Should Panthers be cheaper?

A new story begins...
The sequel to a real classic: Panzer Corps is back!

Moderator: Panzer Corps 2 Moderators

Horseman
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Horseman » Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:03 am

adiekmann wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:58 am
Retributarr wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:40 pm
What could have?... What should have?... What might have?:

Well to start with!... "What could have made a difference!".
***Securing Tungsten and other strategic metals from Spain with or without "Franco's" willingness or blessing would help maintain the 'Anti-Tank' units in Russia as to their capability to destroy Russian-Tanks in large numbers. Access to 'Gibraltar' would now be a much... much easier and simpler operation/task... to keep the British and the Allies out of the Mediterranean... thereby now drastically increasing the viability of "Rommel's Afrika Corps in the taking of Cairo and Egypt and the Suez-Canal!... as well as beyond and into the Caucasus. The 'Balkans' would no-longer have been a major issue and time waster now without British-Involvement [Operation "Barbarossa" could now start much sooner!.]. Defending Spain from Allied invasion would now... however have to be a major paramount concern and serious undertaking.

What should have!... Made a difference!:
Hitler NOT 'Declaring-War-On-The-United States' as soon or as early as he did... could have had a big impact on buying more time to settle matters before the U.S. would have then gotten involved. Instead of hindering the development and/or even trying to re-purpose the "Me-262" interceptor jets as well as their introduction into the Luftwaffe'... but instead they took the decision to favour or maintain full-throttle production on existing less leading edge or effective air unit types to no great outcome!. If on the other hand the acceleration of the development of the 'Me262 Jet... if the effort was put into it... could have resulted in an outcome of 'Crushing/Obliterating' the huge waves of bombers flying over Germany.

What might have!... Made a difference!:
Just my personal 'Opinion'... but I would have concentrated my 'main-efforts' on immediately taking the Caucasus... [With or without Rommel's assistance!... better with it... If at all possible.] … securing the 'Oil-Fields'... then bringing them back into full-operation... as well as setting up an impregnable defence perimeter/zone around the region to keep the Russians and other Allied interference out of the way. Russian effectiveness would now be so severely degraded to the point where they would no-longer be able to mount strong offensive and defensive actions or capabilities that they did before!... because now... 80% of their 'Oil-Supplies'... would now not be available to them!.
All good points, and since we're playing "What if..." and I find it fun too :D , allow me to throw another log onto the fire.

How about if Hitler listened to FM von Kleist's recommendation that they invade the Soviet Union as liberators, not...like racist supremacists who wanted to murder everyone they deemed as "Untermenschen." Soviet sources acknowledge that their brutal treatment of Soviet POWs and the population in occupied areas was the best thing that could have happened to them. Without it, the average Soviet soldier would not have fought. I mean why else fight for an a*hole regime like Stalin's? And if you were a Soviet soldier, would you surrender if you knew that that was a likely death sentence anyway? Plus then they will just murder or enslave your family were they to fall into the enemy's control? Of course not! So the Soviet soldier wasn't crazy or didn't care if he lived or died, he really had no choice. Man...we love to discuss this stuff and play a game about it, but we are all fortunate that we did not live in any of the major European countries during those years. (Sorry, but I am assuming that there's nobody THAT OLD on this forum! :lol: )

But in 1941, this would have gone against every bit of Nazi doctrine. I watched a few months ago on YouTube a lecture by a military historian where he discussed if Hitler was dumb, or insane, and the usual instinctive adjectives that first come to mind. He argued no. However, he went on to say that there are countless documented examples of where, say a General, would come and present his case for something. Hitler would listen respectfully and often even agree with the general but then do the contrary nonetheless! Why? His point was whenever there was a conflict between a good economic/strategic/etc. choice, and one of Nazi ideology, he ALWAYS went with the ideological choice. And that was his undoing.
Thats a very good point. There were a lot of people who hated Stalin within the USSR. If they had invaded as liberators theres a very real chance that A) They woiuld have found plenty more manpower willing to fight for them and B) The whole USSR would have collapsed as Stalins many enemies used the chance provided to revolt.

Instead the atrocities inflicted on the Soviets by the invading Germans galvanised the whole USSR to unite and fight the great patriotic war.

ANother funny thing about the what ifs of WW2 is that they almost exclusively deal with the Germans...never what if Britain did xyz or something.

econ21
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:50 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by econ21 » Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:37 am

Horseman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:03 am
ANother funny thing about the what ifs of WW2 is that they almost exclusively deal with the Germans...never what if Britain did xyz or something.
Getting way off topic, but the most common what ifs about Britain in WW2 are (a) what if it sued for peace after France fell; (b) what if it declared war on Russia in 1939. Either might have led to German victory.

On a more purely military level, invading Europe in 1943 (disastrous) or not dedicating so much resources to strategic bombing (helpful) are other fun counterfactuals.

Retributarr
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Retributarr » Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:09 pm

Horseman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:03 am
adiekmann wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:58 am
Retributarr wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:40 pm
What could have?... What should have?... What might have?:

Well to start with!... "What could have made a difference!".

Thats a very good point. There were a lot of people who hated Stalin within the USSR. If they had invaded as liberators theres a very real chance that A) They woiuld have found plenty more manpower willing to fight for them and B) The whole USSR would have collapsed as Stalins many enemies used the chance provided to revolt. [Ret: The 'Ukrainians' were oppressed by the 'Russians'... 10 Million or more lost their lives due to 'Starvation/Famine' and other such actions... so when the 'Germans' finally liberated 'Ukraine' from this oppressive 'Russian-Occupation'... the Ukrainians were happy to treat the 'Germans' as heroes... as liberators... as welcome friends... some even joined the Germans as mobile cavalry/Cossack Horse Units and so on.]

Instead the atrocities inflicted on the Soviets by the invading Germans galvanised the whole USSR to unite and fight the great patriotic war.

ANother funny thing about the what ifs of WW2 is that they almost exclusively deal with the Germans...never what if Britain did xyz or something.
[Ret: Without the assistance and support of the United-States... there really wasn't much that Britain on its own could do to stop or defeat the German efforts in Europe... so I at least am at a loss as to what to discuss with this particular situation?]

Horseman
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Horseman » Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:42 pm

Retributarr wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:09 pm
Horseman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:03 am
adiekmann wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:58 am
[Ret: Without the assistance and support of the United-States... there really wasn't much that Britain on its own could do to stop or defeat the German efforts in Europe... so I at least am at a loss as to what to discuss with this particular situation?]
Sorry my post wasn't clear, it wasn't really aimed at the British. What I'm saying is that whenever a what if conversation starts about WW2 its almost exclusively focused on "what if Germany...." Its hardly ever any of UK, USA, France, USSR, Japan, Italy etc. I wasn't asking to participate in any particular discussion, just noting how I find it funny. Maybe its just me.

Anyway, in an attempt to bring this thread back on topic. If based on reality then yes I think Panthers should be cheaper, however as its a game and balance is also important there needs to be care taken to ensure some semblance of balance remains. Personally I prefer Panthers over all to Tigers (I Rate speed highy), if they were cheaper it would 100% be a no brainer for me. Of course they could look at a rebalance in stats at the same time, but I'm not convinced there's much needs changing other than the Panthers SA shouldn't be the same as the Tigers IMO.

Retributarr
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Retributarr » Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:27 pm

Horseman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:42 pm
Retributarr wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:09 pm
Horseman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:03 am


Sorry my post wasn't clear, it wasn't really aimed at the British. What I'm saying is that whenever a what if conversation starts about WW2 its almost exclusively focused on "what if Germany...." Its hardly ever any of UK, USA, France, USSR, Japan, Italy etc. I wasn't asking to participate in any particular discussion, just noting how I find it funny. Maybe its just me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this juncture in history... the "Germans" were in the 'drivers seat' as far as it goes to where historical events would be determined. I have on several occasions discussed what the 'French & Italians' could have done... but... there is only so much that you can do with that... as they were not the 'Main-Thrust' or the 'Driver' in the drivers seat... as it were!... so unless someone else has an inside understanding of what other countries could have-should have... done to determine the movement of events in Europe and so on... it is what it is!... this is as I see it... where the situation stands!.

Now!... back to the 'Main-Topic' or discussion headline. Yes!... as far as I can gather... the Panther was an upgrade to the Tiger... but!... if I'm not mistaken... the Panther had a serious flaw or-issue which was dealing with weak side armor... thereby making it very susceptible to being destroyed by a side-shot?... so if that was the case... then the Panther was not the 'Holy-Grail' of tank design. Please correct me if I am mistaken!.

Horseman
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Horseman » Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:11 pm

Retributarr wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:27 pm
Horseman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:42 pm
Retributarr wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:09 pm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this juncture in history... the "Germans" were in the 'drivers seat' as far as it goes to where historical events would be determined. I have on several occasions discussed what the 'French & Italians' could have done... but... there is only so much that you can do with that... as they were not the 'Main-Thrust' or the 'Driver' in the drivers seat... as it were!... so unless someone else has an inside understanding of what other countries could have-should have... done to determine the movement of events in Europe and so on... it is what it is!... this is as I see it... where the situation stands!.

Now!... back to the 'Main-Topic' or discussion headline. Yes!... as far as I can gather... the Panther was an upgrade to the Tiger... but!... if I'm not mistaken... the Panther had a serious flaw or-issue which was dealing with weak side armor... thereby making it very susceptible to being destroyed by a side-shot?... so if that was the case... then the Panther was not the 'Holy-Grail' of tank design. Please correct me if I am mistaken!.
The Panther did indeed have pretty poor side armour. It wasn't really an upgraded tiger (technically I think the panther was designed first) but they had different mission profiles. The Panther was a MBT, designed to be the front line tank that did most of the work. The Tiger was designed to be a breakthrough tank, designed to punch though defences and as such was far more likely to be taking shots to the side. Of course in reality the tiger spent more time acting as firefighting battalions than breaking through!

adiekmann
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:47 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by adiekmann » Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:29 pm

To get back to the original topic, I too agree the Panther should be a little cheaper than the Tiger like it was in PC1. I actually like/agree with the whole pricing scheme relative to other units more in PC1 than in PC2, and not just in regard to these tanks. But then the differences (game stat wise) between them justified it too, which gets into a whole other topic of whether the stats are proper for a lot of these units.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps 2”