Pershing in demand

yes, more heavy tanks is definitely what this game needs

Nah, what we need are more Wunderwaffe!

It's Röntgenkanone time baby

I play USF almost exclusively these days and I don't want the Pershing.

I would much rather see the M24 Chaffe, M18 Hellcat or Sherman Firefly (Brits.)

I play USF almost exclusively these days and I don't want the Pershing.

I would much rather see the M24 Chaffe, M18 Hellcat or Sherman Firefly (Brits.)

Lately the more games I play, the more the need for something heavy comes to mind. I end up with games still having 600 fuel in bank. but not being able to use them because I know that the second that tank rolls out its gone. Because you cant put it to use unless you could strap a 240mm shell to it and send it to the enemy lines and hope it makes it far enough to make use of its suicidal action. Thats how worthless American armor feels like on occasions. so having a heavy tank which can take a beating like a something in between a panther and a is2 would help out the usaf on a number of occasions.

Last thing the usa needs are more vechiles armored with paper mache plating

I play USF almost exclusively these days and I don't want the Pershing.

I would much rather see the M24 Chaffe, M18 Hellcat or Sherman Firefly (Brits.)

How would the Firefly be any different from M36? Mechanics would be identical except it's slightly tougher. Plus you'd have to bring the Brits back. If they are back as a faction it makes sense for them to get Firefly, otherwise it doesn't really.

And you're still solving for the same problem -- a beefier long-range AT tank unit.

I don't think Chaffe is a good idea. It's just a Sherman with less armour and HP. And a Hellcat would be worse than the M36, terrible armor, but with less offensive punch. Why would I want that? The USF isn't hurting for offensively respectable but highly vulnerable tanks. In team games, it's hurting for a heavy. In 1v1s it's not really hurting for anything. The synergy you get from having a Soviet Ally that can field heavy tanks is huge, a Pershing, even if it's not an "amazing" tank overall in the game, would be a step towards making USF viable in team games (especially larger ones) wihtout Soviet assistance.

I would prefer to see a commander with the following

- faster repair equipment for the crews
- vet 1 ability of the soviets vechiles(cap but cant fire but still in vechile)
- send vehicles back for resources
- faster build time of vechiles (I would like to see the calliope back, but that might be to much
- Pershing

Details. left up to you

When the moment I remember COH was Company of Heroes, oriented on heroic infantry, not Company of Callin.

The extra weapons stockpile seems alittle OP though, maybe replace it with a passive rate of fire buff that depends on how many you have equipped on a squad. For example if that squad has 2 BARs it receives (something)% increased rate of fire buff.

If the Pershing were to be introduced it should absolutely not be a commander call in. We already have enough commander pigeonholing in coh2. The USF is a faction that allows players to supplement their playstyle with a commander, rather than define it.

Introducing a heavy like that to the USF would require a rework of the whole faction, and just because it's is in demand doesn't mean that it is a good idea.

Having the Pershing locked into a commander would immediately outclass every single other USF commander and would only serve to limit an already limited meta. As a HUGE USF fan, I really hope they don't introduce the Pershing.


If you want to play with heavies play the soviets, honestly it just doesn't make sense for the USF to have a tank of that stature.

Having the Pershing locked into a commander would immediately outclass every single other USF commander and would only serve to limit an already limited meta. As a HUGE USF fan, I really hope they don't introduce the Pershing.

That entirely depends on balance. It could easily turn out to be underwhelming and almost never used if it kinda sucks as a unit. Most people are also proposing balance changes like making the Jackson less effective vs T3 Ost and more effective vs Heavies (higher pen, lower damage) which would make the stock USF a bit better late game. The quality of the doctrine it's in would determine whether or not it truly "outclassed" everything else. If the Pershing is the only great thing in the doctrine, and the rest is kind of bleh, then it would probably never see much use in 1v1s. The focus on it being a late game doctrine in a faction that is all about winning in the early-mid tiemframe means that it would, in general, not dominate the meta. For team games, particularly large team games, it might be a very popular choice. But then, the current meta is "all airborne all the time" with maybe some Infantry/Rifle company mixed in. AB's late game strike is so completely necessary for killing heavies as USF that any deviation from this meta would be a welcome change.

Pershing+AB+Inf doctrines as a viable USF 3v3 team? Dream come true. Because now there's basically no such thing as a viable USF 3v3 team.

All the Allied fans keep asking Relic for a Pershing commander

I am not an Allied fan and I'm still thinking USF needs the Pershing. The only problem I see here is that everyone will use only ONE doctrine, the one with the Pershing (at least for the first 2-3 months) and that will kinda kill diversity. An expensive upgrade in T4 in order to unlock it is what it needs so USF player will have to chose eather he wants 1-2 heavies in late game or several mediums and tank destroyers.
I think this is the only way Pershing can make it into COH2 and I really want to see it.

Pershing, in terms of performance, should be somewhere between Panther and Tiger.
It has better accuracy on move (gyro stabilizer) and unlike to late game german tanks, electrical turret.
Man gun was able to penetrate front armor of Panther which is documented.
Let's keep in mind, Pershing is not heavy tank. It's 3tons lighter than Panther.

Having the Pershing locked into a commander would immediately outclass every single other USF commander

The only problem I see here is that everyone will use only ONE doctrine, the one with the Pershing (at least for the first 2-3 months) and that will kinda kill diversity.

I can't agree with you. People were saying same thing about Easy 8.
Easy 8 spam with Jackson behind etc...
And it was like that for the first few days, maybe week but later? Good old ariborne and infantry came back.

Same would be with Pershing. We would see it in every single game for the first week but later? Not really.

And how does ARV gain vet without any guns dear?

PS: A lot of balance issues, but good ideas. Expect for the discounts, things that change attrition in that way are bad news and game breaking.

Why always the pershing?? I feel it is just because vcoh had it! As far as I know the pershing barely if ever saw any action. So why do people always want it? In a different pershing thread someone came up with the sherman jumbo and imo its the better altenative to the pershing! It fits the usf playstyle and design more than the pershing. It would be a damage sponge for your jacksons/m10s/atgs and deal a good amount of damage to infantry in return. What do you think?

That entirely depends on balance. It could easily turn out to be underwhelming and almost never used if it kinda sucks as a unit.

Then why having it in the first place? Why having a unit that performs worse then core units?
M-42?
Irregulars?
ML-20 and leIH?
Penals?
222?
Partisans?
DSHK?
KV-2?

We do NOT need that list to expand.

And if it was stronger then core, then we wouldn't see another doc ever picked, pretty much like soviets are pidgeon holed into shock rifle or guard motor in general-that is NOT healthy design.

And as you can see for yourself, the best and only option here is NOT to have it.

I can't agree with you. People were saying same thing about Easy 8.
Easy 8 spam with Jackson behind etc...
And it was like that for the first few days, maybe week but later? Good old ariborne and infantry came back.

Same would be with Pershing. We would see it in every single game for the first week but later? Not really.

Nah, I'm still thinking that Pershing should be available from T4 for an upgrade. It would be more reasonable. And yes, it should be able to penetrate Axis heavies as Panther and Tiger should be able to penetrate it too, and have decent damage on infantry. KT should be clearly superior though.

Then why having it in the first place? Why having a unit that performs worse then core units?
M-42?
Irregulars?
ML-20 and leIH?
Penals?
222?
Partisans?
DSHK?
KV-2?

We do NOT need that list to expand.

And if it was stronger then core, then we wouldn't see another doc ever picked, pretty much like soviets are pidgeon holed into shock rifle or guard motor in general-that is NOT healthy design.

And as you can see for yourself, the best and only option here is NOT to have it.

Um I didn't say "worse than stock units". I'm merely saying that a unit existing doesn't mean it's going to dominate the meta or being imbalanced. We know this because there exist doctirnes that offer units that are either underused because they are not good overall, and some doctrines that are viable (i.e. the ideal) without being dominant. The Easy 8 Sherman is a great unit, offering a tougher Sherman with better anti-armor performance. It's not necessarily better than the stock Sherman in all circumstances, but it's a unit that offers better performance in other circumstances. Rifle doctrine is popular, but not dominant. Why? Because it's not necessarily better overall than Airborne, or Infantry.

A Pershing would be a useful unit that fills a gap in the US lineup. But would we really expect it to be chosen every game? Would players really want to give up Airborne + P47 strike every game? No more 1919 riflemen and Priests and arty? Do you not think it would even be conceptually possible for the Pershing doctrine to merely be one of several viable doctrines?

In my mind, the Pershing doctrine would be partially viable in 1v1s, but mainly designed to augment USF lineups in team games, where the absence of a heavy is most painful. The doctine would not have much going for it early-game, and thus represent a risk over doctrines that give you more powerful things at 2 or 3cp. No Elite Riflemen, no flamers, no 1919s. Teams would benefit from having them in lieu of a Soviet player to provide heavies, however the other doctrines would still provide something quite useful, so you wouldn't want the whole team to go for Pershings, since P47 strikes, AB and SP arty have their place too. Pershing + Rifle + Airborne? Pershing + Inf + AB should both be nice, viable combinations. Actually builds without AB being viable at all would be a nice bloody change of pace, let me tell you.

Nah, I'm still thinking that Pershing should be available from T4 for an upgrade. It would be more reasonable. And yes, it should be able to penetrate Axis heavies as Panther and Tiger should be able to penetrate it too, and have decent damage on infantry. KT should be clearly superior though.

Pershing and Jackson coming from same tier would lead us to the most scary axis dream, Pershing+Jackson combo.

On the other hand, doctrinal Pershing would not do that. I mean, yes, you still ccould go for T4 and get a Jackson but I guess more often we would see Lt+Cpt into Pershing.

Yes, KT should be superior, unless Relic will introduce Super Pershing ^^

Thanks for that comprehensive and learned argument.

That said, I could see them being out of hand in 3v3/4v4s but those types of games are like party games. The kind you play drunk with lady friends because it's all casual.

In a 1v1 or 2v2 there is always a progression in COH from infantry to light vehicles to tanks, to heavy tanks/elite infantry/off-map abilities.

Guess which army has no doctrinal option for a heavy tank?

He's right, more doctrinal heavy tanks into the meta would just make things worse and even more boring. We should be moving away from the generic IS-2/Tiger call in play not encouraging relic for more of it only this time from Americans. Otherwise what's the point of different factions when every match is just an Infantry/Support weapon stall into Heavy tanks?

Pershing and Jackson coming from same tier would lead us to the most scary axis dream, Pershing+Jackson combo.

I doon't want to look so stubborn but you are not right. You can allways mitigate problems through price. Think about it:
1. you will need T4 aka Major;
2. you will need to pay for unlock the Pershing (aka x fuel and x manpower OR x manpower);
3. you will need to pay to build the pershing (aka x fuel and x manpower)

I don't really think you will be able to build so many Jaksons and Pershings that way. Not in 1v1s or 2v2s and reaaaly late in 3v3s and 4v4s when OKW will have its KTs/Panthers and Ostheer its Tigers/Panthers on the field.