Profile of SkysTheLimit

nothing wrong with there only being 1 commander with rangers. Before the most recent ranger commander there was only 1. Like I said they are good, but boring so I personally don't care for them (always prefer interesting mechanics than raw power)

Yeah it's not about their being just 1 one ranger commander. It's about the specific commander that would still have them, which happens to already be a dominant choice over heavy cav

I agree rangers are boring. I wish more people played that way and picked non-boring commanders rather than exclusively what seems to be the highest power level. I like to think that's the way I roll at least 50% of the time if not more

that's good though, that there is no necessity for the Pershing I mean. It means faction design works to a degree if usf doesn't NEED a meat shield

Ideally sure because this is how every commander should work. Probably too late for it but a significantly weakened stock calliope would solve many issues imo. Obvi gives you an issue for those 2 doctrines but it indirectly buffs all the others

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

Like the idea a lot in concept, but it definitely makes the commander weaker overall. Helps the pershing at the expense of the commander, which already isn't super popular atm

One issue the Pershing has is that it forces you into a very rigid build.

Yeah we very much agree there. It's emphasis on mobility might make it fit the theme of the faction, but putting that much fuel/pop into any one unit kind of contrasts with the USF style imo. It's in a strange place to be sure

Some are requesting a bit more armour
That would be acceptable. But others are saying "but the tiger!!!" and ignoring the context in which the tiger exists.
A price reduction or an armour increase wouldn't be a miss, although axis stock TDs max out at the Panther which isn't quite of the caliber of allied TDs at fighting heavy Armour so an armour increase goes a long way in terms of balance.

I think having 960 HP balances that. It's a lot for the US sure, it's not a lot for 230 fuel in CoH2. Forget comparing to just the Tiger, that's in the context of the whole game

Mobility is great, but when most of the tanks you fight can get blitz, it doesn't exactly standout

I still think they never should of added it. There should be two Ez8 commanders and I think it should be more on par with panther (both cost and performance)

i didnt say that it WAS i said that it needs to be.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You saying you support a cost decrease? Cause I'm saying it's not currently priced accordingly within it's own faction. I'm not talking about cost comparisons to the Tiger

both axis factions have panthers, if both got a panther with 4 levels of vet they would be costed and valued differently for both factions despite being the EXACT SAME vehicle. trying to nail cost efficiency based on values for other factions is worthless outside ballparking.

pershing=/=tiger because usf=/=ost
i SAID id like to see some more mobility, perhaps even an ability that reduces target size, but you CANNOT ignore the existance of CA and try and balance the perishing as if it doesn't exist.

Yeah I've already said you need to factor CA. Not sure why you are telling me this

more range and more RoF are meaningful bonuses and can easily tip an ok unit to OP if not taken into account before hand. the abiility is there and NEEDS to be considered. weve had a number of abilities in the past that stacked with units in the commander and took them WAY over the top, B4+FRM and vet being able to OHK a king tiger for example or more recently Falls and for the fatherland... abilities and units that interact need to be conmsidered. dont treat CA like a mandatory ability be be aware that it CAN be used.

Yeah I agree with this. My point is that commander synergy doesn't need to be in the form of directly interacting stat buffs to be a problem

Heavy TD+bomb was OP for a different reason completely, but the effect is similar. The commander becomes too oppressive

as for design, we abandon it now, as loose as it is and theres no point not just making the game a mirror match. itll be the only way to balance the game if we simply decide that counterbalance means nothing.

Imo we already are way past abandoning original design. That's my whole point

They even said they had no plans to add a pershing at one point

perishing is a heavy tank FOR ITS FACTION. one that as you say has no difficulty killing infantry, nor tanks actually... giving them a proper meatshield breaks that balance.

You will have a harder time killing tanks if you get a pershing then if you didn't, that's my point. And the power against infantry is not currently worth investing that fuel in. Jacksons and HE Sherman's almost always a better option

they are VERY GOOD at killing everything, but at the cost of low staying power. you give them staying power and everything else has a rock to launch from. they are supposed to keep biting, not bite and hold. mobility and features to promote aggressive play could prove too much combined with the ability to out fight the enemy in a pitched fight as well.

Picking Pershing means you have no rocket arty, and double AT guns are more effective against it then any other heavy. Don't really see how you can say it's giving them too much