Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

I still don't get your point why the Pershing should be overall much better moving. I'd say it os 'regularly better' compared to the Tiger

My point is that the majority of engagements are going to be at max range or while (stop) moving. Situations in which the MGs deal no or barely any damage. This is where the Pershing is better than the Tiger because its AOE is significantly better. Tiger has better durability and AT, Pershing has better AI, access to CA as well as mobility and the skill shot. I've been using both extensively lately and especially after the planned buffs to the Pershing, I think they are / will be on par.

My point is that the majority of engagements are going to be at max range or while (stop) moving. Situations in which the MGs deal no or barely any damage. This is where the Pershing is better than the Tiger because its AOE is significantly better. Tiger has better durability and AT, Pershing has better AI, access to CA as well as mobility and the skill shot. I've been using both extensively lately and especially after the planned buffs to the Pershing, I think they are / will be on par.

If this is the intended usage, doesn't this make the crew grenade kind of a non-synergistic gimmick?

My point is that the majority of engagements are going to be at max range or while (stop) moving. Situations in which the MGs deal no or barely any damage. This is where the Pershing is better than the Tiger because its AOE is significantly better. Tiger has better durability and AT, Pershing has better AI, access to CA as well as mobility and the skill shot. I've been using both extensively lately and especially after the planned buffs to the Pershing, I think they are / will be on par.

Sure, that might very well be. Since you were quoting me about moving accuracy I assumed your points were also referring to that.

My point is that the majority of engagements are going to be at max range or while (stop) moving. Situations in which the MGs deal no or barely any damage. This is where the Pershing is better than the Tiger because its AOE is significantly better. Tiger has better durability and AT, Pershing has better AI, access to CA as well as mobility and the skill shot. I've been using both extensively lately and especially after the planned buffs to the Pershing, I think they are / will be on par.

Why are you again counting CA? Shall we count Stuka to count for Tiger AT capabilities?

Regardng scaling:
Is the scaling to vet3 still balanced? I ran some (current build) tests of Pershing/Tiger shooting at Volks/Rifles at about range 3. At vet0 the Pershing had a decent advantage where I can see proper use for it. But at vet3 I was not so sure anymore. The Tiger seemed to close in very nicely to the point I would say they are about equal. Especially when the pintle was upgraded. Considering the Pershing is 2 POP cheaper this is still a win for the Pershing, but on the other hand its biggest advantage is not so much an advantage anymore.

Why are you again counting CA? Shall we count Stuka to count for Tiger AT capabilities?

Because he's playing the extra munitions mod so he can spam CA in every engagement

Why are you again counting CA? Shall we count Stuka to count for Tiger AT capabilities?

Apples and nuclear reactors.
Its like saying we should compare for the father land and Rifleman molitovs.. You can't even REALLY compare global buffs and area effect buffs and you sre trying to compare an off map skill shot with a global buff.... That's just arguing in bad faith

Apples and nuclear reactors.
Its like saying we should compare for the father land and Rifleman molitovs.. You can't even REALLY compare global buffs and area effect buffs and you sre trying to compare an off map skill shot with a global buff.... That's just arguing in bad faith

Am I comparing anything? Nope, you should read again.

Regardng scaling:
Is the scaling to vet3 still balanced? I ran some (current build) tests of Pershing/Tiger shooting at Volks/Rifles at about range 3. At vet0 the Pershing had a decent advantage where I can see proper use for it. But at vet3 I was not so sure anymore. The Tiger seemed to close in very nicely to the point I would say they are about equal. Especially when the pintle was upgraded.

This is my whole point. Everyone saying Pershing has better AI (compensation for lower armor & ROF), but it does not...

If this is the intended usage, doesn't this make the crew grenade kind of a non-synergistic gimmick?

This didn't recieve a response but the answer is: yeah.

This didn't recieve a response but the answer is: yeah.

The proud of USF made nade instead of range +5 as other heavies(IS-2, Tiger)

The proud of USF made nade instead of range +5 as other heavies(IS-2, Tiger)

Hell yea go Amurica amisamisamisamisamis

Am I comparing anything? Nope, you should read again.

The comparison wasn't direct but it was implied.

Why are you again counting CA? Shall we count Stuka to count for Tiger AT capabilities?

The reason is that CA is an ability you will always have access to if you have a Pershing (Barring edge cases, such as if you recover an abandoned Pershing, but that's obviously not relevant), and it directly benefits the unit in question. The ability is perfectly able to be considered when speaking of the unit due to accessing the Pershing being strictly predicated on access to CA.

If, for the sake of argument, the only OKW (assume OST don't have a Tiger I) doc that had a Tiger I was Elite Armoured, then if you were talking about the AT capability of the Pershing vs the Tiger, you would absolutely be right in factoring HEAT shells into the argument.

The reason is that CA is an ability you will always have access to if you have a Pershing (Barring edge cases, such as if you recover an abandoned Pershing, but that's obviously not relevant), and it directly benefits the unit in question. The ability is perfectly able to be considered when speaking of the unit due to accessing the Pershing being strictly predicated on access to CA.

If, for the sake of argument, the only OKW (assume OST don't have a Tiger I) doc that had a Tiger I was Elite Armoured, then if you were talking about the AT capability of the Pershing vs the Tiger, you would absolutely be right in factoring HEAT shells into the argument.

There are differences. HEAT you activate and that's it.
CA requires you to blob or semi blob to be effective. Considering the population, map design and anti-blob werfer/stuka, CA is seldom effective. HEAT is always. You either blob around Pershing/Jackson and risk losing everything (good luck popping CA on maps like ettelbruck, angermunde and the likes) or you send in one or two squads around the Pershing/Jackson and basically don't get the 120 munitions worth. Jackson does nothing to infantry. Pershing is mediocre albeit good compared to P4 and the likes... so yeah, CA easily countered by infantry and if you have 2x raketen or paks supporting it, well CA is wasted. Heavy cav has no indirects besides pak howi/scott and if those are in the game, then I doubt you have the pop for 2 tanks, Pershing is your only tank.
Is taking CA into account needed? Yes
Is there a lot of BS about this ability? Yes. People take it like it's got no downsides.
A) Expensive
B) Requires infantry and to really be worth 120 muni, requires you to blob
C) Teamgames map design is annoyingly bad and favors stuka/werfer for blob control, not to mention the lane-y nature. This all reduces effectiveness of the CA ability
I dare people to play Heavy cav on 3v3 maps and use CA. 80% of my games are heavy cav, 20% are recon and each and the only time I've managed to effectively use this ability was against braindead players.

Do players frequently send their expensive hevay tanks around the map where there is no friendly infantry to support it? That may in part be the root of the issue in the "squishy" Pershing issue.
. The prerequisite of "have infantry nearby" has no bearing at all in the quality of enemy...

Do players frequently send their expensive hevay tanks around the map where there is no friendly infantry to support it? That may in part be the root of the issue in the "squishy" Pershing issue.
. The prerequisite of "have infantry nearby" has no bearing at all in the quality of enemy...

From what I've tested, vet3 Pershing with CA enabled has 50:50 chance over vet3 Tiger. So it's more of Pershing being lame after vet3 got nerfed.

Do players frequently send their expensive hevay tanks around the map where there is no friendly infantry to support it? That may in part be the root of the issue in the "squishy" Pershing issue.
. The prerequisite of "have infantry nearby" has no bearing at all in the quality of enemy...

Yeah, I mostly flank, I don't do head on charges. So yeah, I send my units to parts of map that are undefended and then strike from there. In 3v3s. Try to flank with CA on Port of hamburger with the BS bridges/lanes. You'll lose the pershing momentarily. If the actual holes in the USF roster (and OKW a bit) were plugged, then yeah, Pershing would be ok. But without any serious stock anti blob option that is not just "well spam phosphorous from paks and waste muni while the stuka takes it out every minute or so".

Play USF in teamgames and spam Heavy Cav and come back and say that the Pershing is a viable option in 3v3s. It can be used, but using Tiger is so much easier and more rewarding. I won't comment on OST as I do not play OST but if I had to compare OKW and USF, my 2 most played factions (USF 1st), OKW is miles easier to play and less punishing in 3v3s.

And having infantry nearby in 3v3s has bearing in the enemy. Good players will punish having infantry (plural) with bombardment. Weak, won't. Same as how you easily punish ober blobs with katyusha, which are often seen these days.

As a player that plays heavy cav a lot I can say that CA is a trap on most maps. Example: Angermunde 3v3. Standard custom game as OKW (3x okw vs 3x USF). The noob that I played against on top VP actually used Pershing with 2 rifles and 2 rangers, Jackson and a Sherman, late game. I had one stuka and a KT and a couple of obers and a P4. Top VP is just asking for a stuka line drop. He popped CA hoping to get my KT. Now I don't blame him. Angermunde is dense as f***. Lots of shotblockers and pathfinding blockers. One stuka strike took out both rangers and one rifle squad and I just went in with KT head front. Sent P4 on Jackson. Jackson got stuck on that shit map and KT ate the Pershing (didn't even bother with the Sherman as I like the odds Jackson + Sherman vs vet3 OKW P4). He/She said "GG gardening noob" and left. I had the same thing happen to me on that map and ettelbruck until I learned my lesson and only resorted to using CA on wide open maps like steppes. CA is downright useless on tight maps.

The reason is that CA is an ability you will always have access to if you have a Pershing (Barring edge cases, such as if you recover an abandoned Pershing, but that's obviously not relevant), and it directly benefits the unit in question. The ability is perfectly able to be considered when speaking of the unit due to accessing the Pershing being strictly predicated on access to CA.

If, for the sake of argument, the only OKW (assume OST don't have a Tiger I) doc that had a Tiger I was Elite Armoured, then if you were talking about the AT capability of the Pershing vs the Tiger, you would absolutely be right in factoring HEAT shells into the argument.

What you say doesn't make any sense, Stuka is an ability you always has available with your tiger if you select the right commander.
Or you're comparing unit like pershing and tiger in a vacuum or you're comparing their role inside their respective army composition but you don't start a vacuum comparison picking up abilities from army composition to build your argumentation, that's bullshit argumentation.

What I see here is zero relevant argument to explain why the Pershing has to be inferior and still cost the same to the Tiger. The Pershing has been demontrated to be barely superior to Tiger in AI under specific conditions that are not representative of how the game is played.
The Pershing is inferior in a vacuum but still cost the same price.

As for how is integrated those units inside their respective army composition, There no match in favor of Ostheer with its complete stock army letting any player decided how to support their Tiger. Playing pershing as USF lock you out from Rocket arty support.
This situation wouldn't be a problem if the Pershing were in fact the superior unit but it is not, it is an inferior unit locking you out from other units only accessible with other commanders.

Regardng scaling:
Is the scaling to vet3 still balanced? I ran some (current build) tests of Pershing/Tiger shooting at Volks/Rifles at about range 3. At vet0 the Pershing had a decent advantage where I can see proper use for it. But at vet3 I was not so sure anymore. The Tiger seemed to close in very nicely to the point I would say they are about equal. Especially when the pintle was upgraded. Considering the Pershing is 2 POP cheaper this is still a win for the Pershing, but on the other hand its biggest advantage is not so much an advantage anymore.

Yeah I certainly agree that both tanks are very close in terms of performance at three stars of Vet. Overall I'd say the Pershing has the advantage as it has a much better alpha strike and deals more upfront damage and kills during prolonged engagements. However, the Tiger is usually able to pick up the pace in the later stages of a fight due to the low scatter, high ROF and better MGs (in case they're in range) that makes it more effective in killing singled-out, low-health models.

The 10% less scatter at Vet 2 in the beta also gives the Tiger a small performance boost, but it's overall lower than I would have expected and pretty much of the same magnitude as the 5% higher ROF buff for the Pershing.

So all in all the AI advantage of the Pershing is rather small in most situations, except for the very first shot fired. I can see that this is still a plus overall, but if better AI is the defining trait of the Pershing it could be a bit more pronounced in my opinion. Not HE-Sherman vs. AP-Sherman better, but still a bit more than just 10 - 15% under ideal conditions.