Profile of Protos Angelus

Pershing will most likely be supported by a stock Jackson and infantry that can all be upgraded with bazookas. It is a valid reason why it is as "heavy" as it is.

And Jagdtiger and Elefant and KT will be supported by either pzgrens or obers or some other elite infantry. Or supported by cheap Stugs or JP4s. The argument doesn't really stand.

If you get a pershing and a jackson and infantry with zooks, you can easily lose to 2x shrecks and upgraded infantry. Unless the enemy is braindead and decides to spam P4s vs that.

Tiger being a heavy P4 is not a bad thing. The abilities are great. Pintle MG. Great ROF. Great penetration. Great HP pool. Great armour. It's probably the most balanced heavy tank ATM. Still, having said that, the prepositions are not bad as they stand.

Considering rear armour. ISU152 needs a nerf to rear armour. Churchills don't since they are neither long range and they are slow AF. KV1 as well.
Tiger also doesn't need a nerf to rear armour. IMHO, tiger should be the best Heavy Tank in the game. The best all-rounder. It's got great penetration but not TD penetration (20 less). High armour, hp, ROF, accuracy. Great veterancy bonuses and it's speed is mediocre. Not great, not terrible. Overall a balanced tank. It used to be ridiculously OP but it's not UP currently.

I mean, with the amount of parameters this game has, and the limited time people have. It's impossible to NOT make something a "more expensive version of...". Heavy tanks that do not adhere by that definition are probably croc, KV tanks, KT. Mainstream heavies like IS2, Pershing and Tiger I are all more expensive version of some other tanks. Tiger>IS2>Pershing (As it should be). The only problem is, even though the rankings of these 3 tanks are such, they don't stand out in other areas. Pershing no longer stands out in AI department and IS2 no longer stands out in Tanky slow tank with a big gun. Tiger still has it's role as a generalist heavy so it's fine I guess.

It's a heavy cavalry company and it's quite static at that. Rangers on most maps are better equipped with zooks. On some, thompsons are better (denser, CQ maps), rangers synergize more with the Pershing. The whole problem is that people complained about heavy tanks mostly because IS-2 and Tiger were over performing. Then every tank got nerfed, even those that didn't over-perform. Pershing was great at AI, but now blobs are not really scared of it. The HP got buffed but the armor got nerfed so in the end it's more time consuming to keep it alive as the repair is longer and less shots bounce.
It's the worst heavy tank right now, no doubt about it. Tiger is probably the best. KV1 is probably the best at what it does-tanking. KT is still the beast in team games (as it should be, it's not OP nor UP), costly but effective. KV8 can be a toxic killer in the right hands. IS-2 still has the armour and hp and great veterancy bonuses to be worth it. Pershing doesn't stand out in any regard.
The only good thing is that Tiger is the best. Tiger should be the best tank in the game. It used to over-perform but now it's in a great spot, especially if you keep it alive. I still see, even on top 50 1v1 and 2v2 ranks, that people bring in the tiger, rush it to the enemy base like it's impenetrable and complain how it's UP when it gets blown up...

You come to the conclusion that I am liar because you did 12 test in some of which according to your own admission there were conscript entities out of cover where grenadiers where down to 2 models and even lost a match.

When according to your own test conscripts manage to test when all entities where in cover even at range 35 and I was taking about range 30.

How exactly there is no way in hell for conscripts to win even if your test they did win at least once?

I would suggest to more careful before calling people liars.

(the test I did where with pioneer sandbags at range 30 and in my tests conscripts managed to win very close being down to 1 model)

You can't read, can you?
Conscripts behind conscript sandbags, full cover, still lost vs G43s behind normal sandbags. You put pio, I put IS sandbags, same s***.

In every scenario, conscripts lost. Every. Especially if they were behind IS sandbags since the squad size demands that 1-2 models will be next to the cover and not behind it.
I did it at a normal max range. Clicked on conscripts to attack without fog of war, and where they stopped to attack I made 10 sandbags, separated so that the squads don't attack each other. The test was done fairly quickly. If they had lost 5-6 times only, then the test would be inconclusive and 20-50 more test would be needed. but since they lost 35/36 engagements (12*3 if you can't multiply). Both con sand, both IS sand, con sand vs IS sand.

Tiger got hit the hardest with nerfs.

the thing with pershing is, its difficult to fit into usf build as they already have powerful options for AI and AT, if you need anti AI, you some of the best main line inf in the game, HE shermans, pack .50cal etc and if you need AT, you have Jackson, the best tank destroyer in the game. Its just not worth going for it when the other options are more reliable.

if the perishing, had something like alot more HP and could become a meat shield, then i can see it have uses and give something USF does not usually have. it just doesn't bring something USF needs on the table.

I agree. However, the reason Tiger was hit the hardest was because it was by all means, OP. It still has a lot of benefits like HP, armour, penetration, dmg, ROF, etc...
That's why Tiger nerf was felt the most, because before the nerf you could easily use it as a walking fortress with the durability and the AI/AT power. So, yes, it's AI was nerfed but that's only because it was completely out of line as a heavy tank.

Pershing on the other hand was only used as a anti-blob tactic for USF. At least that's how I used it. It was not a meat shield cause it had poor HP and it was not a chaser cause it's slow. It was primarily as a "surprise-surprise, it's a me, Mario!" when a big'ol'blob is heading your way.