[Axis] panther

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[AmPM]

The problem is all the stacking buffs in different trees making doctrines retarded.

It should really be more specialized.

Playing RCA? Get awesome tank buffs + arty and infantry buffs and offmaps!! Yay!!

Same goes for half the other doctrines.

Overall, the current EIRR design is shit.

[VERTIGGO]

Yeah it's definitely fun to "play with new toys", but if it's impossible to have a balanced, tactical match, there's really no enjoyment anymore. The bonuses and advantages should be interesting but not be so strong that they decide every game.

[BigDick]

The problem is all the stacking buffs in different trees making doctrines retarded.

It should really be more specialized.

Playing RCA? Get awesome tank buffs + arty and infantry buffs and offmaps!! Yay!!

Same goes for half the other doctrines.

Overall, the current EIRR design is shit.

no its not shit
there are some imbalances yes but from design view its pretty good exactly because the doctrine unlocks buff more then one unit and you can run different combinations to give your company its personality

im often not sure what doctrine unlock combination i'll run and i remake my unlocks very often to style my company different

that was never the case before
in old doctrine i read the draft and knew exactly what company i'll run

now i can have many different company builds with one doctrine without spaming my buffed unit because there are not just m1 carbines -> spam rifles or raid assault -> spam airborne

[Malgoroth]

I'm inclined to agree with BigDick. There are some serious balance issues, but overall the doctrines themselves are fine.

Some units are buffed too much, sure... for example, as AmPm said, for a doctrine like RCA or Commandos or infantry, the armor buffs shouldn't be as good as they are for a doctrine like Royal Engineers if they are located in the same doctrine tier (for instance if there's a tier 2 choice in RE that gives 15% more pen, a RCA equivalent should be something like 8 or 10% if it's also a tier 2)...  and the resurgence of mass offmaps and god damn canister shot irritates me to absolutely no end and the people who use them are lower than flesh eating bacteria in my eyes... but the diversity the doctrines offer is a good thing. For instance, in my scorched earth doctrine, I can choose to go buffed assault/flammen assault grens, or I can focus on buffing the awesome hummel, or I can choose a mix of on map arty and buffed grens. I like being able to choose which path to go in the doctrine I've chosen. The same goes for my blitz company or my stupid stupid armor company.


The Panther is fine imo. Facing them as armor has given me a new appreciation for how vicious they can be when used in the right hands. If the enemy has gone for more infantry/light vehicles than armor, then that's the risk I take by selecting the Panther. I went up against standard infantry with support spam today and lacked the indirect fire to effectively deal with it. It doesn't mean what my opponents did was OP, or their units are OP, it just means I brought the wrong stuff to that fight (Incidentally, all of my allies in that battle brought the wrong units as well leading to a frustrating uphill struggle against a landslide of shit and things that explode).

Anyhow... that's my two cents.

[AmPM]

M10's are far better than Panthers on a cost to killing ratio.

[lionel23]

But I agree, IF and that's a big IF the M10 makes it back there.  It is an exceptionally expensive tank that is paper thin.  I was messing with an airborne company and could only get 3 before it tapped my armor pool, and you would need two tanks to make it to the rear alive to threaten that hummel quickly and effectively before help arrived.   And with how weak the M10 is, a stray pak or shrek shot on the way back would make it's day, in addition it tends to lose its main gun A LOT.

I run 3 panthers myself, I find the unit is just fine, for a non-doctrine tank it has a lot of HP and very good armor, though I'm personally a fan of medium tanks like the Panzer 4.

[Smokaz]

Also when you compare the "Ranger-Panther" and the "Rifle-m10" keep in mind that the m10 gun is comparable to the panther, so in the situations where both can engage without taking damage back, and these are far from unusual, the m10 will always be better for pop and cost

[panzerman]

ok so i have read all through this thread and in the hummel thread at it seems very mixed views on if it is worth having panthers or not...

as well as this 2 m10's used well, will kill a panther, really well used the will probs not loose one, if used badly they can still do alot of damage...
2 m10's cost, 600mp 380fuel and 20pop
1 panther costs 610mp 500fuel and 15 pop

now i think the panther may need a drop in the fuel and maybe pop maybe down to 450fuel and 14 pop, means it still not the greatest idea starting with it but but u can now have a extra stug or p4.

i agree that an m10 is worth it's cost even if it is a glass cannon if used well it can inflict serios damage on most armour the axis have...
i have even had a panther bounce 4 shots in a row on a pershings side/rear armour which ended up in my full health panther dieing to a pershing with a 3rd of it's health...

[smurfORnot]

we had 2 panthers vs 1 pershing,and 1 panther was even giving him rear shots,then another pershing came after this one was badly dmg,they killed 1 panther,and other panther managed to kill first pershing,only to barely made it out alive cuz of 5% bug...

[Unkn0wn]

Thread cleaned, don't turn this into a discussion on the M10.
Comparing the two is fine but remember that this is primarily a thread bout the Panther.