Panthers, are they ok?

[Warhawks97]

Here a Idea what should be done except "new units" in a doc:

- increase 76s pen chance vs frontal armor (This whole debate)
- increase handhelt AT vs frontal armor by a noticeable ammount
- increase 90mm pen vs frontal armor
- increase pershing range and accuracy

Anyone can add some more ideas please.
All in terms of cost reduction for the way to high prices of the Panthers right now.
There is still room to operate like untouching the Panther G armor or anything, but it has to be a GAMEPLAY orriented reason.

you want to nerf panther versus every anti tank option available at its stage

What you consider a nerf is in my opinion not a nerf. I had games the past days were i needed Panthers but could afford only one because it ate all the fuel. That sucks.

You still miss the point of the entire debate. Make it affordable at the cost for somewhat nerfed armor.

And the 90 mm suffers too much from skirts. They are apparently not just skirts, but in fact an extra 100 mm armor plate apparently. From 75% to 60% just because of skirts? Come on.

[Red]

To all of those interested in the historical discussion, I have started a thread on that in the dedicated section:
Tank Armor - Tiger I vs. Panther

Not sure if I will be able to put in my thoughts today, but feel free to already start with your considerations!

Thanks, MarKr for the heads up on this section, with the bookmark to the BK-Mod CoH section I had totally overlooked it!

[Viper]

What you consider a nerf is in my opinion not a nerf.

sorry.....i consider it a big nerf.....if you want to nerf panther........do it elsewhere….i disagree with nerfing armor versus every anti tank option.
this is bigger nerf than to add 90mm in every doctrine......because at least it's 1 anti tank weapon that can hurt panther.....not every anti tank option.

[Warhawks97]

What you consider a nerf is in my opinion not a nerf.

sorry.....i consider it a big nerf.....if you want to nerf panther........do it elsewhere….i disagree with nerfing armor versus every anti tank option.
this is bigger nerf than to add 90mm in every doctrine......because at least it's 1 anti tank weapon that can hurt panther.....not every anti tank option.

I love how people cry "nerf" when combat stats get changed without getting the overall picture.


Also i wouldnt call a 40% pen chance at point blank range as "effective counter". Thing is tank warfare is a lot of theory with "in theory x cant pen y and so on". This is not Star wars or star trek where a unit has a shield that can be penetrated by a certain weapon. A lot of tanks got taken out by weapons not designed to take it out (eg tigers being taken out by 6 pdr guns).

The 76 gun is not becoming an "effective counter" afterall, esspecially not for 1 vs 1 tank engagments. But that change might help to prevent that Panthers get away from insane situations like charging into a 76 ambush and take it out from close range.

Just as the 76 is not intended to counter Panthers, and will never be, even when getting a bit more effective, the Panther is also not intended to charge into any ambush like an idiot and get away with it.


I mean srsly, the Panther has gotten a lot of passive buffs. I remember time when Hellcats could oneshot panthers very reliable from ambsuh due to double damage/pen boosts. Hellcats had been the nightmare for Panther players. No joke. Today all the TD (achilles, hellcat, wolverine) lost a lot of power due to the removal of AP damage boost and weakned ambush bonuses.

So i dont get your outcry at all. You somehow managed to deal with old hellcats and achilles, so you will handle new Panthers. You cant expect to get passive buffs on panthers over years while giving nothing in return.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

That’s a really good point brought up by Hawks. Panthers became such a huge problem exactly after pen and damage boost of the TD’s. Back in the days I used to feel pretty save when I had well ambushed Achilles and a couple of veted commando that could sprint towards the Panther and immobilize it with gammon bombs if there were no supporting units. Whereas now I’ve experienced situations when double ambushed Achilles failed to kill a single Panther.

Also, don’t forget to mention tank commander boosts that received substantial nerfs as well. They used to give quite sufficient penetration boost, 76mm Jumbo at that time could take out Tiger if managed carefully.

[Warhawks97]

That’s a really good point brought up by Hawks. Panthers became such a huge problem exactly after pen and damage boost of the TD’s. Back in the days I used to feel pretty save when I had well ambushed Achilles and a couple of veted commando that could sprint towards the Panther and immobilize it with gammon bombs if there were no supporting units. Whereas now I’ve experienced situations when double ambushed Achilles failed to kill a single Panther.

Also, don’t forget to mention tank commander boosts that received substantial nerfs as well. They used to give quite sufficient penetration boost, 76mm Jumbo at that time could take out Tiger if managed carefully.

true that. Forgot about the commander giving massive pen boosts too.

I cant remember how much it all boosted stuff, but as far as i can remember pen got doubled from ambush and commnader at vte 2 or 3 gave like 25 or even 50% pen boosts.

A Hellcat had, based on numbers in my had, a pen vs Panther off about 56 or 67% from max range from ambush with a damage enough to oneshot panthers. If you waited a bit to let it come closer (what most did) you had like a guranteed kill shot. A double Hellcat ambush was usually a death sentence. The Achilles was usually a an insta kill.

Also what some people did was putting two M10 into ambush mode and use the command vehicle attack ability to boost the pen of each by 50% or so.
Today a achilles most likely doesnt oneshot a Panther and Hellcats and M10 are more often a joke than not.
The point is, Panthers used to be afraid of hidden hellcats with tank commanders and AP activated. It also gave AB a really good tool against panthers.

Today panthers will most of the time just trigger your ambush and blast it.

Considering all this and the fact that you could basically ensure a penetration shot by using the various modifiers available, its all the more laughable how people gonna crying about a slight armor loss.



On top of all that the US 76 mm AT gun had 0.4 base pen vs Panthers. But also against KT´s. The Hellcat and M10 basically had the same pen vs KT as the 17 pdrs had. I remember that i told my guys in the clan to use US Hellcats rather than brits achilles to counter KT´s since both had about the same pen chance. Both at 0.4 base pen (which is what we suggest here now lol). The 76 guns all got adjusted to match with the 76 gun mounted on the Sherman which was weaker vs KT´s. The towed 76 mm AT gun also lost in value since its pen also got adjusted down to 76 sherman lvl. Its a bit stronger as it loses less pen over distance and having better range brackets than tank guns.

[Viper]

i dont know................if you want to take out a panther with only 1 hellcat like in old times........then you surely want to blow up everything frontally with much cheaper counterparts.........sounds very balanced.

of course i remember the times when ambush had more power............and it was crap.

[Warhawks97]

i dont know................if you want to take out a panther with only 1 hellcat like in old times........then you surely want to blow up everything frontally with much cheaper counterparts.........sounds very balanced.

of course i remember the times when ambush had more power............and it was crap.

it was no crap. Thats the essence of placing and using units correctly. Rushing a Panther into an Hellcat ambush that uses HVAP rounds and expect to win is utter bullshit.

As said, at this point we can give up on tactics and moving units and simply look who payed more. The one who payed more for its unit will always win.


And take a look and stugs or the new cheap Jagdpanzer IV/70. They are cheap but effective enough to take out any allied Tank from ambush, even tanks that cost twice the ammount of ressources.


Thats the reason people play this game. Otherwise we could simply "buy the victory".

[Viper]

it was no crap. Thats the essence of placing and using units correctly. Rushing a Panther into an Hellcat ambush that uses HVAP rounds and expect to win is utter bullshit.

As said, at this point we can give up on tactics and moving units and simply look who payed more. The one who payed more for its unit will always win.


And take a look and stugs or the new cheap Jagdpanzer IV/70. They are cheap but effective enough to take out any allied Tank from ambush, even tanks that cost twice the ammount of ressources.


Thats the reason people play this game. Otherwise we could simply "buy the victory".

there is difference between using tactics and making expensive units trash...............i did not say expensive tanks should always survive ambush.................but at the same time they should not die to much smaller units too easily.

[Warhawks97]

it was no crap. Thats the essence of placing and using units correctly. Rushing a Panther into an Hellcat ambush that uses HVAP rounds and expect to win is utter bullshit.

As said, at this point we can give up on tactics and moving units and simply look who payed more. The one who payed more for its unit will always win.


And take a look and stugs or the new cheap Jagdpanzer IV/70. They are cheap but effective enough to take out any allied Tank from ambush, even tanks that cost twice the ammount of ressources.


Thats the reason people play this game. Otherwise we could simply "buy the victory".

there is difference between using tactics and making expensive units trash...............i did not say expensive tanks should always survive ambush.................but at the same time they should not die to much smaller units too easily.

thats why they will drop in cost to be not so expensive anymore and affordable. Jeez. Is it really this hard to get?

WE MAKE THEM CHEAPER IN RETURN


Besides all that, neither me nor anyone else EVER mentioned to bring back old times. Even with the suggested increase in base pen chances, a ambushed Hellcat will never regain its former effectivness vs Panthers.

As mentioned above, with all bonuses applied, it had over 50% or over 60% pen vs the best Panther variant. With the suggestion in mind here we are talking about less than 40% (or max 40%) pen from ambush and HVAP at max range vs Panther G.

Thats, as you can CLEARLY SEE (!!!) far less than what older players had to deal with.

[Viper]

you really just want to nerf the panther armor........no? you will tell me "but iam not alone"
and i really dont want to nerf the panther armor......and i am also not alone.

like mefisto typed now in my other topic:

Yesterday I saw a 76mm Sherman 1 shut a panther, I know that is rare to see but it happens, the only possible Nerf for panther that I can see is the (back, side armor) not the front armor since allies can over come panthers with cheaper units spam and race tanks plus airstrikes and infantry like 2cp SAS with smoke, all of this with a panther price reduction but the front armor need to state the same to make a difference between panthers and tigers.
1-nerf (side and rear armor) vs 76, reduce hp by 100 state the same CP and price reduction.
2-nerf (side and rear armor) vs 76, keep hp and add 1 cp to panther and price reduction
All of this with no any buff to allies 76mm.
I suggest this because no matter what we write in the panther topic matter, they are going to change panther I can see the change coming.
I hope they fix stormtrooper line.
The Call in is a waste of mp and cp, for the same cp and price you can have storm and stugIII, so you have better infantry and AT support with stormtroopers, this doctrine omg (lol)

no armor nerf........maybe reduce hp, delay panther, improve allies, remove panther from luft.......whatever.
but no armor nerf.

[MEFISTO]

you really just want to nerf the panther armor........no? you will tell me "but iam not alone"
and i really dont want to nerf the panther armor......and i am also not alone.

like mefisto typed now in my other topic:

Yesterday I saw a 76mm Sherman 1 shut a panther, I know that is rare to see but it happens, the only possible Nerf for panther that I can see is the (back, side armor) not the front armor since allies can over come panthers with cheaper units spam and race tanks plus airstrikes and infantry like 2cp SAS with smoke, all of this with a panther price reduction but the front armor need to state the same to make a difference between panthers and tigers.
1-nerf (side and rear armor) vs 76, reduce hp by 100 state the same CP and price reduction.
2-nerf (side and rear armor) vs 76, keep hp and add 1 cp to panther and price reduction
All of this with no any buff to allies 76mm.
I suggest this because no matter what we write in the panther topic matter, they are going to change panther I can see the change coming.
I hope they fix stormtrooper line.
The Call in is a waste of mp and cp, for the same cp and price you can have storm and stugIII, so you have better infantry and AT support with stormtroopers, this doctrine omg (lol)

no armor nerf........maybe reduce hp, delay panther, improve allies, remove panther from luft.......whatever.
but no armor nerf.

Bro the change is coming no matter what we have said here, that is why at least I am trying to keep panther front armor the same.

[Krieger Blitzer]

As far as I am concerned, devs haven't decided anything yet regarding this matter.. though; it's most likely that Panthers won't stay as they are and are probably going to change... Having said that; in order not to piss anyone off, I highly recommend that Panther's frontal armor stays as it is, while nerfing the Panther in a different way, to which several ideas had been already provided.

This way, those who like to get cheaper Panthers would get them, and those who like to maintain Panther's frontal armor would do so, and at the same time, the game balance would be overall improved.

[Warhawks97]

As far as I am concerned, devs haven't decided anything yet regarding this matter.. though; it's most likely that Panthers won't stay as they are and are probably going to change... Having said that; in order not to piss anyone off, I highly recommend that Panther's frontal armor stays as it is, while nerfing the Panther in a different way, to which several ideas had been already provided.

This way, those who like to get cheaper Panthers would get them, and those who like to maintain Panther's frontal armor would do so, and at the same time, the game balance would be overall improved.

you can change whatever you want, but when the armor stays the way it is but you just cant make it cheaper. Else you would just get a braindead panther horde running from ambush to ambush to clear it out.


Making it slower would really take away its uniqueness since this is one of its key aspects. Keeping armor and making it just slower would end up being nothing but a tiger with less HP. Kinda garbage.

I am using Panthers too, quite frequently as main late game armor. And i do have big issues with these cost. It was one of those tanks whos price i was just so ready to accept (A version). I dont like super expensive "put all your res into one basket" style.

Currently i gave up on BK doc simply for this reason. Def doc provides me, if necessary, with tons of cheap alternatives with even bigger guns and powerfull artillery support. I am pretty pissed by the current state of BK doc, having either cheap P IV´s very early but which lose on value as the game progresses, or only super expensive tanks where one bad RNG role ruins your entire fucking game and you somehow have to hold out untill next Panther is available or lose the game outright, because without it you cant really push with BK doc when your enemie has armor on the field.

[Consti255]

This:
yesterday i saw a Panther getting oneshot by a 76.
Zhe 76 pens the Panther arround 17% at max range.
The oneshot is a ammo crit with 5%.

You can do the math..
It is happening in 1 out of 100 games.
when you somehow manage to pen it with a 37mm the chance of the ammo crit is the same.


This has no value to the whole debate.

Here a Idea what should be done except "new units" in a doc:

- increase 76s pen chance vs frontal armor (This whole debate)
- increase handhelt AT vs frontal armor by a noticeable ammount
- increase 90mm pen vs frontal armor
- increase pershing range and accuracy

Anyone can add some more ideas please.
All in terms of cost reduction for the way to high prices of the Panthers right now.
There is still room to operate like untouching the Panther G armor or anything, but it has to be a GAMEPLAY orriented reason.

you want to nerf panther versus every anti tank option available at its stage

This are some ideas as i wrote and not a suggestion to make them all happening.

[Red]

Some thoughts I had in terms of the ongoing discussion:

The Panther and the Tiger I are both available in the Tank Support doc (in my opinion the tank-heavy doc of Panzer Elite)
The Panzer IV J costs 410 ManPower & 45 Fuel
The Panther G costs 880 ManPower & 130 Fuel
The Tiger I E costs 840 ManPower & 165 Fuel
The Tiger II costs 1200 ManPower & 200 Fuel

In the Blitzkrieg doc (in my opinion the tank-heavy doc of Wehrmacht) there is no Tiger I, but the Panther and below that the Panzer IV
The Panzer IV J costs 410 ManPower & 45 Fuel
The Panzer IV H costs 550 ManPower & 65 Fuel before CP cost reduction, and 525 ManPower & 55 Fuel after
The Panther D2 costs 780 ManPower & 130 Fuel
The Panther A costs 850 ManPower & 155 Fuel

At least in my opinion for tank-heavy docs, Fuel is a major constraint, much more so than ManPower (MP).
So basically, what we have is a gap from 55 fuel for the Panzer IV to the 130 fuel for the Panther.

The way I understand it is that some players, including myself, want the Panther to be fit to fill this gap.
My interpretation of it is, that the target would be to get the costs to around 750 Manpower and 90 fuel.

Then there are some players that say that the like the way the Panther currently performs, especially in terms of front armor. They want no change to the Panther.


I would see work needed in a couple of areas:
How would a Panther that cost around 750 Manpower and 90 fuel look like?
As far as the main gun goes, it is practically similar to the one on the Jagdpanzer IV/70, so there is only limted adjustment possibility.
In terms of speed and accelleration, there probably could be some reduction, but it should still be noticeably better than a Tiger I.
One thing I am not sure that is currently adequately reflected in the price of the Panther is the awfully slow turret turn speed.
The armor has been much discussed, but more work in ways of concrete proposals would be needed. I personally see two methods, which both could be used together to get to the target cost:
an increase of the penetration chance for 17 pounder and 90mm
an increase of the lucky crit chance (crit in case of deflection) for the 76mm

If the Panther gets a redesigned role in the axis arsenal, what would people think to up the cost of the Tiger I by 40MP and improve its frontal armor to current Panther levels?
That way there would still be a tank with the front armor capabilities that some people love.
I do not believe an increase in fuel price for the Tiger I would be warranted, as they are already significantly above the average Panther level.

If the above changes were made, would it be possible in the „Customize Army“ menu, to give Blitzkrieg (BK) players the choice between Panther and Tiger?
This would be a proposal so that those players that follow more the „one tank to rule them all“ concept can play BK with the upgraded Tigers, while the others could play the redesigned Panthers.

I leave the Tank Support (TS) and Luftwaffe (LW) out for now, as I have seen the argument that such a change would ruin BK, which I have not read for TS or LW.

As always, happy to get opinions and comments!

[Warhawks97]

Well, 90 fuel is would be way too cheap. Firefly costs 80 or so and the panther will be far ahead in terms of combat power. 110-120 would seem more appropriate.


I also dont want it to be a reward tank to the Tiger because these tanks should be fundamentally different in their role and use.

I would like to have a system for panthers but also longer barrled tank IV´s that works completely different from the current system. With for example early Panther (D) being early available but more expensive towards panther G later available after some tecing which is better and cheaper to make up for the late game efficancy loss. Kind of how you upgraded Tanks in voch from early model to late model. Fuel cost would be arround the same for all, but MP costs dropping down from D to G version.

[MEFISTO]

Well, 90 fuel is would be way too cheap. Firefly costs 80 or so and the panther will be far ahead in terms of combat power. 110-120 would seem more appropriate.


I also dont want it to be a reward tank to the Tiger because these tanks should be fundamentally different in their role and use.

I would like to have a system for panthers but also longer barrled tank IV´s that works completely different from the current system. With for example early Panther (D) being early available but more expensive towards panther G later available after some tecing which is better and cheaper to make up for the late game efficancy loss. Kind of how you upgraded Tanks in voch from early model to late model. Fuel cost would be arround the same for all, but MP costs dropping down from D to G version.

Can you posts from your perspective the differences between the actual cost of all panthers with the costs you would like to see on the changes?
Is it really that "good" for BK doctrine sacrifice front armor by saving 20 fuel and 100?
Why some of you guys are obsessed with the idea of destry a panter with a 76mm sherman hitting in it's front armor? if you know you can destry it hitting on the sides and rear armor?
Panther is the only heavy tank BK doctrine have, this doctrine don't have airstrikes or heavy rockets artillry or race tanks, 76mm actually performs good vs PIV and stugs, Why the need for nerf the only rock star this doctrine have?.

[Warhawks97]

BK doc never needed a heavy tank. When it had Tigers, i never used them.

The Panther A was for me at the edge of what i am willing to pay with 770/140. The current 850/155 just breaks it.
I played with doc rather fast, using the Blitzkrieg ability to make my tanks doing rapid fire and blitz movments.

And again, less than 25% of 76 rounds will actually penetrate even with the worst possible armor suggested. Which in my opinion is very decent.


Just to give you an idea: Currently you see shermans rolling over 50 mm AT guns quite frequently. And that gun has a 47% pen vs sherman and 40% vs 86 sherman. Now, the Panther will still be twice as good vs 76 guns as the sherman armor is against these 50 mm AT guns.

So you can pls stop that crying that panther armor will be usless?

Also, many times you hit a Panther in the sides but it still bounces the shot since it triggered a front hit actually. The rear armor cant be made weaker since it is already at 100% pen.

[Redgaarden]

Why some of you guys are obsessed with the idea of destry a panter with a 76mm sherman hitting in it's front armor? if you know you can destry it hitting on the sides and rear armor?

Because the 76 is the biggest AT gun 2 US doctrine have I dont count the m36 since it is optional and I have found it useless at its task.
And the panther front armor encompasses 50% of the side armor. Flanking is a stupid risk that most likely will get the tank destroyed since a Panther can reverse into combat and still win vs all 76mm gun wielding tanks except the jumbo. So since two doctrine doesnt have any tank that can brawl or even ambush the panther without dying and most likely not kill the panther. Im personally against buffing 76mm against panther. Since that would buff the panther against every other matchup it goes against. And I hate panthers.

Edit: typing on phone something went wrong with quote.

[MEFISTO]

BK doc never needed a heavy tank. When it had Tigers, i never used them.

It doesn't mean others dotn't want to use them, BK doctrine weaknesses was Armor doctrine in the late game.

The Panther A was for me at the edge of what i am willing to pay with 770/140. The current 850/155 just breaks it.
I played with doc rather fast, using the Blitzkrieg ability to make my tanks doing rapid fire and blitz movments.

And again, less than 25% of 76 rounds will actually penetrate even with the worst possible armor suggested. Which in my opinion is very decent.


Just to give you an idea: Currently you see shermans rolling over 50 mm AT guns quite frequently. And that gun has a 47% pen vs sherman and 40% vs 86 sherman. Now, the Panther will still be twice as good vs 76 guns as the sherman armor is against these 50 mm AT guns.

So you can pls stop that crying that panther armor will be usless?

Also, many times you hit a Panther in the sides but it still bounces the shot since it triggered a front hit actually. The rear armor cant be made weaker since it is already at 100% pen.

I am not crying, the ones whose crying here are the ones that want to nerf panthers front armor because can't flank it, or don't want to use airstrikes or any strategy to take them down.

[MEFISTO]

Why some of you guys are obsessed with the idea of destry a panter with a 76mm sherman hitting in it's front armor? if you know you can destry it hitting on the sides and rear armor?

Because the 76 is the biggest AT gun 2 US doctrine have I dont count the m36 since it is optional and I have found it useless at its task.
And the panther front armor encompasses 50% of the side armor. Flanking is a stupid risk that most likely will get the tank destroyed since a Panther can reverse into combat and still win vs all 76mm gun wielding tanks except the jumbo. So since two doctrine doesnt have any tank that can brawl or even ambush the panther without dying and most likely not kill the panther. Im personally against buffing 76mm against panther. Since that would buff the panther against every other matchup it goes against. And I hate panthers.

Edit: typing on phone something went wrong with quote.

yes sure 76mm plus supply yard sure, plus airstrikes 90mm etc... sure
What they should do is improve m36 accuracy.

[Mood]

Just had a standard Sherman 76 (level 1 without tank commander) one-shot my level 3 Panther A (with level 3 tank commander inside) frontally at mid-range. My panther was also behind a wreck as extra cover.

Hopefully this adds to the balance discussion.

[Consti255]

Just had a standard Sherman 76 (level 1 without tank commander) one-shot my level 3 Panther A (with level 3 tank commander inside) frontally at mid-range. My panther was also behind a wreck as extra cover.

Hopefully this adds to the balance discussion.

It adds NOTHING.
I would ask all of you who talks from a "mimimi my Panther got oneshot by a 76" point of view, do read threw the whole Thread before writing stuff into it.

For explanation:
Every tank has a 5% chance to get an ammo crit which leads to a oneshot.
So basicly it means that when your King Tiger somehow gets penned by a 37mm gun, there is chance that it will get oneshoted.

[Consti255]

Why some of you guys are obsessed with the idea of destry a panter with a 76mm sherman hitting in it's front armor? if you know you can destry it hitting on the sides and rear armor?

Because the 76 is the biggest AT gun 2 US doctrine have I dont count the m36 since it is optional and I have found it useless at its task.
And the panther front armor encompasses 50% of the side armor. Flanking is a stupid risk that most likely will get the tank destroyed since a Panther can reverse into combat and still win vs all 76mm gun wielding tanks except the jumbo. So since two doctrine doesnt have any tank that can brawl or even ambush the panther without dying and most likely not kill the panther. Im personally against buffing 76mm against panther. Since that would buff the panther against every other matchup it goes against. And I hate panthers.

Edit: typing on phone something went wrong with quote.

yes sure 76mm plus supply yard sure, plus airstrikes 90mm etc... sure
What they should do is improve m36 accuracy.

Jesus Christ.
It still dont fixes the issue that Panthers are so god damn expensive right now. It even boosts the i loose my Panther i loose the game philosophy.
Because your Ressource management gets screwd up by one single unit.