Profile of Sander93

I can't speak for the others, but I think the choice between the Panther and the Jagdpanzer IV / StuG is mostly a player preference and/or map/situation dependant. One isn't necessarily better/worse than the other against similar targets. I'd say all of them perform roughly similar against most targets at the moment. The JP4 has the range and DPM advantage, the StuG has the cost effectiveness advantage (get two for 1 Panther) and the Panther has the generalist/brawler advantage.

The Panther however, is a mix of mostly mediocre characteristics. It has mediocre DPM, mediocre accuracy, kinda mediocre pen (for an AT vehicle), good but not fantastic mobility, held together with high durability. The complete package is good, but any one of those aspects on its own isn't anything to write home about. It is supposed to expose itself though, mostly by diving, where the current accuracy is often not adequate and it makes dives/attacks more risky than they should be. That is why it is being buffed slightly.

That being said, the accuracy buff is being toned down in V2. And if it turns out that the Panther with increased accuracy becomes too good, then we can nerf something else about it later.

attack move has better shell velocity than attack ground so it makes up for sometimes targeting the wrong model.

There is no such thing as a difference in shell velocity between attack ground and auto attack. They use the same weapon.

Maybe i missed it but wich axis units have had their armour nerfed this patch that initiate the reduction of pen gained by vet on the td's?

It's about a general reduction in front armor for most Axis heavies over the past years, like the Panther, Jagdtiger and Brummbar. The penetration values of these TDs have never been adjusted accordingly, their veterancy 2/3 penetration is excessively high.

-Infantry not auto-attacking vehicels that they cant damage/penetrate
-Infantry not auto-attacking structures/buildings

Altough I agree infantry firing small arms at tanks looks a bit stupid, I don't think this can be changed. Infantry likely won't be able to distinguish between which vehicles they can damage (so vehicles with low enough armor that small arms can penetrate it) and which ones they can't. It'd probably be the same for buildings; some can be damaged by small arms.

Several Problems with this:

A. Reducing player decision making. Stumpio will end up being upgraded with both the vast majority of the time.

I'd argue it's the opposite. The Schreck is a total non-choice right now. By making it more viable, players will actually have more strategic decisions in the mid game because getting a Schreck would mean getting 1 less STG44 or G43 upgrade for a mainline.

B. This doesn't encourage double sturmpio builds. If you want to encourage double Sturm reduce their price slightly in addition to the pop increase and make Schreck and Sweeper mutually exclusive. This way opening involving 2 Sturmpios might actually become somewhat common.

Not really the goal of these changes.

C. The Schreck change will make the Flak HT overpowered.

Possibly, of so then play tests should hopefully show this. 1 Schreck is only enough to keep a light at bay and not kill it. LVs should still be able to keep the 251/17 in check while making it harder to dive it and get away with killing it. Which would hopefully make BG a more viable choice over Mechanized.