Pershing blows - USF Heavy Cavalry

A single Jackson CAN kill a tiger. The issue with the Jackson isn't its firepower its the firepower combined with the mobility combined with the HVAP combined with the crew combined with the range combined with the standard health.

The Panther IS. A tank destroyer, just in a different package. It lacks range but instead has durabilitym compared to other TDs. It also gains some AI in exchange for increased price.

If the Panther is not supposed to kill the Pershing, what pray tell is ost supposed to use? Or are they expected to simply surrender when the Pershing hits the field?

lol, the only way a single Jackson is going to take out a tiger is if the Axis player has bad micro and stumbling over mistakes.

A single panther shouldn't kill a Pershing. I don't know how you're able fit that into me saying Ost can't fight a Pershing.

lol, the only way a single Jackson is going to take out a tiger is if the Axis player has bad micro and stumbling over mistakes.

A single panther shouldn't kill a Pershing. I don't know how you're able fit that into me saying Ost can't fight a Pershing.

A Panther should be able to kill Pershing. The problem is not Panther killing a Pershing, the problem is it requiring 0 micro (you can put Panther 1v1 in front of a pershing) because Pershing is really weak in defensive stats while not offering much in offensive (ROF and AI capability). If Pershing had the older AI power, then by all regards it can stay weak defensively cause it has the offensive. Right now it feels like a mediocre premium medium, not a heavy tank (Eg. if USF had Comet in the roster, I'd always choose it over Pershing). Jackson can kill a Tiger but you will constantly need to micro it to avoid the tiger closing in. Panther kills the Pershing by coming to it and saying "you want some mate?". Jackson kills the Tiger by saying "Stay there away from me". It's all legit. Doesn't make Panther, nor the Jackson, OP. Pershing needs either a buff to AI or a buff to armour/HP. Or something else. It's vet1 and vet2 are piss poor so you could also figure something out there. Don't know. I'd let the more experienced people that put out patches figure it out

A Panther should be able to kill Pershing. The problem is not Panther killing a Pershing, the problem is it requiring 0 micro (you can put Panther 1v1 in front of a pershing) because Pershing is really weak in defensive stats while not offering much in offensive (ROF and AI capability). If Pershing had the older AI power, then by all regards it can stay weak defensively cause it has the offensive. Right now it feels like a mediocre premium medium, not a heavy tank (Eg. if USF had Comet in the roster, I'd always choose it over Pershing). Jackson can kill a Tiger but you will constantly need to micro it to avoid the tiger closing in. Panther kills the Pershing by coming to it and saying "you want some mate?". Jackson kills the Tiger by saying "Stay there away from me". It's all legit. Doesn't make Panther, nor the Jackson, OP. Pershing needs either a buff to AI or a buff to armour/HP. Or something else. It's vet1 and vet2 are piss poor so you could also figure something out there. Don't know. I'd let the more experienced people that put out patches figure it out

what? so the panther SHOULDNT be able to 1v1 the perishing??? I'm confused, if the panther cant beat the perishing 1v1, you saying the perishing should win then? that would make the perishing incredibly OP as a panther is considered its counter. if you want the panther to do what the Jackson does to the tiger, then you OK with giving the panther 60 range?

secondly, the perishing does have excellent AI power, very good penetration above average armour and 960HP

.

what? so the panther SHOULDNT be able to 1v1 the perishing??? I'm confused, if the panther cant beat the perishing 1v1, you saying the perishing should win then? that would make the perishing incredibly OP as a panther is considered its counter. if you want the panther to do what the Jackson does to the tiger, then you OK with giving the panther 60 range?

secondly, the perishing does have excellent AI power, very good penetration above average armour and 960HP

.

Are you daft? Panther should win vs Pershing and it does. The problem is not panther winning the problem is pershing is mediocre in offense and less than mediocre in defense. The stats on it are piss poor

what? so the panther SHOULDNT be able to 1v1 the perishing??? I'm confused, if the panther cant beat the perishing 1v1, you saying the perishing should win then? that would make the perishing incredibly OP as a panther is considered its counter. if you want the panther to do what the Jackson does to the tiger, then you OK with giving the panther 60 range?

secondly, the perishing does have excellent AI power, very good penetration above average armour and 960HP

.

No, he is saying the PV should be killing the PV, but the way it does is too simplistic compared to other TDs (slugging it out) and that the Pershing (his opinion) AI has been basically overnerfed.


I think this the situation is kinda similar to that of the Tiger (people considered it overnerfed as well).


In regards to the Pershing, i would bring a different PoV. Disregarding if it's performance is fine or not, maybe adjusting the performance to it's cost would be a better approach.

Are you daft? Panther should win vs Pershing and it does. The problem is not panther winning the problem is pershing is mediocre in offense and less than mediocre in defense. The stats on it are piss poor

you clearly said ". The problem is not Panther killing a Pershing, the problem is it requiring 0 micro"

you have a problem woth panther beating a perishing with 0 micro (when u sit with both next to each other i presume) and that should absolutely be won by the panther

No, he is saying the PV should be killing the PV, but the way it does is too simplistic compared to other TDs (slugging it out) and that the Pershing (his opinion) AI has been basically overnerfed.


I think this the situation is kinda similar to that of the Tiger (people considered it overnerfed as well).


In regards to the Pershing, i would bring a different PoV. Disregarding if it's performance is fine or not, maybe adjusting the performance to it's cost would be a better approach.

yeah and the reason for that is the cost, please remind me how much a panther costs and how much a Jackson costs. Panther HAS to slug it out. it does not have 60 range and most importantly does not have the moving accuracy of jacksons. all heavies had ther AI nerfed, perishing still has the BEST ai. The problem with the perishing is not its performance, it just doesn't fit in your build. Its a unit that should have never be in the game and doesn't fit the faction. If you want AT, you have the best TD in the game and AI well, thers a whole bloody list

you clearly said ". The problem is not Panther killing a Pershing, the problem is it requiring 0 micro"

you have a problem woth panther beating a perishing with 0 micro (when u sit with both next to each other i presume) and that should absolutely be won by the panther



yeah and the reason for that is the cost, please remind me how much a panther costs and how much a Jackson costs. Panther HAS to slug it out. it does not have 60 range and most importantly does not have the moving accuracy of jacksons. all heavies had ther AI nerfed, perishing still has the BEST ai. The problem with the perishing is not its performance, it just doesn't fit in your build. Its a unit that should have never be in the game and doesn't fit the faction. If you want AT, you have the best TD in the game and AI well, thers a whole bloody list

You misunderstood. Panther should and will always win vs Pershing.
Comparing Panther to a Jackson is pointless. Panther has exponentially better AI, hugely better defensive stats and 10 less range than Jackson. Jackson on the other hand is better suited for combined arms plays, especially in 1v1 and 2v2.
On the topic of pershing having the best AI (True statement)
Pershing has the "best" AI by a margin. Let's say, for simplicity-sake that a Tiger has an AI value of 10. Pershing does not have an AI value of 20 (100% more) but a value of 11 or 12. If you would look at the pure stats of the cannon (not taking into account pintle MG on Tiger), it would work out something like that, around 20% better. How that translates onto the battlefield conditions? Pershing will maybe kill one more model on average in an average length firefight vs infantry. Why shouldn't they have a heavy tank for late game team games? Right now in team games, USF mostly relies on calliope or a fast game lockdown (due to superior early game from USF). Buffing pershing armour to 300 and ever-so-slightly buffing AI would actually make it viable in teamgames. People keep saying AI is the best, and it is, but it's the best only by a small margin, not the "game changing AI"

You misunderstood. Panther should and will always win vs Pershing.
Comparing Panther to a Jackson is pointless. Panther has exponentially better AI, hugely better defensive stats and 10 less range than Jackson. Jackson on the other hand is better suited for combined arms plays, especially in 1v1 and 2v2.
On the topic of pershing having the best AI (True statement)
Pershing has the "best" AI by a margin. Let's say, for simplicity-sake that a Tiger has an AI value of 10. Pershing does not have an AI value of 20 (100% more) but a value of 11 or 12. If you would look at the pure stats of the cannon (not taking into account pintle MG on Tiger), it would work out something like that, around 20% better. How that translates onto the battlefield conditions? Pershing will maybe kill one more model on average in an average length firefight vs infantry. Why shouldn't they have a heavy tank for late game team games? Right now in team games, USF mostly relies on calliope or a fast game lockdown (due to superior early game from USF). Buffing pershing armour to 300 and ever-so-slightly buffing AI would actually make it viable in teamgames. People keep saying AI is the best, and it is, but it's the best only by a small margin, not the "game changing AI"

Ok sorry for misunderstanding. but if you want to buff its armour, then reduce its hp back to 800, it cant have the best of both worlds, whilst still having the best AI, amazing AT and speed. explain to me what's BAD about the tank? . The reason you dont see it built because USF has much better alternatives. USF dont rely on calliope, people go calliope in team games cuz ther OP in team games as you can spam them with less risk (due to HP and armour) compared to other rocket artilleries.

" Why shouldn't they have a heavy tank for late game team games" because axis don't have non-doc 60 range high pen TD's hence why they struggle more vs heavy tanks.

USF dont rely on calliope, people go calliope in team games cuz ther OP in team games as you can spam them with less risk (due to HP and armour) compared to other rocket artilleries.

Not really.
In teamgames Rocket Arty is like at gun or healing u just needed if u want survive.

" .........Why shouldn't they have a heavy tank for late game team games" because axis don't have non-doc 60 range high pen TD's hence why they struggle more vs heavy tanks.

No worries about misunderstanding friend. Considering your post:

JP4 with 60 range from OKW is more than enough to deal with Pershing.
Considering the Pershing itself. You keep saying "The best AI" but not saying best by how much. Unless this is athletics and winning by 0.01 seconds is still considered a gold medal and the silver person won't be remembered much... the Pershing, having slightly (minimal advantage) better AI doesn't justify lower HP, frontal/rear armour, bad ROF, pretty much useless ability, whilst costing 230 fuel. It USED to have the best AI by a larger margin that scared away blobs. Right now it's lackluster in every compartment.

OKW can easily counter Pershing with raketen and JP4.
OST can easily counter it with pak40 and 2x stugs.
OST doesn't have 60 range TD because they have the fast firing, high penetrating pak40 which fits much better in the OST defensive idea. And stugs are cheap, easily vet and fire really fast. Vs Pershing, that's more than enough.
Of course, you have the Panther TD which counters Pershing hard with superior range and agility on both axis teams.

As in countless other posts, allies have 60 range TDs because Axis has non doctrinally the following tanks: Panther (960hp, 260 armour, great agility), King Tiger, Brummbar (800 hp, 260 armour, bad agility), JP4 (230 armour, lowest target size, also 60 range). On top of that you have plenty of doctrines with Tiger VI heavy tank. Don't know the exact number of doctrines but both OKW and OST have it in more than 3 I believe. Pershing is in only one doctrine, IS-2 in 2.
Not gonna talk about ISU152/elefant/jagdtiger since it's a special kind of tank. This thread is not about 60 range TDs so I would hope this is the last post arguing ally 60 range TDs justify lackluster stats of Pershing.

No worries about misunderstanding friend. Considering your post:

JP4 with 60 range from OKW is more than enough to deal with Pershing.
Considering the Pershing itself. You keep saying "The best AI" but not saying best by how much. Unless this is athletics and winning by 0.01 seconds is still considered a gold medal and the silver person won't be remembered much... the Pershing, having slightly (minimal advantage) better AI doesn't justify lower HP, frontal/rear armour, bad ROF, pretty much useless ability, whilst costing 230 fuel. It USED to have the best AI by a larger margin that scared away blobs. Right now it's lackluster in every compartment.

OKW can easily counter Pershing with raketen and JP4.
OST can easily counter it with pak40 and 2x stugs.
OST doesn't have 60 range TD because they have the fast firing, high penetrating pak40 which fits much better in the OST defensive idea. And stugs are cheap, easily vet and fire really fast. Vs Pershing, that's more than enough.
Of course, you have the Panther TD which counters Pershing hard with superior range and agility on both axis teams.

As in countless other posts, allies have 60 range TDs because Axis has non doctrinally the following tanks: Panther (960hp, 260 armour, great agility), King Tiger, Brummbar (800 hp, 260 armour, bad agility), JP4 (230 armour, lowest target size, also 60 range). On top of that you have plenty of doctrines with Tiger VI heavy tank. Don't know the exact number of doctrines but both OKW and OST have it in more than 3 I believe. Pershing is in only one doctrine, IS-2 in 2.
Not gonna talk about ISU152/elefant/jagdtiger since it's a special kind of tank. This thread is not about 60 range TDs so I would hope this is the last post arguing ally 60 range TDs justify lackluster stats of Pershing.

i said 60 range, high pen TD's, jadpanzer is not high pen, infact its worst in pen out of all 60 range TD's. srsly you telling me 1 jadpazner is enough to deal with 1 perishing (if it had 300 armour), my friend what game are you playing

And now you bring other units into the conversation, which makes discussions endless and purposely derailing the issue but lets do it. srsly x2 pack + 2 stugs to counter 1 tank while my outnumbered inf get rolled? compare the cost and manpower, popcap and come back to me and still tell me that's balanced. pak40 fast firing? what you talking about, USF has the fastest firing AT gun, brits and pak40 are practically the same and zis practically identical (not sure about reketan).

Regarding docs yes tiger is in 3, but allies have NON DOC 60 Range HIGH PEN TD's so they can always RELIABLY counter axis heavies.

yes, ofc you want to ditch talking about 60 range high pen TD's because its a very valid point when it comes to axis countering heavies and you have no answer to it.

Are you daft? Panther should win vs Pershing and it does. The problem is not panther winning the problem is pershing is mediocre in offense and less than mediocre in defense. The stats on it are piss poor

I agree, Pershing feels a bit lackluster, I also almost never see it's ability used since it's a skillshot.

Maybe Pershing could have an MG to buff it's AI potential a little while maybe also saving the maingun for AT if needed in that given scenario or maybe the ability can be switched to a non-skill shot and just auto-aim just like birit sniper for example without the crit, or maybe just a viable utility upgrade for vision (Kind of like OKW Panzer Commander or SU-85) without arty ofc, but vision range boost.

I don't remember if Pershing ability deals more damage than a normal main gun shot but is for such specific scenarios I never seen it used and I think that also drags the M26 potential down.

Maybe what I suggested is too much but at least I want to see options shown and discussed for this unit since it's the only "heavy" tank USF has.

i said 60 range, high pen TD's, jadpanzer is not high pen, infact its worst in pen out of all 60 range TD's. srsly you telling me 1 jadpazner is enough to deal with 1 perishing (if it had 300 armour), my friend what game are you playing

yes, ofc you want to ditch talking about 60 range high pen TD's because its a very valid point when it comes to axis countering heavies and you have no answer to it.

Time to kill a theoretical 960HP 300 armor vehicle for JP4 and Jackson:

Vet 0:
JP4: 6/(170/300)*5 = 52.94 seconds
Jackson: 6/(220/300)*6.55 = 53.6 seconds

Vet 4/3:
JP4: 6/(170/300)*3.523 = 37.3 seconds
Jackson: 6/(286/300)*5.054 = 31.8 seconds

Really the difference isn't that big. Jackson of course has a turret and very good mobility, while the JP4 has good durability and will clubber mediums harder with its reload speed.

It feels the Jackson does much better against heavies, because it's better at taking pop shots against heavies where you take 1 shot and back out. In that case penetration and speed is more important than reload and durability, but it's not that strong a tactic to actually take heavies out, it mostly has a psychological deterrent effect against heavies.

i said 60 range, high pen TD's, jadpanzer is not high pen, infact its worst in pen out of all 60 range TD's. srsly you telling me 1 jadpazner is enough to deal with 1 perishing (if it had 300 armour), my friend what game are you playing

And now you bring other units into the conversation, which makes discussions endless and purposely derailing the issue but lets do it. srsly x2 pack + 2 stugs to counter 1 tank while my outnumbered inf get rolled? compare the cost and manpower, popcap and come back to me and still tell me that's balanced. pak40 fast firing? what you talking about, USF has the fastest firing AT gun, brits and pak40 are practically the same and zis practically identical (not sure about reketan).

Regarding docs yes tiger is in 3, but allies have NON DOC 60 Range HIGH PEN TD's so they can always RELIABLY counter axis heavies.

yes, ofc you want to ditch talking about 60 range high pen TD's because its a very valid point when it comes to axis countering heavies and you have no answer to it.

Why would you need 60 high pen range when you have a Panther(50 range)? And JP4 is more than enough to counter current Pershing -> 170/270 = 62% which is more than enough to scare it away. With 300 armour it would be around 57%. Combine that in an average 3v3 game, that JP4 won't be the only AT gun. As long as Panther is fast, tanky, has mediocre AI potential with the MG upgrade and allies have no 350+ armour tanks like KT, axis have no right to get 60 high pen TDs. The best armour is on the IS-2/ISU152 with the value of 340. KT has 375 armour and is non doctrinal. Jagdtiger has 450 which bleeds the munitions on Jackson to have a higher chance (67% with muni rounds) to penetrate it. Of course, taking into account such heavy tanks is pointless in this discussion about Pershing so that's all I'll say.

Pershing is lackluster, if you don't agree. Fine. However, saying that Axis needs high penetrating 60 range TDs next to a panther is nonsensical. Even at max range the JP4 is MORE than enough to deal with 90% of allies tank roster. Only when IS-2 rolls out do you need a Panther. JP4 with it's 60 range and 17 target size is an excellent support tool to scare away anything with less than 300 armour since it's ROF is good, and with vet (not hard to get), it's even better.

Time to kill a theoretical 960HP 300 armor vehicle for JP4 and Jackson:

Vet 0:
JP4: 5/(170/300)*5 = 52.94 seconds
Jackson: 5/(220/300)*6.55 = 53.6 seconds

Vet 4/3:
JP4: 6/(170/300)*3.523 = 37.3 seconds
Jackson: 6/(286/300)*5.054 = 31.8 seconds

Really the difference isn't that big. Jackson of course has a turret and very good mobility, while the JP4 has good durability and will clubber mediums harder with its reload speed.

It feels the Jackson does much better against heavies, because it's better at taking pop shots against heavies where you take 1 shot and back out. In that case penetration and speed is more important than reload and durability, but it's not that strong a tactic to actually take heavies out, it mostly has a psychological deterrent effect against heavies.

Thank you. Amen. The biggest selling point of Jackson is (and what makes it the best TD in the game) the ability to induce a fear in enemy heavies and has a turret.

Why would you need 60 high pen range when you have a Panther(50 range)? And JP4 is more than enough to counter current Pershing -> 170/270 = 62% which is more than enough to scare it away.

I agree basically with the thrust of your post. However, I want to point out that the SU76 has a 61.5% chance to penetrate the panther at long range and nobody considers that sufficient to be a proper deterrent even with the vet 2 damage bonus.

I do understand there is a difference in scale, but my point is that 61.5% pen is just not generally considered that reliable.

I agree basically with the thrust of your post. However, I want to point out that the SU76 has a 61.5% chance to penetrate the panther at long range and nobody considers that sufficient to be a proper deterrent even with the vet 2 damage bonus.

I do understand there is a difference in scale, but my point is that 61.5% pen is just not generally considered that reliable.

Agreed. However, I would sooner say 400 hp and the existence of SU85 are the bigger culprits. In custom games against random or arranged teams, some even in top 30 2v2 I have used SU76 to big effect. Two to be precise. Same as how stugs are generally used. However, I have noticed that they are super vulnerable to any flanking pew pew, even though, once vetted, become a force to be reckoned with. And they are also map dependent. Using them on tight crowded maps is a no-no. Using them on lane-y, open maps is a big yes-yes. It's a shame you don't see it more often. SU76 really is a good item in my book.

Honestly I think the main reason the SU-76 isnt used more is that Soviets "need" to get a T-70 (Due to it being a "necessary" spike, and how overtuned the T-70 is). Their strange balance generally precludes getting a 76, or really most other vehicles (other than the Scout car occasionally) before the t-70, and after that point you're often better served going for heavier gear.

The 76 has decent pen, accuracy, and DPS, and good range, and a very strong ability, especially considering its cost. It just doesn't really fit into a build.

Honestly I think the main reason the SU-76 isnt used more is that Soviets "need" to get a T-70 (Due to it being a "necessary" spike, and how overtuned the T-70 is). Their strange balance generally precludes getting a 76, or really most other vehicles (other than the Scout car occasionally) before the t-70, and after that point you're often better served going for heavier gear.

The 76 has decent pen, accuracy, and DPS, and good range, and a very strong ability, especially considering its cost. It just doesn't really fit into a build.

The problem is that it comes to late to hard counter light vehicles (compared to either 222 or Puma) and the T70 does fine in combination with a Zis gun for that period of time.

What you are left off as it's niche, is a counter to either a weird heavy Ostwind rush spam or say if the Hetzer ever becomes meta n rushable. Which the first can still fail to hold the ground due to crap mobility.

The 120/140 dmg per shots also makes for weird damage thresholds for anything that doesn't have less than 400HP.

A Panther should be able to kill Pershing. The problem is not Panther killing a Pershing, the problem is it requiring 0 micro (you can put Panther 1v1 in front of a pershing) because Pershing is really weak in defensive stats while not offering much in offensive (ROF and AI capability). If Pershing had the older AI power, then by all regards it can stay weak defensively cause it has the offensive. Right now it feels like a mediocre premium medium, not a heavy tank (Eg. if USF had Comet in the roster, I'd always choose it over Pershing). Jackson can kill a Tiger but you will constantly need to micro it to avoid the tiger closing in. Panther kills the Pershing by coming to it and saying "you want some mate?". Jackson kills the Tiger by saying "Stay there away from me". It's all legit. Doesn't make Panther, nor the Jackson, OP. Pershing needs either a buff to AI or a buff to armour/HP. Or something else. It's vet1 and vet2 are piss poor so you could also figure something out there. Don't know. I'd let the more experienced people that put out patches figure it out

Back to my original point. A Pershing is a heavy tank, it's supposed to have superior armor and a superior gun. It's doctrine exclusive, limited to one, and has a 230 fuel and 19population cost. A panther is a medium tank, that's only 185 fuel and can multiple fielded. It's absolute bullshit to me, that an Axis player can swoop in with a standard tank and kill the USF's only heavy tank. That's too powerful. The Panther should at the very least require the support of an AT gun or a stug, in the same way a comet can only beat a panther if it's supported by an AT gun.
Also in regards to the Jackson, that was exactly my point when I said the only way a Jackson kills a Tiger is if the axis player has bad micro