Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Except you arent taking into account all the teching costs required to get the panther.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
10 
Posts: 964 | Subs: 11
What are other thoughts on this? I still think there should be a tech level tied to call in's for all troops/tanks, etc. Other than Off maps.
Posts: 2053
Posts: 978
I think it should. Microing a Panther should be rewarded. Keeping the frontal armor at the enemy doesn´t help you much. The Panther takes a lot of damage this way. It should go down when flanked and that should be encouraged, rather than parking medium tanks in front of it.
Should it really? You're talking about a 490/175 tank winning against 740/260 worth of armour or, in the case of two E8s, 760/270 worth of armour.
You can make the argument that the teching cost needs to be factored in, but the Soviets and US are typically going to tech to T3/T4 anyway out of necessity.
2 
Posts: 1108
The only problem is _and has been for a long time_ that call-ins do not require tech.
Take any tank and look at purely its performance vs its cost. You will find that they are all pretty much balanced right.
The problem comes when you can skip tech in favor of getting more tanks via a doctrine. This problem is most obvious with the allies because they have a few doctrines with medium call-in tanks. The Wehrmacht also is quite good at it, not teching and going tigers is still reasonably valid, and of course the most powerful 1v1 doctrine, mechanised assault with their 6cp no-tech STUGE into 11CP tiger, does it better than any soviet doctrine could hope to do. OKW can't do it, but luckily for them they don't require much tech to get their medium tanks out.
 | Playercard of MoerserKarL | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts: 627
I think it should. Microing a Panther should be rewarded. Keeping the frontal armor at the enemy doesn´t help you much. The Panther takes a lot of damage this way. It should go down when flanked and that should be encouraged, rather than parking medium tanks in front of it.
The cool thing about the CoH series is that the roles of hard counters and smart gameplay matter more than the price (at least most of the time). If I was to build two Panzer IVs (700mp/260 fuel) and park them in front of an IS-2 (640mp/ 245 fuel) without any micro, they would lose the fight. Why not the same with the Panther, which btw. can´t handle infantry as well as other tanks?
Posts: 978
You can't just compare costs without considering unit stats and roles.Except I´m doing that. You are totally ignoring that the IS-2 performs like 300% better versus infantry than the Panther.
Posts: 627
Except I´m doing that. You are totally ignoring that the IS-2 performs like 300% better versus infantry than the Panther.
Posts: 183
Posts: 1701
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
And a single panther can kite an IS-2 from here to Verdun. Panther is faster and our ranges the IS-2. Troll it all day erry day.
Posts: 482
| Playercard of ATOUBA | |||||||
|
2 
Posts: 2181
At 50 range and moving, the Panther has a 33% chance of hitting the IS2, and a 58% chance of penetrating. Multiply that and on average, one out of five shots will damage the IS2. You'll have to kite for a full 224 seconds, or nearly 4 minutes (!), to kill it. Good luck finding a map large enough for that.
Posts: 627
Did you forget the Panther's terrible accuracy at long range/on the move? Why not fix that? I would be ok if they leave the Panther where it is now but only increasing his accuracy. Right now it is too unrealiable to chase tanks. Why so much range if it cant hit a thing?
At 50 range and moving, the Panther has a 33% chance of hitting the IS2, and a 58% chance of penetrating. Multiply that and on average, one out of five shots will damage the IS2. You'll have to kite for a full 224 seconds, or nearly 4 minutes (!), to kill it. Good luck finding a map large enough for that.
Posts: 100
I have been a long time supporter of allowing the panther to have a smaller moving accuracy penalty to help better distinguish it from the Tiger.
And at 50 range and moving the IS-2 has a zero percent chance of shooting at the panther, multiply that by the zero chance of hitting and an IS-2 would have to chase for infinity minutes (!!) to kill the panther.
It's a joke point, yes, but still. Even without the moving accuracy, the panther is a fantastic tank sniper. Really shines when attacking a point- you can stop to shoot, pull back when an enemy tries to return fire and pause for your next shot. If they chase too far, faust and finish the job.
Seriously, though. Panther are amazing even as they are so long as you use them against mediums with some care and attention.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46424117/Panther1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46424117/Panther2.jpg
Dem panthers, bro.
Posts: 29
Posts: 627
I think the Panther is definitely strong. I see them misused more often than I see them used properly or conservatively. People seem to think that because it's a 175 fuel tank, they can just run it straight into any Allied army with good results.
Posts: 542
Posts: 627
Panther is not terrible when defending, but what do I do if I want to attack? You cannot just defend, you need to attack to take territory or take down those Katyushas, and if they have heavy tanks like the ISU-152 I need to be aggressive and flank it if I want to deal with them.
In such situations at least I personally feel like it doesn't offer me more than a cheaper medium tank would. It has only slightly more health (or not even that compared to a T34/85), the range doesn't help much here and you can not really ensure that you get only hit in the front on such an attack.
If you have advice how to make a Panther work well in the offensive I would like to hear that.
Posts: 85
 |
|
|
78 | ||
 |
|
|
49 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
176 | ||
|
|
|
|
11 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
