Login

russian armor

Pershing in demand

26 Mar 2015, 21:47 PM
#61
avatar of Sturmführer Stalin
Donator 22

Posts: 65



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


Well some people do argue, but I see your point about the senseless discussion. Still I dont think the pershing fit the usf playstyle. It is not the faction of heavies! In 2v2s and above it would, sorry, will be the only commander selected and even in 1v1s many people will just go for it. But relic gives a fuck about meta anyway so hey lets demand a pershing.
26 Mar 2015, 22:25 PM
#62
avatar of AsmallChicken

Posts: 11

Isn't the default USF option in teamgames solely Airborne?

Wouldn't giving the US Pershing give more options?
27 Mar 2015, 05:44 AM
#63
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned
Isn't the default USF option in teamgames solely Airborne?

Wouldn't giving the US Pershing give more options?


+100
27 Mar 2015, 06:13 AM
#64
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Mar 2015, 04:29 AMPorygon
When the moment I remember COH was Company of Heroes, oriented on heroic infantry, not Company of Callin. :foreveralone:


as in nandos v. falls v. rangers v. vet3wehr/g43+mp44 group zeal squad size?
27 Mar 2015, 10:59 AM
#65
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Isn't the default USF option in teamgames solely Airborne?

Wouldn't giving the US Pershing give more options?


Sure, it would.
Pretty much the same way as putting a band aid fixes open bone fracture.
27 Mar 2015, 11:13 AM
#66
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130






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)


Oh hell no. We dont need more company of callins. i can already see it : PF spam into KT. The KT is in a fine spot right now no need to change it. and i would say the tiger is in a better position then the kt.
27 Mar 2015, 11:19 AM
#67
avatar of AchtAchter

Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3

The USF are really not designed around having a heavy tank and relic can be really stubborn with their faction designs, since soviets are still how they are.

The biggest issue about USF lategame is that it's so dull.
At Guns? Don't penetrate
Shermans? Their window to act is between minute 10 and 20.
Jacksons? Only valid option, yet have foil thin armour and always need a spotter and back up Scotts to deal with the OP noskill Schreck blobs.
And then they block each other because pathing issues.


USF needs definitely needs more late game options, something like a dedicated Anti Armour Commander with Hellcats and other cool ideas my imagination can't bring up.
Or maybe a british commander which has access to 17 pound at guns.

2/6 are pure early game commanders and thus badly designed, either you win within 20 minutes or you lose.
27 Mar 2015, 11:32 AM
#68
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

I don´t think a Pershing is needed. What´s however strange is that USF are also lacking a decent medium tank outside a doctrine. That lend-lease Sherman the Soviets have, should be available as an upgrade for regular US Shermans.

The E8 could still have its uses, by being more cost efficient and still a bit stronger.

A lack of heavy and medium tanks combined is what kills the late-game.
27 Mar 2015, 11:55 AM
#69
avatar of SwonVIP
Donator 11

Posts: 640

Maybe some sort of "Jumbo" Sherman as heavy tank but please no pershing... jackson + pershing would be an unbeatable combo.
27 Mar 2015, 12:12 PM
#70
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Mar 2015, 11:55 AMSwonVIP
Maybe some sort of "Jumbo" Sherman

Yes, that.
27 Mar 2015, 12:36 PM
#71
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Mar 2015, 11:55 AMSwonVIP
Maybe some sort of "Jumbo" Sherman as heavy tank but please no pershing... jackson + pershing would be an unbeatable combo.


We already have endless numbers of Shermans and all of them are very similar.
Sherman here, Sherman there... And still Jumbo is not an option for late game.

Let's look how many unit factions have to deal with late game units.

IS2, T34/85, ISU, B4, SU85.
Tiger, Elephant, Panther, Tiger Ace, Pak43.
Panther, Sturmtiger, Jadgpanzer, King Tiger, Jadgtiger, Pak43.
Jackson, Easy Eight and P47 :foreveralone:

Heavy unit for USF or someother late-game AT stuff is needed.
27 Mar 2015, 12:39 PM
#72
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



We already have endless numbers of Shermans and all of them are very similar.
Sherman here, Sherman there... And still Jumbo is not an option for late game.

Let's look how many unit factions have to deal with late game units.

IS2, T34/85, ISU, B4, SU85.
Tiger, Elephant, Panther, Tiger Ace, Pak43.
Panther, Sturmtiger, Jadgpanzer, King Tiger, Jadgtiger, Pak43.
Jackson, Easy Eight and P47 :foreveralone:

Heavy unit for USF or someother late-game AT stuff is needed.


Well....the Americans used lots of Sherman Variants lol. The Pershing would be fine to be added IMO, but shouldn't be in a commander for the same reasons the KT shouldn't. Everyone would just take that commander and nothing else.

The Jumbo could be a interesting late game call in, maybe price it the same as a KV1? They are essentially the same tank.
27 Mar 2015, 12:55 PM
#73
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Mar 2015, 11:55 AMSwonVIP
jackson + pershing would be an unbeatable combo.


Is Jackson and IS2 an unbeatable combo in team game? Because that's more powerful than Jackson + Pershing would be. This combo is seen in basically every joint US/Soviet team game. Somehow, Axis still have a major advantage despite this "unbeatable" combination of highly armored, extremely powerful heavy tank backed up by long range, powerful TD. In a solo context, the US player can't build swarms of mediums then also get some kind of free superheavy beast (only Elite Troops gets to do that :snfPeter: ), it's an either/or proposition. If there has been enough fuel going around for the US to build T4, a Jackson, and call-in a Pershing (200+ fuel alone), the Axis has no excuse for not being able to field an effective fighting force of its own, and the USF player has, up to this point, sacrificed its combat effectiveness substantially by not opting to gets its most effective mid-late unit (i.e. the Sherman). And since they've picked this doctrine, it means no 1919s, no Airborne, no P47 strike, no Flamer riflemen, no Easy 8s.

And this is all assuming that the Pershing is beastly at killing infantry / team weapons, because if it's not (i.e. if the 90mm gun performs similarly to the M36 90mm), then Shreks and Paks will be fantastic counters to this combination, given that the Pershing has thinner armor than an IS2 or Tiger.

It's really weird to see people say that the Pershing+Jackson combo would be unbeatable, like you've imagined that it would be unbeatable in your head then complained instead of considering ways in which it could actually be a balanced unit.
27 Mar 2015, 13:00 PM
#74
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 1003

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Mar 2015, 11:55 AMSwonVIP
jackson + pershing would be an unbeatable combo.


Hmmm, as Tiger + Panther combo?
27 Mar 2015, 13:10 PM
#75
avatar of Gluhoman

Posts: 380

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Mar 2015, 13:39 PMJohnnyB


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.
Ehm, paying three times for tank is a huge amount of fuel. I don't think persing will be like KT.
27 Mar 2015, 13:13 PM
#76
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



Well....the Americans used lots of Sherman Variants lol. The Pershing would be fine to be added IMO, but shouldn't be in a commander for the same reasons the KT shouldn't. Everyone would just take that commander and nothing else.

The Jumbo could be a interesting late game call in, maybe price it the same as a KV1? They are essentially the same tank.


Yes but you don't see the point.

For example, Calliope or the one with flamethrower. They are Shermans but they are different.
Right now we have only thicker armor or better gun. It's boring like hell.

For example, we have 3 KV tanks but they are all different.

Damage sponge, assault gun and flamethrower. All are different.

Sherman Jumbo would be just Sherman with thicker armor, that's all and we already have many Shermans that are not so different from each other.

And the KV1 sometimes is useful but if you erase B4 from that doctrine, Im telling you that you will never see KV1 again. Same would be for Jumbo.
27 Mar 2015, 13:58 PM
#77
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

Pershing would not make the meta anymore boring or unbalanced. If we were to talk about call ins and/or heavy tanks, Relic needs to adjust this problem with all the armies. As of now, USF struggles late game, either give USF Pershing tank or bad ass Rangers that can fight off the infantry. Jackson's pathing, penetration, & armor combined with USF Man power bleed makes late games brutal.
27 Mar 2015, 14:14 PM
#78
avatar of simpelekees
Patrion 310

Posts: 159

Never give callin units random experience....never!
27 Mar 2015, 14:42 PM
#79
avatar of SwonVIP
Donator 11

Posts: 640


Is Jackson and IS2 an unbeatable combo in team game? Because that's more powerful than Jackson + Pershing would be.

Youre right.
But Soviet/USF needs a little bit more of communication and organisation between two players...




27 Mar 2015, 14:43 PM
#80
avatar of AssaultPlazma

Posts: 300

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Mar 2015, 14:42 PMSwonVIP

Youre right.
But Soviet/USF needs a little bit more of communication and organisation between two players...






so then I guess SU-85 behind a IS-2 is unbeatable or a Panther Behind A Tiger I/II?
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

345 users are online: 345 guests
0 post in the last 24h
2 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49264
Welcome our newest member, qkpcmjwnpfkacm
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM