Panthers, are they ok?

[MEFISTO]

Again, I don’t want a panther being over run buy cheaper allies 76 or race 76 tank any ways a panther is going to be more expensive than any of those 76, plus allies can spam them easy with a fully supply yard upgrade.
I am against any touch to panther armor.

[MEFISTO]

It was meant to be “a medium tank” but, by weight and gun capabilities become into other categories “heavy tank”

[Viper]

Again, I don’t want a panther being over run buy cheaper allies 76 or race 76 tank any ways a panther is going to be more expensive than any of those 76, plus allies can spam them easy with a fully supply yard upgrade.
I am against any touch to panther armor.

+1

So i asume you are telling me.
Sacrifice the variety of docs so the Panther can stay as it is.
I think THAT sounds unfair to call at leased.

Mate, the variety of the doctrines was sacrificed long time ago when the decision was taken to make them 1v1 oriented.
At some point, you WILL HAVE TO sacrifice it even more.. otherwise you break the UNITS. Now it's the Panther, tomorrow it's the Tiger1, next week it's the Pershing, next month every unit in the game will have to be re-worked... HELL NO.
I would rather see the doctrines re-worked all over again, and not to keep messing around with the units like this...

Most units in the game currently have valid TT stats, models at good standing, correct animation and perfectly working in-game physics.. with the Panther being one of the most fine-tuned units in the entire game.

As someone currently studying a game development degree, i recommend that you balance the docs around the units, not the opposite... Specifically that most units in Bk Mod have been worked on for many years; Most of which require no further tweaking, unless a glitch emerges.

+1

[Consti255]

As someone currently studying a game development degree, i recommend that you balance the docs around the units, not the opposite... Specifically that most units in Bk Mod have been worked on for many years; Most of which require no further tweaking, unless a glitch emerges.

This is again your well know habbit Tiger. I really like you as a player,human and so on and i have a blast playing with you!
But when i goes arround balancing its just your habbit of: it is good as it is! Trust me because i know it.
While other players and even more experienced players like mencius (it is just an example!!!!!!) saying something has to change.

Answerting on that sacrifices. Thats just a no no for me. Every doc got standout and very different units (the only one that needs a lock at in sort of that is AB in my opinion). As you posted about the recent patch. YES i totally agree with you on that it is been one of best patches ever or even the best.
I dont think that sacrafices is any nescessary, when you can tweak some numbers instead of making a whole doc rework or unit switching between docs.

[Consti255]

It was meant to be “a medium tank” but, by weight and gun capabilities become into other categories “heavy tank”

It is a called out medium which is undenieable. It took the role of a medium tank and worked like it. So the weight doesnt change the fact at all.
Also argueing on historically based balance suggestions doesnt mean anything in this PvP oriented mod.

[Krieger Blitzer]

This is again your well know habbit Tiger. I really like you as a player,human and so on and i have a blast playing with you!
But when i goes arround balancing its just your habbit of: it is good as it is! Trust me because i know it.
While other players and even more experienced players like mencius (it is just an example!!!!!!) saying something has to change.

Answerting on that sacrifices. Thats just a no no for me. Every doc got standout and very different units (the only one that needs a lock at in sort of that is AB in my opinion). As you posted about the recent patch. YES i totally agree with you on that it is been one of best patches ever or even the best.
I dont think that sacrafices is any nescessary, when you can tweak some numbers instead of making a whole doc rework or unit switching between docs.

Well, that is your opinion; i totally respect it.. and i also respect the opinion of all other expert players on this matter.
There are those who agree with my viewpoint, and those who agree with yours.

What happens at the end is up to the BK devs.. they can review all these discussions and choose to either pick a middle ground, or follow certain side.

[Warhawks97]

Again, I don’t want a panther being over run buy cheaper allies 76 or race 76 tank any ways a panther is going to be more expensive than any of those 76, plus allies can spam them easy with a fully supply yard upgrade.
I am against any touch to panther armor.

"More expensive". Right now, yes, you can get 3 sherman for the fuel cost of 1 panther. But thats what we want to change. We are fed up with panthers winning alone vs 4 tanks and bounce most point blank shots even when those use HVAP.

With our suggested prices, Panthers would cost arround tiwce the fuel of a 76 sherman and only arround 50% more rather than 100% more.

So "cheaper" is just a matter of definition. Its like everybody only reads "Weaker armor, less HP" but nobody reads "cheaper cost" in exchange.

It was meant to be “a medium tank” but, by weight and gun capabilities become into other categories “heavy tank”

In 1939 the french Charr B1 with 32 tons was a heavy tank with no anti tank gun at that time being able to pen it. Only the 88 could.
In 1942, the sherman with its 32 tons (and even up to 38 tons) was a common medium tank. Fact is that the Panther was designed as a medium Tank and a replacment of the Panzer. In 1944 Germany build more Panthers than Panzer IV´s.

So, its was a mainstay medium tank for the german tank forces, though often labled as an heavy tank due to its behaviour by allied. Also allied first thought its a heavy tank like a tiger and expected only small numbers of them. Untill it turned out that this tank was in fact the new german medium tank,

But it doesnt really matter in this discussion.


Current situation:

Sherman staying at point blank to a Panther has a 30% pen chance. That drops to 16,2% at max range and even 14.58% vs Panther G. Even with HVAP this remains as low as 25% and 22.5% vs the G. Its barely worth activating AP at all.

The furthest i would suggest to go is 38% at point blank range. That would translate into 20.52% at max range. The Panther G received pen modifier gets changed from 0.9 to 0.95 which then translate to 19.5% pen at max range. HVAP would give a reasonable 30% pen vs Panther G at max range. Keep in mind Panther pens any sherman except jumbo with 100% chance with basic AP. On top of that Panthers have also more range and better mobility than 76 shermans.

If that makes you see a Panther "getting overruned by 76 shermans", well then i cant help you.

[MEFISTO]

It was meant to be “a medium tank” but, by weight and gun capabilities become into other categories “heavy tank”

It is a called out medium which is undenieable. It took the role of a medium tank and worked like it. So the weight doesnt change the fact at all.
Also argueing on historically based balance suggestions doesnt mean anything in this PvP oriented mod.

You are wrong, weight is the line to fallow to classify between all this kind of vehicle ( like tanks, trucks, airplanes etc...) also panthers don’t have medium vehicles armor at all, and it’s canon can perform at some ranges better than a tiger1 88mm gun, panther is not a medium tank at all.

[MEFISTO]

Again, I don’t want a panther being over run buy cheaper allies 76 or race 76 tank any ways a panther is going to be more expensive than any of those 76, plus allies can spam them easy with a fully supply yard upgrade.
I am against any touch to panther armor.

"More expensive". Right now, yes, you can get 3 sherman for the fuel cost of 1 panther. But thats what we want to change. We are fed up with panthers winning alone vs 4 tanks and bounce most point blank shots even when those use HVAP.

With our suggested prices, Panthers would cost arround tiwce the fuel of a 76 sherman and only arround 50% more rather than 100% more.

So "cheaper" is just a matter of definition. Its like everybody only reads "Weaker armor, less HP" but nobody reads "cheaper cost" in exchange.

It was meant to be “a medium tank” but, by weight and gun capabilities become into other categories “heavy tank”

In 1939 the french Charr B1 with 32 tons was a heavy tank with no anti tank gun at that time being able to pen it. Only the 88 could.
In 1942, the sherman with its 32 tons (and even up to 38 tons) was a common medium tank. Fact is that the Panther was designed as a medium Tank and a replacment of the Panzer. In 1944 Germany build more Panthers than Panzer IV´s.

So, its was a mainstay medium tank for the german tank forces, though often labled as an heavy tank due to its behaviour by allied. Also allied first thought its a heavy tank like a tiger and expected only small numbers of them. Untill it turned out that this tank was in fact the new german medium tank,

But it doesnt really matter in this discussion.


Current situation:

Sherman staying at point blank to a Panther has a 30% pen chance. That drops to 16,2% at max range and even 14.58% vs Panther G. Even with HVAP this remains as low as 25% and 22.5% vs the G. Its barely worth activating AP at all.

The furthest i would suggest to go is 38% at point blank range. That would translate into 20.52% at max range. The Panther G received pen modifier gets changed from 0.9 to 0.95 which then translate to 19.5% pen at max range. HVAP would give a reasonable 30% pen vs Panther G at max range. Keep in mind Panther pens any sherman except jumbo with 100% chance with basic AP. On top of that Panthers have also more range and better mobility than 76 shermans.

If that makes you see a Panther "getting overruned by 76 shermans", well then i cant help you.

Even if you make this 100 fuel still you will face 76 spam plus race tanks like hellcat, Achilles, m10, comets, Jackson’s etc... then still axis player easy lost vs any cheap spam.
Example airborne can spam Sherman’s have a hellcat (I would them have no limit in airborne doctrine) and AT air strikes, so BK doctrine RIP 🪦. And I don’t wanna talk about armor 76mm spam.
Again no 100%,

[Consti255]

It was meant to be “a medium tank” but, by weight and gun capabilities become into other categories “heavy tank”

It is a called out medium which is undenieable. It took the role of a medium tank and worked like it. So the weight doesnt change the fact at all.
Also argueing on historically based balance suggestions doesnt mean anything in this PvP oriented mod.

You are wrong, weight is the line to fallow to classify between all this kind of vehicle ( like tanks, trucks, airplanes etc...) also panthers don’t have medium vehicles armor at all, and it’s canon can perform at some ranges better than a tiger1 88mm gun, panther is not a medium tank at all.

okay the germans back than are wrong which classified them. Ok buddy.
It was the Panzer 5 aka the replacement of the P4.
Germans new medium tank.
As Hawks said. More Panthers were builded since 1944 becuase they are the outspoken successor of the P4 by the germans.
What have the gun capabilitys to do with the classification? It was lighter gun than a 88 it was just straight up more modern.
If the germans aimed for a new Heavy tank (what they did with the KT) they wouldve gave them a bigger gun at this state of the war.
The Tiger was an older vehicle with the way older KwK 36.
The Panther was just a more modern medium. lol.

To your armor standpoint:
It were defnitly medium armor numbers copmpared to what time it was fielded. It has a hull armor of max. 100mm. What gae him his brilliant protection was the angle shape of the hull itself combined with the thickness. Shermans had a sloped hull with up to 76mm.

Germans heavy to that time equalent the King Tiger had 185mm at max. and the IS2 which you mentionend was just a really light heavy tank with a max of 120mm sloped. You see were i am going to right?

I am not here to argue about drawn out facts but here you can see a german discription of the Panther itself:
Mit etwa 45 t Gewicht war der Panther für einen mittleren Panzer sehr schwer (manche schweren Panzer der Gegenseite waren leichter), sein Fahrwerk und der starke Motor verliehen ihm aber eine sehr gute Mobilität.

It means: the Panther (with 45t) was for its middle class a pretty heavy tank (even heavy tanks of the opponents were lighter), his transmission and strong motorblock gave him his good mobility.

It was just a heavy (weight not classification) medium tank from the germans. Not debateable or anthing. Period.

[Warhawks97]

Even if you make this 100 fuel still you will face 76 spam plus race tanks like hellcat, Achilles, m10, comets, Jackson’s etc... then still axis player easy lost vs any cheap spam.
Example airborne can spam Sherman’s have a hellcat (I would them have no limit in airborne doctrine) and AT air strikes, so BK doctrine RIP 🪦. And I don’t wanna talk about armor 76mm spam.
Again no 100%,

So, i assume you play 1 vs 3 on a regular basis?

When you alone face Comets, Hellcats, achilles all at once, there must be several enemies. But that usually means teammates as well which can build TD´s Panthers, Tigers etc.


When the cost are down to like 680 or 660 MP, you can easily get an medium AT gun for the cost of what one panther currently cost that can protect you against Race tanks, or simply schreck squads. You guys are behaving like the Panther is the only unit on the field ..... Oh, wait, it is. Why? Because it costs so much. What about dropping cost of Panthers so that you can support it with other units? Oh, cool what a nice idea. Thats what we are talking about for the last 4 pages and three topics now...


Its this funny believe i am encountering over the years when it comes to axis unit. Every single player believes that he must be able to beat the entire enemie team by its own, while the enemie must play as team to beat him.

[MEFISTO]

Even if you make this 100 fuel still you will face 76 spam plus race tanks like hellcat, Achilles, m10, comets, Jackson’s etc... then still axis player easy lost vs any cheap spam.
Example airborne can spam Sherman’s have a hellcat (I would them have no limit in airborne doctrine) and AT air strikes, so BK doctrine RIP 🪦. And I don’t wanna talk about armor 76mm spam.
Again no 100%,

So, i assume you play 1 vs 3 on a regular basis?

When you alone face Comets, Hellcats, achilles all at once, there must be several enemies. But that usually means teammates as well which can build TD´s Panthers, Tigers etc.


When the cost are down to like 680 or 660 MP, you can easily get an medium AT gun for the cost of what one panther currently cost that can protect you against Race tanks, or simply schreck squads. You guys are behaving like the Panther is the only unit on the field ..... Oh, wait, it is. Why? Because it costs so much. What about dropping cost of Panthers so that you can support it with other units? Oh, cool what a nice idea. Thats what we are talking about for the last 4 pages and three topics now...


Its this funny believe i am encountering over the years when it comes to axis unit. Every single player believes that he must be able to beat the entire enemie team by its own, while the enemie must play as team to beat him.

Reducing panther price will come with a panther spam, even if they get a bit nerf still will be powerful and it will bring the same problem “pls nerf panthers bla bla bla” and start everything again, and if you keep nerfing then we will have a PIV .

[MEFISTO]

It is a called out medium which is undenieable. It took the role of a medium tank and worked like it. So the weight doesnt change the fact at all.
Also argueing on historically based balance suggestions doesnt mean anything in this PvP oriented mod.

You are wrong, weight is the line to fallow to classify between all this kind of vehicle ( like tanks, trucks, airplanes etc...) also panthers don’t have medium vehicles armor at all, and it’s canon can perform at some ranges better than a tiger1 88mm gun, panther is not a medium tank at all.

okay the germans back than are wrong which classified them. Ok buddy.
It was the Panzer 5 aka the replacement of the P4.
Germans new medium tank.
As Hawks said. More Panthers were builded since 1944 becuase they are the outspoken successor of the P4 by the germans.
What have the gun capabilitys to do with the classification? It was lighter gun than a 88 it was just straight up more modern.
If the germans aimed for a new Heavy tank (what they did with the KT) they wouldve gave them a bigger gun at this state of the war.
The Tiger was an older vehicle with the way older KwK 36.
The Panther was just a more modern medium. lol.

To your armor standpoint:
It were defnitly medium armor numbers copmpared to what time it was fielded. It has a hull armor of max. 100mm. What gae him his brilliant protection was the angle shape of the hull itself combined with the thickness. Shermans had a sloped hull with up to 76mm.

Germans heavy to that time equalent the King Tiger had 185mm at max. and the IS2 which you mentionend was just a really light heavy tank with a max of 120mm sloped. You see were i am going to right?

I am not here to argue about drawn out facts but here you can see a german discription of the Panther itself:
Mit etwa 45 t Gewicht war der Panther für einen mittleren Panzer sehr schwer (manche schweren Panzer der Gegenseite waren leichter), sein Fahrwerk und der starke Motor verliehen ihm aber eine sehr gute Mobilität.

It means: the Panther (with 45t) was for its middle class a pretty heavy tank (even heavy tanks of the opponents were lighter), his transmission and strong motorblock gave him his good mobility.

It was just a heavy (weight not classification) medium tank from the germans. Not debateable or anthing. Period.

Armors are classified by weight, forget the gun example.

[Warhawks97]

Dude, why are you always come up with that "PZ IV thing".


As said, the Pz VI gets penetrated with a 64% chance from max range from 76 guns. AP and ambush basically give you 100% pen.
A Panther, even when we assume base pen of 76 gun increases from current 30% with skirts to 38% with skirts will still be able to bounce a good ammount of shots, just not in an ammount it does now.
And when its HP go down to 700 HP (and thus crits chances), the chances to get away from many danergous situations will be reduced.

Also i think bazookas could be somewhat better in doing their job against Panthers.


All that means that allied will not face high veted almost immortal Panthers in such ammounts.


The panther, even with suggested tweaks, will still be lightyears ahead of Panzer IV´s. So stop using that "Panzer IV anecdote" just because Panthers get some slight tweaks.

The drop from 800 to 700 HP would it make a lot more difficult to get out alive from ambushes or to outright the ambush. Many times a Panther drives into a 17 pdr ambush, gets penetrated first, but due to its HP stays alive and destroyes the ambush before escaping. So ambushes in general would become a more viable strategy against panthers, even when they will hit the field more often in general.

[MEFISTO]

I won’t change my mind, you explained good, what you want is a Panther nerf, And I am no agree with that, it’s that simple.

[Consti255]

Armors are classified by weight, forget the gun example.

Even than. It is classified as medium tank by the germans.
I didnt choosed it to be a medium nor you.

And yes i am tired of this dogshit P4 anecdote. Its anoying as hell.

[MEFISTO]

Armors are classified by weight, forget the gun example.

Even than. It is classified as medium tank by the germans.
I didnt choosed it to be a medium nor you.

And yes i am tired of this dogshit P4 anecdote. Its anoying as hell.

Lol , greetings my friend!

[kwok]

Rather than making a forum poll, made a google poll since the subject is much more nuanced. The topic is on Panther tanks. Please participate here: https://forms.gle/36P33UShCD5HjGeK8

[Warhawks97]

Difficult poll. And question hard to answer. Like "is the panther balanced?"...in which doc? Esspecially D has two different build costs.


Also "how many shots it should take to kill it?"..... like usually it depends on damage roll how many shots it takes, esspecially for inf anti tank weapons.


Anyways, i hope you can do something with it.

[MarKr]

The questions ask how many pen.shots from 76mm, 90mm and infantry-AT it should take to destroy it. Not "how many shots it takes on average now".

It aims to tell us what people see as "optimal" performance of those guns/weapons vs Panthers.

[Krieger Blitzer]

While i might agree with Hawks how the poll might be a bit too detailed for some players.. yet, i hope as many people would take the time to participate with their opinions.

P.S
For the pen chances, i would assume this at max range? I answered accordingly.

[Consti255]

yes max range.

[Red]

Basically what I seem to see is that broadly spaking there are two camps:

• Panther is good as it is, leave it.

• Panther is too expensive, so it should be cheaper at the trade-off of being easier to kill.

In case the first route is followed, there is not much to do in terms of Panther.


In case the second route is followed, I would like to bring in the following idea, which leverages on the information provided in this thread:
How Does Combat/Damage Work?

From a historical perspective, the Panther had excellent front armor. However, especially in the later years of the war (44/45), there were issues with the steel quality of the armor. On the other hand, it only came later in the war, that the front of the turret was changed to not get lucky shots bouncing off at a downward angle first and then penetrating the top ("shot trap").

I understand the second route as basically changing the way the allied 76mm perform against the Panther (and making the Panther cheaper in return).
While there would be the way of changing the penetration of the allied 76mm guns against the Panther, I propose to follow a different route.
I hope to understand correctly, that even in case there is no penetration and a deflection occurs, there still is a crit-table that comes into play. My proposal would be to tune this crit table, so that even in case of a hit by a 76mm gun which would normally result in a deflection, there still is a slightly increased chance that a critical hit occurs. This basically reflects a occasion where for the earlier models a lucky hit in the shot trap occured, and for the later models it marks the unlucky occasion for the crew that a brittle spot of armor was hit.

I hope this could provide a compromise where the historically strong Panther armor is not reduced (penetration unchanged), but it still becomes easier to disable or destroy a Panther for the allied 76mm guns, in a way one could consider broadly in line with history.
In turn of course the cost of the Panther would be reduced, I was thinking somewhere to the Firefly-Jumbo region.
The hard part I see would be how to tune this deflection crit chance to get to this price range.

Happy to collect further views!

PS: As differnet topics I see:

• What to do with the Panzer IV?

• What to do with the Pershing?

• If this is done, we need to do X in doc Y (this is something I see as a second step once it is clear what happens to the unit in question)

[Consti255]

From a historical perspective, the Panther had excellent front armor. However, especially in the later years of the war (44/45), there were issues with the steel quality of the armor. On the other hand, it only came later in the war, that the front of the turret was changed to not get lucky shots bouncing off at a downward angle first and then penetrating the top ("shot trap").

Even tho it does make sense and is accurate. History dont enflict the game overall in therms of pen etc.
I think it wouldnt even makes sense because the whole game is just playing out on ranges that are more or neither 50m away.

I hope this could provide a compromise where the historically strong Panther armor is not reduced (penetration unchanged), but it still becomes easier to disable or destroy a Panther for the allied 76mm guns, in a way one could consider broadly in line with history.
In turn of course the cost of the Panther would be reduced, I was thinking somewhere to the Firefly-Jumbo region.
The hard part I see would be how to tune this deflection crit chance to get to this price range.

Dedicated at the Panther fanboys:
I dont get why people always say: Jumbo.
It is such a nishe unit and normally just a tanky HE tank which still struggles vs Panthers and Shreks.
it is just available in 2 docs and normally just comes in 1 doc, because every inf doc player needs the 90mm gun from the jackson.
So you always say ahhh allies have the Jumbo just buff it!
No... It has a whole different purpose than the Panther and is not the outspoken "counterpart",

PS: As differnet topics I see:

• What to do with the Panzer IV?

• What to do with the Pershing?

• If this is done, we need to do X in doc Y (this is something I see as a second step once it is clear what happens to the unit in question)

And again and again.
I dont know how often i need to tell this:
Grab the problem at his core!
Just tweak the god damn Panther instead changing all other allied units.
The only Units that should be looked at on the allied side are : Pershings and Jacksons.
And not even this when we can change the Panther and see the outcome of it.

I still believe that balancing an entire game around a single unit is absolutely ridiculous rather than addressing the unit itself.

The current panther is too expensive. If you fall behind you are fucked, if you lose it without having fuel to float on, you can get fucked. Changing the panther is the best for the health of the game without this horrible cascading chain of events.

The current panther is also just blatantly overpowered. Killed all the infantry? Go on a killing spree without much worry and drive straight to their base is usually how panthers win games. You can't? Then build an economic advantage and build more panthers, whilst your enemy is slowly starved of all their resources and counters. Incredibly emergent gameplay there.

Give all doctrines a 76 Jumbo? Another balance nightmare in the making. They usually bring a similar situation that the panther does, albeit to a far less reliable degree. The exception here is that Jumbos have a unit limit.

There are three things that need to be changed with tanks right now:

The Panthers and the Pershings must be changed. Their current gameplay and balance state is atrocious. When the "hISoRiCaL" argument is used, its still absolutely atrocious.

The Panzer IV and it's iterations must be brought closer together and given stronger purpose like Sherman's right now. Excluding the Easy Eight as its upgrade is extremely vague at the moment.

What is the F2? A cheap early game to the M4 that is better in anti tank combat, yet can still lose if outplayed/bad rng. Okay cool. Give it a purchasable roof MG42 (prerequisite in the HQ) so it may remain relevant like how the M4 sherman does with it's roof mounted 50 cal.

What is the F2 when the 76 rolls around? Free EXP and Veterency. This is fine, its a tier above, so what. Get the upgraded Panzer IV J? Sure, but if you lose this tank you have lost more resources than the investment to the 76 was. The axis' middle ground tank is garbage. For most people it is more economically viable to wait to get to 880 manpower and 130 fuel for a far superior tank than it would be to get one that is 550 manpower and 65 fuel. Especially when this tank can just simply end the game.

CP comparison between the Panther and Pershing? A panther for Blitz cost 6, a panther for luft cost 5. A panther for Tank Support Cost 8. A Pershing for Armor costs 8.

When using Blitzkrieg Doctrine, the Panther tank can be furthered buff to a ridiculous degree with the Blitzkrieg ability, ensuring that it will win any engagement.

Adding more Jacksons, Jumbos, or anything won't do anything to address the problem. It'll actually just exacerbate it further.

As for the Super Pershing? I despise this unit. It turns entire games about this unit and leads to an incredibly boring game of cat and mouse. Its a desperation unit that is a symptom of the current problem. Despite this being a tank directly designed to kill King Tigers, it probably ends up killing and dying more to panthers.

Again, I am in the belief that a nerfed panther will be better for the entire health of the game. There will be heathier and more proactive counter play, rather than this cancerous fester of "passive anti-tank" that people suggest. The panther will also become cheaper and thus will be more readily available to build for everyone. Addressing the Medium mid tier tank game and buffing the F2 is a priority as well. Ensuring that the Panther and Pershing can square off each other while still being able to reliably win against other tanks in 1v1s is also extremely important. Neither of these tanks should get off scot free from engagements with absolute certainty.

I just wanna stress Drescher post.
He brought up everything i had to say aswell.
The Panther vs Pershing Matchup, The balance issue with the SP (when you want to change something the Axis players say "YOU GOT THE SP")

[Viper]

Grab the problem at his core!
Just tweak the god damn Panther instead changing all other allied units.
The only Units that should be looked at on the allied side are : Pershings and Jacksons.

first, the problem at its core is not the panther.....the problem at its core is pershing and jackson.
before doctrines rework......no one complained at panthers......because pershing was 5 command points.....but after the doctrines rework.......now the pershing is 8 command points.....so why is the pershing 8 command points?......and how is jumbo reward to jackson

you ask to reduce panther armor to be same like tigers.......and i ask....should the health of panther increase to 1000 points like tigers too?