Rear armor of some vehicles needs to be reduced

The only real reason to have the rear armor of the heavies in that list is so they're more vulnerable to the pz4 and to a lesser extent the puma on flanks. Everything else is either to low to consistantly pen even on the rear (222) or not designed to flank (Tiger, Panther). I agree though to nerf the rear armor on these vehicles to make panzer 4 flanks more consistant.

The only real reason to have the rear armor of the heavies in that list is so they're more vulnerable to the pz4 and to a lesser extent the puma on flanks. Everything else is either to low to consistantly pen even on the rear (222) or not designed to flank (Tiger, Panther). I agree though to nerf the rear armor on these vehicles to make panzer 4 flanks more consistant.

Actually, Puma does not struggle with even a single one of them and pens at worst 86% of the time rear armor of these at cqc(which is where you will be when you flank these).

If you are relying on moving accuracy, you are doing it wrong, whatever tank you are using.

Uhmmmmmmm it seems that was the intended point of the Panther you know; a fast and mobile hunter that hunts down tanks and flanks them.

Oh shit! Can't hit anything on the move. Gotta stand still to be the mobile tank hunter and flanker. Meanwhile enemy tank gets away.

Lol!

Uhmmmmmmm it seems that was the intended point of the Panther you know; a fast and mobile hunter that hunts down tanks and flanks them.

Oh shit! Can't hit anything on the move. Gotta stand still to be the mobile tank hunter and flanker. Meanwhile enemy tank gets away.

Lol!

Fast and mobile /= accurate on the move.

Uhmmmmmmm it seems that was the intended point of the Panther you know; a fast and mobile hunter that hunts down tanks and flanks them.

Oh shit! Can't hit anything on the move. Gotta stand still to be the mobile tank hunter and flanker. Meanwhile enemy tank gets away.

Lol!

It was never the intended use of panther.
Intended use was to get it quickly in the Position, sit it there and brawl, then either back up or chase down retreating tank, depending on how things go.

It was never meant to be used on the move, if it was, it wouldnt be given 300+ armor, 50 range and MASSIVE penetration. Hell, if penetration alone doesnt scream "I do not need to flank anything" then nothing will convince you.

I must say I don't get the argument of "If any unit has a single stat better than KT then it must be nerfed". KT is just a tank, not a hero unit. And when you take its stats overall, it is better than any of the units you mentioned, so it is worth its cost.

KT totally worth it in current patch. It´s super good.






NOT

KT totally worth it in current patch. It´s super good.






NOT

The Moment a unit is no longer obvious and only choice is the moment its more balanced.
One faction only Players resisting changes to very specific powerful unit is a good indicator that unit needs to be touched, especially when it overshadows all other alternatives by a Long shot, which KT did.

Intended use was to get it quickly in the Position, sit it there and brawl, then either back up or chase down retreating tank, depending on how things go.

Interesting! it can't fulfill that role now either after all Allied td's got buffed and its survivability bonus removed. Just sit there whilst Jacksons and Fireflys kite you daily and even stun you with tulips!

It was never meant to be used on the move, if it was, it wouldnt be given 300+ armor, 50 range and MASSIVE penetration. Hell, if penetration alone doesnt scream "I do not need to flank anything" then nothing will convince you.

Interesting! Too bad that penetration comes with horrible rate of fire which means its dps is subpar and can't compete with Allied TD's! Just sit there and brawl away with your massive penetration while you get kited by Jacksons and Fireflys,the latter of which can stun you with tulips!

I am not saying the Panther should be the end of all vehicles. But currently, and quite frankly for a long time, the Ostheer Panther has been lackluster to say the least. Bad rate of fire, low damage output, armor that can now be reliably penetrated by Jacksons and Fireflys frontally and above all in a dead tier for Ostheer when it comes to 1v1. The only time you will see a Panther in a 1v1 is when an Ostheer player is so far ahead, that he can afford the risk (which quite frankly means the Allied player made mistakes). Otherwise, you will never see it because you need tier 3 to crutch you throughout the game.

Fast and mobile /= accurate on the move.

Slow rate of fire = no significant damage output to win decisive engagements vs tank destroyers that can kite it daily.

Interesting! it can't fulfill that role now either after all Allied td's got buffed and its survivability bonus removed. Just sit there whilst Jacksons and Fireflys kite you daily and even stun you with tulips!

From noob to pro in one simple step:
Dont attack dedicated tank destroyers with actual tanks frontally. There are these lil things called anti tank guns.

You can thank me when your rank will no longer look like phone number now.

Interesting! Too bad that penetration comes with horrible rate of fire which means its dps is subpar and can't compete with Allied TD's! Just sit there and brawl away with your massive penetration while you get kited by Jacksons and Fireflys,the latter of which can stun you with tulips!

I am not saying the Panther should be the end of all vehicles. But currently, and quite frankly for a long time, the Ostheer Panther has been lackluster to say the least. Bad rate of fire, low damage output, armor that can now be reliably penetrated by Jacksons and Fireflys frontally and above all in a dead tier for Ostheer when it comes to 1v1. The only time you will see a Panther in a 1v1 is when an Ostheer player is so far ahead, that he can afford the risk (which quite frankly means the Allied player made mistakes). Otherwise, you will never see it because you need tier 3 to crutch you throughout the game.

There are literally THREE allied Units where panther Penetration is not a major overkill.
If DPS is your concern, get more of lighter units, like for example stug, which happens to have highest AT DPS in game since forever.

And again, if you are trying to frontally kill TD with an actual tank, balance is not your first problem.

The change from developers aims to increase the reward/risk ratio of flaking. The performance of the Panther attacking frontally is irrelevant.

And again, if you are trying to frontally kill TD with an actual tank (Panther), balance is not your first problem.

Panther does not have a main gun of Tank but of TD and thus does not qualify as tank.

Panther does not have a main gun of Tank but of TD and thus does not qualify as tank.

Panther is the only tank destroyer in game that can constantly fight infantry with LMG gren squad Efficiency, therefore it can not qualify as infantry helpless TD. Contrary to even StuG, Panthers MGs are not for visual effects only.

Interesting! it can't fulfill that role now either after all Allied td's got buffed and its survivability bonus removed. Just sit there whilst Jacksons and Fireflys kite you daily and even stun you with tulips!



Interesting! Too bad that penetration comes with horrible rate of fire which means its dps is subpar and can't compete with Allied TD's! Just sit there and brawl away with your massive penetration while you get kited by Jacksons and Fireflys,the latter of which can stun you with tulips!

I am not saying the Panther should be the end of all vehicles. But currently, and quite frankly for a long time, the Ostheer Panther has been lackluster to say the least. Bad rate of fire, low damage output, armor that can now be reliably penetrated by Jacksons and Fireflys frontally and above all in a dead tier for Ostheer when it comes to 1v1. The only time you will see a Panther in a 1v1 is when an Ostheer player is so far ahead, that he can afford the risk (which quite frankly means the Allied player made mistakes). Otherwise, you will never see it because you need tier 3 to crutch you throughout the game.

Slow rate of fire = no significant damage output to win decisive engagements vs tank destroyers that can kite it daily.

Let's make it more clear

Panthers are not mean counter Tank Destroyers , I'm sorry, that's how the game works today, Tank destroyers are mean to counter Panthers . Now if tomorrow a patch comes out and reverse this statement, fine I'm not against it. But on the current state of the game, that's simply not possible, shame on Relic design team if you want, they decided to only gives Sov/USF medium tanks and tank destroyers. It is definitively true that panther existence is dedicated to work against IS2, ISU and Pershing and that's too bad that those units are under used or available on too few doctrines. Panthers have more interest vs Brit with their Churchills and Comets.

That's how the game is, you can cry about it, bitch all you want or don't believe it, at the end of the day, adapt to the reality or remain a bad player.

Panther/Allied TDs performance is irrelevant in this thread

Show Spoiler

The panther is a brawler tank for med and hvy tanks.
TDs are designed to counter the ladder but have a slow ROF -most of the time- or lower armor and health values to make them glass cannons that cant brawl.

The p4 rly isn't designed as a flanker tank tbh.

The panther is a brawler tank for med and hvy tanks.
TDs are designed to counter the ladder but have a slow ROF -most of the time- or lower armor and health values to make them glass cannons that cant brawl.

The performance of panther and Allied TDs is irrelevant to this thread.

So far the rear armor of vehicles is fine in the current meta and promote flankeroo tactics. Not to mention the P4 also got a pen buff so idk what everyone is complaining about. Not to mention most allied tanks don't get access to a blitz ability. The p4 doesn't lack in the armor department for medium tanks, nor AI, nor AT, and speed since it gets blitz.

P4 lucks in AT department even if it flanks these units.

For instance Churchill has a better chance to penetrate Ostheer P4 frontally mid/close range than P4 has to penetrate the rear armor mid/close range.

The performance of panther and Allied TDs is irrelevant to this thread.

So is the existence of this whole thread.

For instance Churchill has a better chance to penetrate Ostheer P4 frontally mid/close range than P4 has to penetrate the rear armor mid/close range.

The only singular job of churchill is to tank shots from med armor.
Its literal damage sponge.
You're complaining that the never picked, non meta, very expensive late game tank with low main gun performance does the very job it was intended to do-tank the shots while scratching paint job on opponents armor.

This singular case alone makes your thread completely irrelevant given WHY relic nerfed rear armor of comet and heavy call-ins in the first place.

It was NOT a "new general rule".
It was to give a weak point for extremely efficient units, which not a single one on your list here is.

You have(again) cherry picked a balance exception and are trying to enforce it as a new general rule, directly nerfing units that barely anyone uses and which are NOT in any way problems for balance.

If your goal is "same rules for everyone", then sorry, this stopped applying 6 months post release, with first general re-balance.

Clarity stopped being balancing principle the very moment modders were allowed to make balance patches.
Now each unit is considered individually and if you are able to provide a viable cases for ALL of the units you have listed as to why they should have lower rear armor, then do so, otherwise you're no different then any other fanboy trying to push his agenda.

The case of KV-2 is similar to the case of the IS-2 and since according to developers IS-2 need its rear armor lowered so is the case for the KV-2.

Any otherre balance KV-2 might need (like different vet bonuses and abilities) is irrelevant to its ability to to withstand rear armor shot from P4 and it has little reason to have the same rear armor value that Ostheer P4 has frontally.