Pershing blows - USF Heavy Cavalry

As I have already pointed out, Panther is faster than the Pershing and is stock for both axis factions. And it has blitz. The speed "advantage" really isn't that special


Are you blind? I literally said they can nerf the speed if necessary.

I'm aware of what the changes were, it should've just got the health buff. 800 health for a 230 fuel vehicle was absurd, it didn't need to lose armor in ezchange

u 1st compared it to other heavies, when talking about its armour and HP, now u wna go compare with the panther because of its speed (remind me how good AI on the panther is), ur cherry picking different units to justify buffing 1 unit.

out of all heavies u want it to have the best AI, very good AT, 960 HP 300 armour and very high speed? yh, hell no.

Pak howi or Scott says how do you do.

God Forbid you can't just camp USF, right?
Going Scotts, one doesn't cut it, leaves you open to Panthers.
Kinda makes me wonder why bother using the Bootleg Heavy Tank, Scotts and Jacksons will do a better job while being harder to deal with.
USF has much better doctrines to fill holes sorely needed in 2vs2 as well.

u 1st compared it to other heavies, when talking about its armour and HP, now u wna go compare with the panther because of its speed

Lol you are struggling so hard with reading comprehension. I'm not comparing it to the Panther. I'm pointing out that the panther is it's counter, it's available stock, and it's faster. So the speed advantage isn't anything special

Obviously the m26 is a much stronger overall unit.... That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you learn how to read before your next post you might be able to see that

out of all heavies u want it to have the best AI, very good AT, 960 HP 300 armour and very high speed? yh, hell no.

I have said multiple times they can reduce the speed. What is wrong with you?

I love how you say "Best AI" of the heavies, but you say "960 HP" instead of "lowest health". You keep talking about its speed when I am literally saying they can nerf it. You have zero argument

pershing could use a HP buff, and perhaps something a little extra like an extra ability?

or nerf it somewhat in all features,reduce the cost and remove the limit on only 1 in the field, pershing doesn't feel like a gamechanger if you only have 1 as it currently is.

or keep it as it is, and remove it from doctrine, and put it in stock like the KT for OKW.

On the one hand I have a game where my teammate was calling for help vs a Pershing and when I arrived it was vet III from tangling with panthers. Not going to talk about how it swiss cheesed my Jagdtiger in a slug out as that was just RNG. Not sure what was going on in that game.

On the other hand can't say I see the Pershing as much more than a cheezeburger-stuffing Comet and target practice vs decent players. A single raketen can scare it off if it misses the first shot.

A single raketen can scare it off if it misses the first shot.

This is exactly the problem I have with it. It's not a bad unit, but it's not a good heavy tank because of things like this. Its just not survivable enough for its cost

Speed is nice but that's what I have the rest of the US roster for. Literally every vehicle they have besides the dozer shermans is fast and relies on mobility

If that's the theme of the faction then so be it, but if that's the case they shouldn't of added a heavy tank in the first place

This is exactly the problem I have with it. It's not a bad unit, but it's not a good heavy tank because of things like this. Its just not survivable enough for its cost

Speed is nice but that's what I have the rest of the US roster for. Literally every vehicle they have besides the dozer shermans is fast and relies on mobility

If that's the theme of the faction then so be it, but if that's the case they shouldn't of added a heavy tank in the first place

I'm sure they added it because USF players (mains?) complained that there was no US heavy tank and everyone else got one. Speaking of that doc, Rangers day 1 were basically 5 man KCH lol.

In fairness, if I see an ZiS/6-lber shooting at my Tiger/KT I usually back off, because sadly Kruupstahl is not how that goes down usually. 57mm depends on whether they switch rounds. Heavies across the board are in need of buffs/reversions imho.

In fairness, if I see an ZiS/6-lber shooting at my Tiger/KT I usually back off

Yeah I assume most people do. I don't think there's anything wrong with AT guns doing their job

But with the lowest health and armor the Pershing is the most vulnerable, and it's speed isn't enough when Panthers are stock for both axis factions

I'm sure they added it because USF players (mains?) complained that there was no US heavy tank and everyone else got one.

Yeah I would've preferred they never added it. It was definitely to appease the community, because I think they specifically said they weren't giving the US a heavy tank before changing their minds

Yeah I assume most people do. I don't think there's anything wrong with AT guns doing their job

But with the lowest health and armor the Pershing is the most vulnerable, and it's speed isn't enough when Panthers are stock for both axis factions

My point was that I don't see any of the heavies really being a scary tank, though the Pershing I'd rank at above Churchill. Not saying much since all of them rank low in my opinion of COH2 late game armor. AT guns doing their job is fine.

Yeah I would've preferred they never added it. It was definitely to appease the community, because I think they specifically said they weren't giving the US a heavy tank before changing their minds

I remember it being the same and then one day it suddenly wasn't.

God Forbid you can't just camp USF, right?
Going Scotts, one doesn't cut it, leaves you open to Panthers.
Kinda makes me wonder why bother using the Bootleg Heavy Tank, Scotts and Jacksons will do a better job while being harder to deal with.
USF has much better doctrines to fill holes sorely needed in 2vs2 as well.

I'm going to blow your mind here so please for the love of God sit down.... You can have MULTIPLE units at the SAME TIME. you can have a Scott to punish pak walls AND have some sort of AT to stop panthers from diving. Matter of fact, the Pershing commander even has infantry capable of carrying 3 super Bazookas each.
Its always funny that in make believe scenarios the enemy is a master of combined arms and covering this hole with that and always having more resources at the ready to counter anything that can be fielded but using combined arms yourself is heresy. Like seriously the enemy is diving panthers and all you have is a Scott? That seriously what your saying? One will absolutely cut it because a static pak will then be a dead pak. Or a smoked pak needs extra micro. Try putting at least half as much effort into playing as it takes to whine about having to play on the forum. Christ all fucking mighty.

Between needing the tank to heal itself because it doesn't have a crew and using engineers like everyone else. Is impossible and "the enemy is building counters change the balance!!!" it's pathetic.

I'm going to blow your mind here so please for the love of God sit down.... You can have MULTIPLE units at the SAME TIME. you can have a Scott to punish pak walls AND have some sort of AT to stop panthers from diving. Matter of fact, the Pershing commander even has infantry capable of carrying 3 super Bazookas each.
Its always funny that in make believe scenarios the enemy is a master of combined arms and covering this hole with that and always having more resources at the ready to counter anything that can be fielded but using combined arms yourself is heresy. Like seriously the enemy is diving panthers and all you have is a Scott? That seriously what your saying? One will absolutely cut it because a static pak will then be a dead pak. Or a smoked pak needs extra micro. Try putting at least half as much effort into playing as it takes to whine about having to play on the forum. Christ all fucking mighty.

Between needing the tank to heal itself because it doesn't have a crew and using engineers like everyone else. Is impossible and "the enemy is building counters change the balance!!!" it's pathetic.

I'm just saying that I think the Pershing is bad.
All is well, okay? There is no need to be upset, okay?

I'm just saying that I think the Pershing is bad.
All is well, okay? There is no need to be upset, okay?

If that didn't bring a smile to my face from memories with you I'd be upset with myself.

On topic: All heavies suck. Pershing just requires more micro cause not as beefy and has slightly more mobility. Mobility means less the more players you add. Take that with what you will. Pershing may as well be considered a 1s and 2s tank only if JT/Ele/KT are considered teamgames only at that point.

If medium tanks were capable of fighting heavy tanks, without requaring you to litteraly stay in melee range of heavy rear armor and pray that you get penetration, heavies could have been made better.

All single heavy tanks suck ass, except long range one, difference being that some suck more, some suck less.

Non single heavy tanks like churchills and KVs are imo new cancer.

If that didn't bring a smile to my face from memories with you I'd be upset with myself.

On topic: All heavies suck. Pershing just requires more micro cause not as beefy and has slightly more mobility. Mobility means less the more players you add. Take that with what you will. Pershing may as well be considered a 1s and 2s tank only if JT/Ele/KT are considered teamgames only at that point.

I do honestly wanna comeback, but my Duo isn't willing and 1vs1, I feel people have improved as I've gotten worse.

Pershing not worth it anymore, better go Calliope or Paratroopers and use the well rounded Major Tier, IMHO.

why nobody considered population as a mean to balance a unit like pershing? I think reducing the pop would make it a more viable unit since pop = upkeep and USF suffers a lot on this department.
But for this to work it needs to be reduced to something like 15~16 especially considering you NEED a RET or at least a vehicle crew to keep it repaired.

why nobody considered population as a mean to balance a unit like pershing? I think reducing the pop would make it a more viable unit since pop = upkeep and USF suffers a lot on this department.
But for this to work it needs to be reduced to something like 15~16 especially considering you NEED a RET or at least a vehicle crew to keep it repaired.

Pop isnt really a USF problem, you can always get more then you can by decrewing your vehicles.

Problem with Pershing comes not nessesy from unit itself, but from a commander. Selling point is rangers and pershing itself, second commander gives you rangers+caliope which is better chose overall. Other factions get heavies in a overall good commanders, where they are nice addition rather then key feature.

Look at Elite Troops for instance, where even if you dont plan to use Tiger Ace, commander is overall very decent. With Cavalry, if you dont plan to use Pershing, there is actually no reason to pick it, over Caliope commander if you need rangers.

Pop isnt really a USF problem, you can always get more then you can by decrewing your vehicles.

Problem with Pershing comes not nessesy from unit itself, but from a commander. Selling point is rangers and pershing itself, second commander gives you rangers+caliope which is better chose overall. Other factions get heavies in a overall good commanders, where they are nice addition rather then key feature.

Look at Elite Troops for instance, where even if you dont plan to use Tiger Ace, commander is overall very decent. With Cavalry, if you dont plan to use Pershing, there is actually no reason to pick it, over Caliope commander if you need rangers.

I think he means lowering the population cost for the purpose of reducing the upkeep cost not actually to allow a larger army.

I think a price reduction (maybe 550mp 215fu) and a pop reduction could work... Alternatively it just being a little bit stronger would be nice too...

Also I don't agree. While most abilities Urban Assault has are better then Heavy Cavalry, field defenses for the mines are a serious advantage that Heavy Cavalry has. Mines are great.

I think so far I like the idea of buffing the AOE back a little bit.

I do honestly wanna comeback, but my Duo isn't willing and 1vs1, I feel people have improved as I've gotten worse.

Pershing not worth it anymore, better go Calliope or Paratroopers and use the well rounded Major Tier, IMHO.

I'll play with you if you want

The IS2 has 340 armor and 1040 health, so that's not a good reason. Yes the is2 is slower, but it's mobility is still plenty good enough for a heavy and that protection is much more reliable

I'm only asking to give back 300 armor on Pershing, with 960 health. If it needs a slight mobility nerf that's fine, but I don't think it would need to be much


The panther is it's counter. You should compare it to the other 230 fuel heavies, which are all good against infantry as well. And the pershing really isn't that much better than them at AI anymore

I think nerfing the speed for 300 armor and adding the speed back through veterancy could work, I mean looking at its vet it has the lease bonuses out of all heavies price around it (no range, rotation or top speed for obvious reasons although I think it should get 5+ range).

Anyway, I would replace vet 2 crews defense since no one would really miss it. After playing around with it for a while, I cannot justify its cost and timing with what it brings.

Panther has higher acc/dcc and top speed than the pershing, it really dosnt help its case.

This is generic heavy tank problem. OKW Tiger is also lackluster. Relic always overnerf units. Pershing is come late and lackluster. OKW tiger come late and lackluster. We need buff on this guys.