State of Tank Balance

LOOK AT THIS TABLE: List of all tank values HERE

I pieced together a table of the most current values of relevant tanks from all of the factions. I was hoping to stir up some dialog within the community here and see how people feel about the way the tank game plays out in the current meta.

Formula: Penetration/Armor * 100 = % chance to deal damage

Example w/Panther vs Pershing: Panther's penetration from far away is - 220, the Pershing's armor is 230, so the formula would be: 220/300 * 100 = 73% chance to deal damage.
_________________________________________________________________________________
My OPINION: The game's AT guns are in a fine state, but the cost to value ratio of the German armor compared to the allied armor is disproportionate. You would think the natural answer to tank inferiority is the use of AT guns, but the counter to team weapons is artillery. Fortunately the Axis powers have access to mobile artillery pieces that allow for hit & run type tactics, this in-turn leaves very few options to the Allied player to respond to having their vital AT guns hit with artillery:

• Respond with some sort of flanking, hit & run tactic with their tanks. Doing this is risky, attempting to out maneuver your opponent with some sort of wide flank in hopes you track down his artillery piece before you hit a mine or become discovered is a less than ideal solution.
  
• Counter artillery is the obvious answer, in order to keep your team weapons alive, you spit back from just as far away with the same tool, but there is a complication. Artillery is only really available to the Soviets non-doctrinally which leaves the USF and UKF is a poor state of affairs. The USF's pakhowitzer is a temporary short-range solution that suffers from decrewing problems (the UKF landmatress likewise) due to its lack of mobility such as a stuka or panzerwerfer.
  

All of this effort is towards the goal of maintaining your AT guns as an allied player so you are able to fend off the superior penetration and health values of the axis armor.

I spent some effort in making this table since I had to manually piece it together via the attribute database in the tools section of steam. I am starting to draw the conclusion that the panther is just a step above ridiculous when it comes to health, armor, penetration. The first counter to my conclusion is "its range is inferior to other tank destroyers". So lets compare the 60 range SU-85 vs the 50 range Panther. It is very possible the SU-85 will get the first shot off, but the difference between 10 range leaves no room for any sort of shot evasion tactic from the SU-85, so it is highly likely that if an SU-85 (far less maneuverable) engages a panther, 10 range does not decide if there are free hits being dished out. Now lets look at the amount of hits to destroy the opponent.

SU-85 dies in 4 hits (with a 157% chance to deal damage if hit by panther)
Panther dies in 6 hits (with an 84% chance to deal damage if hit by SU-85)

The next counter argument is that the SU-85 is a cheaper tank. The problem I take with this, is the game being about veterancy. Keeping your units alive, gaining XP, (panther gets increased armor with vet), and eventually overwhelming your opponent with the units you were able to preserve. This sort of dynamic between tanks offers the Axis a huge amount of breathing room in terms of cognitive awareness of the battlefield. Allowing an Axis player to recover from what would have been a non-micro blunder with a 50% more time to react window.

How about we just buy a bigger tank on the allied side. Well... that one is kind of complicated, there are some, with advantages and disadvantages, mainly doctrinal choices if you want to go bigger, and even then, you are limited to a single one of them, while the Axis player is free to spam as many 960HP panthers as they see fit and give them a modicum of anti-infantry with an MG-42 upgrade (Jackson's would die to have this).

I understand the game is supposed to be asymmetrically balanced, and it does occur to me that the Axis do not win every game. I am simply trying to better understand why things are the way they are, since I am inclined to draw conclusions from the raw data I see. I am also aware that veterancy and commander/vehicle abilities strongly influence the dynamics of tank combat.

TL/DR: I'll leave it at that, there are plenty of more tank match-ups that can be compared, and I encourage everyone to do so. I spent a lot of time piecing together this table manually, I hope you guys make some use of it. I am interested to hear your conclusions. Most surprisingly to me, was the sheer amount of vehicles that actually deal 160 damage!

There's a couple of pretty serious problems with your line of analysis though. In your example, you mentioned that "10 range will not give any ability for the SU85 to evade the Panther". This presupposes a very low level of player skill AND assumes that battles in COH2 occur in vacuum of strange 1 tank vs 1 other tank situations. Because in such strange hypothetical situations, a single T34-76 will easily defeat an Elefant or Jagdtiger, even with a low level of micromanagement skill.

In reality, 10 range is MASSIVE, and usually results in dozens of unretaliated shots across a whole match. The Panther(s) will get shot at the moment they pokes their heads out by the SU85s (notice how they are in the plural form, because a 1 Panther vs 1 SU85 scenario is not a reasonable test). The Soviet player should reverse his tank destroyers if the Panther(s) push forward, and the Panthers would need to commit to a chase to even attack the SU85s. Since COH2 is heavily based around infantry play, the chasing Panthers will often be threatened by infantry units with snares. If the Panthers don't move closer, they can't hit anything. The penduluum only swings one way, because the SU85s doesn't need to get exposed to fausting-infantry in order to attack Axis tanks. Basically you don't just let a Panther waltz in and claim an easy 1vs1 victory against an SU85 - at least not at a reasonable level of player skill.

The second problem is that your horribly flawed conclusion was based off a comparison of generalist tanks with tank-hunter(s). This is a favourite pasttime of players who have only played as USF, in which they compare the Pershing to the Panther, as if the Panther had a main gun that guaranteed multiple wipes of enemy infantry squads per game, and could throw grenades to defend/attack. The Panther also has an inferior chance to penetrate, worse armour, inferior moving acc, and inferior reload time, and requires a very expensive tech path, but hey let's only look at the Panther's slight movement advantage and 20% increased health. All in all I'd say the Panther is slightly better in the tank vs tank matchup against a Pershing, but that is simply a comparison of his chicken being tastier than your fish.

Not to disparage your efforts, but all of your claims hold no water. You even go so far as to claim that the Axis armour is more cost-effective, for which there isn't a single piece of evidence. The "Axis superiority" in terms of armour comes at a steep price. As an example, the P4 is objectively superior to a T34-76, but the P4 has a 133% fuel price premium and costs more manpower and pop cap. And if all I wanted was a medium tank to bully infantry squads and bleed my opponent, the T34-76 does the job for much cheaper.

In a game which you have already acknowledged is about asymmetrical balance, you've spent most of your efforts cherry-picking the strengths of Axis armour whilst ignoring the weaknesses, and purposefully contrasted it against Allied weaknesses while ignoring Allied armour's strengths. Hopefully you'll reflect on that.

P4 easily beats jackson if it flanks it.

Maybe a nerf to PIV reload speed could fix that. Its a very good (some say best) medium tank, should not win against USF only high end tank destroyer imo.

Maybe a nerf to PIV reload speed could fix that. Its a very good (some say best) medium tank, should not win against USF only high end tank destroyer imo.

That is a horrible idea nerfing reload or even nerfing PanzerIV. It costs a lot for a medium, costs the same/similarly as Jackson but both have different purposes.

Jackson, has better mobility, range, penetration. Has even a crew that can heal their own tank. Better accuracy on the move. AT purposes. So it is superior in AT terms a specialist.

PanzerIV, slightly more armour than regular PanzerIV, can go against Infantry, is also mobile. Is a generalist.

If you know how to kite, then you would come up with better ideas than nerfing reload of a tank that does the same damage as any other but with less accuracy.

Jackson is at a good spot.

If you do not support the vehicle and make it vulnerable to flanks. Than that is your mistake. Jacksons can even flank PanzerIV too, it is vice versa.

The issue is heavy tanks really. That changes the whole balance situation.

...

Little tip: he is just posting subtle sarcasm.

You'd think his pfp would make it obvious that he is being ironic.
Kinda like this:
It's perfectly fine if a cheaper unit beats a more expensive one... If it's from the Axis.

Tanks are mostly in a good spot which some Ost tanks like the Ostwind and Stug as exceptions. There's some controversy surrounding whether the Tiger and IS2 are UP.

There's some controversy surrounding whether the Tiger and IS2 are UP.

\
Tiger got 2 buffs, pen and range.
IS-2 got just durability going for it, but trick is, any buff to it, especially its extremely luckluster AI would result in KV-2 becoming obsolete again and KV-2 got pretty good AI now with meh AT, pretty much reverse IS-2.

Maybe a nerf to PIV reload speed could fix that. Its a very good (some say best) medium tank, should not win against USF only high end tank destroyer imo.

So you're basically saying that the USF player should not be punished for not watching his flanks since u think under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should a full health Jackson lose to a full health p4. Meanwhile, any tank that flanks a Stug including AEC or stuart, it will likely be destroyed. Just get off the forum man.

\
Tiger got 2 buffs, pen and range.
IS-2 got just durability going for it, but trick is, any buff to it, especially its extremely luckluster AI would result in KV-2 becoming obsolete again and KV-2 got pretty good AI now with meh AT, pretty much reverse IS-2.

Not sure when Tiger got a pen buff. Must have been a long time ago.

Not sure when Tiger got a pen buff. Must have been a long time ago.

Tried to search it, couldn't find it, I'm quite positive its penetration was tinkered with as well as range, might've been some preview that never went life.

All of this effort is towards the goal of maintaining your AT guns as an allied player so you are able to fend off the superior penetration and health values of the axis armor.

check those superior health and pen values again even ur stats disagree with u, axis get a bit more armor (not even always ex.panther vs comet) while allies gets more pen generally to off set, the health is almost always the same (640) with some outliners in all factions


and u forgot the stug

check those superior health and pen values again even ur stats disagree with u, axis get a bit more armor (not even always ex.panther vs comet) while allies gets more pen generally to off set, the health is almost always the same (640) with some outliners in all factions


and u forgot the stug

Stugs closest counterpart would be the su76, which supports your point about axis= durable and allies=pen since the stug has an extra hit of health and double the armour.

Stugs closest counterpart would be the su76, which supports your point about axis= durable and allies=pen since the stug has an extra hit of health and double the armour.

the stug comes later and cost more too (same time as p4 while su 76 comes at the same time as a t70) it has 160 damage but 50 range

Stun ability for Stug is kinda useless. The fact is, nobody uses the ability since it is derelict. I suggest it should get a different ability due to that fact.

Nothing too strong but something that would suit it and serve some purpose at least.

Currently its stun ability only last 2-3 sec, so there is no real effect in doing this and does 80 damage. The ability is a joke. There is no change/effect, the enemy tank would continue to shoot as it usually does. The stun has no real effect.

Pak40 ability which is the same however is fixed and is in a good state. Does 160 damage and the stun serves more purpose.

Stug is good overall but the ability needs to be checked or changed!

I am beginning to doubt anyone is actually consulting the table to evaluate statistics, I am going to try and correct this by reminding everyone there is a link at the beginning of the post that gives you the most UP-TO-DATE information, pulled directly from the game files. Now I do not expect people to painstakingly take the time to create a table like this (website people, fix this please), but if we could base our responses on statistical information and not fanboy'isms, we could all get more out of this then just being angry that people disagree with them. Evaluate the below example.

An example with light anti-tank vehicles early game:

Vehicle	HP	Armor	Pen F	Pen M	Pen C	Damage	Range	Acc F	Acc M	Acc C	Manpower	Fuel
Puma (both factions)	400	25	80	120	160	120	50	0.025	0.0375	0.05	270	70
Stuart	400	80	55	60	75	80	40	0.025	0.0375	0.05	270	70
Armored Car	400	55	80	100	120	120	40	0.03125	0.0375	0.05	280	60
SU-76	400	70	180	190	200	120	60	0.025	0.0375	0.05	280	75

Puma vs Stuart

Mobility: Puma
Health: Equal
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Damage: Stuart comes up short by needing to land 5 instead of 4 shots to score a kill.
Range: Puma (by 10)
Acc: Equal
Cost: Equal
Conclusion: Given the mobility and slight range edge, the Puma wins this match by numbers. I do feel like 10 range is negligible, though some say it makes a world of difference. I wish I could post a GIF showing the ever so slight difference but despite my personal judgement, we'll keep count of the range differences (first hit potentially).

Puma vs Armored Car

Mobility: Puma (slightly)
Health: Equal
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Damage: Equal
Range: Puma (by 10)
Acc: Car far Acc is superior
Cost: Puma costs 10 more fuel, 10 less MP, edge goes to Car
Conclusion: The Car wins this match due to the superior accuracy from far (which is the most important), and having a 10 less fuel cost. Even though the Puma has a small edge in mobility and superior range, the chance to hit when taking into account that if either of them land one, the shot is going to pen, the accuracy means everything here.

Puma vs SU-76

Mobility: Puma
Health: Equal
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Damage: Equal
Range: SU-76 (by 10)
Acc: Equal
Cost: SU-76 costs 5 more fuel, 10 more MP, edge goes to Puma
Conclusion: First off dropping the T70 into this comparison would be unfair, even though no one builds the SU-76 anymore. Given the clear mobility advantage of the Puma versus the SU-76's fixed turret and slow rotation speed, the edge goes to the Puma. Even though the SU-76 has better range, its ability to utilize that is more positionally dependent when compared to the movement and turret rotation capability of the Puma. Cost is just icing on the cake to feed a win to the Puma here.


Final Thoughts: I will reiterate my previous comments of the gaming being asymmetrical, and I will even note that reload times, time to aim, and even speed & acceleration would be valuable statistics to include here. Maybe I will get into adding more to the tables to help with better comparisons. This was supposed to be an example of every factions anti-vehicle vehicle early game. The Puma (to me) appears to be a superior buy and/or financial investment.

U might want to check the reload too, and we have the Cruz’s doc for all the stats anyway

U might want to check the reload too, and we have the Cruz’s doc for all the stats anyway

Not really, penetration of SU-76 for example is incorrect in Cruz doc as it was nerfed less then 2 years ago.

Remember that doc is outdated for changes within last 2 years and SU-76 got some, so did StuG.

I am beginning to doubt anyone is actually consulting the table to evaluate statistics, I am going to try and correct this by reminding everyone there is a link at the beginning of the post that gives you the most UP-TO-DATE information, pulled directly from the game files. Now I do not expect people to painstakingly take the time to create a table like this (website people, fix this please), but if we could base our responses on statistical information and not fanboy'isms, we could all get more out of this then just being angry that people disagree with them. Evaluate the below example.

An example with light anti-tank vehicles early game:

Vehicle	HP	Armor	Pen F	Pen M	Pen C	Damage	Range	Acc F	Acc M	Acc C	Manpower	Fuel
Puma (both factions)	400	25	80	120	160	120	50	0.025	0.0375	0.05	270	70
Stuart	400	80	55	60	75	80	40	0.025	0.0375	0.05	270	70
Armored Car	400	55	80	100	120	120	40	0.03125	0.0375	0.05	280	60
SU-76	400	70	180	190	200	120	60	0.025	0.0375	0.05	280	75

Puma vs Stuart

Mobility: Puma
Health: Equal
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Damage: Stuart comes up short by needing to land 5 instead of 4 shots to score a kill.
Range: Puma (by 10)
Acc: Equal
Cost: Equal
Conclusion: Given the mobility and slight range edge, the Puma wins this match by numbers. I do feel like 10 range is negligible, though some say it makes a world of difference. I wish I could post a GIF showing the ever so slight difference but despite my personal judgement, we'll keep count of the range differences (first hit potentially).

Puma vs Armored Car

Mobility: Puma (slightly)
Health: Equal
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Damage: Equal
Range: Puma (by 10)
Acc: Car far Acc is superior
Cost: Puma costs 10 more fuel, 10 less MP, edge goes to Car
Conclusion: The Car wins this match due to the superior accuracy from far (which is the most important), and having a 10 less fuel cost. Even though the Puma has a small edge in mobility and superior range, the chance to hit when taking into account that if either of them land one, the shot is going to pen, the accuracy means everything here.

Puma vs SU-76

Mobility: Puma
Health: Equal
Pen Chance: 100% for both
Damage: Equal
Range: SU-76 (by 10)
Acc: Equal
Cost: SU-76 costs 5 more fuel, 10 more MP, edge goes to Puma
Conclusion: First off dropping the T70 into this comparison would be unfair, even though no one builds the SU-76 anymore. Given the clear mobility advantage of the Puma versus the SU-76's fixed turret and slow rotation speed, the edge goes to the Puma. Even though the SU-76 has better range, its ability to utilize that is more positionally dependent when compared to the movement and turret rotation capability of the Puma. Cost is just icing on the cake to feed a win to the Puma here.


Final Thoughts: I will reiterate my previous comments of the gaming being asymmetrical, and I will even note that reload times, time to aim, and even speed & acceleration would be valuable statistics to include here. Maybe I will get into adding more to the tables to help with better comparisons. This was supposed to be an example of every factions anti-vehicle vehicle early game. The Puma (to me) appears to be a superior buy and/or financial investment.

I've already comprehensively rebutted your points. You're the one who's refusing to engage with an argument that contradicts your own.

tldr for my earlier post:
1) It's unfair to compare generalist tanks with tank hunters (eg Pershing vs Panther)
2) You fail to understand the importance of range in this game (10 range is a massive difference)
3) You completely ignored the fact that the "superior health and armour" of Axis vehicles come with a significant manpower, fuel and pop cap premium. (eg P4 vs T34-76)

I like that the Ostwind is so crap these days that it doesnt even in the list!! (lol)

Not really, penetration of SU-76 for example is incorrect in Cruz doc as it was nerfed less then 2 years ago.

I don't recall this nerf at all, please link to the patch.

Puma stuff

While there are specific situations which favor the allied light vehicles(such as the stuart ambushing the puma with stun shots) the puma is advantaged over all but the su76. This is due to the range, and I have to echo what felix implied: if 10 range is insignificant or marginally useful to you, this is just an indicator of lack of player skill.
(A 3-5 frame timing difference on a move in a fighting game might seem trivial to some, but in the hands of an expert it makes all the difference)

The Su76 has superior penetration and range over the puma which means better scaling, the light artillery barrage gives it arguable better utility vs infantry and weapon teams and falls into a natural tech progression. In the dedicated anti vehicle/tank role the Su76 is definitely superior, but its not built often.

The su76 us often skipped for two reasons. One is that while it is at a timing and cost appropriate to counter enemy shock light vehicles such as a luchs, the reality is that the T70 is so powerful that it's usually taken over the su76 and can counter them on it's own as well as being a powerful anti infantry platform. Then due to the delay between the t70 and another vehicle, Soviets substitute Infantry based AT such as penals or guards or zis to supplement the t70 in order to cheap out and save for tech.

The second reason is that the Su85 serves a very similar purpose as the Su76 while scaling better and being more potent but less of a glass canon and thus easier to keep alive. If you are going to need a long range TD with good penetration, better to just wait for an '85.


The other two have their own niches as well and are important to their respective factions in different ways. The AEC being UKF only medium vehicle but with the ability to provide support via treadshot against heavier vehicles, and the stuart being a strong counter to axis light vehicles (excluding the puma) which once clear give the stuart several minutes of uncontested time on the map.