re-evaluting the panther's range and HP

Recently you made a post about how all TDs ought to be serverely nerfed.

- Panther is kinda like a TD.
As such, shouldn't it be hard-nerfed as well? (Alongside with the StuG and ATGs)
If Panther gets a succession of hard nerfs, I am confident it would be used more
and be more balance, what do you say?

PS: Panther is a very high tank with a huge hit box.

wehr panther gun have .030-.060, which is a far cry from the .04-.06 on TD.

okw panther gun have .035-.060, but it fire almost as slow as the Firefly (7.25 sec vs 8).

Im 100% behind mgs being most tanks primary AI (it would help differentiate big boomers like the brumbar and sherman HE for example as well)
Mgs are dps you can count on with clear counter play (cover) no need to worry about RNG saying them 6 models are going to gangbang eachother the 1 time that tank rolls a hit causing a wipe.
Mgs being buffed across the board would also help axis factions deal with double armed allied troops in a way that RNG never will. Reliability is something both sides can account for plan around. Praying for a dice roll isnt.

Honest to god, the ostheer panther is now IMO in a better spot than the OKW one since the RoF buff. However the issue I have with putting a lot of DPS on MGs of tanks is when you get to 30 minutes the entire map is yellow cover, and that negates 50% of the DPS.

=============
- I love T34 MGs.
- Although I do tend to be anti-axis on everything... I have noticed that Panther MGs are weak
as fuck. They could use a T34 MG buff. Be more of a comet in some ways, otherwise it's just an
odd TD wannabe. 3x MGs. Not 1x MG like Firefly.

I say Panther MGs get buffed.
=============
Late-Game : Yellow Cover.
Ah, didn't think of that.

Panther mgs are effective... against infantry... that are close enough to throw a snare/be crushed by the panther.

So in many ways the panther mg is alright v british infantry and can inflict some mitigating manpower bleed when it overextends/gets overrun.

All I know is that relying on paks and stugs is a harried situation to be in lategame, and its not AI power that is lacking in options.

I'm a bit curious about the incentive why people pick a Panther instead of a Pwerfer or a Brummbar. (hurr durr doesn't do the same thing)

For every other faction there is always a good incentive to get a unit from their highest tech tier.

For soviets the t34 has the hull mgs that can do serious damage to infantry and the ram can be critical in taking down Heavies with a bombing run etc while Katy provides maybe the most versatile piece of rocket arty in the game. SU85 especially with vet becomes a very reliable counter to Axis Heavies. Brits get the infantry shredder centaur and 60 range Firefly with possible vehicle stun. The cromwell offers good mobility, non-doctrinal smoke and rather low resource investment. US gets the Jackson and M8s for maximum kiting potential while sherman offers good utility in both AI and AT. OKW has the JP4 for very good AT potential and OKW P4 can bleed allied infantry heavily. The OKW combat blizz accuracy buff is also a lifesaver sometimes when chasing after wounded tanks to get a reliable hit on the move.

Now for the Ostheer. Brummbar is basically a budget ISU minus the range and obliterates infantry with attack ground usage. The bunker buster barrage is a very underappreciated ability I feel and the spotting scopes make it even better. Pwerfer has the best alpha damage from all the rocket arty and can be pretty merciless if it gets a bullseye hit.

I fail to recognize such positive traits from a Panther unfortunately. The armor isn't super reliable especially if it has to dive and get into close range. Then rear armor hits happen much more often as well. The Stop and fire mechanic to keep a reliable accuracy requires a lot of babysitting compared to the return on investment you get from it (tank hunter hitting stuff on the chase) The MGs are not amazing especially compared to the T34 free hull MGs and are not reliable for AA. Stugs duos will perform AT duties more reliably and losing one doesnt crash your economy completely and P4s in support are not as risky dive units if you want to go all in. Paks will also do fine when supporting Brummbars (which will make a dent to armor as well) and werfers but I feel Panther is just an inefficient use of popcap and an unnecessary high risk-unreliable reward unit compared to its T4 companions and T3 counterparts. Combined with the required micromanagement the reward for using it well feels pretty questionable compared to other T4 units.

Command P4 synergy will also improve the chances of survival for T3 tanks and will also improve performance of infantry. So a premium tanks health is not such a big of a deal if you have a doctrine with Command P4.

Tl;dr why and when do you think a panther is a preferable fuel and manpower investment compared to stugs / Pwerfer / Brummbar?

Tl;dr why and when do you think a panther is a preferable fuel and manpower investment compared to stugs / Pwerfer / Brummbar?

A vehicle which serves no role as heavy armored tanks are not been fielded by allies, and meta and balance changes had been done through time leaving no good place for the PV to shine (specially when they reduced rear armor).

ISU, KV2, KV8, KV1, Pershing, Comet. Whenever there's a stalemate on which fuel is not a limitation and you already have Pwerfer/Brummbar. You want something which can hold on it's own and can't be easily sniped compared to Stug/pak wall.

The problem is arriving to T4. Once you are there, you would probably need a PW or Brummbar more than you need a PV. If you need AT you would have pak wall with schreck assistance or had gone Stug if things went bad. PV is a luxury.

Read more then one post back and you'll see we were talking tiger.

Still derailing threads huh? This is a Panther thread buddy.

Panther was a weird hybrid between a firefly and panzer 4. It was a sorta medium ish damage td with a movable turret that could scare off non at weapon infantry and keep armor at bay til support could arrive.

Irl the panther was Germany’s answer to the t34/86 which outgunned the panzer 4 in speed and firepower. In essence the panther is a striker/diver that goes in and holds a point keeping armor and weaker infantry at bay til support arrives.

I miss the old panther is leaned more towards at than ai but could still do damage to infantry if you were lucky.

Panzer 4 is the somewhat lightly armored ai with somewhat weak at the panthers cohort and smaller non identical twin.

Tl;dr why and when do you think a panther is a preferable fuel and manpower investment compared to stugs / Pwerfer / Brummbar?

Against soviets who aren't using a commander with mark target and/or T34/85s. When your opponent's best AT options are ZiS and SU-85s, the panther as designed can be rather useful. It can flank unturreted units well enough, and it has armor tailored for T34/76s and SU/76s.

Against USF or UKF?

Against USF or UKF?

Sherman or Cromwell heavy play but since the stug already shut them down, there isn't a real need for the Panther atm.
Perhsing and Comet.

But let's be honest, the Stug shutdown anything on wheel today so the panther is simply redundant. I mean you'll never have the panther as much as cost effective as the Stug unless making it blatantly OP. Note that I'm not calling for a Stug nerf, I simply think the Panther is out of design.

Against soviets who aren't using a commander with mark target and/or T34/85s. When your opponent's best AT options are ZiS and SU-85s, the panther as designed can be rather useful. It can flank unturreted units well enough, and it has armor tailored for T34/76s and SU/76s.

Against USF or UKF?

That's a fair point, against T34s it should perform well. Finally something historically accurate

But I feel like there's a risk in going for such a popcap heavy solution since usually strats based around T34s (or SU76s) will rely on critical mass that is going to collapse on you at some point. If that happens at an unexpected time or place where you lack support or tellers, Panther will probably lose to the horde. Personally I think it's safer to have a critical mass of stugs of your own and at some point try to nullify the opponents T34 horde. Stug losses will most likely be a thing but at least they are pretty easy to replace unlike the panthers. (I'd like a feature where you can rename units so I could name my Panthers "Entire Axis economy on wheels")

Against mixed allied teams stalemate situations often lead to amassing of TDs which counter the panther with lower popcap usage so there will always be an equal or greater amount of TDs to counter them and trading can be very painful and harder compared to stug trades.

And?
What is the problem here?
How does it affect panther?

Was only new "thats a little bit to much" argue to compare panther with other tanks. It is non doc and spamable (wtf) and doesnt only useable as defence...it help you to lot while attack the enemy

Was only new "thats a little bit to much" argue to compare panther with other tanks. It is non doc and spamable (wtf) and doesnt only useable as defence...it help you to lot while attack the enemy

And panther(ost) can smoke and safely retreat.

Preservation abilities are much better then non damaging offensive support. Ist useful, but ist not same tier.

Plus, ukf does not have access to any other form of mobile smoke, while all other factions do, sometimes from multiple doctrinal and non doctrinal sources.

And last time I checked, panther did not struggled against cromwells at close range.

That's a fair point, against T34s it should perform well. Finally something historically accurate

But I feel like there's a risk in going for such a popcap heavy solution since usually strats based around T34s (or SU76s) will rely on critical mass that is going to collapse on you at some point. If that happens at an unexpected time or place where you lack support or tellers, Panther will probably lose to the horde. Personally I think it's safer to have a critical mass of stugs of your own and at some point try to nullify the opponents T34 horde. Stug losses will most likely be a thing but at least they are pretty easy to replace unlike the panthers.

I don't disagree. However the key here is vet. The panther is able to gain vet off that horde. The armor boost it used to get at vet2 shifted the scales to let panthers attempt to fight superior numbers of those su76s and t34/76s.

But the merit of that whole design went out the window about 2014. Although mark target and access to t34/85s were sort of wrenches in the gear to begin with. (oh hay Guard Motor, looking at you.) But those were at least doctrinal to match the doctrinal tiger.

wehr panther gun have .030-.060, which is a far cry from the .04-.06 on TD.

okw panther gun have .035-.060, but it fire almost as slow as the Firefly (7.25 sec vs 8).

==========
Why do you use .050 on Axis Guns.
and 0.5 on allied guns.

Is there a particular bias in doing this?

Is it a typo?
Is it like trying to compare miles versus kilometers?
Are you obfuscating?

I normally wouldn't mind, but you seem to do this methodically. Why?

==========
Why do you use .050 on Axis Guns.
and 0.5 on allied guns.

Is there a particular bias in doing this?

Is it a typo?
Is it like trying to compare miles versus kilometers?
Are you obfuscating?

I normally wouldn't mind, but you seem to do this methodically. Why?

wow "your argument is invalid cause i don't like tha u put more 0 on the axis side" u hit a new lvl of fanboyism dude, is this the new AAA account ?