Panthers

I think Panthers are quite good in team games as it's relatively cost effective if you get the teching costs out of the way. Tier 4 Germans are generally not viable in 1on1 games though.

Arguing with a soviet fangirl like ozwizard is a waste of time. He still doesn't get it that a T4 unit costing 600MP and 135 fuel has the EXACT SAME penetration as a much cheaper su85.

When arguing the merits of a tank one cannot just look at the penetration. The penetration on its own isn't a direct indication of the performance of a tank or at-gun. One must also factor in the armour value of the unit which is being fired upon. May I direct you to this entry in this very thread, which details the performance of both tanks versus each other.
The likelihood of penetration is calculated by dividing the penetration value by the armour value of the target. If calculated you'll end up with a 94% chance for a Panther to penetrate a SU85 up front and a 63% chance for the SU85.
The Panther's performance versus the SU85 is rather well visible in the data. The Panther's price is a discussion one can have. However you seem to omit the fact that the SU85 is as well a tier 4 unit and is at 115 fuel only negligibly cheaper. The ~200 price difference in manpower is more significant and therefore noteworthy. Whether the difference in the price reflects the effectiveness I cannot accurately assess at this moment.

Man its just cringeworthy to read a discussion like this. So many people pouring oil on the fire, claiming they want "better balance" whereas in fact they only play one faction exclusively.

German players want the Panther buffed, Soviet players say it's fine. There's just so little people here that actually truly want better balance instead of just crying for buffs of their beloved army.

+1

I really want to like Panthers in CoH2 - it's stats are good on paper and it's one of my favourite tanks ever.

But I just can't make them work in 2vs2 (game mode I play the most). Whether it's the case of me being unable to use it effectively or Panther being too weak I cannot tell.

And while flanking is very effective against SU-85, there are maps that make it probably too hard than it should have been.

Arguing with a soviet fangirl like ozwizard is a waste of time. He still doesn't get it that a T4 unit costing 600MP and 135 fuel has the EXACT SAME penetration as a much cheaper su85.

Panther needs a definite manpower cost reduction back to 440 (maybe increase fuel to 150 for all I care) along with slightly better anti infantry capability.

Right now its ridiculouse to watch a panther needing 2 minutes to force a conscript squad to retreat.

Sorry, but this whole topic is waste of time. Panther is a grat tank. The best in fact. Very fast, good armour, good amount of hit points, excellent penetration and it hits like a train. No Soviet armour can go toe to toe with it except for IS-2. After Vet1 it becomes a killing machine.
If you're loosing against SU-85 or any other tank it means two things:
1. Your opponent is way better than you.
2. You're doing it wrong.

1v1 is a bit different and is not unusual to not build heavy tanks or even go T4 for both factions. I could complain that I almost never build IS-2 in 1v1. That's not even a valid argument. There is no need to go T4 as PzIV is more than enough to deal with anything Soviet player will throw at you.

Sorry, but this whole topic is waste of time. Panther is a grat tank. The best in fact. Very fast, good armour, good amount of hit points, excellent penetration and it hits like a train. No Soviet armour can go toe to toe with it except for IS-2. After Vet1 it becomes a killing machine.
If you're loosing against SU-85 or any other tank it means two things:
1. Your opponent is way better than you.
2. You're doing it wrong.

1v1 is a bit different and is not unusual to not build heavy tanks or even go T4 for both factions. I could complain that I almost never build IS-2 in 1v1. That's not even a valid argument. There is no need to go T4 as PzIV is more than enough to deal with anything Soviet player will throw at you.

I think a lot of people are mistaking what this topic is supposed to be about. I'm not arguing that the panther is bad inherently. I'm not saying "SU85 vs Panther who wins". I'm saying that the panther, today, is not cost effective when compared to its peers and other purchasing decisions. Furthermore, because of the unique scenario where the panther is forced to be aggressive on account of SU85's existence, it's also inherently a high risk scenario due to rushing into an ambush, mine, ATnade, whatever and losing it or worse, giving it to the enemy.

A tank that cost 2000mp and 500 fuel and one shot any unit would be pretty good on paper, but the problem is the cost. You would never be able to field it in a game where it could make a difference. Obviously this is an exaggerated and somewhat ridiculous example, yet still analogous to the panther's situation.

The panther is okay. But for its cost, I would gladly take x2 panzer4 (since MP is the limiting factor in most cases) or 1x panzer4 and a shrek squad. The tiger, on the other hand, is generally worth saving for and is not that much more expensive than the panther yet significantly better in all regards except speed. Thus, the conclusion is that the panther is not cost effective.

It might be "the best" tank on paper in your opinion, but its complete lack of practical application in regular play or in tourney play, either 1v1 or 2v2, means that everyone at least tacitly acknowledges that there's an issue with it. I'm not sure how the 3v3 or 4v4 scenes play out, but historically speaking in any game those have been high tier spam fests so probably not a good indicator.

EDIT: Minor clarification.

I think a lot of people are mistaking what this topic is supposed to be about. I'm not arguing that the panther is bad inherently. I'm not saying "SU85 vs Panther who wins". I'm saying that the panther, today, is not cost effective when compared to its peers and other purchasing decisions. Furthermore, because of the unique scenario where the panther is forced to be aggressive on account of SU85's existence, it's also inherently a high risk scenario due to rushing into an ambush, mine, ATnade, whatever and losing it or worse, giving it to the enemy.

A tank that cost 2000mp and 500 fuel and one shot any unit would be pretty good on paper, but the problem is the cost. You would never be able to field it in a game where it could make a difference. Obviously this is an exaggerated and somewhat ridiculous example, yet still analogous to the panther's situation.

The panther is okay. But for its cost, I would gladly take x2 panzer4 (since MP is the limiting factor in most cases) or 1x panzer4 and a shrek squad. The tiger, on the other hand, is generally worth saving for and is not that much more expensive than the panther yet significantly better in all regards except speed. Thus, the conclusion is that the panther is not cost effective.

It might be "the best" tank on paper in your opinion, but its complete lack of practical application in regular play or in tourney play, either 1v1 or 2v2, means that everyone at least tacitly acknowledges that there's an issue with it. I'm not sure how the 3v3 or 4v4 scenes play out, but historically speaking in any game those have been high tier spam fests so probably not a good indicator.

EDIT: Minor clarification.

Panther can handle JS-2 and T-34/85s, the 130 fuel cost for me is a buff, the 600MP is some kinda high, but consider which soviet tank is cost-effective near a panther since alpha test?

600MP should be reduced to 520, and fuel rise to 140 IMO......Generally, panther need a slightly AI buff, dev just copy and paste panther's role from vCOH, I'd like to see some change

600MP should be reduced to 520, and fuel rise to 140 IMO......Generally, panther need a slightly AI buff, dev just copy and paste panther's role from vCOH, I'd like to see some change

A 520/140 panther would actually be quite awesome for the price.

Panther can handle JS-2 and T-34/85s, the 130 fuel cost for me is a buff, the 600MP is some kinda high, but consider which soviet tank is cost-effective near a panther since alpha test?

600MP should be reduced to 520, and fuel rise to 140 IMO......Generally, panther need a slightly AI buff, dev just copy and paste panther's role from vCOH, I'd like to see some change

I'm going to have to agree with this post

IS-2s and T-34/85s just need to not be terrible

Panther can handle JS-2 and T-34/85s, the 130 fuel cost for me is a buff, the 600MP is some kinda high, but consider which soviet tank is cost-effective near a panther since alpha test?

600MP should be reduced to 520, and fuel rise to 140 IMO......Generally, panther need a slightly AI buff, dev just copy and paste panther's role from vCOH, I'd like to see some change

seriously, 600MP is little bit too much, i don't care about fuel, i usually have no fuel problems i think either it roll back to 440MP 165FU or rebalance it.

I don't think 520MP 140FU, Relic will change it because it will be actually overall cheaper than before
as before it change from 440MP 165FU to 600MP 130FU the trade off between 1FU is 4.57MP so over all the cost of a panther is around 1194MP (as vaule), if change to 520MP to 140FU the overall cost value will be lower to around 1160

IMO if the panther was better vs. infantry, it would be a tank worth 600 MP. it shouldn't be as good as the Panzer IV vs. infantry but close perhaps

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 most informed RTS community on the internet.

Some Relic dude read this and realized that he knows less about the balance than the community. =)

Agreed on all counts Furyn.

The Panther is just fine right now.

In fact, with the addition of the top MG upgrade, it can even more easily handle infantry AT. I've posted elsewhere about removing the option for the top MG upgrade on the panther to force German players to support it more. And if all else fails, it has the option to crush infantry with its speed if it can find a road to accelerate on.

Lastly, although this is doctrinal, the Panther can use smoke launchers, allowing it an escape from many threats.

Ost Mounted MGs frankly all need buffing.

Ost Mounted MGs frankly all need buffing.

Because we need to buff the one weakness that German tanks have.

Completely disagree with that idea. Top MG gunners need to be nerfed, or removed for some German tanks to promote more combined arms, instead of rushing to and building more and more tanks.

German players already build too many tanks. If you ever want those nerfs to Soviet infantry killing ability you're clamoring for, you have to lose effectiveness in other areas to give your grenadiers that aren't blowing up something to shoot at.

Because we need to buff the one weakness that German tanks have.

No.

Because they are not performing cost effectively.

What do you want for 30 munitions? An MG42 unit on top of your Panther?

If you are saying it's the Panther that is not performing cost effectively...

Well I guess that means every Soviet tank is immensely not cost effective if the Panther isn't..

What do you want for 30 munitions? An MG42 unit on top of your Panther?

If you are saying it's the Panther that is not performing cost effectively...

Well I guess that means every Soviet tank is immensely not cost effective if the Panther isn't..

No, a small resultant DPS buff (from adjustment of whichever factor) would suffice.

Nothing as crazy as you are imagining and being sarcastic about.

It's 30 munitions. Only a little more resources than a grenade. And it's intended to be a long term add on to a tank. You should not, ever, expect it to work like a Grenadier LMG because there are already 2 MGs and a cannon on the tank.

On the receiving end, the additional DPS forced reactions from all angles works just fine. Turn your tank so that ALL 3 MGs on the tank face the infantry and it's a nightmare for a faction that's supposed to rely on infantry to soften up tanks.

It adds up just fine. If any more DPS is added, you'll see even more tank spam from Germans.

Top MGs do not need a buff at all, if anything, they need to remove it from some tanks to promote better combined arms.

Then, and only then, Nullist, will anyone consider your request to tone down the hypothetical Soviet constant one shot kills on Grens. Likewise, if they ever did get buffed, then they should definitely be removed as an upgrade option on anything except Panzer 4s, and StuGs.

You have to pick and choose, balance is a two way street here.

Nobody is suggesting it should "work like a Grenadier LMG".

A small DPS AI buff is, however, warranted at Muni cost and relative AI effectiveness of the vehicle overall.