Stationary PANTHER

Didn't you implied range should also be brought to the level of other tds in reply to him?

I was stating to puppet that the panther is 50 range, even though he was asking for nerfs to the panther in every regard inorder to make it basically like the allied TDs, but he didn't mention its range (or price which i forgot about) in comparison.

What you wrote I actually don't understand though. I don't get the "deus ex machina" stuff.

Maybe just make it cheaper. In my opinion Jackson=panther looking at performance, tech requirements and the package of abilities they get. I seriously don't understand the price difference, especially when one adds the crew into the equation.

Yep, single jackson can 1v1 panther now
2 jackson will rape a panther supported by ATG.
Just watched the latest tightrope cast, usf vs okw.

Range and pen and moving accuracy. Tanks need that, not some useless AI pintles

They are better because they are cheaper and are not inferior while having many useful abilities. Starting with ram and finishing with repair crews and many many other including different types of smoke extra speed,etc. Hard to enumerate even. Panther is just a silly overpriced hybrid of strange features which can work only when you are ahead of your opponent anyway. On similar skill matchup allied tanks give you much better results for what you pay. That is why I believe that the thread makes sense and panther should be somehow buffed. I would give it more anty infantry capabilities (making it a slightly better comet).

Its utility vs combat stats. The things that require extra (be it resources or micro) are always cheaper than the equivalent that is better in raw stats.

In a flat fight p4s always have the edge against any allied medium due to higher armour and great pen. If you think balance is a wash because worse tanks have more non tank things they can do, imagine how bad it would be if they were worse tanks that couldn't do anything..

And the panther already IS a slightly better comet. It has more range, health and pen. The comet makes up that by more armour and more utility. That's how balance works. What you want is superior axis armour with nothing on the other side to help make up for that by the sounds of it.

Its utility vs combat stats. The things that require extra (be it resources or micro) are always cheaper than the equivalent that is better in raw stats.

In a flat fight p4s always have the edge against any allied medium due to higher armour and great pen. If you think balance is a wash because worse tanks have more non tank things they can do, imagine how bad it would be if they were worse tanks that couldn't do anything..

And the panther already IS a slightly better comet. It has more range, health and pen. The comet makes up that by more armour and more utility. That's how balance works. What you want is superior axis armour with nothing on the other side to help make up for that by the sounds of it.

You nailed it. Spot on.

Yep, single jackson can 1v1 panther now

There is not a single scenario, except incredibly bad player micro, in which that is true.

The Jackson needs 33,25s from the first shot to kill a Panther, not counting misses and bounces.
A Panther needs 19,95s from the first shot to kill a Jackson, not counting misses.

They have identical reload, while the Panther has 50% more health, so go do the math. The 10 range advantage is barely enough for one free shot, and even then, the Panther has enough hitpoints to take the one hit and still out-DPM the Jackson afterwards.

Sorry I dont literally mean 1v1. But each faction put a unit each as part of their in game composition.

It's from my rank >1000 experience that a panther dont give much if any advantage against a jackson build despite the cost disadvantage

This is greatly coincidence that latest tightrope cast have the same scenario as you watch orangepest in action of a higher level play.

2 jackson will rape a panther supported by ATG.
Just watched the latest tightrope cast, usf vs okw.

This is greatly coincidence that latest tightrope cast have the same scenario as you watch orangepest in action of a higher level play.

https://youtu.be/tXE-ybrVX9A?t=3646

Two Jacksons (one of which is vet 3) find a lone Panther (only at vet 2), and with the help of the recon plane they get 3 hits in, some from max range, and then charge in, all before the supporting ATG is in position. Of course they will kill the Panther in this scenario, it's 800mp/290fu/80mu vs 490mp/185fu and 290mp that didn't participate in most of the fight.

If you think there's any way the Panther should've stood a chance here, you're quite frankly delusional.

Yes that's the game. Jackson got to vet3 by dueling well against the panther when both were 1 unit each.

That's the problem with ATg against 60td, much hard to participate than the opposite with 50td axis. Hence my 55td suggestion is to bring axis Atg in the game more fairly

Usf is so effective in cost perf if anything again. He have a calliope at the back while okw has the st. Panther was mostly on the back foot from the moment 1v1 till a 2v1 came on to rape it.

While the okw orange just managed to eke a win. The Jackson with ATg was holding well against the panther and ATg.

That's the problem with ATg against 60td, much hard to participate than the opposite with 50td axis. Hence my 55td suggestion is to bring axis Atg in the game more fairly

The problem was Orangepest not having his Raketen near the Panther at nearly every single engagement, that has nothing to do with range. Honestly you can just stop with your range nerf crusade, I can assure you that's never going to happen.

Thats too bad. But what is relic logic to give a 20% range advantage on top of other sweet td stats?

Have you all even tested it?

Looking at this game, the more expensive panther is fearful to dive in against the jackson. Being fear of snared and getting 60td shots trying to reverse.

It clearly has no advantage despite its costs. The way they traded, it does make Jackson look more costly than reality

Thats too bad. But what is relic logic to give a 20% range advantage

Amongst other things, the fact that TDs with 55 range wouldn't stand a chance against tougher German armor that is backed up by a 60 range ATG, or the fact that it's one of the trade-offs for being an expensive late game vehicle that has bad armor and low health that doesn't have any AI damage at all, or the fact that the Panther is designed to counter mediums and heavies and not also tank destroyers.

The Allied Tank Destroyer profile isn't healthy, because their high penetration and regular/high DPM means they counter every type of vehicle, but their range is not the problem.

on top of other sweet td stats?

Sweet TD stats like 640 hitpoints, 160 armor, absolutely no anti-infantry, bad mobility and turret rotation in the case of the Firefly, and being a casemate in case of the SU-85? Don't just cherry pick. They have plenty of disadvantages compared to the Panther.

Its utility vs combat stats. The things that require extra (be it resources or micro) are always cheaper than the equivalent that is better in raw stats.

It is the other way aroud. If you have crit repairs on a crew you need less micro. If you have better range you need less micro, better on the move accuracy you need less micro, etc. Raw stats have constantly been buffed over the years for allied tanks and TDs. Their cost didn't really go up and utilities remained as they were - that is the problem.

In a flat fight p4s always have the edge against any allied medium due to higher armour and great pen.

But the difference is mariginal (p4 form ost) and sherman will win on the move. You, unfortunately, are completely silent about the cost difference which makes sherman a better choice. You also forget that sherman will be shooting at 4 men squads and that ostheer will need to purchase pios to reapair it (200manpower) and OKW will need sturms (300 manpower). At the same time sherman will have the free crew with their ability to crit repair. What You wrot above is just a complete nonsense (sadly often repeated). Other mediums are usually better than stock sherman so their edge over the p4 will be greater.

If you think balance is a wash because worse tanks have more non tank things they can do, imagine how bad it would be if they were worse tanks that couldn't do anything..

Balance is actually very decent for an assymetrical rts. I am a fan of the balance team tbh who have put a lot of effort into balancing the game.

And the panther already IS a slightly better comet. It has more range, health and pen. The comet makes up that by more armour and more utility. That's how balance works. What you want is superior axis armour with nothing on the other side to help make up for that by the sounds of it.

Not true - comet is better because it can reliably penetrate a panther AND kill infantry far range - it is a better tank overall. I know how balance works.

Yes genius allied tanks are cheaper because allied tanks are not better. You need 2 minimum to take on a panther if for some reason you lack other at. No matter how you try and spin that its a fact that pound for pound the panther is a better tank hence it costs more.
...

1) Panther is not a main battle tank because it has the gun of TD
2) If 2 mediums can take a Panther they are a better investment since they come earlier and they can kill a more expensive unit at that cost of cheaper unit.

There is not a single scenario, except incredibly bad player micro, in which that is true.

The Jackson needs 33,25s from the first shot to kill a Panther, not counting misses and bounces.
A Panther needs 19,95s from the first shot to kill a Jackson, not counting misses.

They have identical reload, while the Panther has 50% more health, so go do the math. The 10 range advantage is barely enough for one free shot, and even then, the Panther has enough hitpoints to take the one hit and still out-DPM the Jackson afterwards.

Not counting misses is gross over simplification especially if the units are moving.

I am not saying that a M36 kill a Panther, but a M36 is enough to zone a Panther.

They have the same role but M36 can counter a Tiger or KT more cost efficiently than a Panther can counter a Pershing or IS-2.

...
Sweet TD stats like 640 hitpoints, 160 armor, absolutely no anti-infantry, bad mobility and turret rotation in the case of the Firefly, and being a casemate in case of the SU-85? Don't just cherry pick. They have plenty of disadvantages compared to the Panther.

Just to clarify FF does have a coaxial with a DPS similar to that of the Panther.

Noone buys panther for ai, this always derails any conversations surrounding changing the unit. By the 15+ minute mark that amount of dps is negligible, even more-so at the ranges the unit should operate.

Remove pintle upgrade and give it a tank commander option, adding +5 range and maybe some accuracy.

Just to clarify FF does have a coaxial with a DPS similar to that of the Panther.

Just to clarify, I ignore a coaxial with max 7 dps that is completely negligible, because everyone would except for those trying to be remarkably nitpicky. The Panther's total of up to 25 AI DPS on the other hand is a significant enough factor to mention in comparisons as it can reliably be used to chase away lone squads.

1) Panther is not a main battle tank because it has the gun of TD
2) If 2 mediums can take a Panther they are a better investment since they come earlier and they can kill a more expensive unit at that cost of cheaper unit.

What you say is correct. But he stated that a allied tank is cheaper and better. As a single tank. Wich is not the case at all.

What you say is correct. But he stated that a allied tank is cheaper and better. As a single tank. Wich is not the case at all.

I don't know who stated it. I will restate it - Jackson is at least as good as panther and is cheaper. Jackson also has a free crew that repairs better than enineer units because of crit repairs. Panther doesn't have a crew, is more expensive and requires a support unit for repairs (no crits anyway). In my opinion the level of imbalance here is pretty big.

I don't know who stated it. I will restate it - Jackson is at least as good as panther and is cheaper. Jackson also has a free crew that repairs better than enineer units because of crit repairs. Panther doesn't have a crew, is more expensive and requires a support unit for repairs (no crits anyway). In my opinion the level of imbalance here is pretty big.

Firstly a jackon is not a tank. Its a dedicated tank destroyer, its not capable of doing anything else unlike the panther.

Panther is ai capable. Panther is more durable. Panther has blitz to escape or dive, and heavy crush. But it has shorter range. And nothing like hvap.

The panther is not overpriced. Its the jackson being a tad to good for its price. But i dont see that changing as long as heavies are meta, and axis do have more acces to those regardless.

Its a vicious circle atm. Allies need such td,s vs inevitable heavy or superheavy unlike axis mostly, but those td,s overpreform vs medium and premium mediums. The panther and p4 feel weak because of it.