Panther Accuracy

Uhh, the Panther will lose to an IS 2

And jackson loses to panther frequently, eh?

Range and mobility matters.

And jackson loses to panther frequently, eh?

Range and mobility matters.

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.

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.

I am all for it.

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.

If an accuracy buff is unnecessary, then the Panther should get a penetration buff at Vet 2 instead.

If an accuracy buff is unnecessary, then the Panther should get a penetration buff at Vet 2 instead.

No.

Vet zero.

It's not much of a counter if it needs to gain two vet levels to do its job in the first place. Veterancy should make a unit better but it shouldn't be a gate for it doing its job.

If an accuracy buff is unnecessary, then the Panther should get a penetration buff at Vet 2 instead.

Why?
The single allied unit it had any kind of trouble penetrating just had its armor nerfed and it reliably penetrates every other unit in game.

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.

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.

That will just make heavies less unique.

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.

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.

That will just make heavies less unique.

It'll make them take six hits to kill instead of seven. That's hardly a design feature.

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.

I'm not sure how it's possible to read my suggestion and miss the point this hard.

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.

This is a pretty accurate description of the problem, imo; but the solution only works in an OST/Sov vacuum. Reducing the IS2/Tiger HP is a good idea, but it means they'll be even more vulnerable to TDs, which makes '60 range TDs' an even more optimal choice.

As you pointed out, the reason the panther is 'bad', is because the Tiger is simply a better choice in every situation. I'd like to expand this idea to the other factions; the reason medium tanks/light TDs are bad is because 60 TDs are a better choice.

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.

To come back to your suggestion, as a result of all this, reducing the HP on heavy tanks in hopes of making the Panther a better choice will essentially do nothing, as other TDs will only be made even better choices in essentially every situation.

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.

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.

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.

Yet USF suffer less from it since they can simply dismount.

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.

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.

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.

Yet the original changes in CP was made because super heavy tanks where simply not being able to stand to massed TD some making even less durable will removed from large modes.

The performance of allied TDs at max range is an issue. The performance of super heavies when TDs are not present is another.

This why I have suggested that Super heavies should be more about durability and less about lethality and that the should get great vet bonuses.

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.

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.

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.

The problem with that is you might be better in mid game but worse in the late game when you medium has trouble penetrating even it flanks.

Take for instance PzIV it can provide you a slight advantage in mid game but it wont offer much when premium mediums, heavy, super heavy or 60 range TDs appear.

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.

No really Super heavies proved problematic when their leathality increased. They where devastating in 1vs1 is one did not have "heavy TDs counter" while the performance is not great increased in 4v4s where numerous TDs could still take them out before they could put the firepower to use.


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.

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.

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.

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.

When I said they should be tougher I did not mean that they should have their armor/hp increased.

More like reducing the ridicules high penetration of the vetted M36/Su-85:
338/312/286 AP 390/364/325 312/299/286

A Tiger having 4.7% to bounce a shot from 140 fuel TD at range 60 make little sense when costing 230 fuel...

A Tiger having 4.7% to bounce a shot from 140 fuel TD at range 60 make little sense when costing 230 fuel...

And elite infantry shouldn't be suppressed by HMGs like HMG34 just because they cost much more?
Should ATGs bounce much more, because they are incomparably cheaper and mp only?

That's not how hardcounters work.

TDs constantly had their pop and cost increased to the point where outside of 4v4 you can't really fit more then 1 if you don't want to be rolled elsewhere, which means that 1 present TD needs to do the only job it got well.

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.

Completely disagree.

Provided you don't know what your opponent is going to build, an M36 is always the best choice.

Let's take your Ostwind/Sherman example. The Sherman does give more AI power, which is nice, but is vulnerable to any other OST vehicle from T3, or a panther, or most call-ins. Meanwhile, the M36 isn't vulnerable to those vehicles (when correctly micro'd).

As a result, the safest option is to preemptively build an M36, since this will invalidate any vehicle OST goes for, forcing them to either heavily invest in AT-focused tanks (STUGs, Pathers) or more heavily invest in AT-Infantry. For the former, the solution is simply more M36s, and for the later, your infantry should counter them.

The current Tiger HP gives OST a generalist solution to the problem, since it has enough HP to somewhat resist TDs, but also allows for the vehicle based AI that OST needs to survive late-game. Nerfing the Tiger's HP removes that, forcing the situation I described above.

/edit

I don't say this lightly, but the only solution to the current "60 TD Meta" is literally a rework of every tank in the game. We're currently stuck in a situation where either "60 TDs" are the obvious pick in every situation, or they're nerfed to the point where the game is unplayable. This needs to be fixed; and the only way to do this is by completely reworking how every vehicles relates to each other.

I don't agree that td meta can only be fixed with a mass tank overhaul. Slash their pen and give them deflection damage so they can always do a bit of damage instead of all or nothing. Heavy Armour acts as a damage reduction at least to TDs and as it does now against non hardcounters.
TDs don't need guaranteed pen to work and we have reached the end of the line with this thinking. Time to try something else.