Now is the time to return the M61 APCBC shells, which were replaced for balance reasons because the jumbo was too strong.
Now that the panther is added, the M3 cannon can’t penetrate anywhere in front of the panther.
The M61 APCBC has the opportunity to penetrate a small portion of the front of the panther turret at a distance of 100 meters.
Invincible tanks ruin the game.
That’s the case with the current panther.
I won’t ask to change the jumbo to 76mm.
But, There should be even a small opportunity when meet panther head-on.
I am level 32 in both campaign
Of course, I tried using the panther.
It was an invincible tank, and no American tank defeated me.
I’ve done 180 kills with 0 death and I think this is wrong
Y’all I been playing this game for a few months, and I really have not noticed these tank balancing issues that everyone is complaining about. The only time it’s felt unbalanced to me was one time on Omaha beach, the German team had two Panthers sitting on the bluff in the grey camping the US spawn. That’s not so much a tank balancing issue as a map issue, and it can be resolved in other ways (by moving the grey zone or strategically placing trenches or obstacles to deprive them of those positions, for example). But there’s nothing inherently wrong with fielding a tank that can’t be penetrated frontally. Part of tank warfare is maneuver, it’s not meant to always be a tit-for-tat sitting and pumping each other full of shells until something sticks. Someone who has worked their way up to unlocking a Panther (or spent their money on one) should get to enjoy the benefits that sloped armor and 75 HV gun confer. It’s all part of the experience. Not everything needs to be 100% equal, that’s not what “balanced” means - it just means both teams have a fair shot at winning.
Nah. They just need to replace the m10 with an actual decent tank. m61 would make the jumbo too powerful.
did you ever fight an m10 who knew what he was doing? i know its rare, but in that thing it isn’t hard to kill a panther. the problem is that it is easier to kill an m10 with any tank than it is t kill the panther with the m10 - the small map sizes exacerbate this problems
wrong. m1 thompson is fantastic. better than the mp43 at close range, but mp43 is better at medium - long. allies have better airplanes, saying axis have ‘good’ airplanes doesn’t really change anything. Allies still have better air power if you consider the whole tree (yes, i do agree getting the bf110 instantly is a bit nuts, but the allies have a way better early game in general). Saying axis have better mgs is right out - they are meant for different roles. Honestly if you asked me to pick between mg42 and barA2, i would pick the bar. Panther is a bit too powerful, but it isn’t nuts - fairly sure ive seen you in a game where i destroyed your panther in an m10. Though I do agree the m10 should be replaced with something that has a bit more armour, and the fg42 shouldn’t be able to be equipped on every rifleman/specialist.
i dont have the m1 thompson but if its a copy of the m1a1 with more rof imo the mp43 is better.
watching all the airplane tree i can say bf109 and p51 are useless p47 and bf110 is what you pick and the a20g is better overhaul than the ju188, so conculsion to you.
well they nerfed its penetration so yes, normally it would be incredibly more powerfull
me too but if also give me the choice between the bar and an mp43, i wil pick the mp43, its all personal preference.
i was destroyed once by an m10, and it was versurmer basically it flanked me.
Yea, I think that makes more sense and is easier than trying to rebalance all the vehicles. Even just pushing the grey zone back so US tanks have a chance at flanking, though this still puts them at a significant disadvantage, but it gives them a chance. Simple map fixes, like adding trenches or ditches or foliage that obscure the line of fire would also work.
Or you could even just up the reinforcement count for taking that point, since the US is likely to suffer more casualties there. There are so many ways to balance this without throwing out the baby and the bathwater.
And btw, all this talk about who has the better SMG or tank ignores a far more influential advantage the US forces have - that literally all of their riflemen are equipped with semi-autos. This gives them a huge advantage in assaulting, since all of their player classes are effective assault troops at close range. It more than compensates for any SMG advantage the Germans might have.
better sight picture and lower horizontal recoil. think it has better reload too but correct me if im wrong. ju188 just trades bomb power for guns with the a20, not sure its fair to say 1 is better than the other since there are distinct advantages to both. But you have largely admitted that its mostly personal preference. imo, if allies could counter the panther with something not as shit as the m10, normandy would be very balanced.
Think about it, if you’re playing as a German rifleman, or engineer, or AT gunner or any class but assault, and you need to assault a building, there’s only one way to enter, and that’s aiming down the sites. It’s the only way to hope to clear a room before getting gunned down, you gotta slowly clear the corners one by one.
US troops of ANY CLASS can assault a building by barging in quickly and blind firing. Even with a Garand, you’ve got a decent chance of clearing the room before you get mowed down or your clip empties.
That means US troops can assault positions, exit clear zones and breach buildings much faster than German troops can.
FG (although I’ve never used it in the game, but I assume it’s better).
But having one better rifle available to a lower dispersion of users doesn’t make the teams unbalanced.
In fact, I’ve argued before that the tanks could be balanced by just making the US tanks available earlier or more frequently than the German tanks, so a Tiger or Panther is balanced out numerically.