Profile of mons7erz

--Admin please move if not in right location--

As it says in title, and I know responses will be somewhere along the lines of "you already have the jackson??"

But, for arguments sake, Will we ever see M18s for USF? of course, if we do, it would be a call in, or commander locked.

But none the less, and historically speaking, I'd still like to see the USFs "Best Tank destroyer" implemented. Even though, to live up to its namesake, it'd have to be very delicately balanced, and ultimately not really worth the time to balance it. But none the less, I'd really like to see it implemented.

Can someone else offer strategically beneficial reasons to why axis need demos? Something not brit mg related

At this moment Axis don't have any easy way to wipe houses, compared to allies. Soviets who are the most troll in destroying garrisons, USF has demo in a commander option and UKF just one click wonder arty to houses.

In a way balance and little bit of historical point of view is very strange that neither faction from axis can use explosives (satchel,demo).

Firstly, there are two commanders (currently) that give USF Demos, Armor and Mechanized. Assault Engineers in either situation are sub-par at best (Armor company), which will almost always be out-traded by Strum pios (its essentially a race to who can get to the better cover), The up-gradable Flamethrower is nice, but not really as effective as the flamenwerfer for Axis, or even Soviets Flamethrower, and majority of the time will just end up feeding the squad (granted, if somehow vetted, It can take a few hits).

The second commander, Mechanized just really is not worth it (if speaking in terms of getting the Assault engineers) . You'd need to deploy a 30Fuel HT, decrew it and recrew it with another squad to gain access to the Assault engineers, and it costs 5(?) CP, and is essentially a glorified version of the Ambulance, with a 50cal gun.

So Overall, USF Assault engineers are not particularity fantastic, even given their utility (which can actually be almsot fully replaced by Heavy cav/Rifleman field defenses)

I Don't believe Axis need a demo charge, Not in the interest with balance, but in the interest of strategy. From what i know and seen, the biggest advantage for axis comes from keeping buildings alive, as it gives garrisons for your MGs, Grens and a place to deploy elite units from. and when all else fails, you've always got the LeFH, or ISGs, and apparently Goliaths.

On a slightly less related note, If you are speaking in terms of the Ostheer, I believe it is that way because Ostheer were more centered around the defending Faction, and Russians were more based around literally feeding manpower to dislodge the Ostheer.

I do have an honest question, What strategical benefit would Axis gain if they had access to demos?

Ive found i've had better successes cutting their supply lines rather than pushing them off the map. This especially hurts OKW as they struggle to take back lost fuel.
You can get away with abusing the Sh*t out of ostheer and pushing them back into their base, however it can backfire-especially if they've got fuel caches around their points.

USF is very good at capping and kicking the door in early, but you've got to be active and have map presence.

Overall, Allies, USF in particular really have to work for their wins, I personally believe this to be true against OKW, Because past 10 minutes, it becomes harder to win.

You can also invest in AT guns early, I prefer to do that as you're prepared for medium armor past the 10 min mark. No more than 2, unless its a really tank spamming game.

More over, Be active with your Stuart. the best time of the game to get it out is around the 6 or 7 minute mark, as stuarts pretty much out trade every other like vehicle like the Luchs, 222, Flak half track. You can even murder P4s if you can micro it properly (its hilarious to see). Try keep it alive as long as you can, Because late game it can still be used, as the Stuart abilities Scale extremely well. I mean, If you take 1 or 2 hits from a tiger you die, BUT if you can get sight block on them it gives your other tanks a chance to flank. Same is true for the Target Tread/Engine.

Sorry, Went on a rant. Hope it helped

It's my opinion that for the very high cost of Panthers, either their performance against infantry or their cost be adjusted. Currently, it's a hard-skinned (but not that hard, until vetted) tank destroyer that has a rotating turret.

Both versions are worthless against infantry. By the time they hit the field, you will have halfway to fully vetted infantry running around and probably several AT guns/AT infantry.

For the OKW version, it costs nearly as much as an Ost Tiger. It's only 30 more fuel for the Tiger. A commonly comparable unit, the Comet (which I think costs less) is great for AT/AI. Axis forces already have tank destroyer units. Why is the Panther a dedicated tank destroyer?

Because of it's high cost, I think the Panther should retain it's AT power but also give it a boost in AI ability similar to the Panzer 4. OR, give it an ability unlocked by veterancy or by using Munis that good against infantry.

this will help bring it in line with other late game non-doc tanks that cost a lot of resources.

Bro, you must be doing something very very wrong if you're struggling against infantry.

Played both factions, and even I see the Panther needs nerf, or a proper balance.

for USF, It takes 3 M10s, and 2 AT guns to even Pen a panther, Even against side armor.

If you're struggling with infantry you're not supporting your tanks properly, you should never let a tank go into a scenario alone.
As far as armor goes, From the most recent stats I could find (please, post a link for stats, cause im struggling to find the most up to date ones), The Panther armor is 10 LESS than a TIGER tank. And does EVERYTHING a tiger does and more.

I've seen so many squads, including elite inf, like rangers get one shot by a moving Panther.

So, The panther does not need to be cheaper, it is really good against infatry, especially with the MG mount, and is easily vetted and can out trade so many allied tanks, which isnt actually that Historically accurate. even the Sherman to Tiger ratio was about 4 Shermans to one Tiger, which was what the tank was built for.

I may sound salty, but you'd get pretty annoyed if 2 AT guns and 3 TDs were bouncing shots left right and center, off a tank.

Now lets talk about AT Grenades.

USF AT nades, at most will give engine crit at a ratio of about 40/60. Soviet nades, about at most, 60/40. Fausts, 95% of the time. But that is what they were made for, so that is completely to be expected.

Point in the matter, Panthers need a REAL balance, in line with being historically accurate. It is a myth it took 5 Shermans to one Panther.

As Coh2 Is based towards the end of the war, Tanks like the M4A3E8 Traded pretty evenly with Panther tanks. it was never a 5:1 ratio, Even the Tiger Tanks were about at most, 6:1 ratio.

To conclude, The Panther doesnt need a cost rescale, It needs a proper balance. Not a "drop the tank and win the game" balance. seems like im exaggerating, and you're probably thinking Just get AT.

Allies do, Allies have, every single shot pretty much bounces.
What do you do when the one thing AT is made for fails?