hey, It is probabilistic.
It does not depend on the direction.
Sometimes, even when hit from back, it is are often destroyed.
Panther spammer
- This thread is locked
6 Jun 2013, 08:47 AM
#21
Posts: 144
6 Jun 2013, 09:42 AM
#22
Posts: 14
For me, even 2 panthers is spam.
They are ridiculously strong (comparably stronger than IS2, because russians don't have as good AT weapons)
Panther wins a duel against TWO Su-85 TANK DESTROYERS
Easily wins a duel against a IS-2
Zis-3 guns don't scratch it
Indirect fire is useless
Two of them attacked our base and PARKED in the middle of it. We were not losing at the time, lacked fuel somewhat, but still were able to throw at them 4! AT guns, 2 conscripts with AT grenades, one of them had panzershreck, spam from 82mm mortar, 2 Su76 and some guard troops with PTRS. All at the same time.
Panthers survived that and proceeded to kill every reinforcement we had. There was some indirect fire from doctrines that killed us as well, but the situation was ridiculous.
This was not spam, so in spam situations, had 5 of them roam the steppes steamrolling everything, russians have no chance in hell to stop them.
The cherry on top is that Panther is the only tank that has 60 unit vision like assault guns and tank destroyers.
They are ridiculously strong (comparably stronger than IS2, because russians don't have as good AT weapons)
Panther wins a duel against TWO Su-85 TANK DESTROYERS
Easily wins a duel against a IS-2
Zis-3 guns don't scratch it
Indirect fire is useless
Two of them attacked our base and PARKED in the middle of it. We were not losing at the time, lacked fuel somewhat, but still were able to throw at them 4! AT guns, 2 conscripts with AT grenades, one of them had panzershreck, spam from 82mm mortar, 2 Su76 and some guard troops with PTRS. All at the same time.
Panthers survived that and proceeded to kill every reinforcement we had. There was some indirect fire from doctrines that killed us as well, but the situation was ridiculous.
This was not spam, so in spam situations, had 5 of them roam the steppes steamrolling everything, russians have no chance in hell to stop them.
The cherry on top is that Panther is the only tank that has 60 unit vision like assault guns and tank destroyers.
6 Jun 2013, 11:39 AM
#23
Posts: 393
I have to agree that relic really has to look at the SU-85 vs. panther match up. A panther is simply a lot more cost effective in these engagements despite the SU-85 being a dedicated tank destroyer.
sig by tricky 
6 Jun 2013, 14:16 PM
#24
Posts: 5
**Pics reposted**
7 Jun 2013, 07:22 AM
#25
5 
Posts: 16697 | Subs: 12
Yay. Those pics crack me up. I hope that Panther balance is a high priority for Relic right now. It's a glaring IMBA unit at the moment.
8 Jun 2013, 15:40 PM
#26
Posts: 647
i sure hope that they look into it, relic has been pretty liberal with portraying the fatherland armor lately and did nothing to it during close beta.
8 Jun 2013, 16:15 PM
#27
Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6
The only thing that should be changed to panther is their cost, to for example 600 MP and 170 Fuel, i dont see the reason why it should be worse, it was one of best tanks of the war
8 Jun 2013, 16:36 PM
#28
Posts: 760
There is one solution- su100. But yeah that is not happening.........
8 Jun 2013, 17:54 PM
#29
Posts: 522
Panther is not imbalanced in 1v1. 2 SU-85s can easily shut down a panther if used correctly.
8 Jun 2013, 18:42 PM
#30
9 
Posts: 2072 | Subs: 1
Panther is not imbalanced in 1v1. 2 SU-85s can easily shut down a panther if used correctly.
2 SU-85s shooting at a completely unsupported panther buttoned on a bridge by guards, one from the front at point blank range and from the side. The panther still retreats away when the button finishes and almost kills one of the SUs.
This shouldn't happen, however you put it.
8 Jun 2013, 19:34 PM
#31
Posts: 522
2 SU-85s shooting at a completely unsupported panther buttoned on a bridge by guards, one from the front at point blank range and from the side. The panther still retreats away when the button finishes and almost kills one of the SUs.
This shouldn't happen, however you put it.
I've had different experiences, 2 SU-85s at range can do tonnes of damage to a buttoned panther, panther dies and SU-85s take no damage since if the panther is buttoned it can't shoot back. Maybe you just went too close to the panther with the SU-85?
Also it is expensive to tech up to panther while producing units to hold the map in 1v1. Panther should be good at what it does. Button, ram, AT nades, IS-2s, AT guns and SU-85s, there are plenty of soviet combined arms usage that can take out panthers.
8 Jun 2013, 22:27 PM
#32
9 Posts: 2072 | Subs: 1
The main problem is that it still got away. Imagine what would've happened if it was supported... And it's not that hard to tech to T4 with the Germans, all you really need is some grens, a PG, an MG and a pak.
10 Jun 2013, 02:27 AM
#33
Posts: 15
I've had different experiences, 2 SU-85s at range can do tonnes of damage to a buttoned panther, panther dies and SU-85s take no damage since if the panther is buttoned it can't shoot back. Maybe you just went too close to the panther with the SU-85?
Also it is expensive to tech up to panther while producing units to hold the map in 1v1. Panther should be good at what it does. Button, ram, AT nades, IS-2s, AT guns and SU-85s, there are plenty of soviet combined arms usage that can take out panthers.
I never understood this line of argument in VCOH either. The Axis player need only make one non-doctrinal unit, then is able to focus on it alone for the match up you describe, and has all the mental RAM he needs to micro effectively. The Soviet player needs to max out a doctrine (eliminating the choice for all soviet players in 3v3 and 4v4 matches as all axis players spam Panthers) then spend more resources to make an IS2 than the Panther costs. And the panther has better range, better penetration. Then the soviet player needs to buy additional AT and Su-85s or T-34s and manage those for the encounter as well as his AT nade infantry. Who the fuck would choose the Soviet option given the circumstances of the choice? Make one practically unstoppable unit provided you have decent micro skills or dedicate half of your army to fighting that one unit? I've switched to Axis til they patch this mess and just spam Panthers as well now. It's hilarious, you'll vet them in no time.
10 Jun 2013, 02:33 AM
#34
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
I never understood this line of argument in VCOH either. The Axis player need only make one non-doctrinal unit, then is able to focus on it alone for the match up you describe, and has all the mental RAM he needs to micro effectively. The Soviet player needs to max out a doctrine (eliminating the choice for all soviet players in 3v3 and 4v4 matches as all axis players spam Panthers) then spend more resources to make an IS2 than the Panther costs. And the panther has better range, better penetration. Then the soviet player needs to buy additional AT and Su-85s or T-34s and manage those for the encounter as well as his AT nade infantry. Who the fuck would choose the Soviet option given the circumstances of the choice? Make one practically unstoppable unit provided you have decent micro skills or dedicate half of your army to fighting that one unit? I've switched to Axis til they patch this mess and just spam Panthers as well now. It's hilarious, you'll vet them in no time.
I can see it being a big problem in team games, but in an evenly-matched 1v1 Panthers are so incredibly expensive that the Soviet player should be easily prepared and have a vast majority of the map if the Ostheer player is attempting to tech to Panthers with any degree of speed.
PS big GFW Radio fan ^^
10 Jun 2013, 02:47 AM
#35
Posts: 15
I can see it being a big problem in team games, but in an evenly-matched 1v1 Panthers are so incredibly expensive that the Soviet player should be easily prepared and have a vast majority of the map if the Ostheer player is attempting to tech to Panthers with any degree of speed.
PS big GFW Radio fan ^^
Whoa, you recognized my tag? : ) And yeah, I'm definitely talking about the 3v3/4v4 match ups, and not 1v1.
10 Jun 2013, 02:56 AM
#36
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
Yeah, figured it was too big a coincidence haha.
10 Jun 2013, 07:44 AM
#37
Posts: 642
In 2v2, panthers do become a force to be reckoned with. In my experience, the Soviet needs to really think creatively to deal with dual panthers.
I usually tell my teammate to simply rush for a panther in general, while I slowly tech up to dual stugs as AT support for my infantry wave. It becomes a headache for the enemy to defeat that combination (let alone 2 panthers with stug support).
I usually tell my teammate to simply rush for a panther in general, while I slowly tech up to dual stugs as AT support for my infantry wave. It becomes a headache for the enemy to defeat that combination (let alone 2 panthers with stug support).
10 Jun 2013, 09:11 AM
#38
Posts: 144
In 2v2, panthers do become a force to be reckoned with. In my experience, the Soviet needs to really think creatively to deal with dual panthers.
I usually tell my teammate to simply rush for a panther in general, while I slowly tech up to dual stugs as AT support for my infantry wave. It becomes a headache for the enemy to defeat that combination (let alone 2 panthers with stug support).
in my 2v2 match, one person build SU85 + guard, other person bulid AT + T34(for ram).
it is really effective.
10 Jun 2013, 18:41 PM
#39
4 Posts: 550 | Subs: 1
Maybe we should examine the whole topic from another angle. As Inverse stated Panthers are a rare occurrence in 1v1 games, as for 2v2s I've seen quite a few of them used by myself or my opponents.
One of the reasons why there are more tanks in team games is the abundance of fuel. It is the result of the pool of available manpower to build Observation Points (henceforth referred to as OPs) and the number of available strategic points.
There are two possible ways to address this.
1) Limit the amount of OPs that can be built by the team to a specific quantity, for example 2. I'd assume that this is rather easy to implement. (One could also remove the fuel income from not OPed strategic points)
2) Reduce the number of strategic points on the map, which would have the same effect as 1).
As for the possible repercussions of this, it is probable that there will be a greater reliance on infantry and their counters. Whether this is a change for better or worse will be in the eye of the beholder.
One of the reasons why there are more tanks in team games is the abundance of fuel. It is the result of the pool of available manpower to build Observation Points (henceforth referred to as OPs) and the number of available strategic points.
There are two possible ways to address this.
1) Limit the amount of OPs that can be built by the team to a specific quantity, for example 2. I'd assume that this is rather easy to implement. (One could also remove the fuel income from not OPed strategic points)
2) Reduce the number of strategic points on the map, which would have the same effect as 1).
As for the possible repercussions of this, it is probable that there will be a greater reliance on infantry and their counters. Whether this is a change for better or worse will be in the eye of the beholder.
Help test the USF teching adjustment mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1553135357
28 Apr 2016, 20:51 PM
#40
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
i agree with OP,
i'm encountering panther spam now on a regular basis too. Relic needs to look at it in new patch
game no fun
i'm encountering panther spam now on a regular basis too. Relic needs to look at it in new patch
game no fun
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
16 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.839223.790+2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.592234.717-1
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.922406.694+1
- 9.1121623.643+2
- 10.265138.658+2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
10
Download
1244
Board Info
970 users are online:
970 guests
0 post in the last 24h
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49401
Welcome our newest member, caraejoyce
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, caraejoyce
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM