dont know why they would remove a weakness from the puma cause the puma actually had this weakness is historically accurate
1 Like
I had a situation where Stuart flanked Panther and destroyed it from back.
So it’s possible.
I killed one from the side with a piat today. Just got the bazooka that will be even easier.
1 Like
are you f…king serious ?
have you ever tried shooting that mg port ?tank models ar so f**ked that unless your at kissing distance your shot always goes around it.
1 Like
I strongly dissagree with this sort of sentiment.
Historicall and even common vehicles (the Panther was common) to not be added in any way because of ‘power creep’. The same could be even argued for the Puma and the M5 in reference to the Sherman and Panzer IV.
I also think there are far more reasonable middle-grounds that don’t hurt the game in such obvious ways. There are ways to balance OP vehicles by various ways of imposing scarcity, and avoiding either nerfing them (at all or excessively), or never adding them all tougether.
I favor a broader approche to balance than rifle v rifle, tank v tank in historical games in particular. Factions having historical advantages in one sort of gear and dissadvantages in others make the game more fun to me. The sort of exact balancing and copy pasting was one of my least favorite things in games like the early Battlefield series.
As you said yourself there is no need to counter tank with a tank. You can counter it with CAS for example.
I don’t consider the Panthers advantage to be so large (or ahistorical) as to require rebalancing of tanks, and I think that all avenues possible to destroy the oponnent should be considered, and not just purely tank v tank when considering balance. It is not unimportant, but not be all and end all.
And there are middle-ground alternatives, that I personally would only apply to heavy tanks and not to ones like Jumbo, or Panther.
1 Like
cool wall of text.
but are we gonna " argue " about my own subjective opinions now?
i honestly don’t care if panthers were there or not.
in gameplay perspective, which i care about the most, panthers should not have been introduced BEFORE matchmaking system.
as you can see, people complains on a daily about panthers. and i somewhat don’t really blain them.
i’m ok with the introduction of those, but not when people that just started the game encounter those.
their experience is not going to be a " good " one and i don’t think they will suggest this game for the others.
which it’s what we need. more players.
morep layers, equal more incomes and everybody happy.
that’s what i’m on about.
1 Like
Perhaps, but you didn’t mention the matchmaker.
Wall text is what civilization stands on.
Matchmaker maybe a good idea, but within reason and I would be against segregating players too much. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to giving greater rewards to players who are dissadvantaged in this way.
Giving new players a ‘grace period’ countend in time, games played, or campaign level could be a good idea, but not necessairly for veteran players. A lot would depend on particulars and how you define ‘veteran player’.
I have recent experience of grinding campaings strating from scratch (Berlin for example) and I wouldn’t say it was a problem for me to play against those that have fully equiped soldiers, or top level vehicles. They had advantages, but at no point did I even think about something like a matchmaker at least not to help myself.
1 Like
because it’s been almost a whole year i keep repeating my self.
and i’m sorry for " being " rude.
after all, i can’t expect people to read all the stuff that i wrote for one year ha ha.
i don’t see how that is going to happen.
we have less player because of absence of a matchmaker. which thankfully devs stated that it’s going to be a thing. but yet, we haven’t seen one. and currently, people that join this game right now, it’s like going for the first time to a restaurant.
and since it’s " free " people play the game once, and they make their opinions about it. but if, ( like i mentioned earlier ) people do not like what they see, they simply leave and tell nothing to no one because they are not forced to do so.
like, if they invested money, people would leave a review ( like for tha majority of titles ).
thankfully not everyone, but people still does that.
you see, here comes: “the problem”
do you play for rewards?
or for fun.
therefore not everyone mind " playing " for reward.
they couldn’t care less if they keep losing but get a bit of experience.
tireless grind does not work anymore as it used to.
agreed. it’s next to impossible to define a player.
according to the devs, the matchmaker will be based on campaign levels. so best of luck 
neither do i to be honest.
there are no comments that you will ever find about me or other individuals ( not all of them ) from the alpha that they complain about needing of a matchmaker because we are used to.
but since we need a bigger playerbase ( which the alpha testers and CBT testers aren’t the same in terms of numbet when we started ) it’s best to adopt something to counter the huge gap.
again, it understand those that complains that they do not like face me or my comrades full of PPSH/fgs whatever when they just started. and i don’t blain them if they keep complaining.
and it’s not with " when i started this game, we had no matchmaker. so l2p. skill issue!!1!1 " mentality that it’s going to solve the present issue.
that’s what i mean.
Campaign level sound like more rigid player segregation and also equipment segregation I would like to avoid. But we will see.
I would say not that it is impossible to define a player, but that using a simple system based on a single variable like levels instead of a complex algorithm is the easiest possible way to do it.
It sounds like depending on the implementation I could never see a Puma, Sherman or a bolt-action again (except in new campaigns). This is something I’m thinking about avoiding, and wish I would at least encounter them in game from time to time.
And for me this is not about tanks or anything else. I play 90% infantry, and i problably play tanks the least. But I also don’t have problems when I do, even when my opponent is the one considered OP.
Also it was fun when i recently grinded Hs-123 and shooting down IL’s and Yaks.
Most games in match makes do in fact quantify players, usually by their win rate and various measures of battlefield effectiveness to include in the matchmaker.
I’m all for making it easier for new or even weaker players to make sure the player base grows or at least doesn’t shrink, but again I wouldn’t do that above a certain player rating, because it is not a problem for them and they are not abandoning the game because of that.
Perhaps mix it up to some extent. After the ‘grace period’ of first 50 games if a player is of a certain lower rating, matchmaker keeps favoring that player and every 8 in 10 games, and 2 in 10 in a less favorable game, more like they look now.
This is a less an example of a less strict system I would personally prefere, and could achieve most of what Gaijin wants to achieve.
2 Likes
then that it is that you will give to axis? jadpanther?