I'm hesitant about 300 armor mainly for the stug and to a lesser extent the jp4. They already struggle.
With 300 armor should it still have 15% more speed? Or should it be nerfed 10% so it's 5.6 to be slightly faster? Again, the stug is now completely obsolete.
I am undecided about an mg. How much would it chop down during combined arms in combination with a better gun vs infantry that are already on average have less than 80-160hp.
I think a different approach could be to give it more sight, with a commander upgrade, something like 42-45. Not a command panther, but something that could be counter played with pios on the front line, or a 222.
More sight in team games is always good.
Without sight counterplay Scotts, Jacksons, or whatever, could have a possible first strike just by having the Pershing nearby. Along with my other idea (assault engies and rangers available) for repairs or early game aggression as well as flavor (assault battalions) without taking rangers away.
These kinds of changes to promote it's combined arms idea is more appealing to me than to make it another tiger while actually making heavies slightly more different from another.
I agree with these ideas. What I'd honestly want is just taking a good look at the Pershing and revising it's stats/abilities/upgrades. I'd definitely give it at least 280 or 290 armour. The Stugs don't have godlike penetration, but they do shoot fast (same as how I like using double SU76 vs any sort of threat). And by the time the Pershing arrives, the Stug will be at least vet2. With low reload time, and possible 60% penetration chance (if armour to 290), I'd say one Stug could keep the Pershing in check, especially with the pop limitations. I don't think I've ever been able to fit anything besides a Jackson into the roster with the Pershing. Truth be told, I do always play double paks and have an AAHT defending the flanks (and vs planes) once the early game is over. So there is that pop.
One thing I definitely am stalwart about, is the underwhelming performance of Pershing, for it's price. Sure there is a thing called Combined arms, and in 1v1s or 2v2s a great ability, but in 3v3s+, an ability that promotes blobbing, is really unadvised. And if you want to keep only one infantry next to it, then you're kinda wasting the ability. I know I've always tried to synergize the combined arms, and vs lower skilled players it works wonders, but vs anyone with half a brain cell... I've always been punished by werfers or stukas, almost immediately once the icon pops up.
Not only that, but as I've said, USF is quite munitions starved in teamgames.
I don't know. Revising the Pershing would be great, but possibly out of scope.
EDIT: for the combined arms argument in 3v3s+, I mainly blame the maps. Seldom are more open maps. Maps like Hamburger like indirects (stuka and ML20/LeFH most of all) and teamweapon spamming due to all the lanes and chokepoints like bridges. Not to mention that the bottom team has the advantage. Then you have angrymundy, ettelturd...
And possibly the biggest reason would be, which is quite ironic and stupid, is the fact that you lock yourself out of the Calliope with the Heavy Cav. 1v1? No problem, don't need calliope. The population density and the population itself is low, and the maps are big enough.
2v2? The maps are about [300,400]x[300,400] and the pop density is low enough. But 3v3s and some 4v4 maps.... ~[300,450]x[300,400] ? High density, high body count, lanes == need for stuka/calliope/katy/werfer/mattress