Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

Well I wouldn't get any hopes up. Sturm has said that the patch is going live after the ML5. No new iterations. Another update. Another failure to deliver any substantial changes. Shame.

Would be good to see some of the reworks from this thread tested. At least after it was shown that the Pershing does not have a clear cut AI victory over the same priced Tiger in most scenarios.

Well I gotta love this thread, how hard most of the people here are trying to justify that pershing is still usable in games. If an ability is used to make a unit stronger than THAT UNIT ITSELF IS NOT STRONGER! Remember how Panzer Tactician is present in Tiger commanders also Tiger Ace so that it can easily dodge the killing blow and escape the battle through BLITZ! Another ability!

Also for the players trying to justify Pershing's efficiency through Combined Arms I have the following questions for them:
1. Would you not use the Smoke Barrage available in that commander to smoke the MGs?
2. Does your vet 3 riflemen without BAR rifles fare good against vetted lmg grens or volks? Is there scope of riflemen existing post the 20 min mark without BARs in team games?
3. Will you not use Rangers from that commander? If not, would you not equip them with SMGs or use the grenades on them?
- After all this you expect the USF player to have large ammo quantity to spam Combined Arms?


The discussion should have been over when a vet 0 Tiger can easily take on vet 3 pershing and also have a chance to come out on top.
The only bonus of using pershing is its AOE radius that is 4 which is 2 less than the doctrinal AI Brummbar available with OST because admit it you will surely not bring a pershing into the game for AT purpose or risk being a laughing stock.


As to why the 800 HP for pershing is still not viable, will any USF player make a second rear echlon squad other than the one available from the start? No right, does not make any sense. OST and SOV have to go with 2 engis because they can and its cheaper for them and having a flamethrower with minesweeper never hurt OST and SOV. So here we are one rear echlon which is somehow supposed to be vet 3 with 5 man squad is repairing a pershing, slow AF.

- Pershing has 270 armor as compared to 260 of Panther at vet0 and 286 at vet 2 so it has lesser armor than a panther at vet 2.
- Pershing and Panther have identical penetration, whats funny is that panther outranges Pershing by +5 range. So pershing cant even trade well with a Panther in terms of AT. A vetted Panther can take out a Pershing.
- The panther can get panzer tactician to evade any killing shot or use the doctrinal blitz to escape when it is already faster than Pershing by 0.6.

Funny right? This pershing is supposed to be a PREMIUM TANK yet here it is being wrecked by a doctrinal AT tank, my point being a panther alone is enough to lockout a pershing. There should be no comparison of Pershing with Tiger since it is no where near that beast.

Congratulations the balance team has provided a Comet to USF with just increased AOE Radius, slower speed and no smokes, but still, it will take a minimum of 3 to 4 shots to wipe a full health squad.


CoMBiNeD aRmS wILl hElP pErSHiNg lmao imagine brining a conditional claim to support a units performance.

A vetted Panther can take out a Pershing.

Of course it can. Same for the IS-2. The Panther is the Axis' top tier stock AT vehicle.
If it couldn't, how would you suggest Axis deal with the Pershing or an IS-2 without being forced to pick a Tiger or Elefant/JT doctrine? Unlike the Allies, they have no high pen 60 range TDs. Allied TDs can zone out Axis heavies just as well.

Armies are supposed to have the means in their stock arsenal to deal with most threats, otherwise we would have even less commander diversity.

Funny right? This pershing is supposed to be a PREMIUM TANK yet here it is being wrecked by a doctrinal AT tank, my point being a panther alone is enough to lockout a pershing. There should be no comparison of Pershing with Tiger since it is no where near that beast.

Congratulations the balance team has provided a Comet to USF with just increased AOE Radius, slower speed and no smokes, but still, it will take a minimum of 3 to 4 shots to wipe a full health squad.


CoMBiNeD aRmS wILl hElP pErSHiNg lmao imagine brining a conditional claim to support a units performance.

this is as fair an axis premium super heavy being on constant repair duty because of non doc tank destroyers.

And it is not a comet, but a panther with p4 mobility that hits like IS-2.

FYI it is still 6 shots kill. 800 hp is just for fast repairs.

Health from 960 to 800

15% damage reduction to retain 6 shot kill but faster repair times

[...]

geez... wipe the foam off your mouth and actually read the thread and what's been posted. i think there's no doubt that the pershing needs a bit of help beyond what's already implemented in the beta and there were already a ton of suggestions of how to achieve this. fact is that the pershing is still viable in 1v1s, regardless of if it can go head to head with the tiger (though the fact that it has 960 HP instead of 800, as you posted, certainly helps). in 2v2 and above, maybe not so much. will the M26 receive some last-minute buff of some sort to address what's been brought up here? i hope so but i'm also not holding my breath.

Sumi... Pershing should lose to a Panther. Panther is stock and is expensive but has only one job to do. Kill tanks. And instead of using range like ally TDs, it uses armour/HP which can also give it the snowball effect through pintle MGs (cannon AI is shit) when enough of Panthers have been amassed (in teamgames mostly).

This whole thread has been about Pershing not having a big enough advantage in AI over the Tiger. Not about Pershing losing to Panther or whatnot...

The only question that remains if the balance team will actually have the balls to make Pershing 300 armour and buff either MGs or cannon AI a bit to actually justify the hefty price and then through "hotfixes" nerf if needed.
I highly doubt it, but still, no need to get angry.

If anything the Pershing armour can be push up to just 290, on par with croc/avre/comet and vet panther, together with an mg buff and then see how those thing come along with current beta repair speed buff and vet tweaks.

I mean above is nothing over the top and can be easily tested out in beta and tweaked if needed but instead we can get vet up echelon by putting them in Jackson. GG

Of course it can. Same for the IS-2. The Panther is the Axis' top tier stock AT vehicle.
Unlike the Allies, they have no high pen 60 range TDs. Allied TDs can zone out Axis heavies just as well.

Uh what? You can't simply put IS-2 with Pershing bro. IS-2 is way better than Pershing and with vet it only gets better unlike the former. Panther cannot take on IS-2 since IS-2 has 340 frontal armor as compared to 220 penetration of Panther at far range, 1 on 1 IS-2 will always come out on top which cannot be said for pershing which was a heavy tank IRL and could reliably deal with panthers.

If it couldn't, how would you suggest Axis deal with the Pershing or an IS-2 without being forced to pick a Tiger or Elefant/JT doctrine?

How does USF deals with JT or Elefant? Exactly that.

Unlike the Allies, they have no high pen 60 range TDs. Allied TDs can zone out Axis heavies just as well.

I am sorry but I don't get this line specifically if panthers penetration is not high pen for you but Allies TDs have high pen, could you please explain to me why all the TDs have penetration value similar to panther? Also I was referring to 1 on 1 situations, 60 range TDs cannot self spot the tiger, even in 1 on 1 tiger vs self spotting SU-85, the tiger can easily push and kill it. Your argument of high pen is incorrect since they all have the same pen of panther (only Su85, M36 increases with vet) and these TDs are facing heavy frontal armor, unlike the light frontal armors faced by axis.

Armies are supposed to have the means in their stock arsenal to deal with most threats, otherwise we would have even less commander diversity.

Yet the USF and UKF armies lack any blob control.No balance discussion pls.

You notice how Tiger plays all the roles on the field right? Pershing should play the same roles too but with better AI. But if the people balancing the only USF heavy, wanna play god and fancy their biased views; I see no logical reason as to why these two heavies should cost the same.

this is as fair an axis premium super heavy being on constant repair duty because of non doc tank destroyers.

And it is not a comet, but a panther with p4 mobility that hits like IS-2.

FYI it is still 6 shots kill. 800 hp is just for fast repairs.

Health from 960 to 800

15% damage reduction to retain 6 shot kill but faster repair times

You do know that there are only 2 such tanks for e.g Elefant and Jagdtiger both of which are specifically AT and outrange the Allied TDs by 10. These Super heavies are called in to solve the problem of Allied TDs and Allied Heavies why are you creating a problem from the given solution?

I know the HP reduction I have read the commander's patch.

geez... wipe the foam off your mouth and actually read the thread and what's been posted. i think there's no doubt that the pershing needs a bit of help beyond what's already implemented in the beta and there were already a ton of suggestions of how to achieve this. fact is that the pershing is still viable in 1v1s, regardless of if it can go head to head with the tiger (though the fact that it has 960 HP instead of 800, as you posted, certainly helps). in 2v2 and above, maybe not so much. will the M26 receive some last-minute buff of some sort to address what's been brought up here? i hope so but i'm also not holding my breath.

I never mentioned the 960 HP of pershing xD, I guess if you are talking about the same hit points as panther than yes I am comparing it with a doctrinal unit that has the same HP, speed and pen because comparing it with a tiger simply makes no sense because it has 0.5 more AOE radius than a tiger?

Talking about viability could you let me know why this commander is not in the top 5 picks for 1v1 mode for the top 200 players for March and April here:Coh2 stats


It needs a generous buff to be seen even in 1v1 formats so I can confidently say that it is miles away from the 4v4 scene.

Uh what? You can't simply put IS-2 with Pershing bro. IS-2 is way better than Pershing and with vet it only gets better unlike the former. Panther cannot take on IS-2 since IS-2 has 340 frontal armor as compared to 220 penetration of Panther at far range, 1 on 1 IS-2 will always come out on top which cannot be said for pershing which was a heavy tank IRL and could reliably deal with panthers.

The Panther has 10 more range, it can easily fight an IS-2 until that one gets vet 2. At which point it becomes a roughly even fight slightly in favour of the IS-2 with a TTK of 53s vs 58s, though this is disregarding accuracy, which is going to be in favour of the Panther.

Tank classification has no universal parameters and completely depended on the owning army's own parameters. Its RL classification serves no point in these discussions. It was reclassified a medium within a year of service anyway.

How does USF deals with JT or Elefant? Exactly that.

Jacksons with 200 damage and 250-300 pen HVAP.

I am sorry but I don't get this line specifically if panthers penetration is not high pen for you but Allies TDs have high pen, could you please explain to me why all the TDs have penetration value similar to panther? [...] Your argument of high pen is incorrect since they all have the same pen of panther (only Su85, M36 increases with vet)

Do note my express use of the combination of 60 range and high penetration. The Panther has high pen but only 50 range. The other Axis TDs have 50 or 60 range but only 170 penetration. Only the Allies get the high pen long range combo on their TDs. And the Panther never gets above 220 pen anyway, while the Firefly has 1000 pen Tulips and the SU-85 and Jackson get up to 264 and 300 pen with vet and HVAP respectively.

and these TDs are facing heavy frontal armor, unlike the light frontal armors faced by axis.

This is a myth. The Axis do have a few outliners (Tiger II, Jagdtiger and Elefant), but otherwise the Allies are just as stocked when it comes to medium to heavy armor values. The only difference is stock versus doctrinal availability, but that is why the Allies get 60 range high pen TDs while the Axis do not. See below.
Show Spoiler

The Panther has 10 more range, it can easily fight an IS-2 until that one gets vet 2. At which point it becomes a roughly even fight slightly in favour of the IS-2 with a TTK of 53s vs 58s, disregarding accuracy. Though the latter is going to be in favour of the Panther.

Mr Sander what you have mentioned here, Panther can only use its 50 range with the help of external sources. I am talking about a cage fight without these external factors. But I understand your research and the TTK could be tilted in the favor of panther with the slow reload from IS-2.

Jacksons with 200 damage and 250-300 pen HVAP.

Funny you are mentioning an ability that improves the vehicle with ammo resources expenditure and also you have to use the plural for Jackson(s) on a 400 Elefant/450 JT frontal armor Super heavies, RNG gets involved here unlike the Panther vs Pershing where RNG is involved on both the sides bouncing on the another. Back to my original argument Panther a medium countering USF's only heavy tank which is supposed to be a premium-only available in one doctrine.

Do note my express use of the combination of 60 range and high penetration. The Panther has high pen but only 50 range. The others have 50 or 60 range but only 170 penetration. Only the Allies get the high pen long range combo on their TDs. And the Panther never gets above 220 pen anyway, while the Firefly has 1000 pen Tulips and the SU-85 and Jackson get up to 264 and 300 pen with vet and HVAP respectively.

Ah I see you should have mentioned the word 'vet' so your sentence would be like vet TDs with 60 range and high penetration. Again if this was your statement, 60 range requires a spotter, veterancy requires efforts to sustain the tank. So here are two variables in your sentence to make the TDs useful, unlike the panther which does not require much input and can easily deny the pershing tank which it should not at least with such ease.

This is a myth. The Axis do have a few outliners (Tiger II, Jagdtiger and Elefant), but otherwise the Allies are just as stocked when it comes to medium to heavy armor values. See below.
Show Spoiler

Again here you handpicked the Allied armor that are not GENERALLY available whereas you mentioned the generally available axis armor, when I mentioned 'unlike the light frontal armors faced by axis.' I meant generally available tanks. Axis tanks face the 160 armor Sherman, T34, all the TDs, Comet as you mentioned, Cromwell on a more regular basis.

Again here you handpicked the Allied armor that are not GENERALLY available whereas you mentioned the generally available axis armor, when I mentioned 'unlike the light frontal armors faced by axis.' I meant generally available tanks. Axis tanks face the 160 armor Sherman, T34, all the TDs, Comet as you mentioned, Cromwell on a more regular basis.

Agree on this, I too wouldnt call it a myth. The list does not contain T34 and Cromwell, and generalizes Shermans with an "up to ..." following the highest doctrinal value.
This is not necessarily an issue and can absolutely be part of an asymetrical balance design, but let's not confuse the raw numbers of the most frequently used, standard stock tanks here.

Edit: Also, by the logic of the Panther being a special form of axis AT tank, OKW wouldn't need it, they got a stock Jagdpanzer. Just a summary, axis have plenty of tools to deal with a Pershing. If it would become a real heavy as its price suggests, they would probably just have to try as hard to take it out as allies have to do when facing Tigers, KT etc.

The Panther has 10 more range, it can easily fight an IS-2 until that one gets vet 2. At which point it becomes a roughly even fight slightly in favour of the IS-2 with a TTK of 53s vs 58s, though this is disregarding accuracy, which is going to be in favour of the Panther.

Tank classification has no universal parameters and completely depended on the owning army's own parameters. Its RL classification serves no point in these discussions. It was reclassified a medium within a year of service anyway.

I am not going to argue about the 10m range advantage at vet0, but in a duel the IS-2 should win by a decent margin. Especially when the range advantage is gone with veterancy.
I am also sure your numbers are wrong. Even with the classic TTK and neglecting accuracy I get 73 secs for Panther to kill the IS2 and 43 secs for IS2 shooting the Panther. At vet3, Panther needs 55 secs to kill the IS2 and 33 the other way around.

The IS2 has better rate of fire than the Pershing, especially at vet, needs a shot more and has way better armor. The downside in a direct duel is having 3-6% less pen chance vs the Panther.
While I think the overall accuracy will slightly favor the Panther, I assume the real advantage will be about 10% (maybe 15%) more hits than the other way around due to Panthers high scatter.
But even if you count all "scatter shots" as misses, which is the best possible calculation for the Panther, the IS2 still has a (very slight) edge in the TTK times.

This is a myth. The Axis do have a few outliners (Tiger II, Jagdtiger and Elefant), but otherwise the Allies are just as stocked when it comes to medium to heavy armor values. The only difference is stock versus doctrinal availability, but that is why the Allies get 60 range high pen TDs while the Axis do not. See below.

I'd like to point out though that Allies face Axis high armor absolutely regularly and have to plan for that every single game, while as Axis you only have to fear high armor units on a regular basis when playing vs Brits. Everything else is doctrinal and often limited to one unit. This context matters a lot.

I am also sure your numbers are wrong. Even with the classic TTK and neglecting accuracy I get 73 secs for Panther to kill the IS2 and 43 secs for IS2 shooting the Panther. At vet3, Panther needs 55 secs to kill the IS2 and 33 the other way around

You are right, I redid the calculation and the TTK (with accuracy absent) is more in favour of the IS-2.

All vet 2
Panther vs IS-2:
7/(220/340)x6.65 = 72s

IS-2 vs Panther
6/(210/289)x6.65 = 55s


Ingame test however shows that out of 32 match ups, the IS-2 won 16 fights decisively (320-480hp left), 4 barely (160hp left), and lost 10. Both vet 2, at 50 range.

So the IS-2 definitely has the edge in the vet 2 match-up, as I stated it did, but it is not as big as the TTK makes it seem because the Panther's accuracy does seem to compensate.

Jacksons with 200 damage and 250-300 pen HVAP.

Assuming you're counting 2 jacksons and talking about frontal exchange that's 800 manpower, 290 fuel and 60 munitions to take down an elefant and probably losing one jackson in the process. You're trully desillusional if you think to convice us that 2 jacksons are counter for the Elefant or the JT.
I mean if was the case, this forum would be fullfiled with complains about it and we wouldn't be seeing Jaeger armor picked any single teamgame with USF in the party, and the Pershing would see much more use on teamgame, it would go rampage with 2 jacksons on its ass. But no, true counter to JT or Elefant in USF roaster are calliope or priest by allowing the player to isolate the Elefant or Jt from it support a let other tanks to circle the elefant to its death.

And you comparing this with a single panther taking on a pershing?

If we're considering in-game scenario, Ostheer is built around strong staying power on the field and rapid reaction with blitz on their tank meaning they, contrary to USF, can use those to rapidely take out a single target even if there are support around it.
And this is even more easy to do since USF is armed with paper armored tank. There is absolutely 0 risk to bounce on their armor.

Jacksons with 200 damage and 250-300 pen HVAP.

2 jackson HVAP go head on with ele

Joke of the year

2 jackson HVAP go head on with ele

Joke of the year

Well they can go...

if the elefant is solo...
if the ost player has no grens...
if the ost player has no paks...
if the ost player has no other tanks...
if the ost player has no teammates...

Basically if the OST player is playing 1v1 and has only built elefant and pios throughout the game.

Assuming you're counting 2 jacksons and talking about frontal exchange that's 800 manpower, 290 fuel and 60 munitions to take down an elefant and probably losing one jackson in the process. [...]

i mean i understand where you're coming from, but that's not all too far from the price of a single elefant. so if you really manage to take it down even losing one jackson is a trade i'd take at any day

Jacksons with 200 damage and 250-300 pen HVAP.

Are you playing with bot or smthing?