There is no real world logic involved here, just game balance really. It's "stupid" that any armored vehicle with multiple mounted machineguns would be unable to cope with infantry, but that's the way it's kind of always been in CoH. Some vehicles get good MGs for no particular reason other than because it's "supposed" to be good at anti-infantry. The idea of a swarm of shrek armed infantry being a serious threat to a sherman tank at max range is implicitly absurd, not only because of its tank gun but because of the coaxial and top-mounted machineguns that would shred the charging infantry in a nanosecond. A stuart tank has THREE 30 cal machineguns on it, which would by any logic obliterate all infantry formations coming in range.
The Panther is not in a bad spot. Somewhat better AT than the comet, significantly worse AI, 10 fuel cheaper. T4 is generally underwhelming but the Panther isn't the problem.
I m aware of that real world logic is not fully involved here, and most of the stuff is about game balance, and i m used to it now even if it looks just stupid as hell.
But think of any new players starting to play the game, build their first Panther or Volverine and figgure this unit is one of the best historicly, has some solid armor, a solid main gun and solid MG-s it should definitly do some solid damage to infantry.
At least more then sturmpios or rifle squad, and then the tank fires the main gun into a bunch of models and they all just continue walking arround as if nothing happened.
Its ok that user should choose between AI and AT, but all armor should be priority threat.
Now time when i play USF and see opponent with panthers, i just dont make any armor as i know that he wil wreck any USF armor, but he can do no damage wid it to my infantry, that is contrary to any logic. Armor should counter armor better then infantry counters armor.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
