Panthers

This is what I mean by using the unit well and playing well.

Which is mitigated, in argument, by opponents also having to use their units well, and playing well, and ultimately not relevant to balance discussion, since its considered agreed and equal.

The premise is two equal players, using units equally well and playing equally well.

Not one guy driving his vehicles backwards, with his support performing figure skating on the ice, and running through his genius uber-pro opponents implecable mines, support positions and near prescient anticipation of his retarded opponents actions.

My point was that using a unit designed to flank is not inherently riskier than sitting defensively, as you said. Sometimes sitting defensively is the riskier move.

My point was that using a unit designed to flank is not inherently riskier than sitting defensively, as you said. Sometimes sitting defensively is the riskier move.

Its always riskier. Specifically inherently.

You are moving into unknown territory, against prepared positions, the disposition of which you do not know.

Sitting defensively is far "safer". Assaulting is inherently not.
This reflects on SU85 and Panther.
It also reflects on Elephant, as expressed in a related parallel thread.

My point was that using a unit designed to flank is not inherently riskier than sitting defensively, as you said. Sometimes sitting defensively is the riskier move.

I can sort of agree with that. My issue stems mostly from the fact that presuming that it needs to be a flanker, it needs a turret and speed. Okay, no problem - it has those. That could be neat and balanced with the SU85 - one is designed to be a stonewall, one is designed to be a flanker.

Except the panther still costs twice as much and requires teching into another tier. Its upsides (slightly better survivability) I believe are terribly outnumbered by its downsides compared to the Soviet counterpart. It still requires being risky with it. Nullist is correct in that it is not about using it correct, it is about its impact if both players are playing equally well. It is my belief based on statistical and personal experience that its impact is not sufficient, doubly backed up by its total lack of use in high level play.

Stug could be considered SU85 counterpart, maybe, though that's a whole different ballgame.

Nicely reasoned OP but I think there are a few things you're missing. I play 2v2s so I can't really speak on the 1v1 front but in my experience the Panther is an awesome tank. The OP describes how the Panther matches up against the SU-85. Same damage and penetration with about half the rate of fire but the big difference here is the Panther is fighting weakly armored Soviet tanks with no turrets while the SU-85 has to match up against the frontal armor of heavy German tanks. That may sound obvious but its a really big deal.

• SU-85 penetration: 170 vs Panther armor: 270
  
• Panther penetration: 170 vs SU-85 armor: 180
  
  
  In comparison, the Panther has a better Penetration vs frontal armor match up. Combine that with the Panther's higher health and it's pretty obvious that the Panther beats the SU-85 handily when engaged in a frontal slugfest.
  
  Time to Kill @ range 20:
  
  
• Panther shooting SU-85: 28 seconds
  
• SU-85 shooting Panther: 42 seconds
  
  
  But, because of the far superior maneuverability of the Panther (better acceleration, better top speed, blitz, turret) over the SU-85 (focus sight slowness) the Panther should be able to attain a flank against the SU-85 and get hits on it's rear armor which changes the numbers drastically.
  
  
• SU-85 penetration: 170 vs Panther armor: 270
  
• Panther penetration: 170 vs SU-85 armor (rear): 80
  
  
  And of course, once the Panther gets close and forces the SU-85 to rotate, the SUs rate of fire will go down significantly even to the point of not being able to fire. That turret vs no turret match-up is a big deal.
  
  Those time to kill numbers hold pretty steady throughout the range brackets except for range 50 where the Panther's time to kill edge increases sharply (up to a 19 second advantage) and then at range 60 where the SU-85 finally sees it's first advantage, outside of the Panther's gun range. Even so, it still takes a full 63 seconds for the SU-85 to get the job done.
  
  
  With all that said, units don't fight in a vacuum. There's a whole battle raging out there right? Well, beyond the tank destroyer vs tank destroyer match-up there is another really important distinction which should be pointed out. The SU-85s biggest weakness are PGs with schreks. German Infantry based AT is a serious threat to the SU-85 and can kill it in just a couple of salvos. The Panther on the other hand has no trouble with Soviet infantry based AT. Guards' DPS rifles (doctrinal only) are pretty weak and the Panther has a good chance of resisting AT grenades. So, while the Panther can't do much against Soviet infantry, the reverse is also true. The Soviet infantry AT arsenal doesn't have anything that can directly harm the Panther.
  
  
  Now, is the cost just right? I don't know. I think the jury is still out on that. I personally need to see more games before I can make that determination. But I don't think anyone can argue with the unit's performance. It's a beast.

The problem isn't the Panther itself as it is a very strong unit, it's the entirety of German T4 design. The entire tier gives way too few benefits for the manpower and fuel investment you have to put in as compared to T3.

Furyn brings up a good point that Panzerschreks are very good AT against Su-85 - so good that I don't feel a need to get a Panther. T34s are better handled by P4 and Stugs so there's no need for the Panther there.

Frankly, I don't think there are any situations in 1v1 where T4 is a better choice than T3. Just look at the Brummbar.

I can sort of agree with that. My issue stems mostly from the fact that presuming that it needs to be a flanker, it needs a turret and speed. Okay, no problem - it has those. That could be neat and balanced with the SU85 - one is designed to be a stonewall, one is designed to be a flanker.

Except the panther still costs twice as much and requires teching into another tier. Its upsides (slightly better survivability) I believe are terribly outnumbered by its downsides compared to the Soviet counterpart. It still requires being risky with it. Nullist is correct in that it is not about using it correct, it is about its impact if both players are playing equally well. It is my belief based on statistical and personal experience that its impact is not sufficient, doubly backed up by its total lack of use in high level play.

Stug could be considered SU85 counterpart, maybe, though that's a whole different ballgame.

The Panther does not cost twice as much as the SU-85. It's 600/130 vs. 350/115 (I think). The MP cost might be a little high but the fuel cost is cheap for what you get. It is definitely used in high level play - maybe not as much before this patch, but players are definitely using it now. I don't recall seeing it in the recent tournament but many of those games are effectively over before T4 is needed. Here is a really entertaining one as an example though: http://www.gamereplays.org/companyofheroes2/replays.php?s=8a0986bac8da2e0dc3ae5c039ae863d8&game=83&show=details&id=287570

@Furyn Good analysis, thanks for sharing your calculation. Did you account for the reloading times and the potential misses due to accuracy?

@Nullist You have a tendency to isolate 2 units and argue their merits in direct comparison, completely neglecting the fact that the two sides being analysed are asymmetrical with asymmetrical balance.

Flanking is more risky but that fact applies to both sides. It is rather well established that flanking is required in different situation for the Soviet faction.

Furthermore most seem to forget that the best counter to a SU85 (apart from the doctrinal Elefant) is found in tier 2. I employed a combination of 1 pg with a schreck, 1 gren to faust the SU (very good penetration chance even frontally of 140/180=0.77 or ~80%) and a pack (with target weakpoint, if available) with great success against SU85 heavy strats.

Edit: @Furyn, I just realised that you already raised my last point, but I'll leave it in to potentially make more people aware of it

Panther is the best tank in the whole game! What you get for the price is amayzing. This is everything I gotta say regarding the topic.

I can't take any credit for the time to kill stats. I got those numbers off of the coh2 stats google doc. I'm sure they incorporated reloading times and accuracy into the equation. It's a very thorough doc with some great stat breakdowns.

I love panther, and I do feel the 600MP is little bit high, but as long as Panther can take on a JS-2, I'm fine with this non-doctinal unit, beside 130FU is kinda cheap to get if you intentionally save your MP

I can't take any credit for the time to kill stats. I got those numbers off of the coh2 stats google doc. I'm sure they incorporated reloading times and accuracy into the equation. It's a very thorough doc with some great stat breakdowns.

I know the sheet. They don't account for these factors at the moment for vehicles to my knowledge. As far as I could see there is still no DPS column available for the tanks. Thanks for the clarification. How did you end up with the time to take out the other tank destroyer?

I was just somewhat surprised to see that the panther would come out ahead under a range of 60 so clearly. Subjectively, I would have expected it to be a closer call without taking a flank into the equation.

panther is fine, it is all around tank very good balance of everything, anymore on a panther, could make it become op, only problem right now i have is panther is quite expansive on MP, now i pretty much always got to like 200FU before i am having enough MP for a panther

I know the sheet. They don't account for these factors at the moment for vehicles to my knowledge. As far as I could see there is still no DPS column available for the tanks. Thanks for the clarification. How did you end up with the time to take out the other tank destroyer?

I was just somewhat surprised to see that the panther would come out ahead under a range of 60 so clearly. Subjectively, I would have expected it to be a closer call without taking a flank into the equation.

There is no DPS for tanks because it is listed under the individual unit tables. There's no point in listing a tank dps as it will be different for every target you fire at.

The target tables on the unit pages do account for accuracy, penetration and reload. Time to kill increases as range increases because accuracy degrades over distance, and this factors into how many shots will be required to kill a target.

The panther has a 94% chance to penetrate an SU-85, while an SU-85 has a 63% chance to penetrate a panther. The panther also has 50% more hp. From the front, the panther will always win vs a lone SU-85 in a straight shooting fight.

Accounting for average armor bounces, the Panther requires at minimum 5 shots to kill an SU-85 assuming nomisses. An SU-85 requires at least 10 shots to kill a Panther from the front. You could get lucky and penetrate every shot with the SU-85 but that is highly unlikely.

The one thing our tables do not take into account is scatter, which we cannot easily quantify into accuracy. Keep in mind that the SU-85 has much better scatter than the panther and will likely hit more of its shots, however Blitzkrieg gives the panther an evasion and accuracy bonus.

There is no DPS for tanks because it is listed under the individual unit tables. There's no point in listing a tank dps as it will be different for every target you fire at.

The target tables on the unit pages do account for accuracy, penetration and reload. Time to kill increases as range increases because accuracy degrades over distance, and this factors into how many shots will be required to kill a target.

The panther has a 94% chance to penetrate an SU-85, while an SU-85 has a 63% chance to penetrate a panther. The panther also has 50% more hp. From the front, the panther will always win vs a lone SU-85 in a straight shooting fight.

Accounting for average armor bounces, the Panther requires at minimum 5 shots to kill an SU-85 assuming nomisses. An SU-85 requires at least 10 shots to kill a Panther from the front. You could get lucky and penetrate every shot with the SU-85 but that is highly unlikely.

The one thing our tables do not take into account is scatter, which we cannot easily quantify into accuracy. Keep in mind that the SU-85 has much better scatter than the panther and will likely hit more of its shots, however Blitzkrieg gives the panther an evasion and accuracy bonus.

Thanks very much for the clarification and thanks a lot for the hard work you and the others put into the spreadsheet, it has proven to be a brilliant source of information (I'm still learning new things). Also thanks for displaying all formulas.
I have to admit that I didn't realise that you also had target tables linked for all vehicles (I mostly used it for infantry related information so far).

Now that the facts are established we might have a more constructive discussion

@Nullist You have a tendency to isolate 2 units and argue their merits in direct comparison, completely neglecting the fact that the two sides being analysed are asymmetrical with asymmetrical balance.

Please quote me where I have done specifically that in this thread.

I must insist.

I don't think there is much wrong with it other than its manpower cost. But the Brummbär has the exact same problem, no idea why German T4 requires so much of it. Maybe they'll change it when they further balance lategame?

I thought panthers were fine before the manpower adjustment. Now they just consume what would be a German player's late game capping power which is very important for closing out a win. Isn't it always a better idea to just get AT guns with that manpower cost?

Panther is the best tank in the whole game! What you get for the price is amayzing. This is everything I gotta say regarding the topic.

of course you will find it amazing ... for you everything German is OP being a soviet fanboy yourself.

OP excellent points .... lets hope relic does something about it. I already created a thread about the panther a few months ago but apart from the massive and ridiculous manpower increase nothing was done.

- if you assume both players are equal
then why would one player feel the need to take a risky attack move with his panther?
=> because he lost the early /mid game and needs to recover some ground?

so yeah, as if its not risky for soviet to go on the attack against a dug in german position

the real question here is

whats better, soviet artillery to soften up german positions
or german mobility for a blitz attack

and if you look at the numbers
in a defensive role panther > su85
in an attack role su85 lacks mobility compared to panther

(and i only play 3v3, 4v4)

the fact that panthers are beeing used at the highest level should help to understand that they fit in several german BO, but no, unlike the tiger, its doesnt have the anti-infantry role added to the anti-tank. So when you reach T4, make your choice: if you need anti-infantry tool, go for brummbär, if you need anti-tank take the panther. 1 Panther is king vs anything else than Su85 and SU85 are now easily flankable with the 2 patchs that nerfed them in a row. IS2 and ISU152 both are fragile to panther and t34 wont hurt the panther except if the german player fails microing

i dont get why people dont focus on the real game-breaking issues, IMHOa KV8 and house cover system...