Panther vs Tiger

[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

[smurfORnot]

Just wanna know whats general opinion of people,which one do they prefer?

After using them both,I kinda like Panther more.Much better mobility,better range,better AT,not bad AI at all. Only thing Tiger has advantage is better:
AI ,you can easily get 10-20 inf kills with panther. Yes,you can get 40-50 inf kills with Tiger,but it doesnt happen that often.
Health,but with Panthers mobility and range you can get around that,since you will get hit less in return,and you can escape easily if you are being pursued which cant be said for tiger.
Another thing is,Tiger becomes dead useless with eng dmg,panther is also bad with it,but not as bad as tiger is.
Panther is not T3 doctrinal choice.,and isn't as bad as tiger is without Tiger aces.
Maybe I am just better with Panthers,but do so many people suck with Tiger? Cuz most people who I spoke with, just dont like him.

(This is not Tiger is UP,buff him etc. topic)

[TheIcelandicManiac]

I like both just as much, using the panther too snipe ATGs and AT infantry and making sure in the late parts of games the enemy has so little AT to properly counter the tiger and giving me the upper hand in future engagements.
Granted in the current meta game the panther is the perfect balance in AT and AI making it not only more cost effective and stronger in almost everyway but it lacks the hard hitting force of instant gibbing squads like the tiger can.

[Hicks58]

The problem lies with the fact that the Panther can do all of the Tiger's roles to a competent level.

A Panther can reliably kill infantry as well as being an extremely solid AT piece that can regularly bounce ATG rounds. It has good health, good speed, good AI, exceptional armour and exceptional AT. The Tiger has high health, slow speed, exceptional AI, good armour and reasonable AT.

A Tiger can gib half a squad, but a Panther can pull it to pieces from stand-off range with much less fear of being counter-attacked by AT assets.

A Tiger can penetrate every Allied piece of armour outright with the exception of the Pershing, but is still reliable at a 70% chance (Not accounting range mods). The Panther can also do this, with a lower chance against the Pershing, but has the benefit of outranging all Allied armour besides the Firefly.

The list just goes on. In a nutshell, you can either get a Tiger and have to follow a strict set of guidelines for it to work out, or you can grab a Panther and do the same thing yet also have flexibility should something start going astray. The problem isn't the Tiger being bad, it's the Panther being better.

[Dnicee]

The problem isn't the Tiger being bad, it's the Panther being better.

If this is true something is clearly wrong. The Panther should not be better then the tiger for obvious reasons!

[Nug]

Lower pen modifiers for every weapon vs tiger so he gets less penetrated and it will be more usefull.

The problem of the tiger is that, that he gets outranged by everything and penetrated thus you lose hp very fast. Giving him more range *could* make him op, not saying it would 100%.

Lowering pen would give him more survivability, you could field him longer before repairs.

[Demon767]

increased range then be done with it

[hans]

remove the infantry sniping option of the panther or give the tiger more range

[Nug]

lol when i made a thread about tiger and giving him more ranged i was jumped by everyone , love it 


http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=20675.0

[Hicks58]

Giving the Tiger more range is stupid on a LOT of levels.

The problem isn't the Tiger, it's the Panther.

Therefore, the Panther needs to stop taking the Tiger's role and have it's accuracy against infantry knocked down.

[Poppi]

lol when i made a thread about tiger and giving him more ranged i was jumped by everyone , love it 


http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=20675.0

then nerf panthers long range sniping ability.

well as a US player.
I dont have much problem rushing my AB or rangers or inf toward a panther. Yes it does uncanny damage to infantry at a long range even though it also destroys the fuck out of tanks, has great speed and mobility, and frontal armor. But you might only lose 1 or 2 inf if you rush a panther. Rushing a tiger ya you could lose a whole squad.

[Nug]

The problem isn't the Tiger, it's the Panther.

Therefore, the Panther needs to stop taking the Tiger's role and have it's accuracy against infantry knocked down.

erm no, Panther is ok, Tiger is the problem. You do not fix a problem by making a viable unit weaker, because Tiger will still be geting outranged by everything and getting killed fast.

This way you will have 2 bad units, and braking panther to make tiger better will still not  fix its basic issue.

[Demon767]

Giving the Tiger more range is stupid on a LOT of levels.

The problem isn't the Tiger, it's the Panther.

Therefore, the Panther needs to stop taking the Tiger's role and have it's accuracy against infantry knocked down.

And how much range can the range of the tiger increase before it hits stupid on a lot of levels?

[Hicks58]

It cant. The Tiger is primarily an AI tank with AT being it's secondary role. If it's range goes up to 45 like everybody's suggesting... Well shit, just take a look at the Tiger Ace. You'd have to be severely handicapped not to rape face with it.

With 45 range, you'll be able to effectively counter one of your hard counters - M10's/M18's. Kiting will no longer be a viable tactic and their effectiveness will go right down the shitter for dealing with Tigers. Not only that, you'll be comfortably outranging any hand-held AT with a large gap to move around in.

It's the equivalent of saying that Pershings can get owned by Marder's so we'll give it 60 range to let it fire back. No. What you do, is realise that units have their counters, and that no unit should ever be truly and utterly effective in a vacuum. Not even the big scary tanks.

[Nug]

It cant. The Tiger is primarily an AI tank with AT being it's secondary role.

Stuh and ostwind are AI tanks, Tiger is a heavy all purpose tank like KT just not as heavy.

With 45 range, you'll be able to effectively counter one of your hard counters - M10's/M18's.

m10 and m18 is not a counter to heavy tank, atgs are. 45 range was not present in vcoh and 1st expansion, its one of later inventions of ToV when m18 came to be. M10 had 40 range, also both has speed, use it.

Kiting will no longer be a viable tactic and their effectiveness will go right down the shitter for dealing with Tigers

.
As above, m10s were never kiting tanks but to rush in and circle your enemy.

Not only that, you'll be comfortably outranging any hand-held AT with a large gap to move around in.

It still has same sight.

It's the equivalent of saying that Pershings can get owned by Marder's so we'll give it 60 range to let it fire back. No.

45 range is not 60 range.

[Heartmann]

this is stupid poll imo, they are two diff tanks that fill 2 diff roles

[Poppi]

erm no, Panther is ok, Tiger is the problem. You do not fix a problem by making a viable unit weaker

too late been many times in the past.
stopping now can be bad.

you know when you start seeing like 9+ panthers in 1 game, they might be too awesome for their own good.  Their ability to solve many problems and take a beating is tiresome.

[Nug]

too late been many times in the past.
stopping now can be bad.

you know when you start seeing like 9+ panthers in 1 game, they might be too awesome for their own good.  Their ability to solve many problems and take a beating is tiresome.

If p4 and tiger was better you'd see more of them and less panthers.

[Mister Schmidt]

This shit again..

Tiger is fine, panther maybe a little too good, but tiger doesn't need changing tbh

[smurfORnot]

This shit again..

I posted a pool to see what people like better,not to cry that tiger is UP. I just like panther better,and find it more cost effective,as apparently a lot of people do.

Well shit, just take a look at the Tiger Ace. You'd have to be severely handicapped not to rape face with it.

yea,because Tiger ace only difference compared to normal tiger is 45range,has nothing to do with a speed,his abilities(nades and stuff) or his better AT ability than normal tiger.

[hans]

If p4 and tiger was better you'd see more of them and less panthers.

hmm kinda agree with this. The problem with p4s and tigers is the range and the speed. If like m10s, m18s and atguns can shoot at them while they can do nothing is just dump. So why do i choose a tank that is slow, has not the range to even defend itself against any allied tank (yea p4 cant handle shermans and pershings too) and tiger might also can just beat the sherman (that is rare on field these days). Okay u might say, u dont use the p4 to fight those tank, then i say: but the panther can and fills most of the roles p4 is doing. Okay i lose some ai capability but i still have speed armour firepower and a decent ai at the same time. Same with the tiger. Any tank except the sherman can push it back or u get too much damage while the tiger deals nothing to them coz of lower range.