Pershing in demand

All the Allied fans keep asking Relic for a Pershing commander so here's what one might look like. I think the key is to balance a commander so it is not 100% reliant on its call-in to be effective, while not giving it too many early CP abilities as to make it overpowered relative to other commanders.

Tactical Reserve Company
Contain enemy attacks with well-equipped core infantry, then unleash powerful units from rear-line reserves. Discounted resource caches improve battlefield awareness while the M32 Sherman ARV can return knocked out vehicles to service. Counter enemy armor and exploit Allied breakthroughs with the newly developed M26 Pershing heavy tank.

Forward Outposts (0 CPs)
Fuel and munitions caches cost 150 manpower and provide additional sight range.
• Passive ability
• Does not increase cache HP

Rear Echelon Reserves (4 CPs)
Deploy two squads of fresh Rear Echelon Troops to reinforce vulnerable points. Each squad is equipped with an M1919A6 Light Machine Gun and comes with a random amount of experience.
• Costs 380 manpower.
• Squads can have anywhere from zero to rank 2 veterancy. A rank 2 squad will come with all 5 members.
• Each squad carries a single LMG.

Extra Weapon Stockpiles (6 CPs)
Items from Weapon Racks cost 50% less munitions. Does not affect unlock costs for each rack.
• Passive ability

M32 Sherman ARV (9 CPs)
Deploy an M32 Sherman Armored Recovery Vehicle. This unarmed unit may recover US Forces vehicle hulks and return them to operation. Can be upgraded to reinforce nearby infantry.
• May purchase “Infantry Carrier” upgrade for 100 munitions, allowing nearby infantry to reinforce and allowing the M32 to carry a single squad (troops may not fire from the ARV).
• May repair vehicles.
• May recover vehicles from intact hulks only. Recovery takes 150% of the vehicle’s original build time. A recovered vehicle will have either an engine or main gun critical, and will have 10% of maximum HP.
• At rank 1, gain “Repair Critical” ability to remove any single vehicle critical in 3 seconds.
• At rank 2, gain increased speed and acceleration.
• At rank 3, gain Concealing Smoke ability (30 munitions).

M26 Pershing (11 CPs)
An M26 Pershing is available for frontline deployment. Heavy armor and a 90mm main gun allows this unit to engage any enemy tank. Can fire white phosphorus rounds to clear garrisoned structures or scatter infantry.
• 600 MP, 190 fuel
• May mount .50 caliber MG for 70 munitions
• May launch smoke at target area with minimum range
• At rank 1, gain White Phosphorus round. For 50 munitions, this will fire one incendiary HE round that does area damage to infantry and burns their HP over time. Damages infantry in buildings. 15 second cooldown.
• At rank 2, gain increased speed and rate of fire
• At rank 3, gain increased accuracy and sight range

I don't see why a Pershing should be cheaper and (presumably) worse than a Tiger when it's the superior tank.

I don't see why a Pershing should be cheaper and (presumably) worse than a Tiger when it's the superior tank.

I'm not sure why the Pershing is the superior tank, it's comparable to the Tiger on paper but there's nothing to definitely make it "better" other than things like ease of maintenance, availability of spare parts and fuel, etc. that are intangible as far as COH goes.

At the end of the day the Pershing was much lighter than the Tiger, 45 tons vs. 54 tons, and had better all around armor though less armor in some places. Again game balance matters far more than historical trivia like this especially since this is not a simulation game.

My feeling is the Pershing should be faster and less armored than the Tiger, a strong AT tank that is less effective against infantry. It can still counter infantry with a munitions-required skill shot ability (HE phosphorus round) and targeted smoke. But first and foremost it is a heavy tank deterrent and heavy tank finisher, strong enough to risk charging through the fog of war to get that last hit against German heavies that would get M10s, Jacksons, Shermans, etc. vaporized by shrecks and Paks.

Also I'd like to think that a player who picks Pershing still has plenty of good reasons to build a Sherman first, to fight infantry and because Pershing is a late call-in.

I'm not sure why the Pershing is the superior tank, it's comparable to the Tiger on paper but there's nothing to definitely make it "better" other than things like ease of maintenance, availability of spare parts and fuel, etc. that are intangible as far as COH goes.

At the end of the day the Pershing was much lighter than the Tiger, 45 tons vs. 54 tons, and had better all around armor though less armor in some places. Again game balance matters far more than historical trivia like this especially since this is not a simulation game.

My feeling is the Pershing should be faster and less armored than the Tiger, a strong AT tank that is less effective against infantry. It can still counter infantry with a munitions-required skill shot ability (HE phosphorus round) and targeted smoke. But first and foremost it is a heavy tank deterrent and heavy tank finisher, strong enough to risk charging through the fog of war to get that last hit against German heavies that would get M10s, Jacksons, Shermans, etc. vaporized by shrecks and Paks.

Also I'd like to think that a player who picks Pershing still has plenty of good reasons to build a Sherman first, to fight infantry and because Pershing is a late call-in.

So a non-paper Jackson? Like Easy Eight?

So a non-paper Jackson? Like Easy Eight?

Like Easy Eight in that it can still one-shot a weakened squad if it's clumped together. But a lot more HP.

Panther has 800 HP, Tiger has 1040, I am thinking Pershing would have 900 HP. The Pershing's armor might be the place for the most radical stats. Like give Pershing 340 front armor, 110 rear armor. This gives Pershing one of the most heavily armored fronts for heavies, but the weakest rear armor of all heavies.

For comparison, front/rear armor values for other tanks:

Tiger I: 300/180
King Tiger: 425/225
IS-2: 375/205
Panther: 320/110
Sherman: 160/80
Sherman E8: 215/95
Jackson: 130/60

Note these values are for the base unit and do not account for veterancy (though I don't think veterancy improves armor or HP for tanks).

This commander would be overpowered as hell. Like, really really overpowered.

This commander would be overpowered as hell. Like, really really overpowered.

Indeed. Lets just make a Lightning War clone. P47s plus Pershing. I am sure there would be no balance problems there

No:

-Fuel recovery vehicles every again

-Vet + munitions for a manpower price

-OP discounts on munitions purchases

Paying supreme discounts is something that is very unfair and way too forgiving.

However, the Pershing looks very good.

True, especially 1 and 3 ability will be really op in team games, and cheap lmg spam without munition seems too.

The OPs ideas are a little odd. Cheaper caches are the last thing this game needs. Maybe it could be "listening posts", sectors with caches in them reveal all enemies on the minimap while the cache is alive. Could be an interesting utility ability but not super effective or anything.

Recovery vehicle resurrecting vehicles do not fit hte design of CoH2, which allows for repair/recovery, but not resurrection. There are no medic stations for a good reason, and adding a USF bergetiger would be a bad idea IMO. A good salvage vehicle might be reasonable, e.g. it gives you 25-33% of the fuel of the salvaged vehicle back or something like that. But it would need to be cheap for that to be useful and IMO it would be better to have that ability on rear ech, not a dedicated recovery vehicle.

Rear ech with 1919s is wierd, I would rather have bazookas, but I wouldn't really want that ability at all. USF is often strained for manpower and popcap, one RE squad is usually plenty, one extra at most.

Pershing should IMO be more like 210-220 Fuel and be slightly inferior to a Tiger. Vet 1 ability should be HVAP rounds to make it more competitive with the heavies for a munition cost.

Rear ech with 1919s is wierd, I would rather have bazookas, but I wouldn't really want that ability at all. USF is often strained for manpower and popcap, one RE squad is usually plenty, one extra at most.

Yeah, the ability works fine for Prosttruppen because they're Prosttruppen (er, that is, they are actually cost-efficient in combat while making use of cover and dissuading vehicles with Panzerfausts). REs instead are simply the worst infantry unit in combat in the game and become useful-ish by paying munitions constantly. That being said, M1919A6s are good, so maybe it could work...I'd still say 380 MP is a bit much though. Prosttruppen Reserves pay another 25 MP for the chance of an LMG42 and vet. 60 MP is probably just a bit too much for this RE version of it, even if the M1919A6s are guaranteed.

IF Relic decides to listen to the community for the MUCH wanted Pershing, I wonder if they will implement crew repair design (same as US tanks) for the heavy Pershing?

I don't see why they wouldn't have the Pershing get crew repairs, the high HP will mean the repairs won't be fast. Repair critical is powerful for sure, but most factions get powerful survival abilities E.g. blitzing and insta-smoking away from combat, huge armor on IS2 etc. It would be an advantage for sure but not necessarily imbalanced.

pretty cool.

although i do think rear ech ability and weapons rack abilities are over the top.

IF Relic decides to listen to the community for the MUCH wanted Pershing, I wonder if they will implement crew repair design (same as US tanks) for the heavy Pershing?

only if blitz on heavies doesnt get fixed IMO, otherwise they would have to balance that out of the pershings overall health

Pershing should be a straight equal to the tiger with a 1v1 coming down to purely RNG

That goes without saying I dont any heavy USF armor until USF stock lategame gets looked at and fixed otherwise this will just drive USF into being just like the Soviets.

Well realistically, the Pershing has thinner armor (102 vs 120), but sloped. Not sure if the "effective" armor is 102mm or if that's the actual thickness. Someone will have to help me out here. The Pershing is 46 tons vs 54 on the Tiger, so I suspect the Tiger does indeed have better protection. The Tiger is slightly faster according to wiki, not sure if that's correct. In game terms probably identical speeds.

The 90mm gun is as I understand less potent than the 88mm gun on the Tiger in AP terms.

I would suggest that the Tiger and Pershing have the same HP, the Tiger gets slightly more armor and has moderately higher pen on the main gun but either identical damage, or the Persh has identical gun stats to the M36. An HVAP ability at Vet 1 would give the Pershing extra penetration.

90mm HE shells are a possibility, but I'm unsure if that's a good idea. Either the 90mm performs more like a tiger shell and has solid AI performance, or it's like the Jackson and has anti-armor focus w/ non-existent anti-inf performance. an HE/AP switch might be ok, but it might be too good, I'm not sure. In theory a 90mm HE shell is a beast, but balance and all that.

The OPs ideas are a little odd. Cheaper caches are the last thing this game needs. Maybe it could be "listening posts", sectors with caches in them reveal all enemies on the minimap while the cache is alive. Could be an interesting utility ability but not super effective or anything.

Recovery vehicle resurrecting vehicles do not fit hte design of CoH2, which allows for repair/recovery, but not resurrection. There are no medic stations for a good reason, and adding a USF bergetiger would be a bad idea IMO. A good salvage vehicle might be reasonable, e.g. it gives you 25-33% of the fuel of the salvaged vehicle back or something like that. But it would need to be cheap for that to be useful and IMO it would be better to have that ability on rear ech, not a dedicated recovery vehicle.

Rear ech with 1919s is wierd, I would rather have bazookas, but I wouldn't really want that ability at all. USF is often strained for manpower and popcap, one RE squad is usually plenty, one extra at most.

Pershing should IMO be more like 210-220 Fuel and be slightly inferior to a Tiger. Vet 1 ability should be HVAP rounds to make it more competitive with the heavies for a munition cost.

Yeah, I'm thinking the caches should just reveal map and cost the same. The intention was to have a sort of low value early ability but obviously it would be out of control for large teams. I just play 1v1s though so it didn't occur to me.

Recovery vehicles, I liked the idea as it fits the theme of the Allies being so well supplied and organized they could restore disabled tanks back to fighting status in days. The first Pershing ever knocked out suffered 3 crew KIA, and was back fighting in a week thanks to mechanics and logistics.

I'm thinking the better redesign of this commander is replace ARV with a passive ability making Rear Echelon Troops more useful. For example, "Field Salvage" allowing Rear Echelon Troops to get a flat fuel amount from vehicle hulks like OKW.

This also makes it more useful to call in Rear Echelons with LMGs. They could have bazkookas instead if LMGs would be too strong.

As for weapon racks, I vacillated between making it a munitions discount or a manpower/fuel discount for the unlock research. Maybe it could just be the same M1919 unlock ability that Infantry Company gets.

Well realistically, the Pershing has thinner armor (102 vs 120), but sloped. Not sure if the "effective" armor is 102mm or if that's the actual thickness. Someone will have to help me out here. The Pershing is 46 tons vs 54 on the Tiger, so I suspect the Tiger does indeed have better protection. The Tiger is slightly faster according to wiki, not sure if that's correct. In game terms probably identical speeds.

The 90mm gun is as I understand less potent than the 88mm gun on the Tiger in AP terms.

I would suggest that the Tiger and Pershing have the same HP, the Tiger gets slightly more armor and has higher pen on the main gun but identical damage. HE / anti-inf perf of the shells should be similar perhaps.

yeah man the differences between the two are so small they would barely translate to any measurable difference ingame which I feel they should basically be clones apart from abilities, but i digress

yes, more heavy tanks is definitely what this game needs

yes, more heavy tanks is definitely what this game needs

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?