Profile of MMX

Well, that's the point. Pershing doesn't have superior AI in tests.
https://youtu.be/ZeR8ZjeV_uM
https://youtu.be/fJ0hfawIg2A

If you think I have done something wrong here, you are more than welcome to provide more tests here. After all, sample size is too small. But we can clearly see that AI is even(or worse) to the Tiger.

Just to take the sample size issue up once more, since I feel it's quite crucial to understand what implications the limited number of repetitions in any test regarding these hugely RNG-based results can have.

I've taken a look in the data log for the simulations posted some days ago in the State of Heavies thread and calculated the T2K values using the results from the first 3, 5, 10, ..., 1000 iterations of the same test (similar to the picture below, but assuming a target size of 0.5 for each model) for the Tiger and Pershing.



If you take a look at how the averages vary even for relatively large sample sets of 100 or more repetitions, it becomes pretty clear why in-game tests, as important they undoubtedly are, can be quite deceiving at times. Though all results point into a certain direction (Pershing being a bit faster than the Tiger), the differences can be rather huge if you take only a handful of tests into consideration.



Again, this is in no way meant to devalue the intent and effort put into conducting the tests in the video. It merely shows that for problems seemingly as simple as "how long does it take tank A and B to nuke the target squad on average", it is next to impossible to perform enough in-game test to get to a robust and reliable conclusion.

I agree with everything said.
However, "CA doesn't promote blobbing". If you really want to get your worth (Now 110 muni), you really need to have multiple units next to the Pershing. I quite often play Heavy Cav in 3v3s and if I can barely fit another tank with the Pershing (usually Jackson). Howi, AA, mainline squads (+ ranger), 2x RE, maybe AT gun and the Pershing. And it would be really stupid, for a lack of better word, to use a 110 muni ability to buff ROF and range of one tank where the extra range won't be utilized because of sight constraints. And for the extra ROF. You really gonna waste 100+ muni just to shoot a second or so faster?
So if you want to get your money's worth, you need to have a couple of squads around it so they too get the bonus, which is just asking for an offmap/indirect. Eg. I consider the skillshot quite useless even though I successfully killed a fresh snared Tiger on Angrymundy last game through 3 or so buildings on max range. I also consider CA to be quite a hogwash even though I've also successfully used it a couple of times in past few games. I will say that CA is good for a hail Mary push. That it most definitely is. On maps that are wide enough ofc. Whiteball and the such. Using CA on maps like ettelbruck or angrymundy is just plain idiotic as there are plenty of sightblockers, buildings, pathblockers, etc.

The Pershing is not as bad as people make it out to be, but in 3v3+ games, it's quite useless. Sooner or later Tigers, JP4s, KTs hit the field and without rocket arty to at least displace the supporting infantry around those mammoths, you won't stand a chance with a Jackson + Pershing + mainlines against 3x Obers + KT + JP4 + stuka or werfer + Tiger + Panther + PZgrens or some elite doctrinals.

Furthermore, theekvn pretty much tested out the AI, where Pershing should have a bigger advantage over the Tiger, and shown that it doesn't even have an AI advantage. Sure the test samples are low but the results are consistent. About the bigger penetration on Pershing. It's going against stock Panther (260), JP4 (230), OKW P4 (234) and maybe doctrinal Tiger (300), Elefant, Jagd (400+). Tiger goes against Sherman (160), Jackson (does it even have armour?), and maybe doctrinal Pershing (270) or E8 (215) or some dozers (200+). All in all, the 20 less penetration on Tiger is quite fine. Other factions like the brits have some beefier tanks but that's where the Panther comes to play.

The double standard is not really a myth here. While I understand that buffing Pershing (mostly a 2v2+ unit) could have adverse effects on 1v1, I do not understand why buffing armour back to 300 and slightly buffing frontal MGs is out of question? The Pershing is not anywhere close to being OP. Even in the standard army composition. Even with a Jackson backing it up.

Interesting take on things. I have to admit that 3v3 isn't really an area I'm qualified to comment on, but I agree the Pershing - or mostly any heavy tank - isn't really enough of a shock unit to justify skipping things like a Calliope in larger team games. This probably has more to do with the size/layout of 3v3 and 4v4 maps, which have much higher unit density and don't play out like 3 separate 1v1s in most cases. Hence artillery is much more likely to find juicy targets, while heavies are much more certain to hit a TD brick wall sooner than later - but I don't need to tell you that of course.
I'd usually also have more than one tank in a 1v1, plus finding the space to spread your army out in wide flanks with CA active for both groups forming the pincer isn't too hard, either. So I guess this might be just another example where a doctrine/unit/ability is stronger in smaller game modes than in larger ones or vice versa. Far from the ideal situation for sure but I doubt any of the changes suggested so far would really make a difference in this case (unless we're talking all-out faction revamps of course).

I'm not sure if bringing the armor back to 300 together with the DR already implemented would be too much, but since we're still in the beta phase this might be a good time to test it and see if it sticks. I do however like the idea to buff the MGs a bit to match the DPS the Tiger and especially the IS-2 get with their respective pintle mounts. Right now the Pershing is pretty bad by 50% or more at any range in that regard.

[...]

I would start by replacing the HVAP skillshot ability with something else that is less micro intensive and improving the veterancy slightly. A self repair ability would be nice as well without having to touch the stats on the unit.

the skillshot is extremely powerful... whenever it doesn't accidentally clip into the terrain. i agree it is frustrating to use, mainly because it's A) hard to aim and extremely telegraphed due to the long wind up (just like that of the IS-2) and B) at times unreliable thanks to the unpredictable collision pattern. but everything else is far from gimmicky. 240 DMG means the difference between 6 and 7 shots to kill a tiger and the 70(!)-range, piercing projectile without any scatter lets you zap targets from far beyond their vision range.

instead of removing the HVAP shot i'd honestly just shave 0.5 to 1 sec off its aim time and see where it goes from there. i doubt that the terrain collision issue can be fixed, but if it's easier to aim at least one part of the RNG coin toss would be eliminated.

The video was definitely unique. It was a cross between a stream of consciousness and a stream of diarrhea, tending slightly more towards that latter. I saw that aerafield posted his player card. It takes skills to get a ranking above 10k as Wehr in 4's.

oh well, maybe i underestimated the nascent entertainment potential right here. credit where credit is due.

1/ DPS should be a key to compare Tiger vs M26 nor any heavy tank. Before Heavies nerf, M26 can pump more DPS than tiger, That is a trully thing USF need.
2/ CA is the kind of forcing player blobing, because:
- 1 inf squad follow up never enough, M26 couldn't stand alone like tiger. You need 2-3 squad follow him as one.
- CA help USF release their mirco stress ( give huge buff for deathball so you can out input in another front).
- Dont compere top tier players to the rest, even top tier dont brother old CA because reason.
3/ the Concept " M26 is suppose to lose tiger, panther " is really stupid. If you want to acchive that then lower the price of M26.
4/ You and your people always say about ablities but:
> IS M26 actaully out speed Panther, tiger ? Is it actually winning on mobility while being hold in place by lacking of repair ?
For Now , M26 lose to Tiger in almost every way even AI (in real combat, Tiger AI better than M26 because of longer range, faster DPS. Not to mention Tiger can stand in frontal fight longer than M26) So why USF player pick heavy cav to fight against 5 Tiger/ Tiger ace Doc ?

Not sure if I understand everything you wrote here correctly, but to answer your points once more:

1) The Pershing wasn't able to pump more AT DPS before or during the heavy meta and this hasn't changed at all up to now. Literally the only thing that has changed since the 2019 AoE nerf is that all heavies (except the KT and KV-2) were made less effective in sniping full-health models while still spreading massive HP damage across all members of a squad. And here the status quo also remained largely unchanged; both the IS-2 and Pershing deal significantly more AI DPS per shot than the Tiger, which in part makes up for the slightly worse AoE with its higher rate of fire. If anything the Tiger was even hit harder than the other heavies by the AoE adjustments, since it lost quite a bit more AI relative to the pre-patch version (especially if you consider the loss of the vet2 scatter reduction).

2) Again, CA doesn't promote blobbing in any form since you can literally have one engie squad trailing behind at half a screen distance to get the desired buff for your tank. Sure a giant deathball around your tanks will enjoy the same benefits, but that doesn't mean you can't get the most out of CA without blobbing.

3) Again, the Tiger winning an isolated 1v1 brawl against the Pershing (and IS-2 for that matter) is how things have been for years and isn't a new development nor was it different during the heavy meta. I'm personally not against giving the Pershing slightly more armor or reducing the price a bit to better match the performance difference in this particular matchup, but that's not up to me.

4) This is basically an amalgamation of the above, so just to reiterate: no the Pershing doesn't have worse DPS against infantry and, yes, it does lose against a Tiger in a head-to-head duel. Part of this is already getting addressed in the beta as it has been said numerous times before, but some degree of performance difference will remain simply because both units have different factional units to complement their respective weaknesses.

There's no doubt that a bit of further tweaking would surely benefit the Pershing, but the tank itself is nowhere near as useless or underpowered as portrayed here. I remember a similar discussion revolving around how absurdly UP the Tiger is compared to other heavies after the 2019 patch hit... funny to see how the tables have turned so quickly.