I'd keep it at say 280-300 and make the 2nd one fire as long as it's garrisoned. Adjust performance and popcap accordingly. Garrison bonuses are such an under rated element to balancing emplacements. Either they are trashy like now or fully autonomous and cancer like before. There has to be a middle ground and I think the extra resources of having to garrison is that middle ground. |
The IS-2 has 375 armour, which essentially forces a Panther or doctrinal heavy in response.
Unlike the 300 armour of the tiger which can be felled by medium tanks right? |
A thing to remember, aside from the ST axis heavies are all geared around tank combat primarily*, and allied heavies seem to be AI/ taking a beating. The current YD meta certainly make axis heavies feel underwhelming because they are supposed to prey on numerous allied mediums that just are not there in the numbers balance is tuned for. It's difficult to create a tier list when they are all designed to operate differently. Except the sturmtiger. The sturm tiger is hit garbage and if it was Removed and something else put in that beauty of a commander I don't think anyone would mind.
*you don't have the likes of the Pershing or the various Soviet high aoe units. Generally you have high pen/ ROF. |
The drawback that nobody mentioned about TWP is that loading TWP causes the Stug to disrupt its OWN reloading cycle, which is why it takes forever to load the TWP round. Essentially, your disrupting your own reload to disrupt your enemy's reload. This is why Stug TWP is literally useless and should NEVER, I really mean NEVER be used.
Depends on what you are disrupting the reload on really. Probably be less impactful on a T70 than on a kv-2 |
+5 range at vet 2ans move the skirts to a BP3 bonus perhaps? Stug shouldn't be a stock 60 range tho, it would require a heafy price increase and that's not really the design of the unit.
Stug TWP I always assumed was to be a defensive ability the way it is now, but maybe changing it for something more like the okw puma aimed shot could be interesting by making it more support no matter the scenario? |
Isnt that exactly the kind of problem the unit has? It doesnt have a clear role.
Its not good enough against infantry compared to a medium /heavy AND doenst have the abilities to (reload times, urrrggh)fight effectively against Jacksons / SU-85.
Yes, the panther has good mobility which can be used against SU-85 (but only on maps that allow flanking) but the Jackson has more range AND the same mobility AND costs 40 fuel less.
The bigger problem is that axis players need tanks to fight off allied infantry. The panther doesnt give you anything in this department but is very expensive. Building 1-2 mediums and back it up with a Tiger is a lot more attractive than spending my fuel on panthers. Thats why OKW players choose so often Grand offensive and thats the reason why wehr players have Tiger commanders in their load outs. And if wehr players really want to fight off efficiently against allied TDs they build the elephant.
So all in all i would like to see a clear role for the panther: Either it should be a pure TD or a good, highly mobile generalist - a better version of the comet.
you are paying to force the enemy to invest in TDs instead of medium tanks while also being able to fight infantry (albeit not terribly well) because mediums cant face it efficiently. the issue is that TDs are SO good that players can stack their AI in their infantry with no worries of tank woes that mediums are not really needed to fight infantry and thus the panther isnt relly needed for medium tank supremacy
im aware of the over acheiving jackson and the problems it creates in balance
why should the panther be a better comet? it currently is the best tank to fight any non TD in the game, including the comet and all premium mediums as well as heavy armour, why should it have better AI as well? we used to have that and panther spam was just as cancer as TD spam is now.
|
TD vs TD are actually quite common. For instance usually TDs are used against the Panther.
True but the panther is an odd duck. Most TDs are helpless against infantry but the panther has decent AI with all the mgs. It's a hybrid TD/medium tank/heavy tank. Not really a pure TD. |
They are alright honestly for what they are supposed to do, they are just really shitty if the enemy waits behind cover already before you.
or in the caseof sturms, walks at them out in the open. like legit... sturms can frontally engage dug in tommies, walk up under fire and win reliably. not saying sturms are op, but that tommies are not doing their job well enough if even in an ideal situation for tommies they can lose on the regular... |
The fact that you need to justify changes with 'buh even muh panther can actually bounce sometimes' tells everyone all they need to know about what sort of game you want to be playing, and how loud it would play Horst-Wessel-Lied at all times.
from max range no less.... |
Like i say until support comes in
Unlike Jackson, panther need to stop shoot and aim for is2 rear side armor because its frontal vs ace frontal is crazy high. Is2 is also slightly faster than tigers
We get 3x160 vs 2x160 damages if pen. The current heavies vs counters clearly favour allies side
Not that I disagree, but the reason allies have better tools to fight heavies is that they are GUARANTEED to face them. Ost has 2 stock units with more than 200armour (3if we count vetted p4) and Okw has 4. Soviet have 0 usf have 0 ukf have 2 but have to chose between them. Allies are better equipped, when they use hard counters whereas generally the axis lineup is simply a higher caliber (more armour and more pen) regardless of being a hard counter. Allies have higher highs and lower lows but the average of axis stats is higher.
This means unless the proper hard counters are fielded the allies are disadvantaged but said hard counters disadvantage the axis. |