You clearly didn't read his post because your argument is completely made up of straw man's
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
My opinion (i often play 12. SS):
- 130 for Pz4 H
- 120 for Pz4 J
- No increase in range.
Shouldn't try to drastic changes. Pz4 is good in some situations but M4A3(75) is better fighting infantry and MUCH better in head-to-head combat vs Pz4. And the cost is 130 for Sherman V or M4A3(75) in most allied decks.
Additional to that 12. SS have terrible income rate compared to Guards and 3rd for example. Pz4 is a good complement to fight aside a Panther or Tiger, but an expensive complement. So price buff would do for now.
- 130 for Pz4 H
- 120 for Pz4 J
- No increase in range.
Shouldn't try to drastic changes. Pz4 is good in some situations but M4A3(75) is better fighting infantry and MUCH better in head-to-head combat vs Pz4. And the cost is 130 for Sherman V or M4A3(75) in most allied decks.
Additional to that 12. SS have terrible income rate compared to Guards and 3rd for example. Pz4 is a good complement to fight aside a Panther or Tiger, but an expensive complement. So price buff would do for now.
You must have quoted the wrong post then. Fairly reasonable mistake, though it doesn't contribute much either.
Remember that the M4A3(75) does not deserve the price it currently has in the 3AD. That is a discount price Eugen gave it to make it more appealing (it is flat out better than the M4A1 for the same price after all). Its actual price is 140-150 depending on which patch you consider they started the discount mentality with.
Most allied decks don't get the Sherman V/A3(75) but I agree largely. The problem with the P4 is that the situations in which it beats shermans are the situations where you take 1200m options instead like marders, jp4, stugiv, etc. At max range the p4 is slightly better than the late model sherman 75s because 6 acc is better than 5 acc when everything else is equal but then, at max range, why am i not playing a 1200m option?
PLSSSSSS... Dont talk about 1.2km buffs!!!! U all saw what happend to 17.SS when i stupidly pushed for a 1.2km stug.. im sorry btw, i totaly underastemated the amount of salt on there end 
But yes. Pz4 is usless atm.. I think the biggest problem is less its pricing but more to find on the amount of extremly cheap 1.2km tanks on Us side. And the pure amount of vette At guns in combination with the bad soft atack on Pz4s.. Yes the shermans have the same problem, not so havy and defenetly not aganst At guns sins nearly all allied divisions have som sort of 1.2km He. BUT they have a role as support tanks sins they are so powerfull aganst soft tagets. Oh and well they ave the stupid Stabalizzard crews that aim magicly faster.. damen lizzard man..
The Pz4 needs a more veristale role on the feald. Shure a small price buff would be good. But what i rly would liek to see is somthing like the damen AA MG added to it. Giving it more soft atack and self defens AA, like shermans have.. And ether get rid of the stupid stabalizer on shermans, or make it a 1km tank thing so ther is a real reason to take a pz4 and sherman in closer range combat. In its currend form, ther is absolutly no reason to take a Pz4 in any division exept the 9.PzD.. well they dont rly have any other tank, and if u would take that instead.
But yes. Pz4 is usless atm.. I think the biggest problem is less its pricing but more to find on the amount of extremly cheap 1.2km tanks on Us side. And the pure amount of vette At guns in combination with the bad soft atack on Pz4s.. Yes the shermans have the same problem, not so havy and defenetly not aganst At guns sins nearly all allied divisions have som sort of 1.2km He. BUT they have a role as support tanks sins they are so powerfull aganst soft tagets. Oh and well they ave the stupid Stabalizzard crews that aim magicly faster.. damen lizzard man..
The Pz4 needs a more veristale role on the feald. Shure a small price buff would be good. But what i rly would liek to see is somthing like the damen AA MG added to it. Giving it more soft atack and self defens AA, like shermans have.. And ether get rid of the stupid stabalizer on shermans, or make it a 1km tank thing so ther is a real reason to take a pz4 and sherman in closer range combat. In its currend form, ther is absolutly no reason to take a Pz4 in any division exept the 9.PzD.. well they dont rly have any other tank, and if u would take that instead.
.png){kind=avatar}
I already tossed my vote in for a 130-point Pz4 H, but I'll just ++ this again. Those two changes are what ought to happen.
Slightly less than half, not most.
The 3rd and the Guards get them for 130, as a discount because they were both pretty bad before The Division Bell. IMHO, the Guards is still kind of marginal even with it, but it is sure nice to have the discounted tanks. The SSB gets them at 130, presumably because they've got only 3 tank slots and no AT guns before C.
The French get the (75) for 140, although they do have a fairly appealing A2 variant for 130 with lower armor. Pretty nice, although I haven't seen any France players in months.
Canada and Poland pay 150. Lastly, the Scots get a 120-point Sherman II with less speed, AP, and AV.
The 130-point Sherman 75 or V is undeniably underpriced. It was presented by Eugene as a "discount" for the 3rd Armored to compensate for them being generally weak pre-Division Bell, as a way to make them better while still keeping the focused on armored warfare. That's the reason for the Guards having a 70-point 2" mortar, too; it's intentionally overpriced to make them rubbish at infantry fire support. Some units are intentionally under- or over-priced. I'm not sure I agree with that design philosophy, but that's how it is.
Although I support your changes, I think the 12th SS are fine. They're an excellent division and my favorite Axis armored division. They get tanks that outclass anything the Allies can reply with at every phase of the game, and except for AIR all of their other tabs range from acceptable to good. The 12th simply have the best deck with the least compromises of anyone in the game. Having somewhat subpar income and medium tanks is a pretty reasonable tradeoff for this.
On the other hand, pretty much any of the other Axis armored decks make a good case for cheaper Pz4s, IMHO.
Last edited:
12th ss is far from being the best deck when it gets wrecked 100% of the time to 4th armour. if you want to win in 1v1 you need to pick 4th or scots.... time for a change...
Disagree, 12SS is by far my strongest and most reliable German deck
Here you can see one of the biggest problems of this game: A Symmetric Balance Attitude.
You argue that Sherman A3(75)/V are better in every aspect... yet you push for the SAME price.
It's not like Allies are since release, except for a short 3. FschJg intermezzo, OP in 1vs1.
I'm pretty much only reading here anymore, just for the lol's. It is just funny how the game died due to boring long term gameplay and especially bad Eugen support and balancing... yet people living in their imaginary bubble of a healthy game pushing here for small changes... nothing drastic please... it's not like the game is dead and needs drastic changes.
The balance is reactive and not proactive as is the playerbase and that's one of the reasons why this game died.
Have a good day boys... you know what you're doing.
Ah yes, the old 'every german tank should be 1200m to the point that the only 1000m tanks are the old french tanks and sherman/cromwell/churchill 75s' argument.
1. Symmetry Attitude again
2. Better making German tanks rare, as it was, than making PzIV more spamable than Shermans, as it wasn't.
3. That the Armament of PzIV is closer to a 76 than to a 75 is still of no relevance... especially when the same gun already got 1200m in another division. Realism (in terms of correct relations)? Unimportant.
Last edited:
I like panzer IV, just saying. It WOULD be nice to get a pair in A for appropriate decks.
I like the 12. SS, other wise i wouldn't play them, but I think we would see more of the Pz4 in 12. SS-play (and other Axis armoured decks) instead of the pile of Tiger/Panther if the Pz4 was better priced vs the overall performance of the tank. The work horse of the Wehrmacht is a rare sight on the SD-battlefield compared to Tiger/Panther in a historical point of wiev, does not feel realistic. It would be great for the game very much if the Pz4 actually was to be an option vs Tiger/Panther. I would love to use Pz4 in greater numbers against som Allied decks where I now prioritize bringing at least one Tiger. Two Pz4 J instead of one Tiger (if price is set to 120) would be a option instead of bringing the Tiger and then maybe one Pz4 J the tick after that. I would for sure change my 12. SS-deck if Pz4 H/J would be changed to 130(H) resp. 120(J). The C-card of Tiger would be changed for a card of one-star Pz4 H and i would use my Pz4 J in phase B in more situations if the price was cut by 5.
And now to all of you who like revolutionary changes, 5 or 10 points cheaper tanks makes a bigger difference then you think. How often are you not in the situation where you lack 5 or 10 points and have to wait a whole f*cking minute before you are able to send out a unit you desperatly need? If Pz4 would get price reduction AND range improvements it would make 12. SS and other Axis armoured decks to good compared to Allied decks. So i stand my ground, price reduction will be sufficient for now - dont mess with range.
Overall I am happy with the most balancing acts of Eugen, the game had serious problems in the past, but small changes here and there would still be welcome. Especially for Pz4!
Okay, hold on there for a second...
How does the division that has the phase A firefly, the HARDCOUNTER to the entire 4th Armored Division, get wrecked by it "100% of the time"? I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that statement...
1.2km range for all tanks and AT guns. It's just so much simpler.
If we don't do that, I'd rather that divisions that rely on the p4 get buffed with better infantry and AT availability if they're truly weak in a particular phase, or just add a star of vet to the p4. I think it's a pretty good tank (low armor, but fights vs low ap guns so nbd) but I'm pretty sure the only thing giving it 1.2km across the board will accomplish is hastening the day when every tank and AT gun has the same range.
If we don't do that, I'd rather that divisions that rely on the p4 get buffed with better infantry and AT availability if they're truly weak in a particular phase, or just add a star of vet to the p4. I think it's a pretty good tank (low armor, but fights vs low ap guns so nbd) but I'm pretty sure the only thing giving it 1.2km across the board will accomplish is hastening the day when every tank and AT gun has the same range.
I'm honestly not entirely sure the issue with the panzer IV. I find it a good solid tank. I think, if people are unhappy with the dominance of historically rare tanks (panthers and tigers) and the relative low use of panzer IV, the availability of these heavier tanks should be looked at. I do find it silly that in 12SS I can get, what? Like 8 panthers? Maybe more if I tweaked my deck for panther spam.
if you really want panzer 4 to get 5 acc:
panzer 4 and stug 3: 5 acc, 12 AP, 1200m range.
cut down availability and/or veterancy for all panzer4, stug 3 and panther card for all axis divisions in the game. (except for 716 because they don't get any of those)
standard all 75 sherman gun to m4a3(75) standard: 5 acc 11 AP, 1000 range.
lower the price of sherman for basically all allied division in the game, except for the 3ad and guard. use the m4a3(75) and sherman V(m4a4) as the gold standard.
panzer 4 needs a buff, but range increase is a drastic one. It's a workable buff but it will require significant rework to both side to make it work. The stug 4 buff was limited to one division and the buff turned it into one of the best axis deck in team game.
130 point is the "safe" buff. If you truly wants to be proactive you need a good long term plan.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/~
panzer 4 and stug 3: 5 acc, 12 AP, 1200m range.
cut down availability and/or veterancy for all panzer4, stug 3 and panther card for all axis divisions in the game. (except for 716 because they don't get any of those)
standard all 75 sherman gun to m4a3(75) standard: 5 acc 11 AP, 1000 range.
lower the price of sherman for basically all allied division in the game, except for the 3ad and guard. use the m4a3(75) and sherman V(m4a4) as the gold standard.
panzer 4 needs a buff, but range increase is a drastic one. It's a workable buff but it will require significant rework to both side to make it work. The stug 4 buff was limited to one division and the buff turned it into one of the best axis deck in team game.
130 point is the "safe" buff. If you truly wants to be proactive you need a good long term plan.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/~
Last edited:
I think giving the panzer 4 1200m range is a bad idea. The Sherman and Panzer 4 were very comparable tanks, the panzer 4 being the more dated tank but having better crews.
Giving the panzer 4 1200m range would put the Sherman in a historically unfair place, and I think it would be imbalanced. Right now, IMO, the panzer is the better tank for tank v tank battles. People are seemingly complaining because the 8 armor leaves it vulnerable to all AT guns. Well, it was realistically. Neither the Sherman nor the Panzer 4 are really meant for taking hits in the first place.
The panzer fits the bill of building a large tank mass, vs a few bigger tanks.