Login

russian armor

inefficiency of panthers

23 Nov 2015, 22:53 PM
#1
avatar of assbag
Donator 22

Posts: 83

Now that relic apparently reads thease forums I'd like to resurrect this old topic; inefficiency of panthers. Not only are they very expensive to tech and the units themselves are expensive. With the recent pop cap reduction for heavies they also became pop inefficent units too. Why would you take 16 pop panther over 19 pop tiger? Or compare it to 16 pop pershing which has similiar at capabilities and is also godly against infantry :snfPeter:

Ostheer T3 on the other hand has more efficent units despite being cheaper. Only 80 fuel stug which only takes 8 pop (probably too efficent since Pak takes 9). I'd take two stugs over one panther anyday.

Panthers imo should get pop reduction to 14 like jacksons and fireflys and get a slight price decrease or give them a dual purpose gun.

23 Nov 2015, 23:13 PM
#2
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

I think itś fine, only because of the fact that any tank can have a really hard time against Panthers. I do think that the Panther for the ostheer is a bit too expensive. Perhaps bring the fuel back to 160.

I do keep in mind that the Comet (counter-part) is 185 fuel. The brits teching is just way cheaper than the ostheer teching. That's why I'd suggest to make it 160 fuel.
23 Nov 2015, 23:21 PM
#3
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2015, 22:53 PMassbag
Why would you take 16 pop panther over 19 pop tiger? Or compare it to 16 pop pershing which has similiar at capabilities and is also godly against infantry :snfPeter:


Don't know, maybe because you can get as many as you can afford? Sure, lets lower its pop, but lock it at 1 as well, up for that?



Panthers imo should get pop reduction to 14 like jacksons and fireflys and get a slight price decrease or give them a dual purpose gun.



So, which thing should go to 200? Armor, penetration or minus to its HP then?
23 Nov 2015, 23:37 PM
#4
avatar of assbag
Donator 22

Posts: 83



Don't know, maybe because you can get as many as you can afford? Sure, lets lower its pop, but lock it at 1 as well, up for that?


Thats right. From time to time I have this late game scenario where resources are not a problem but I still don't get them because spamming stugs and paks is more popcap efficent. I don't see any reason to lock them for one.

So, which thing should go to 200? Armor, penetration or minus to its HP then?


None. Firefly has better abilities and m36 has better gun. Also why shouldn't units which are more expensive to tech be more efficent?


23 Nov 2015, 23:46 PM
#5
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2015, 23:37 PMassbag





None. Firefly has better abilities and m36 has better gun. Also why shouldn't units which are more expensive to tech be more efficent?



the rule only applies to allies, you see him walking around saying rifle must beat everyone because 280manpower but of course it doenst work the other way around:rolleyes:
23 Nov 2015, 23:56 PM
#6
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2015, 23:37 PMassbag


Thats right. From time to time I have this late game scenario where resources are not a problem but I still don't get them because spamming stugs and paks is more popcap efficent. I don't see any reason to lock them for one.


Using Stugs and Paks requires micro. Allies are all the time in that situation thanks to their inferior armor. Panthers on the other hand are no-brainers. They have a turret, high HP and armor value and are pretty fast.

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2015, 23:37 PMassbag

None. Firefly has better abilities and m36 has better gun. Also why shouldn't units which are more expensive to tech be more efficent?


The Firefly is slow, goes down with 4 shots (1 shot less than the Panther) and has a massive reload of 9s. The Jackson has 320 hp less than the Panther (2 normal pak/tank shots). Both tanks are not as reliable in penetrating axis tanks as the Panther is in penning allied tanks (will pen most of the time). Oh, and btw, the Panther gets an armor and hp increase on vet2.
24 Nov 2015, 00:11 AM
#7
avatar of LuGer33

Posts: 174

I think the Panther is fine.

It's probably the best non-doctrinal tank in the game except maybe the British heavies. The Panther's frontal armor is insane and consistently bounces shots from tank destroyers like Jacksons and SU-85s. It has very high health and if it's not the fastest tank in the game, it's one of the fastest, meaning you can dive with it to finish off enemy tanks (and it will penetrate all Allied armor every time except maybe Pershing and Churchhill) or do drive-bys on things like Ambulances and mobile artillery.

With its armor, health, and speed, plus smoke, I've seen Panthers get out of situations where an Allied tank would have been knocked out 3 times. I think a lot of what you're paying for is the survivability, and therefore its cost is justified IMO. It can go toe to toe with any Allied tank, not to mention the three MGs which can do solid DPS to infantry.

I could see maybe a very slight pop decrease but the unit certainly doesn't need any performance buffs.

24 Nov 2015, 00:57 AM
#8
avatar of assbag
Donator 22

Posts: 83


Using Stugs and Paks requires micro. Allies are all the time in that situation thanks to their inferior armor. Panthers on the other hand are no-brainers. They have a turret, high HP and armor value and are pretty fast.


Panthers are far from no-brainers. Building a panther literally means no brains. Why would you ever build a unit that is too expensive to tech, too expensive to build and even takes too much population :snfQuinn:


With its armor, health, and speed, plus smoke, I've seen Panthers get out of situations where an Allied tank would have been knocked out 3 times. I think a lot of what you're paying for is the survivability, and therefore its cost is justified IMO. It can go toe to toe with any Allied tank, not to mention the three MGs which can do solid DPS to infantry.


Just because panthers are survivable that dosen't make them good tanks. It's suprisingly hard to kill anything with them. They have slowihs rof and they miss from the move often. Panthers get usually pushed back by at guns before they can kill their targets.
24 Nov 2015, 01:30 AM
#9
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Nov 2015, 00:57 AMassbag


Panthers are far from no-brainers. Building a panther literally means no brains. Why would you ever build a unit that is too expensive to tech, too expensive to build and even takes too much population :snfQuinn:



Just because panthers are survivable that dosen't make them good tanks. It's suprisingly hard to kill anything with them. They have slowihs rof and they miss from the move often. Panthers get usually pushed back by at guns before they can kill their targets.


the panther have an excellent combination of armor, hp, and speed that given it excellent survivability. It can outrun anything it can't outfight and outfight anything it can't outrun. It also have 50 range meaning it can out range anything it can't outfight.

If it have good dps on top of all those advantages it would be unbeatable.

yes, the panther is not perfect, and that's the point. If there's a unit that's truly perfect with no weakness then it would be overpowered.
24 Nov 2015, 06:34 AM
#10
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

Vs are fine. they're also much more cost efficient than t3 i team games because they have better durability.
24 Nov 2015, 07:10 AM
#11
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 830

Historically, the only thing that held the Panther together were its front armor and it's good gun. You can see this in game too. Front armor is very good, sides and rear are shit like they were in real life. It has a good gun that is purely anti tank. It can get a pintle mounted machine gin which gives it more anti infantry capabilities. Veterancy bonuses are very good and the OKW panther can actually reach vet 5. If used properly, read supported and aggresive with a keen sense on when to push and when not, the panther is the ultimate tank hunter.

For ostheer it is too expensive, since their t4 tech cost is just straight up too high. For OKW it is fine where it is, with the new tech cost changes in the OKW revamp.

The only thing I would change is its accuracy on the move. It is meant to be a mobile and swift tank hunter, yet misses way to much on the move. A slight increase in movement accuracy and we're good.
24 Nov 2015, 07:13 AM
#12
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Nov 2015, 00:11 AMLuGer33
I think the Panther is fine.

It's probably the best non-doctrinal tank in the game except maybe the British heavies. The Panther's frontal armor is insane and consistently bounces shots from tank destroyers like Jacksons and SU-85s. It has very high health and if it's not the fastest tank in the game, it's one of the fastest, meaning you can dive with it to finish off enemy tanks (and it will penetrate all Allied armor every time except maybe Pershing and Churchhill) or do drive-bys on things like Ambulances and mobile artillery.

With its armor, health, and speed, plus smoke, I've seen Panthers get out of situations where an Allied tank would have been knocked out 3 times. I think a lot of what you're paying for is the survivability, and therefore its cost is justified IMO. It can go toe to toe with any Allied tank, not to mention the three MGs which can do solid DPS to infantry.

I could see maybe a very slight pop decrease but the unit certainly doesn't need any performance buffs.



You hit the nail of the head right here. Survivability is the most important thing on this unit. Fine unit and no chamce required at all
24 Nov 2015, 07:26 AM
#13
avatar of AchtAchter

Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3

I somehow have the impression that Panthers are easy to counter for people that know game mechanics, stats and generally don't have much l2p issues.

On low level gaming this is complete the other case around - players have a hard time dealing with them. Especially in 3vs3+ games.
So buffing them would lead to whine, 'hurr relic are nazis' threads etc.

So if you want to buff the Panther that has to be done indirectly. In my opinion the price of Ostheer t4 needs to be decreased. That will make the panther less of a gamble to invest.

Also the panther still can go toe on toe with the Pershing and is2. And it's abilities to crush + pintle MG allow it to counter harass.
24 Nov 2015, 07:32 AM
#14
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

Front armor is very good, sides and rear[...]


NO SIDE ARMOUR


also, all tanks have shit rear armour compared to their frontal armour.
24 Nov 2015, 07:34 AM
#15
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

I agree with AchtAchter, people with a higher skill in game can deal quite easily with them
24 Nov 2015, 11:32 AM
#16
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 830



NO SIDE ARMOUR


also, all tanks have shit rear armour compared to their frontal armour.


I know that the side is counted as front armor for half of the tank and rear for the other half. Which means that side armor isn't really something you want to show, since it has a 50% change of being rear armor hits, just as showing the rear does.
24 Nov 2015, 14:32 PM
#17
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470



I know that the side is counted as front armor for half of the tank and rear for the other half. Which means that side armor isn't really something you want to show, since it has a 50% change of being rear armor hits, just as showing the rear does.


the please, don't mention it; it throws people who don't know that off. it's not necessarily 50% either, depends on the angle of the tank. plus you can always keep the rear half behind cover to mitigate it.
24 Nov 2015, 15:12 PM
#18
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

I think Panthers are fine. Realy. No need to change anything about them. Ostheer teching cost and backbone units, well, that is another issue. Sigh.
24 Nov 2015, 15:56 PM
#19
avatar of atouba

Posts: 482

The panther is pretty fine believe me. A decent tank hunter as it is. The only issue is the OST tech cost of T4. I have suggested several times reducing the tech cost of T4 but relic don't listen.
24 Nov 2015, 16:04 PM
#20
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

Ost geting to T4 cost should be decreased,buildings more expensive,teching much cheaper.

MAYBE Remove blitz at vet 1 and add a ROF boost ability.Panther don't need blitz.

Overall main problem is not panther itself but rather the penetration of su-76 and the broken tulip .
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

772 users are online: 772 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
29 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50036
Welcome our newest member, Bendiger
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM