Profile of Dj Rolnik

Again, remember that its effectiveness is very different in 1 vs 1 games and larger team games I agree that it has incredible potential in smaller games due to its mobility. Nevertheless it lacks a lot when in a frontline with no flanking possibilities.

I think that nerfing its AI for a bit more health is still reasonable. Trust me, staying in a front line with a Pershing is not that awesome if you play it. It does glance shots but not really that often considering there are already heavier tanks. Trust me, it eats two shots and almost instantly needs to be repaired because otherwise it will just go down in seconds. The role of tanking does not seem to exist here. The whole plan might be that you try to bait Germans a bit onto the Pershing and then proceed with Jacksons, Shermans or other stuff. But when it goes in it just cannot withstand the firepower and thus is not really reliable. In team games without real flanking possibilities it just does not shine
Again. 1 vs 1 - totally fine.

This is not a breakthrough tank, this is basically a Comet. If you want a breakthrough tank (AKA more health) play Soviets.

It's not about winning and not about playing with heavy breakthrough tanks just for the sake of doing it. I enjoy playing USf despite it being (arguably because of micro) the hardest faction to play, especially in team games. Hence the suggestion.

What are German players' experiences when fighting Pershings? What do you guys think? And I mean objectively, not "Oh, no more buffs for USF, make Germany great again!" and others like that

yes, the pershing's current role lean toward anti-infantry.

So that's why people refrain from using it. Well giving a super AI focused faction another tool for battling inf smells a bit fishy, don't you think? For a long time prior to its release people wanted Pershing sooo much. And that was not because they could not handle German infantry. It was the AT late game which was supposed to be somewhat "fixed", so to speak.

Pershing was clearly supposed to be an AT vehicle with perfect AI capabilities. I would bet that many allied players would trade that AI advantage for AT capabilities - more health.

One might also argue that: "No! Pershing also has the HVAP shell and Tiger does not!" That thing costs a fortune! Plus you have to hit with it as it's not the same as Jackson's HVAP ammo. With the upgrade available - you could rarely use both the super expensive HP upgrade and the HVAP shell. Having the upgrade would significantly prolong the ability to use HVAP due to obvious muni bleed.

Even if we agree that usf is weak late game in team games then buffing pershing is not the solution - simply becouse that would couse everybody to choose one doctrine and nobody wants that. The wider the meta the better for the game.

Not to mention that usf late game isn't weak, its just hyper micro intensive. But it can do wonders in right hands. Its just too many vehicles to controll at once for average player...

I do not think that would cause everyone to choose one commander. Actually it would be incredibly stupid if people tried that. My intent was not to make it a super tank that would withstand all German shells and be OP as hell. It's not about making a King Tiger with a painted white star on the side. It's a matter of an HP boost, whatever the amount - I have not come up with a certain number yet. Hence this discussion.

I agree that USF is super micro intensive. You can leave American tanks for a short while when microing other stuff and in a matter of seconds they will be turned to dust. I have already come to terms with this fact and I am always trying to prevent this as much as possible. However, having Pershing in my army composition does not change this very much as it still gets a beating even from a Panther and that is slightly disconcerting.

Regarding the Pershing:
It probably sees less use, the higher the amount of players involved. On the same way JT are not meant for 1v1, the Pershing is probably not a tank for 4v4. I think the tanks is fine.
Some people might want an improved health pool (800 to 960) but i think AoE should be tweaked if that's the case.

Not sure if I understand correctly, but how tweaking its AoE would buff it?

Actually, if we establish, that Pershing is probably not a good tank for 4 vs 4, this leads us to a conclusion, that USF is probably not a good faction for 4 vs 4 unless playing a support role. Pershing was initially meant to be a spearhead with more armor, a USF damage sponge. If not Pershing, then what would help the USF late game? One might say: "Jackson's sight (although still being in discussion ), M10 spam umm... that's it? In terms of tanks, there is not much we can do about German lates.

Also if we take into account that JTs are not meant for 1 vs 1 - that's true. But then again Germans have other vehicles like KTs or even non-doctrinal Panthers which are pretty much on equal terms with the Pershing. What I'm saying is that there are alternatives.

Again. I am not trying to whine GERMANS OP PLZ NERF. I am just saying that as it is now USF is troublesome in late game. I always come back to the game after a bitter defeat but after a super long game when I get rolled over by German armor with little chances of pushing them back, I tend to get a bit frustrated

You are right about the .50 cal. Pershing is the only heavy tank without the ability to upgrade to an MG. WHY? Is Relic really that lazy? It is one tank, so you should be able to get the maximum out of it.

It would be cool, yeah, but it would not change my attitude towards the tank. As we have already established, the tank is already an AI beast.

I still think that from the 4 vs 4 team games perspective the upgrade, no matter how expensive, is definitely worth at least trying out. I do acknowledge that in the end I might say that it's not necessary too, however at this point I am reluctant to do so