Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

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, 4 barely, 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.

Not that it matters that much, but Panther should shoot 0,125 secs slower than the IS2 (have not tested their specific setup, but for similar setups you see them going out of sync) and both tanks need a bit more time to reload in total (0,125 for the IS-2 and 0,25 for the Panther). You also need to deduct one shot since the first shot in the engagement does not need a reload cycle prior to shooting it. I also realized that I have a mistake in my calc though that makes the Panther's reload longer...

Cool that you did the testing for some actual data! How large were the differences when the Panther won?

And here we can see the mentality that has created the enviornment and situation for pershing. Balance team members and old timers, RE: axis mains, have decided that pershing is simply never supposed to beat a tiger, end of argument.

You wonder why pershing has never been good? Because the above comment is exactly how balance team sees it. Pershing isnt supposed to beat Kruppstahl!!11! You'll take your neutered """heavy tank""" and like it regardless, because its what you deserve when picking allies

-Balance team and balance team stans

You clone the tiger and put the best TD in the game behind it and the best infantry squad in the game in front of it and the axis won't have a chance in hell. I'm interested in balance, not fan boyism. USF has compensations for squishy armour and you can't simply remove that and expect it to be balanced. There is a whole army surrounding the Pershing, one that is designed not to have a tiger.
The Pershing cost can absolutely be lowered, but it cannot become a tiger and the tiger itself is completely irrelevant. Different armies allow for different cost effeciency. As I've said if OKW and ost both had a doctrinal Panther with 4 levels of vet they would be different costs because they would be both superior and inferior to the stock options despite being the exact same unit. Such is the USF heavy tank. It has a differently balanced stock army that creates the necessity of heavy Armour being less resilient than other factions.
There are rules. These rules ensure balance is a possibility. This is why ost 5 man gren needs to remain less cost efficient than the lmg, this is why soviet should lose their FPR in airborne and why svts need further nerfs. You cannot simply shoehorn in something that has been compensated for them not having.

You clone the tiger

i dont know who was asking to clone the tiger, but most pp just want 290-300 armor and a bit better mg, end of the story.

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

Yeah but since it is never going to happen, in reality if you try to do that you'll be happy to keep your two jacksons alive by retreating them in time before losing one or both of them.

You clone the tiger and put the best TD in the game behind it and the best infantry squad in the game in front of it and the axis won't have a chance in hell. I'm interested in balance, not fan boyism. USF has compensations for squishy armour and you can't simply remove that and expect it to be balanced. There is a whole army surrounding the Pershing, one that is designed not to have a tiger.
The Pershing cost can absolutely be lowered, but it cannot become a tiger and the tiger itself is completely irrelevant. Different armies allow for different cost effeciency. As I've said if OKW and ost both had a doctrinal Panther with 4 levels of vet they would be different costs because they would be both superior and inferior to the stock options despite being the exact same unit. Such is the USF heavy tank. It has a differently balanced stock army that creates the necessity of heavy Armour being less resilient than other factions.
There are rules. These rules ensure balance is a possibility. This is why ost 5 man gren needs to remain less cost efficient than the lmg, this is why soviet should lose their FPR in airborne and why svts need further nerfs. You cannot simply shoehorn in something that has been compensated for them not having.

Absolutely: This! I too feel that the Pershing does a good job, it can be a super premium medium tank, but the cost needs to be severely adjusted to reflect that.

I have no knowledge of the history of changes in its cost, does someone know about this? How was it set initially? Because the equation "description says heavy so make it as costly as Tiger" does not work, as we have seen and discussed with multiple good arguments in this thread.

You also need to deduct one shot since the first shot in the engagement does not need a reload cycle prior to shooting it

Technically yes, and normally I do, but it only makes the calculation more complicated while it does nothing for this comparison as they have the same reload.

Cool that you did the testing for some actual data! How large were the differences when the Panther won?

Panthers that won had 160-320 hp left. So barely.

Technically yes, and normally I do, but it only makes the calculation more complicated while it does nothing for this comparison as they have the same reload.

It makes the unit with the longer TTK look a bit better than it actually is, since the relative difference becomes smaller (a TTK of 10 and 20 is perceived and and will also be more significant in-game than a difference between 100 and 110 seconds). But that just as a side note.

Panthers that won had 160-320 hp left. So barely.

Thanks for the info!
Without having the test done myself and just judging by your info, I'd say the Panther is sufficient to hold the IS2 back until vet2, after which you probably need some additional AT source. Or what would be your conclusion from this?

You clone the tiger and put the best TD in the game behind it and the best infantry squad in the game in front of it and the axis won't have a chance in hell. I'm interested in balance, not fan boyism. USF has compensations for squishy armour and you can't simply remove that and expect it to be balanced. There is a whole army surrounding the Pershing, one that is designed not to have a tiger.
The Pershing cost can absolutely be lowered, but it cannot become a tiger and the tiger itself is completely irrelevant. Different armies allow for different cost effeciency. As I've said if OKW and ost both had a doctrinal Panther with 4 levels of vet they would be different costs because they would be both superior and inferior to the stock options despite being the exact same unit. Such is the USF heavy tank. It has a differently balanced stock army that creates the necessity of heavy Armour being less resilient than other factions.
There are rules. These rules ensure balance is a possibility. This is why ost 5 man gren needs to remain less cost efficient than the lmg, this is why soviet should lose their FPR in airborne and why svts need further nerfs. You cannot simply shoehorn in something that has been compensated for them not having.

Who is talking about cloning the tiger?
Even if Pershing were a clone of the tiger, it would not abuse anything. The pop limit is 100, not 300 that you can put a blob of rifles with double bars in front of it and 3 TDs behind it and paks to support it and AA HT to deal with aircraft and echelons to repair it and 50 cal to suppress...

Jackson being the best TD is subjective. I consider JP4 to be the best TD. Jackson is definitely the most mobile one, but JP4 supported by a KT with obers around it is quite strong (low target size + high armour + great ROF).

You clone the tiger and put the best TD in the game behind it and the best infantry squad in the game in front of it and the axis won't have a chance in hell. I'm interested in balance, not fan boyism. USF has compensations for squishy armour and you can't simply remove that and expect it to be balanced. There is a whole army surrounding the Pershing, one that is designed not to have a tiger.
The Pershing cost can absolutely be lowered, but it cannot become a tiger and the tiger itself is completely irrelevant. Different armies allow for different cost effeciency. As I've said if OKW and ost both had a doctrinal Panther with 4 levels of vet they would be different costs because they would be both superior and inferior to the stock options despite being the exact same unit. Such is the USF heavy tank. It has a differently balanced stock army that creates the necessity of heavy Armour being less resilient than other factions.
There are rules. These rules ensure balance is a possibility. This is why ost 5 man gren needs to remain less cost efficient than the lmg, this is why soviet should lose their FPR in airborne and why svts need further nerfs. You cannot simply shoehorn in something that has been compensated for them not having.

Well, you already see Tiger with best stock medium with best mg with best AT.

...Probably the reason you see Tiger on the field of ML?

Absolutely: This! I too feel that the Pershing does a good job, it can be a super premium medium tank, but the cost needs to be severely adjusted to reflect that.

I have no knowledge of the history of changes in its cost, does someone know about this? How was it set initially? Because the equation "description says heavy so make it as costly as Tiger" does not work, as we have seen and discussed with multiple good arguments in this thread.

AFAIK cost iitself was only nerfed once. 600mp to 630.
The nerf to Pershing is majorly in the field of AI. Even prior to all heavy nerfs on 2020, Pershing's AI got nerfed in 2019.

Probably the reason tests show Pershing being similar(slightly better as others say) to Tiger in terms of AI unlike what most of people think.

Thanks for the info!
Without having the test done myself and just judging by your info, I'd say the Panther is sufficient to hold the IS2 back until vet2, after which you probably need some additional AT source. Or what would be your conclusion from this?

Same conclusion. Which is fair, as the Panther costs significantly less so there should be room for other stuff to start backing it up before the IS-2 hits vet 2.

Christ this thread is still going?

The pershing if anyone has ever used it is almost fine. I do agree its still needs a little something (lower price or slightly better Armour).

Hvap could go down to 60secs instead of 120 secs and have a reduced fire time or ammo (even both) at vet 1.

In regards to Jackson support, getting 2 jacksons are incredibly expensive alongside the pershing. Yes this would decimate a lone elefant but what support has that elefant has in that time?

Who is talking about cloning the tiger?
Even if Pershing were a clone of the tiger, it would not abuse anything. The pop limit is 100, not 300 that you can put a blob of rifles with double bars in front of it and 3 TDs behind it and paks to support it and AA HT to deal with aircraft and echelons to repair it and 50 cal to suppress...

Jackson being the best TD is subjective. I consider JP4 to be the best TD. Jackson is definitely the most mobile one, but JP4 supported by a KT with obers around it is quite strong (low target size + high armour + great ROF).

Wait, you consider the JP4 the "best" TD? It certainly has good survivability and good RoF... but this is kind of counteracted by the severe lack of penetration relative to other TDs, meaning it struggles vs higher-armour vehicles. It's mostly intended to fight other TDs, survivability is generally not a hugely important factor when used in a generic TD role (as a TD is generally not meant to be trading blows), but the JP4's statistics make it very capable of manfighting opposing Tank Destroyers.

The Panther is still OKW's "Tank Destroyer", honestly. The JP4 is a bit of an odd unit. I like the thing, but I'd hardly call it a better TD than the Jackson or SU-85, which both do the "kill heavy vehicles" thing rather more effectively.

(It also has what I'd call a weaker veterancy ability. The SU-85s self-spotting is absolutely fantastic, and the Jackson's HVAP is ludicrously good).



EDIT: More on topic:

Honestly I'd argue that the Pershing should stop trying to fit into the "Heavy tank" bracket entirely. I don't think USF as a faction particularly suits a traditional "heavy" tank, it would be better if the Pershing had its' cap removed, a price reduction, and turned into some sort of Premium Medium-styled vehicle. This would also allow it to receive a vehicle crew without the room for abuse.

I'll admit that I don't know exactly what statline the Pershing would have in this capacity... USF already have a plethora of medium vehicle options. Perhaps it's worth considering, though?

Wait, you consider the JP4 the "best" TD? It certainly has good survivability and good RoF... but this is kind of counteracted by the severe lack of penetration relative to other TDs, meaning it struggles vs higher-armour vehicles. It's mostly intended to fight other TDs, survivability is generally not a hugely important factor when used in a generic TD role (as a TD is generally not meant to be trading blows), but the JP4's statistics make it very capable of manfighting opposing Tank Destroyers.

I've never ever had any problems dealing with anything allies related with JP4. For me the best allied TD is the Firefly while the best overall is the JP4. I just love it. Yeah Jackson is great and all but kinda started hating it when in the key moments of the game it bounces against KTs or super heavies, even with the HVAP. Pure bad RNG perhaps, but I've had much more bad RNG vs axis than I had with OKW vs allies. Can't say how many times my JP4 survived flanks thanks to the low size and armour. And for IS-2 and Comet I just use the Panther. Sometimes double JP4s do the job against IS-2 and Comets. They will bounce here and there but the sheer great ROF and the survivability really lets me snipe anything. Never had any problems penetrating the Pershing. A single JP4 does the job well.

i dont know who was asking to clone the tiger, but most pp just want 290-300 armor and a bit better mg, end of the story.

Some are requesting a bit more armour
That would be acceptable. But others are saying "but the tiger!!!" and ignoring the context in which the tiger exists.
A price reduction or an armour increase wouldn't be a miss, although axis stock TDs max out at the Panther which isn't quite of the caliber of allied TDs at fighting heavy Armour so an armour increase goes a long way in terms of balance.
I'd like an ability in the Pershing, something like blitz or some alternative shell (non skill shot) to give the Pershing a bit better escape capability or support capacity. Something less direct than a Stat change

I will always however be on board with more MG power and less reliance on RNG cannons

Some are requesting a bit more armour
That would be acceptable. But others are saying "but the tiger!!!" and ignoring the context in which the tiger exists.
A price reduction or an armour increase wouldn't be a miss, although axis stock TDs max out at the Panther which isn't quite of the caliber of allied TDs at fighting heavy Armour so an armour increase goes a long way in terms of balance.

I think having 960 HP balances that. It's a lot for the US sure, it's not a lot for 230 fuel in CoH2. Forget comparing to just the Tiger, that's in the context of the whole game

Mobility is great, but when most of the tanks you fight can get blitz, it doesn't exactly standout

I still think they never should of added it. There should be two Ez8 commanders and I think it should be more on par with panther (both cost and performance)

* sigh
which is the best TD, here we go again. Go ahead, bring alies tanks to fight against Jdpz4 in real game condion with fully support.People are too stupid to know how good Jpz4 is because Panther require less mirco, less brain cells.
back to M26 - Tiger. I am afair he wouldn't come back to the game after patch because his Power/Price is bad. In Live game, USF can't proper turrle play like OKW,WeH.
- You want to play like 2019 ? you manpower died,
- you go M4 first and wait for M26. Enemies can pump out more pz4, stug, Jpz4,panther...which countered M26 effective.
- Get M36 first ?, enjoy turrle play with 2 ATG that had stun ability, camo first strike.
....
So here is my ideas for new M26:
- Give it 800hp/300 armor: with 800 hp, tiger, panther or whatever anti tank Axis have can properly fight against it. With 300 armor, M26 can confident ramming around battle, some brounce shot help it getting close for Knife fight, cutch the nade ( because of higher mobility, turret rotation, moving acc...). Axis can enjoy " M26 is supposed to lose tiger, panther) but not charging like no brainer, press Combat bliz, ninja smoke and Ez F2p to USF player.
- Buffing it mobility: how about fucking out speed panther ( slower in combat bliz mode around 15%) and 90% moving acc ?. Can't stand to fight as the Braves with 800 hp/270 armor so let it fight like typical Murica Fast and Furious. a little buff Rof (because bullshit wind down) is balanced.
- Buffing it ROF, AI AoE,scatter to absolutely winning Tiger on AI job, leave 800hp-270 armor as trade back: - Yes, M26 still lose to tiger, panther. but he can break the Weh line for rifleman, support weapon to move on. There are many time, USF player cant do jack shit because M26 cant grind enough meat before take 3 or 4 shot from axis anti tank.
- CA should give something special gift for M26 : For example + 10 range , 90% moving acc, + 40% Reload so it can out DPS Tiger. You can put more amnu on CA, 800 hp/270 armor is always fine because Every time CA actived, there are a big combat going it. M26 still suffer from repair state anyway ( dont put your bullshit RE on tank to farm vet, Noboy bother to do this even top player on tournament, I speak in real combat condition).
- Buff it repair state, well. how about Patton crew him self

To someone wonder why ppl complain about underpower M26 every patch ?.
because USF already limmited their playsyle. Ez8, M26 have no place right now.
You could bring USF winrate to defend it. But please look carefully. their pick rate/ match rate is lower and yet top 200 players can carry more (poor UKF). Thing completely change on 2v2 where you cant end game around 20 minute mark like 1v1. 2v2 show up every thing about faction, con and pos.
ML4 ML5 is a big example, you go USF, you dont pick M26, ez8 unless you far better than enemies.

I think having 960 HP balances that. It's a lot for the US sure, it's not a lot for 230 fuel in CoH2. Forget comparing to just the Tiger, that's in the context of the whole game

Mobility is great, but when most of the tanks you fight can get blitz, it doesn't exactly standout

I still think they never should of added it. There should be two Ez8 commanders and I think it should be more on par with panther (both cost and performance)

pershing have 960hp, it will change to 800hp to increase repair speeds at same durabilty.

blitz is used once and have reloading. pershing mobility is great when you consider its fast turret tracking and top accuracies and soon another rof buffs at vet2, while panthers and tigers get at vet3.

i will just drop its price to that of comet, and redeployment times 0.8x faster than tiger and is2. to continue the theme of speed.

pershing have 960hp, it will change to 800hp to increase repair speeds at same durabilty.

blitz is used once and have reloading. pershing mobility is great when you consider its fast turret tracking and top accuracies and soon another rof buffs at vet2, while panthers and tigers get at vet3.

i will just drop its price to that of comet, and redeployment times 0.8x faster than tiger and is2. to continue the theme of speed.

Maybe that's even a bit too cheap, let's say it could cost 500/190 (Comet 480/175). But can we please actually talk about implementing this? I have NOT heard an argument against a price reduction, not even from Sander. Can balance team please read this thread? I feel like we are talking to a wall?!