Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

Just some advice here, for anyone, since it will help out a ton in this regard: you can stick your (new) RET in a Sherman or Jackson and they will be vet 3 within a couple of shots. It's a bit of a chore but you'll get the vet 2 and 3 repair bonuses in no time and that will significantly reduce the repair times on your Pershing.

Lol seriously that the solution to make the pershing relevant?

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 agree with everything said.
However, "CA doesn't promote blobbing". If you really want to get your worth (Now 110 muni), you really need to have multiple units next to the Pershing. I quite often play Heavy Cav in 3v3s and if I can barely fit another tank with the Pershing (usually Jackson). Howi, AA, mainline squads (+ ranger), 2x RE, maybe AT gun and the Pershing. And it would be really stupid, for a lack of better word, to use a 110 muni ability to buff ROF and range of one tank where the extra range won't be utilized because of sight constraints. And for the extra ROF. You really gonna waste 100+ muni just to shoot a second or so faster?
So if you want to get your money's worth, you need to have a couple of squads around it so they too get the bonus, which is just asking for an offmap/indirect. Eg. I consider the skillshot quite useless even though I successfully killed a fresh snared Tiger on Angrymundy last game through 3 or so buildings on max range. I also consider CA to be quite a hogwash even though I've also successfully used it a couple of times in past few games. I will say that CA is good for a hail Mary push. That it most definitely is. On maps that are wide enough ofc. Whiteball and the such. Using CA on maps like ettelbruck or angrymundy is just plain idiotic as there are plenty of sightblockers, buildings, pathblockers, etc.

The Pershing is not as bad as people make it out to be, but in 3v3+ games, it's quite useless. Sooner or later Tigers, JP4s, KTs hit the field and without rocket arty to at least displace the supporting infantry around those mammoths, you won't stand a chance with a Jackson + Pershing + mainlines against 3x Obers + KT + JP4 + stuka or werfer + Tiger + Panther + PZgrens or some elite doctrinals.

Furthermore, theekvn pretty much tested out the AI, where Pershing should have a bigger advantage over the Tiger, and shown that it doesn't even have an AI advantage. Sure the test samples are low but the results are consistent. About the bigger penetration on Pershing. It's going against stock Panther (260), JP4 (230), OKW P4 (234) and maybe doctrinal Tiger (300), Elefant, Jagd (400+). Tiger goes against Sherman (160), Jackson (does it even have armour?), and maybe doctrinal Pershing (270) or E8 (215) or some dozers (200+). All in all, the 20 less penetration on Tiger is quite fine. Other factions like the brits have some beefier tanks but that's where the Panther comes to play.

The double standard is not really a myth here. While I understand that buffing Pershing (mostly a 2v2+ unit) could have adverse effects on 1v1, I do not understand why buffing armour back to 300 and slightly buffing frontal MGs is out of question? The Pershing is not anywhere close to being OP. Even in the standard army composition. Even with a Jackson backing it up.

Edit: If I'd have to rate myself in COH2 I'd be "3.6". Not great, not terrible. Not as retarded but sometimes retarded. So when I keep winning using a braindead tactics, you know the balance is skewed.

Lol seriously that the solution to make the pershing relevant?

People: The Pershing is underwhelming and rely on extra investment and mirco to be on par with other heavy in certain aspects.
Sander: Just put in event more micro and you can repair it faster.

I mean, pp has given all the reasons and dont evnt asking for anything over the top but this is what we got back from a member of balance team.

I mean, pp has given all the reasons and dont evnt asking for anything over the top but this is what we got back from a member of balance team.

There´s some truth to that, and I haven't read any major good arguments against the requested buffs.

Lol seriously that the solution to make the pershing relevant?

Where did I say it was? I just gave advice on how to get the fastest repair times.

Where did I say it was? I just gave advice on how to get the fastest repair times.

Become we all know it is so easy to do and using you jackson to vet up your RE squad is more important than actually vetting up your jackson crew's to face panther/tigers.

Your suggestion just remember a famous invented one in France.
- They don't have bread, then give them brioche.

Where did I say it was? I just gave advice on how to get the fastest repair times.

Which mean you dont have any plan to improve the unit itself outside of those beta "buffs" ?

Which mean you dont have any plan to improve the unit itself outside of those beta "buffs" ?

You do realize that the Pershing is part of the current patch and gets actual repair time buffs?

Become we all know it is so easy to do and using you jackson to vet up your RE squad is more important than actually vetting up your jackson crew's to face panther/tigers

It only takes 4 hits in a Jackson to get your RET from vet 0 to vet 3. The minutes saved (over an entire battle) on repair times on your Pershing will be at least as beneficial to fighting (heavy) vehicles as a bit of veterancy on your Jackson, if not more.

I agree with everything said.
However, "CA doesn't promote blobbing". If you really want to get your worth (Now 110 muni), you really need to have multiple units next to the Pershing. I quite often play Heavy Cav in 3v3s and if I can barely fit another tank with the Pershing (usually Jackson). Howi, AA, mainline squads (+ ranger), 2x RE, maybe AT gun and the Pershing. And it would be really stupid, for a lack of better word, to use a 110 muni ability to buff ROF and range of one tank where the extra range won't be utilized because of sight constraints. And for the extra ROF. You really gonna waste 100+ muni just to shoot a second or so faster?
So if you want to get your money's worth, you need to have a couple of squads around it so they too get the bonus, which is just asking for an offmap/indirect. Eg. I consider the skillshot quite useless even though I successfully killed a fresh snared Tiger on Angrymundy last game through 3 or so buildings on max range. I also consider CA to be quite a hogwash even though I've also successfully used it a couple of times in past few games. I will say that CA is good for a hail Mary push. That it most definitely is. On maps that are wide enough ofc. Whiteball and the such. Using CA on maps like ettelbruck or angrymundy is just plain idiotic as there are plenty of sightblockers, buildings, pathblockers, etc.

The Pershing is not as bad as people make it out to be, but in 3v3+ games, it's quite useless. Sooner or later Tigers, JP4s, KTs hit the field and without rocket arty to at least displace the supporting infantry around those mammoths, you won't stand a chance with a Jackson + Pershing + mainlines against 3x Obers + KT + JP4 + stuka or werfer + Tiger + Panther + PZgrens or some elite doctrinals.

Furthermore, theekvn pretty much tested out the AI, where Pershing should have a bigger advantage over the Tiger, and shown that it doesn't even have an AI advantage. Sure the test samples are low but the results are consistent. About the bigger penetration on Pershing. It's going against stock Panther (260), JP4 (230), OKW P4 (234) and maybe doctrinal Tiger (300), Elefant, Jagd (400+). Tiger goes against Sherman (160), Jackson (does it even have armour?), and maybe doctrinal Pershing (270) or E8 (215) or some dozers (200+). All in all, the 20 less penetration on Tiger is quite fine. Other factions like the brits have some beefier tanks but that's where the Panther comes to play.

The double standard is not really a myth here. While I understand that buffing Pershing (mostly a 2v2+ unit) could have adverse effects on 1v1, I do not understand why buffing armour back to 300 and slightly buffing frontal MGs is out of question? The Pershing is not anywhere close to being OP. Even in the standard army composition. Even with a Jackson backing it up.

Interesting take on things. I have to admit that 3v3 isn't really an area I'm qualified to comment on, but I agree the Pershing - or mostly any heavy tank - isn't really enough of a shock unit to justify skipping things like a Calliope in larger team games. This probably has more to do with the size/layout of 3v3 and 4v4 maps, which have much higher unit density and don't play out like 3 separate 1v1s in most cases. Hence artillery is much more likely to find juicy targets, while heavies are much more certain to hit a TD brick wall sooner than later - but I don't need to tell you that of course.
I'd usually also have more than one tank in a 1v1, plus finding the space to spread your army out in wide flanks with CA active for both groups forming the pincer isn't too hard, either. So I guess this might be just another example where a doctrine/unit/ability is stronger in smaller game modes than in larger ones or vice versa. Far from the ideal situation for sure but I doubt any of the changes suggested so far would really make a difference in this case (unless we're talking all-out faction revamps of course).

I'm not sure if bringing the armor back to 300 together with the DR already implemented would be too much, but since we're still in the beta phase this might be a good time to test it and see if it sticks. I do however like the idea to buff the MGs a bit to match the DPS the Tiger and especially the IS-2 get with their respective pintle mounts. Right now the Pershing is pretty bad by 50% or more at any range in that regard.

You do realize that the Pershing is part of the current patch and gets actual repair time buffs?

You can se that i did mention beta "buffs" as im fully aware of those change. But if the question is will the repair time buff can bring the Pershing up to par then my and many others answer is NO.

I'm not sure if bringing the armor back to 300 together with the DR already implemented would be too much, but since we're still in the beta phase this might be a good time to test it and see if it sticks. I do however like the idea to buff the MGs a bit to match the DPS the Tiger and especially the IS-2 get with their respective pintle mounts. Right now the Pershing is pretty bad by 50% or more at any range in that regard.

Pretty much this is all has been asked for from the stat of the thread, alongside some ideas on mobility/ability teaks. We are having chance to test with the beta And yet, certain pp go against it so strongly that they take every excuses they can come up with.

You can se that i did mention beta "buffs" as im fully aware of those change. But if the question is will the repair time buff can bring the Pershing up to par then my and many others answer is NO.

Alright then. I thought you were referring to Sanders suggestion to switch with REs as a form of "beta" (second grade) buff.

Interesting take on things. I have to admit that 3v3 isn't really an area I'm qualified to comment on, but I agree the Pershing - or mostly any heavy tank - isn't really enough of a shock unit to justify skipping things like a Calliope in larger team games. This probably has more to do with the size/layout of 3v3 and 4v4 maps, which have much higher unit density and don't play out like 3 separate 1v1s in most cases. Hence artillery is much more likely to find juicy targets, while heavies are much more certain to hit a TD brick wall sooner than later - but I don't need to tell you that of course.
I'd usually also have more than one tank in a 1v1, plus finding the space to spread your army out in wide flanks with CA active for both groups forming the pincer isn't too hard, either. So I guess this might be just another example where a doctrine/unit/ability is stronger in smaller game modes than in larger ones or vice versa. Far from the ideal situation for sure but I doubt any of the changes suggested so far would really make a difference in this case (unless we're talking all-out faction revamps of course).

I'm not sure if bringing the armor back to 300 together with the DR already implemented would be too much, but since we're still in the beta phase this might be a good time to test it and see if it sticks. I do however like the idea to buff the MGs a bit to match the DPS the Tiger and especially the IS-2 get with their respective pintle mounts. Right now the Pershing is pretty bad by 50% or more at any range in that regard.

If in beta, the 300 armour pershing + MG buffs prove too much alongside the speed/repair speed buff, then I'll hang myself by the ba**s from the nearest tree.

In 3v3s, you do sort of play 1v1 on "lanes" (so not as wide as 1v1) with a danger of being surrounded by another player. Great example is Rheine 3v3 bot VP/fuel. You secure it, have a couple of rifles there, captain and whatnot and another player can push through mid and completely surround your forces and pretty much wipe them on the long retreat path. We need new 3v3 maps or reworks of some 4v4 maps to fit the 3v3 format since most current ones are really really bad and promote rocket arty/LeFH spam with super heavies + KT pushing for the win (Hamburger Port, Ettelturd station and the likes. https://www.coh2.org/topic/108413/3v3-maps/post/865866). And yes, in 1v1 where the maps are wide and you're really only fighting 100 pop cap, you know what the enemy has or doesn't have. You know if you see a couple of PGrens and paks and a P4, that a Tiger is far off because there just isn't any population left. Also, using CA there, is quite easy and rewarding. So yeah, in one way, armadillo and Sander are right that CA should factor in, but also wrong because it's not an absolute. It costs muni and requires certain parameters to be met, which can be countered, quite easily in larger game modes (the blobbing around tanks part to get your money's worth)

Alright then. I thought you were referring to Sanders suggestion to switch with REs as a form of "beta" (second grade) buff.

Just for clarification but It was "buffs in the beta version" that i mean.

I do however like the idea to buff the MGs a bit to match the DPS the Tiger and especially the IS-2 get with their respective pintle mounts. Right now the Pershing is pretty bad by 50% or more at any range in that regard

Isn't its AOE significantly better than the Tiger's?
Serealia gives it an AOE score of 28 vs the Tiger's 21.

The MGs are not that reliable in a real match, as they will lose significant value when moving, with other damage sources (where the AOE instantly killing damaged models will surprise your enemy more), with alpha strikes being more dominant over prolonged stationary engagements, and when enemy infantry vets up or the battlefield becomes light cover. They also have less range (35 vs 45 of the main gun) and no possibility to micro for better results unlike using attack ground with the main gun.

I would personally rather have a reliable and strong main gun over stronger MGs.

Isn't its AOE significantly better than the Tiger's? The MGs are not that reliable in a real match, they will lose significant value when moving, with other damage sources (where the AOE instantly killing damaged models will surprise your enemy more), with alpha strikes (prolonged stationary engagements are rare) and when enemy infantry vets up or the battlefield becomes light cover.

The tests and calculations clearly show otherwise, that Pershing Ai only come out on top at about 5-10% in prolonged fight and the better aoe is also partly off set by larger scatter. Furthermore, tiger can sit still in longer period of time to dish out more dmg, get better scatter and evnt range with vet while Pershing is force to use mobility thus make it loss event more dps from mg (it is intended to use the mobility, isn't it ?)

Let just get this straight, dose the Pershing have better AI than the Tiger? Yes. But dose the extra AI justify all the other downsides of the unit as a heavy tank? NO.

Isn't its AOE significantly better than the Tiger's?
Serealia gives it an AOE score of 28 vs the Tiger's 21.

The MGs are not that reliable in a real match, as they will lose significant value when moving, with other damage sources (where the AOE instantly killing damaged models will surprise your enemy more), with alpha strikes being more dominant over prolonged stationary engagements, and when enemy infantry vets up or the battlefield becomes light cover. They also have less range (35 vs 45 of the main gun) and no possibility to micro for better results unlike using attack ground with the main gun.

I would personally rather have a reliable and strong main gun over stronger MGs.

Well, that's the point. Pershing doesn't have superior AI in tests.
https://youtu.be/ZeR8ZjeV_uM
https://youtu.be/fJ0hfawIg2A

If you think I have done something wrong here, you are more than welcome to provide more tests here. After all, sample size is too small. But we can clearly see that AI is even(or worse) to the Tiger.

The tests and calculations clearly show otherwise, that Pershing Ai only come out on top at about 5-10% in prolonged fight and the better aoe is also partly off set by larger scatter. Furthermore, tiger can sit still in longer period of time to dish out more dmg, get better scatter and evnt range with vet while Pershing is force to use mobility thus make it loss event more dps from mg (it is intended to use the mobility, isn't it ?)

Let just get this straight, dose the Pershing have better AI than the Tiger? Yes. But dose the extra AI justify all the other downsides of the unit as a heavy tank? NO.

The natural question is then: By how much is the Pershing AI better than the Tiger to offset the Tiger's other benefits (better survivability, range, ROF). Eg. If Pershing had 1% better AI and Tiger had 20% better survivability then it wouldn't really be "balanced"

I mean, you could buff the Pershing's cannon AI a bit too. I won't speak for OST since I don't play OST enough to comment. But as a player that plays OKW and USF the most (USF more) I can say that playing with a KT or a Tiger in teamgames feels much easier and more rewarding than playing Heavy Cav. Even though Heavy Cav is my favorite commander because of the Rangers + offmap smoke. Don't know how many times I've completely wrecked entrenched players with MG42s and whatnot by smoking and pushing with rangers from one side and rifles from another and using the captain On Me to sprint up to the LV like the Luchs or Flak to snare it. Micro as F*** but rewarding and really fun to play. Pershing... meh. Back in the days of double shot skillshot and larger AOE, I did have a blast wiping blobs and I didn't really need a Calliope. Pershing was really really good at damaging blobs and wiping in 2-3 shots. Ever since the AOE nerf I've had more wins with Calliope and a lot more loses with Heavy Cav.

Proof: Went to top 20 with Heavy Cav exclusively. Pershing nerf. Went to rank 330 or something like that playing Heavy Cav exclusively. Mostly had problems dealing with blobs.
Then I started playing double pak howi in every game. Went to top 60 or something like that. Blobs were no longer an issue. Then the pak howi got nerfed. Went to rank 289 through a series of loses with Pershing + double pak. Again had trouble dealing with blobs. Mines from rifles were to no avail as pretty much always in the blob was a sweeper (or the mines got blown up by stuka/werfer before the Big'Ol blob push). OKW blobs were much harder to deal with because of A-move raketen followed by retreat once they take out AA HT or Sherman or w/e was keeping the blob static.
So I decided to swap it out again.
Started playing Calliope every game and was winning much more than losing. Got back to top 30 playing double calliope every game, no pak howi. Jackson, Sherman(s) and an AT gun with rangers.
Now I oscillate between 60 and 110 playing exclusively heavy cav or recon (80/20) with double paks. Calliope is really really boring to play game in, game out. I do have problems dealing with blobs but unlike before, now I just spam mines so much that the only weapon upgrade I have is the rangers tommies. Now when the blob pushes I try to bait it into the mines that were not hit by the indirects. Usually the double pak howi baits them. They focus it down while I use rangers to nade the minesweeping sturms or pios.

The natural question is then: By how much is the Pershing AI better than the Tiger to offset the Tiger's other benefits (better survivability, range, ROF). Eg. If Pershing had 1% better AI and Tiger had 20% better survivability then it wouldn't really be "balanced"

It is currently 5-10% better sustain AI for 25% less Hp, alongside all other stuff, but you got the point here.