2 
Posts: 83
Posts: 1653
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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
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.
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.
2 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?
So, which thing should go to 200? Armor, penetration or minus to its HP then?
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
None. Firefly has better abilities and m36 has better gun. Also why shouldn't units which are more expensive to tech be more efficent?
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
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.
None. Firefly has better abilities and m36 has better gun. Also why shouldn't units which are more expensive to tech be more efficent?
 | Playercard of RedT3rror | |||||||||||||||
|
Posts: 174
2 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.
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.
Posts: 1930
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
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.
8 Posts: 2470
Posts: 830
Posts: 1653
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.
Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3
8 Posts: 2470
Front armor is very good, sides and rear[...]
Posts: 1653
Posts: 830
NO SIDE ARMOUR
also, all tanks have shit rear armour compared to their frontal armour.
8 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.
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
Posts: 482
| Playercard of ATOUBA | |||||||
|
Posts: 1705
 |
|
|
14 | ||
|
|
|
|
11 | ||
 |
|
|
1147 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
