Login

russian armor

M26 Pershing

PAGES (9)down
25 Jul 2014, 09:57 AM
#61
avatar of theblitz6794

Posts: 395

Sounds about right. It would be slow and accelerate slowly.

A jumbo 75 would take out a P4 and a StuG, be about equal to a JP4 (or a little inferior in a straight up fight), and inferior to a panther.

Pak 40 wouldn't be too effective on paper, but in the game it can handle heavy tanks, as can the zis 3 and the 57mm.
25 Jul 2014, 10:03 AM
#62
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

Ok. We agree there for the 75mm m4a3e2 jumbo. It does its job very well, but nothing more. Jackson support added on will deal with anything heavier.
25 Jul 2014, 10:07 AM
#63
avatar of GuyPorks
Donator 11

Posts: 12

As much as relic has their design philosophy for a faction, eventually when the initial sales rush dies down in a few months and they are looking to boost sales or micro-transactions, you bet they will look to see what people want in the game (ie $$$ DLC) and Pershings will be high up there. As a result I would be surprised if they didn't eventually make an appearance for economics alone.

For the same reason, why design two new units (Jumbo and Pershing) and give them away in the one doctrine, when you could put them in two doctrines for 2x the cash!
25 Jul 2014, 10:10 AM
#64
avatar of Steiner500

Posts: 183

Yeah,

Why not? Bring it in the Game, Relic!
25 Jul 2014, 10:18 AM
#65
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

Pershing, Calliope, Rangers pls.

25 Jul 2014, 11:23 AM
#66
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

nvm, already written that
nee
25 Jul 2014, 11:27 AM
#67
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216


The M26 Pershing in this case would have to be the staple of this doctrine. Everything in the doctrine would be a lead-up to this unit. The unit would likely be weaker than the Tiger or IS-2 to make up for the fact that the US Faction comes with the M36 Jackson.
Agreed; most doctrines generally feature a few staples with some abilities like off-map artillery and unit bonuses. For doctrines that have as many as three new units, they tend to be dependent on other units to fight well. Even a Tiger, which is featured in at least four doctrines, cannot expect to do everything on it's own, ad it's at a high cost of 230 fuel. A Pershing would merely be the logical conclusion of the economical demand for quality units- it could also be deployed once at any time like the P4 command tank.

And like the King Tiger, it's not like it has to be basically the Jackson with the armour of an Easy Eight. The Tiger and the Elefant have the same gun IRL but you sure don't see Tigers firing at something from across the screen, neither the King Tiger.

Hell if anything, a Pershing at the end of a doctrine will likely just end up being used like the King Tiger- super late call-in and often not arrive to the fight anyhow. And yet, the King Tiger is not even doctrinal. I don't even know why they Relic threw it in there, the HQ truck no less. It would be a far better replacement to Jagdtiger, IMO.
25 Jul 2014, 11:49 AM
#68
avatar of reefermadness

Posts: 43


I don't see a Relic dev in this thread and I don't see anything definitive. Relic said they weren't really planning on having the m26 in the game. But that doesn't mean they can't change their mind

Duffy's interview said nothing about having a heavy tank in the future (or not having a heavy tank in the future). AFAWK the door is open, especially given their willingness to experiment.

It's silly to have a faction without a single heavy tank, even if it is the jumbo. Imagine a faction without artillery or elite infantry. USF only have 1 call in doctrinal elite infantry, but they do have it.


I'm not sure a unit that was used only once fits well into this game. That said, the Sturmtiger is close


GameSpot: So tell me about the two new factions coming in The Western Front Armies.

Quinn Duffy: We have two new armies that have designed from the ground up, the US Forces and German OberKommando West, so a new American army and a new German army. The American army is very flexible, versatile, and focuses on mobility. They don’t have anything too hard-hitting, but they do have a lot of gameplay elements built around their versatility and mobility. The OKW, on the other hand, are extremely hard-hitting with a lot of veteran infantry units, super heavy tanks, and technological advances--but they're also a hard army to sustain because their economy was under a lot of pressure at this point in the war.

That was our starting point for these armies in terms of making them feel unique compared to the other armies in the game.


It's not that silly considering that they have planned this faction design along with OKW's since they started developing the expansion. The entire idea behind US Army was that it didn't really have the capability to go toe to toe with the armor of the OKW. They wanted to emphasize the fact that the U.S Army was not as well trained or equipped to fight the OKW but through the U.S being so versatile and mobile is the reason they were able to compete and win.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-29-relics-five-year-plan-for-company-of-heroes-2

In the 5 year plan and just about any article you read about the Western Front Armies, describes the "opinionated" statement that the new factions have specific designs to them and adding a pershing would go against the entire faction design for the United States Army. So, once again, I am going to say that they are probably not going to get this.

Search Hands on the Western Front Armies in this forum and you'll find 5 articles saying the same thing.

Adding a U.S. heavy tank would just tip the scales of balance. As it is and as it should be, it's hard to kill a King Tiger if the opponent isn't a moron. That thing can soak up a lot of damage. The only way to beat it is generally combined arms w/ flanking vehicles. Adding a heavy tank, somewhat similar to a tiger/is2 would make late german armor not as scary, which again, is the whole point of OKW late game, veteran units with heavy tanks.
25 Jul 2014, 12:30 PM
#69
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

Instead of a heavy tanks, perharps US can have a heavy in the role of supporting like the Jumbo Sherman, M12 GMC or Callie? That way US can remain competitive till late game without breaking their faction design.
25 Jul 2014, 12:35 PM
#70
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Instead of a heavy tanks, perharps US can have a heavy in the role of supporting like the Jumbo Sherman, M12 GMC or Callie? That way US can remain competitive till late game without breaking their faction design.


Easy 8 fills that role for now as well as bulldozer.

I'd like to see Jumbo eventually, but it would be just another KV-1, so I won't cry if they won't implement it.
25 Jul 2014, 13:50 PM
#71
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Pershing is "must-have" unit for USF. Not as armored like Tiger but still can stand on front of it. The biggest problem for me while playing USF is lack of chasing units. For so many times I took from KT over 80% of HP but what advantage I get from this? None cause 10-15% KT retreaded and after 3mins it showed again with 100% HP.
The problem is I couldn't chase it and finish it cause of glass cannon M36. It's isnt fair that USF can not finish almost killed unit.
Tiger, Panther, IS, ISU, KV2, Jadgtiger, KT... All units CAN chase dying one unit and finish it. But USF can not... Taht's why M26 must be deployed.
Right now almost 80% of USF players are using Rifleman doctrine for E8. Creation of few new commanders with Pershing, Hellcat and Jumbo would spread out for many different doctrines.
25 Jul 2014, 13:56 PM
#72
avatar of Zupadupadude

Posts: 618

I think a M4A3E2 in CoH2 would be more similar to a KV-1.
25 Jul 2014, 13:57 PM
#73
avatar of iDolize

Posts: 81

I agree the M26 Pershing and Calliope would be nice additions to the USF faction down the road
25 Jul 2014, 17:36 PM
#74
avatar of PanzerErotica

Posts: 135

Personally I don't want to see any M26 Pershings, it goes against the whole faction design. It'd be like if OKW got a Commander that gave them 100% fuel income. It'd also be overpowered since the M36 exists as a stock unit, so that commander would have to disable building the M36 because the Pershing + M36 combo would be incredibly powerful.

Personally the heaviest thing I want to see for Americans is the Sherman Jumbo, which was made in much larger numbers and sometimes field converted to 76mm guns, which could make for a very formidable breakthrough tank.


I don´t get it, how would it be any different than stuff we already can have
-su85 and call-in t34/85 or is2
-isu152 and t70 or t34
-elefant and p4/panther
-jagdpanzer and panther/puma
-at gun and whatever heavy tank
-mg and mortar
-sniper and guards
-etc

Sure jackson and pershing would be tough nut to crack for axis armor but it´s not like they are invulnerable. Who knows what abilities possible future pershing or the commander will have but it sounds like shreks for the jackson and pak/stug/jp4/panther for the pershing would be a way to go.

Using combined arms should be encouraged, as opposed to just spamming one same unit over and over again. If using different units together to complement each others weaknesses is considered op, then I suppose we are better off just spamming and blobbing infantry unit x then transitioning to spamming some tank y. After that we can come here to complain about other people spamming and blobbing those units.

I´m pretty sure we will see pershing at some point. Relic would be foolish not to introduce it, considering just about everyone who plays usf would be buying that commander. Jumbo, sherman croc, calli and rangers would be nice to see too, not keeping all the eggs on the same basket of course.
25 Jul 2014, 20:01 PM
#75
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Using combined arms should be encouraged, as opposed to just spamming one same unit over and over again.


I find this part in particular to be funny, since the reason people want the M26 is because spamming the M36 isn't cutting it, and combined arms with the M36 is not as common as it should be.
25 Jul 2014, 20:19 PM
#77
avatar of PanzerErotica

Posts: 135



I find this part in particular to be funny, since the reason people want the M26 is because spamming the M36 isn't cutting it, and combined arms with the M36 is not as common as it should be.


I think that people just want u.s. to have heavy tank like every other faction does and its more than likely they will make such commander in the future. But my point was mostly that even if they do introduce pershing, getting rid of it and the supporting jackson wouldn´t be that much different than how we now deal with is2 and su85 or something similar.
25 Jul 2014, 20:32 PM
#78
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Except the Jackson is the only medium tier Tank Destroyer that does 240 damage per shot. All American vehicles can also repair themselves because all crew members are trained mechanics. AT is wide-spread in the faction as well, with all Vet riflemen having a snare, and any squad with the ability to hold Bazookas. They also have an AT Gun which is cheaper than most others, but with vet can extend it's own range to nearly an Elefant's.

And people want a Heavy Tank ontop of all of this. Can they not see how that would be a problem? The US has all of that to make up for their lack of Heavy Tanks. If a doctrine gave us Heavy Tanks, I presume it would have to negate a few of those to be fair? Maybe no exiting vehicles, and no M36 Jacksons (weaker M10 in the M26 Commander to replace it)?
25 Jul 2014, 21:08 PM
#79
avatar of PanzerErotica

Posts: 135

Soviets have self repair on 3 commanders too, 2 of which come with t34/85 and 1 with is2 or kv2. They have at guns and at nades on their cheapest infantry unit (maybe excluding partisans, havent played with those ones in a while, but then again, they don´t have tank call-ins).

I´m not saying u.s. can´t win without pershing, but even with it axis does have some quite effective counters available.

It all depends on how pershing is implemented, is it more anti personnel or antitank orientated. Anyhow, it will not be free and won´t come until late game, so I think it falls to the classic "they are already winning"-category if they are able to wield one together with jacksons. It´s not like oh/okw wouldn´t have any sort of at by that time.

I couldn´t care less if it didn´t make it into game, but I´d certainly buy it if it did. What is more interesting is what kind of other abilities would that commander have without making it another soviet industry/elite troops.
25 Jul 2014, 22:24 PM
#80
avatar of theblitz6794

Posts: 395

I think it's pretty clear that if we as a community want something, we just gotta bitch about it enough.

If we want pershings, we gotta tell Relic and tell them a lot, regardless of what they've said in the past.

People referencing what Relic has said in the past are living in the past. At the time maybe they thought the pershing wouldn't fit, but people often change their minds.

Except ignorant people who have a rigid version in their heads of how the factions MUST be, as though American versatility can't be applied to a heavy tank.

The OKW lack a medium tank, yet they can get a medium tank through doctrines. It's that simple. OKW are designed to not have a medium tank. But with the right doctrine, that's all upended, because the faction designs ARE NOT RIGID
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

1074 users are online: 1074 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49102
Welcome our newest member, Rusel334
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM