US M26 Pershing Performance Feedback

2»

Comments

  • #32
    3 years ago
    PanzerFaustPanzerFau… NoPosts: 284

    I think the problem here is some people want a buff to the Pershing because they play 4v4s, while others dont because they play 1v1s. In 4v4s its all about directly absorbing and dealing damage, not much tactical movement, flanking, speed etc. I'm with the people who like it how it is, its powerful and fast and works well for the USF way of mobility and allrounf effectiveness. 4v4 players, just give it a Jackson or bazooka friends and its happy.

  • #33
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @PanzerFaust360 said:
    I think the problem here is some people want a buff to the Pershing because they play 4v4s, while others dont because they play 1v1s. In 4v4s its all about directly absorbing and dealing damage, not much tactical movement, flanking, speed etc. I'm with the people who like it how it is, its powerful and fast and works well for the USF way of mobility and allrounf effectiveness. 4v4 players, just give it a Jackson or bazooka friends and its happy.

    you might want to consider that axis have a wide variety of AT options and that allies have very few meatshield tanks to withstand those attacks...

  • #34
    3 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited April 2016

    In team games it is possible for multiple players' worth of units to dogpile a single position, whereas this isn't possible in smaller/ 1v1 games. So the nature of the game will be different. In 1v1 the most action is at best a dozen units; in larger games, a dozen units is pretty much the minimum.
    Naturally some units will perform better in such situations where others would certainly falter. A King Tiger, for example, can more easily absorb a lot of shots from the front as long as you keep the enemy from flanking; but many units cannot cope with such overwhleming numbers, in this case, the USF's Pershing. More than the Sherman of course, but certainly not close to Tiger/ heavy tank level.

    A bit OT: anyone seen the AI use any recent DLC commanders? I don't think I've ever dealt with AI-controlled Stormtroopers or Pershings, ever. Not unless someone joins and chooses such commanders, then leaves.

  • #35
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @comrade_daelin said:
    In team games it is possible for multiple players' worth of units to dogpile a single position, whereas this isn't possible in smaller/ 1v1 games. So the nature of the game will be different. In 1v1 the most action is at best a dozen units; in larger games, a dozen units is pretty much the minimum.
    Naturally some units will perform better in such situations where others would certainly falter. A King Tiger, for example, can more easily absorb a lot of shots from the front as long as you keep the enemy from flanking; but many units cannot cope with such overwhleming numbers, in this case, the USF's Pershing. More than the Sherman of course, but certainly not close to Tiger/ heavy tank level.

    and sometimes i wonder why axis have so many meatshield tanks in their inventory while allies have so few...

  • #36
    3 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    My guess is that Relic's balance focus is towards 1v1. People tend to say USF is best in 1v1 games due to their mobility and vehicle crew, etc. As a largely 4v4 player these days, I find USF very hard to manage due to their relative fragility, their more fragile vehicles can stand a lone Panther, but two or three at once?
    UKF on the other hand works much better because the have meatier units, but like Ostheer they will likely lose if you keep draining manpower to recover from losses. Everytime I use UKF vehicles I'm thinking I'm glad I'm not using glass-armour USF vehicles. When I attempt to volksblob against UKF vehicles I find it's much harder to accomplish, even against units like lumbering Centaurs. Playercount-wise, I find UKF is the best faction in larger team matches.
    That is why I originally stated Pershing doesn't seem very durable; in 4v4 games where there are on average 4x amount of AT weapons in places like chokepoints, they will quite rapidly falter once you get within range. The same will happen with units like King Tiger, but the virtue of heavier armour, among other things, gives the OKW player a bit more time to react and retreat if they come across a wall of tank destroyers. Like I said, this never happens in smaller matches, so unless Relic takes a particular focus on larger team matches, Pershing is just going to be weaksauce unless you stick to 1v1s.

  • #37
    3 years ago

    @The Big Red 1 schrieb:
    what are the current stats for the pershings HP and armor atm?

    armor:300
    hp:800

  • #38
    3 years ago
    solowingsolowing Posts: 50

    I think I'm okay with the Pershing the way it is. It's fuel-intensive for what it is, but fuel isn't as critical to USF as it is other factions as it's the easiest faction to get by with using infantry and team weapons supported by munitions and the odd Jackson. So I often end up with a pretty tidy stockpile of fuel when it comes time to call in the Pershing.

    It's a tank that's nearly as good as the Jackson at destroying enemy tanks while also being able to take a few hits in kind, that alone makes it satisfactory in my book.

  • #39
    3 years ago

    all of these things are right and i accept all of it but i just think that you can atleast spawn in more or atleast 2. because look at the tiger's ive seen more of those in one game by one player. or they have recently changed that. what im trying to say is that the pershing is good as it is but be able to spawn 2 would be fair in my opinion.

  • #40
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681
    edited April 2016

    @SneeuwBox said:
    all of these things are right and i accept all of it but i just think that you can atleast spawn in more or atleast 2. because look at the tiger's ive seen more of those in one game by one player. or they have recently changed that. what im trying to say is that the pershing is good as it is but be able to spawn 2 would be fair in my opinion.

    due to the heavy tank limit only 1 can be deployed at a time which seems fair. what i dont find fair is when the heavy tank i get is more squishy then its axis counterparts. so if im only allowed 1 heavy tank it better be worth its weight in gold...just like the axis heavies and all the rest of their units

  • #41
    3 years ago
    Hopesome1Hopesome1 Posts: 3
    edited April 2016

    Im sorry but i think its finee the way it is, it takes 2 panthers to get it down and losing one easly if you dont manufeur it . 2 panthers are 350 fuel.....Now if you compare it to the German Tiger...well its a Tiger, best tank in the german forces or history itself.

  • #42
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @Hopesome1 said:
    Im sorry but i think its finee the way it is, it takes 2 panthers to get it down and losing one easly if you dont manufeur it . 2 panthers are 350 fuel.....Now if you compare it to the German Tiger...well its a Tiger, best tank in the german forces or history itself.

    you forgot to factor in the numerous godlike AT options the axis have into the equation...which will turn the pershing into swiss cheese. common sense 101: never send something like a panther or tiger alone unless you are desperate.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.