the panzer 4 is well overdue for a buff

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

The most expensive, slowest and insanely garbage pz 4 is useless. Overshadowed by ALL allied armour, as well as the fact that ALMOST every deck that gets one gets a tank that is 1000 times better (tiger or panther).


Enough is enough.

This tanks is

1. Slowest medium
2. Worst at anit inf.
3. Least armoured
4. NEVER AVAILABLE IN THE ONLY PHASE IT WOULD MATTER IN BECAUSE FLAVOUR

after talking to a couple top 10 leaderboard players(they are allied players btw) we came up with some ideas

• A. Lower cost to 120 points OR
  
• B. Leave cost, increase range of gun to 1100/1200 meters to represent the HISTORICAL advantage it had over the Sherman's 75mm

AND

• C. LET SOME DECKS USED IT IN PHASE A

Before the allied experts come and say hurrrr it has AP advantage, it really doesn't when other mediums have more amour to offset it

Also before you call me a idiot wheraboo, I play both factions 50/50......

 

[DoubleDan68]

I like your ideas.
I honestly can't remember the last time I used a Panzer 4.

12ss, I'd rather used wittman
21st, I'd rather used a Sherman
Lehr, I'd rather use a konigs
Windhund, I'd rather use a pz3
9th panzer, wow a deck where I haven't got a choice lol

 

[ZhukoDim]

Agreed. Germans have a problem to deal with very effective infantry hp which comes from allies infantry. At the same time they don't have cost effective support tanks.

But in general I have a feeling that the biggest problem comes from things like m10 and new m18 vs pz4, stugs. Correct me if I'm wrong but those tank destroyers was designed for some sort of flanking maneuvers or overruns. I don't think it was a good idea for m18 trade shots with pz4 at high ranges.

Maybe to represent this we should lower ranges for m10 and m18 to 1100. I'm not a fun of increasing firing ranges for all german meds because it can lead to a more static play with armor in general. Better reduce range for most problematic units.

Sorry for bad english.

 

[Herr_Robert]

Agreed. It's pretty useless and when I'm playing as 21st Panzer I usually roll with Beute Shermans over Panzer IVs. I only use the Panzer IVGs for their veterancy sometimes, Personally, I think it would be a good idea to lower its price to $120 as you proposed, or give it 1200m range and increase its price to $150-160. 90% of my ranked games are as the Allies, for the record.

 

[Apolyon]

I think this is a bad idea to compare and discuss unit to unit. We should keep in mind the global design intended by the devs.
Pz4 is globally a low-effective tank that could greatly deal against soft target (14AP) and is on par with medium armoured target as Shermans. On the other hand, at the opposite to the Sherman, it was not designed to support/fight infantry and this is why germans have plenty of great HE support guns, i.e. sIG33, sIG18. Finally for hard target and/or long range engagement, germans have plenty of expensive but very usefull cats to do it.
A sligh price buff (~120) and/or some Phase A IV J for 21st Pz are the best propositions imho. 1200-m range will not make it more usefull.

 

[Cherrybomb]

In my opinion it would be a good deal to increase the armour of Pz.Kpfw.IV H/J from 8 to 10 and of Pz.Kpfw.IV G from 6 to 8. With this change the tank is a more serious opponent for Shermans and M10's.

 

[Max_Damage]

please stop playing with gun ranges else all weapons will become 1200m. and pz4 will cost 180.

And +1 for wolverine/hellcat nerf.

 

[dmdelor]

The Pz4 is a bit overpriced, but I'd probably go with a 10-point price cut, for starters. It's somewhere in the ballpark of the 130-point Shermans in terms of capabilities, with a very useful +1 ACC (6 vs 5) but a bunch of trade-offs. (less HE, slower, weaker side protection, I generally think 11/11 is more useful than 14/8 despite being the same AP+FAV, etc)

Right now, though, it's definitely a tank that I'd never take if I had better options. It's also the workhorse for the Schnelle, an armored division, so it seems weird for them to have such a rubbish tank.
(see also Windhunds, but having a weak phase B seems more part of their design whereas the Schnelle seems like it's supposed to have a decent phase B)

While we're at it, the various ACC 4 M4s could use that same 10-point discount, and the Stug III makes no sense for the Schnelle division. The Stug III makes sense in the PZGs because it's elite and has better AP+AV that other things you get in phase A. It makes sense for the FSJ & Landluffe because they've got no better options and as airborne divisions you'd expect them to have weaker armor picks. For the Schelle to have it alongside the mostly superior and cheaper Pz4, OTOH, why? They need to take a page from the PZGs to have the Stug make sense for them- either 1x elite Stug III in phase A, or 2x Stug IV in phase B.

As for phase A Pz4s, I don't really object to it- other divisions get better- but I'm not really sure where that'd fit. It only really makes sense for armored or mechanized divisions, and they've all already got their phase A schticks. (no tanks for Lehr, Pz3 for Hund, Stug for PZG, and Firefly for Jugend) I think it'd make some sense for Schnelle, but I think giving them a elite Stug III so that that vehicle has a place in their deck makes more sense. I've also often said I'd rather the Jugend got 2xPzIV H in phase A and 2xBuete Firefly in phase B instead of 1xFirefly in A, to make them a bit less all-or-nothing in terms of how their armored war plays out, but I doubt that'll happen.

 

[Scolopax]

In my opinion it would be a good deal to increase the armour of Pz.Kpfw.IV H/J from 8 to 10 and of Pz.Kpfw.IV G from 6 to 8. With this change the tank is a more serious opponent for Shermans and M10's.

If we use the M4 Sherman and M5 Stuart as points to compare, then +1 armor at the least seems necessary. Someone please provide better numbers if I'm wrong, but the later Shermans have front armor equivalent to ~90mm, and the earlier ones less. This isn't too far from the 80mm on the Panzer IV H/Js. The 50mm on the front of the Panzer IV G certainly should be higher in game than the ~38mm of the M5 (both are rated at 6), but I feel an argument could also be made that Stuarts are a bit over-armored in game.

I think the Cromwells variants could also go for +1 frontal armor, but that's another topic.

 

[KattiValk]

The Panzer IVs are definitely in a similar situation the M4A3 75mm used to be in. They're overpriced for how easy they are to kill in a threat environment that is designed to bust cats. It doesn't help that the decks with Panzer IVs get cats as a rule so any player worth their salt builds to utterly overkill any IV that tries to show its face.

It's not even that the tank is bad right now. They usually get a fair amount of vet and have a great gun for general AT duty. They definitely can be cheaper and opened up to Phase A. The 12th SS for one could really use Panzer IVs in A to trade out for the Firefly. It is simply asinine to deal with as most decks in the game with the limited Phase A tools you get. Swapping it out for some good Panzer IV cards would make the deck more fun to play and fight against. It's not like the Firefly can't be in B as Beute Shermans are a later phase unit (so Beutes are not A only) and Guards don't even get multi-card Firefly packs till C.

 

[Karlburg]

Yeah the main problem with panzer 4s is that they get absolutely pooped on by the allied anti-cat units.

 

[Grobi]

Imo the 1000 / 1200m range gap should be removed. I'd like to see max range for all tanks, long range performance is simulated by accuracy and penetration values, so why use different hard range caps for the same type of guns (or even exactly the same guns)... why should a Pz4 need to close 200m to fire at a hellcat? Obviously it makes no sense from a realistical pov, however i also don't get what it adds gameplay-wise.

 

[dmdelor]

What it adds is making the 1200m units a harder counter to the 1000m units on open fields, instead of being just generally better overall. This opens up the design space for the units a bit more in terms of making 1000m units more cost effective but 1200m units superior on open fields, without just having units that are apples-to-apples comparisons and rendering everything that's not the best obsolete in that price band obsolete.

Essentially, it creates a stronger niche for units that have a role in fighting across large open areas but are cost-ineffective anywhere sightlines are restricted.

This doesn't often play out in practice in Steel Division, however, and the topic of this thread is a big part of that. The M10A1, Archilles, Challenger, and to a lesser extent the Firefly all are vehicles that should be useful at holding open fields against German 1000m tanks. However, what are they going to hold off? Nobody buys the Pz4 because it's a rubbish buy. What the snipers instead get to shoot at is cheaper tanks, which the Sherman/Cromwell are also good against, and the big cats, which counter the sniper tanks due to superior AP+FAV.

Consequently, I'm not strongly opposed to the idea of just making all tank guns standardized and tweaking the ACC and PEN of the losers/winners in that case. As for how to make tank destroyers special without this, I'd give them higher ROF, higher ACC, and- most importantly- faster aim time when using AP shells. This probably also means a price hike to the M18 and the AV 12+ tank destroyers, although most of the other tank destroyers such as the four listed above, the Marders, the Stug 3s, etc, range from poor to marginal and would probably be fine with a stat buff and no price increase.

There'd be a lot of knock-off effects that would need balancing, though, such as price tweaks to existing 1200m tanks and how this impacts the balance of things like cheaper tanks vs 1200m AT guns, tanks vs SUP direct-fire howitzers, etc. I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing it happen; probably easier just to ask for the Pz4 to get buffed.

 

[IS-2]

allied power creep has really left pz iv in the dust

compare the m10 and m18 to them. wat kind of mental gymnastics does it take to say paying 40 less points for a completely superior tank is "balancing according to each division's needs"

axis divs needs a medium that is worth something. rn playing allied armour division is marianas turkey shoot but with tanks. the Pz.IV is meant to mirror the m4a2/3 75 in capability and cost efficiency yet is massively inferior in both aspects. the sherman stabilizer gives it almost game breaking cost efficiency in tank battle to the point where i actually think giving pz iv 1200m is a good idea now.

The Panzer IVs are definitely in a similar situation the M4A3 75mm used to be in. They're overpriced for how easy they are to kill in a threat environment that is designed to bust cats. It doesn't help that the decks with Panzer IVs get cats as a rule so any player worth their salt builds to utterly overkill any IV that tries to show its face.

It's not even that the tank is bad right now. They usually get a fair amount of vet and have a great gun for general AT duty. They definitely can be cheaper and opened up to Phase A. The 12th SS for one could really use Panzer IVs in A to trade out for the Firefly. It is simply asinine to deal with as most decks in the game with the limited Phase A tools you get. Swapping it out for some good Panzer IV cards would make the deck more fun to play and fight against. It's not like the Firefly can't be in B as Beute Shermans are a later phase unit (so Beutes are not A only) and Guards don't even get multi-card Firefly packs till C.

the tank is bad. the cheaper m4a3 75 is better at literally everything except max range shot trading. the m4a3 75 was never in a bad spot since stabilizer has been added.

and are u serious ? crying about the beute firefly STILL when allies have the most broken deck in history 4AD and have been buffed non stop since beta ? you cant kill a single tank with 2 hellcats, AT guns, an elite sherman and 1-2 AC-130's? HUH??????????????????????????????????

 

[KattiValk]

allied power creep has really left pz iv in the dust

compare the m10 and m18 to them. wat kind of mental gymnastics does it take to say paying 40 less points for a completely superior tank is "balancing according to each division's needs"

axis divs needs a medium that is worth something. rn playing allied armour division is marianas turkey shoot but with tanks. the Pz.IV is meant to mirror the m4a2/3 75 in capability and cost efficiency yet is massively inferior in both aspects. the sherman stabilizer gives it almost game breaking cost efficiency in tank battle to the point where i actually think giving pz iv 1200m is a good idea now.

Allied mediums don't ROFL stomp Panzer IVs. M4A1s are entirely manageable with Panzer IVs provided you understand the concept of sight-line coverage. It's the cat killers that make the Panzer IVs moot for their price. You can't compete with stuff designed to ambush things significantly scarier, especially not at roughly their price range.

the tank is bad. the cheaper m4a3 75 is better at literally everything except max range shot trading. the m4a3 75 was never in a bad spot since stabilizer has been added.

and are u serious ? crying about the beute firefly STILL when allies have the most broken deck in history 4AD and have been buffed non stop since beta ? you cant kill a single tank with 2 hellcats, AT guns, an elite sherman and 1-2 AC-130's? HUH??????????????????????????????????

The M4A3 is supposed to be better, that's why it's worth 150 empirically.

I don't think the Firefly is OP, or unkillable, I do it fairly regularly with 3AD, and that's without using M4A1s. Your childish assumptions make you tiresome to debate.

The point is, the tank is asinine to deal with. It is the staple gimmick of the deck along with the Cromwell, which is rather nonsensical flavor wise. For instance, you do not have to use Beute Shermans or the AB Pak 40, as they have other options in those decks, but the Firefly is much more linchpin in nature. The 12th SS should get some Panzer IVs to play around with in A instead.

And BTW, fighting Firefly with Hellcats is like fighting an M4A3 76mm with Marder IIs. It's not rocket science to funnel the Hellcats in, and since everyone is batting without vet, misses are more frequent, which is to the Firefly's favor as it takes less suppression.

 

[IS-2]

Allied mediums don't ROFL stomp Panzer IVs. M4A1s are entirely manageable with Panzer IVs provided you understand the concept of sight-line coverage. It's the cat killers that make the Panzer IVs moot for their price. You can't compete with stuff designed to ambush things significantly scarier, especially not at roughly their price range.

The M4A3 is supposed to be better, that's why it's worth 150 empirically.

I don't think the Firefly is OP, or unkillable, I do it fairly regularly with 3AD, and that's without using M4A1s. Your childish assumptions make you tiresome to debate.

The point is, the tank is asinine to deal with. It is the staple gimmick of the deck along with the Cromwell, which is rather nonsensical flavor wise. For instance, you do not have to use Beute Shermans or the AB Pak 40, as they have other options in those decks, but the Firefly is much more linchpin in nature. The 12th SS should get some Panzer IVs to play around with in A instead.

And BTW, fighting Firefly with Hellcats is like fighting an M4A3 76mm with Marder IIs. It's not rocket science to funnel the Hellcats in, and since everyone is batting without vet, misses are more frequent, which is to the Firefly's favor as it takes less suppression.

yes the allies phase A roflstomp tanks are manageable with a phase B intended M4A2 equivalent . . . how handy -_-.. and wow u can kill firefly with 3AD? so impressive.... actually no the tank is a meme and easily nullified with common sense

m4a2+ is much more survivable to pak 38 than p4 is to 6pdr. m4a2+ dunks p4 in 600m, dollar store TD and any AT gun dunks them in range. the p4 vulnerability to cat killer 17 pdr vehicle and AT gun means nothing because those counters are actually expensive scarce unit unlike just throwing a 100 point broken tank at it cough m18 m10 or a run of the mill AT gun. if this logic was tru the allied mediums wouldnt be the most cost efficient tanks in the game becos they are getting shot at by 88s and 75mm L/70s

the beute firefly is not asinine to deal with at all. it was very easy to take out with the french and poland and now is target practice for 4AD. 1-2 AC-130s, 2x m18, an elite cmd sherman, 1200m howitzer tanks and 20 point inf spam is asinine to deal with. as a pandered to allied player u are not used to actually having to think in engagements, leading to this pathetic thought that a 200 point AT gun with bigger AV than your tank is 'asinine to deal with'. and your gameplay confirms this.

in all my matches in ranked and/or against top players in 1v1/2v2 not a SINGLE one has used the firefly cost efficiently against me because of a few basic gameplay understandings. the more skilled the players the more OP allies get in relation to axis to the point where axis cant do anything to win in current balance. 12th ss doesnt need phase A P4, its firefly is advanced flavour and a needed unit against allied phase A. 9th or 21st pz could use P4.

 

[FEDunderGrog]

Yeah can someone please tell me why we don't have phase A Panzer 4? It's like they don't want it to be useful

 

[Hawk8762]

I mean the panzer 4 has 6 accuracy vs the m4a1's rather measly 4. Also add in that Shermans can do and bounce of panzer iv RELATIVELY frequently, where as a hit from a panzer 4 on a Sherman is almost always fatal.

IMO, the panzer IV is the superior tank, in a tank v tank role compared to Shermans.
The 75mm Sherman, I believe historically did pack a rather mean HE punch, and should be a better infantry support tank than the panzer.

An argument to get them in A I think is fair, all things considered. I'm not really a fan of giving them 1200m range though, as, looking mainly at the US groups, all of a sudden they never get a tank v tank advantage, as the most basic German tank would then be comparable to the best allied tank destroyer.

 

[IronHat]

1. Slowest medium

actually the m4a1 is slower. the m4 dd are even slower

the rhino is also slower. 12 armor and 10 ap doesn't make it a heavy.

the churchills are definitely slower. The churchil VII might have good armor, but the armor on the churchill IV and churchill vi are not that good.

and the HE on the panzer 4 is only marginally worst than the HE on the sherman.

that said I'm in favor of a buff to the panzer 4.

lowering the panzer 4 price to ~130 is the safe change.
Increasing its gun range to 1200m is going to require a lot of effort to balance out. the stug 4 lost all their vet for the gun range increase and they still come out ahead.

 

[KattiValk]

yes the allies phase A roflstomp tanks are manageable with a phase B intended M4A2 equivalent . . . how handy -_-.. and wow u can kill firefly with 3AD? so impressive.... actually no the tank is a meme and easily nullified with common sense

m4a2+ is much more survivable to pak 38 than p4 is to 6pdr. m4a2+ dunks p4 in 600m, dollar store TD and any AT gun dunks them in range. the p4 vulnerability to cat killer 17 pdr vehicle and AT gun means nothing because those counters are actually expensive scarce unit unlike just throwing a 100 point broken tank at it cough m18 m10 or a run of the mill AT gun. if this logic was tru the allied mediums wouldnt be the most cost efficient tanks in the game becos they are getting shot at by 88s and 75mm L/70s

the beute firefly is not asinine to deal with at all. it was very easy to take out with the french and poland and now is target practice for 4AD. 1-2 AC-130s, 2x m18, an elite cmd sherman, 1200m howitzer tanks and 20 point inf spam is asinine to deal with. as a pandered to allied player u are not used to actually having to think in engagements, leading to this pathetic thought that a 200 point AT gun with bigger AV than your tank is 'asinine to deal with'. and your gameplay confirms this.

in all my matches in ranked and/or against top players in 1v1/2v2 not a SINGLE one has used the firefly cost efficiently against me because of a few basic gameplay understandings. the more skilled the players the more OP allies get in relation to axis to the point where axis cant do anything to win in current balance. 12th ss doesnt need phase A P4, its firefly is advanced flavour and a needed unit against allied phase A. 9th or 21st pz could use P4.

I don't see what's so impressive here? I merely pointed out I didn't think the Firefly was blatantly OP or unkillable and mentioned a division without easy elite AT options to reinforce that. Did you miss the point trying to be insulting?

Do you honestly think Phase B M4A1s are "the most cost-efficient tanks in the game"? Panzer IVs don't just automatically lose under 600m, and still, have around half the entire engagement range between it and Shermans to play with. Unless you're trying to sell the concept that there are literally no sight lines between 500 and 1000m and Panzer IVs are constantly dying to either 1200m or Shermans? They are far from useless, or else 9th Panzer would be a garbage division (which it isn't). What they are is overpriced after several patches of Eugen deciding to be more lenient in their pricing and discounting.

Discrediting a claim with a single ungrounded sentence and then complaining about a bundle of units 8x more expensive as a group? I don't know what aspect of my "gameplay" you're trying to attack, but I've killed enough super priced heavies to know they aren't some crazily difficult unit to remove normally. I find it asinine because you gamble with a 21% CTH and 50% CTP with a sideshot with rookie 6 lbers (commanders don't make this much better, 1/3 vs 1/5, and if you manage to ambush at closer ranges than that then I question your opponent's intelligence) which gives you a 1/10 chance to kill from an advantageous position. Those are asinine odds. It's not gambling at the lotto, but when mortars and Cromwells exist, it might as well be. I've insta-gibbed Fireflies out of spawn, but I've also dumped multiple 76mm into side armor and still have it retreat. Maybe I'm a spoiled WG vet who likes the older system with more reliable damage and HP bars.

The 4AD definitely can be a pain to deal with, specifically as decks like 352nd that are geared for countering more Scot-like unit comp. The lack of Phase B Jagdpanther really shows in that matchup.

But why gimp the 12th SS with a useless unit like Firefly? You seem so spiteful of it after all.