Login

russian armor

Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

PAGES (21)down
25 May 2021, 23:55 PM
#281
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5248







jump backJump back to quoted post25 May 2021, 08:28 AMMMX




26 May 2021, 08:52 AM
#282
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3196 | Subs: 1

Do players frequently send their expensive hevay tanks around the map where there is no friendly infantry to support it? That may in part be the root of the issue in the "squishy" Pershing issue.

Which one is it? Am I supposed to use it differently because of it's mobility advantage? Or am I supposed to have a rifle squad in range of it at all times?

If you yourself suggest abilities that do things like increase mobility or reduce target size, then I'm not sure why you're questioning people who say it's squishy. Either of those changes help it survive more, which is exactly what it needs. Better survivability, in whatever form that may come.

Or drop the cost. It's "squishy" because it's relatively easy to kill for it's cost
26 May 2021, 11:10 AM
#283
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1080






WTF are you on about? Pershing with the role of rocket arty? What?
Pershing is heavy infantry support only in 1v1s and 2v2s. Good luck supporting anything with 45 range and 270 armour that gets penned by pretty much everything (hell, yesterday P4 had 3 pens in a row on mid range vs my pershing, RNG but still, the armour is low enough for RNG to be effective).
Nobody in their right mind uses heavy tanks as solo rangers. Tiger was used that way before the heavy nerf. Pershing was and will never be used that way unless they buff acceleration, speed and rotation to 9000.
Pershing needs 300 armour OR better AI through MGs (or maybe introduction of pintle MG) OR through AOE/scatter profile. Best way would be to give it 300 armour, buff MGs by a tiny bit and call it a day. At least in my opinion.

Read thoroughly next time please. Don't assume such BS.
26 May 2021, 12:08 PM
#284
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2379 | Subs: 2

...
Pershing is heavy infantry support only in 1v1s and 2v2s. Good luck supporting anything with 45 range and 270 armour that gets penned by pretty much everything (hell, yesterday P4 had 3 pens in a row on mid range vs my pershing, RNG but still, the armour is low enough for RNG to be effective).
...
Pershing needs 300 armour OR better AI through MGs (or maybe introduction of pintle MG) OR through AOE/scatter profile. Best way would be to give it 300 armour, buff MGs by a tiny bit and call it a day. At least in my opinion.

The pen chance for medium vs generalist heavy is one of the lowest you can get (Elefant/JT/etc excluded, these are even lower) with late game units. With the RNG base of this game obviously everything could happen. CoH2 is a lot about reliability. Fighting a Pershing with a medium is extremely unreliable and therefore uneffective, not "effective" with RNG. If your complaint is that RNG were too effective, an armor buff to 300 would do next to nothing in that regard.
26 May 2021, 12:41 PM
#285
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3238 | Subs: 1

Imo, just reduce the cost and remove the limit to one, it is not anymore a heavy tank so it should be considerate as such.
26 May 2021, 12:48 PM
#286
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92

Agreed! Pershing is as much of a spearhead tank as for example KV-1 is. It needs good AI to not be ignored, but in the scene of a push it wont do terribly much AI kills (would need to be used as an AI sniper tank then, but the frequently talked about CA is not for that!). Lower its price to something that actually reflects its worth - a mediocre (because of mediocre armor) breakthrough tank for the Heavy Cav Commander with good AI, that is meant to be used together with infantry and ideally CA.

630/230 is ridiculous at best, when axis get an alround moving stronghold like the Tiger for that.
26 May 2021, 12:51 PM
#287
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 119

I guess the feelings across this thread is pretty mutual that Pershing needs some buffs or atleast cost reduction since it is not on terms with its counterparts and does not justify its cost. Now the ball is in the court of Balance team to look into it, this commander patch would have been a great chance at giving pershing a buff but I guess it is pretty much over to add any final changes to this patch so I guess this commander will still be underused in 1v1 or 2v2 the only modes where it CAN be effective. Here is the Heavy Cavalry usage stats for April 2021.
26 May 2021, 13:09 PM
#288
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1080

jump backJump back to quoted post26 May 2021, 12:41 PMEsxile
Imo, just reduce the cost and remove the limit to one, it is not anymore a heavy tank so it should be considerate as such.


Pershing is too good to not be capped at one and
where would you fit 2 pershings into a standard army composition?
26 May 2021, 13:40 PM
#289
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3238 | Subs: 1



Pershing is too good to not be capped at one and
where would you fit 2 pershings into a standard army composition?


Into a not so standard army composition ;)
26 May 2021, 14:13 PM
#290
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 212

jump backJump back to quoted post26 May 2021, 13:40 PMEsxile


Into a not so standard army composition ;)


Rear echelon spam opening ;)
Pip
26 May 2021, 14:39 PM
#291
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1486



Pershing is too good to not be capped at one and
where would you fit 2 pershings into a standard army composition?


I'd argue that the Pershing should indeed have its' cap removed, as well as some further fiddling with stats. It could well be given a vehicle crew if this were done.

I don't think the faction works well with a "traditional" heavy tank, especially as one of the faction's main vehicular gimmicks (Vehicle crews) simply can't be combined with the traditional heavy tank population limit. Making it more of a "premium premium medium" feels as though it would better fit the faction's design.

The main issue here is that USF already have a million Sherman variants that already struggle to find a niche/identity, so I'm not sure what statistics a "premium premium" Pershing might actually have.
26 May 2021, 15:30 PM
#292
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 7

I dare people to play Heavy cav on 3v3 maps and use CA.

I accepted this challenge. Heavy Cav only. Got the Pershing every match that lasted long enough. Used CA all the time. It did very well. Got plenty of Angermundes and Ettelbrucks, I don't care. I only vetoed the shitty lane and ice maps that I veto with every faction. I hope top 10 is good enough. I'd continue, but I'd like some variety again now.







jump backJump back to quoted post26 May 2021, 12:51 PMSumi
so I guess this commander will still be underused in 1v1 or 2v2 the only modes where it CAN be effective. Here is the Heavy Cavalry usage stats for April 2021.

The purpose of this patch is to create an as large amount of middle ground (good/viable) commanders as possible to increase commander diversity. Not to create more top meta commanders. Heavy Cav is already nice and comfortable in the middle being 4th most popular in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 and it's getting a few nice buffs too (3 medium-small Pershing buffs, cheaper offmap smoke, Rangers will get a small buff). And some heavy meta commanders like Mechanized are being nerfed. And it being picked less than Urban Assault in teamgames for example has less to do with Heavy Cav itself and more with the Calliope being a necessary tool that more people prefer. There's no need to turn the Pershing into some kind of monster just to make it the number one pick. We're trying to move away from number one picks.
26 May 2021, 19:24 PM
#293
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1080


I accepted this challenge. Heavy Cav only. Got the Pershing every match that lasted long enough. Used CA all the time. It did very well. Got plenty of Angermundes and Ettelbrucks, I don't care. I only vetoed the shitty lane and ice maps that I veto with every faction. I hope top 10 is good enough. I'd continue, but I'd like some variety again now.






Well f*** me sideways and call me a bitch. I stand corrected and salute you. I still think the Pershing could use a survivability buff but heck, if you used it, you used it.

EDIT: I still think the armor should be buffed to 300 at least OR decrease the price. Winning games or not with it, the price does not reflect the performance.
26 May 2021, 20:11 PM
#294
avatar of Urist

Posts: 5


...

The purpose of this patch is to create an as large amount of middle ground (good/viable) commanders as possible to increase commander diversity. Not to create more top meta commanders. Heavy Cav is already nice and comfortable in the middle being 4th most popular in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 and it's getting a few nice buffs too (3 medium-small Pershing buffs, cheaper offmap smoke, Rangers will get a small buff). And some heavy meta commanders like Mechanized are being nerfed. And it being picked less than Urban Assault in teamgames for example has less to do with Heavy Cav itself and more with the Calliope being a necessary tool that more people prefer. There's no need to turn the Pershing into some kind of monster just to make it the number one pick. We're trying to move away from number one picks.


Very good to see that both in the patchnotes as well as in the forum discussions a lot of information is added about what the goal of the patch is in addition to what the changes actually are.
27 May 2021, 01:14 AM
#295
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5248


Which one is it? Am I supposed to use it differently because of it's mobility advantage? Or am I supposed to have a rifle squad in range of it at all times?

If you yourself suggest abilities that do things like increase mobility or reduce target size, then I'm not sure why you're questioning people who say it's squishy. Either of those changes help it survive more, which is exactly what it needs. Better survivability, in whatever form that may come.

Or drop the cost. It's "squishy" because it's relatively easy to kill for it's cost

mobility =/= the ability to one man army behind enemy lines. one shouldnt be soloing the commando effort even with a tiger that is more durable and has blitz.

mobility allows the perhsing to respond where its needed and GTFO when its in danger, assuming the retreat path isnt the entire map from the enemy base to your own.

my suggestion was specifically ability based. a timed ability, not a stat change.

i think its core stats are good, what it needs is peripheral. as i said i support an ability and a price reduction. its squishy for its cost but extremely durable for the faction. for USF durability comes at an unfavorable exchange rate, but mobility and utility grows on trees. id see more utility.

side note, what about swapping rangers for ass engineers? then the pershing commander has more built in repairs, and importantly critical repairs for the pershing
27 May 2021, 09:13 AM
#296
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92


side note, what about swapping rangers for ass engineers? then the pershing commander has more built in repairs, and importantly critical repairs for the pershing


Now that sounds interesting!
27 May 2021, 10:19 AM
#297
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1080



side note, what about swapping rangers for ass engineers? then the pershing commander has more built in repairs, and importantly critical repairs for the pershing


It would weaken the commander. Adding a self repair for muni on Pershing would be much better. With rangers you can somewhat differentiate between different AT options. 3 zook rangers are quite nice if you can't fit a Jackson just yet into your build next to the Pershing.
27 May 2021, 13:58 PM
#298
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 1045



side note, what about swapping rangers for ass engineers? then the pershing commander has more built in repairs, and importantly critical repairs for the pershing


Ass engineer dont really fit the theme of heavy cav i think, but on the other hand pershing/ass engine combo sound very "armor company"
27 May 2021, 14:36 PM
#299
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5248



Ass engineer dont really fit the theme of heavy cav i think, but on the other hand pershing/ass engine combo sound very "armor company"

Change the name? Ass engies and heavy Armour definitely says spear point to me.

The repair saturation and crit repair is what has my attention
27 May 2021, 16:53 PM
#300
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 1045


Change the name? Ass engies and heavy Armour definitely says spear point to me.

The repair saturation and crit repair is what has my attention


I mean such a combo fit the theme of armor company rather than cav company but it is just me tho. Someone said replace ranger by ass engineer will weaken the Commander, true, but it can also open space for buff in other abilities in the lineup.

Speaking of ranger, i heard that irl they are actually classified as light infantry, so they dont have to stick wih heavy cav by all mean.
PAGES (21)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

Board Info

95 users are online: 9 members and 86 guests
KoRneY, Gbpirate, wuff, Vipper, Pip, Klement Pikhtura, Crecer13, donofsandiego, SneakEye
101 posts in the last 24h
734 posts in the last week
2573 posts in the last month
Registered members: 25011
Welcome our newest member, amir_roberts_64
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM