M26 Pershing

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

OKW wasn't designed with "No Medium Tank" as a faction statement, and the OKW Panzer IV despite being rare and currently underpowered, was prominently featured in many pre-release screenshots. Rather, adding an M26 to the US Faction would be more like a "OKW Supply Doctrine" that gives 100% resource income and allows the construction of caches. That goes against the faction design.

The US had the M26 in vCoH so it's not really a far stretch or exaggeration you know?

The US had the M26 in vCoH so it's not really a far stretch or exaggeration you know?

Wehrmacht had free Tiger II's in vCoH. Wehrmacht had an MG 42 that killed one man and suppressed the squad in one burst. Wehrmacht had 80 Fuel Panzer IV's, and 110 Fuel Panthers, from the same building.

vCoH's balance and design means nothing here.

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.

Jumbo Sherman had much better armor than the KV-1. 4inches = 101mm of armor, and taking into account the slope, it had better armor on the front than the Tiger and slightly more than the Panther.

If it were up to me, I'd give it the front armor of the Panther equipped with the M4A3's 75mm gun, with a ~60-75 munitions upgrade to get a 76mm gun that's worse against infantry but better against armor. It would of course be slower than the sherman and panther.

With the 76mm gun, it would be essentially a slower Panther with less hp. I'd maybe have it cost about as much as the E8

Pershing would be a bit trickier to balance, though.

It's understandable to say that such a thing would go against the faction's "design" as 100% fuel income and the ability to build fuel caches would for OKW.

Honestly though, what can they add down the line to these factions that remains within the boundaries of their initial design goals? They are going to add things that give variety to a faction, otherwise the faction gameplay would just become stale.

Who wants to be stuck in the same strategy of massing riflemen, then building Shermans and Jacksons? Sure it's versatile, sure it's mobile, but it get's boring and repetitive. They will eventually need something to give US players different strategies to pursue.

As was stated, the US does have great AT capabilities, but a good chunk of it (namely the riflemen with AT grenades) can be negated with things like MG's and indirect fire. Not to mention that the German heavies can pound infantry squads into nothing with ease. Just because the US has a good, mobile AT platform, doesn't mean adding a Pershing is going to make them unbeatable. Their AT is only as strong as their opponents allow it to be. The addition of a Pershing will grant some longevity to their frontline.

It's understandable to say that such a thing would go against the faction's "design" as 100% fuel income and the ability to build fuel caches would for OKW.

Honestly though, what can they add down the line to these factions that remains within the boundaries of their initial design goals? They are going to add things that give variety to a faction, otherwise the faction gameplay would just become stale.

Who wants to be stuck in the same strategy of massing riflemen, then building Shermans and Jacksons? Sure it's versatile, sure it's mobile, but it get's boring and repetitive. They will eventually need something to give US players different strategies to pursue.

As was stated, the US does have great AT capabilities, but a good chunk of it (namely the riflemen with AT grenades) can be negated with things like MG's and indirect fire. Not to mention that the German heavies can pound infantry squads into nothing with ease. Just because the US has a good, mobile AT platform, doesn't mean adding a Pershing is going to make them unbeatable. Their AT is only as strong as their opponents allow it to be. The addition of a Pershing will grant some longevity to their frontline.

Thats the biggest desing problem with the US imo. You cant do anything else than building Rifles and (maybe) calling in doctrinal assault engies. Or doctrinal cars. But essentially their only option is Rifles. Lategame is reactionary and consists of equiping your Rifles with weapons and getting Jacksons and the occasional Sherman. Thats all. Every single game. May be versatile, but it makes the US a versatile one trick pony faction. Whereas with the Soviets, you have way more options, for example to start the game. To alter your build. To do something different than mainline core infantry spam. You cant really do that with US without doctrines. You are getting funneled into a single late game tier too. You get the same units every game, except for the occasional Lieutenant or Captain decision. And because everyone knows what you will be having, people can freely and safely adapt before the game and the first engagement even starts. Great design.

this is a sad thing to think about, i think we will never see a m26 on coh 2 ;\ , when the fucking ober have like 3 heavy tanks and is coming the tiger for ober...

Wehrmacht had free Tiger II's in vCoH. Wehrmacht had an MG 42 that killed one man and suppressed the squad in one burst. Wehrmacht had 80 Fuel Panzer IV's, and 110 Fuel Panthers, from the same building.

vCoH's balance and design means nothing here.

You're clearly exaggerating here. Tiger II were just as uncommon and the squad suppression in 1 burst was a glitch they fixed a while ago. The Panzer IV and Panther from the same building is no different than the M4A3 and Jackson from the same building.

The design is a lot more similar than you think.

With the 76mm gun, it would be essentially a slower Panther with less hp. I'd maybe have it cost about as much as the E8

Probably better to trade some armor for HP the then bump up the price (HP is better than armor, generally) for balance' sake. 640HP and 290 armor would be the ultimate rng machine, sometimes dying as quick as a regular medium, sometimes bouncing shots all day long.

I loved the pershing in coh 1 but it would remove usa lategame any issue.Pershing with jacksons in back would be unstoppable.
As for versatality why not zooka rangers?
Sherman jumbo would be alright too.
USA need a few different inf types .

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.

If an M36 Jakson with its powerful 90mm gun isn't "too hard hitting", neither would be the Pershing. Heck, the Pershing is even less of a hard hitter than the Jackson because as a unit it is more about taking hits, not dishing it out. The Relic statement therefore is actually contradictory, if not hypocritical.

It's understandable to say that such a thing would go against the faction's "design" as 100% fuel income and the ability to build fuel caches would for OKW.

Honestly though, what can they add down the line to these factions that remains within the boundaries of their initial design goals? They are going to add things that give variety to a faction, otherwise the faction gameplay would just become stale.

Who wants to be stuck in the same strategy of massing riflemen, then building Shermans and Jacksons? Sure it's versatile, sure it's mobile, but it get's boring and repetitive. They will eventually need something to give US players different strategies to pursue.

As was stated, the US does have great AT capabilities, but a good chunk of it (namely the riflemen with AT grenades) can be negated with things like MG's and indirect fire. Not to mention that the German heavies can pound infantry squads into nothing with ease. Just because the US has a good, mobile AT platform, doesn't mean adding a Pershing is going to make them unbeatable. Their AT is only as strong as their opponents allow it to be. The addition of a Pershing will grant some longevity to their frontline.

Agreed; there's really few things to add in future commanders if a light or heavy tank like the Chaffee or Pershing would never be in one of them. Hell as far as I am concerned, they're just saying they won't get them to generate interest, then a few months later go back on their word and release them as DLC commanders for teh $$$. If anything adding a Chaffee/Pershing makes sense since they are light and heavy tanks- stock US units have neither.

Uh, the M5 Stuart was the standard US Light Tank, and it's available as a stock unit.

Damn chaffee is so nice looking, they must make at least that!

Thats the biggest desing problem with the US imo. You cant do anything else than building Rifles and (maybe) calling in doctrinal assault engies. Or doctrinal cars. But essentially their only option is Rifles. Lategame is reactionary and consists of equiping your Rifles with weapons and getting Jacksons and the occasional Sherman. Thats all. Every single game. May be versatile, but it makes the US a versatile one trick pony faction. Whereas with the Soviets, you have way more options, for example to start the game. To alter your build. To do something different than mainline core infantry spam. You cant really do that with US without doctrines. You are getting funneled into a single late game tier too. You get the same units every game, except for the occasional Lieutenant or Captain decision. And because everyone knows what you will be having, people can freely and safely adapt before the game and the first engagement even starts. Great design.

+1 Good post. I agree with you because Relic failed to design factions in an attractive way. It begins with the bad design of US forces (forced to build rifle spam) and goes on with stationary artillery getting hard countered by Stuka bombing attacks. I have to say the german factions have a way cooler design... hope relic goes on and redesigns the ally factions!

I would like a heavy tank cause in that way, I could use my skin for heavy tanks for the US.

If not Pershing then at least Sherman Jumbo, it also was considered as a heavy tank with great frontal armour

If not Pershing then at least Sherman Jumbo, it also was considered as a heavy tank with great frontal armour

Sherman Jumbo seem to be the best imo. Pershing with M36 might be a bit too strong. At least with Jumbo America still gets a heavy but does not have a possibly invulnerable combo.

Crap double-posted. Can't we remove our own posts?

If not Pershing then at least Sherman Jumbo, it also was considered as a heavy tank with great frontal armour

Sherman Jumbo was also available in much larger numbers, and much sooner. Plus they were in both 75mm and 76mm variants, so whether a weak or strong gun is best for balance, the Jumbo could be either one.

Seems as if the Jumbo idea is catching on. I can agree with that, the pure idea of it is very balanced - in it's simplest form, just an up-armored Sherman. Suits the role of an assault tank very nicely.