The Pershing.

For the first time in 3 years I have removed Heavy Cavalry from my top 3 commanders. I have also removed my Tiger Grass bulletin and replaced it with Live and Learn.

I played a match yesterday, I wasn't winning anyway so I called in a Pershing to fight a sqaud of vet 2 Panzergrenadiers equipped with Panzerschreks. This was a 1v1 fight and the Pershing lost. That's right, a 230 Fuel 640 MP tank lost to a single Wehrmacht AT sqaud.

This would have been almost impossible before this patch. If this unit is going to preform this badly I don't what purpose it's supposed to serve. It pisses me off because I paid for that commander and the only reason why most people even used that doctrine was for that tank, it's ONLY heavy USF call in there is. So it's piss poor against infantry, why the hell would I use it then? You upped the CP CP requirement, okay. You changed the cool down to 3 minutes, fine. But you did all that, plus made it more expensive and made it and made its performance worse. Again, why would I use this thing? To blow up tanks? What the hell for? It's 640 MP and 230 fuel, I could damn near get two Jacksons for that price which would do a better job. Hell one would arguably do a better job since it's got 60 range.

If I hadn't paid for this doctrine it wouldn't piss me off as much but I have to ask; do these balance team folks think about what they do before they do it? Do they know what they're doing?

Show Spoiler

Dude, Pershing is still better than it was a year ago.

its not pershings fault if you leave it with prioritize vehicles next to shreck squad.

It was five dollars. Get over it. You got three years out of it.

I played a match yesterday, I wasn't winning anyway so I called in a Pershing to fight a sqaud of vet 2 Panzergrenadiers equipped with Panzerschreks. This was a 1v1 fight and the Pershing lost. That's right, a 230 Fuel 640 MP tank lost to a single Wehrmacht AT sqaud.

Pershing wins 21/21 times against a vet 2 Panzerschreck Panzergrenadier squad at various ranges. Some were even in heavy cover. 19/21 times it won with more than 50% health left too.


If your Pershing loses to PGrens, you either got incredibly bad RNG (unlikely) or it's a skill issue and not a balance issue. The Pershing even has 45 range vs the Panzerschreck's 35 range so it can theoretically even win without ever getting hit if you kite it well enough.

^^ OOF

Seriously tho, i wonder if we could ever get a replay on how that pershing lost to a shreck squad.

Even though I agree that Pershing is much weaker than it's supposed to be... that is a big OOF

Pershing wins 21/21 times against a vet 2 Panzerschreck Panzergrenadier squad at various ranges. Some were even in heavy cover. 19/21 times it won with more than 50% health left too.

Haha oh mate. Now, that's what I'm talking about. Scientific approach and evidence even to refute a CODGUY forum post

For the first time in 3 years I have removed Heavy Cavalry from my top 3 commanders. I have also removed my Tiger Grass bulletin and replaced it with Live and Learn.

I played a match yesterday, I wasn't winning anyway so I called in a Pershing to fight a sqaud of vet 2 Panzergrenadiers equipped with Panzerschreks. This was a 1v1 fight and the Pershing lost. That's right, a 230 Fuel 640 MP tank lost to a single Wehrmacht AT sqaud.

This would have been almost impossible before this patch. If this unit is going to preform this badly I don't what purpose it's supposed to serve. It pisses me off because I paid for that commander and the only reason why most people even used that doctrine was for that tank, it's ONLY heavy USF call in there is. So it's piss poor against infantry, why the hell would I use it then? You upped the CP CP requirement, okay. You changed the cool down to 3 minutes, fine. But you did all that, plus made it more expensive and made it and made its performance worse. Again, why would I use this thing? To blow up tanks? What the hell for? It's 640 MP and 230 fuel, I could damn near get two Jacksons for that price which would do a better job. Hell one would arguably do a better job since it's got 60 range.

If I hadn't paid for this doctrine it wouldn't piss me off as much but I have to ask; do these balance team folks think about what they do before they do it? Do they know what they're doing?

Live and Learn is a much better bulletin than Tiger Grass. 10% increased vet gain for your riflemen helps out in most stages of the game. That bulletin should almost always be in your loadout.

My level of surprise the first Pershing up post belongs to codguy: 0
My level of surprise knowing he didn't even use the unit, just read the nerfs, didn't understand them but know they are nerfs and made up some shit to make the Pershing look bad: also 0

...

Why bother to disprove a CODGUY thread

Even though I agree that Pershing is much weaker than it's supposed to be... that is a big OOF

Maybe you and codguy can hold hands about it

21/21 times

If only you tested it a 22nd time, you would have seen that he was right the entire time.

Also, he never said it was on front armor, or that the pershing was stationary. I think the pgrens might be able to pull some wins if the pershing is facing its rear and moving for every shot, so that might be what CODGUY was doing with his pershing in his story.

Also, he never said it was on front armor, or that the pershing was stationary. I think the pgrens might be able to pull some wins if the pershing is facing its rear and moving for every shot, so that might be what CODGUY was doing with his pershing in his story.

His nonexistent micro is not a balance issue.

His nonexistent micro is not a balance issue.

Non existent micro would mean the Pershing would still win. You need self sabotaging.

Non existent micro would mean the Pershing would still win. You need self sabotaging.

Going by some "event descriptions" in "balance threads", that also sounds quite common.

Just look at the people who complain about penal satchel after trying to ram them with a tank.

If only you tested it a 22nd time, you would have seen that he was right the entire time.

Also, he never said it was on front armor, or that the pershing was stationary. I think the pgrens might be able to pull some wins if the pershing is facing its rear and moving for every shot, so that might be what CODGUY was doing with his pershing in his story.

maybe he was using prioritize vehicle ? Try doing test with that

I'm just in awe that Sander spent the time to disprove CoDguy in a very thorough test.

I'm just in awe that Sander spent the time to disprove CoDguy in a very thorough test.

Well, if i had the game opened i would had tried. I thought about it. But i wouldn't bother taking a picture and uploading it.

I was amused by the idea of: is it possible for this to happen?