Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

it was meta since Heavies are faster timming and better AI power.However, After the Heavies nerf. M26 is on back foot because:
+ Cant actually brawling
+ DPS consider worse than tiger ( bescaue of lacking of tanky, Wind up wind down time, pen + worse vet).
+ Tiger has some Ground control Abilities to follow up: Ju-87 bombing, Light arty barrage, Loiter. Meanwhile M26 only have CA which is forcing USF mass blobing inf + tank together and get fucked by well placed mine, MG, pak gun.
+ Repair time LMAO, sad RE noise.
After all, genaral Heavies nerf made M26 worse than IS2, KT, Tiger + Tiger ACE. Why I had to pay so much resouces to a heavy tank not actually heavy tank, worse vet, lack of DPS ? Mobilites of M26 is not enough !, because panther can catch you, tiger can actually intercept you ?
Same story as Ez8, lack of powers, mobility for the price.

what kind of nonsense is this?

dps against tanks has always been worse than that of the tiger while both are on par against inf, the pershing being even slightly better. this situation hasn't changed in years and has never been much of a problem before.

CA also doesn't force any sort of blobbing, you just need at least ONE inf unit near a tank to receive the bonuses. the range isn't small either and you won't get any stacking of effects if you have more units closer by.

there are obviously areas where the pershing is lacking, some of which will get addressed with the patch, such as mobility, standardizing the vet3 reload to account for wind down and the HP to DR conversion to increase repair speed.
a slight buff to armor would probably not hurt either, but i doubt the pershing will or should receive anything beyond that.

in the end the tiger has always had the edge over both the is-2 and the pershing in terms of AT and would beat both in a direct duel. in return it has slightly lower AI performance and arguably less capable / cost-efficient TDs to back it up.

The patch note say Pershing loses 160hp but gains harder to hit, which helps in getting it back earlier without losing its surviving in battle.

Pershing is now faster, in and out of battle, and with a cp decrease, fitting its theme. USF theme. It can brawl fine in 2v2. Seems all round buff to me.

It is a dmg reduction modifier, not a RA decrease. The tank lose 160hp and gain dmg reduction so it can tank EXACLY the same amount of shot while being faster ro repair. The tank dont become any more durable since it still take 6 shot to kill it.

tiger is also the slowest of them with stuff like turret tracking and repositional rotation.

It is a dmg reduction modifier, not a RA decrease. The tank lose 160hp and gain dmg reduction so it can tank EXACLY the same amount of shot while being faster ro repair. The tank dont become any more durable since it still take 6 shot to kill it.

that is what i said.
also the dmg reduction helps with shreks, faust and deflection too...

that is what i said.
also the dmg reduction helps with shreks, faust and deflection too...

You said it got target size buff and "harder to hit" but it is not the case here. And tge change dont help the tank more durable since the numer of shot to kill is still the same.

You said it got target size buff and "harder to hit" but it is not the case here. And tge change dont help the tank more durable since the numer of shot to kill is still the same.

maybe i got confused, thought for infantry dmg reduction is like target size.

but the main point is, this helps pershing/usf theme without any negative loss. /shrug

so this buff is actually stronger than target size. whats not to be happy about?

ibut you CANNOT ignore the existance of CA and try and balance the perishing as if it doesn't exist. more range and more RoF are meaningful bonuses and can easily tip an ok unit to OP if not taken into account before hand. the abiility is there and NEEDS to be considered.

You have to understand that no one is trying to ignore the CA. You said that CA need to be considered when looking at the Pershing and i agree with this. Point is that with CA you can have the Pershing shot AS FAST AS a default tiger, so i think it is safe to buff the Pershing in some other aspects. The beta is learning for that, but pp want more meaningful changes. it not like they are asking for any thing over the top, some just want it to have 300 armour like actual heavy, some others want it to retain 960 HP but nothing further than that.

what kind of nonsense is this?

dps against tanks has always been worse than that of the tiger while both are on par against inf, the pershing being even slightly better. this situation hasn't changed in years and has never been much of a problem before.

CA also doesn't force any sort of blobbing, you just need at least ONE inf unit near a tank to receive the bonuses. the range isn't small either and you won't get any stacking of effects if you have more units closer by.

there are obviously areas where the pershing is lacking, some of which will get addressed with the patch, such as mobility, standardizing the vet3 reload to account for wind up and the HP to DR conversion to increase repair speed.
a slight buff to armor would probably not hurt either, but i doubt the pershing will or should receive anything beyond that.

in the end the tiger has always had the edge over both the is-2 and the pershing in terms of AT and would beat both in a direct duel. in return it has slightly lower AI performance and arguably less capable / cost-efficient TDs to back it up.

1/ DPS should be a key to compare Tiger vs M26 nor any heavy tank. Before Heavies nerf, M26 can pump more DPS than tiger, That is a trully thing USF need.
2/ CA is the kind of forcing player blobing, because:
- 1 inf squad follow up never enough, M26 couldn't stand alone like tiger. You need 2-3 squad follow him as one.
- CA help USF release their mirco stress ( give huge buff for deathball so you can out input in another front).
- Dont compere top tier players to the rest, even top tier dont brother old CA because reason.
3/ the Concept " M26 is suppose to lose tiger, panther " is really stupid. If you want to acchive that then lower the price of M26.
4/ You and your people always say about ablities but:
> IS M26 actaully out speed Panther, tiger ? Is it actually winning on mobility while being hold in place by lacking of repair ?
For Now , M26 lose to Tiger in almost every way even AI (in real combat, Tiger AI better than M26 because of longer range, faster DPS. Not to mention Tiger can stand in frontal fight longer than M26) So why USF player pick heavy cav to fight against 5 Tiger/ Tiger ace Doc ?

maybe i got confused, thought for infantry dmg reduction is like target size.

but the main point is, this helps pershing/usf theme without any negative loss. /shrug

so this buff is actually stronger than target size. whats not to be happy about?

Im not unhappy about the change but in my point of view the change only make repair a bit faster while the overall durability isn't change, so it is not an direct buff nor being that impactfull. It have its meaning, just not up to the point of expectation.

1/ DPS should be a key to compare Tiger vs M26 nor any heavy tank. Before Heavies nerf, M26 can pump more DPS than tiger, That is a trully thing USF need.
2/ CA is the kind of forcing player blobing, because:
- 1 inf squad follow up never enough, M26 couldn't stand alone like tiger. You need 2-3 squad follow him as one.
- CA help USF release their mirco stress ( give huge buff for deathball so you can out input in another front).
- Dont compere top tier players to the rest, even top tier dont brother old CA because reason.
3/ the Concept " M26 is suppose to lose tiger, panther " is really stupid. If you want to acchive that then lower the price of M26.
4/ You and your people always say about ablities but:
> IS M26 actaully out speed Panther, tiger ? Is it actually winning on mobility while being hold in place by lacking of repair ?
For Now , M26 lose to Tiger in almost every way even AI (in real combat, Tiger AI better than M26 because of longer range, faster DPS. Not to mention Tiger can stand in frontal fight longer than M26) So why USF player pick heavy cav to fight against 5 Tiger/ Tiger ace Doc ?

Not sure if I understand everything you wrote here correctly, but to answer your points once more:

1) The Pershing wasn't able to pump more AT DPS before or during the heavy meta and this hasn't changed at all up to now. Literally the only thing that has changed since the 2019 AoE nerf is that all heavies (except the KT and KV-2) were made less effective in sniping full-health models while still spreading massive HP damage across all members of a squad. And here the status quo also remained largely unchanged; both the IS-2 and Pershing deal significantly more AI DPS per shot than the Tiger, which in part makes up for the slightly worse AoE with its higher rate of fire. If anything the Tiger was even hit harder than the other heavies by the AoE adjustments, since it lost quite a bit more AI relative to the pre-patch version (especially if you consider the loss of the vet2 scatter reduction).

2) Again, CA doesn't promote blobbing in any form since you can literally have one engie squad trailing behind at half a screen distance to get the desired buff for your tank. Sure a giant deathball around your tanks will enjoy the same benefits, but that doesn't mean you can't get the most out of CA without blobbing.

3) Again, the Tiger winning an isolated 1v1 brawl against the Pershing (and IS-2 for that matter) is how things have been for years and isn't a new development nor was it different during the heavy meta. I'm personally not against giving the Pershing slightly more armor or reducing the price a bit to better match the performance difference in this particular matchup, but that's not up to me.

4) This is basically an amalgamation of the above, so just to reiterate: no the Pershing doesn't have worse DPS against infantry and, yes, it does lose against a Tiger in a head-to-head duel. Part of this is already getting addressed in the beta as it has been said numerous times before, but some degree of performance difference will remain simply because both units have different factional units to complement their respective weaknesses.

There's no doubt that a bit of further tweaking would surely benefit the Pershing, but the tank itself is nowhere near as useless or underpowered as portrayed here. I remember a similar discussion revolving around how absurdly UP the Tiger is compared to other heavies after the 2019 patch hit... funny to see how the tables have turned so quickly.

i didnt say that it WAS i said that it needs to be.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You saying you support a cost decrease? Cause I'm saying it's not currently priced accordingly within it's own faction. I'm not talking about cost comparisons to the Tiger

both axis factions have panthers, if both got a panther with 4 levels of vet they would be costed and valued differently for both factions despite being the EXACT SAME vehicle. trying to nail cost efficiency based on values for other factions is worthless outside ballparking.

pershing=/=tiger because usf=/=ost
i SAID id like to see some more mobility, perhaps even an ability that reduces target size, but you CANNOT ignore the existance of CA and try and balance the perishing as if it doesn't exist.

Yeah I've already said you need to factor CA. Not sure why you are telling me this

more range and more RoF are meaningful bonuses and can easily tip an ok unit to OP if not taken into account before hand. the abiility is there and NEEDS to be considered. weve had a number of abilities in the past that stacked with units in the commander and took them WAY over the top, B4+FRM and vet being able to OHK a king tiger for example or more recently Falls and for the fatherland... abilities and units that interact need to be conmsidered. dont treat CA like a mandatory ability be be aware that it CAN be used.

Yeah I agree with this. My point is that commander synergy doesn't need to be in the form of directly interacting stat buffs to be a problem

Heavy TD+bomb was OP for a different reason completely, but the effect is similar. The commander becomes too oppressive

as for design, we abandon it now, as loose as it is and theres no point not just making the game a mirror match. itll be the only way to balance the game if we simply decide that counterbalance means nothing.

Imo we already are way past abandoning original design. That's my whole point

They even said they had no plans to add a pershing at one point

perishing is a heavy tank FOR ITS FACTION. one that as you say has no difficulty killing infantry, nor tanks actually... giving them a proper meatshield breaks that balance.

You will have a harder time killing tanks if you get a pershing then if you didn't, that's my point. And the power against infantry is not currently worth investing that fuel in. Jacksons and HE Sherman's almost always a better option

they are VERY GOOD at killing everything, but at the cost of low staying power. you give them staying power and everything else has a rock to launch from. they are supposed to keep biting, not bite and hold. mobility and features to promote aggressive play could prove too much combined with the ability to out fight the enemy in a pitched fight as well.

Picking Pershing means you have no rocket arty, and double AT guns are more effective against it then any other heavy. Don't really see how you can say it's giving them too much

Not sure if I understand everything you wrote here correctly, but to answer your points once more:

1) The Pershing wasn't able to pump more AT DPS before or during the heavy meta and this hasn't changed at all up to now. Literally the only thing that has changed since the 2019 AoE nerf is that all heavies (except the KT and KV-2) were made less effective in sniping full-health models while still spreading massive HP damage across all members of a squad. And here the status quo also remained largely unchanged; both the IS-2 and Pershing deal significantly more AI DPS per shot

If we can't compare the Pershing to the Tiger, then don't compare it to IS2. IS2 has its strengh which is durability even if it lose to a Tiger in a vacuum test. The potential the Pershing is given doesn't match its cost and all the lacklust its doctrine comes with: No arty, no loiter. For what it worth CA could be replace by 188mm arty barrage from mechanize doctrine that would make the doctrine more appealing.

Balance team doesn't want to buff the pershing because it would make the doctrine top1 on 1vs1. But Tiger doctrines are already Top1 for Ostheer and it never made them blind an eye also it took them years to finally do something about special ops for OKW. That's just double standard.

I dont understand why everyone suddenly want USF to crutch on Pershing 99% of all 1v1s like it used to be. We finally have good doctrine variety and people want Pershing to 1v1 dedicated tank destroyers and win on top of amazing AI. The only reason why Heavy Cav isnt meta is because people dont want to twiddle their thumbs until CP12 to call in their heavies.

If we can't compare the Pershing to the Tiger, then don't compare it to IS2. IS2 has its strengh which is durability even if it lose to a Tiger in a vacuum test. The potential the Pershing is given doesn't match its cost and all the lacklust its doctrine comes with: No arty, no loiter. For what it worth CA could be replace by 188mm arty barrage from mechanize doctrine that would make the doctrine more appealing.

Balance team doesn't want to buff the pershing because it would make the doctrine top1 on 1vs1. But Tiger doctrines are already Top1 for Ostheer and it never made them blind an eye also it took them years to finally do something about special ops for OKW. That's just double standard.

You forgot the fact that Ostheer's Tiger docs has a lot more going for them than just a Tiger right? Plus heavies arent that good anymore in 1v1s because other docs give all their abilities a lot earlier which means you can have your late game army a lot earlier.

The patch note say Pershing loses 160hp but gains harder to hit, which helps in getting it back earlier without losing its surviving in battle.

You confused target size with rec dmg modififer.
Its exactly as easy to hit as it ever was.

I dont understand why everyone suddenly want USF to crutch on Pershing 99% of all 1v1s like it used to be. We finally have good doctrine variety and people want Pershing to 1v1 dedicated tank destroyers and win on top of amazing AI. The only reason why Heavy Cav isnt meta is because people dont want to twiddle their thumbs until CP12 to call in their heavies.

That doesn't explain high pick rate of Tiger from OST.
We are way past "first tank is the heavy tank meta" since they now require last tech. It's more like one medium + heavy tank as the last unit.
USF don't go for Pershing commander because:
1. It doesn't provide good skill to penetrate line drawn by supporting weapons(mg/pak)
2. Pershing does not perform good enough to the price.

I dont understand why everyone suddenly want USF to crutch on Pershing 99% of all 1v1s like it used to be. We finally have good doctrine variety and people want Pershing to 1v1 dedicated tank destroyers and win on top of amazing AI. The only reason why Heavy Cav isnt meta is because people dont want to twiddle their thumbs until CP12 to call in their heavies.

Nobody wants to crutch on the Pershing on 1vs1, we're only pointing that if the Pershing is downgraded it's only because balance team doesn't want to make it top pick on 1vs1 and this is not normal.
Either way the pershing should be on par with other heavies on its stats or if it's just a Panther with IA, then cut its price to panther/comet level and remove the limitation.

It's only a 6 times test, but I have done a bit after the video. It's not like Pershing is way ahead in terms of AI dmg. I say it's pretty much 50:50.

https://youtu.be/fJ0hfawIg2A

I dont understand why everyone suddenly want USF to crutch on Pershing 99% of all 1v1s like it used to be. We finally have good doctrine variety and people want Pershing to 1v1 dedicated tank destroyers and win on top of amazing AI. The only reason why Heavy Cav isnt meta is because people dont want to twiddle their thumbs until CP12 to call in their heavies.

I don't think its about wanting to crutch on the Pershing but more about viable alternatives in the armor department. USF are limited in tank choices and the tanks they do have are lackluster except for the Jackson.

If you are paying the same cost the unit as the Tiger it should be able to hold its own and be even. Its basically a Panther with Anti-Infantry but significantly more expensive.


Also there is a huge discrepancy between abilities and veterancy as well. For example the Tiger just has Blitz and or smoke as abilities which are simple to use. HVAP on the Pershing is a gimmick skill shot ability (which was good back when you could time it to do a double attack) but ever since the nerf its just a gimmick/trick that the Pershin could do without. Basically what im trying to say is that not only is the Tiger just flat out better stat wise but it is less micro intensive and easier to use.


Now if stats were left the same and the Pershing was given a Blitz like ability and instant smoke Axis would be crying all day about how overpowered it is. There is a huge double standard going on when it comes to the balance team.


Also Whermact as a Faction do not lack any holes in their core Roster. They have Brumbar to break up infantry/mg/AT gun walls. Meanwhile US 105 Dozer is doctrinal. Whermact has no doctrinal artillery with the Panzerwerfer. Meanwhile USF must go Calliope or Priest.


If USF had many of the core units that it is missing and was on par with Whermact in that aspect then it would be ok if the Tiger took a huge dump on the Pershing. However considering all the tools at Whermacts disposal, then the fact that the Pershing commander itself is rather lackluster, at the very least the Pershing should be something amazing considering that you are skipping out on core army units found in other commanders for a bootleg Panther that can also damage infantry.


I would start by replacing the HVAP skillshot ability with something else that is less micro intensive and improving the veterancy slightly. A self repair ability would be nice as well without having to touch the stats on the unit.

It's only a 6 times test, but I have done a bit after the video. It's not like Pershing is way ahead in terms of AI dmg. I say it's pretty much 50:50.

https://youtu.be/fJ0hfawIg2A

this is pretty much what i would expect. on average both shouldn't be much apart with respect to AI in a setup like the one you used in your test (no cover, no RA bonuses and wide unit spacing). i haven't tested this yet but here the tiger should even be a tiny bit better than the pershing since it has almost 50% more MG DPS at this range and the target has no RA bonus. things change, however, when you go to more clumped formations and add cover or target size reduction from vet. in those cases the pershing is superior in terms of alpha damage/kills and also sustained DPS/KPS (albeit also not by a landslide).