Panthers

I haven't seen a thread on these yet, so thought I'd make one.

The TLDR is - I think the panther might be one of the worst tanks in the game and I'd like to figure out how to fix it. A lot of the comparisons are against the SU85 not because I'm some Ost fanboi h8ing on teh soviets, but because they're asymmetrically in the same role - high tier dedicated AT tank.

This is also keeping in mind things like timing windows. Obviously a Panther will beat a T34 or a T70 1v1 handily, but they don't appear around the same time. Not including some 4v4 gimmick where one person skips all tiers and spams T4, the panther will be one of the last unit types to hit the field (if at all).

Also, before any history buffs jump in and say that the panther was classified as a medium tank - yes, I know. But in this game it's a turreted tank destroyer. I'm not at all interested in historical facts in this thread, just the game.


Reasons why include:

- Requirement to linear tech T4

- High cost (600 mp)

- Extremely poor vs infantry, perhaps worst in the game.

- Does the same damage and penetration as the SU85 (160 damage, 170 penetration)

- Fires approx 50% slower than SU85 (reload of 4.0 vs 6.45).

- Misses more shots than SU85 due to worse scatter values

- Deals less damage on misses due to less AOE splash than SU85 (0.5 vs 1.0).

- Worse range than SU85 + no vision extension. (50 vs 60)

- Requires more experience to vet up / plus hits the field much later. (1790/3580/7160 vs 2530/5060/10120).

- Required to be used aggressively due to range discrepancy which increases risk of loss. This is only half a point I suppose because map and a whole lot of other factors can impact this.


All that for a tradeoff of having 2 shots more worth of HP (640 vs 960), better frontal armor, a bit faster, and a turret.

This isn't factoring in things like Mark Vehicle, Smoke, Button, mines etc because that's all going to be matchup dependent and can obviously change the outcome.

My analysis both on paper and in practice has been that the Panther is desperately lacking. I remember back in the alpha and early beta it was pretty overpowered, but at this point I think something needs to swing back in its favor. Either in addressing its counterparts or tweaking its own stats / costs.

I find them to be the best non-doctrinal anti-tank tank in the game. They're better than the SU-85 imo now that the SU-85 has been nerfed. The main thing that matters that you've ignored is their speed and turret rotation. In the hands of a half decent player, they can get the jump on an SU-85 without much trouble - or at least pick and choose their battle to do so. No other Soviet tank has a chance against them either. IS-2 loses quite handily (which is fine, as it is primarly AI). I see more and more German players going T4 for them with the recent changes. Blitz at vet 1 makes them insane Nascar tanks and Panzer tactician is an amazing doctrinal ability to supplement with. Guards spend 40 muni to try and snare you? NP, spend 15 on smoke to escape! I think they're fine as is personally.

Good, organised and considered post, Shazz.

Too bad sov fanbois will spam it to death.

I agree it's lacking. I've thought about this a lot aswell but I feel the issue is a lot more complicated than just buffing the panther. When you buff the panther, you will be changing the whole late game.

Easy thing with Coh1 was that even though the Panther roflstomped every armor in the game, it still could be reliably countered with antitank guns, that's not the case in Coh2 since Zis sucks ass so much.

I don't really want to comment on what changes it would take before the Pak gets the buff it so badly needs.

Indeed Panther has to be buffed. I saw so many games where Soviets were spamming SUs and KV-8s against them and won the game. By the way, even a Panther can't penetrate a KV-8.
Nice analysis. I hope they will fix this in the next patch. Soviet OP imo.

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?

All that for a tradeoff of having 2 shots more worth of HP (640 vs 960), better frontal armor, a bit faster, and a turret.

Collectively a big deal.

T4 stuff is an interesting tradeoff with Ostheer T3 right now, which is fine by me. I've not had much of a problem with Panther performance, and the reduced fuel cost makes it much more practical imo.

I don't really understand people's issue with it being "bad". Cost quibbles aside, purely how the unit performs in its role is amazing. Before the SU-85 changes, we could not say this as it was much harder to flank them. Now, it's just a L2P issue in flanking with them. Because other than SU-85s, there is no other armour threat to them. If they had much anti-infantry capability too they'd be OP.

- High cost (600 mp)

You bring allot of valid points, but I think this is the biggest problem. I don't understand why they made this change, but I think it made the tank too expensive now.

Because other than SU-85s, there is no other armour threat to them. If they had much anti-infantry capability too they'd be OP.

that's for sure

Too bad sov fanbois will spam it to death.

actually if you stay away from it, I think it will progress just fine

actually if you stay away from it, I think it will progress just fine

actually if you stay away from me, I think it will progress just fine.

Back. The. Fuck. Off.

I actually don't mind the panther's anti inf capabilities. You downplay the presence it has in having high hp and armor coupled with the machine guns. It's not uncommon to see panthers score several thousand infantry damage and 30+ kills. I also believe you downplay it's at capabilites, it will lose to an is-2 but severely maul it in the process. It also has micro options against all other soviet tanks due to its speed, even an is-2.

I think you make a mistake by comparing them in a vacuum like that. I dont think the stats look all that bad. And you are really not giving much for the turret, which is what makes this unit so much more versitile than the SU. Ingame it eats Su85s like candy 1v1. At vet 1 with blitz its crazy fast, and smoke provides good getaway chances. Really giving this unit the upper hand against a su85.

Even if both are AT weapons the SU does best by either lurking at the back, or slowly creeping in. The Panther on the other hand is a deep flank unit. Rush in, hit desired targets and move out again, something a SU has serious problems with due to the lack of a turret.

In that sense, both are AT, but they got different roles. One is backline TD, the other one frontline makes heck of a difference imo. Ostheer dedicated TD is rather the StuG. A comparison between those would be more fair (StuG falls short here though, but cheaper).

I think you make a mistake by comparing them in a vacuum like that. I dont think the stats look all that bad. And you are really not giving much for the turret, which is what makes this unit so much more versitile than the SU. Ingame it eats Su85s like candy 1v1. At vet 1 with blitz its crazy fast, and smoke provides good getaway chances. Really giving this unit the upper hand against a su85.

Even if both are AT weapons the SU does best by either lurking at the back, or slowly creeping in. The Panther on the other hand is a deep flank unit. Rush in, hit desired targets and move out again, something a SU has serious problems with due to the lack of a turret.

In that sense, both are AT, but they got different roles. One is backline TD, the other one frontline makes heck of a difference imo. Ostheer dedicated TD is rather the StuG. A comparison between those would be more fair (StuG falls short here though, but cheaper).

The aggressive rush in would be fine if it weren't so expensive and hard to vet, I think. One of the points I tried to raise was that even with blitzkrieg, you're making a huge risk to rush a soviet. (Furthermore, getting blitzkrieg on a panther is an accomplishment in itself.) If it doesn't pay off, it's not like you're out a T70 or something small - it's a potential GG to lose your panther. And things like mines, button, bad pathing, whatever can all seriously ruin your day.

The turret and armor I don't lend that much to because, as you mentioned, it needs to push. If it's circling a tank or behind enemy lines, assuming the forces are supporting eachother and other player is decent, chances are it's going to take rear armor hits. It's going to hit a mine or catch an ATnade. And it's going to die. You might take out something too, but it takes a lot to make up that cost of teching and the panther itself. I find it much easier, safer, and consistently rewarding to push or creep while playing Soviets.

If you do break through and manage to not have any of that happen, yeah, it works pretty well. I'm not trying to contest that at all. But that doesn't seem to be the case most of the time.

Again, it's not "panther vs su85". It's "both faction's dedicated AT tank", where I believe the panther falls short. On paper it seems so, in my personal experience it seems so, and judging by its total lack of notable presence in any tournament it seems so too.

I don't really understand people's issue with it being "bad". Cost quibbles aside, purely how the unit performs in its role is amazing. Before the SU-85 changes, we could not say this as it was much harder to flank them. Now, it's just a L2P issue in flanking with them. Because other than SU-85s, there is no other armour threat to them. If they had much anti-infantry capability too they'd be OP.

Agreed, I'd like to see ZiS and Pak become better. I don't want to see panther gain anti infantry, I'd like to see it become cost effective.

One of the points I tried to raise was that even with blitzkrieg, you're making a huge risk to rush a soviet. [...]

Again, it's not "panther vs su85". It's "both faction's dedicated AT tank", where I believe the panther falls short. On paper it seems so, in my personal experience it seems so, and judging by its total lack of notable presence in any tournament it seems so too.

Yes, rushing in is always a high risk thing to do, and might not be rewarding all the time. And losing a panther is a hard blow to the armyvalue.

Not many in tournaments perhaps. See them more in teamgames. Mostly play 2v2 and some above. Some units (as well as commanders) are more viable in larger games than in smaller I think.

And I still dont buy the dedicated AT tank idea, since they have so diffrent roles. The go to AT tank to compare the Su85 with is the StuG. Which in many ways reminds of the Su85 with its turretless design etc. Range and sight is worse, but for pure AT purposes (shooting down tanks) it does the job ok. It also comes at a lower tier than panther, and costs significantly less.

I see it like this. Su85 and StuG are TDs. The Panther is more of an agressive tankhunter, something that is missing in the soviet standard tiers.


Edit: @last poost by Shazz, I would also like to see the panther a bit more cost-effective. Just that I think that you compare it to the wrong unit (it is very hard to compare it to a right one, since the soviet doesnt have any equivalent.)

And things like mines, button, bad pathing, whatever can all seriously ruin your day.

The turret and armor I don't lend that much to because, as you mentioned, it needs to push. If it's circling a tank or behind enemy lines, assuming the forces are supporting eachother and other player is decent, chances are it's going to take rear armor hits. It's going to hit a mine or catch an ATnade. And it's going to die. You might take out something too, but it takes a lot to make up that cost of teching and the panther itself. I find it much easier, safer, and consistently rewarding to push or creep while playing Soviets.

If you do break through and manage to not have any of that happen, yeah, it works pretty well. I'm not trying to contest that at all. But that doesn't seem to be the case most of the time.

To break this down, your concerns are purely about using the unit well, not the unit itself. Hitting mines, catching an AT nade (which have a greater chance now of not doing any engine damage vs. heavy tanks), etc. don't have anything to do with how good/bad the Panther is. They're just part of playing the game and judging risks properly based on the flow of the game. You can't balance a unit based on whether it is likely to hit a mine or not. Like I said above, use smoke and you've instantly reduced the risk of flanking attacks a lot already.

There are numerous inherently greater risks in having to "hunt" enemy armor by aggressively pushing into his territory, than there is in hanging back and shooting away from a distance.

This are not an element of "using the unit well". They are a fundamental warfare element, and one in which spotting in particular has a very serious affect.

There are numerous inherently greater risks in having to "hunt" enemy armor by aggressively pushing into his territory, than there is in hanging back and shooting away from a distance.

This are not an element of "using the unit well". They are a fundamental warfare element, and one in which spotting in particular has a very serious affect.

And greater rewards...the only thing you are going to use a panther to flank deep and hunt for is an SU-85 (or those rare instances of an ISU-152) - other armour the Panther can just take out frontally at range. So, once you are even just beside an SU-85, it is dead. Choosing the moment to make the flank is what separates good players from bad. The Panther's speed, turret rotation, doctrinal smoke, and Blitz vet ability all help mitigate risk. Proper scouting for AT guns helps you choose the moment. An unlucky mine shouldn't be part of a balance discussion. This is what I mean by using the unit well and playing well.