Login

russian armor

Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

PAGES (21)down
26 Jun 2021, 00:03 AM
#381
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 487

I still think ass engies in the commander instead of rangers would do a world of good for the Pershing.


That would be a huge nerf and its not really needed. Rear Echelon can repair the tank just fine especially with Veterancy.

Rear Echelon get 30% increased Repair Speed at Vet 2. They also get an extra squad member at Vet 3 which also increases the repair speed.

Assault Engineers don't provide anything to the Pershing especially when you factor in Combined Arms wouldn't work well with them either compared with Rangers.
26 Jun 2021, 00:22 AM
#382
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12588 | Subs: 1



That would be a huge nerf and its not really needed. Rear Echelon can repair the tank just fine especially with Veterancy.

Rear Echelon get 30% increased Repair Speed at Vet 2. They also get an extra squad member at Vet 3 which also increases the repair speed.

Assault Engineers don't provide anything to the Pershing especially when you factor in Combined Arms wouldn't work well with them either compared with Rangers.

Assault engineers have better repair speed at all vet level.
26 Jun 2021, 03:35 AM
#383
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 487

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jun 2021, 00:22 AMVipper

Assault engineers have better repair speed at all vet level.


I am not disputing that, they do have better repair but its not needed/worth a command slot just for that when Rear Echelon are fine as is for the job. Rear Echelon also make better Bazooka carriers which synergizes well with Combined Arms.

Rather than Assault Engineers the commander would be better off if Rifleman Field Defenses were replaced with Urban Assault Kits (Rear Echelon Grenade Launchers from from the Calliope Commander) though I feel that is not necessary. The Pershing itself just needs to not be an overpriced Panther.

26 Jun 2021, 04:54 AM
#384
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5272



I am not disputing that, they do have better repair but its not needed/worth a command slot just for that when Rear Echelon are fine as is for the job. Rear Echelon also make better Bazooka carriers which synergizes well with Combined Arms.

Rather than Assault Engineers the commander would be better off if Rifleman Field Defenses were replaced with Urban Assault Kits (Rear Echelon Grenade Launchers from from the Calliope Commander) though I feel that is not necessary. The Pershing itself just needs to not be an overpriced Panther.

.
EH. for me the Pershing is the center point of the commander, (being exclusive to the commander,) so anything that helps it shine IMO is Gucci. ASS engies make a better unit in that regard as for combined arms, BARS allow any unit to benifit. The commander needs a centre point and splitting the difference between Pershing and rangers imo is silly. Pershing should be the point of the commander.
26 Jun 2021, 20:16 PM
#385
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

Is there a reason why the Pershing has no self repair (like Tiger ace) and a strange Armor piercing ability that acts like the Fireflys rocket?

Wouldn't it be better to make the AP ability easier to use and maybe last about 2 shots? Or is the possible long range wall-piercing snipe shot that much more usefull?
27 Jun 2021, 13:40 PM
#386
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Jun 2021, 13:54 PMKoRneY

Not much of a discussion with you anyway. You seem to think that we start at t4.


As others have agreed, this argument is ridiculous and it is getting more laughable by the second. While we are at it, can we please nerf the Jagdtigers armor? Because, honestly, my T-34 struggles a little! And I really dont fancy getting a more direct hardcounter.


EH. for me the Pershing is the center point of the commander, (being exclusive to the commander,) so anything that helps it shine IMO is Gucci. ASS engies make a better unit in that regard as for combined arms, BARS allow any unit to benifit. The commander needs a centre point and splitting the difference between Pershing and rangers imo is silly. Pershing should be the point of the commander.


Imagine you want to center a commander around an incredibly overpriced tank that can lose an AT slugging against the much much cheaper Panther, and the first thing you come up with is placing special repair units on the commander.

Can you guys actually come up with balance-related arguments against either a price reduction or armor buff (but please be serious and cut the bullsh. about struggling Stugs :))?

It is supposed to do the same Job as a Tiger (or is it not? What should it excel at then?), it costs the same, and it is worse than the Tiger. As I have said, the best plan to not worsen his situation for a USF player is NOT to build the Pershing or even pick the commander, because by the second both players field their heavy tanks, the Tiger-owner is at an advantage, when both invested the same. This is not too hard to grasp.
27 Jun 2021, 17:29 PM
#387
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2021, 13:40 PMredfox


As others have agreed, this argument is ridiculous and it is getting more laughable by the second. While we are at it, can we please nerf the Jagdtigers armor? Because, honestly, my T-34 struggles a little! And I really dont fancy getting a more direct hardcounter.



TIL: T 34 is a dedicated, turretless Tankdestroyer that can be outmaneuvered by Jagdtiger



jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2021, 13:40 PMredfox

overpriced tank that can lose an AT slugging against the much much cheaper Panther, and the first thing you come up with is placing special repair units on the commander.


Pershing has better "on the move" accuracy and more Anti infantry power than a Panther. If you just sit there without using your HVAP shot and don't move then you can lose to the Panther but it also can result in the Panther losing
27 Jun 2021, 18:16 PM
#388
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 547

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2021, 13:40 PMredfox


Snip


Like I said, pointless having a discussion with you when you're slinging hyperbole like it's going out of style.

If you want a tiger so badly go chalk up your first game of ostheer.
27 Jun 2021, 18:46 PM
#389
avatar of Klement Pikhtura

Posts: 709

I always wondered, where the myth that a single panther can shut down a pershing? Maybe if it is vetted, but otherwise other then extra 5 range over M26, panther has no edge at all.
27 Jun 2021, 18:50 PM
#390
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1254

I always wondered, where the myth that a single panther can shut down a pershing? Maybe if it is vetted, but otherwise other then extra 5 range over M26, panther has no edge at all.


ROF. Mainly because of that. Pershing with it's wind-up has a much slower rate of fire than the Panther. They will both penetrate each other the same, on average. So that's the main reason. Side by side, they are quite similar. 260 armour on Panther vs 270 on Pershing. Penetration the same. Effective HP the same. ROF in favour of the Panther.
27 Jun 2021, 19:07 PM
#391
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5272

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2021, 13:40 PMredfox

Imagine you want to center a commander around an incredibly overpriced tank that can lose an AT slugging against the much much cheaper Panther, and the first thing you come up with is placing special repair units on the commander.

aye, the pershing IS the selling point of the commander and the rest of the commander should work well with it. ass engies give early game aggression and repair saturation. the former gives you more resources and the latter keeps your pershing on the field. its an offset for the lack of crew.

the panther performance and cost is ENTIRELY irrelevant. the panthers JOB is to shut down allied armour and to do so SPECIFICALLY by out slugging... so yes it does so effectively. you are going to literally shit yourself when you find out that the allied factions have units with longer range and a lower cost that
will do the same thing to axis armour.


Can you guys actually come up with balance-related arguments against either a price reduction or armor buff (but please be serious and cut the bullsh. about struggling Stugs :))?

USF pays a premium for durable armour. their are offsets in place, like self haling for most armour and extremely efficient and well scaling infantry. you not having the mental fortitude to grasp that doesn't mean it magically disappears. the job of the persing is to be more of a heavy sherman than that of a tiger. it gives you effective support, but isnt supposed to soak damage, because that isnt the gameplay philosophy of the USF. your inantry is supposed to be doing the heavy lifting and the armur is there to support it. this is basically the inverse of ostheer design.

It is supposed to do the same Job as a Tiger (or is it not? What should it excel at then?), it costs the same, and it is worse than the Tiger.

no its NOT supposed to do the same job as a tiger. its not a meatshield, its not a one tank army, its not a damage soak. its what you would get if you combined all the sherman variants into one, and just like the shermans, its supposed to give more punch to your infantry. USF is not ostheer. ostheer untis and their jobs do not dictate USF units and their jobs.


As I have said, the best plan to not worsen his situation for a USF player is NOT to build the Pershing or even pick the commander, because by the second both players field their heavy tanks, the Tiger-owner is at an advantage, when both invested the same. This is not too hard to grasp.

and what do you use to fight tigers when you dont pick perhsing? right! jacksons. is your game bugged so when you pick pershing you cant build jacksons? if so maybe hop over to the bug section and see if anyone else is having that problem. if not perhaps pop into the beginner section so you can learn what unit counters are and how to use them.

you support your infantry with a pershing for AI and medium tanks, you support your pershing with a ajackson for anything the pershing cant out fight. its called combined arms. its how the game is supposed to be played. when you have a jackson the effectiveness of the tiger, and literally each and every single piece of steel the axis can field falls dramatically. your lack o understanding and want for a "one tank fights back the whole german reich" does not constitute a problem.

understand the factions and how they work. understand their strengths and weaknesses THEN try and apply that into a balance discussion. ignorance alone isnt enough.



27 Jun 2021, 19:17 PM
#392
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5272



That would be a huge nerf and its not really needed. Rear Echelon can repair the tank just fine especially with Veterancy.

Rear Echelon get 30% increased Repair Speed at Vet 2. They also get an extra squad member at Vet 3 which also increases the repair speed.

Assault Engineers don't provide anything to the Pershing especially when you factor in Combined Arms wouldn't work well with them either compared with Rangers.


i disagree. you get asss engies sooner than rangers, which allows you to work them organically into your build. they are also more aggressive than RE early game AND more durable, this gives you more bite early on.
thy repair faster than RE also.
they also give you mines, which helps you cover your pershing when falling back for repairs. (yea rifles get them but its so slow now)
they also have critical repair which IMO the the thing that the pershing misses out on most when losing the crew.

in turn the things that Ass engies bring really play to lessen help offset or mitigate the weaknesses of the pershing and thus allow it to press its advantages a bit more.

imo what the commander would lose from the raw power of rangers it would gain from the utility and synergy that ass engies would bring.

a major design consideration for USF is their ability to get back into the fight faster than their enemy, something that the pershing, despite be balanced armound lacks its own capacity to do. ass engies would help with that imo.

the unit isnt bad, but the commander, aside from combined arms, doesnt really do it a lot of favors.

additionally the smoke barrage combined with ass engies could really be a neat combination...

imo it just flows better adn the abilities would work better together
27 Jun 2021, 19:20 PM
#393
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

Pershing with it's wind-up has a much slower rate of fire than the Panther.


That is false, it does not have a much slower rate of fire. They have basically the same ROF. Both have 1s wind down. The average reload is 6.65s for the Panther and 6.75s for the Pershing. Both around 5s with vet 3, probably in favour of Pershing now that it gets -35% reload. The Panther has a variable reload value of 5.2-5.6s though, where the Pershing has a standard 5.5s, so occasionally it might fire ~0.3s faster and sometimes ~0.1s slower.
https://coh2.serealia.ca

And the Pershing can get an additional -30% reload speed for 45s with CA, while only the OKW Panther can get -25% reload for 10s with Combat Blitz.
27 Jun 2021, 21:27 PM
#394
avatar of Klement Pikhtura

Posts: 709



ROF. Mainly because of that. Pershing with it's wind-up has a much slower rate of fire than the Panther. They will both penetrate each other the same, on average. So that's the main reason. Side by side, they are quite similar. 260 armour on Panther vs 270 on Pershing. Penetration the same. Effective HP the same. ROF in favour of the Panther.

Still this is not "shutting down" level of difference, especially if you have a jackson covering it permanently. So that is why I was always wondering about origin of this myth
27 Jun 2021, 21:36 PM
#395
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2021, 18:16 PMKoRneY


Like I said, pointless having a discussion with you when you're slinging hyperbole like it's going out of style.

If you want a tiger so badly go chalk up your first game of ostheer.


Yeah, I did not expect you to bring actual arguments to the table and instead do a superficial flame, so I'll leave you at that, enjoy it!


*aye, the pershing IS the selling point of the commander and the rest of the commander should work well with it. ass engies give early game aggression and repair saturation. the former gives you more resources and the latter keeps your pershing on the field. its an offset for the lack of crew.


I see the point, but they fall off later on where the rangers shine, while the rangers offer a way without the M57 and thus enrich the commander. Overall it feels like the wrong screw to turn.


*the panther performance and cost is ENTIRELY irrelevant. the panthers JOB is to shut down allied armour and to do so SPECIFICALLY by out slugging... so yes it does so effectively. you are going to literally shit yourself when you find out that the allied factions have units with longer range and a lower cost that
will do the same thing to axis armour.


No, I am not going to shit myself. While we are talking about jobs and purpose of units ... how about you tell that to your friends who want to keep complete allied armor at bay with Stugs? They sure as hell can learn a lot on that topic!


no its NOT supposed to do the same job as a tiger. its not a meatshield, its not a one tank army, its not a damage soak. its what you would get if you combined all the sherman variants into one, and just like the shermans, its supposed to give more punch to your infantry. USF is not ostheer. ostheer untis and their jobs do not dictate USF units and their jobs.


There is some truth to that, but at the same time you can not neglect any comparability as they do not operate in different universes. They will face each other, so a cost-return view for each faction is legit and valid.
See, the talk about all the sherman variants in one is nice, but it's simply not worth the mp/fuel.
If USF invests this amount, is has to get something like
a) either the tiger, similiar in AT and AI
b) not like the tiger, distinctivly better in AI, worse in AT
c) not like the tiger, better in AT (unlikely, that would be a JT), worse in AI,

otherwise, both players may invest the resources while one will have an overall better tank afterwards, which is not balanced.

Thus, improve AI or improve armor (thus AT battles) or cut the cost and accept that it is inferior in stats to the tiger. But dont make it inferior and cost the same.
28 Jun 2021, 09:46 AM
#396
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3266 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2021, 18:16 PMKoRneY

Like I said, pointless having a discussion with you when you're slinging hyperbole like it's going out of style.

If you want a tiger so badly go chalk up your first game of ostheer.

Then you should've avoided posting in the first place cause he's right about your Stug argument tbh. There's plenty of reasons to be worried about over-buffing the pershing, stug isn't one of them

Your idea of 42-45 sight range seems like it would be way more OP than 300 armor
28 Jun 2021, 13:28 PM
#397
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 547


Then you should've avoided posting in the first place cause he's right about your Stug argument tbh. There's plenty of reasons to be worried about over-buffing the pershing, stug isn't one of them

Your idea of 42-45 sight range seems like it would be way more OP than 300 armor


I'm sure you guys will come up with a great solution then, good luck!
28 Jun 2021, 14:02 PM
#398
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3266 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jun 2021, 13:28 PMKoRneY

I'm sure you guys will come up with a great solution then, good luck!

Lol okay dude :rolleyes:
29 Jun 2021, 10:45 AM
#399
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92

Real prima donna behaviour here.

Anyways, back to topic:


the panther performance and cost is ENTIRELY irrelevant.


This is true, but the Tigers performance and cost are not, because both are heavy tanks, cost the same and come at the exact same time. Now, most units across different factions follow asymmetrical design, but not all. Here I believe we have a case where they are! comparable. Because of the next point, which is ... "jobs".



no its NOT supposed to do the same job as a tiger. its not a meatshield, its not a one tank army, its not a damage soak. its what you would get if you combined all the sherman variants into one, and just like the shermans, its supposed to give more punch to your infantry.


Okay, so you basically say (correct me if I am wrong) its job is having a good punch both in AT and AI while not being a meatshield. I believe we arrive at the core of the problem again right here:

The units are roughly comparable (no self repair gimmicks) and have similar AT and AI performance (that is: the performance of a well rounded heavy tank). Now they even come at the same time and cost (almost) the same, which boosts comparability. And now one is supposed to be a meatshield (Tiger) and one is not ... and there is no upside of it for the Pershing. He simply does most of what the Tiger does, but it is supposed to tank less ... for what exact reason, may I ask?

You can either leave it at that and adjust the price accordingly to reflect it being worse than its counterpart in the "meatshield"-department. Which would be fine.

Or you can increase its armor. Both units are still distinct but fill the same niche. On a sidenote: No other USF tank can actually take a few hits. If you want mobile punching power, you can as well get a few shermans for the same price. Going for the heavy tank commander and building the heavy tank should give you at least somewhat of a meatshield compared to a Tiger. It brings variety to the faction through commander choice, which is exactly what they are designed for.

The two tanks will face each other and axis P4s and Panthers should have equal trouble with the Pershing as Jacksons and Shermans are having with the Tiger.
30 Jun 2021, 19:46 PM
#400
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5272

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Jun 2021, 10:45 AMredfox
Real prima donna behaviour here.

Anyways, back to topic:



This is true, but the Tigers performance and cost are not, because both are heavy tanks, cost the same and come at the exact same time. Now, most units across different factions follow asymmetrical design, but not all. Here I believe we have a case where they are! comparable. Because of the next point, which is ... "jobs".


ost panther and okw panthers are the exact same units, with the same stats filling the same role but OKW one gives more bang for the buck because of the faction its in (more vet means better scaling) that's 2 identical units fighting the exact same enemies in the exact same way with slightly different cost efficiency. this can be applied to all the units owk and istheer share. okw lefh gets a direct fire ability JUST because its in a different faction. EXACT SAME UNIT but flat out better, because its a different faction. were talking about different units in different factions facing different enemies. the only things the tiger and perishing have in common is cost and the classification of heavy tank so the performance of the tiger is entirely irrelevant.
everyone is getting hung up on the symantics and ignoring the actual variables.


Okay, so you basically say (correct me if I am wrong) its job is having a good punch both in AT and AI while not being a meatshield. I believe we arrive at the core of the problem again right here:

The units are roughly comparable (no self repair gimmicks) and have similar AT and AI performance (that is: the performance of a well rounded heavy tank). Now they even come at the same time and cost (almost) the same, which boosts comparability. And now one is supposed to be a meatshield (Tiger) and one is not ... and there is no upside of it for the Pershing. He simply does most of what the Tiger does, but it is supposed to tank less ... for what exact reason, may I ask?

again, see above. INDENTIACL units doing the EXACT SAME JOB have different cost effeciency across factions because of factional design. factional design for USF puts durablity at "food in Ethiopia" levels of premium. the tank is not meant to be cost efficient because its bringing something the faction isnt "supposed" to have, i DO think a small cost decrease is reasonable, but trying to match it up in effecientcy of the tiger is simply a misunderstanding of design. its not really meant to be "worth" the price point because they premium for armour and durability is so high for USF.

You can either leave it at that and adjust the price accordingly to reflect it being worse than its counterpart in the "meatshield"-department. Which would be fine.

Or you can increase its armor. Both units are still distinct but fill the same niche. On a sidenote: No other USF tank can actually take a few hits. If you want mobile punching power, you can as well get a few shermans for the same price. Going for the heavy tank commander and building the heavy tank should give you at least somewhat of a meatshield compared to a Tiger. It brings variety to the faction through commander choice, which is exactly what they are designed for.

stop comparing to the tiger. full stop. the tiger doesnt have BAR rifles in front of it and it cant have a jackson behind it. the tiger doesnt get pios that can carry AT and smoke, the tiger doesnt have an FRP to make sure infantry support isnt spending all its time walking too and from base. USF=/=OST perhsing=/= tiger.

what the pershing brings is a tank that can engage any target (most USF tanks are reasonably specialized, even the M4 with its shell swap) it can bounce shells and it cant take a few hits. its more or less the opposite of every other USF vehicle. you pay for THAT. the tiger in essence is simply an over grown p4. it doesnt add anything "new" just takes what exists and makes it bigger. that is not the case for the pershing.


The two tanks will face each other and axis P4s and Panthers should have equal trouble with the Pershing as Jacksons and Shermans are having with the Tiger.
THAT is simply not true. the Jackson REALLY tips the scales here. longer range than any other tank in your scenario, the ability to pop HVAP for increased damage and pen (with HVAP the jackson has only 10 less pen at 60 range as the panther has at point blank AND 25% more damage)
the pershing gives a really stong lid to the jackson cookie jar. you cant ignore the pershing and you cant ignore the jackson. both plugging away at you will put a lot more pressure on ostheer than a panther and a tiger will on usf BECAUSE kiting is an option.


the only REAL important thing is that the pershing is attractive/serves a role/is balanced WITHIN the USF lineup. i agree its a bit over priced, id not oppose to seeing what it looks like at 200ish fuel, but the tiger has no bearing whatsoever. its comparing almonds to testicles. just because they are both called units doesn't mean they are the same thing.

PAGES (21)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
ML Finals Quali #2

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

Board Info

93 users are online: 3 members and 90 guests
Vipper, Spanky, Densha Marx
39 posts in the last 24h
183 posts in the last week
632 posts in the last month
Registered members: 28695
Welcome our newest member, Ullocfv6
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM