Login

russian armor

panther should be slower (and re-evaluating medium speed)

13 Apr 2018, 13:11 PM
#41
avatar of SweetrollNearTheDoor

Posts: 170 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2018, 11:37 AMVipper

At this point swaping Tiger to T4 and adjusting tech cost seem a better solution imo.


That would still unfortunately leave the question unanswered. It would push the problem more to the sidelines definitely but still be a lazy solution.

I'm pretty confident that as long as Panther has to cling to this niche of a "Tank Hunter" there will probably never be a satisfying solution. There is no fleshed out intended design for this unit category from gameplay perspective. (Can I even say it is a category of its own when its a single unit)

This unclear definition just leads to weird arguments used for the Panther like: every tank needs to stop to fire to maintain accuracy so Panther as well, or Panther is not a TD ergo it doesn't need 60 range. There are also such a wide variety of rework ideas because it's current gameplay design seems so peculiar. For example suggestions for the more lumbering meat shield like the KV1, a TD like a firefly, a 200 damage medium/premium killer come to mind. The issue is that it belongs to none of these categories, not a medium tank, not a TD, not a normal premium, not a heavy...just this weird Tank Hunter category with no other units to compare it to.
13 Apr 2018, 13:16 PM
#42
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



That would still unfortunately leave the question unanswered. It would push the problem more to the sidelines definitely but still be a lazy solution.

I'm pretty confident that as long as Panther has to cling to this niche of a "Tank Hunter" there will probably never be a satisfying solution. There is no fleshed out intended design for this unit category from gameplay perspective. (Can I even say it is a category of its own when its a single unit)

This unclear definition just leads to weird arguments used for the Panther like: every tank needs to stop to fire to maintain accuracy so Panther as well, or Panther is not a TD ergo it doesn't need 60 range. There are also such a wide variety of rework ideas because it's current gameplay design seems so peculiar. For example suggestions for the more lumbering meat shield like the KV1, a TD like a firefly, a 200 damage medium/premium killer come to mind. The issue is that it belongs to none of these categories, not a medium tank, not a TD, not a normal premium, not a heavy...just this weird Tank Hunter category with no other units to compare it to.

Not imo, if the role of Panther remain to counter IS-2, Pershings... it will be a doctrinal solution to doctrinal problems.

In addition getting rid of the T4 tech would make it worth it.

Finally Tiger commanders will less attractive opening room for different strategies.

One has to keep in mind that the issues did not start with Panther itself but with the buffs to effectiveness of allied TDs to counter it. Being UP offensively was fine when it was at least quite durable.
13 Apr 2018, 13:19 PM
#43
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2018, 13:16 PMVipper

doctrinal solution to doctrinal problems

That approach does not work as proven by soviets for 4 years since release day.
13 Apr 2018, 13:19 PM
#44
avatar of Felinewolfie

Posts: 868 | Subs: 5



That would still unfortunately leave the question unanswered. It would push the problem more to the sidelines definitely but still be a lazy solution.

I'm pretty confident that as long as Panther has to cling to this niche of a "Tank Hunter" there will probably never be a satisfying solution. There is no fleshed out intended design for this unit category from gameplay perspective. (Can I even say it is a category of its own when its a single unit)

This unclear definition just leads to weird arguments used for the Panther like: every tank needs to stop to fire to maintain accuracy so Panther as well, or Panther is not a TD ergo it doesn't need 60 range. There are also such a wide variety of rework ideas because it's current gameplay design seems so peculiar. For example suggestions for the more lumbering meat shield like the KV1, a TD like a firefly, a 200 damage medium/premium killer come to mind. The issue is that it belongs to none of these categories, not a medium tank, not a TD, not a normal premium, not a heavy...just this weird Tank Hunter category with no other units to compare it to.


One word : STG44 :) 'Nuff said.

I'd love it to be a 200 dmg AT killer w 50 range. Current armor.
1/3 Rear speed (should be that for every tank)(Except Puma).
Then buff it's 3x MGs vs AI (It's 3 MGs, people. Not 1).

What if it's one of a kind? It'd be like a sort of E8 minus aim on move and smoke
but better front armor and range.
13 Apr 2018, 13:22 PM
#45
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2018, 13:19 PMKatitof

That approach does not work as proven by soviets for 4 years since release day.

Another nice but wrong theory. Soviets had doctrinal solution to Stock issues and they worked fine until OKW showed up.
13 Apr 2018, 13:26 PM
#46
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2018, 13:19 PMKatitof

That approach does not work as proven by soviets for 4 years since release day.


I kind of miss the good old days where soviets doctorines were not the go-to solution to stock problems, back then when doctorines were more of a set of tools to gain some advantage over the opponents - sadly most of these old doctorines were really crap, as you point out. It really didn't work back then
13 Apr 2018, 13:32 PM
#47
avatar of SweetrollNearTheDoor

Posts: 170 | Subs: 1



One word : STG44 :) 'Nuff said.

I'd love it to be a 200 dmg AT killer w 50 range. Current armor.
1/3 Rear speed (should be that for every tank)(Except Puma).
Then buff it's 3x MGs vs AI (It's 3 MGs, people. Not 1).

What if it's one of a kind? It'd be like a sort of E8 minus aim on move and smoke
but better front armor and range.


That would be a very reasonable suggestion in my book. It would give it the clear role of a premium tank and so make it easier to compare with other factions' counterparts to it.

I find the issue of one of a kind problematic because it makes it difficult to compare it to other unit categories objectively.

For example the T34/85 and Ezy8 are both premium tanks. It is easy to compare stats of them to see which one is better. They perform identical roles so one can just test which one does better damage to infantry, which one has better penetration, popcap, cost efficiency and whatnot. Also they have a lot of similarities to their medium counterparts: the stock USF sherman and the T34/76 while having a higher HP pool. Ezy8 also has the ease of use bonus where you don't have to micro AP and HE shells.

Such objective comparisons are more difficult when Panther is in a Special snowflake category of its own and has no counterparts to it.
13 Apr 2018, 13:41 PM
#48
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2018, 13:22 PMVipper

Another nice but wrong theory. Soviets had doctrinal solution to Stock issues and they worked fine until OKW showed up.

Gotta disagree. Old soviet design was a dumpster fire. Not having infantry with sights on their rifles unless you picked a doctrine was dreadful. The ability to fight the enemies stock lineup should be limited to the doctrine you picj because then the doctrine is required. I played a game last night using NKVD tactics. That would be IMPOSSIBLE in the old soviet design because it had no infantry to fight and no tanks to pen the enemy. Awful design.

I said it before and ill say it again: optimal balance will be when all factions cam fight eachothers stock lineup using only their own stock lineup. Balancing the commanders after that would be a million times easier because they wont have to be OP to fill holes (soviet call ins for example)
13 Apr 2018, 13:45 PM
#49
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Gotta disagree. Old soviet design was a dumpster fire. Not having infantry with sights on their rifles unless you picked a doctrine was dreadful. The ability to fight the enemies stock lineup should be limited to the doctrine you picj because then the doctrine is required. I played a game last night using NKVD tactics. That would be IMPOSSIBLE in the old soviet design because it had no infantry to fight and no tanks to pen the enemy. Awful design.

I said it before and ill say it again: optimal balance will be when all factions cam fight eachothers stock lineup using only their own stock lineup. Balancing the commanders after that would be a million times easier because they wont have to be OP to fill holes (soviet call ins for example)

My point was that Soviet had to pick a doctrine to fight the enemy stock units and it worked once they did pick a doctrine. They did not have to pick a doctrine to counter the enemy doctrinal units as suggested by one.

I did not claim that it was the best design or the it was implement in decent way. Although I have to point out that I am not a big fun of homogenizing factions before making sure that the alternatives do not work.


Anyway this thread is about Panther speed and we should try to return to they issue of this thread.
13 Apr 2018, 13:53 PM
#50
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4


There's more to it than a general panther vs medium slug match.

It's a matter of unit preservation. It's easier to retreat out of a bad situation if the enemy isn't faster than you. (or have laser accurate guns)

the simple vehicle smoke is one of the best ability in the game for this reason.

medium tank should be able to outrun what it can't outfight.

and lastly 6.4 2.3 isn't slow. The current sherman tank is only 6.4 2.2 and the e8 even slower at 6.1 2.1.


I still don't understand the point of the thread. Mediums shouldn't be strolling the map faster than anything else unsupported and carefree inflicting bleed as they wish. Panthers won't dive you if you're supporting your armor with AT and snares.
13 Apr 2018, 14:34 PM
#51
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Apr 2018, 23:17 PMVipper

Coh 1 was crush festival where kangaroos would simply drive over AT infantry pushing them so that they couldn't fire until they got crushed.

The change was actually an improvement.


Well, the kangaroo being a tales of valor unit for an opposing fronts faction, I've got little defense for either of those expansions. :D

The American v wehrmacht matchup, the vcoh matchup, is kind of a different world. (And why tourneys were almost always vCoH.)
13 Apr 2018, 14:40 PM
#52
avatar of Felinewolfie

Posts: 868 | Subs: 5



That would be a very reasonable suggestion in my book. It would give it the clear role of a premium tank and so make it easier to compare with other factions' counterparts to it.

I find the issue of one of a kind problematic because it makes it difficult to compare it to other unit categories objectively.

For example the T34/85 and Ezy8 are both premium tanks. It is easy to compare stats of them to see which one is better. They perform identical roles so one can just test which one does better damage to infantry, which one has better penetration, popcap, cost efficiency and whatnot. Also they have a lot of similarities to their medium counterparts: the stock USF sherman and the T34/76 while having a higher HP pool. Ezy8 also has the ease of use bonus where you don't have to micro AP and HE shells.

Such objective comparisons are more difficult when Panther is in a Special snowflake category of its own and has no counterparts to it.


=================

Balance the Panther around the StuIIIG.
Why was Panther created? As an answer to the T34/76.
T34/85 were then created to deal with the Panther. Let's start with that.

StuG has max range of 50. Panther being a buffed StuG (in purpose) give it a range of 50.
Replace Blitz with StuG stun.
Nerf the AI of the 75mm into the ground. Similar to what was done to T34 (but more so)
Buff the AI of it's MGs (Around that of T34, again)
Nerf rear armor of Panther (it has too much armor already 180' instead of 90') the
Panther was never meant to be a damage sponge, it's more of a turreted JgPz4 with 3x MGs.
The speed thing, every tank should have their reverse nerfed to 33% honestly.

There you go, it's now like a StuG : A tank destroyer with more health, more armor, more MGs
but who traded range (60) for range 50 in return.

- Speed issue fixed.
- Clear Role.
- But buff it's MGs, they're pathetic.
- Not meant to be a brawler. A sniper tank with 270' shit armor? A brawler? At that price?
No. No. No.
- Nerf it's rear armor. Nerf it again. Take a real panther, take it's armor thickness.
Now take the 120mm (effective) forward thickness and multiply it by two (coverage. It's
covering 180' instead of 90'). Now take rear armor (It's covering 180' instead of 270')
and cut it in half. (Since you get double benefit, it makes sense to double it's vulnerability)
- Increase dmg to 200/shot. Makes no sense that Panther has less dps than a Pz4.
- Increase dmg of heavies to 200/shot. Makes no sense that IS-2 has less dps than a Pz4.

Anyone here plays Normandy Steel Division 44?
Anyone using the Panther as a brawler has to be insane :)

The Panther is a buffed StuIIIG.

That's the trade-off the StuIIIG does vs the SU-76.
SU76 - Less health, less armor, less dmg, no stun, no mg, more range.
StuG - more health, more armor, more dmg, has stun, has mg, less range.

SU85 - Less health, less armor, 160dmg, no stun, no mg, more range.
Panther - More health, more armor, 160dmg, get stun, 3x MGs, less range.

Increasing Panther range to 50 would go a long way towards defining it's role.

No health buff for Panther.

13 Apr 2018, 15:04 PM
#53
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Well, the kangaroo being a tales of valor unit for an opposing fronts faction, I've got little defense for either of those expansions. :D

The American v wehrmacht matchup, the vcoh matchup, is kind of a different world. (And why tourneys were almost always vCoH.)

The Pushing/crushing of tanks vs AT infantry in COH vanilla or expansion is actually very bad. Imo it was one of the worse issues.
13 Apr 2018, 15:51 PM
#54
avatar of Felinewolfie

Posts: 868 | Subs: 5

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2018, 15:04 PMVipper

The Pushing/crushing of tanks vs AT infantry in COH vanilla or expansion is actually very bad. Imo it was one of the worse issues.


Still happens in COH2.
I like what COH2_Spearhead mod did about it.
Give it a try and, especially, look at their reverse speed.
13 Apr 2018, 16:11 PM
#55
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Still happens in COH2.
I like what COH2_Spearhead mod did about it.
Give it a try and, especially, look at their reverse speed.

It does but the situation was much worse in COH1 since their were less snare/mines and AT weapons need aimed time to fire that was reset every time the unit was pushed.

One could literally drive up to AT infantry start pushing it and not be fire upon once.
13 Apr 2018, 16:32 PM
#56
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2018, 16:11 PMVipper

It does but the situation was much worse in COH1 since their were less snare/mines and AT weapons need aimed time to fire that was reset every time the unit was pushed.

One could literally drive up to AT infantry start pushing it and not be fire upon once.

CoH1 was very weird, nothing could drive up to USA because of stickies, while brits and USF had a field day with vehicles against axis factions. PE had ATHT and wehr had all the zombie grens, stealth shrecks, I don't even remember if regular grens could use shrecks, but losing squads to roadkills was not rare as well as not felt that much due to aforementioned zombie grens and ofc purchasable vet.

Without snares, vehicles would dominate and decimate infantry.
With snares and even a singular source of AT, vehicles need to keep themselves on their toes.

Snares are most certainly needed, but are they needed on mainline infantry?
Brits might be a proof they are not.
Hell, I enjoy using vehicles against brits the most since they don't snare you, but you also can't blindly ram your tank into their lines, or you'll lose it quickly, so best way to increase viability of med tanks, panther included, would be temporary snares akin to brit way.
13 Apr 2018, 16:37 PM
#57
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



That would still unfortunately leave the question unanswered. It would push the problem more to the sidelines definitely but still be a lazy solution.

I'm pretty confident that as long as Panther has to cling to this niche of a "Tank Hunter" there will probably never be a satisfying solution. There is no fleshed out intended design for this unit category from gameplay perspective. (Can I even say it is a category of its own when its a single unit)

This unclear definition just leads to weird arguments used for the Panther like: every tank needs to stop to fire to maintain accuracy so Panther as well, or Panther is not a TD ergo it doesn't need 60 range. There are also such a wide variety of rework ideas because it's current gameplay design seems so peculiar. For example suggestions for the more lumbering meat shield like the KV1, a TD like a firefly, a 200 damage medium/premium killer come to mind. The issue is that it belongs to none of these categories, not a medium tank, not a TD, not a normal premium, not a heavy...just this weird Tank Hunter category with no other units to compare it to.


the question of what should be tha panther's role is not tough. Panther should be the linchpin holding the wehr together in the late game.

The wehr's biggest weakness is their lack of durability and mobility. Panther having high armor, high hp, and good mobility (6.4 2.3 is still good) essentially plug up the wehr's institutional weakness.

The panther give the wehr something that can carry an offense and take damage. In fact this is really what most people used the panther now. It's already used as a heavy by the axis.

The high moving accuracy is a USF trait. Historically their tanks was the only one equipped with a stabilizer, although lend lease tank also kept it.

Wehr, okw, soviet, and the UKF all have to deal with a .50 accuracy modifier. the Firefly conversion process removed the stabilizer, although it still have a .55 accuracy modifier that's marginally better.



I still don't understand the point of the thread. Mediums shouldn't be strolling the map faster than anything else unsupported and carefree inflicting bleed as they wish. Panthers won't dive you if you're supporting your armor with AT and snares.


except that was their role in real life. Medium tanks were not battering rams. Their speed were to facilitate penetration into the enemy's rear line. How is it bad to encourage map movement and avoid static slug match?
13 Apr 2018, 17:46 PM
#58
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2018, 13:16 PMVipper

Not imo, if the role of Panther remain to counter IS-2, Pershings... it will be a doctrinal solution to doctrinal problems.

In addition getting rid of the T4 tech would make it worth it.

Finally Tiger commanders will less attractive opening room for different strategies.

One has to keep in mind that the issues did not start with Panther itself but with the buffs to effectiveness of allied TDs to counter it. Being UP offensively was fine when it was at least quite durable.



The biggest issue is that Ost has a cheaper, more cost effective tank hunter found literally a phase below it. Which has one of the highest DPS's in the game and is very cheap.

Panther and Stug has a similar issue with the su76 and Su85 if you multiplied the problem by ten fold. It makes the Panther not worth it in most cases.

Nondoc Heavies are bad IMO. Just look at the mess the KT causes to balance.
13 Apr 2018, 18:01 PM
#59
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930




The biggest issue is that Ost has a cheaper, more cost effective tank hunter found literally a phase below it. Which has one of the highest DPS's in the game and is very cheap.

Panther and Stug has a similar issue with the su76 and Su85 if you multiplied the problem by ten fold. It makes the Panther not worth it in most cases.

Nondoc Heavies are bad IMO. Just look at the mess the KT causes to balance.


the stug is a good dps, but on the attack it isn't ideal. It's still relatively thin skin with the usual casemate weakness.

The panther is significantly more handily in an attack. Its mix of speed and armor means it can take some hit, escape, repair, rinse and repeat.

The king tiger have many balance issue that make it a nightmare. A slightly slower panther with 960 hp shouldn't be impossible for the Allies to deal with.

The current wehr panther have OKAY dps with high penetration and decent mg for dealing with infantry. It's good at winning fight if not necessarily fast.

By comparison the king tiger with its 240 damage cannon and 6 second reload used to wipe squads and tank ridiculously fast. (less so now that scatter was increase)

13 Apr 2018, 18:15 PM
#60
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1



the stug is a good dps, but on the attack it isn't ideal. It's still relatively thin skin with the usual casemate weakness.

The panther is significantly more handily in an attack. Its mix of speed and armor means it can take some hit, escape, repair, rinse and repeat.


The king tiger have many balance issue that make it a nightmare. A slightly slower panther with 960 hp shouldn't be impossible for the Allies to deal with.

The current wehr panther have OKAY dps with high penetration and decent mg for dealing with infantry. It's good at winning fight if not necessarily fast.

By comparison the king tiger with its 240 damage cannon and 6 second reload used to wipe squads and tank ridiculously fast. (less so now that scatter was increase)



Id agree making the panther slower with more HP is fine, just pointing out that making the tiger a nondoc is a bad idea. Also I'd say making the OKW panther reload so slow was unnecessary and that probably needs a tweek.

Stugs can be clunky as they require a lot of micro to use effectively but as seen in top level play Stugs can be used effectively in Attack when used properly. Also Command Tank aura makes it much more beefy but thats another issue for another thread.

Issue with KT is that its ridiculously difficult to balance properly. Since its avaliable to every OKW player making it too strong will see what we saw prepatch. KT rushes that are wiping everything or current patch in which its barely used. IMO making the KT doctrinal will allow it to be more powerful as it locks you into a doc.

I agree Panther is much easier to use on attack its also able to quickly reinforce areas that are under attack when compared to a Stug or jp4. It just not worth it right now when compared to massive upside of those two.

1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

348 users are online: 348 guests
5 posts in the last 24h
17 posts in the last week
29 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49920
Welcome our newest member, taxcpa911t
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM