Comet vs Sherman Firefly

Which one of the twp above should be more useful and when?

I've noticed the following characteristics about the comet

1. Better armor

2. Greater Fire Rate


However the Firefly has range  to its advantage

Which one of the two do you think is more useful and when??


I was hoping a cheaper TD for the brits like the archer or the achilles , the cost of comet and firefly remains the same



hence there is a contest between the combat characteristics..



 

if your attacking id say the comet is better , but firefly for defending especially if you dig it in .

Fementedbeancurd wrote:
if your attacking id say the comet is better , but firefly for defending especially if you dig it in .

+1  ;)

Fementedbeancurd wrote:
if your attacking id say the comet is better , but firefly for defending especially if you dig it in .

+1 indeed!

Agree with the others. Comet for offense, firefly for defense.

Two Firefly's are able to kill all enemy tanks as Kingtiger and Jagdpanther. Keep off the enemy tank range, your Firefly will win. Okey it requires much attention. But the Coment can't.

Comet is much better against infantry though. Makes it more useful. Against most tanks the comet fares well anyway.

True. Comet has better accuracy against infrantry, that makes it something between Cromwell and Firefly. It has good damage vs both infantry and vehicles, though it doesnt packs a punch of a Firefly nor it has its range. Still i think its a fine addition to Brits.

OK let me re frame my question here , since we can have only one of them which one would you choose

You see comet is more of a meele tank whereas firefly packs the same punch at range , but it comes with lot of defects too , like slower reload speed

A firefly and a comet both can be used for offence , you just have to use them in different ways , whoever thinks that the firefly functions as an AT gun in hull down is miserably mistaken , use a 17 pounder emplacement for defense , an over repaired 17 pounder firing AP shells, can rip apart a KT or a JP , besides the weaker german armor  ;)

Comet still has excellent range.

Yes its good , but nothing as compared to firefly or marder and the AT guns

QuoteOK let me re frame my question here , since we can have only one of them which one would you choose

Based on who is my opponent i will choose. If it is Wehrmacht which has powerful late-game tanks and doesnt rally much on infantry ill choose Firefly. Against PE ill choose Comet, because it can destroy both infantry and vehicles and PE has plenty of both.

Thts a wise decision , i wish if brits had a cheaper tank destroyer

Well you had a good point with that Archer and/or Achilles...they are both good tank destroyers and certainly they should be cheaper than firefly. But the problem with Brits is they have so few units, that there is problem what unit to replace. Anyway i think that three Churchills are too much...one of them could be replaced by one of these two tank destroyers.

No these should be build able units , lets see wht happens in the future :-\

Girls, they change bugs and balanceproblems, but they don't change the gamedesign.

We are men :P :P :P :P :P ,  ;D ;D , I knw but i was hoping for a reward unit maybe we ask for the Achilles or archer in the next patch

GreenApple wrote:
Girls, they change bugs and balanceproblems, but they don't change the gamedesign.

Well ladie...tell that to M10 Wolverine. Anyway i didnt wanted any of current Brit vehicles to be changed permanently...i was just thinking of some reward unit for one of those Churchills from RE support. 3 almost same tanks are boring from my point of view...maybe one of them could be replaced by other tank such as Valentine or whatever...ill wont speculate.

How often shall I still say it? The M36 Jackson is as bugfix!!!111Eleven
Or do you wanna have a bugged Wolverine?

Last edited August 3, 2010 at 11:55 PM by GreenApple

GreenApple wrote:
How often shall I still say it? The M36 Jackson is as bugfix!!!111Eleven
Or do you wanna have a bugged Wolverine?

I dont care how many times you will say it again...maybe you can count it as sheeps before sleeping, again i dont care. For me it is a change in gamedesign, though i agree its probably a bugfix as well. Anyway it was discussed in that thread and it should stay there.

Nice, I think the issue is over :)

This was suppose to be about the Comet over the Firefly, if you want to discuss something else, make a new topic please ;)

Whats your pick seeme , I'd also like paciat to give his arguments...

AbhMkh wrote:
Which one of the twp above should be more useful and when?

I've noticed the following characteristics about the comet

1. Better armor

2. Greater Fire Rate


However the Firefly has range  to its advantage

Which one of the two do you think is more useful and when??


I was hoping a cheaper TD for the brits like the archer or the achilles , the cost of comet and firefly remains the same



hence there is a contest between the combat characteristics..

Well, for fun earlier, I took 8 Firefly's and a command tank and did some testing. Paks chewed up the fireflys to a silly level, but what took the buscuit was putting the same up against a single vet 3 squad of grens with Shrecks.

Despite each firefly having two machine guns, and despite ethese being lined up against the shreck squad, the sheck squad proceeded to simply kill off the fireflys one after another. No excuses, they were not even in cover. A joke.
And yes, I know the game design calls for FF's to be weak against inf, but weak and utterly utterly useless are not the same thing. It would be better to take away the two machine guns because these do less damage than a kangeroos gun and just make the whole thing absurd.

Frankly speaking the FF is utterly broken. It would be one thing to state that it is not very good against infantry and it is another to make it this poor. The marder outranges it unless it has the command tank, and yes, it may serve a defensive purpose if you dig it it, but its not the vehicle killing 17 pounder on wheels that its_meant_to be.

When we tested the current 1.23 game FF against a few tanks, it was was pathetic against vetted tanks, and the Panzer 4 left it looking very shabby indeed. (Note, not blaming EF here, its about as bad in vanilla as well)

The range issue becomes meaningless if tanks can walk up to the FF and kill it anyway (late game). The comet seems to be a much more broadly rounded tank, but I don't think having it should remove the FF needing some rethinking.

As a side note, thanks to the Devs for fixing the Sappers (twice), and the four barrel half track - its appreciated. Was gonna report it but you already turned the issue round.

AbhMkh wrote:
I'd also like paciat to give his arguments...

Comet looks ugly to me and Cromwell CT needs flank speed to keep up. Having longer gun range Fireflies also benefit more from hull down.
I like Fireflies with Cromwell support better.

Yes the FireFlies are pathetic vs Infantry , the developers would be better off removing those two mg's of it which i think are simply put there for the show, comet on the other hand is good vs infantry and sometimes destroys infantry with even one shot

I have Played quite a few games with the patches and here is what i conclude

On large open maps , the firefly performs better because it can attack at range whereas in maps with lot of buildings the comet performs better because there are lot of chances of 1 vs 1 close range combat where the FF is weak

The hull and coaxial mgs of practically all the tanks suck. The do like 3-3 damage or something. They're just there to rarely get lucky crits and look cool. Only the turret MG is any good.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
The hull and coaxial mgs of practically all the tanks suck. The do like 3-3 damage or something. They're just there to rarely get lucky crits and look cool. Only the turret MG is any good.

Yes, that is likely.
However, even though we as players are not meant to take anything too literally in the game, and we know that the game and its design has a place, if I put 1 squad of Grens and they have two shrecks, and they are at half health, then I put a command tank, and 8 FFs facing them, and I unleash both sides, the fireflies stand there with 16 machine guns raking the crap out of the amazingly bullet proof squad.

Tank 1 boom, squad no health loss.
Tank2 boom, squad no health loss.
Tank3 boom, squad still untouched.
And so on.

The tank has two machine guns, and I am sorry, no matter how this is painted, you can't make up this gap no matter what ideas or excuses were in the game design.

What? The tanks left the beaches and due to ammo shortages they only have blanks. If so, please update the game notes, because at least there would be a plausable basis. Otherwise, the FF needs to at least cause nominal fire damage to inf that stands in front of it. For all I care set this so it gets much worse as range increases, but at least close in those two guns should do damage to every squad, even if at vet 3.

Or alternatively, remove the machine guns. Either would make more sense than the actual game does in current state.

So play BK mod. Tank MGs there shred infantry to pieces.
However I don't like situations, when 4 men squad charges frontally tank, which has 2-3 mg shooting them and main gun missing from 10 meters. That's pathetic and not real. However it would harm gameplay.

lol , this is not a tank mg thread

Well COh has got its own set of ridicules , there was a patch where one could carry a mortar squad inside a halftrack!!! :o

Yes. The game doesn't inform about level of realism, it says that it's realism is on higher level than other RTS, and is "historically accurate"...

cephalos wrote:
So play BK mod. Tank MGs there shred infantry to pieces.
However I don't like situations, when 4 men squad charges frontally tank, which has 2-3 mg shooting them and main gun missing from 10 meters. That's pathetic and not real. However it would harm gameplay.

I don't see how it would harm gameplay at all. Good players would have to flank the tank somewhat. I'm suggesting not much other than the guns actually have some kind of effect. Even if they actually bite, all thats required is to attack from a flank side.

I can guarantee without any doubt whatsoever that this is not going to be changed. Perhaps one of the future tanks will have excellent hull/coax guns as a feature of that tank only, but the entire mechanic will never be reworked. By changing this, every tank in the game would have to have it's price (and perhaps other stats) completely changed. You may as well drop the subject.

Fireflies apparently have 20% accuracy vs infantry targets, which is strange because they seem to have worse accuracy than that ingame. Oh well, fireflies don't need to be better against infantry at all. In fact, fireflies are one of the better balanced units the Brits can field. They are a tank destroyer exclusively, and good at their job.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
I can guarantee without any doubt whatsoever that this is not going to be changed. Perhaps one of the future tanks will have excellent hull/coax guns as a feature of that tank only, but the entire mechanic will never be reworked. By changing this, every tank in the game would have to have it's price (and perhaps other stats) completely changed. You may as well drop the subject.

Fireflies apparently have 20% accuracy vs infantry targets, which is strange because they seem to have worse accuracy than that ingame. Oh well, fireflies don't need to be better against infantry at all. In fact, fireflies are one of the better balanced units the Brits can field. They are a tank destroyer exclusively, and good at their job.

One of the better balanced units in the brit arsenal eh. I can only see this as a statement of comedy.

A word of advice AdmV0rl0n , the developers are aware of the imba to the british , developers do not act on their own accord , they act on the "EXPERTS" advice , who infact have caused the new imba , just wait and watch , we have voiced our concerns , they will do something about it

Some of those experts are highly biased towards the germans , some of them are the unbiased ones , who I'm sure will recommend the new changes

cheers :D

AdmV0rl0n wrote:
One of the better balanced units in the brit arsenal eh. I can only see this as a statement of comedy.

Then that makes two of us laughing. I do so every time you make a balance post on the British faction.

GodlikeDennis wrote:

AdmV0rl0n wrote:
One of the better balanced units in the brit arsenal eh. I can only see this as a statement of comedy.

Then that makes two of us laughing. I do so every time you make a balance post on the British faction.

Such slights can only be dealt with on the field of play. So, here is the deal, I post here as I play in COH, and hide nothing. I don't smurf, and my record is in the open. So, seeing as you've made several statements to back up your position, I happily challenge you. You play Brits, I'll play Germans, and can prove your many points to me and make an example of me.

How about it, care to prove just how Powerful the brits are against a lowly player like me that knows nothing and can't play Germans?

AbhMkh wrote:
A word of advice AdmV0rl0n , the developers are aware of the imba to the british , developers do not act on their own accord , they act on the "EXPERTS" advice , who infact have caused the new imba , just wait and watch , we have voiced our concerns , they will do something about it

Some of those experts are highly biased towards the germans , some of them are the unbiased ones , who I'm sure will recommend the new changes

cheers :D

lol i know that a firefly kan take out a tiger at 2 miles (3.2km)  while  tiger could kill a sherman from 3km and would blow it sky hi thats why a firefly is a tank destroyer and not a tank hunter and thats why its range is just bs the maurder was lucky to hit something at 3km so the ff  should have a better range bcouse maurders outrange it

btw when is the yank mortar gonna be fixed ? (at same range to wher becouse it has the range of a brit mortar

bastex wrote:

AbhMkh wrote:
A word of advice AdmV0rl0n , the developers are aware of the imba to the british , developers do not act on their own accord , they act on the "EXPERTS" advice , who infact have caused the new imba , just wait and watch , we have voiced our concerns , they will do something about it

Some of those experts are highly biased towards the germans , some of them are the unbiased ones , who I'm sure will recommend the new changes

cheers :D

lol i know that a firefly kan take out a tiger at 2 miles (3.2km)  while  tiger could kill a sherman from 3km and would blow it sky hi thats why a firefly is a tank destroyer and not a tank hunter and thats why its range is just bs the maurder was lucky to hit something at 3km so the ff  should have a better range bcouse maurders outrange it

btw when is the yank mortar gonna be fixed ? (at same range to wher becouse it has the range of a brit mortar

As it stands, all that is required to deal with a FF is one vehicle and one tank, or one Pak and one tank. And if micro's correctly - the FF is dead.

The FF against lowly vehicles nominally misses with the first shot. And the second and third frequently don't kill lower tiered vehicles. Thus so long as you run the tank in behind this, you can get in a close enough tank V tank contact, and deal with the FF.

The simple brute fact is the FF is not the vehicle killer it should be. It still has all the penalties, weak armour, useless against INF, but its been watered down to an extend where you may as well be firing chocolate rounds against some german vehicles.

And then its not got the range it is supposed to have unless the command tank is in list. If people take the stag hound, they run round this place screaming OP OP OP, refusing to accept the brits lose the range on the FF as part of that - so whats the point? You may as well talk to the wall.

The only way of making any British AT except 17lbs work, is using Bren squads/carriers and buttoning the enemy tanks.

Hmm......


Developers  do make a note of this

AdmV0rl0n wrote:

GodlikeDennis wrote:

AdmV0rl0n wrote:
One of the better balanced units in the brit arsenal eh. I can only see this as a statement of comedy.

Then that makes two of us laughing. I do so every time you make a balance post on the British faction.

Such slights can only be dealt with on the field of play. So, here is the deal, I post here as I play in COH, and hide nothing. I don't smurf, and my record is in the open. So, seeing as you've made several statements to back up your position, I happily challenge you. You play Brits, I'll play Germans, and can prove your many points to me and make an example of me.

How about it, care to prove just how Powerful the brits are against a lowly player like me that knows nothing and can't play Germans?

GodLikeDennis is incapable of proving the over powering might of the brit faction. I find that really rather telling. Step up? Or step off

I suggest to PM this type of comments to him. No one will miss them.

what is PM?

Personal Message ;)...

I find it funny that I already have PMed him as the forum was not an appropriate place to do this. In fact, I did it about 24 hours ago. Apparently, along with his Brit bias, he's too stupid to realise this and is instead trying to taunt someone who will still wipe the floor with him.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
I find it funny that I already have PMed him as the forum was not an appropriate place to do this. In fact, I did it about 24 hours ago. Apparently, along with his Brit bias, he's too stupid to realise this and is instead trying to taunt someone who will still wipe the floor with him.

We shall see. Its good to see you have taken up the challenge. Find me when I am on in the gamer-replay channel in game and let us see what takes place.

Good enough do tell me the result


and now back "on topic"