Command Panzer 4
Posts: 282
As many already suggested, I think we should revert the bonus to 20% and limit its effect to the unit of owner instead of every units.
Posts: 538
It is not that a the command panzer is OP in current 1v1s
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 282
C Panzer needs a redesign since it has become useless (mostly because of requirements and combat performance) but I expect these change to happen when they look at commanders.
I think the aura buff and maybe a slight increase of ROF or scatter buff might be enough, the unit by itself it not bad, just no point to get it over a regular PZ.4 for its price.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I think the aura buff and maybe a slight increase of ROF or scatter buff might be enough, the unit by itself it not bad, just no point to get it over a regular PZ.4 for its price.
ROF is fine.
Point here is that even Valentine has a better gun.
I would rather see change that would include:
Aura split in passive active
Aura scales with vet
Gun similar to Stug-E with range 40
Switchable round to hollow charge for direct fire will relatively low penetration but some deflection damage.
Removal of either CP requirements or tech requirements.
Posts: 282
ROF is fine.
Point here is that even Valentine has a better gun.
I would rather see change that would include:
Aura split in passive active
Aura scales with vet
Gun similar to Stug-E with range 40
Switchable round to hollow charge for direct fire will relatively low penetration but some deflection damage.
Removal of either CP requirements or tech requirements.
Yes making the Aura an active like the soviet urban barrack seems a good idea too.
The CP requirements doesn't really bother me, I don't see the command Pz.4 as a Valentine like unit, and I find the call-in handy, but I can understand your point.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Yes making the Aura an active like the soviet urban barrack seems a good idea too.
The CP requirements doesn't really bother me, I don't see the command Pz.4 as a Valentine like unit, and I find the call-in handy, but I can understand your point.
The requirements delay the unit across all Modes and the unit come simply too late especailly since it has max penetration of 55 compared to 120 for valentine.
USF can get a dozer faster than Ostheer can get a C.PzIV.
Posts: 282
The requirements delay the unit across all Modes and the unit come simply too late especailly since it has max penetration of 55 compared to 120 for valentine.
USF can get a dozer faster than Ostheer can get a C.PzIV.
Yep you're right but the need of a Command Pz.4 depends on you're point of view, for me it is a tank which aim to be a support to your composition, allowing your infantry to better perform in late game and thus negate some of grenadier weakness. If you see the command PZ.4 as a different variant of the P4 with other bonus and malus then yes it should come ealier (I think 6 CP good thought).
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Yep you're right but the need of a Command Pz.4 depends on you're point of view, for me it is a tank which aim to be a support to your composition, allowing your infantry to better perform in late game and thus negate some of grenadier weakness. If you see the command PZ.4 as a different variant of the P4 with other bonus and malus then yes it should come ealier (I think 6 CP good thought).
The cost of C. PzIV is to high and can not be paid back by reduction in bleed of Grenadiers. In order to do so it would need to arrive allot earlier.
The unit offers little over a regular PzIV in AI has laughable AT and has is not more durable than PzIV.
The unit needs to be looked and have its timing and utility increased.
Posts: 999 | Subs: 1
Posts: 282
The cost of C. PzIV is to high and can not be paid back by reduction in bleed of Grenadiers. In order to do so it would need to arrive allot earlier.
The unit offers little over a regular PzIV in AI has laughable AT and has is not more durable than PzIV.
The unit needs to be looked and have its timing and utility increased.
Then I totally agree, but which buff should be apply exactly aside of the aura?
Posts: 282
i'd say all it needs is the aura restored to 20% DR. not sure if the effect could be split up to give only 10% to allied units, but if possible that might be a way to keep it from getting too strong in larger team games.
We can keep 20% for everyone only if it is the same active as the soviet urban barrack active aura, otherwise I think we should just focus the bonus on the owner to be easier to balance for the balance team.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The cost of C. PzIV is to high and can not be paid back by reduction in bleed of Grenadiers. In order to do so it would need to arrive allot earlier.
The unit offers little over a regular PzIV in AI has laughable AT and has is not more durable than PzIV.
The unit needs to be looked and have its timing and utility increased.
It pays for itself the very moment regular P4 takes 4th penetrating shot, doesn't die and makes it back.
Reduction of infantry bleed also is not insignificant, making them immune to nade wipes at full health by default.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Then I totally agree, but which buff should be apply exactly aside of the aura?
Redesign of the gun or one could keep the gun similar level and make the unit more durable.
Removal of either tech or CP restrictions
Aura now split to passive 5-10% DR and active providing extra bonuses
Aura scale with veterancy
Commander now a time ability providing extra LOS
Can now fire smoke rounds
Possibly a debuff to enemy units available.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
It pays for itself the very moment regular P4 takes 4th penetrating shot, doesn't die and makes it back.
Reduction of infantry bleed also is not insignificant, making them immune to nade wipes at full health by default.
Think you do not understand how this game work if you think that giving XP to enemy units is good for you.
They unit does pay for itself and thus no one uses it.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Think you do not understand how this game work if you think that giving XP to enemy units is good for you.
They unit does pay for itself and thus no one uses it.
I think you do not understand how this game works if you think you can take fights and avoid giving exp to enemy.
The unit does pay for itself.
No one uses it, because its not in overpowered meta doctrine.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I think you do not understand how this game works if you think you can take fights and avoid giving exp to enemy.
The unit does pay for itself.
No one uses it, because its not in overpowered meta doctrine.
No it does not the units comes way too late and the performance for its timing is not worth it.
Posts: 1217
That would take out a great teamplay effect of the Comm. Panzer IV.
If you want to buff it, then buff the aura and lock those buffs behind vet bonuses instead of locking it out for teammates.
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
The only thing that might make sense is a slight cost reduction.
Posts: 783
The unit does pay for itself.
No one uses it, because its not in overpowered meta doctrine.
I disagree. The unit is underwhelming. Its hard to fit it into army compositions 1v1 or otherwise. If it were a standard P4 with an aura it might be used.
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Vemurate
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM