Ostheer Panther

I expect panthergeddon in team games if any buff to it goes online.

I expect panthergeddon in team games if any buff to it goes online.

Ehhhh, I doubt that. All Allied factions have decent enough countering TDs available to them by the time a Panther arrives.

Ehhhh, I doubt that. All Allied factions have decent enough countering TDs available to them by the time a Panther arrives.

Sure they have, mines and AT guns are best counters to panther. Doesn't change the fact that panther spam was quite common for axis in the past and T4 recived only buffs since then. The main reason why people don't do it any more is the massive buff stug got.

The Panther is bad, simply showing that M10s can easily penetrate the Panther frontally is adding to the fact that the Ostheer Panther is underperforming hard.

There were as much as lucky streaks on penetration as well as bounces on that replay. M10 vs PV is practically a coin flip.

On that video, go to 50:30 to 51:40. The vet 2 M10 fails to pen 5 times in a row (it's not like vet matter) till he uses AP shells (which is a 70% chance to pen on a lower reload time, more than base PV).

That's a 3% occurrence.

PD: not a single medic bunker was seen that day

With those "changes", I can't wait for a Panther to 2 shot a Jackson, or 3 Shot a anything that's not a Pershing.

There's something called command Panther and mark vehicle which already does that.


Regarding the PV per se, i think there's a couple of ways to approach it.

1-Make it hit harder.
Or
2-Make it hit more consistently.

Sure they have, mines and AT guns are best counters to panther. Doesn't change the fact that panther spam was quite common for axis in the past and T4 recived only buffs since then. The main reason why people don't do it any more is the massive buff stug got.

No, I mean the Tank Destroyers Allies' got now which all reliably outrange and penetrate the Panther. Combined with what you mention, I'd say there's definitely no excuse to get rekt by Panther spam anymore.

StuG Gs probably are a wee bit too good though as another part of the equation, which no one really wants to touch while vet 3 double M1919A6s (heheheh just imagine the guns floating around and shooting with stars above them) will rekt the other obvious option of AT guns.

With those "changes", I can't wait for a Panther to 2 shot a Jackson, or 3 Shot a anything that's not a Pershing.

Well, times have changed.

Axis no longer has the luxury to sit back and play defensively throughout the game, otherwise they will be annihilated by artillery.

If you examine the OST roster there is a huge gaping hole about which unit should be able to do the flanking and threaten overexposed artillery pieces. Why not give Panthers precisely this role?

If 2-shotting the Jackson becomes to much of a nuisance, we can buff Jackson HP to 520 or something. The Panther still has to compete with the Firefly and the SU-85, both of which have 640 HP. Picking Elefant every single game is both boring and cheesy.

I expect panthergeddon in team games if any buff to it goes online.

This is true. That is why Panther changes have to be a nerf-buff.

On an 1v1 basis, the Panther is a pretty solid tank stat-wise. However, when armour becomes a crowd, it becomes quickly obvious that the Panther made the wrong trade-offs somewhere. The main reason for that are:
- OST doesn't have a decent flanking unit to threaten CalliOP
- All allied TDs have tremendous alpha strike at super-long range. The Panther only has an 160-dmg cannon, which is not even reliable due to EFA moving accuracy penalties.

(Alpha strike really shines when you have massed armoured engagements)

In smaller teammodes, the Panther is largely redundant because:
- Mobility is less important in smaller maps
- There's not that much armour to fight in the first place
- There is hardly enough time for Panther veterancy to kick in. Thus, the Panther lacks the oomph.

Sure they have, mines and AT guns are best counters to panther. Doesn't change the fact that panther spam was quite common for axis in the past and T4 recived only buffs since then. The main reason why people don't do it any more is the massive buff stug got.

It is true that the Stug is so insanely cost-efficient against all targets that it makes the Panther completely redundant.

In fact, the Stug has an even better alpha strike than the Panther, due to the OP-ness of the new TWP.

This is why:
- The Panther needs to get rebalanced around a useful role.
- The Stug needs to lose something. If the Stug is to retain the insane rate of fire, it probably has to lose some penetration (e.g., drop it to 160)

Well, times have changed.

Axis no longer has the luxury to sit back and play defensively throughout the game, otherwise they will be annihilated by artillery.

If you examine the OST roster there is a huge gaping hole about which unit should be able to do the flanking and threaten overexposed artillery pieces. Why not give Panthers precisely this role?

If 2-shotting the Jackson becomes to much of a nuisance, we can buff Jackson HP to 520 or something. The Panther still has to compete with the Firefly and the SU-85, both of which have 640 HP. Picking Elefant every single game is both boring and cheesy.



This is true. That is why Panther changes have to be a nerf-buff.

On an 1v1 basis, the Panther is a pretty solid tank stat-wise. However, when armour becomes a crowd, it becomes quickly obvious that the Panther made the wrong trade-offs somewhere. The main reason for that are:
- OST doesn't have a decent flanking unit to threaten CalliOP
- All allied TDs have tremendous alpha strike at super-long range. The Panther only has an 160-dmg cannon, which is not even reliable due to EFA moving accuracy penalties.

(Alpha strike really shines when you have massed armoured engagements)

In smaller teammodes, the Panther is largely redundant because:
- Mobility is less important in smaller maps
- There's not that much armour to fight in the first place
- There is hardly enough time for Panther veterancy to kick in. Thus, the Panther lacks the oomph.



It is true that the Stug is so insanely cost-efficient against all targets that it makes the Panther completely redundant.

In fact, the Stug has an even better alpha strike than the Panther, due to the OP-ness of the new TWP.

This is why:
- The Panther needs to get rebalanced around a useful role.
- The Stug needs to lose something. If the Stug is to retain the insane rate of fire, it probably has to lose some penetration (e.g., drop it to 160)

Yeah the M36 has too little HP, just like the Ostheer Panther has very low DPS due to the long reload and low moving accuracy, always gotta keep in mind all armies when changing a stock unit.

Well, times have changed.

Axis no longer has the luxury to sit back and play defensively throughout the game, otherwise they will be annihilated by artillery.

If you examine the OST roster there is a huge gaping hole about which unit should be able to do the flanking and threaten overexposed artillery pieces. Why not give Panthers precisely this role?

If 2-shotting the Jackson becomes to much of a nuisance, we can buff Jackson HP to 520 or something. The Panther still has to compete with the Firefly and the SU-85, both of which have 640 HP. Picking Elefant every single game is both boring and cheesy.

Well said Smith.
I can see why they promoted you to Strategist

I think we can leave the stug where it is simply due to its low LOS and fixed turret. It's good head on but when flanked it's done.

I think we can leave the stug where it is simply due to its low LOS and fixed turret. It's good head on but when flanked it's done.

In bad/greedy hands probably, otherwise no, it has more than enough armor to reverse engine and escape. Not to mention in large team game you have more than one Stug.

Well, times have changed.

Axis no longer has the luxury to sit back and play defensively throughout the game, otherwise they will be annihilated by artillery.

If you examine the OST roster there is a huge gaping hole about which unit should be able to do the flanking and threaten overexposed artillery pieces. Why not give Panthers precisely this role?

Are you serious? It has always been the role of the panther to flank. It is fast and well armored. The problem of the panther is a problem of player. The main point people are complaining for is especially the micro tax asked in compensation for such a powerful unit.
Players that complain here in this forum don't
1)learn to flank
2)learn to stop their panther before firing
3)learn to cover a push/flank with infantry or at minimum a reco run

They are all comparing actual Panther with the one they had before, or even the one in Coh1. But before, the panther was just a left-click move unit in the area where your target was and then GG, the unit was doing the job alone. That's exactly what those guys want, the satisfaction that the game mechanisms and balance do it for you.

People here want the panther to be the ultimate solution when it is not. How many time I have see Ostheer players building panthers when the opposite side already had several TDs. On the mean time, you see no Stug, no Pz4, no Ostwind, not even a Brumbar that would suit better to the match in 90% of the cases.
Hey you know this is exactly the theme of the video in this topic, a guy that build a single panther to counter 2 M10 and 3 Bulldozers. Personally my fist react was "lul WTF, who's playing this game". It shows perfectly the mentality around the panther. - Because it is the most expensive stock unit, it should counter everything.

The panther is out of the meta right now. The reason is simple, everyone is skipping Light and Medium and rush TDs to pre-counter the incoming panther/KT rush.
That's seems stupid? So I let you watch and analyze 4vs4 random and teamgame and see it. Axis players rush PAnther and Arty/rocketarty and nothing else as Ostheer, as OKW you can expect a Luch before the KT.
I personally rush Stug and Pz4 or Sherman when playing USF and it works wonder, you get you opponents pants down with their T4 build and still 100 fuel left to build their 1st panther...

The day the majority of Axis players will actually start using their T3 efficiently you'll see less TDs and more room for Panther usage in the late game.

I think we can leave the stug where it is simply due to its low LOS and fixed turret. It's good head on but when flanked it's done.

The Stug is just way too OP for cost/popcap. This unit is just so good at killing almost anything (even king-tigers, if it ever had to face them), that it even outperforms dedicated 130FU+ tank destroyers.

There is never going to be a room for a Panther if the Stug has to continue performing the way it does.

That's because it's way easier to replace a Stug if it ever dies (e.g., to pathing), and it hurts your upkeep less if you have to have an idle Stug around, rather than an idle Panther around.

Are you serious? It has always been the role of the panther to flank. It is fast and well armored. The problem of the panther is a problem of player. The main point people are complaining for is especially the micro tax asked in compensation for such a powerful unit.
Players that complain here in this forum don't
1)learn to flank
2)learn to stop their panther before firing
3)learn to cover a push/flank with infantry or at minimum a reco run

The raw stats - and veterancy - of the Panther seem to be centred around durability, and lots of it, at the expense of DPS.

Having great durability is really good for a flanker tank, which needs to close in, do it's job, and then run back.

Conversely, if Panther had to be a long-range slugger, it's much better to have good DPS. In particular, alpha strike damage.

The problem with the Panther starts with the fact that it loses its durability the moment it closes in:
- The Panther has shoddy rear armour. Closing in, obviously increases the risk of getting flanked.
- The Panther also has shoddy acceleration. If you run into trouble, you might die. The reason why OKW seems to be immune to these bad decisions is the OP "Combat Blitz" ability it has. The OST Panther isn't afforded this.
- Finally, closing in also exposes the Panther to the risk of being snared. It only takes one hit to bring the Panther down to HP low enough to guarantee a snare.

All of these conspire to take away the only advantages Panther has against most other units: speed and armour. Thus, the Panther is pretty bad at flanking, and it should be doing slugging instead.

Since the unit has so low DPS compared to its durability, amassing Panthers builds the potential up slower than, say, amassing hard-hitting TD's. Yes, at some point you reach the critical mass when you can do that one big bumrush and win. However, that moment can literally never occur in an 1v1, which is what most people are complaining about.

Thus:
- Nerf durability
- Increase damage
- If-need-be, reduce range

The Stug is just way too OP for cost/popcap.

For its popcap, yeah, it's a bargain (should be 10 imo). Fuel cost is fair. It's got great DPS but average range and isn't particularly durable (gets killed in three shots by a Jackson or a Firefly). Can't really fight infantry.

If StuG is too OP for cost/popcap (which it might be) then so is the SU-76.

Panther is a low-DPS tank that might be okay if it weren't still buried in a semi-irrelevant tier.

Since the unit has so low DPS compared to its durability, amassing Panthers builds the potential up slower than, say, amassing hard-hitting TD's. Yes, at some point you reach the critical mass when you can do that one big bumrush and win. However, that moment can literally never occur in an 1v1, which is what most people are complaining about.

Thus:
- Nerf durability
- Increase damage
- If-need-be, reduce range

But who cares to build a panther in 1vs1? What does it achieve? is there any Steam Achievement after building 100 of them in 1vs1? You build a panther if there is a reason for that, and the reason is mainly called ISU, IS2, pershing or churchill, something you need armor to soak damage to counter. Hey look, excluding the churchill they are all doctrinal. hey look again, 2 stugs perfectly counter all of them. Panther in 1vs1 is a choice, not a necessity.

You are always comparing Panther and Allies TDs, when Allies TDs are there to counter the panther and other big cats.
The problem of the panther is the Axis meta, it is part of the fact OKW can always build a KT. As Allied player you always pre-build a couple of TDs to counter the incoming KT with its guard of Panthers, from 2vs2 to 4vs4.

You can change whatever stat you want on the panther, the same issue will remain, always:
1) Allied TDs are hitting the field way before Panthers
2) Allied are building TDs because they know Axis players are rushing Panthers/KT and whatever other big cats.
Lowering Panther armor to increase their DPS will change nothing, for 1 panther build, you'll face 2 TDs and he'll get penetrated at longer range.

You want to make the panther more appealing, you need to force your opponent to build something else than TDs, to spend their fuel in light/medium tanks. Since then, don't expect anything from it cuz the problem comes from you.

Did you look at the video I posted? The panther gets penetrated by m10s almost every time they fire at it frontally. They weren't using hvap every single time either..

I can show you video of Sherman firing from max range at Panther's front and penetrating it 2/2 times. Does it mean Panther's armor is weak?

+1 To Mr.Smith and Esxile.

we have so many topic about this, but still have people said osteer panther is fine FailFish

The Stug is just way too OP for cost/popcap. This unit is just so good at killing almost anything (even king-tigers, if it ever had to face them), that it even outperforms dedicated 130FU+ tank destroyers.

There is never going to be a room for a Panther if the Stug has to continue performing the way it does.

That's because it's way easier to replace a Stug if it ever dies (e.g., to pathing), and it hurts your upkeep less if you have to have an idle Stug around, rather than an idle Panther around.
....

The stug is good because it has amazing ROF especially with vet. However,this advantage is offset by a number of things:

1) fixed turret means you can't be as offensive with it for fear of being flanked. SU 85 would have this problem too but it has larger range and can self spot so it doesn't have to dive to be effective.

2) bad LOS. Requires other units to spot for it and make it effective. It's bad LOS combined with its fixed turret makes it very hard to chase down the fast allied medium tanks.

3) Relatively low range when compared to its allied counter parts. This means it'll always get hit first before it can shoot back when dealing with allied TDs. (Aka it can be easily kited to death.

4) low health and armor means it will easily take damage and be forced off by any form of AT.

5) the amount of AT available to the allied factions. Due to point 4, and the fact that all the allied factions have very viable AT weapons on almost all their infantry (SU requires doctrines), the stug can be can be forced off by infantry, tanks, and ATGs.

IMO all these factors offset the insane DPS and cost efficiency of the stug. What's it good against? Medium tanks but even then it can still be flanked and outmaneuvered by them.

Tldr: They are hard to use effectively but are greatly rewarded for good micro. They aren't OP but they don't need to be buffed.
They are in a good spot imo.

The stug is good because it has amazing ROF especially with vet. However,this advantage is offset by a number of things:

<points>

All of the facts you mentioned are completely counteracted by the fact:
1) The Target-weak point ability can be used to knock a target out for 15 seconds.

If any single faction in the game possessed a 280MP/90FU tool to render a King Tiger unable to fire for 15 seconds, the universe would go up in flames. However, that's precisely the strength of the ability that the Stug possesses.

Perhaps, the reason people don't realise how completely OP this ability is is because the UI icon has deceived them that all it does is turret locking. Instead it completely disables the main gun.

Oh, yeah, in addition to the turret locking, the ability further boosts the penetration of the shot to 290 for full damage.

2) Stug has amazing penetration in addition to insane rate of fire

Yes, SU76 has good penetration too, with better range. However, the Stug deals full 160 damage, whereas the SU76 deals 120

My question to you is:
Does Stug really need all following 3 items at the same time, given its low cost:
- 160 damage
- 190 penetration
- insane rate of fire

Yet, yes; the Stug is on the same level of bullshit as:
- Vet3 LMG riflemen
- Call-in tanks
- Firefly Tulip stun
- PIAT sapper blobs
- etc

Stug III is some serious bullshit yes. But the current Allied at options kind of render it balanced I guess. If you spam them and support them with say tellers on the flanks and infantry on the flanks with snares, your pretty much safe to spam target weak point (aka target I kill your tank)

All of the facts you mentioned are completely counteracted by the fact:
1) The Target-weak point ability can be used to knock a target out for 15 seconds.

If any single faction in the game possessed a 280MP/90FU tool to render a King Tiger unable to fire for 15 seconds, the universe would go up in flames. However, that's precisely the strength of the ability that the Stug possesses.

Perhaps, the reason people don't realise how completely OP this ability is is because the UI icon has deceived them that all it does is turret locking. Instead it completely disables the main gun.

Oh, yeah, in addition to the turret locking, the ability further boosts the penetration of the shot to 290 for full damage.

2) Stug has amazing penetration in addition to insane rate of fire

Yes, SU76 has good penetration too, with better range. However, the Stug deals full 160 damage, whereas the SU76 deals 120

My question to you is:
Does Stug really need all following 3 items at the same time, given its low cost:
- 160 damage
- 190 penetration
- insane rate of fire

Yet, yes; the Stug is on the same level of bullshit as:
- Vet3 LMG riflemen
- Call-in tanks
- Firefly Tulip stun
- PIAT sapper blobs
- etc

Stug has good penetration AND damage. It's AMAZING. I GET THAT. however contrary to what you said, I believe all my points DO offset the stugs insane DPS.

Please tell me how the stugs ability to disable the enemy tank for 15 seconds, pen all tanks, deal 160 dmg, relate to its health, it's bad LOS, it's fixed turret, it's poor range, and the fact that allied infantry almost all have effective AT weapons against the stug? Hint: THEY ARE UNRELATED.

If you actually look at my points, I'm not doubting the raw stats of the stug. I'm looking more at the in game issues it struggles with. Pathing, FOW, the amount of counters to it etc. These effects CANT BE EXPLAINED WITH STATS. On paper the stug is OP, in game it's perfectly balanced. It's a glass cannon, in perfect conditions it can 1v1 any medium tank that has less range than it. It can't flank enemy armor. In reality it can often be free XP for enemy infantry tanks ATGs etc.

I respect your input more than any other person on this forum since you look at the stats and facts. However I feel like your focus on stats in this situation is inflating your opinion of the stug.

My humble opinion. Please don't take this personally.

Edit:
To answer your question about the SU76, which has better tracking and range? Which has a free artillery barrage? You know this just as well as I do, Allies always have more general tanks that are good for AI and AT. Stug can beat SU76 in a 1 on 1 fight but thats like saying panther is better than comet since it can beat it in a fight for less cost. We both know comet is better than the panther at this point. You can use the same comparisons with the stug and SU76.