Uhh, the Panther will lose to an IS 2
And jackson loses to panther frequently, eh?
Range and mobility matters.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Uhh, the Panther will lose to an IS 2
Posts: 3260
And jackson loses to panther frequently, eh?
Range and mobility matters.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
If the Panther's meant to take on the IS-2 and Pershing with range then the IS-2 and Tiger need their veterancy range bonuses removed.
Posts: 33
The Panther already stomps everything below it in cost pretty hard. An accuracy buff would make it stomp harder without making it substantially better against the units it's too weak against: heavies.
It needs a pen buff much more than an accuracy buff imo.
Posts: 3260
If an accuracy buff is unnecessary, then the Panther should get a penetration buff at Vet 2 instead.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
If an accuracy buff is unnecessary, then the Panther should get a penetration buff at Vet 2 instead.
Posts: 3260
Posts: 66
I don't think the problem with the Panther is the Panther.
I think it's the IS-2 and Tiger.
Consider the following:
- The IS-2 beats the Panther in a 1v1 battle.
- The Tiger is a better heavy tank counter than the Panther.
Therefore, if you're playing Soviet and you pick an IS-2 doctrine, your opponent's overwhelming best answer in 1v1 is a Tiger doctrine. Going Tiger gives you 160 more HP, a load of anti-infantry firepower, and going Panther doesn't work.
What if we changed that?
What if we cut the IS-2 and Tiger to 960 HP, same as the Panther and Pershing? The Panther can then take on the IS-2 in a one-on-one battle, and the Tiger stops being a better pick than it.
Now that the IS-2 can be countered nondoctrinally, there's less incentive to go IS-2 every game.
Now that the Tiger isn't a better heavy counter than the Panther, there's less incentive to go Tiger every game.
Posts: 1794
I don't think the problem with the Panther is the Panther.
I think it's the IS-2 and Tiger.
Consider the following:
- The IS-2 beats the Panther in a 1v1 battle.
- The Tiger is a better heavy tank counter than the Panther.
Therefore, if you're playing Soviet and you pick an IS-2 doctrine, your opponent's overwhelming best answer in 1v1 is a Tiger doctrine. Going Tiger gives you 160 more HP, a load of anti-infantry firepower, and going Panther doesn't work.
What if we changed that?
What if we cut the IS-2 and Tiger to 960 HP, same as the Panther and Pershing? The Panther can then take on the IS-2 in a one-on-one battle, and the Tiger stops being a better pick than it.
Now that the IS-2 can be countered nondoctrinally, there's less incentive to go IS-2 every game.
Now that the Tiger isn't a better heavy counter than the Panther, there's less incentive to go Tiger every game.
Posts: 3260
That will just make heavies less unique.
Sounds almost perfect, except reduce is2 and tiger sight to 45.
Reduce panther health to 800 like comet.
This will make heavy unique as always.
Posts: 960
I don't think the problem with the Panther is the Panther.
I think it's the IS-2 and Tiger.
Consider the following:
- The IS-2 beats the Panther in a 1v1 battle.
- The Tiger is a better heavy tank counter than the Panther.
Therefore, if you're playing Soviet and you pick an IS-2 doctrine, your opponent's overwhelming best answer in 1v1 is a Tiger doctrine. Going Tiger gives you 160 more HP, a load of anti-infantry firepower, and going Panther doesn't work.
What if we changed that?
What if we cut the IS-2 and Tiger to 960 HP, same as the Panther and Pershing? The Panther can then take on the IS-2 in a one-on-one battle, and the Tiger stops being a better pick than it.
Now that the IS-2 can be countered nondoctrinally, there's less incentive to go IS-2 every game.
Now that the Tiger isn't a better heavy counter than the Panther, there's less incentive to go Tiger every game.
Posts: 3260
For USF and UKF, and to a lesser extent Sov and OKW, the best choice in essentially every situation is "60 range TD".
Enemy going for a medium tank? Get a 60 range TD and hard-counter it.
Enemy going for an AI focused tank? 60 range TD.
Enemy going for a heavy? 60 range TD.
Enemy going for a 'premium' medium? 60 range TD.
Enemy going for literally anything on wheels/tracks? 60 range TD.
Additionally, since those four factions have very strong infantry, they usually don't need the AI power offered by mediums, or already have some AI focused LVs built(Flak HT, etc.). As a result, there's really no reason not to go for a 60-range TD, as it shuts down any vehicle-based AI your opponent might go for.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I think you're heavily undervaluing manpower bleed.
In isolation, the Sherman is a better pick against the Ostwind than the Jackson. The Sherman will deal with the Ostwind and then contribute its hefty anti-infantry firepower to the battle. The Jackson will deal with the Ostwind, then do nothing until another tank shows up.
This applies more broadly: you want enough AT to deal with the enemy tanks, then stack the rest of your army with as much manpower bleed as you can. Investing in a load of AT you don't need is suboptimal play.
Tank destroyers are a reaction to the enemy composition. We see it so much because the dominance of the heavy tank meta since the Mobidef nerfs made it necessary: if you need two Tank Destroyers to kill a heavy, you're going to build two tank destroyers. And there goes 38% of your popcap.
Cutting the Tiger down to 960 makes one tank destroyer that much more able to deal with it, freeing up that popcap and those resources for other vehicles. It might, ironically enough, reduce the number of 60 range TDs fieled.
Posts: 3260
And tank are almost mandatory for Ostheer since they will lose if they try to play without vehicles.
In addition not using you fuel is also a waste of resources.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I'm not saying don't. I'm saying it's better to build a medium tank if its AT firepower is sufficient to counter the enemy composition. Going massed TDs when you don't need TDs is trading better manpower bleed for overkill.
Tank destroyer spam happens when that much AT firepower is necessary. Your suggestion of making heavies even tougher is just going to make that worse.
Posts: 3260
Generally their annoy to play with and against. They would either completely "shock" the enemy or be decimated in seconds. That is why I suggest testing less firepower more durability.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
They're already having their firepower cut, and they do not need more durability.
If they're too weak at 960 HP, slash the price. Don't make them tougher. Them being better than the Panther at AT is the cause of so many of the problems with them.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
A Tiger having 4.7% to bounce a shot from 140 fuel TD at range 60 make little sense when costing 230 fuel...
Posts: 960
I think you're heavily undervaluing manpower bleed.
In isolation, the Sherman is a better pick against the Ostwind than the Jackson. The Sherman will deal with the Ostwind and then contribute its hefty anti-infantry firepower to the battle. The Jackson will deal with the Ostwind, then do nothing until another tank shows up.
This applies more broadly: you want enough AT to deal with the enemy tanks, then stack the rest of your army with as much manpower bleed as you can. Investing in a load of AT you don't need is suboptimal play.
Tank destroyers are a reaction to the enemy composition. We see it so much because the dominance of the heavy tank meta since the Mobidef nerfs made it necessary: if you need two Tank Destroyers to kill a heavy, you're going to build two tank destroyers. And there goes 38% of your popcap.
Cutting the Tiger down to 960 makes one tank destroyer that much more able to deal with it, freeing up that popcap and those resources for other vehicles. It might, ironically enough, reduce the number of 60 range TDs fieled.
Posts: 5279
8 | |||||
3 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 | |||||
0 | |||||
34 | |||||
17 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 |