Pershing needs a timing nerf

I would like a cooldown at least before you can call in another HT. Hate it when you chase a Tiger back to their base and finally destroy it with your battered handful of remaining tanks.

Only for a full health Tiger to be called in again instantly and fall upon your weakened army.

Obviously this is unlikely to be as great an issue in 1v1 as in team games.

LOL of course not, can't touch the sacred OKW cow.

The guy is a 4v4 player and argues from that point of view. If you give the KT even further delays, you might as well remove it from 1v1 and 2v2.

The KT really does cost a lot more to tech to than other factions heavies, probably why it's not seen nearly as often.

I do think the earlier point about changing heavy tanks price may make sense, they seem like a bargain at current cost and timing and they have been at ~230 fuel forever now.

THe argument for keeping the price low would be "cheap tank destroyers will counter it anyways" but at least in 1v1 tds often come after then heavy tank if at all.

If atm the Pershing is overperforming that's not because of its timing.

Yes and no. I personally think the Pershing is slightly above the Tiger in terms of performance (due to high mobility, a great gun in both AI and AT, very fast veterancy gain, and now decent durability for a heavy tank), leaning more towards the Tiger Ace.

It seems to be very powerful at its current timing and performance, and it could probably use a very small adjustment. I personally think it could use a ~5-10% price increase (to 650-700mp and 240-250fu) for a small adjustment to its timing, and it needs to get slightly higher veterancy requirements (it has pretty much medium tank vet requirements atm because it used to be so fragile) now that it has the increased durability, so that it doesn't scale as fast (giving the enemy more time to react).

That way we can make it slightly easier to deal with while keeping the unit itself powerful.

Yes and no. I personally think the Pershing is slightly above the Tiger in terms of performance (due to high mobility, a great gun in both AI and AT, very fast veterancy gain, and now decent durability for a heavy tank), leaning more towards the Tiger Ace.

It seems to be very powerful at its current timing and performance, and it could probably use a very small adjustment. I personally think it could use a ~5-10% price increase (to 650-700mp and 240-250fu) for a small adjustment to its timing, and it needs to get slightly higher veterancy requirements (it has pretty much medium tank vet requirements atm because it used to be so fragile) now that it has the increased durability, so that it doesn't scale as fast (giving the enemy more time to react).

That way we can make it slightly easier to deal with while keeping the unit itself powerful.

2v2 and above, pre-patch Pershing never had easy time due to fragility. I see the concerns about 1v1s but in current form Pershing doesn't differ much from Tiger, especially with extra damage reduction on vetted grens.
Tiger comes in doctrines with skillplanes, fragmentation bombing, light arty barrage, panzer tactician etc., while Pershing is in only 1 non-flexible doctrine that restricts USF access to arty, which is essential in teamgames. Moreover after both tanks vet up, Tiger has higher range, higher rate of fire, higher armour, higher HP pool, can upgrade the MG mounted on the turret and is by no means slow. If you think about army composition possibilities and map variety for 2v2, not all maps are good for tank destroyers as some locations do not allow you to make use of your fragile 60 range TDs and your AT guns will die immediately due to ease of flanking with inf or Tiger just killing them with new improved AOE. These are the locations where Tiger has pure dominance and not much can be done about it, yet the problem is with Pershing that can lose to stock Panther which is significantly cheaper... I don't get it.

Lack of stock rocket arty and reliable response to sniper are problematic for 2v2+. Today I saw a top ranked 2v2 game with wehr sniper reaching 87 kills in 32 minutes vs USF before getting randomly killed by Scott. USF player went for M20 but couldn't kill the sniper due to gren presence, instead the M20 died from suicidal charge of 222.

The KT really does cost a lot more to tech to than other factions heavies, probably why it's not seen nearly as often.

I do think the earlier point about changing heavy tanks price may make sense, they seem like a bargain at current cost and timing and they have been at ~230 fuel forever now.

THe argument for keeping the price low would be "cheap tank destroyers will counter it anyways" but at least in 1v1 tds often come after then heavy tank if at all.

You need at least two "cheap" tank destroyers to effectively counter a King Tiger so thats 800 MP and 290 fuel (using Jacksons as an example) to counter 720 MP and 280 Fuel. Though granted the King Tiger costs more to fully tech to get it.

2v2 and above, pre-patch Pershing never had easy time due to fragility. I see the concerns about 1v1s but in current form Pershing doesn't differ much from Tiger, especially with extra damage reduction on vetted grens.
Tiger comes in doctrines with skillplanes, fragmentation bombing, light arty barrage, panzer tactician etc., while Pershing is in only 1 non-flexible doctrine that restricts USF access to arty, which is essential in teamgames. Moreover after both tanks vet up, Tiger has higher range, higher rate of fire, higher armour, higher HP pool, can upgrade the MG mounted on the turret and is by no means slow. If you think about army composition possibilities and map variety for 2v2, not all maps are good for tank destroyers as some locations do not allow you to make use of your fragile 60 range TDs and your AT guns will die immediately due to ease of flanking with inf or Tiger just killing them with new improved AOE. These are the locations where Tiger has pure dominance and not much can be done about it, yet the problem is with Pershing that can lose to stock Panther which is significantly cheaper... I don't get it.

Lack of stock rocket arty and reliable response to sniper are problematic for 2v2+. Today I saw a top ranked 2v2 game with wehr sniper reaching 87 kills in 32 minutes vs USF before getting randomly killed by Scott. USF player went for M20 but couldn't kill the sniper due to gren presence, instead the M20 died from suicidal charge of 222.

Maybe there is a big difference in 1v1 and 2v2 vs +2v2 but I never saw a team game 2v2+ where a Tiger come before a Pershing when the game is running balanced. And again Pershing is more like a Tiger Ace and not the stock Tiger and thats the main issue. Imagine Tiger Aces comes as fast on the field as Perhings. Then u can delate all meds from game...... USF with Pershing and arty in 1 doctrine would be just a click win doctrine. Atm there is no need of any arty for USF as they have strong infantry anyway and benefit from the arty, katjushas form the other team members.

So either they put the requirements for Pershing up or they nerf its performance. Something must be done, the current situation is to easy for USF to dominate or hold a battle balanced and just wait for Pershings. With the mobil med truck coming in early they can just hold any fuel or key point without getting in big trouble early game until someone manage to overrun them. Thats already hard to deal as an axis player especially on big maps and when u have to face maxims and mortars too.

What u say about m60 and at guns depends on the situation but honestly, 1 m60 can rek any tiger when used by the right hands with its range.
To flank usf blob is also not like u running against useless troops. upgraded inf staying in green cover, gl to overrun the blob

Pershing itself (besides its medium tank veterancy requirements, as has been mentioned) is fine.

Problem is that USF can snowball into a Pershing quite quickly because of their early game dominance with four strong squads and an M20 by the 5 minute mark, with Stuart soon following up. Makes it not a big risk to forego the first Sherman.

Pershing itself (besides its medium tank veterancy requirements, as has been mentioned) is fine.

Problem is that USF can snowball into a Pershing quite quickly because of their early game dominance with four strong squads and an M20 by the 5 minute mark, with Stuart soon following up. Makes it not a big risk to forego the first Sherman.

+1

Pershing itself (besides its medium tank veterancy requirements, as has been mentioned) is fine.

Problem is that USF can snowball into a Pershing quite quickly because of their early game dominance with four strong squads and an M20 by the 5 minute mark, with Stuart soon following up. Makes it not a big risk to forego the first Sherman.

Puma easy negate M20+Stuart.

You can literally replace usf with ostheer and pershing with Tiger Ace and nothig changes.

Give it up.

ya only thing maybe i would change for heavies is that cd start once they get kill i just hate people that spam

Puma easy negate M20+Stuart.

ya only aec and sometime su76 can fight the puma