Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

Sure! But did you know that a vet3 P4 has 234.0 frontal armor? What other cool factions without context can you give? I'm game!

It's a vet 2 bonus.

Maybe when you drag yourself out of the quad digits we can understand each other.

As for the thread, would it be possible to bundle assault engies and rangers? Making rangers buildable with tech (Lt or cpt with branch upgrade) and engies buildable out the gate.

. That's not how JLI are supposed to be used though. That's like saying to test shocks at max range vs german elites. It's an intentionally biased test and poor form. You are better than that.

And That's exactly my point. Axis infantry(Even the elite one) aren't supposed to able to 1v1 or be close in stats compared to their allied counter part. Because of units Like mg42 or mg34.
Just like how Allied armor (Even the Heavy and Premium ones) aren't supposed to fight their counter parts cause they have both 60 Range TDs and 60 range ATGs. Ost doesn't have 60 range TD's and OKW doesn't have 60 Range ATG's.

It's a vet 2 bonus.

Maybe when you drag yourself out of the quad digits we can understand each other.
.

You are still dodging around. What's your point? Because allied AT options have a slight range advantage, they must get a worse heavy tank for the same ressource investment?

And on another note, do you clowns really believe the game is designed on that one simple pattern?

You are still dodging around. What's your point? Because allied AT options have a slight range advantage, they must get a worse heavy tank for the same ressource investment?

And on another note, do you clowns really believe the game is designed on that one simple pattern?

So a guy bringing up and ele, jt and p4 armor telling someone to stop dodging. Weird.

All I've said is unit balance is probably weighted by stock units around them, because that is the likely scenario.

And that you're a scrub. Maybe when you get a ranked ostheer game in you'll get it.

So a guy bringing up and ele, jt and p4 armor telling someone to stop dodging. Weird.

All I've said is unit balance is probably weighted by stock units around them, because that is the likely scenario.

And that you're a scrub. Maybe when you get a ranked ostheer game in you'll get it.

Apparently you are too braindead too see how the P4 info was a joke on your random facts telling.

On topic: There can never be units that perform completely equal tasks on both sides with equal cost, where one of them performs worse. If it would be that way, USF would fall behind/worsen its situation by building a Pershing when the opponent can field a Tiger (likely scenario). Because same investment - nonequal return. The consequence would be to never build a Pershing.

And because of that, they must never perform completely equal tasks. Previously, Pershing was meant to perform better on the AI role. However, the tests documented earlier in this thread (read them!), show that the Pershings AI advantage over the Tiger is very very slim, and it loses violently in AT performance.
Thus, the two do not fulfill the concept of asymmetrical balance well, one ist just stronger.

In simpler words: On an imaginary scale, if the Pershing would have +3 over the Tiger in AI department, it should have -3 against Tiger in AT department (asymmetrical balance achieved, both may cost the same). Currently it is more like +1 and -5.

To reflect that, among other things a price reduction or armor buff were proposed previously.

So a guy bringing up and ele, jt and p4 armor telling someone to stop dodging. Weird.

All I've said is unit balance is probably weighted by stock units around them, because that is the likely scenario.

And that you're a scrub. Maybe when you get a ranked ostheer game in you'll get it.

I'm usually the toxic one, but he is right to some extent. While I do think the overall balance never went below "decent" in past 4 years, and overall, it is still a well balanced game despite some mindnumbing nerfs to Ost/Sov followed by braindead buffs in past patches, the Pershing-Tiger is quite weird.
With the stock roster around USF, and the opposition the respective units are going against, I'd say that the asymmetrical balance is not there. Sander would probably defend their recent "buffs" to the Pershing (inconsequential at best). The Pershing AI, if the Tiger AI is normalized to "1", then it would have a value of "1.05", eg. on average 5% better. Which really doesn't cover the lower HP, armour, lack of pintle MG for 360 AI, ROF and better veterancy. Even when taking stock units that support the Pershing.
Furthermore, I think the OST/OKW have a better pop value here, eg. they don't need a Panther next to a Tiger if they have a pak/raketen, whereas a Jackson would be much more preferable and pop heavy than the muni dump called M57. Especially when munitions are much more important and you're usually fielding plenty of fuel... in teamgames which last longer (you will always see 200+ fuel in the bank and 100- munitions in late-game team-games as wipes are more pronounced (so upgrading again, + more tanks to snare, etc...)

I don't think there is a reasonable argument why the Pershing would not get an MG buff and armour back to 300? Is there?