Profile of Protos Angelus

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.

If in beta, the 300 armour pershing + MG buffs prove too much alongside the speed/repair speed buff, then I'll hang myself by the ba**s from the nearest tree.

In 3v3s, you do sort of play 1v1 on "lanes" (so not as wide as 1v1) with a danger of being surrounded by another player. Great example is Rheine 3v3 bot VP/fuel. You secure it, have a couple of rifles there, captain and whatnot and another player can push through mid and completely surround your forces and pretty much wipe them on the long retreat path. We need new 3v3 maps or reworks of some 4v4 maps to fit the 3v3 format since most current ones are really really bad and promote rocket arty/LeFH spam with super heavies + KT pushing for the win (Hamburger Port, Ettelturd station and the likes. https://www.coh2.org/topic/108413/3v3-maps/post/865866). And yes, in 1v1 where the maps are wide and you're really only fighting 100 pop cap, you know what the enemy has or doesn't have. You know if you see a couple of PGrens and paks and a P4, that a Tiger is far off because there just isn't any population left. Also, using CA there, is quite easy and rewarding. So yeah, in one way, armadillo and Sander are right that CA should factor in, but also wrong because it's not an absolute. It costs muni and requires certain parameters to be met, which can be countered, quite easily in larger game modes (the blobbing around tanks part to get your money's worth)

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.

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.

Edit: If I'd have to rate myself in COH2 I'd be "3.6". Not great, not terrible. Not as retarded but sometimes retarded. So when I keep winning using a braindead tactics, you know the balance is skewed.

I would much rather have the extra raw hitpoints over having to hope for miracle bounces (because 300 armor was not that special). The -50% reload was just ridiculous, especially when it could also get another -30% on top from Combined Arms. No other tank in the game had a reload bonus that high. A vet 3 Pershing with CA could reload in like 3 seconds.

As said before the only downside to the bigger HP pool is that it needs more repairs (is it even a downside? Better to spend more time repairing than having a dead tank). And that will be addressed next patch with the damage reduction modifier.



Pershing has better stock speed. It just didn't get any speed bonus with vet, but now it will. It will have 6.6 speed so it will keep the edge over the Tiger and IS-2.



No they don't. All of them get the reload bonus at vet 3. And the Persing will get an extra 5% to compensate for the wind down because it isn't affected by the reload reduction.

You're telling it like CA is super cheap, always available, needs 0 micro or combinations. Perfect "in a vacuum view". Remove CA from the heavy cav and make Pershing worthwhile, or at least justify it with the price.

The current token changes do not bring anything to the table, except for the repair speed bonus. But even that will not really change the fact that you absolutely need 2 REs to repair it in any meaningful time. One RE which gets no repair bonus nor has any repair upgrades (well except for the extra man at vet 3 but REs being squishy as they are, wouldn't hope for much) will repair the Pershing a tad faster. Well, 15% faster. So if the original repair was, let's say, 60 seconds, now it will be 51 seconds. Shaved off 9 seconds. WoW. Of course, the longer the repair, the "bigger" that 15% is. If the original repair time was 180 seconds then it would shave quite enough of time to be worthwhile (about 30 seconds which is plentiful in real time).

But again. The current Pershing is nothing to write home about.
Yes the skillshot is nice on paper. Has good AOE. Penetrates everything. Does great damage. But it takes a f***ton to aim and vs anyone with half a brain, will miss or be dodges (eg. people that do not back off their tanks directly behind but in a "diagonal"). And wasting munitions just to "Maybe" shave off 2 models off a mortar team behind the building.... yeah. No.
Skillshot is not good against infantry unless it's blobbed up and super static.
Not good against unsnared tanks.
Buggy and is scared of any sort of elevations.
On paper it looks good, but in reality, a useless skillshot against anyone decent enough to know that Pershing has a long wind up nuke ability.

Survivability. 270 armour not gonna bounce. Agility not really that high. Higher than the Tiger and KT but again, not so much to actually matter (I'd say acceleration and turn rate are the most important agility aspects of tanks, ones that help the most in a pinch).

Cannon. It's good. A tad better AI than the rest of the heavies. Long reload.
Veterancy. Mediocre at best. The granade at vet 2 is laughable. Like anyone will ever bring the Pershing to the frontlines to face raketen and paks and whatnot which will not bounce reliably to actually toss the nade on the nearby infantry.

Abilities. Like I've said. The skillshot looks good on paper but is highly dependent on the enemy and surroundings/scenario.

Price. The same as better firing, better abilitized, higher armoured counterparts.

Show me a 3v3 or a 4v4 map where moving accuracy matters. Where you won't be blocked by something and does not have obvious lanes with obvious mine placements.
Everyone talking about moving accuracy and accuracy in particular, without any context whatsoever.

i think pershing per se is fine, since it can deal substantial amount of AI, can pen heavys and has resonable speed.

Additionally it can be buffed to absurd levels with combined arms.

The main drawback of the pershing is however its maintenance. Rear echalons take ages to repair it, and when you go pershing its basically your only AI (you only wanna be spamming jacksons afterwards)

The repair issue is gonna be adressed next patch, so if i would buff the pershing in any way it would be by putting its armor back to 300 to reduce maintenance and tough it up a little

This. Pershing really needs an armour buff in the final update. That's it. It is inferior to Tiger in HP, armour, ROF, etc. but USF has other tanks to deal with the tiger (which is supposed to be the pinnacle of tank design in WW2).

Including the combined arms into the equation is in poor taste, as it's quite expensive. I don't think that past the minute 20, I've ever had more than 100 muni in the bank. Spent on nades, smokes, upgrades, Jackson, AT gun... I'd seldom include the combined arms into any equation as it's really a special type of an ability that is only activated if you have infantry next to the tanks. Quite potent but also a double edged sword. Since infantry + tanks usually means crowded which is good for AT guns and stukas...

Use USF Paratroopers?

Unless I pick the doctrine. Sure. But for the reading impaired. The question is: NON DOCTRINAL.
And even then, unless I spam paras which is quite expensive, they do not necessarily counter blobs. Para mines maybe, yes.