Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
side note, what about swapping rangers for ass engineers? then the pershing commander has more built in repairs, and importantly critical repairs for the pershing
Posts: 132
The purpose of this patch is to create an as large amount of middle ground (good/viable) commanders as possible to increase commander diversity. Not to create more top meta commanders. Heavy Cav is already nice and comfortable in the middle being 4th most popular in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 and it's getting a few nice buffs too (3 medium-small Pershing buffs, cheaper offmap smoke, Rangers will get a small buff). And some heavy meta commanders like Mechanized are being nerfed. And it being picked less than Urban Assault in teamgames for example has less to do with Heavy Cav itself and more with the Calliope being a necessary tool that more people prefer. There's no need to turn the Pershing into some kind of monster just to make it the number one pick. We're trying to move away from number one picks.
Posts: 213
For the stats page I selected top 200 and for 3v3 and 4v4 found a big difference of 80 matches from 5th position Heavr Armor to 3rd position armor and that is from a total of 276 games I guess. But before going into stats I would geniunely like to ask you, if you play USF automatch and find anyone of Aerafield, Sturmpanther, Helping Hans against you on your lane would you really go for Heavy Cavalry? I would like to see you try atleast so maybe if I am doing something wrong, it would help me.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Posts: 5279
Like the idea a lot in concept, but it definitely makes the commander weaker overall. Helps the pershing at the expense of the commander, which already isn't super popular atm
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
It'll weaken the late game but buff the early game. I think it would even out rhe commander which imo, is worthwhile to it being a bit weaker. Rangers are good but they are not interesting nor do they really compliment the commander. Smoke+ass engies could be really fun and the repairs are self explainitory. I see a lot of potential - even if that potential is net worse than rangers
Posts: 5279
It's just that now that leaves us with only 1 commander with rangers, and that commander happens to be the most popular one atm. In team games at least, can't speak for 1v1. Urban defense is really really strong
nothing wrong with there only being 1 commander with rangers. Before the most recent ranger commander there was only 1. Like I said they are good, but boring so I personally don't care for them (always prefer interesting mechanics than raw power)
Biggest problem for the Pershing is it's lack of necessity. Calliope fills a massive gap for US, Pershing does not. That change makes urban defense an even better choice over heavy cav than it already is
that's good though, that there is no necessity for the Pershing I mean. It means faction design works to a degree if usf doesn't NEED a meat shield. That the calliope is in demand simy means a better alternative to rockets needs to be found. But I digress, Pershing was ALWAYS a labor of love commander where you pick it because you WANT it not because you NEED it. That's fine imo. Even if partisans is a "bad" commander it's a fun commander for example. It doesn't matter if the commander is top tier, just that it works well with itself and it's faction. I feel there is more to gain from having the commander more cohesive than simply a few good abilities stapled together. The goal of a commander should be flavor, not simply strength.
Posts: 1515
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
nothing wrong with there only being 1 commander with rangers. Before the most recent ranger commander there was only 1. Like I said they are good, but boring so I personally don't care for them (always prefer interesting mechanics than raw power)
that's good though, that there is no necessity for the Pershing I mean. It means faction design works to a degree if usf doesn't NEED a meat shield
Posts: 307
Posts: 1563
They cost pretty much the same (630mp + 230fuel vs 640mp + 230fuel), but tiger has been spotted many times in ML, and none(AFAIK) of the Pershing on field. And I believe there is a good reason to it.
Pershing's stat is simply not worth it after the last nerf.
1) Armor & health
Tiger: 1040 health + 300 armor
Pershing: 960 health + 270 armor
Even Panther & Brummbarr has same (or higher after vetted) armor than "HEAVY" tank that costs 230fuel.
2) gun
Pershing has pen. of +20 on every range. And deals better in AI. But Tiger shoots faster.
How fast? Combined with 1), Tiger vet.3 wins over Pershing vet.3 in any range. Even vet.0 Tiger has 50:50 on vet3 Pershing.
3) vet
Pershing / Tiger
vet1: acceleration + 30% / Blitzkrieg
vet2: turret rotation + 20% + unlock grenade / range +5 + accuracy + 20% + turret rotation +30%
vet3: accuracy + 20% + reload -30% / reload - 30% + rotation + 20% + max. speed + 20% + acceleration + 20%
This TBH is just way in favor of Tiger. It gets range +5 while Pershing gets to throw grenade....
Really revamp needs to be done here in the Pershing's favor.
Overall, Pershing is inferior in all ways except for the AI a little.
As I've mentioned, Vet3 Pershing lose to the vet0 Tiger.
I haven't seen Pershing commander in any mode recently. Any thoughts on this topic?
Posts: 92
No,
Ostheer doesn't have 60 range TDs.
OKW doesn't have 60 range ATGs.
AEF has both.
Posts: 163
Posts: 1563
No,
Ostheer doesn't have 60 range TDs.
OKW doesn't have 60 range ATGs.
AEF has both.
Posts: 92
Why are OST and OKW elite infantry so much worse than Allied one cause MG42.
So in that Very same reason Pershing should not be any closer to tiger due to 60 Range Ultra Mobile Turreted TD like the Jackson.
Posts: 307
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1563
Where did you get that from or when did you make that up?
I dont understand how allied AT has anything to do with Allies paying the same and getting a worse tank than axis for that money. Axis have by far enough AT options to fend a Pershing off, do you want me to list them for you? I dont even see an argument here, it's ridiculous.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
It's tit for tat m8. Aliied don't get to have tanks that can go against axis tanks the same way axis infantry don't get to go against allied ones.
 |
|
|
28 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
309 | ||
 |
|
|
200 | ||
|
|
|
|
31 | ||
|
|
|
|
25 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
