Would it make sense to buff their walking/running speed and push them further into the mobile-infantry corner? It would make them stronger and reward active play even better. Kinda like a USF mobility-style for infantry. They would be a highly specialized runner-unit, as specialized as commandos are, for example.
Just an idea though.
Profile of redfox
Post History of redfox
Thread: What is point of Raid Section?4 Jul 2021, 10:01 AM
Thread: Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?30 Jun 2021, 21:17 PM
Now we're talking!
You brought good points and I can get behind most of it, so only two things:
1) Towards the comparison of OKW/OST panthers, there is one important detail: They dont face each other. Them not competing directly allows for those tiny inequalities I believe.
30 Jun 2021, 19:46 PMthedarkarmadillo
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.
Actually we are not asking for more than that. The comparison with the tiger is not geared towards getting a tiger clone for USF but adjusting the price to better reflect what you get with the tank, and the current price is too high to do that. That is my whole point.
Thread: Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?29 Jun 2021, 10:45 AM
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".
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.
Thread: Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?27 Jun 2021, 21:36 PM
27 Jun 2021, 18:16 PMKoRneY
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!
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.
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!
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.
Thread: DPS Calculator & Unit Stats27 Jun 2021, 13:40 PM
25 Jun 2021, 14:23 PMMMX
Does it work for you? The download links are dead for me. Anyone knows about the owner, maybe a Github repo?
Thread: Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?27 Jun 2021, 13:40 PM
25 Jun 2021, 13:54 PMKoRneY
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.
26 Jun 2021, 04:54 AMthedarkarmadillo
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.
Thread: DPS Calculator & Unit Stats25 Jun 2021, 12:19 PM
25 Jun 2021, 11:39 AMVipper
Both links are dead.
Thread: Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?25 Jun 2021, 11:29 AM
Alrighty then, are you saying the Stug is the go-to tool vs heavy tanks and counters KV1,-2,-8, IS2 and Pershing? This explains everything, I am such a noob! Did not know that Panther and Jagdpanzer are gimmicky decoration and there is a much cheaper, better tool. THE STUG! How to shot Heavies into oblivion. Obviously!
I always thought it's a cheap armored AT alternative to keep T34 and Shermans at bay, but hey, just a 4-digit thought ...
Thread: DPS Calculator & Unit Stats25 Jun 2021, 09:18 AM
In which files are the unit stats written? There has to be a way to automatically retrieve the information so you dont have to update this by hand after every patch.
Thread: Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?25 Jun 2021, 07:37 AM
24 Jun 2021, 21:28 PMKoRneY
Poor stug struggles against the heaviest tank the USF can field. Well, at least Su76 and M10 are absolutely known to turn heavy Tiger tanks into swiss cheese, so there is that.
-> Stug is not meant to counter a heavy late game tank for 630/230 mp/fuel. Get yourself a Panther or Jagdpanzer instead. Am I missing something or was this argument completely dull?
Ladders Top 10