No, by my definition the Panther isn't a medium tank. Most mediums weight around 20~ tons.
The Panther is a heavy tank by weight class, but moves fast enough that it isn't considered one.
I don't care what your definition is. I repeat; it's classified as a medium. That's all I give the smallest of flying gardens about.
The Ostheer Panther is the most expensive Ostheer tank in the game due to Teching, and the OKW Panther is able to be rushed thanks to fast OKW teching.
And the TD's have 60 range, not 50.
Meant to say 50+, missed the all important symbol, my apologies.
And the call in meta isn't my concern right now, nor does it actually make the panther more expensive, stop throwing that fllacy around.
The cost to make it available is higher, and also comes with the werfer and brummbar. But the tank itself is less than 200, each and every time, no matter how many you buy.
And this still makes no difference to its battlefield role and current disproportionate protection. |
The Panther was in that awkward spot between medium and heavy tank due to it's tonnage.
Panther: 44.8 tons
Tiger: 54 tons
T34: 26 tons.
The Panther weighs twice as much as the premier soviet medium tank. The Panther isn't in anyway similar to a medium tank except in the fact that it's fast and mobile.
It's in a class of it's own, it's (arguably) the only Tank Hunter in the game. And it's also bloody expensive.
The issue with the Panther is OKW players rushing it, not anything to do with the unit itself.
Not arguing semantics.
Not only do I still not care, but it still doesn't matter, because the proposal would affect all vehicles regardless of classification, weight and design.
And the issue with the panther is the enormous front armour and speed, which it historically had, because of non-existent side and rear armour.
It's nowhere near as expensive as the late war heavies at well under 200 fuel, the fact it's just as hard (if not harder) to kill than some of them is absurd. Introduce side armour- suddenly its flank-able, snare-able if extended, and the dedicated sniper tank hunter no longer has 180 drgrees of turbo protection from the front. A 90 degree cone of good armor, perfect for a dedicated tank hunter, just like the TD's with 50 range. |
It's not a medium tank.
The panther is designated a medium tank. I'm not going to argue semantics for their own sake.
That's the classification, that's what I'm using, stop that. |
The problem is that the Panther isn't a medium tank. It's also not a traditional MBT like most tanks in the game.
It's a Tank Hunter, it preforms shit versus infantry (and thus it's natural counter is AT guns) but it's good for hunting down and killing lone enemy tanks.
It's also a massive crutch for OKW who lacks anything smaller.
And it's still perfectly possible to do the exact same job with just the same finesse with a side armour value.
But then over extending it has some chance of being punished without the futility of trying to get all he way behind the fastest medium in the game to have any chance of getting in good hits. |
T34/76 would get penned by StuG G every shot, StuG E would have a fair chance to pen most allied mediums. KV1 would die to a PIV Ausf J every time, T34/85's would die to a PIV/StuG every time.
All American tanks would have 0% chance to bounce basically any Axis hits, as opposed to having the ability to occasionally shrug off shots from StuG G's and PIV's.
T-70 and Stuart would die to small arms fire, the American open top TD's would die to small arms fire.
The only boost Allies would get is that the IS2 could pen any tank in the game, that's about it.
Ahh, now we're introducing everything realistic all of a sudden, pretty large shift of the goal posts. But if you want.
If that's really what you want, we'll also have to replace the T-34-85 outright with the T-34-85 and the T-34-85 with the T-44. Also introduce the Pershing, the sherman dozer would become one of the most dangerous AT guns on the field (alongside the IS-2, still, and the ISU-152's HE shell becoming even more dangerous than it was at its peak), the T-70 and Stuart would die to heavy machine guns (not small arms), the american and OKW halftracks would become absolute bullet fodder, blah blah blah.
None of which I proposed.
I just proposed representative side armour values, to make flanking a more viable tactical option. Panther is one of the fastest tanks in game in a nod to its historical design. It also out ranged all other medium tanks and has the best front armour of any medium- side armour would go a long way to balancing it without the need to introduce nerfs to the vehicle which make the krauts cry.
I cannot think of a vehicle where a relative side armour value would be a problem for balance reasons, but feel free to siggest any you think it would affect. |
Adding realistic armor values isn't a road you want to go down, because while it would make tanks like the Panther worse, it would make allied tanks a lot, LOT worse.
Really?
T34 wouldn't change.
KV1 wouldn't change.
IS-2 would change, but frankly the ways to deal with IS2's are a different issue that wouldn't change much.
American tanks already get penetrated by a strong breeze at any angle.
Who cares about the T-70 and the stuart.
Where, exactly, is the problem being introduced here? |
except its not vulnerable when flanked because its borderline impossible to flank in general due to its general speed coupled with blitz......
Worse than that, no side armour values exist.
The side armour of a panther, like the rear armour, was alarmingly thin- part of the reason the panther wasn't god awfully slow. Even the soviet's 45mm gun went clean through. A british 2pdr would go right through.
But nope! Not allowed that. That would make flanks rewarding and actually possible to pull off without engine damage. |
In fact ostheer and soviet tanks are balanced in coh 2 except the panther.The problem is that german infantry is like a swiss knife and can attack everything once upgraded
At least it's not late beta panther. Which had massive armour, drove super fast, had turbo blitz, and could out fight any soviet TD in the gam-
Oh wait it's exactly like the old panther that broke the beta, my bad.
At least soviet AT is almost passable these days, it almost makes up for it. |
Hey, captain Smartso, you forgot about the part where the KT's turret front (not the mantlet, the 'cheeks') is flat. Ergo, the IS-2 would quite happily wreck your shit with little effort.
Or even more than that, the lack of any need to pen if they slap a HE shell at the turret front, which would fubar the gun, turret and turret crew.
Or the fact that the strength of the front armour relies heavily on its slope, and the IS-2 with a little bit of relative elevation is more than capable of throwing an APHEBC shell through the front plate.
Yada yada, people vastly over simplify tank combat in their heads and tanks are nowhere near as durable as people assume, broken record much. |
While the idea of that gave me a most normal boner, I'm regrettably reading that it only had 3 .30 cals make it to production and it didn't use a .50 (initial M3 Stuarts did have 5 M1919A4s, but it got reduced to three definitely by the time the M5A1 got made. Any variants that I could find which had a .50 cal had it in place of its gun turret)...probably because it couldn't fire them all off at once anyway, like you said.
I do agree with making it better against infantry with its MGs though. The less main guns squad-wiping the better, but that's no reason to keep the Stuart bad.
Am I confusing the M2A4 and M3A1 again? Feck.
One of them had 3 and one of them had 5 and I always forget which is which.
Also M5 turret, which is the M3 hull... oh sod it all I'm just going to go look this all up again and save myself the migraine. |
United Kingdom
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
