Login

russian armor

Opinion on Ostheer Panther in new patch (1v1)

14 Jan 2018, 17:20 PM
#21
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

The Ost panther really isn't great. Even if it had gotten the accuracy buffs it needed instead of MG and RoF, I'm still not sure it would be picked since it has a tech cost, but should be used to fight units like IS-2s, AVRE/Croc and Pershing that don't.
14 Jan 2018, 17:56 PM
#22
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

compare with Comet acc 0.03/0.045/0.06 not included tank commander buff 10%
Panther gun Acc 0.035/0.045/0.06 panther better only long range
Scatter max 8 this problem for panther ?
if tone down Scatter max lower mean AI performance better ?
14 Jan 2018, 18:09 PM
#23
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1


Scatter max 8 this problem for panther ?
if tone down Scatter max lower mean AI performance better ?

AT guns have long distance scatter because it help them hit more with collision when then miss.

In order for gun to have AI performance it needs both low scatter and big AOE.
14 Jan 2018, 18:42 PM
#24
avatar of A table

Posts: 249

Well, it could be worse, but the panther is certainly not in an acctractive spot either.

Just higher regular accuracy(certainly not moving accuracy) would make it more usefull than it is currently.
14 Jan 2018, 21:56 PM
#25
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162

Allied players should be a bit worried when they see a panther but at the moment it feels underwhelming. The problem with having the lower acc on the move is that it doesn't have the frontal armor that it should and needs to have to use the better acc when stationary. The rear armor should be the con of having above average frontal armor making allies have to flank instead of going head on.
14 Jan 2018, 22:38 PM
#26
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

I can't have an opinion on a non existant unit, because a unit with no role at all may aswell not exist.

1) Long range fighter: It sucks in long range stationary tank sniping, it has a terribly low dps compared to FF, Jackson, jadgpanzer 4...

2) Cqb hunter tank: it won't benefit from it's armor at that range most of the time, the dps is still ridicolously low and moving to actually hunt enemies makes it even worse.

Piece of trash need some moving accuracy AND accuracy buff.

I think its not supposed to have a designated role it excels in, but rather be a jack of all trades, high tier at unit. I'm not saying its balanced perfectly as is, or is a perfect idea in the first place, just that that seems to be the intention. It's also notably tough for a tank of that cost while stil having a decent balance of speed and firepower (as opposed to, i.e., the churchill).

IIRC range doesn't affect firepower that much
They should have replaced the HP vet they removed with an accuracy one.

+1

I think if it had a bit higher base accuracy, a .5 moving accuracy modifier would be perfectly fine, since almost all other tanks have the same modifier.

EDIT:
Allied players should be a bit worried when they see a panther but at the moment it feels underwhelming. The problem with having the lower acc on the move is that it doesn't have the frontal armor that it should and needs to have to use the better acc when stationary. The rear armor should be the con of having above average frontal armor making allies have to flank instead of going head on.

Rear armor isn't really a con per se though, since even a kt or elefant can be reliably penetrated in the rear by a sherman or a bazooka. It's just the way things are. It'd be like if you said "well the con of using riflemen is that they die to bullets" in the sense that all infantry dies to bullets, and all tanks get rear penned by pretty much every at source in the game. Just wanted to point that out.
15 Jan 2018, 00:25 AM
#27
avatar of rush

Posts: 341

The only thing that a panther does better than a stugG is that shots tend to bounce off off a panther than they do on a stugG .
The panther is at a good spot atm, that spot being inside the t4 building aka not built .
What the panther really needs is a clear role , either make it a better verison of the p4 with maybe t34/85 AI, or make it a good tank destroyer on par with FF.
15 Jan 2018, 12:14 PM
#28
avatar of Brick Top

Posts: 1159

Heres the thing with Ost panther: Ost is a faction built on varied combined arms that need to work together to maximise potential.

This is true in early tier infantry fighting, but it still holds true at higher tiers (tanks). THIS IS A CONCIOUS DESIGN DESICION.

Ost Panthers are not really supposed to be able to solo enemy armour, this is why they have a slow rate of fire.

Their 'purpose' in a combined Ost force is to fulfill the role that all other Ost units cannot, that is to chase wounded tanks and deal the killing blow, also to react to fast mediums putting pressure on flanks, or even on ocassion, dive a Katushka or Stuka.

However, they are not intended to be the sole or main AT for Ost, it should be a nice mix of other things. When you consider this, I think they do their job of chasing tanks very well due to their speed and armour, giving them great durability in FAST ACTIONS.

They are not best suited to slug outs with opposing tank destroyers, but this is the basis many people are judging them uppon (they feel underwhelming in this scenario).

You are Ost, you need to rely on Paks, thats how the faction works. It is not a fast attack faction, thats why the panther is a luxury unit to cover your big mobility weakness.

Going T4 really should mean you get a panzer werfer too (combined arms) and not necessarily spam 2 Panthers.
15 Jan 2018, 12:25 PM
#29
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

Heres the thing with Ost panther: Ost is a faction built on varied combined arms that need to work together to maximise potential.

This is true in early tier infantry fighting, but it still holds true at higher tiers (tanks). THIS IS A CONCIOUS DESIGN DESICION.


I guess it is as conscious as:
USF not having access to heavy armor (see Pershing)
USF not having access to mines (see RE)
USF not having access to great hand held AT (see paras)
USF having less cost efficient support weapons (see any of them)

Soviet having average stock units (see most of their stock unit)
and so on...

Most faction have been buffed considerably and the only faction properly designed, which also used to serve as the benchmark, is simply left behind.
15 Jan 2018, 15:34 PM
#30
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 503 | Subs: 1

Heres the thing with Ost panther: Ost is a faction built on varied combined arms that need to work together to maximise potential.

This is true in early tier infantry fighting, but it still holds true at higher tiers (tanks). THIS IS A CONCIOUS DESIGN DESICION.

Ost Panthers are not really supposed to be able to solo enemy armour, this is why they have a slow rate of fire.

Their 'purpose' in a combined Ost force is to fulfill the role that all other Ost units cannot, that is to chase wounded tanks and deal the killing blow, also to react to fast mediums putting pressure on flanks, or even on ocassion, dive a Katushka or Stuka.

However, they are not intended to be the sole or main AT for Ost, it should be a nice mix of other things. When you consider this, I think they do their job of chasing tanks very well due to their speed and armour, giving them great durability in FAST ACTIONS.

They are not best suited to slug outs with opposing tank destroyers, but this is the basis many people are judging them uppon (they feel underwhelming in this scenario).

You are Ost, you need to rely on Paks, thats how the faction works. It is not a fast attack faction, thats why the panther is a luxury unit to cover your big mobility weakness.

Going T4 really should mean you get a panzer werfer too (combined arms) and not necessarily spam 2 Panthers.



I'm trying to imagine having a Panzerwerfer and a Panther in 1v1 lol.
15 Jan 2018, 16:20 PM
#31
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Jan 2018, 12:25 PMVipper

I guess it is as conscious as:
USF not having access to heavy armor (see Pershing)
USF not having access to mines (see RE)
USF not having access to great hand held AT (see paras)
USF having less cost efficient support weapons (see any of them)

Soviet having average stock units (see most of their stock unit)
and so on...

Most faction have been buffed considerably and the only faction properly designed, which also used to serve as the benchmark, is simply left behind.

222 buffs ? Fast mg in first bulding ?
T70 nerfs ? Or stuart nerf?
U see this changes buffs early wermaht game and pershing with 800hp its not that heavy
15 Jan 2018, 19:52 PM
#32
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742


222 buffs ? Fast mg in first bulding ?
T70 nerfs ? Or stuart nerf?
U see this changes buffs early wermaht game and pershing with 800hp its not that heavy


The buffs that the 222 had seen were met with cost adjustments. One could say at one point, before penal PTRS and before the fuel was increased (doubled?) it was buffed. Those buffs I don't think have held up very well.

The t0 HMG42 did allow for ostheer to not be totally crippled against USF early game. That was certainly a timing buff. Though even so I'm pretty sure it saw a cost increase (240 to 260mp) at that time. I could be mistaken.

It is kind of a shame that buffs to ostheer have been, at best, indirect. But to be perfectly honest, I don't like the power creep. Ostheer has the one benefit of being grounded in its original design which all the other factions either have abandoned or ignored from the get-go.
15 Jan 2018, 21:34 PM
#33
avatar of strafniki

Posts: 558 | Subs: 1

triple MG on panther = almost no AI

ok
17 Jan 2018, 13:11 PM
#34
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

triple MG on panther = almost no AI

ok


It's ai potency is neglicable when considering it faces 5 to 6 men squads imo. Considering other heavy tanks with more ai killing power face 4 men to 5 men squads and only 4 men squads when facing Ostheer, the Panther is really lackluster, espeically the Ostheer one.
17 Jan 2018, 13:26 PM
#35
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1



It's ai potency is neglicable when considering it faces 5 to 6 men squads imo. Considering other heavy tanks with more ai killing power face 4 men to 5 men squads and only 4 men squads when facing Ostheer, the Panther is really lackluster, espeically the Ostheer one.

And the panther needs to stand still in the range of infantry (panther mg has 30 or 35 range? Handheld AT roughly the Same from my memory?) To have any form of AI. Not even considering that the map is full of yellow cover when panther hits the field :')
17 Jan 2018, 13:38 PM
#36
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660



It's ai potency is neglicable when considering it faces 5 to 6 men squads imo. Considering other heavy tanks with more ai killing power face 4 men to 5 men squads and only 4 men squads when facing Ostheer, the Panther is really lackluster, espeically the Ostheer one.

It's not just this..
1) All mg's need to face a target, which is rather improbable most of the time since you will be constantly on target vehicle only
2) Unlike aoe based weapons mg's are directly affected by scatter drastically and highly dependant on the range far more than main guns he shells, and you don't want your panther to get a snare...
3) The panther "generalist" requires a 60 muni upgrade to have the supposed "generalist" performance..but it's not like firefly is reliant on tulips to do it's at job
4) the dps coming from mg's is, like i already said, directly affected from accuracy far more drastically than main gun's. Lategame maps are full of covers and craters that reduce incoming accuracy of infantry...this doesn't affect..let's say...Comet dps that much, but the Panther generalist...well...

But obviously "panther generalist and panther no micro" meme from balance team served its purpose and now even okw panther is trash.
17 Jan 2018, 13:53 PM
#37
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

If the mgs is the issue remove them and make Panther an exact copy of Jackson.

Because currently the unit simply does not work.
17 Jan 2018, 16:40 PM
#38
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jan 2018, 13:53 PMVipper
If the mgs is the issue remove them and make Panther an exact copy of Jackson.

Because currently the unit simply does not work.


Then it still most likely won't work due to high cost and the tier it is in. Tier IV is almost a liability in 1v1 when rushed. It is literally a tier for when oppertunity arises, which it quite often does not.
18 Jan 2018, 10:08 AM
#39
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660

I still don't know why they haven't yet implemented a 200 damage/rof model and buffed his base accuracy and moving accuracy.

1) 200 damage means that the panther will still need 4 shots to kill TD and mediums, but be better in its intended anti premium/heavy role
2) 200 damage models means a slower reload, so Panther can be accurate and reliable both stationary and on the move without obliterating mediums..

Cut the frontal armor to 280 (and add back 10% armor that would restore previous armor at vet 2) and generalists/premiums will be even more effective when closing in (AND add the new damage model lowering the general medium/TD TTK).

But WHATEVER....



Then it still most likely won't work due to high cost and the tier it is in. Tier IV is almost a liability in 1v1 when rushed. It is literally a tier for when oppertunity arises, which it quite often does not.


Now less than before tho, after that teching rework.
18 Jan 2018, 11:13 AM
#40
avatar of Zansibar

Posts: 158 | Subs: 2

The Panther is alright on city maps, otherwise pretty meh.

I think the panthers could use an AI buff and the ost panther a slight armor buff.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

556 users are online: 556 guests
10 posts in the last 24h
34 posts in the last week
146 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45041
Welcome our newest member, dem89
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM