Posts: 1930
Wait really? Are you saying it's basically bullets in this game?...then doesn't that mean received accuracy bonuses work against it!? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
It wasn't axis who used gun stabilizers and were able to shoot on the move to a point.
Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8
You say others 'Don't bring history on balance thread' and bring out history when you want, huh?
Go play other game if you want more historical accuracy.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 1225
Historical arguments shouldn't apply if they are breaking balance.
Bit better accuracy on the move for allied armor with inferior stats, especially defensive ones and often lower penetration as well doesn't break the balance in any way, what it does on the other hand is applying historical flavor within the balance.
For the same reason P4 have better armor then T34/76.
You're so lost in the dark that you've confused me with realism seeking, mad zealots.
Now, surprise for you: con and gren squads are somewhat historically accurate as well, just historically these were 12 and 8 man squads, so you have lowere scale, but historical proportion of units. Will you jump on relic how they made this historically accurate as well?
Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8
Jesus Katitof, surprise for you, but German squads were not 8 man strong, speaking of historical flavour and all that jazz.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 1225
Mechanized formations, which clearly is supported by ost T2 were 8 men strong. It was decreased from standard 10 man formations for the really simply reason of transports not having more space in them.
Non motorized infantry hordes were 10 man squads, which makes it historically accurate for units like volks(no transport in the army) as well as grens and pgrens in the context of ost T2(251 and we could argue 250).
I come to class prepared.
Posts: 2742
Posts: 1930
Posts: 168
Now that relic apparently reads thease forums I'd like to resurrect this old topic; inefficiency of panthers. Not only are they very expensive to tech and the units themselves are expensive. With the recent pop cap reduction for heavies they also became pop inefficent units too. Why would you take 16 pop panther over 19 pop tiger? Or compare it to 16 pop pershing which has similiar at capabilities and is also godly against infantry
Ostheer T3 on the other hand has more efficent units despite being cheaper. Only 80 fuel stug which only takes 8 pop (probably too efficent since Pak takes 9). I'd take two stugs over one panther anyday.
Panthers imo should get pop reduction to 14 like jacksons and fireflys and get a slight price decrease or give them a dual purpose gun.
Posts: 128
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
you never seen a comet's shot phasing harmlessly through a tank before?
technically the firefly have the same problem, but its accuracy is so high that it almost never roll a miss.
Posts: 770
Because panthers are op !!!
panther is simply better then pershing and commet when it comes to 1v1
Perfect tank fast tanky no penetration allowed ...
Poor pershing its a heavy tank much more expensive and still losing 1 v1
Same with commet
...
Tiger is slower front armore is lower its more expensive
The only reson why allice didnt got normal strong tanks just cos aixe players would rage and abbandon the game .
How dare alllice get batter tanks
Posts: 665
Posts: 1094
Posts: 1003
Gun stabilizers was a recless try to compensate the inferiority of allied armor on the battlefield. Why recless? Because they stayed inferior, with or without gun stabilizers. They could not compete with ze krupp stahl krafted wonder machines no matter how hard the truth pisses you off.
Posts: 1003
nerf the front armour and increase rof would be my suggestion.
Posts: 1384
Posts: 482
And for this reason nazi won the war.
Panther overperforming hard. Best armour, best penetration, faster rof then Jackson and best speed.
 | Playercard of ATOUBA | |||||||
|
Posts: 482
A panther isn't cost effective, but it shouldn't be. It's not about being cost effective: it's about being so beefy that your opponent can't do shit about it.
Also I would advise against decreasing the cost of Ost t4. The reason it has a similar cost to ost t3 is simple. It is entirely viable to skip Ost t3 for T4. If you decrease the cost, you actually make this easier. This is why they have nearly identical costs for tech, with the main difference being unit costs.
You could justify decreasing the cost of t4 units themselves, but adjusting the tech building or battlephase would be a bad idea. It's really important to keep in mind that Battlephase being divorced from structure costs is what allows Ostheer to have some semblance of tech diversity.
| Playercard of ATOUBA | |||||||
|
Posts: 1003
Faster rof then Jackson? You have failed to prove you know their stats well.
 |
|
|
175 | ||
 |
|
|
63 | ||
 |
|
|
41 | ||
|
|
|
|
32 | ||
|
|
|
|
11 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
0 | ||
 |
|
|
44 | ||
 |
|
|
14 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
