useless ..... where I do not try to deny it ??? .... as I said repetitively, now the comet fulfills the function of tank-hunter, not a tank !!! ... that weak armor, does not justify the CP rating needed to unlock it (9 CP .... would be direct 6CP, but the churchill of 95mm is generally not omitted, which means +3 CP), so, what is the usefulness of a "tank" that can be easily destroyed in the last stage of the game ???????, in my opinion is ridiculous and useless .... I think now you understand my point better, it is a necessity to change this ..the comet should be more armored

[MarKr]

The accuracy is set to 85% even at max range, when it misses it can go as far as "15" units off the target point...on the other hand the AoE of the shot is also "15" so it should always (at least with its edge) reach the point where you click.

The "downhill" thing is possible though I am not sure...I recall that there is a parameter ...something like "apply elevation bonus" which has true/false values. I've never tested what it does but it could be some range boost when the unit shoots from elevated position.

at all times I said that the comet is useless ..... where I do not try to deny it ??? .... as I said repetitively, now the comet fulfills the function of tank-hunter, not a tank !!! ... that weak armor, does not justify the CP rating needed to unlock it (9 CP .... would be direct 6CP, but the churchill of 95mm is generally not omitted, which means +3 CP), so, what is the usefulness of a "tank" that can be easily destroyed in the last stage of the game ???????, in my opinion is ridiculous and useless .... I think now you understand my point better, it is a necessity to change this ..the comet should be more armored

I meant that you did not deny that you want to change it back only because Comet is now harder to use but not useless.
What is a "tank-hunter" - it is a vehicle specifically designed to destroy tanks. "Tank" is a vehicle that is armored but it has multi-role purpose - supporting infantry, destroying strong-points/MG nests, fighting enemy armored forces if necessary etc.
There were more approaches to tank designs. Axis chose the path of "bigger and stronger is better" - thus tanks such as Tiger, KT, Panther etc. Allies chose the path of "more but weaker is better than one stronger" - it is simply a philosophy - if your opponent builds 1 heavy tank and you know that for the same price you can build 4 medium tanks and at the same time these 4 medium tanks (with losses) will destroy the one enemy tank, then in terms of resources you are doing better than your opponent. Even if 2 out of those 4 tanks are destroyed in the skirmish, if you destroy the enemy tank, and the final "score" is "we lost 2 tanks, they lost 1 tank" - in terms of resources you are winning. This way you will "bleed your opponent out of resources" and he will have nothing to with with in the end.

Look:

The cruiser tank (also called cavalry tank or fast tank) was a British tank concept of the interwar period for tanks designed to function as modernised armoured and mechanised cavalry. Cruiser tanks were developed after the Royal Armoured Corps were not satisfied with many of the medium tank designs of the 1930s. The cruiser tank concept was conceived by Giffard Le Quesne Martel, who preferred many small light tanks to swarm the enemy, instead of a few expensive medium tanks.
(...)
The British cruiser tank series started in 1938 with the A9 and A10 cruiser tanks, followed by the A13, A13 Mark II, the A13 Mark III "Covenanter" in 1940 and the A15 Crusader which entered service in 1941. The Crusader was superseded by the A27 Cromwell in 1944. The A34 Comet - a better-armed development of Cromwell - began to enter service in late 1944.

It is simply very diiferent approach to tank designs in Axis and Allies. So no, Comet is a tank, not tank-hunter.

I can understand tha you see Comet as useless but not all people share this oppinion - I've seen Tiger many times saying that Comets are good in current state. You just cannot use them the same way as you did before.