Buff Allied "Heavy Tanks"

Please Fix , this is not even funny.


Pershing Vs Panther

1: Pershing beats Panther only 25% off the time while costing 35% more.
2: Ability Cost is a whopping 90 muni! Just for a situational 100 extra damage and a guaranteed pen.
3: Panther outranges the pershing , lol
4: Reload time seems to be RNG in heavy favor for the panther , going as low as 5.2 compared to 5.5 by the pershing.



IS2 vs Panther

Screenshot 1 IS-2 Pen values against front armour off a Panther are lower over the panther actual armour rating , making him bounce more often. The reduced accuracy also come into play compared to the panther.

Supposedly the 340/140 armour rating should help this out theoreticly but in practice seems to be the absolute opposite being able to lose in a frontal engagement against a medium tank destroyer that is non-doctrinal and on top cost 35% less.



KV-2 vs Panther

As a howitzer it seems to perform as it should , deflection damage seems to be the primary reason that it does consistent damage without the need to pen reliably and somehow performs way better over the IS - 2.



Tiger I vs Panther

The combination off balanced armour , with the low reload speed seems to give a significant edge to the worst Axis Heavy tank in the game , being able to bounce reliably and deal significant damage in short periods off time while having a amazing turret traverse rate.

Consistently wins against it's own Tank destroyer surviving with over 50% HP , compared to "Allied Heavy" Counter parts for the same resource cost!

So you're complaining that allied heavy tanks are bad?

The pershing has nearly equal stats to the panther in terms of AT, having only a bit more armor and 5 less range.

The IS-2 while having 1 second longer reload while having an additional 80 armor and the same max range pen of 220. Although at vet 0 only has 45 range. It also has the additional 80HP. Which matters a lot because it brings the max HP threshold from 2 snares to 3.

The KV-2 won 2 of 3 fights and is considered to be an AI tank. It nearly won the 3rd match as well. The fact that it can consistantly give a panther a run for its money as well as being a massive threat to infantry is all that really needs to be said about it.

You're comparing the panther to the Tiger 1, of which in automatch do not fight each other regularly, and the main arguement I see is entirely based off the tigers reload stat. The tigers reload stat coupled with the pen/armor equation of the tiger vs panther is what allows it to win consistantly. That's what the tiger boasts asymmetrically. The pershing has its slightly better speed, the IS-2 has its better armor, and the tiger has its reload.

At the end of every video you show the price and popcap of the tank vs the panther. The panther is obviously going to be less expensive. Why? Compare the AI power of the main gun on each of these tanks vs the panther.

Then after all that, know that vaccumm scenarios while useful for testing and balance discussion to some degree are no replacement for actual ingame performance.

EDIT: There was no text when I started typing, and it was added while I was making my post. I've essentially deduced what was being said more or less.

The pershing is literally a glass cannon and is purely doctrinal , being significantly worse over the panther , it's not even half decent at AI engagements. Meanwhile get's handicapped by up to 5 range and get's a small rear armour boost , while costing a whopping 230 fuel and 630 MP????????

IS-2 barely won in 2 engagements and lost one , the reload speed is ridiculously slow and has a fairly low accuracy per shot. The panther literally engaged it from the front while not even doing what it's suppose to do being mobile and flank to deal with the heavy threat from the rear and how does one extra snare even matter in anywhere else but a one one one game , the doctrine barely even get's picked for one vs one anyway.

KV-2 is fine , nothing against it neither a problem with.

Seriously , these Allied heavy tanks are over designed to a point they underperform in the very thing they where designed for in the first place , meanwhile the pershing get's outclasses by the damn panther and you telling me these tanks reflect the cost off what they should be able to do?

They underperform significantly while the resource costs do not even reflect the performance off these tanks.

The pershing is literally a glass cannon and is purely doctrinal , being significantly worse over the panther , it's not even half decent at AI engagements. Meanwhile get's handicapped by up to 5 range and get's a small rear armour boost , while costing a whopping 230 fuel and 630 MP????????

IS-2 barely won in 2 engagements and lost one , the reload speed is ridiculously slow and has a fairly low accuracy per shot. The panther literally engaged it from the front while not even doing what it's suppose to do being mobile and flank to deal with the heavy threat from the rear and how does one extra snare even matter in anywhere else but a one one one game , the doctrine barely even get's picked for one vs one anyway.

KV-2 is fine , nothing against it neither a problem with.

Seriously , these Allied heavy tanks are over designed to a point they underperform in the very thing they where designed for in the first place , meanwhile the pershing get's outclasses by the damn panther and you telling me these tanks reflect the cost off what they should be able to do?

They underperform significantly while the resource costs do not even reflect the performance off these tanks.

They dont.

Simply show a pershing destroying sqauds vs a pantehr " destroying" squads.

I know I call the Pershing a Cheeseburger-eating-Comet/fat Comet but I think you've undersold it quite a bit there, esp with the special AP ability. Panther can only see out to 35, so the 5 range advantage is much overrated. In any case this is USF we're talking about here and they get the best TD in the game as well.

They dont.

Simply show a pershing destroying sqauds vs a pantehr " destroying" squads.

Well , if that's the case then why does the Tiger I not reflect it's cost the same way as the other Allied "heavy tanks" with the achilles heels added by assymetrical design? Why does the worst Axis heavy tank perform so well in overall survivability , AI and AT at the same time while costing the same as the other Allied variants?

I mean the Tiger I literally has stats that are the best off all worlds , with quite a low reload speed?

Seriously , these Allied heavy tanks are over designed to a point they underperform in the very thing they where designed for in the first place , meanwhile the pershing get's outclasses by the damn panther and you telling me these tanks reflect the cost off what they should be able to do?

They underperform significantly while the resource costs do not even reflect the performance off these tanks.

What do you think they should do? You seem to fixate on how they perform versus Panthers but their role isn't supposed to be "anti-panther" (indeed it's the other way around where Panther is anti-heavy tank so it shouldn't be surprising that Panthers do well here). Heavy Tanks are generalists that can soak shots and can damage anything but don't necessarily excel versus anything in particular. Just appreciate them for what they are - generalists that you don't have to babysit because they don't die to 4 AT gun shots. Nobody wants to go back to the "heavy tank every game" meta and overtuning them against Panthers is a surefire way to get there.

Well , if that's the case then why does the Tiger I not reflect it's cost the same way as the other Allied "heavy tanks" with the achilles heels added by assymetrical design? Why does the worst Axis heavy tank perform so well in overall survivability , AI and AT at the same time while costing the same as the other Allied variants?

I mean the Tiger I literally has stats that are the best off all worlds , with quite a low reload speed?

It has to, since allied tank destroyers eat it for breakfast.

I'd advocate for buffing the consistency on the IS-2 main gun vs Infantry. Its currently a bit of a lotto machine, missing regularly and with its long reload that feels really bad. At Vet 2, the IS-2 comes into its own with the range and stats to murder Panthers.

The Pershing has the consistency the IS-2 wishes it had, but I haven't tested it this patch, so I can't comment if the buffs were enough. Its survivability is baked into mobility instead of straight effective health, which makes it less noob friendly. See the Sturmtiger or KT for Heavies with all their survivability in effective health. Generally, mobility scales great with skill, so the Pershing might be balanced at high tiers. I'll have to test that.

Has anyone seen the ISU recently in any games? I haven't seen it once since they nerfed the AI to 60 range. It might need an AT upgrade to fix its bad (for a heavy tank) AT. It just got replaced by the KV-2 because the KV-2 maintains the great long range AI WITH better AT AND the massive kneecapping of the commanders. Is it still a win condition or does wide spread SHTDs just make it obsolete?

What do you think they should do? You seem to fixate on how they perform versus Panthers but their role isn't supposed to be "anti-panther" (indeed it's the other way around where Panther is anti-heavy tank so it shouldn't be surprising that Panthers do well here). Heavy Tanks are generalists that can soak shots and can damage anything but don't necessarily excel versus anything in particular. Just appreciate them for what they are - generalists that you don't have to babysit because they don't die to 4 AT gun shots. Nobody wants to go back to the "heavy tank every game" meta and overtuning them against Panthers is a surefire way to get there.

The thing is that these tanks don't seem to be able to compete even with the worst Axis heavy tank in terms off performance , basicly what all the vs Panther videos where all about.

Meanwhile the "Heavy tank" game is literally a world on it's own on for the Axis while the allies have no units that are able to compete on the field on terms off even the "Worst Axis heavy tank" on the field.

If it was anywhere near usefull , would these allied "heavy tank" doctrines atleast not get consistently used a bit outside one vs one gameplay? Cause that is exactly not the case and the only commander being actually used is the one doctrine where a "SU-152" is available in and actually the only one i left out in the "vs panther" comparision videos.

They just don't reflect the cost for how bad they perform and you are just better off just spamming a bunch off tank destroyers.

Meanwhile the "Heavy tank" game is literally a world on it's own on for the Axis while the allies have no units that are able to compete on the field on terms off even the "Worst Axis heavy tank" on the field.

Meanwhile the "Allies TD" game is a world on its own. Not a single Allied TD being SU-85\Jackson\FF are having problems with consistently penetrating any Axis tanks frontally, but the Ele, JP and to a lesser extend KT.

So your proposal is to buff Allies heavy tanks to be on pair or close to be on pair with Axis heavy tanks, while completly ignoring the fact that they will be backed by the best TDs in the game.

If you play teamgames and you are having problems with panther diving, then its not the panthers or axis heavy tanks its the fact that you forgot to place mines behind the frontline.

Seriously , these Allied heavy tanks are over designed to a point they underperform in the very thing they where designed for in the first place , meanwhile the pershing get's outclasses by the damn panther and you telling me these tanks reflect the cost off what they should be able to do?

They underperform significantly while the resource costs do not even reflect the performance off these tanks.

At the end of every video you show the price and popcap of the tank vs the panther. The panther is obviously going to be less expensive. Why? Compare the AI power of the main gun on each of these tanks vs the panther.

What I'm telling you is the pricepoint reflects the tanks after you consider the power of the maingun vs infantry, something your tests ignore entirely. This is the same as asking why the Su-85 at 130F has the same max range pen as the panther at 55F less and +10 range while having better RoF. What's the downside? It has no turret and can be easily flanked if unsupported.

I suggest OP does the same comparisons regarding infantry performance:

place 2 squads in front of said tanks and look if panther wipes them faster

As a side note: here is what M26's HVAP round can do to a pak, when "aimed" directly in the center of its crew

I think people are sleeping on Pershing, even though it is still overpriced, its AI performance is pretty good and it is pretty decent at "poking", because of its high for a heavy tank mobility stats.

I said it before and repeat it now: Pershing has AOE and price of a heavy tank, mobility of a medium and survivability of a Panther.

Also from wiki something to read about Panther:

Though officially classified as a medium tank, its weight is more like that of a heavy tank, as its weight of 44.8 metric tons puts it roughly in the same category as the American M26 Pershing (41.7 tons), British Churchill (40.7 tons) and the Soviet IS-2 (46 tons) heavy tanks. The tank had a very high power-to-weight ratio, making it highly mobile regardless of its tonnage. Its weight still caused logistical problems, such as an inability to cross certain bridges.

This thread killed off some of my braincells. This is why you should study kids, so you don't go spewing BS like the current thread.
Except for the Pershing needing either an armour buff to 290 OR an MG buff so it's AI is overall not the same as the Tiger's, this whole comparison is so braindead. Panther's are expensive and designed to fight heavies mano-a-mano. A tank like Jackson is cheaper than the Panther, much less durable, and has virtually no AI, but for the price you get 60 range to effectively fight Tigers and King Tigers. IS-2 is a wildcard in the AI department. If you miss, the long reload will punish you, but if you hit, you do really hit.
Tiger is probably the best heavy tank in the game, by far, but making it fight the Panther is moronic.

Also, range is highly bound to sight. Except for some ground target action, most of the time you will need something in front of the TDs or premium tanks to screen for the extra range they have.

I suggest OP does the same comparisons regarding infantry performance:

place 2 squads in front of said tanks and look if panther wipes them faster

I've done it before, if the infantry is low vet no cover, the Panther actually is competitive. Any cover and vet really changes the game. I think MMX has a good sim for that...

I suggest OP does the same comparisons regarding infantry performance:

place 2 squads in front of said tanks and look if panther wipes them faster

The only buff that the Pershing needs is an availability buff. It should be available when all tech is researched/upgraded the same way that the KT is available, and possibly the same for the KV2. I don't think either of them need anything except possibly the Pershing needing a little more armor, and possibly not even that.

Making both of them more available would help eliminate the stale meta's that make allies less fun to play.

The only buff that the Pershing needs is an availability buff. It should be available when all tech is researched/upgraded the same way that the KT is available, and possibly the same for the KV2. I don't think either of them need anything except possibly the Pershing needing a little more armor, and possibly not even that.

Making both of them more available would help eliminate the stale meta's that make allies less fun to play.

I think the 45% win rate in team games is what makes them less fun to play...

Generally a 10% differential means there is something systematically problematic. Though I'll bet some of that has to do with maps. Redball and Whiteball need to be played less, as they REALLY incentivize MG42 into cache games. Though 2v2 also has the same divide. Statistically, the strongest Axis team is a 50/50 mix of OKW and OST, in every game mode. Still, this 10% differential is cross all team games. Something is systematically wrong.

Interestingly, UKF was the highest winrate faction in 1v1 for the month of June, I really want to see those winning builds.

I think the 45% win rate in team games is what makes them less fun to play...

Generally a 10% differential means there is something systematically problematic. Though I'll bet some of that has to do with maps. Redball and Whiteball need to be played less, as they REALLY incentivize MG42 into cache games. Though 2v2 also has the same divide. Statistically, the strongest Axis team is a 50/50 mix of OKW and OST, in every game mode. Still, this 10% differential is cross all team games. Something is systematically wrong.

This is a little off-topic but I think the problem has more to do with how the Sturmtiger, Walking Stuka, and LEFH scale into 4v4's. The 4v4 maps are only a little wider than 2v2's, which don't have balance issues. The Sturmtiger's weak point is lack of mobility, but that doesn't matter much on most 4v4 maps. The Walking Stuka is an all-or nothing wipe machine. It will often wipe a full-health, Vet 3, 7-man con, which is devastating for Soviets, not to mention the easy wipes on support teams. Even just going down to 3v3's makes those units less impactful.

MG's are part of the problem, but both Soviets and USF have good counters early.

Interestingly, UKF was the highest winrate faction in 1v1 for the month of June, I really want to see those winning builds.

UKF had hardly any games played in the top 200. I'd bet that the balanced win rate is because a few players at the top played most of the games. If you sort the top 200 list, you'd find that roughly only 60 unique players have played in the last week.