Login

russian armor

Pershing Madness

14 Oct 2014, 21:21 PM
#1
avatar of dakta

Posts: 15

Honest question, I see in every other thread people asking for a Pershing for US late game, however lets just assume we get a slightly shittier is2 as a pershing(Cause we will not get anything stronger than a is2), what will this acomplish for balance??

In team games for balance, a pershing will just be an extra vet star in that Jagdtiger meal. It might be a meatshield for the KT, but being realistic, do you think having an IS2 call in for the US forces would fix the problems US meta currently has?

14 Oct 2014, 21:35 PM
#2
avatar of Low0dds

Posts: 151

I think it would depend on what else the commander had to offer. vCoh had repair ability and lost unit(armor) replacement. Both were very effective when used right.
14 Oct 2014, 21:36 PM
#3
avatar of broodwarjc

Posts: 824

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Oct 2014, 21:21 PMdakta
Honest question, I see in every other thread people asking for a Pershing for US late game, however lets just assume we get a slightly shittier is2 as a pershing(Cause we will not get anything stronger than a is2), what will this acomplish for balance??

In team games for balance, a pershing will just be an extra vet star in that Jagdtiger meal. It might be a meatshield for the KT, but being realistic, do you think having an IS2 call in for the US forces would fix the problems US meta currently has?



It won't really help, but it might shut some of the community up about it. Of course it will most likely just spawn threads whining that to win as USF you have to buy the commander and then once enough people have it; they will whine that it is the only good commander for USF to play. One unit won't fix squat, they need to redo the team game resource management.
Vaz
14 Oct 2014, 21:41 PM
#4
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1158

Making the jackson effective would help fix the USF problem. The JT shooting through anything is it's own problem. Almost every tool in the USF arsenal is underperforming. The exception is the Sherman, this thing is cool. USF just has a lot of little stupid things that let Axis run all over it if your not perfect with everything you do and you get caught.
14 Oct 2014, 21:50 PM
#5
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2819

Agree with above.
The paper thin armor makes this vehicle very very hard to get out of sticky situations. Also, cause of blitz and pretty fast panthers, the 'speed' of the jackson isn't useful.

Make the jackson stronger / faster and we don't need a heavy for USF.
14 Oct 2014, 21:53 PM
#6
avatar of sneakking

Posts: 655

Permanently Banned
Lol, since when has ANYONE considered the jackson to be fast, thing moves like a retarded sloth
14 Oct 2014, 21:58 PM
#7
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

I don't really want to see the jackson buffed, that thing already destroys any medium armor with ease and can handle tiger and panthers with micro. Maybe their hvap shells ability should be a bit cheaper but that's it.
The problem lies in their other AT options. Bazookas are just terrible; they cant hit light vehicles and do negligblie damage to medium tanks, if they even manage to penetrate.
The atgun is again good against medium armor, but is in a unviable tier with niche units.
Also Volks need new veterancy levels, no more ridiculous received accuracy.

It would also help if pack howitzer, stuart, bars and the 50cal were good units
14 Oct 2014, 22:03 PM
#8
avatar of Low0dds

Posts: 151

Lol, since when has ANYONE considered the jackson to be fast, thing moves like a retarded sloth


14 Oct 2014, 22:08 PM
#9
avatar of armatak

Posts: 170

Jackson is way too slow atm, especially reversing and turning.
15 Oct 2014, 00:27 AM
#10
avatar of Glassfish
Benefactor 340

Posts: 88

Im just imagining this working in a 1v1 where a Pershing is supported by a Jacksons and a Sherman or two Jacksons against a tiger it would completly dominate all other armor.

I like the current dynamic where the Jacksons need to outmaneuver the tiger in order to kill it having a heavy tank as well would allow the US to get a super powerful armor killing blob dirt cheap as the German player could not afford to have panthers support his tiger the same way a US player could have Jacksons support his Pershing

the US are build to have large numbers of flexible and versatile units, having a Pershing would just be a no brainier investment for players as they would then have the ability to steamroll everything and the opposing player would have little chance to out micro both Jacksons and Pershing.

The US still have extemly strong AT capacity, their 57mm AT guns are the best, Shermans can outclass all other medium tanks, bazookas can be brought cheap Jacksons used properly can Kite anything to death and have armor piercing ability and P47s can annihilate anything.

I think the US has what it needs when it comes to dealing with enemy tanks
15 Oct 2014, 01:18 AM
#11
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned
Lol, since when has ANYONE considered the jackson to be fast, thing moves like a retarded sloth


Its not slow. But its acceleration is stupid
Vaz
15 Oct 2014, 01:28 AM
#12
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1158

Jackson is terrible, I'm so dissapointed with this unit. It's slow, it has a good range, but it fails to penetrate or misses, slowly reloads, it's expensive, and even though historically it's supposed to have a tough front armor, it's penetrated by pretty much anything and it has substandard hp. If it wasn't for the increased damage, panzerIV's would be a major threat to this unit.
15 Oct 2014, 01:48 AM
#13
avatar of dakta

Posts: 15

Im just imagining this working in a 1v1 where a Pershing is supported by a Jacksons and a Sherman or two Jacksons against a tiger it would completly dominate all other armor.

I like the current dynamic where the Jacksons need to outmaneuver the tiger in order to kill it having a heavy tank as well would allow the US to get a super powerful armor killing blob dirt cheap as the German player could not afford to have panthers support his tiger the same way a US player could have Jacksons support his Pershing

the US are build to have large numbers of flexible and versatile units, having a Pershing would just be a no brainier investment for players as they would then have the ability to steamroll everything and the opposing player would have little chance to out micro both Jacksons and Pershing.

The US still have extemly strong AT capacity, their 57mm AT guns are the best, Shermans can outclass all other medium tanks, bazookas can be brought cheap Jacksons used properly can Kite anything to death and have armor piercing ability and P47s can annihilate anything.

I think the US has what it needs when it comes to dealing with enemy tanks


In 1v1 sure, but in team games is different there are several levels of axis armor, check it out

Level 1: Mass p4s, lets say 4-5.
US: Sure bring them

Level 2: 1 KT
US: Sure bring it

Level 3: Tiger and p4s
US: Ugh, how many? Ok whatever bring them

Level 4: Tiger and Panthers blitzing
US: Shit, I will probably die.

Level 5: Tiger and Jagd
US: fuck this game.
15 Oct 2014, 02:05 AM
#14
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2014, 01:28 AMVaz
Jackson is terrible, I'm so dissapointed with this unit. It's slow, it has a good range, but it fails to penetrate or misses, slowly reloads, it's expensive, and even though historically it's supposed to have a tough front armor, it's penetrated by pretty much anything and it has substandard hp. If it wasn't for the increased damage, panzerIV's would be a major threat to this unit.


I'd rather the JT get normal damage and higher pen with better armour, basically become a Panther Light.

Let it have the 240 damage back either as a Vet 3 bonus or as part of its HVAP ability.
15 Oct 2014, 02:12 AM
#15
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

Im just imagining this working in a 1v1 where a Pershing is supported by a Jacksons and a Sherman or two Jacksons against a tiger it would completly dominate all other armor.

I like the current dynamic where the Jacksons need to outmaneuver the tiger in order to kill it having a heavy tank as well would allow the US to get a super powerful armor killing blob dirt cheap as the German player could not afford to have panthers support his tiger the same way a US player could have Jacksons support his Pershing

the US are build to have large numbers of flexible and versatile units, having a Pershing would just be a no brainier investment for players as they would then have the ability to steamroll everything and the opposing player would have little chance to out micro both Jacksons and Pershing.

The US still have extemly strong AT capacity, their 57mm AT guns are the best, Shermans can outclass all other medium tanks, bazookas can be brought cheap Jacksons used properly can Kite anything to death and have armor piercing ability and P47s can annihilate anything.

I think the US has what it needs when it comes to dealing with enemy tanks


Key words: US,Late game, Armor, Steamroll your opponents,

srsly what did you smoke this morning?
15 Oct 2014, 02:45 AM
#16
avatar of Glassfish
Benefactor 340

Posts: 88

Im talking purely from a 1v1 perspective i said it at the beginning of the post based on the fact that if relic makes a change like a Pershing it will effect all aspects of the game

Team games obviously offer a completely different dynamic considering that they last much longer and players are able to combine forces how relic can balance all game modes with the same set of stats and units i don't know

i do think that a Jagd tiger needs to be looked at considering it can out kite everything and shoot through stuff

i also dont like the German blitzkreig ability i think its counter intuitive to the German armor style of play having German tanks with thick armor and big guns out maneuver Amrican tanks is
absurd

I like the idea of a sherman jumbo though as i think most U.S tanks are flakey in terms of armor, having something that could absorb punishment while Jacksons kite could work

im not totally against having a Pershing in the game i just think that it may a little overkill considering the U.S. can get powerful medium tanks and tank destroyers on the cheap as well as all their other AT it just dpends on how it is implemented
15 Oct 2014, 02:56 AM
#17
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

Allied warmachine was the worst mechanic in vcoh. Totally fail gamemechanic, use a bunch of munitions and if you don't lose any tanks (as in playing bad) in a period of time now you just wasted resources and hurt youself for playing good. For the opponent he actually hurt himself if he does damage and kills a damaged tank. Doing damage should never backfire.
15 Oct 2014, 02:58 AM
#18
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239

Im just imagining this working in a 1v1 where a Pershing is supported by a Jacksons and a Sherman or two Jacksons against a tiger it would completly dominate all other armor.


If the Pershing were actually added, it would be given heavy tank pricing. So around 640/230 and 24 popcap. With that price point, it won't be a Pershing and Jackson against a Tiger, it will be a Pershing and Jackson against a Tiger and P4.

In 2v2's IS-2 with Jacksons is already a thing, and it certainly doesn't dominate all other armor.
15 Oct 2014, 03:29 AM
#19
avatar of Glassfish
Benefactor 340

Posts: 88



If the Pershing were actually added, it would be given heavy tank pricing. So around 640/230 and 24 popcap. With that price point, it won't be a Pershing and Jackson against a Tiger, it will be a Pershing and Jackson against a Tiger and P4.

In 2v2's IS-2 with Jacksons is already a thing, and it certainly doesn't dominate all other armor.


thats is very true and allow me to play devils advocate for a second do you think that a Persing and Jackson combination would proform the same as tiger P4 combo? in a 1v1
15 Oct 2014, 04:08 AM
#20
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239

With correct micro it could go either way.

If P4 blitzes into the Jackson's face it will destroy it, if they try to slug it out with the Pershing they will probably lose.

This disregards any possible supporting units like Shreck Pgrens, Paks, 57mm, bazookas etc. Wehr has better supporting anti tank.

And outside of tank engagements, Tiger+P4 would have a lot more anti-infantry power than Pershing+Jackson, as Jackson is useless against infantry.
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

913 users are online: 913 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49090
Welcome our newest member, BrubeckDeclarkBurche
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM