No matter how many time you repeat the same argument it will not become true.
psst, load the game you will see that only 2 out of 5 faction have 2 dedicated TDs stock in 2 different tiers. (actually one since SU-76 can barrage)
Of course this is true.
Without M36 USF could only fight mediums at best, because Stuarts and the US Pak do not have the pen to deal with anything heavier than a Stug. So the M36 needs the pen to damage a Panther and even heavier. It's not well designed, but that's what we got.
I am not suggesting to buff the Panther and nerf the Su-85.
I am simply making some points:
1)Unit should have role in the game.
2) Units should be balanced both in vet 0 and at higher vets. The relationship could change if there is a reason. A unit vetting slower might need to have superior vet bonuses.
3) Unit should be priced according to their role if the role of the JP is to counter enemy mediums and enemy tank destroyer the unit should cheaper than those units.
4) Tds should not have 100% chance to hit and penetrate enemy vehicles at range 60. Else they have little reason to engage in other ranges.
Since you said that SU85 vets faster and better than a Panther, this would destroy the balance from vet 0 units and that Allied TDs would be OP in general, it heavily suggested that you want to nerf/buff some units.
Apart from point 3 I do agree on the rest. Especially for point 4 I would like the game to be slower with bigger maps in general so that tank battles can be drawn out a bit. But for CoH2 it's too late, we need to tweak the current system to the best status possible.
The hole in the theory that they are not meant to fight each other, is that SU-85 is meant to counter the Panther and Ostheer have no stock vehicle to counter the SU-85 so when it comes to vehicles the Panther is their best bet.
Ost has an excellent Pak, even the Stug faires well on paper, and then there are Panzergrenadiers that can deal with TDs very well. The problem is that the last two units have their own problems and therefore are not build which reduces OSTs current options to Pak and Panther. The problem is not the Panther but Panzergrenadiere and Stug in my eyes. If we also look at 1v1 frontal assault scenarios only (like you implicated with the SU85), the Panther does well against Jackson and Firefly (cost-corrected).
To clear things up: What is your suggestion? How much do you want to buff Panther / nerf SU85?
I think it is better so spread out the AT capacity over multiple units. We can see with USF what happens if the AT gun is trash against actual tanks and the bazookas are only mediocre: USF must completely rely on the Jackson from the mid-game onwards.
I am not sure what method you are using to get the numbers but you are still missing my point.
Compare the units at vet 0 and at vet 2 you will probably come to the conclusion that SU-85 trades significantly better at Vet 2.
I do not argue with your stats, because there is nothing to argue. In a Panther vs SU85 engagement, the SU85 performs better at vet 2 than at vet 0 vs the same vet Panther, this is true and I never doubted that. I argue if your point makes that much sense, because your Panther should not regularly exchange shots with a SU85 in the first place.
(Exaggerated example
If your PaK40 faces off against the 6 pounder, and the PaK gets an accuracy bonus while the 6 pounder gets a pen bonus (just making this up as an example), then the PaK will win this fight. This does not mean that the 6 pounder would need a fifth man to become tankier, because it cannot fight off a PaK40. These units just should not shoot at each other.
Your logic is also flawed the Ostheer Panther is higher tier, higher pop and more expensive TD than the Su-85 thus it should perform better than than SU-85.
But you are missing the point. The point is not how good one trade with the other but how much better SU-85 trade at vet 2 although it vet faster.
If Su-85/Panther relationship is correctly balance at vet 0 the Panther is simply UP at vet 2.
1. They are both the end game TD of the respective faction. And even then your argument works only for OST, since OKW needs to build T4 anyway.
2. For the numbers:
Panther needs 7 shots face-to-face to kill a SU85
SU85 needs 9 shots face to face to kill a Panther
Cost-corrected this pushes the SU85 up to a price of 450 MP / 167,14 FU / 19,29 POP
For comparison Panther: 490 MP / 185 FU / 19 POP
EDIT: this is the average shot number (corrected for accuracy and pen chance, neglecting collision hits) that the tank needs to fire to kill its opponent.
Panther is therefore slightly underperforming is a performance-to-cost perspective. But you get a more sturdy unit against mediums and AT guns. And also a turret.
At least in this case, I don't think the balance is that far off.
Depends from which patch. The Panther at vet 2 used to have around 320 armor and 960 HP for years. The was changed for one patch when they removed the 10% armor bonus completely and in the next patch then they moved the 160 HP bonus to vet 0 lowered, the armor and reintroduced the vet armor bonus.
Even so your claim than Panther has traded Armor for HP in vet and thus it is buffed vs vet 2 Su-85 is simply false.
Bottom line currently the vet 2 Panther is the weaker version when it comes to durability.
Although patch history is interesting, it also rather irrelevant. What is important is that SU-85 vs Panther relationship changes from vet 0 to vet 2 drastically for no apparent reason.
The SU-85 at vet 2 can damage even a Panther vet 3 with 100% chance which translates it vets faster and better than Panther.
When it comes to facing vetted Su-85/M36 the armor bonus of the Panther is quite pointless and the unit would benefit more from a different bonus.
Your data is correct, but I disagree with your conclusion.
You say if a SU85 pens a Panther with 100% chance then we need to buff the Panther's armor.
Since both units are tank destroyers, we could turn the whole argument around and say: a Panther pens the SU85 (actually all Allied TDs) with 100% chance. Now do we need to buff the SU85 armor? I don't think so.
The veterancy concept for Allied TDs is "high damage glass cannon". So the Allied TDs get a pen buff, also because Axis armor is quite heavy.
A Panther does not benefit from pen buffs that much as Allied armor is quite light, so Axis vet follows the concept of a heavy brawler.
Basically:
Axis armor buff does not help the tank against Allied TD, but against all other AT weapons
Allied pen buff does not help against medium, but against heavy armored tanks (Tigers, but also Panther).
We can discuss about whether the current amount of veterancy buffs is alright or if the base stats should be altered slightly, but this would be best discussed in another thread.
Back to topic:
This thread is about StuG and JPIV penetration (vs medium tanks), not about Panther vs SU85
I was saying the type of vet bonus allies tanks got, not all in one. These are very useful in its roles, the armor theme of Axis is poor now.
Armor skirts are no use if TD scale/have ability to completely ignore it.
Armor skirts are no use if med tank spam can compleletly ignore the 'rear'
The 2 sides of medal are no longer balance imo.
Like a suggestion made, to restore vet armor skirts rear to 120, at least it stops max range shots from med tanks.
I think Axis speed is ok, but at least a moving accuracy vet, since the need to dive in and out against TD is important now.
If I understand you correctly, you think the base armor of Axis tanks is generally fine while the armor vet bonus is either not large enough or the Allied pen bonus is too large.
The thing is: Why should Axis tanks become better "tanks" (= eat more shots) while Allied TDs should not become better TDs? Not sure about the vet bonus percentages though.
For game balance reasons, I think a vetted Panther should be semi-reliably penned by a medium tank, so that a Panther can't steamroll the enemy if the enemy lost his TD (and it's relatively easy to outplay a single AT gut). Also, all TDs must be punished for being flanked, even by smaller tanks.
Also, running a TD into a TD should not be efficient for either side. TDs are best countered by AT guns.
To the StuG discussion:
Why not give it Blitzkrieg with vet or T4?
The problem currently is that the Stug gets easily wiped and that it does not quite have the mobility it needs to find rear shots at heavily armored vehicles. Blitzkrieg would help with both of that.
You're playing wrong game is your stugs are outspammed by MORE EXPENSIVE TANKS.
Not a singular allied med tank gets penetration, self repairs or damage.
Stats say that only allied tank that performs better at AI is HE sherman, all other meds perform WORSE because they have LOWER AOE and HIGHER SCATTER.
Rear armor is completely irrelevant for all med tank combat.
Seriously, what is up with you and constant lying about everything past week??
If you factor in the price, T36/76 is a very good AI medium tank, probably better than the P4s.
Not just panther, Stug get outspam by T34 and shermans easily too.
So you just admit Axis tanks are overpriced for the performance finally?
I been saying, vet bonus for Axis tanks needs a revamp, either pen/range for stug and rear armor for panther and HE shell for P4.
Allies tank vet bonus are great for tank roles, penetration, speed, self repairs, accuracy, damages.
Allies tank perform stronger AI roles already, and with weaken rear armor of Axis tank, AT role have improved drastically.
Armor skirts vet is a joke now sadly.
Most of that is just plain wrong. The only tank that gets damage increase with vet is the Firefly. Most Allied tanks get penetration bonuses, while Axis get armor, which are two sides of the same medal. Technically, an equivalent armor bonus is superior because pen will cap at 100% penetration chance while additional armor will always help you.
In my eyes, Axis tank vet is fine for the most part. They could do with some more speed though.
StuG and JP are a testimony too how much Brits changed the game. Axis usually did not face heavy armor, because standard tanks of Soviets and USF are relatively light. So these two units worked well against all allied tanks, and Panther was only needed as a heavy brawler and break through unit.
For allies, only Brits can field heavily armored tanks which makes team games more difficult since your JPIV might work or not, depending which enemy your currently face in that moment.
On the other hand, a JP4 has a decent 70% pen-rate against a churchill and drops to about 50 % vs real heavy tanks like pershing and IS-2. If your enemy goes for a ~230 fuel unit, I think it should be alright to build a 185 fuel Panther.
StuG and JP4 currently have the role of fighting off mediums (and the JP4 also can fight off other TDs), which they are actually pretty good at. I think the split is fine, since Axis are the only two factions who two TDs. Specializing them in one cheaper alternative fighting off mediums and the other costly alternative fighting off heavies is a good thing.