Panthers, are they ok?

[Krieger Blitzer]

We have had a long discussion on Discord as some players think that Panthers cost too much currently and should become cheaper.


There were a couple of ideas:

A - Slightly reduce Panther's frontal armor to match Tiger1's armor and accordingly reduce Panthers price.

>>> There are 2 main arguments for this from what i recall:

- The armor nerf would help AB doc & other docs that lack proper counters vs the Panther.

- Yet, the change still won't hurt Panthers too much since it's 5% to 10% change in armor values after all.. and they will be cheaper.

=====================================================

B - instead of tweaking Panther's armor, better go for proper solutions; add Jacksons to AB doc & Achilles back to RA doc.

>>> There is also 2 main arguments for this as well:

- Given that 5% to 10% change is very insignificant anyways, it doesn't do much help other than just breaking the theme of the Panther that is supposed to have sloped armor which is ought to be better than that of Tiger1 tanks, and this concept should be maintained.. as Tiger1 and Panthers were never meant to have the same frontal armor strength.

- Adding those TDs for these docs won't only help vs Panthers but vs other heavies as well.. generally improving mentioned docs in core aspects that they for sure currently lack.

=====================================================

C - As in point A only Panther.A and Panther.D would be affected by the armor reduction.. whereas Panther.G would be kept untouched.

>>> Argument for this:

- Knowing that Panther.G had extra armor, it will remain being the high quality Panther.. while the rest being a bit weaker and more spamm-able.

- Panther.A & D had weak points in the turret that caused Shot Traps.



Personally, i am either for point B or rather for things to remain as they are now, as i like how everything works in 5.2.7 currently.

What do others think? Feel free to discuss.

[Consti255]

Thank you for listing the points.
Can you add a poll ?

I dont like the Idea of adding the 90mms for AB doc. They have enough AT capabilitys and just suffer vs a Panthers no other Tank.
I can see the Achillies back in RA tho. But keep in mind we recently added zooks for canadian infantry.

I my case. I like the solution C the most.
Keeping the lategame for Blitz doc secured with the G or leaving other parts for more lesser strong panthers open.

What i would add to Point C:
Make the P4 Massproduction into a Tank Massproduction overall and make them reduce the Price of the D2 and A aswell.
Keeping their inital cost high and get them drop significantly. This prevents an early Panther spam but opens up a solid late game.

Also keep in mind. With this change the P4 would been back at it again because going for the Massproduction is a valid choice than which scales into the late game aswell.





Speaking about Panthers:
I like the Idea Marzio brought up of a Befehlspanzer Panther.
I would replace the current P4 J Version with it but get its CP increased by one.
The taken CP gets decreased from the Storm upgrade so they can crawl earlier.

I am making a forum post for this on its own.

[Warhawks97]

The Panther has quite literally no weaknes. Its armor is superb and easily better than those of Jumbos. It has a good mobility, firepower and health.

So, first of all the idea of Panthers being some sort of "Super Elite late game armor" is a completely wrong concept in BK. Its usually much better than a Tiger. The issue is that Panzer IV´s arent bad, but quickly become obsolete. And between Panther and Panzer IV there is a large drought. So the main question is whether the Panther should be meant to be some unique late game armor or a standard replacment for Panzer IV´s.



In order to achieve this i would recommend the following. Also partly based on ideas in discord talks.


1. Panther A getting the same acceleration as the other Panthers (2) while D gets up from 1.3 to 1.7
2. Reduce its frontal armor a bit. Being below 30% pen chance at point blank range is even for a 76 gun pretty weak. Also Armor in theory is different from armor in practice (weak spots and so on)
3. Reduce its HP to 700 or 750. I dont see why it has 800 HP when even jumbos only have 750 HP. That will bring it in line with other mediums of its class.
4. Panther D will only be available in Luft doc and shares same armor values as the A variant. Cost will be 800/130
5. Panther A cost brought back to almost old prices (750/130) and added to TS doc as well.
6. Panther G will be unlocked in a similiar manner as Panzer IV J. After unlock of mass-production it gets unlocked for a cost of 680/130.
7. Panther G received pen modifier reduced from 0.9 to 95. I dont see a reason for it being that much better. Some G models had that chin on front turret armor to remove the shot trap but had often weaker quality steal. The G will be the late game main stay tank.
8. In TS doc the things would be similiar. Panzer reservese will unlock the Panzer IV J and Panther G while Panzer IV H and Panther A only requires the tank unlock.

[Krieger Blitzer]

The Panther has quite literally no weaknes. Its armor is superb and easily better than those of Jumbos. It has a good mobility, firepower and health.

Let's see:

The D variant being actually rubbish, with slow turret that rotates only 180 degrees and no top mounted MG.

The G variant being available very late only at 8 CP (both in Blitz & Panzer Support docs) and quite expensive.

The A variant being probably most reliable, but then available only in 1 doctrine.


I would like to keep over-estimations and exaggerations away from this discussion, otherwise the result is another messed up patch that takes years to fix.

[Warhawks97]

The Panther has quite literally no weaknes. Its armor is superb and easily better than those of Jumbos. It has a good mobility, firepower and health.

Let's see:

The D variant being actually rubbish, with slow turret that rotates only 180 degrees and no top mounted MG.

The G variant being available very late only at 8 CP (both in Blitz & Panzer Support docs) and quite expensive.

The A variant being probably most reliable, but then available only in 1 doctrine.


I would like to keep over-estimations and exaggerations away from this discussion, otherwise the result is another messed up patch that takes years to fix.

Huh? I talked about combat stats, not CP cost and cost etc. And i suggested to drop the cost. Sometimes i wondering if you really only pick certain sentences out of a greater kontext.


Doctrinal availability and CP cost has nothing to do with raw combat stats and performance.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Huh? I talked about combat stats, not CP cost and cost etc. And i suggested to drop the cost. Sometimes i wondering if you really only pick certain sentences out of a greater kontext.


Doctrinal availability and CP cost has nothing to do with raw combat stats and performance.

it's easier to just say that the statement was an exaggeration.. because clearly the whole driven Panther hysteria currently is inspired by such similar excalations.

To be fair, there is not even a balance issue with Panthers to begin with. The tank provides much, but also costs much, with high upkeep. It's the cost/CP argument that has led to this entire crusade in the first place.. as those who want to nerf the Panther claim it costs too much.

And despite some players also expressing their disapproval with this crusade, yet the devs clearly seem to favor a side over another at this point.. it's not a secret Kwok always hated the Panther & Luft doc long before becoming a dev member. One of the core reasons why i objected him joining the dev team back then.. as he clearly has preferences that would affect the game balance decisions, just as most players including myself.


I do believe that this whole Panther crusade is super unnecessary to say the least.

@Consti
A poll would be irrelevant in my opinion as i believe ideas need to be rather discussed.

[Warhawks97]

What crusade?

[Constantino]

Panthers are arguably overmodeled armor wise. While the glacis was virtually impenetrable, its turret armor was not and could easily be penetrated by the 76mm. I think the best solution is to nerf armor and reduce price, but the armor should still be better than the Tiger I for all models.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I would be down for having Panthers nerfed, for gameplay reasons the current state of them is boring. Often the match sticks to the same scenarios - Axis rush for Panther, usually sitting behind paks and mg’s in order to save as much res as possible, whilst scoring CP’s with arty. Then the first couple of Panthers roll out and either win the game quick killing everything, or die due to ambushes/airstrikes, in this case Axis can drop out as the resources loss is too much to recover from.

However, in return Axis should have their mid game improved. As Hawks somewhere said, there is a huge gap after the PZ4, where Allied vehicles have an upper hand, thus rushing for Panthers is a must, simply nerfing them will hurt Axis too much.

[Consti255]

Thtas why they get a cost decrease and so are more early available?
I would be even down to decrease the CP cost by one for the D2/A in the Blitz doc.

[kwok]

And despite some players also expressing their disapproval with this crusade, yet the devs clearly seem to favor a side over another at this point.. it's not a secret Kwok always hated the Panther & Luft doc long before becoming a dev member. One of the core reasons why i objected him joining the dev team back then.. as he clearly has preferences that would affect the game balance decisions, just as most players including myself.

Well, let's be really clear here that I didn't hate panthers specifically and luft specifically. What I hated was the devs at the time specifically said that the game was balanced towards team games, not 1v1's, yet they had doctrine designs across the board did not support that statement. What I hated was how some doctrines were specialized and some where well rounded.
I didn't hate luft, i hated how luft was compared to all other doctrines within PE (all specialized which made luft an absolute optimal choice among PE doctrines, so games were basically 95% luft players, 2.5% TH players). I hated the entire luft doctrine because it was so well rounded and excelled in all areas where as other doctrines were specialized which is why i proposed to split off panthers from luft AT THAT TIME. Hence the whole doctrine reworks... and as you can see panthers still exist and luft still exists. So I didn't hate panthers or luft or panthers & luft.

Just wanted to provide that context, because in this moment I am not here to give any bias towards/against panthers. I'm just reading the arguments and taking them as objectively as i can.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Just wanted to provide that context, because in this moment I am not here to give any bias towards/against panthers. I'm just reading the arguments and taking them as objectively as i can.

Okay, i also didn't mean that in an explicit way, so it's nice you clarified.. all good.

@Sukin:

However, in return Axis should have their mid game improved. As Hawks somewhere said, there is a huge gap after the PZ4, where Allied vehicles have an upper hand, thus rushing for Panthers is a must, simply nerfing them will hurt Axis too much.

I also wouldn't completely be against tweaking Panthers (i mentioned this on Discord too, where i also provided screenshots from Corsix on TT pen values of 76mm vs Panther & Tiger1 in comparison) as my fear is how some exaggerations were being made all the time. And i agree that Axis mid game would probably need further adjustment as a result of tweaking, but it highly depends.

Overall, i would say that this subject should be approached rather cautiously, as there is no room for exaggerations or over-statements in my opinion.

[Constantino]

People rush Panthers because they are OP; the "gap" problem with tanks is that many docs have to rely on the useless Panzer IV F2; all docs should have access to the Panzer IV H/J for balance and realism; the Panzer IV F2 should be remaned Panzer IV G, given Panzer IV H/J armor, restricted to Blitz and Panzer Support, and given loadable HE rounds.

[MarKr]

i mentioned this on Discord too, where i also provided screenshots from Corsix on TT pen values of 76mm vs Panther & Tiger1 in comparison

Could you provide some details to why this is a balance point?

Why is it important for the discussion that 76mm guns can penetrate the Panther and at what rates? If this thing is so important, shouldn't it be considered when balancing Allies too? I've rarely heard "Pershing should be changed in some way because the 75mm L48 gun has X% penetration against it". If it is a matter of "lower-tier tank can destroy this higher-tier one" and with it connected the costs of those units, then it should play even higher role in the Pershing balancing because the 76mm gun is mounted only on Shermans (76, E8 and Jumbo) + the separate AT gun, while the 75mm L48 is mounted on halftracks, Pumas, Marders, various PIVs, Hetzers and JPIVs the costs of which vary quite a lot.

I'm not trying to start a "Pershing balance" discussion here, I'm just pointing out that some argument is being brought up when discussing the Panther balance but the same is rarely mentioned when balancing similar unit on the other side of the barricade.

[CGarr]

How about we tweak 76mm guns to have better pen against panther A and D models, and have the prices of affected allied tanks and panther A/D be changed accordingly? That kills 2 birds with one stone, Axis would have an easier time in mid game and US would have an easier (but still rough) time against panthers. Additionally, since Panther armor would be weaker, their range should be increased to that of the tiger, so that they have maintain some breathing room between them and enemy armor. Their job should be to snipe enemy armor before quickly backing away using their good mobility, with the armor being a failsafe in case things go awry (the G model would still be able to rely more heavily on it's armor).

To account for the massive shot trap, weak turret armor, and weak lower glacis on the A and D model, and the fact that coh cannot model side armor properly (thus meaning you have to go all the way to the back half of the tank for flanking to be effective), I suggest we set the penetration chances for 76mm guns against the Panther A/D to the following :

====================================================
distant (current): 0.1728 --------> distant (suggestion): 0.27
long (current): 0.2144 -----------> long (suggestion): 0.335
medium (current): 0.2688 ------> medium (suggestion): 0.42
short (current): 0.32 -------------> short (suggestion): 0.50
====================================================

This might seem high, but keep in mind this only affects the A and D models, the G model available to blitz doc would maintain that "heavy tank" feel. The A and D model would serve as the natural progression from P4's, having much better armor and an incredibly good gun that allows them to go toe to toe with the much more expensive Pershing and completely dominate allied mediums, as well as providing a solid mobile counter to the Mk7. This allows Blitz doc's emphasis on aggressive play to be carried on into the late game, where P4's are generally considered to be obsolete in the face of fully upgraded 76mm shermans and beefier allied tanks. As such, they would need a cost reduction to be viable as a replacement 'backbone' tank. I suggest the following:

======================================================================================================================
Panther A: 850MP/110F (after "upgraded production" unlock in BK CP tree, 750MP/110F). Remove requirement of 75 fuel building upgrade.

Panther G (Ace): Same price as current, as armor is unchanged. Retains 75 fuel building upgrade requirement. Possibly add buildable non-ace version for 850 MP/150F.

Panther D2: 780MP/110F (after "upgraded production" unlock in BK CP tree, 680MP/110F).
======================================================================================================================

Judging by the above replies and my own experience, 76mm armed tanks are more than capable of handling themselves now, and with 76mm sherman variants being arguably better than the more expensive p4 H/J and the M10/M18 being absurdly cheap relative to how well the now perform against most targets (especially considering how they can pose a threat to the heaviest axis tanks in ideal conditions). Thus the above buff to their performance against panthers, it would be fair for their fuel costs increased as follows:

================================
M10: 45 fuel
M18: 50 fuel
76mm sherman: 65 fuel ( 55 after sherman mass production)
E8 76mm sherman: 80 fuel (65 after sherman mass production)
Jumbo 76mm: cost remains the same, it already costs 110 fuel despite being slower and having less range / health than the panther.
================================

Lastly, as stated above, a range increase on the panther guns to similar levels to the Tiger 1 maybe be necessary to give breathing room.

To summarize, these changes would involve:
1- Increasing 76mm pen against Panther A/D
2- Lowering Panther A/D cost substantially and removing the panther A's requirement of the 75 fuel upgrade in the heavy panzer factory
3- Increasing cost of 76mm tanks to compensate for prior buffs to their performance in addition to the proposed buff against tigers
4- Increase panther main gun range if needed
5- Possibly making a non-ace Panther G buildable for 850MP/150F.

Said changes would result in:
1- Easier transition into late game for blitz doc, and more incentive for aggressive play because losing a panther wouldn't be as massive of a loss.
2- Panther G still retains stats and cost more reminiscent of a heavy tank due to it's improved armor.
3- A substantially cheaper alternative to the tiger for PS doc, as they currently are often completely screwed if they lose their first heavy.
4- Luft fielding panthers more easily to make up for their loss of the hetzer that people complained so much about.
5- Panthers (A/D) would be far less of a headache to deal with for US AB and inf docs.
6- Less complaints about losing Axis heavies to M10's/M18's since said TD's would now cost a reasonable amount given their improved performance.
7- Achilles would not be needed on RA because the 76mm Canadian shermans would actually be competent.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Going to post my first truly dedicated "text wall" since a long time.. as i only used to throw just short posts here and there.
Despite the very limited free time i have, but since this a sensitive subject; i am not backing down...

Also, nearly in all my 4,000+ forum posts, i never really managed to list down any plain Corsix values before, as i never wanted to show off as a total nerd or whatever, and it's not an approach that i would like to take either. However; i found myself forced to provide some values just to shutdown the horrendous amount of exaggerations i have earlier encountered on Discord concerning this particular matter.

====================================================

Why is it important for the discussion that 76mm guns can penetrate the Panther and at what rates? If this thing is so important, shouldn't it be considered when balancing Allies too? I've rarely heard "Pershing should be changed in some way because the 75mm L48 gun has X% penetration against it". If it is a matter of "lower-tier tank can destroy this higher-tier one" and with it connected the costs of those units, then it should play even higher role in the Pershing balancing because the 76mm gun is mounted only on Shermans (76, E8 and Jumbo) + the separate AT gun, while the 75mm L48 is mounted on halftracks, Pumas, Marders, various PIVs, Hetzers and JPIVs the costs of which vary quite a lot.

I'm not trying to start a "Pershing balance" discussion here, I'm just pointing out that some argument is being brought up when discussing the Panther balance but the same is rarely mentioned when balancing similar unit on the other side of the barricade.

if i understand your question correctly, you are more or less saying.. "Why is it important to compare 76mm pen chances vs Tiger1 & Panther?"
or in other words; "Why is it important that 76mm should have certain limits for penetration vs Panther that it should never exceed?" that's unless i misunderstood your paragraph.

Well, balance-wise; currently the 76mm performance vs Tigers & Panthers is equivalent to the Pz4 L48 vs Pershing & Jumbos.. except that the 76 is slightly better. Whereas the 17pdr and 90mm guns are the equivalent to 88mm cannons and long barrel 75mm guns on JagdPanzer L/70 and Panthers.

Therefore, the 76 isn't the proper US counter to Panthers, but 90mm guns. So; from a balance perspective; the 76 is expected to suffer against Panthers.. just how L48 guns would suffer against Pershing tanks. This has been how these guns were branded across the game for a very long time.

While the L48 Pz4s & Stugs compare with 76 Shermans, Fireflys & Comets... Tigers and Panthers compare with Pershings, Jumbo Sherman & Churchills on the other hand. Panther is also multirole tank just as Jumbo, so both are good vs inf as well.
Axis L48 TDs compare to Hellcats, Wolverines.
Other heavy Axis TDs (including JPz L70) compare to Jacksons & Achilles.
That way...

Keep in mind though, i am not saying these units are "counters" to each others.. by the phrase "compare to" i mean that they belong to the same tier/category.

According to this, the Panther is on the same level as Tigers and Pershings but with different characteristics (pros and cons).. same in other ww2 games as well.. but the intentions we see here are clearly aimed to hinder the Panther's role and bring down to the Firefly/Comet levels. Clearly harming the game balance and Axis mid game to be more precise. Not to mention, as extra point; that the Panther's theme would be broken as well.

While "realism" and "historical accuracy" take a back seat when it comes to balance, yet.. no one can deny that this game is mainly based on ww2 and thus the "historical theme" (which is different from historical accuracy) has to be always maintained, at least from a game design point of view, in addition to game balance as previously explained, which - of course - takes a priority.

So, i am not arguing realism mainly here.. in fact, the whole "76mm pen chances vs Tiger1 in comparison to Panther" conversation started when some players who support the Panther nerf, claimed that Panther is "miles ahead & much better and super fast compared with Tiger1 in BK Mod" which is clearly a total exaggeration since that - at least judging by the numbers - the Panther is just slightly better with both advantages and disadvantages in comparison with the Tiger1 tank.. most of those players even thought all Panthers are faster in acceleration than Tiger1 until you posted the speed values on Discord yourself. Doesn't this tell you anything MarKr?? YES, they are exaggerating and over-estimating the Panther based on "feelings" rather than valid supported evidence.

Moreover, the fact that Jumbo Shermans are very restricted within the US arsenal, and the fact that M36 jacksons aren't available in AB doc.. is a US faction design problem... Rather than a "Panther problem" as some people try to perceive it.

This might seem high, but keep in mind this only affects the A and D models, the G model available to blitz doc would maintain that "heavy tank" feel. The A and D model would serve as the natural progression from P4's, having much better armor and an incredibly good gun that allows them to go toe to toe with the much more expensive Pershing and completely dominate allied mediums, as well as providing a solid mobile counter to the Mk7. This allows Blitz doc's emphasis on aggressive play to be carried on into the late game, where P4's are generally considered to be obsolete in the face of fully upgraded 76mm shermans and beefier allied tanks. As such, they would need a cost reduction to be viable as a replacement 'backbone' tank.

As mentioned above, the 76 isn't supposed to be the proper counter to Panthers, no to mention the suggestions you brought up are completely out of scope, allowing a single 76 Sherman to have solid 1v1 chances against a Panther is utter nonsense. Needless to say the "price reductions" you offered are hardly recognizable, as the Panther is still twice as expensive as a single 76 Sherman. Furthermore, the numbers you copied from Discord were rather rushed (i calculated so quickly and was low on time) and not as accurate as what i am going to list down now, so just to give you a precise idea of what you are talking about, let's take a look at 2 of the most common enemies to the Panther.. Jackson and E8 Sherman, please carefully check the following values: (Anyone can feel free to correct if anything is wrong with the calculations or if anything i might have missed)



M36 vs Tiger1:

First, here is the basic gun values:

Basic pen values of M36 Jackson's cannon

And this is how much to multiply vs the Tiger1 tank:

Pen multiplier of Jackson's gun vs Tiger1

Now let's calculate:

Distant = 0.58 × 1.35 = 0.783 (78.3 %)

Long = 0.71 × 1.35 = 0.9585 (95.8 %)

Medium = 0.86 × 1.35 = 1.161 (116 %)

Short = 1 × 1.35 = 1.35 (135 %)

-----------------------------------

M36 vs Panther (no skirts):

Pen multiplier of Jackson's gun vs Panther naked

Distant = 0.58 × 1.3 = 0.754 (75.4 %)

Long = 0.71 × 1.3 = 0.923 (92.3 %)

Medium = 0.86 × 1.3 = 1.118 (111 %)

Short = 1 × 1.3 = 1.30 (130 %)

------------------------------------

M36 vs Panther with Skirts:

Pen multiplier of Jackson's gun vs Panther (skirts)

Distant = 0.58 × 1.149 = 0.66642 (66.7 %)

Long = 0.71 × 1.149 = 0.81579 (81.5 %)

Medium = 0.86 × 1.149 = 0.98814 (98.8 %)

Short = 1 × 1.149 = 1.149 (114 %)

==========================

Sherman E8 vs Tiger1:

Basic pen values of E8 Sherman's cannon

Pen multiplier of E8's gun vs Tiger1

Distant = 0.54 × 0.41 = 0.2214 (22.14 %)

Long = 0.67 × 0.41 = 0.2747 (27 %)

Medium = 0.84 × 0.41 = 0.3444 (34 %)

Short = 1 × 0.41 = 0.41 (41 %)

==========================

Sherman E8 vs Panther (no skirts):

Pen multiplier of E8 gun vs Panther naked

Distant = 0.54 × 0.32 = 0.1728 (17.28 %)

Long = 0.67 × 0.32 = 0.2144 (21.4 %)

Medium = 0.84 × 0.32 = 0.2688 (26.8 %)

Short = 1 × 0.32 = 0.32 (32 %)

-------------------------------------------


Sherman E8 vs Panther (skirts):

Pen multiplier of E8 gun vs Panther (skirts)

Distant = 0.54 × 0.3 = 0.162 (16 %)

Long = 0.67 × 0.3 = 0.201 (20 %)

Medium = 0.84 × 0.3 = 0.252 (25 %)

Short = 1 × 0.3 = 0.30 (30 %)





Now that all values are clear, it's obvious that the difference between Tigers and Panthers isn't as big as you might have imagined.. except that Panthers with skirts are a bit more resistant, but that totally justifies their price and availability at the moment in version 5.2.7 as their fuel upkeep was also increased. So, where exactly is the balance issue with Panthers? Keep in mind as well that Panther tanks are often out-numbered by E8 Shermans, if not always. And the jackson is clearly more than capable of dealing with the Panther, if it lacks some accuracy.. well, let's buff the accuracy then? I don't get the point behind nerfing the Panther directly. Allied can be improved on the other hand to be able to counter Panthers more reliably, instead of flattening out the Panther's sloped armor...


Also the argument of "but Panther costs currently almost as much as a Tiger1 while it's supposed to be cheaper" was responded accordingly with another argument i made using the same logic "But then the Panther's sloped armor can't be treated the same as Tiger1's frontal armor" to which you replied saying: "but there was a shot trap" And this is how the discussion came down to "realism" aspects, it wasn't me who started it. So, the entire argument used since the beginning is a realism one.. while the truth is it's absolutely fine currently how Panthers are bit expensive now, as long as they are fulfilling their role as they should.

They don't have to be much cheaper than Tigers, and certainly their armor can't be same as Tigers. Thus; if anything, it's not the Panthers that need to be modified, but Allied need to have more 76 jumbos (not sure why the limit is 1), and jacksons added in AB doc and Achilles to RA doc as well.




That was my opinion, as clear as never before.. and remember guys, i am not here for the purpose of challenging anyone.
Now, i need to go back and continue my studying, need to create a 2D game from scratch as my university assignment...
Meanwhile, please keep v5.2.7 for a long time please.. time to enjoy a balanced Bk Mod finally.
Plz don't mess things up with a stupid update the next time i am back!

[Diablo]

Not sure why Panther balancing has to result in a whole avalanche of changes to different units.

I really think the best way is to reduce frontal armor and the price a bit, have it come a tad earlier to take part in late mid game and call it a day.

[kwok]

In reaction to posts:
There's an additional flat modifier on panthers of -10% received penetration. So take your effective numbers and multiply them by 90%. So, the difference between tiger and panther is a little more than listed above. I don't know if that still counts as "too much difference" or "not much difference"; that would be for you all to continue to argue amongst yourselves. Devs are still open to hearing what other players feel. But, it seems like more and more people have said "just reduce frontal armor" . Based on the responses so far, I think the answer to the question of the thread: Are panthers okay? No, they are "too strong" right now. Maybe a poll would be helpful to check that assumption.
But before we get there, I have another question for players as an idea to consider.

Given Tiger1996 said the panther's equivalent from a tank perspective might be something like a jumbo, should it receive similar durability not just from an armor perspective but an HP perspective as well?

My turn for an essay:

Historically, "medium" vs "heavy" tank referred to the actual weight of the tank but in BK it sort of means "tier" of tank. In almost all situations panthers are classified as "heavy" tanks (I guess because it comes out of the "heavy tank" factory...) because it often use to be unlocked after the tiger, thus a higher "tier". In a lot of regards, it has pros and cons relative to the tiger, but only pros compared to the panzer 4. Given that the panther historically was considered a "medium" tank, would it be reasonable to draw some embodiment of tank weight into HP? Make the panther "classified" as a medium tank by reducing its HP similar to that of its equivalents (whether it be the Jumbo like warhawks mentioned or panzer IVs or whatever).

What would the gameplay impacts be? Well if the panther HP is 800 right now, the yellow damage bracket (where there's a 50% chance of criticals) first start occurring is at the 60% health mark, and the min-max damage of the 76mm gun is 400-600 damage, then changing the HP anywhere between 800 to 666 hp would increase/decrease the chance of criticals occuring on the first penetrated shot to be 30% to 50% (assuming I did my math right...). Increased criticals at higher levels of gameplay usually means death for a tank. While it still requires two penetrated shots on a panther to kill it with any weapon (except 90mm guns which have about a 30% chance to one shot panthers on penetration), increasing the chance of the first shot being a critical greatly increases the chance of finishing the panther off in general when executed with skill. Thus, the durability of the panther is less in capable hands. You could also make the "historical argument" that this higher chance of criticals is representative of panthers been prone to breakdowns. It's almost a joke now that devs are considering "random breakdown of panthers for historical accuracy" whenever historical accuracy is brought up as an argument. Ironically, it might actually be considered here.

A counter balance to a decrease in panther durability could be a decrease in cost; since panthers are more prone to death they could be built more often. I personally find an issue with panthers is not just its durability but combinations of power, durability, and speed. In skilled hands, a panther will get a kill with the power of its gun and gain veterancy, with durability the panther is able to receive a shot without being killed, with speed their chance of survival is greatly increased because they are able to away at the first sign of damage, repair, and come back with a veteraned panther. With a change that increases the chance of criticals, that final phase of "escape with speed" is nerfed while other aspects remain in place. With the net change, a player will more likely lose a panther due to RNG thus the counter balance would be to compensate on cost. If panthers die more often, then we can let them be replaced more often.

My proposal is to restore the old costs and upkeep but reduce the HP of the panther. Gameplay wise, if the panther is meant to be something like the jumbo then maybe make it 700HP like the jumbo, It will be superior to the jumbo in armor, speed, and gun, but equivalent in HP.

[CGarr]

I'm still leaning towards my suggestion, but I'd be willing to go with Kwok's suggestion to lower health as well.

I still think mine is the lightest touch change that has been presented, as every other suggestion that has been brought up here will make the panther far more vulnerable to all threats, where mine only makes it weaker vs 76mm tanks, thus answering the issues brought up concerning doctrines lacking a good counter to the panther without making causing other weapons to overperform against them.

I wrote a big wall of text, but if you read the summary, my suggestion's scope is limited to small changes to panther pricing, range, and 76mm gun pen vs panthers. Tiger's suggestion to implement other units as counters would involve yet another round of doctrine reworks, and Hawks wrote a whole laundry list of changes. Consti's suggestion has a larger scope than mine as well, although I like his too. I wouldn't necessarily be against any of these changes, even Tiger's, now that he finally admitted that some docs really don't have an answer to panthers and suggested to add their counters. However, I just want to make it clear that those changes will entail a much larger scope because they don't just affect those doctrines' performance against the panther, they buff said doctrines against all Axis armor, and people would still constantly bitch about losing their panthers and tigers occasionally to tanks that only cost like 35-40 fuel. If you ask me, US medium tanks and TD's are absurdly underpriced currently, I'd personally rather see them at a higher price point but with less arbitrarily low AT performance.

People really need to stop acting like it is the end of the world if a Panther is slightly more vulnerable to being penned by 76mm guns, I suggested a range increase specifically because of that notion. The Tiger is plenty vulnerable to penetration by 76mm guns, but 76mm tanks are not hard at all to counter with a well supported Tiger, even if they attack it as a group. It's range is easily enough to score it a couple kills before the 76mm tanks even start taking shots at it, and I personally never find myself having issues keeping my Tigers safe from direct attack, even against skilled players. Arty usually poses a much bigger threat to my heavies than 76mm tanks ever could, and the panther would arguably still be harder to kill than the tiger even if both had the same armor, as it is way more mobile and can dodge arty much more easily. Having such a fast tank with Tiger levels of range and lower price would be far more interesting than the current panthers, which just feel like yet another expensive heavy. Anyways, people have been saying that they like the feel of combined arms (I have multiple direct quotes stating such desire, if you don't believe me). Combined arms is much easier if you can actually afford having more tanks alongside your panther, and much less risky when losing a Panther A only costs you 110 fuel instead of 150.

According to this, the Panther is on the same level as Tigers and Pershings but with different characteristics (pros and cons).. same in other ww2 games as well.. but the intentions we see here are clearly aimed to hinder the Panther's role and bring down to the Firefly/Comet levels.

Why do you keep saying that the panther would be on the same level as the firefly and comet? Those tanks are still like 2/3 the cost of the panther after my cost change suggestions and still have substantially weaker armor, less health, and less range (unless the firefly goes into stationary firing mode, which is pretty much a death sentence for the firefly because it often won't be able to escape destruction if it's first shot fails to stop the panther). That's not even accounting for the range increase to the panther that I suggested. I am absolutely sure that a Panther would still win most fights against these tanks unless the firefly is used like an AT gun, and even then, it's probably a safe gamble to dive on the firefly with a Panther if you come at it from an angle to get the shot off before the firefly gets theirs. The change doesn't affect the Panther's performance against either of these tanks in any negative manner, pen for the 17 pdr would still be the same as it was before. If you want to argue that the panther would be on the same level as the 76mm armed medium tanks and TD's, that's an even dumber argument. It'd have way more range, costs twice as much as them, still have Tiger levels of armor (so pen isn't guaranteed), and substantially more HP. With my changes, it's still not even comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a fucking watermelon.

If we need a visual example of this concept of panthers being pennable by 76mm guns and yet still being extremely strong, look at EaW, Wikinger, and Spearhead. The Panther can be penned quite easily by 76mm tanks in all 3 of those mods, yet it is still very capable of stomping said shitty mediums into the ground before they can even think about aiming at the panther. That balance philosophy can be seen in BK with the Tiger, and I am trying to apply it to the panther as well with emphasis being more on the mobility rather than the Tiger's approach of having a meaty HP pool.

[Consti255]

I am on Dickys side on this one.
He brought up really good ideas and i think they will work fine.
Also i really push for the Idea to make the Panther A more different from the G. Which gets supported by his changes.

There is one thing tho i am completely against. And thats the cost increase from the E8 to wapping 80 fuel before massproduction.
The E8 by itself doesnt justify the 10 fuel cost more than the 76 right now. I think 5 more would do the job.
So it becomes the go to 76 sherman for Armor to take on these new sniping Panthers with his speed.
Unless the E8 doesnt get a proper difference except speed from the 76 i see no reason to see his costs that high.
Your initial E8 wouldve been than 105fuel instead of 65fuel for a normal 76.

[Warhawks97]

Tanks in General
Wow, i missed a lot of debate last night apparently. Alright:
First of i would like to link this debate with viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4220
In general i would propse that tanks have a higher emphasis on fuel cost and less on MP. Why? Simply because Manpower is the main ressource for everything. No MP means no units at all. With the current high MP cost of tanks (esspecially those going beyond 700-800 MP these units literally become one unit armies or at least have to perform in some ways to be one because combined arms warefare becomes tricky when a single unit eats up all your MP. That also often means that units like Panthers now, when getting killed by a single shot from ambush, are like an instant loss for the player unless a mate can jump in to close the gap while trying to rebuild the army strenght literally from sketch. It just creates the situation sukin described. Either this single unit wins the game by itself, or its over. So on that part, i am all on CGarrs side.

Having Tanks dropping in MP cost but stay relatively high on fuel cost means, that a loss may eats your fuel, but your MP pool allows you afterall to carry on the fight with inf, AT guns, arty and so on untill you saved enough fuel again to throw in a new Tank.


Response to Tiger about Panther stats

Now that all values are clear, it's obvious that the difference between Tigers and Panthers isn't as big as you might have imagined.. except that Panthers with skirts are a bit more resistant, but that totally justifies their price and availability at the moment in version 5.2.7 as their fuel upkeep was also increased. So, where exactly is the balance issue with Panthers? Keep in mind as well that Panther tanks are often out-numbered by E8 Shermans, if not always. And the jackson is clearly more than capable of dealing with the Panther, if it lacks some accuracy.. well, let's buff the accuracy then? I don't get the point behind nerfing the Panther directly. Allied can be improved on the other hand to be able to counter Panthers more reliably, instead of flattening out the Panther's sloped armor...

Now about the Panther. Tiger you forgot a few things, some of which already mentioned by kwok. G and D model currently have a 0.9 received pen modifier. A 90 mm shot against Panther G thus drops to 60% pen and 15.55% for the E8.

Now, taking into consideration ambush and AP boost of various guns, the difference becomes even more obvious. Here the 76 gun pen increases to almost 29,9% vs Panther G (D with skirts) and 42,6% vs Tiger. For the 90 mm ambush alone boosts the pen to 75%, AP will always result in pen. vs Tiger ambush alone boosts it to 97,9%. So i think there is quite a difference here.

Furthermore a Panther reloads its gun faster and has sometimes higher pen chances against targets as well.

When talking about realism and armor on Panther G, well, yes, some of them (not all) had the chin added on the Turret front (Gun mantlet) to avoid shot traps. Its armor on the sides got increased from 40 to 50 mm. However, the lower Front Hull armor plate was reduced from 60 to 50 mm to save weight. Also, from shooting tests, later G models cracked more often. Two out of three Panthers had their armor cracked from normal shots due to lower quality of steel, only one of them was more or less impenetrable. So, i wouldnt say "Panther G has always a better armor". Its not true. It got a weak spot removed. So its received pen modifier should be decreased from 0.9 to 0.95 counting for the few shots not landing in that shot trap.

According to this, the Panther is on the same level as Tigers and Pershings but with different characteristics (pros and cons).. same in other ww2 games as well.. but the intentions we see here are clearly aimed to hinder the Panther's role and bring down to the Firefly/Comet levels. Clearly harming the game balance and Axis mid game to be more precise. Not to mention, as extra point; that the Panther's theme would be broken as well.

This is not true. A Panther still maintains a much stronger front armor, esspecially vs medium AT guns. The ammount of threats on the battlefield is much larger for Fireflies and Comets as it is for Panthers.

So, i am not arguing realism mainly here.. in fact, the whole "76mm pen chances vs Tiger1 in comparison to Panther" conversation started when some players who support the Panther nerf, claimed that Panther is "miles ahead & much better and super fast compared with Tiger1 in BK Mod" which is clearly a total exaggeration since that - at least judging by the numbers - the Panther is just slightly better with both advantages and disadvantages in comparison with the Tiger1 tank.. most of those players even thought all Panthers are faster in acceleration than Tiger1 until you posted the speed values on Discord yourself. Doesn't this tell you anything MarKr?? YES, they are exaggerating and over-estimating the Panther based on "feelings" rather than valid supported evidence.

There are many Panther files in the game. Markr himself changed the cost values in the wrong files untill i reported them. And there i found out that i also checked some wrong files when i compared mobility stats.

Thing is that only the A Variant has that weird 2.5 acceleration modifier. And to be honest, i dont get why its there in the first place, but its there since xali left. And in my opinion it should be tuned down to 2. just like the other Panthers have. But thats something i also reported to markr via PM at first.


Panther, Jumbos, Pershings, 90 mm guns, 75 mm L/48, US 76 mm guns:

Could you provide some details to why this is a balance point?

Why is it important for the discussion that 76mm guns can penetrate the Panther and at what rates? If this thing is so important, shouldn't it be considered when balancing Allies too? I've rarely heard "Pershing should be changed in some way because the 75mm L48 gun has X% penetration against it". If it is a matter of "lower-tier tank can destroy this higher-tier one" and with it connected the costs of those units, then it should play even higher role in the Pershing balancing because the 76mm gun is mounted only on Shermans (76, E8 and Jumbo) + the separate AT gun, while the 75mm L48 is mounted on halftracks, Pumas, Marders, various PIVs, Hetzers and JPIVs the costs of which vary quite a lot.

I'm not trying to start a "Pershing balance" discussion here, I'm just pointing out that some argument is being brought up when discussing the Panther balance but the same is rarely mentioned when balancing similar unit on the other side of the barricade.

While the L48 Pz4s & Stugs compare with 76 Shermans, Fireflys & Comets... Tigers and Panthers compare with Pershings, Jumbo Sherman & Churchills on the other hand. Panther is also multirole tank just as Jumbo, so both are good vs inf as well.
Axis L48 TDs compare to Hellcats, Wolverines.
Other heavy Axis TDs (including JPz L70) compare to Jacksons & Achilles.
That way...

Well, its not this easy for many reasons. I dont even know where to begin with.

1. The factions are faaaaar too different in terms of cost of other units, support assets, layout, etc. If we put Pershings, Jumbos and Panthers into one basket, coming for the same cost etc, i would say US gonna win in the long run due to its supply yard fielding more of them.

2. On german side heavier guns to handle heavier stuff is far more common. So going only for heavies often results in a loss for US which simply rely a lot more on many mediums which must perform accordingly into late game. As axis going for heavies+arty is a way to play because there are basically only other enemie heavies that can beat your heavies (+arty/planes but that exists on both sides). A Pershing and Jumbo can run into IV/70´s that can also withstand return fire, or Jagdpanthers, Elephants and Nashorns that will take out even the heaviest allied tank wihout them having any chance (SP being the super huge exception on allied side). But German heavies dont have to fear to run into stuff like Jagdtigers or hidden Jagdpanthers/Nashorns/Elephants/Hidden Pak 43s.

3. The Jumbo is and was never designed to be a Panther counterpart. Its role was to be a breakthrough tank like the Tiger (just weaker gun) and churchill. I dont want Jumbos (and Pershings) to be thrown arround among US docs the way Axis beefy mediums and heavies are. The game would outright become boring due to faction and doctrines mirroring too much. Might be easier to balance but the result would be that we would see only standoffs between Pershings and Panthers.
What really annoys me is that Jumbos are having rather poor armor when compared to churchill MK VII.


4. For those reasons we cant also just say 75 mm L/75=US 76 L/52. They have similiar characteristics, but i never felt like i have to rely on the 75 mm L48 as i have to on the 76 mm gun. And i wouldnt want Jumbos and Pershings to become inflationary for mentioned reasons. However, the L/48 is L/46 Pak 40 are doing a great job whatsover and can handle most threats rather well, including Pershings.


So the way armor and factions among factions are designed does not simply allow us to make units and weapons equal. And even after the chances the 76 guns will suffer against Panthers, just perhaps less ridiculous as they do now with 3 tanks shooting point blank on a Panther with non penetrating.

Moreover, the fact that Jumbo Shermans are very restricted within the US arsenal, and the fact that M36 jacksons aren't available in AB doc.. is a US faction design problem... Rather than a "Panther problem" as some people try to perceive it.

Thus, this is not true unless you want to mirror factions. But then everything would have to get changed. Every single unit would have to find its equivalent on the other side which is impossible. There is no mirror to Panthers available on allied side that would have the speed, firepower, armor etc. And also not to units like Elephant, KT and other units unless you add SP´s everywhere. So your logic does not work here. There is also no supply yard on axis side.

Clearly harming the game balance and Axis mid game to be more precise.

Well, its already broken bc Panthers are considered "late game bad ass super units". The ammount of fuel it takes to go from Panzer Iv tec lvl to Panther tec lvl is more as it takes from t0 to Panzer IV tec lvl. And the fuel cost alone to build one Panther is higher as the tec cost to get panzer IV´s. Basically you can tec to Panzer IV and build one for about the same cost as it takes to build a single Panther! Isnt that crazy? So there is a huuuuuuuge gap when you want to get something after stugs/panzer IV. So huge that many consider it as dangerous to build several Panzer IV´s simply because that when they dont bring you the win, you are dead because from 76 shermans to jumbo and even Jackson tec lvl is very small.

The current Panther cost are breaking axis mid games neck. At least for BK doc.




What to do with Panthers:

1. I like kwoks idea the most. It retains the armor of Panthers vs 76 guns, even though its base pen should be increased from 0.32 to .37 witout skirts and from .3 to 3.6 with skirts.

2. Panther G armor modifier should be reduced from 0.9 to 0.95. That one turns good armor into insane armor.

3. The skirts have a faaar too great impact on 90 mm Performance for no reason. Skirts are just weird in BK in how they affect certain weapons.

4. Drop Panther HP from 800 to 700. All Panthers.

5. Panther Variants:
- I dont like the Idea of Panther A/D being more medium while G should remain heavy. The armor differences should be rather small as proposed.
My idea for this but also for Panzer IV´s would be that one model replaces another from tec level to tec level. Like you always start of with an D and my progressing the tec the variants change from A to G or sometimes only A. However, the G will be the last one and due to that the best and also relatively cheap to get. Docs like luft will always stick to D´s only.
Same should be done to Panzer IV´s, starting with F2´s and ending with J´s when you need them as cheap meatshields.
They would first cost 770/120 for the D variant, 700/120 for the A variant and finally 660/115 for the G Variant. However, this hopefully in accordance with Mp cost change to other medium Tanks (and TD´s). Otherwise Fireflies with their 550 MP cost would get fucked right away, just as the Jacksons.

Wehrmacht tec:
So, in order to prevent the gap when transitioning from Panzer IV´s to Panthers, i would call for a change in WH tec system.

I think the third and fourth building should be made available at once after second HQ upgrade. The third one will be called assault armory and contains most of axis arty, stugs, stupa, stuh and stuff. The last one gets simply called Tank factory instead of heavy tank factory. It contains all Panzer IV tanks (Ostwind, Jagdpanzer IVs etc. as well) and Panther/Tigers etc.
When build there will be Panzer IV F2 and Tigers available. With the last HQ upgrade Panthers get unlocked in the Tank factory and also the Panzer IV H and early Jagdpanzer IV/48, Ostwind etc. But only D model for Panther. With the Tank factory upgrade into "Improved Tank factory" there will be units unlocked like Panther A (replacing the D), Jagdpanzer IV/70 (A), Panzer IV J´s.
One last upgrade called "Heavy Tank factory" unlocks the Panther G and KT.

[Viper]

i like the idea to reduce panther hp instead of less armor......and i think 76 jumbo should have no limit but cost more.

@CGarr
what do you mean by give more range to panthers? they already have same range as tiger tank......or you mean add accurate long shot for all panthers like the ace and i think you have some wrong information about current tank prices in your post.

[MEFISTO]

I am 100% against of any Nerf for panthers. Stop making BK doctrine weaker.

[Viper]

I am 100% against of any Nerf for panthers. Stop making BK doctrine weaker.

me too, i prefer to allow more presence for jumbo or allied counterparts instead of straight panther nerf.

[Warhawks97]

no one ever mentioned a nerf


Just different ideas what role this tank should actually play.


And no, i dont want jumbos etc to become inflationary and literally start to replace shermans as main stay combat tank.