Minor german issues.

- P4..they are fine... i guess...
- Stug is ok....
- Ele plus ISU range reduction +1
- ISU AI capabilities... just insane...
- Soviet mines nerf - for sure...
- Poor Panther....
- Poor Pgrenadiers....

Panther, I can't even begin to tell how useless it is, something must be done, at list decrease its costs. It costs a fortune and it's sensitive like a flower. I want a war machine on the line, not a luxury automobile...

I lough at arguments like "PzGrenadiers shouldn't be used as assault troops". Why do they have ASSAULT AUTOMATIC rifles? Huh? More than this, why are soviets allowed to have crack assault troops like shocks in several doctrines and germans have not? Just AG in ONE doctrine....What am I supposed to do with germans, just duck and lie in a corner waiting for enemy to do a mistake so I can push him a little?

Panther is not useless. The cost of getting one is too high. T4 tech prise + Panther's cost makes easier to wait for Tiger call in than to build for PzV.

PG is a joke comparing to, fal.... well, (I shouldn't say about it)

Hehehe.

I can't wait to see the new balance threads

Ok, PGs are not the same now. They have another role now.

But what is that role and are they really a good choice for that role?
I can maybe see them as Counterinitiation units, killing enemys that get too close to your HMGs/Snipers. But here one simple thing outshines them: More HMGs behind the first one. In a defensive position I see no way that a Pgren squad would be more usefull then even a single HMG, and they are even cheaper.


Then we have agressive Roles left.
You could use them with a halftrack to get them into position. (But in the meta halftracks are rather used defensiv.. so. Maybe worth a try?)

You could use them to flank.
If you go after lonely units, they could get killed by cons in cover, maxims turn to fast and Snipers bleed them hard.
If you flank a big engagement, to get a maxim / Zis, it could work if the enemy DOESN'T focus them as soon as he sees them. Have fun retreating through the enemy. And riflenades are better against weopanteams anyway.

Thats how I see it so far, but please explain to me what their intended role is, and why I shouldn't just get another MG42(/gren).

Stop saying panther is useless, because its most certainly not.
Its slightly too expensive, but the stats are fine.

Ok, PGs are not the same now. They have another role now.

But what is that role and are they really a good choice for that role?
I can maybe see them as Counterinitiation units, killing enemys that get too close to your HMGs/Snipers. But here one simple thing outshines them: More HMGs behind the first one. In a defensive position I see no way that a Pgren squad would be more usefull then even a single HMG, and they are even cheaper.


Then we have agressive Roles left.
You could use them with a halftrack to get them into position. (But in the meta halftracks are rather used defensiv.. so. Maybe worth a try?)

You could use them to flank.
If you go after lonely units, they could get killed by cons in cover, maxims turn to fast and Snipers bleed them hard.
If you flank a big engagement, to get a maxim / Zis, it could work if the enemy DOESN'T focus them as soon as he sees them. Have fun retreating through the enemy. And riflenades are better against weopanteams anyway.

Thats how I see it so far, but please explain to me what their intended role is, and why I shouldn't just get another MG42(/gren).

Good point.

Currently, the only use for PG is Shreck, but a Pak + Teller mines just do everything better.

Stop saying panther is useless, because its most certainly not.
Its slightly too expensive, but the stats are fine.

We are entitled to our opinions . if you disagree then provide arguments. Lets do a quick comparision between the panther and the tiger. even if panthers fuel was brought back to 145 the tiger would still be way more cost effective. it has more then 2 times the survivability, superior AT, AI that only the ostwind or brumbar can match and you dont need tier 4 for it and way better veterancy. the panther can only claim it has superior speed and a bit more range. at even the range is counteracted by the vet.

Have it occurred to you that Tiger might be too cost effective and not panther being "bad"?

I wonder if you'd still loved tiger as much if it had same effective HP as IS-2.

If some unit is too strong relatively to all other units of its tier, you bring it down in line with the tier, not wind up all other units to its level.

Have you seen even one person saying IS-2 is too good this patch?
Because there is popping more and more posts saying tiger is, including posts by players who actually know how to play.

Tiger is a single most forgiving tank in game, yes it makes panther look bad in comparison, but it also makes IS-2 look like T34 in comparison to it.

Have it occurred to you that Tiger might be too cost effective and not panther being "bad"?

I wonder if you'd still loved tiger as much if it had same effective HP as IS-2.

If some unit is too strong relatively to all other units of its tier, you bring it down in line with the tier, not wind up all other units to its level.

Have you seen even one person saying IS-2 is too good this patch?
Because there is popping more and more posts saying tiger is, including posts by players who actually know how to play.

Tiger is a single most forgiving tank in game, yes it makes panther look bad in comparison, but it also makes IS-2 look like T34 in comparison to it.

Panther needs a cost decrease. Stat wise - its fine. If it costed 140 fuel it would be fine, maybe even decrease teching cost of T4 if T3 is not built. (making a T1 T2 T4 more viable)

"Looked at"? They "looked at": ISU, PzGrens, Panther. Happy with the result? I am not, and i'm not the only one.
If Tiger will be nerfed, then for sure germans will have no option for a good tank. Currently, german armor needs bufs or cost decrease (PANTHER) not more nerfing.
Soviets dominate through infantry; related to tanks, let's say it's balanced, except there are some units that are currently no more seen on the battlefield: T70, Panther. If we nerf further German armor, the result will be a nice soviet unit parade played by one hand while waching TV, meanwhile the german opponent will sweat struggling to survive. It's this your idea of balance?

Panther needs a cost decrease. Stat wise - its fine. If it costed 140 fuel it would be fine.

Tiger however needs to be looked at. Relic said they "buffed" is-2 AT capability while really they didint buff it at all.... IS-2 still loses to a tiger 100% of the time, yet the tiger now is practically as effective againts inf as the old IS-2...Except that it fires alot faster.
I honestly think that the tiger should be 960hp. Just like the IS-2.
Tiger should win againts IS-2 at close range due to higher ROF and IS-2 should win at long range due to higher penetration.
Both tanks should be effective againts inf, but tiger slightly more effective due to higher ROF.

if i was kaititof i was going tot tell you l2p. but i will tell you that the tiger has a slight edge over the is 2 this is no difference with the previous patches.

"Looked at"? They "looked at": ISU, PzGrens, Panther. Happy with the result? I am not, and i'm not the only one.
If Tiger will be nerfed, then for sure germans will have no option for a good tank. Currently, german armor needs bufs or cost decrease (PANTHER) not more nerfing.
Soviets dominate through infantry; related to tanks, let's say it's balanced, except there are some units that are currently no more seen on the battlefield: T70, Panther. If we nerf further German armor, the result will be a nice soviet unit parade played by one hand while waching TV, meanwhile the german opponent will sweat struggling to survive. It's this your idea of balance?

sorry, i edited my post, removed that part about the tiger. That was a bit stupid on my part.

As for tiger vs IS-2. The IS-2 has 960 hp, tiger has 1280 hp. Which means that the tiger has a massive advantage, IS-2 slightly higher pen and slightly higher armor 220 vs 200 and 340 vs 300 doesn't hold up because the tiger can take 3 more shots all while the tiger fires faster.
I just dont see the point of having an IS-2 anymore. Two t-34/85s do the job much better both at killing infantry , can take 1 less shot before dying than the IS-2,and do more AT damage, also they come with mark target. I don't see why there should be such a MASSIVE difference between the two tanks...

Panther needs a cost decrease. Stat wise - its fine. If it costed 140 fuel it would be fine, maybe even decrease teching cost of T4 if T3 is not built. (making a T1 T2 T4 more viable)

It does need a cost decrease, but 140 wouldn't make it 'fine', it would make it 'insanely on the level of overpowered cheap'.

For comparison, Sherman costs 135 fuel and T34/85 costs 130(if double) and 140 if single call-in.
Do I even need to say anything more?

Unless you were planning to give a significant cut to panthers stats as well with that ridiculous price you've suggested to actually match it with other similar costly armor.

It does need a cost decrease, but 140 wouldn't make it 'fine', it would make it 'insanely on the level of overpowered cheap'.

For comparison, Sherman costs 135 fuel and T34/85 costs 130(if double) and 140 if single call-in.
Do I even need to say anything more?

Unless you were planning to give a significant cut to panthers stats as well with that ridiculous price you've suggested to actually match it with other similar costly armor.

Yeah , maybe its price should be slightly more than 140, however, lets remember that teching up to T4 is also pretty expensive..

Placing soviet T3 and T4 together in one game is pretty expensive as well, yet I don't see anyone saying SU-85 and T34 shouldn't cost more then 90 fuel for that reason.

Tiering costs reflect the timing where units can or can't hit the field, it doesn't offer guaranteed win over a lesser tier and shouldn't be looked at that way.

Placing soviet T3 and T4 together in one game is pretty expensive as well, yet I don't see anyone saying SU-85 and T34 shouldn't cost more then 90 fuel for that reason.

Tiering costs reflect the timing where units can or can't hit the field, it doesn't offer guaranteed win over a lesser tier and shouldn't be looked at that way.

I guess this is just the problem with call ins being too effective when compared to tech.

sorry, i edited my post, removed that part about the tiger. That was a bit stupid on my part.

As for tiger vs IS-2. The IS-2 has 960 hp, tiger has 1280 hp. Which means that the tiger has a massive advantage, IS-2 slightly higher pen and slightly higher armor 220 vs 200 and 340 vs 300 doesn't hold up because the tiger can take 3 more shots all while the tiger fires faster.
I just dont see the point of having an IS-2 anymore. Two t-34/85s do the job much better both at killing infantry , can take 1 less shot before dying than the IS-2,and do more AT damage, also they come with mark target. I don't see why there should be such a MASSIVE difference between the two tanks...

oh the difference between armor and penetration is minor

is penetration rate = 300/190 {max range} 63.3 %
tiger penetration rate 340/180 (max range ) 52% %

thats 10 % in favor of the is2. but as i already said the is2 is will be at an disadvantage

I guess this is just the problem with call ins being too effective when compared to tech.

if you ask me all call in heavy/medium tanks should be increased by 6 cp.

oh the difference between armor and penetration is minor

is penetration rate = 300/190 {max range} 63.3 %
tiger penetration rate 340/180 (max range ) 52% %

thats 10 % in favor of the is2. but as i already said the is2 is will be at an disadvantage

if you ask me all call in heavy/medium tanks should be increased by 6 cp.

It will be at a massive disadvantage due to slower reload time and IS-2 needing to penetrate 3 more shots due to tigers huge hp.
Like, tiger is pretty much better againts IS-2 in every single way now. I mean i understand that axis is supposed to have better armor, but there is practically no point in getting an IS-2 over some t-34/85s....

I think what cruzz suggested works best. Require t-3 or t-4 for soviet call ins, and require T3 for tigers and maybe even T4 researched for elephats.

Have it occurred to you that Tiger might be too cost effective and not panther being "bad"?

Love the logic. Panther is a piece of crap. Better nerf the Tiger to bring it in line with the Panther.

Panthers this patch have ruined more games for me than they did win. Simply because those overpriced shit-cans offer only mediocre AT for almost no AI. Combine that with only slightly better survivability than a medium tank and you have the Panther.