Buff Allied "Heavy Tanks"

Meanwhile disregards the fact that Tigers literally outperform every single allied heavy tank in the game , casually having stats that go beyond balanced for the same cost being the "Perfect" all rounder on the field.

I would love to hear what stats the Tiger has that you think make it that much better than Allied counterparts.

I would love to hear what stats the Tiger has that you think make it that much better than Allied counterparts.

300 armor + fastest RoF.

Vet 0 Tiger wins over vet 3 Pershing.

I feel the biggest issue with Pershing is the focus on mobility. Nothing can really reduce Tiger ROF, IS2 armor, or KV2 deflection damage. However mobility is easily removed with AT snare. I think the Pershing could be more aggressive if snare didn't work until 60-70% health. No change to mines though.

I feel the biggest issue with Pershing is the focus on mobility. Nothing can really reduce Tiger ROF, IS2 armor, or KV2 deflection damage. However mobility is easily removed with AT snare.

It's almost like having a HEAVY tank that's supposed to be very mobile doesn't make any sense. Well done Relic

People like to say that the Combined arms affects the Pershing balance wise. And they are correct in a sense. However, that is mostly a 1v1 problem where it's actually useful as there are no 2x raketen + 2x paks in lanes. One can make the same argument for the Falls and their "buff all infantry" ability Valiant Assault. I've always seen okw popping valiant assault and blobbing falls + volk or two and melting 2x vet3 rangers in 6-7 seconds in yellow cover.
There are a couple of proofs:
1) OKW Winrates compared to previous patches have grown
2) A few months ago there were a lot of AI tests, Tiger vs Pershing, where the Tiger won. Pershing only having the occasional clumped up shock value
3) Combined arms promotes blobbing which is easily counterable in teamgames, unless you send one or two infantry squads with the Pershing and just lose because you have no proper AI power
4) Behold, Rifle company is still among the least picked commanders in the loadout, let alone actually playing with it

I mean, it's no surprise that the balance team is incompetent and in my view, biased AF, but the last two patches didn't really do anything. I don't play COH2 a lot, a game or two per day, but in each and every one I see at least 2x Sturmtigers that vet up to 5 in 5 to 7 minutes. Of course, I play only 3v3 but still, I don't want to imagine what sturm does from FOW with that range in 4v4

Current 1v1 winrates are pretty well balanced, with every faction having around 50% winrate, give or take a few .%
The teamgames is sitting pretty with 55%+ for axis, which is much larger than any margin of error and the over-performing units are those which are not picked in 1v1 anyway.

I'm pretty sure that buffing the survivability through armour or agility on the Pershing would not make it over-perform in 1v1s.

The Pershing could use a slight buff in the AI department. Right now all heavies, maybe with the exception of the KV-2, are pretty much on level terms when it comes to sustained AI damage and kills/sec - some have more punch on a per shot basis (IS-2, Pershing), others make up for the lower AoE by greater rate of fire (Tiger variants). If the Pershing is supposed to stand out as an AI-focused generalist it should outperform its contemporaries by more than just the 5-10% it does currently.
That or a slight price adjustment would be a decent call IMHO.

All the players in this thread are either allied bias or axis biased coz if you think you like both the sides equally you would request for a symmetrical game but if you like this asymmetrical game this would explain you have a bias and mostly play in that faction or side. I am allied biased and yes pershing is very underwhelming in any mode except 1v1 reason there are no At walls in 1v1, USF suck at repairing undecrewable vehicles. No one would make a 2nd read echlon just for repairing a pershing however Okw repair tech with sturms are very op in repairing high HP vehicles such as KT or ST. Even the 360 HP priest take longer to repair as compared to soviets, or any other faction with similar HP units.

People are masquerading behind pershing because of its high AI damage as compared to tigers, spread out your units and watch your 230 fuel dedicated USF permium become useless af, it will take like 3 shots to almost kill a volks squad so it becomes useless right there. Other players who are defending the current performance of pershing need to understand that it is incomparable to Tiger so people are lowballing it and comparing it with a Panther, a panther can easily keep a pershing in check but let me guess a jackson will keep a tiger in check? Did you say Yes? So a jackson with a spotter mostly infantry which will bleed is required to keep a tiger in check ? Panther operates without any help which jackson cannot against Tiger and bounces frontally on it. Whats even funny is that Jackson was nerfed this patch and Panther was buffed for vet 2 both of them. Even if the panther recieves damage it can quickly get back into field with 2x pios but the same cannot be said for pershing. The return of investment for pershing is very low with more micro required and also the lesser range as compared to Panther or vet 2 tiger.
The dumb arguments to justify Pershing being good with Combined Arms does not exactly mean that Pershing itself is good. Spending ammo on a muni intensive faction to make its premium tank perform averagely is a big brain thinking. Can you calculate Tiger Ace's survivability behind panzer tactician? Or the close air support with the normal tiger doctrine which is devastating for USF if he does not have M15A1 alive at 30mins of his match? I get the asymmetricity of the game but why are you providing a premium tank to USF only for it to perform this bad?

Also this isn't the first thread by players asking pershing to atleast perform like other premiums like IS-2, tiger or KV2.But oh well.

are you retard ?
M26 and IS-2 not gonna win 1v1 WITHOUT ANY inf SUPPORT. That is the fact we have right now. Even you pay more price, limit in doctrine, yet Balance team and most of people would let Alies Heavy tank actually win Panther on 1v1 because " BALANCE ".
If you play alies, better get TD, medium and fuck Axis hard and fast before shit happen later ( Thanks to Stumtiger, KT and panther ).

The Pershing and Panther are almost identical in tank vs tank combat yet you're losing all the time lol.

IS2 has 340 armour and 1080 health, which is a huge defensive advantage over the Panther.

You are truly one of the worst players to ever play this game if you are consistently losing your heavy tanks in 1vs1 battles with Panthers.

Most importantly, good players use heavy tanks to bleed enemy infantry and as spearheads for their pushes - no one builds the IS2 to try to chase and counter enemy Panthers. That's what tank destroyers and AT guns are for. Please go back to the tutorial first.

The Pershing and Panther are almost identical in tank vs tank combat yet you're losing all the time lol.

IS2 has 340 armour and 1080 health, which is a huge defensive advantage over the Panther.

You are truly one of the worst players to ever play this game if you are consistently losing your heavy tanks in 1vs1 battles with Panthers.

Most importantly, good players use heavy tanks to bleed enemy infantry and as spearheads for their pushes - no one builds the IS2 to try to chase and counter enemy Panthers. That's what tank destroyers and AT guns are for. Please go back to the tutorial first.

I get what your saying but you can use IS2 and KV2 as a spearhead due to armor and AOE damage. What is the purpose of the Pershing? Take a hit or 2, reverse to RE and get repaired. At least it can run to them quickly while enemy gets VET for each hit. Its ability is a guaranteed hit that take a while to fire. Literally the antithesis to what the tanks strength is being sold as.

For the record I think IS2 and KV2 are fine, I just find the Pershing underwhelming for cost. Reducing the cost is probably the easiest fix or giving it a little oomph so that it has a place.

The Pershing could use a slight buff in the AI department. Right now all heavies, maybe with the exception of the KV-2, are pretty much on level terms when it comes to sustained AI damage and kills/sec - some have more punch on a per shot basis (IS-2, Pershing), others make up for the lower AoE by greater rate of fire (Tiger variants). If the Pershing is supposed to stand out as an AI-focused generalist it should outperform its contemporaries by more than just the 5-10% it does currently.
That or a slight price adjustment would be a decent call IMHO.

Yeah except the accuracy of the tiger lets it randomly execute 5 models, on top of consistently bleeding squads
the is-2 at vet 0 is lucky if he hits the same sector where the enemy INF is, and the problem only gets solved at vet 2 (and with vet 1 ability). the tiger has considerably better accuracy than the is-2, better AT stats and what not, on top of facing largely less durable tanks. IMHO the is-2 is unreliable, the issue of having soviet units use abilities to mimic axis counterpart's effectiveness

The Pershing and Panther are almost identical in tank vs tank combat yet you're losing all the time lol.

IS2 has 340 armour and 1080 health, which is a huge defensive advantage over the Panther.

You are truly one of the worst players to ever play this game if you are consistently losing your heavy tanks in 1vs1 battles with Panthers.

Most importantly, good players use heavy tanks to bleed enemy infantry and as spearheads for their pushes - no one builds the IS2 to try to chase and counter enemy Panthers. That's what tank destroyers and AT guns are for. Please go back to the tutorial first.

the pershing being identical to the panther but costing 230 fuel isn't a good thing

the is-2 also faces the stat-wise best AT guns in the game, a panther can still leave an is-2 at dangerously low HP in a 1v1. You might win a 1v1, but even the slightest support for the panther and your is-2 will be forced to abandon any fight. even a p4 or single shrek squad can basically route the is-2

the is-2 is completely unreliable to deal with infantry blobs, the worst soviet heavy tank to do so in the soviet faction. otherwise the is-2 might be the worst heavy tank in general (for SOV), the kv-2, isu-152 (and even the axis counterpart tiger) are all better at doing their job (which overlaps with what the is-2 is supposed to do).
yeah, you can use the is-2 to spearhead, but the kv-1 does the same for way cheaper, and you can get more of them. unrelated, but pity the fool took armored assault and made an is-2 against the jagdtiger okw player

300 armor + fastest RoF.

Vet 0 Tiger wins over vet 3 Pershing.

So compared to Pershing Tiger has 30 extra armor and reloads are

4.7 - 5.3 Vet 0 Tiger
3.29 - 3.71 Vet 3 Tiger

5.5 Vet 0 Pershing
3.85 Vet 3 Pershing

IS2 obviously has better armor and slower reload but best AI profile. Obviously Vet 0 Tiger doesn't fire faster that Vet 3 Pershing unless I'm misunderstanding.

Sorry, but I don't think 30 better armor when Tiger has to face better TDs and firing less that a second faster at equal Vet (not taking into account combined arms) is that big a deal. Plus the Tiger has the worst AI profile and faces larger squad sizes. It's all a wash in my book as far as their respective viabilities goes. The only thing I'd say is that Tigers are in more flexible doctrines whereas Heavy Calvary has no good offmaps which really hamstrings it in a lot of circumstances.

So compared to Pershing Tiger has 30 extra armor and reloads are

4.7 - 5.3 Vet 0 Tiger
3.29 - 3.71 Vet 3 Tiger

5.5 Vet 0 Pershing
3.85 Vet 3 Pershing

IS2 obviously has better armor and slower reload but best AI profile. Obviously Vet 0 Tiger doesn't fire faster that Vet 3 Pershing unless I'm misunderstanding.

The Pershing has a wind down time. vet0 ROF of the Tiger is 5.375, Pershing 7. Vet3 Pershing fires about as fast as the vet0 Tiger.

Sorry, but I don't think 30 better armor when Tiger has to face better TDs and firing less that a second faster at equal Vet (not taking into account combined arms) is that big a deal. Plus the Tiger has the worst AI profile and faces larger squad sizes. It's all a wash in my book as far as their respective viabilities goes. The only thing I'd say is that Tigers are in more flexible doctrines whereas Heavy Calvary has no good offmaps which really hamstrings it in a lot of circumstances.

The Pershing has a wind down time. vet0 ROF of the Tiger is 5.375, Pershing 7. Vet3 Pershing fires about as fast as the vet0 Tiger.

Does your "thought" changed after hearing some facts?

BTW, Tiger DOES NOT have worst AI profile simple because it's RoF compensate less AoE.

AOE on Pershing is mostly a RNG stat. If it hits a clumped up squad(s), it will deal more damage than a tiger. However, ROF is a much more important metric because:
a) Better AT
b) In case of misses, you shoot another one sooner

Of course, the Pershing commander has the gimmicky low micro ability called the Combined Arms. In 90% of cases, it's a silent muni dump in a muni starved faction. You will see it here and there in 1v1s and 2v2s but in 3v3/4v4 it's a downright useless ability that works only vs lower skilled players. Vs lower skilled players, that ability can easily win you the game.

I don't like comparing the Tiger to the Pershing as they are in different factions but it is the closest "relative" to use for comparing. Tiger is miles ahead of the Pershing when it comes to bleed. With the pintle MG upgrade, it bleeds infantry like crazy. Pershing does have the better wipe potential, especially in retreat but a Tiger is a much bigger presence. It can easily shrug of shots from AT guns (something a Pershing cannot) and bleed any enclosing infantry that are going for a snare with the MG's + insane ROF. The advantages the Pershing has (mobility, AOE) are tiny, whereas the advantages the Tiger has are substantial. All in all, the Tiger is a favourite in any betting scenario when the players that use Tiger/Pershing are not newbies.

I really have to stop playing the Pershing commander. Just to show you how bad of a unit it is. In the past 2 weeks I went from rank 98 to rank 13 using the Calliope/arty commanders.
I started using the Pershing and immediately went back to rank 40 with 5 loses in a row. Truth be told, 2 of those games were allied min0 drops so... at least back to rank 30 with 3 loses in a row where I really couldn't deal in any way with the Sturmtiger/Tiger/Elefant using the Pershing + Jackson combo. What the calliope/arty enabled were the salvo of rockets/shells before the breakthrough to displace the walls of raketen/stugs/JP4s. As every 3v3 game in lane-y maps with low flank options. Axis leaves on VP uncontested and throws all the s*** on the mid/L-R VP and bunker down with superior armour/firepower where the range doesn't really matter.

The only real sell of the Heavy Cav are the mines and offmap smoke

Right now, Axis can easily disfuse Alies heavy tank play by using panther. The advantage of Alies Heavy aren't justified the price tag over own strength against stock unit like Panther.
A great Example is M26, its perfomance power compare to Tiger is only around 90% at max vet + combine arm, the adavantage of AI couldn't make M26 in actually high ground. Dont forget repair tax still a pain in an ass. Meanwhile Axis build 2 Stug, 1 Jadpz4 or 1 panther ( with this timeline, they already have Pz4 which domminated M4 ). USF has to pay more mirco, economy, limmited of choice but cant have the same power as Axis.

That why less and less heavy tank play from alies right now.

Very few fights happen in the vacuum of 1v1, so it is more often like rak or pak 40 and Panther vs Heavy with AT and a tank destroyer. Panther has to dive to deal damage and when you die the tide can change very fast, because you rarely have full information while diving. Otherwise it is just poking from a 50 range from what you can get you faced full of armor piercing rounds.

I think there should be a discussion if some heavies are worth the cost and pop cap, but not if heavies should win in a static 1v1 fight vs a tank destroyer.

the Tiger has the worst AI profile and faces larger squad sizes.

Alright, so the tiger should have the worst AI, but then, in basically every single game, it consistently snipes infantry models due to the accuracy of the main gun.
"IS-2 has the best AI profile"

Yeah, no, just...no, the IS-2 has the "damn i missed yet another shot" profile

the pershing being identical to the panther but costing 230 fuel isn't a good thing

In the Pershing you're basically getting a Panther in tank vs tank, but it fires HE shells at infantry. Panther is a tank destroyer whose anti-infantry capability is purely mg-based dps, so it's terrible against retreating squads/vetted/elite infantry/yellow cover, and has to stay stationary within snaring range to deal damage.

I like how the two or three people complaining in this thread keep comparing Heavy Tank vs Panther as if Heavy Tanks fired only AP rounds and weren't used mainly for bleeding infantry and as spearheads for pushes. It's 99% a L2P issue.

Use heavy tanks vs infantry and not in long-range brawls with tank destroyers. If a single Panther is killing your Pershing (moves faster than a p4, with armour and health of a Panther) or your IS2 (takes an average of more than 1 minute to for a Panther to kill an IS2 by itself), what the heck are you doing with your 15 apm? Just....reverse?

In the Pershing you're basically getting a Panther in tank vs tank, but it fires HE shells at infantry. Panther is a tank destroyer whose anti-infantry capability is purely mg-based dps, so it's terrible against retreating squads/vetted/elite infantry/yellow cover, and has to stay stationary within snaring range to deal damage.

I like how the two or three people complaining in this thread keep comparing Heavy Tank vs Panther as if Heavy Tanks fired only AP rounds and weren't used mainly for bleeding infantry and as spearheads for pushes. It's 99% a L2P issue.

IMO Pershing needs to get some buff not because of it doing bad vs Panther but because of how lame it is compare to Tiger, but I can see why they are complaining.

Use heavy tanks vs infantry and not in long-range brawls with tank destroyers. If a single Panther is killing your Pershing (moves faster than a p4, with armour and health of a Panther) or your IS2 (takes an average of more than 1 minute to for a Panther to kill an IS2 by itself), what the heck are you doing with your 15 apm? Just....reverse?

Panther has higher speed / acceleration than a Pershing, can use Blitkreig to get even faster, has +5 range (Pershing is the only heavy tank that does not gain +5 with vet to be 50 range). Panther gets better armor than Pershing(originally l0 less) at vet 2.

All I'm saying starting from this thread, is that Pershing deserves to be (almost) identical to that of Tiger. They have same role / same cost / almost same everything except for the Performance.

Alright, so the tiger should have the worst AI, but then, in basically every single game, it consistently snipes infantry models due to the accuracy of the main gun.
"IS-2 has the best AI profile"

Yeah, no, just...no, the IS-2 has the "damn i missed yet another shot" profile

accuracy of the main gun practically doesn't matter in tank vs infantry fights. in fact, the pershing even has 20% higher base acc than both the tiger and the is-2, but the chance to directly hit a model are still only 4-5%.

what you probably mean is the main gun scatter, which basically determines how far from the target position the fired rounds stray on average. here the tiger is king as it has the lowest scatter out of all heavies, plus it receives a 10% reduction at vet2 on top of that which neither the is-2 nor the pershing get.
and speaking of the is-2, the tank does indeed have the worst scatter out of all heavies, but it's only slightly inferior to that of the pershing and still much lower than that of almost all medium tanks. in fact, the HE sherman has nearly identical scatter to the is-2, and i rarely ever hear anyone calling the sherman an rng cannon.

I find it the most funny that Sturm and Sander become forum warriors defending the "we need buffs to (insert axis unit here)" and amazingly quiet when the discussion is about an ally unit. I'm expecting Sander to pop in here with "I've played 10 games with Pershing in the last 20 minutes and won each game easily with my Pershing having 1377+ kills so I guess it's balanced"