you must read the other posts.. it goes around a head on head fight vs this two TDs. not in a realistic game fight. a static arraged fight...a jackson will win..every time.
VS you only. I have played enough matchup USF vs OKW to tell you sometime Jackson wins, sometime JP4 wins. It is all about skill. |
Pretty much all balance problems were facing now are because of super soldaten volks in one way or another
Sadly it is true, Allied main infantry power creep is for a big part due to Volks being equally strong with STG44.
Imo I see two design issues.
1- Gren, while being 4men squad 240mp cost outclass USF and Brit main infantry 280mp the moment the get their LMG. RM and IS must dual equip their LMGs to get back their advantage.
2- Volks, while being supposedly cheap backbone infantry for SP, Obers and any doctrinal infantry OKW have access, are incredibly durable and effective when they equip their STG + flamnade.
|
who make head on head fight with a jackson vs a jpz4? you can easily flank me and kill my jp4 with get only 1-2 hits.
Good players tend to cover their JP4 flanks. |
So, then what is the Ostheer Panther supposed to counter? It has slow rate of fire, so it can't seriously threaten heavies. It is too expensive to be 'spammed' (lol) and thus can't fight against multiple mediums (which will be there by the time it arrives), especially due to its low rate of fire. It has no worthwhile anti infantry capabilities, so it can't effectively deter infantry. It has not the range nor the damage output to contest with tank destroyers.
What must it do and what is it effective at? The thing costs an arm and a leg, but gives very shallow capabilities in return.
Medium tanks + ISU, iS2, Pershing, Comet, Churchills, KV-2. Stuff that is not used, you are complaining you have no reason to use your hunter unit but the reason is because its preys are just not used at all. Why? because most of them are unique and linked to meh doctrines. That's not a problem of Panther but a problem of allied units so useless that it is always better to spam arty and TDs than building one of them...
Don't get me wrong I'm not please with the current situation, I think that in the meta, exchanging Panther with Tiger would be better than anything else to bring back late game balance for the Ostheer. It would be insentive for the Ostheer to actually build T4. |
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. |
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.
|
Flanking with a Panther isn't really that good of an idea. It won't hit anything on the move, it will take ages to kill anything due to low rof and it will most likely get stomped by any allied td.
If you are relying on moving accuracy, you are doing it wrong, whatever tank you are using. |
To follow your article on Adam Isgreen, there is an interview here on his vision and work on the redo of Age of Empire. But that's in French
Interview of Adam Isgreen
Un de mes précédents jeux était [le dernier] Killer Instinct. Mon rôle était déjà de faire en sorte qu’on ne perde pas de vue les sensations des épisodes originaux. Une partie de mon boulot est d’identifier et de disséquer ces sensations. Quand George Lucas a voulu refaire Star Wars, il a fait beaucoup de choses très bien, d’excellents effets spéciaux, un son parfait, et puis, soudain, il a décidé que Greedo devait tirer le premier. C’est le genre de trahison qu’il faut à tout prix éviter quand on « remake » une œuvre.
One of my previous games was [the last] Killer Instinct. My role was already to ensure that we do not lose sight of the sensations of the original episodes. Part of my job is to identify and dissect those sensations. When George Lucas wanted to redo Star Wars, he did a lot of things very well, great special effects, a perfect sound, and then, suddenly, he decided that Greedo had to shoot first. This is the kind of betrayal that must be avoided at all costs when we "remake" a work. |
But tinkering with suppression proved extremely dangerous in the past.
Make it too low, HMG will be useless.
Make it too high, HMG spam meta.
Adjust incremental one, single squads aren't suppressed.
Adjust it other way, everything is instantly pinned.
Whatever can be done to HMG, its a loss for balance team.
IMO the problem is, as always, on the edge. On Coh1, suppression works differently, pinning a squad doesn't make it incontrolable, just force the player to 1- retreat, 2- crawl back to cover, the squad cannot fire and receive increased debuff over time but the player can always control it. Which make, from the start and for every single player, cristal clear that HMGs are support tools and cannot completely shut down your opponent. That's a important statement because it forces players to think differently.
So in fact we can make HMGs suppressing faster/more but it also mean reducing what does suppression. I think we can make HMGs suppress twice as fast as today if we remove the pinning and reduce debuff provided by the suppression effect.
What result would we have is:
1- Blobb always being slow down by HMGs
2- HMGs cannot anymore stop and force retreat any squad by pinning him.
3- A much more dynamic game forcing player to flank because of the faster suppression but at the moment there is two squads vs 1 HMG and one is flanking you cannot hope to control both of them with a single HMG. |
i still don't get it why is 3 men recrew wasn't 2 in coh 1 and even on the weapon it says 2 was the number bumped up to 3 ? if so when ? and why ?
should it be 2 men like it has always been ?
Team weapon were 3 men squad in Coh1. |