Pershing in demand

He's right, more heavy tanks into the meta would just make things worse and even more boring.

The only problem I see with these heavies is their squad wipe potential but this is a general problem that can be fixed (RELIC WTF?!?! Are you sleeping?) in such an easy way as some modes of good fellows around here showed.

We had this Heavy Tank meta long time ago, now it is worse due to WFA. I don't see why Relic cannot add another Heavy Tank on the Allied side. The game is already to reliant on call ins and heavy tank in larger games (not so much in 1 v 1). In my opinion, if Relic wanted to solve this Heavy Tank meta they couldve went vCOh route and limited them to 1 (to reflect rarity).

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?

Terms like "worse," "boring," and "generic" seem totally subjective to me.

What if it's worse to have to frantically micromanage 3 or 4 units at the same time to eliminate an enemy heavy tank? Even Relic admitted this during its last set of patch notes, that a USF player has a much harder job trying to counter one unit than the Axis player. Their conclusion was that they have no idea how to fix this without a more comprehensive patch (which is the one coming soon we hope).

Others have said the obvious, which is that Pershing commander would only be used if it's actually better than all other options. Just on principle I think it's possible to devise a Pershing commander that has useful but minor abilities, and a Pershing that is itself balanced.

To my mind picking Pershing helps you avoid that mismatch of control and micro in the end game, but doesn't give you many of the advantages current commanders offer in the early and mid-game (Paras, LMGs, off-map arty, Rifle flamers, etc.)

We had this Heavy Tank meta long time ago, now it is worse due to WFA. I don't see why Relic cannot add another Heavy Tank on the Allied side. The game is already to reliant on call ins and heavy tank in larger games (not so much in 1 v 1). In my opinion, if Relic wanted to solve this Heavy Tank meta they couldve went vCOh route and limited them to 1 (to reflect rarity).

Because you don't cure ebola(heavy tank meta) by infesting another patients(USF in this case).
You isolate the sick ones and cure them.
Thats why heavies should be given distinct, easy to exploit by mediums weakness, not given to everyone for no particular reason.

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.

firefly was just a slightly modified M4 made to carry a 17 punder gun. M36 was a purpose(as in the chassis and up) built Tank destroyer. If people a firely like vehicle for USF then your answer would be the M4A8(90) which was a prototype sherman fitted with a pershing 90mm gun turret or a M36B1 which was a regular M36 turret fitted to a sherman in order to meet demand.

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.

Sign this argument again...... TANK CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON INTENDED ROLE AND UTILIZATION AND NOT BY WEIGHT

The IS-2 weighed around the same as a Panther also I guess that was a medium tank too? Pershing were finally deployed to Europe after the Bulge in order to augment American Armor with more firepower and go toe toe with Tigers and Panthers it is a heavy tank.

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?

This exact argument could be made against a number of other units yet no one argues those so lets please not go there.

Because you don't cure ebola(heavy tank meta) by infesting another patients(USF in this case).
You isolate the sick ones and cure them.
Thats why heavies should be given distinct, easy to exploit by mediums weakness, not given to everyone for no particular reason.

This is ultimately what it comes down to people. Lets not recreate the same issue with the soviets! Only way I would ever get behind a Pershing is if we knew for a fact Relic had zero plans for improving USF late game and call in reliance was the only option, but it should always remain the final option.

Sign this argument again...... TANK CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON INTENDED ROLE AND UTILIZATION AND NOT BY WEIGHT

The IS-2 weighed around the same as a Panther also I guess that was a medium tank too? Pershing were finally deployed to Europe after the Bulge in order to augment American Armor with more firepower and go toe toe with Tigers and Panthers it is a heavy tank.

Since the middle of 46' it was reclass to medium

Since the middle of 46' it was reclass to medium

Uh yeah...... like After WWII......

edit: And that was simply because of rapidly changing world of tanks in which the overall bar for armor and armament was going up so the pershing's no longer really fit into heavy tank

Uh yeah...... like After WWII......

Pershing was used between 1945-1953 so we might say that it served few months as heavy and years as medium.

are they handing out the "strategist" badges like candy or what?

Pershing was used between 1945-1953 so we might say that it served few months as heavy and years as medium.

yes that exactly what happened after WWII the bar for armor and firepower was raised, as far as the pershing was concerned it was no longer a Heavy based on these measurements so it was appropriately re classed as a medium tank. But COH 2 Takes place on WWII and in that conflict the Pershing stats wise a straight equal to the Tiger I and no one will deny that was a heavy tank.

If your going to add the Pershing don't put it in a commander. Make it so you need to unlock all the American tiers first.

The KT is like how every heavy should be, tied to having all your teching done first to encourage people to actually play the game with their core units instead of pissing around waiting for a call in to win the game.

The only real exception to this would be Soviets, who should only have to get either T1 or T2 and T3 or T4.

yes that exactly what happened after WWII the bar for armor and firepower was raised, as far as the pershing was concerned it was no longer a Heavy based on these measurements so it was appropriately re classed as a medium tank. But COH 2 Takes place on WWII and in that conflict the Pershing stats wise a straight equal to the Tiger I and no one will deny that was a heavy tank.

It's not so easy when you dig.
Of course, Im not arguing it was used like IS2 or Tiger. That's fact but Pershing was very specific unit and you can find sources where someone is calling it heavy tank while someone else, somewhere else medium or both at once (like Panther, it was medium for Germans but heavy for Allies).
In fact it was designed from medium tanks base, recalled as heavy during war and after war agan renamed to medium. Also all tank made on a base of Pershing were mediums.
It was designed to do medium stuff with extra abilities to do heavy things.
But this is not history channel and Pershing is so interesting unit that we could talk about it for a very long time

We can agree that in game it would be heavy tank like Tiger and no one is arguing about that.

If your going to add the Pershing don't put it in a commander. Make it so you need to unlock all the American tiers first.

The KT is like how every heavy should be, tied to having all your teching done first to encourage people to actually play the game with their core units instead of pissing around waiting for a call in to win the game.

The only real exception to this would be Soviets, who should only have to get either T1 or T2 and T3 or T4.

last thing we need is more stock heavies the stock USF lategame tank should be the M4A3E8 as should the T-34/85 be fore the USSR

KT needs to become doctrinal and switch the JadgTiger(move it to a new doctrine) OKW stock lategame tank would be the Panther II if I had my way with(yes I know it never went past the prototype phase and yes I know that would require reworking OKW as a whole)

last thing we need is more stock heavies the stock USF lategame tank should be the M4A3E8 as should the T-34/85 be fore the USSR

If your going to put a heavy in the game, it should be tied to teching, not a call in.

If your going to put a heavy in the game, it should be tied to teching, not a call in.

I would say it should be somewhere between. 14-17min KT in teamgames is not something good. Doctrinal with 11CPs but still tech is needed to call it. This way you would avoid 15min late game units and still they would be tied to tech.

But that's just one of many ways yet we know very well that such chages wont take place

Heavy tanks are only a problem because they outperform everything else. Heavy tanks should be a high-performing unit but high risk as well -- you lose a KT you have most likely lost the game.

Balance would be if you stall the entire game for a call-in to win, then you should be paying a significant opportunity cost the entire time you are stalling. And that players who pick a doctrine without a call-in, but with better earlier abilities, would not pay that opportunity cost and would have earlier opportunities to lock up the game.

Unfortunately the metagame has many variables that conspire to make the call-in a safer choice than the alternatives, and that is something that has nothing to do with adding a Pershing.

The fix doesn't revolve around a decision to add or not add a USF heavy, the fix is to make the alternative something that can win just as many games as stalling for a call-in.

Each faction having a non-doctrinal heavy tank is a pretty good idea. CieZ brought it up awhile ago. Tie it to having all 3 tiers unlocked and you've managed to slow the game down a bit which is much needed.

This is OpieOP...

Shut up and take me money!

I would say it should be somewhere between. 14-17min KT in teamgames is not something good. Doctrinal with 11CPs but still tech is needed to call it. This way you would avoid 15min late game units and still they would be tied to tech.

But that's just one of many ways yet we know very well that such chages wont take place

The issue is with binding it to a commander is everyone will ALWAYS go for that commander. If it's non-doc and is gated behind teching then you can incorporate it into your late game strategy, and it would make the factions late game more viable.

14-17 KT's are rare, and require a large investment of caches and fuel drops.

Each faction having a non-doctrinal heavy tank is a pretty good idea. CieZ brought it up awhile ago. Tie it to having all 3 tiers unlocked and you've managed to slow the game down a bit which is much needed.

Exactly, every faction having a non-doctrine heavy tank would go very well towards evening out the late game amongst all the factions.

My suggestions for what the Heavies should be:

OKW - KT
Soviets - ISU
Ostheer - Elefant
USF - Pershing.

Terms like "worse," "boring," and "generic" seem totally subjective to me.

What if it's worse to have to frantically micromanage 3 or 4 units at the same time to eliminate an enemy heavy tank? Even Relic admitted this during its last set of patch notes, that a USF player has a much harder job trying to counter one unit than the Axis player. Their conclusion was that they have no idea how to fix this without a more comprehensive patch (which is the one coming soon we hope).

Others have said the obvious, which is that Pershing commander would only be used if it's actually better than all other options. Just on principle I think it's possible to devise a Pershing commander that has useful but minor abilities, and a Pershing that is itself balanced.

To my mind picking Pershing helps you avoid that mismatch of control and micro in the end game, but doesn't give you many of the advantages current commanders offer in the early and mid-game (Paras, LMGs, off-map arty, Rifle flamers, etc.)

I think it's fair to say the majority of the playerbase is tired with call ins yes, hence why Relic eventually listened to feedback and had the CP's changed about a year or so back now.

For the record I'm not happy with the current armour meta either, but just throwing out more DLC commanders with heavy tanks at the end is not the way forward. I say it's stale and generic because that's what it is, all four factions eventually morphing into the same thing with the same heavy tank stall.

For me medium rebalancing and tier adjustments to make investing in medium armour actually worthwhile for Ost/Sov would improve things ten fold gameplay wise. Hell even if you want more call ins there're far more interesting options that actually suit USF's original design than just another big tank such as the Firefly, Rangers, calliope etc that others have already mentioned ITT.