US M26 Pershing Performance Feedback

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

based on what i gathered from the previous forum Relic game balance wise surprisingly hit the "sweet spot" for this tank the only thing it really needs is either a price decrease (its a bit expensive for what its supposed to do) or a health increase (imo it has just about the same or similar amount of HP range as the M4A3E8 does which is 900). what do you guys think?

«1

Comments

  • #2
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271

    I agree that it should have either a little more health or a cost decrease. It's armor and weapon performance are definitely fine, but nothing that costs 230 fuel should have 800 health, which is what it currently has. Its gun is definitely better than the panthers, but it dies too fast to be 230 fuel. It's got the same armor as the tiger I, but less health all the while it fights against mobs of shrecks in addition to vehicles and AT guns.

  • #3
    3 years ago
    daspoulosdaspoulos Posts: 2,633

    I would of increased the health to 960 and armor to 320.

    But nerf the AOE to 3.5 and reduce the reload buff at vet 3 from -50% to -30%

  • #4
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822

    i like das' suggestion, its a wee bit too squishy and too wipey. ALSO the grenades that it tosses out of the hatch should NOT be able to break ice.... you can get a vetted pershing to sink itself by rushing infantry at it ATM

  • #5
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    what are the current stats for the pershings HP and armor atm?

  • #6
    3 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    Don't own the commander but when it was free I personally found it a bit weak in terms of armour. I would personally try for 200 fuel (same as OKW's T4 Panther), or as high as 225 (Command Panther); at least the latter there is significant force multiplier benefit on top of an actual combat unit with good range. If you're not supposed to use this tank alone, then it's reasonable to reduce cost/ popcap so that a player is capable of fielding multiple units alongside the M26. If you're meant to lone-wolf this thing then the problem is it's too squishy to do so. What we have now though is one that's not very good for either strategy.

  • #7
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    i usually support my pershing with infantry and or armor not that lone-wolf crap unless i was really desperate other than that i would prefer a health increase to match up with its cost

  • #8
    3 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,162 mod

    It's a heavy tank that requires no tech. I think the price is largely alright really. And healthwise it is also within range of what it needs. It's not meant to slug it out with the German frontlines. And remember. It has the ever potent HVAP round which can give it a considerable advantage in any engagement and can be used to shatter tanks trying to flee.

  • #9
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @ImperialDane said:
    It's a heavy tank that requires no tech. I think the price is largely alright really. And healthwise it is also within range of what it needs. It's not meant to slug it out with the German frontlines. And remember. It has the ever potent HVAP round which can give it a considerable advantage in any engagement and can be used to shatter tanks trying to flee.

    an 800 hp heavy tank should not cost 230 fuel then if u ask me thats pretty dam expensive for something other axis heavy tanks can perform beyond their default value (aka more bang for your buck). but other stats wise like gun and armor its fine where it is

  • #10
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @daspoulos said:
    I would of increased the health to 960 and armor to 320.

    But nerf the AOE to 3.5 and reduce the reload buff at vet 3 from -50% to -30%

    a cause of concern for your idea is would that make the KT #1 in AI wipe? imo I would prefer that the KT and the pershing be tied in that department or something of that nature instead of axis being #1 at most things if you know what im trying to say

  • #11
    3 years ago
    daspoulosdaspoulos Posts: 2,633
    edited April 2016

    @The Big Red 1 said:

    @daspoulos said:
    I would of increased the health to 960 and armor to 320.

    But nerf the AOE to 3.5 and reduce the reload buff at vet 3 from -50% to -30%

    a cause of concern for your idea is would that make the KT #1 in AI wipe? imo I would prefer that the KT and the pershing be tied in that department or something of that nature instead of axis being #1 at most things if you know what im trying to say

    I don't really understand but ok.

    Pershing and king tiger aren't too comparable.

    King tigers is 310 fuel and requires full teching, pershing is 230 fuel no teching.

  • #12
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @daspoulos said:

    @The Big Red 1 said:

    @daspoulos said:
    I would of increased the health to 960 and armor to 320.

    But nerf the AOE to 3.5 and reduce the reload buff at vet 3 from -50% to -30%

    a cause of concern for your idea is would that make the KT #1 in AI wipe? imo I would prefer that the KT and the pershing be tied in that department or something of that nature instead of axis being #1 at most things if you know what im trying to say

    I don't really understand but ok.

    Pershing and king tiger aren't too comparable.

    King tigers is 310 fuel and requires full teching, pershing is 230 fuel no teching.

    is that a good or bad thing?

  • #13
    3 years ago

    decrease the command point need for it 13 with the USF is just too much its chocking

  • #14
    3 years ago
    Lnk003Lnk003 Posts: 418

    I would only give him either an hp buff at vet 2 for the same cost or reduce a bit fuel like 215.

  • #15
    3 years ago
    daspoulosdaspoulos Posts: 2,633

    @chuckstakes said:
    decrease the command point need for it 13 with the USF is just too much its chocking

    Ever heard of the call in meta?

  • #16
    3 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,162 mod

    @The Big Red 1 said:

    @ImperialDane said:
    It's a heavy tank that requires no tech. I think the price is largely alright really. And healthwise it is also within range of what it needs. It's not meant to slug it out with the German frontlines. And remember. It has the ever potent HVAP round which can give it a considerable advantage in any engagement and can be used to shatter tanks trying to flee.

    an 800 hp heavy tank should not cost 230 fuel then if u ask me thats pretty dam expensive for something other axis heavy tanks can perform beyond their default value (aka more bang for your buck). but other stats wise like gun and armor its fine where it is

    Your problem here is you are comparing it to other heavy tanks. When they are tanks belonging to different factions performing in different ways.

    The Pershing is not meant to be a Tiger tank . And just judging by HP is a bit .. iffy when you consider the armour it gets, the gun and the abilities and then combine that with the overall faction. And the doctrine itself.

    The 230 fuel is basically the heavy armour call in baseline. To ensure it's not too easy to just sit around and then call it in. And not just lose one and then call in another.

  • #17
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    null
    They could just have a massive cooldown for call ins (making those never seen "x calls in 10% faster" maybe actually see light. I think its silly that with all the other ways to discourage call im spam, reduced cost efficiency is the way relic has selected. I mean.. If you have to max tech to get a doctrinal medium tank but can call in a heavy tank nilly willy (yes, I know a heavy is much less spammable than a heavy but tieing mediums to tech was a very good choice) Pershing is more like a heavy medium than a real heavy (tiger, kt is-2) so making its price lower but tieing it to major (or maybe an all tier thing) COULD work I think.
  • #18
    3 years ago

    @ImperialDane said:

    @The Big Red 1 said:

    @ImperialDane said:
    It's a heavy tank that requires no tech. I think the price is largely alright really. And healthwise it is also within range of what it needs. It's not meant to slug it out with the German frontlines. And remember. It has the ever potent HVAP round which can give it a considerable advantage in any engagement and can be used to shatter tanks trying to flee.

    an 800 hp heavy tank should not cost 230 fuel then if u ask me thats pretty dam expensive for something other axis heavy tanks can perform beyond their default value (aka more bang for your buck). but other stats wise like gun and armor its fine where it is

    Your problem here is you are comparing it to other heavy tanks. When they are tanks belonging to different factions performing in different ways.

    The Pershing is not meant to be a Tiger tank . And just judging by HP is a bit .. iffy when you consider the armour it gets, the gun and the abilities and then combine that with the overall faction. And the doctrine itself.

    The 230 fuel is basically the heavy armour call in baseline. To ensure it's not too easy to just sit around and then call it in. And not just lose one and then call in another.

    I agree that the factions shouldn't be compared to each other but the Pershing will be okay with a slight buff. Just because the USF isn't supposed to have super tanks doesn't mean that the Pershing (which is already locked behind a doctrine and has a cap limit) should be more costly to compensate. It is a good tank but lowering the gas cost by 20 to put it more in line with its ability won't suddenly make the USF OP.

    A more important issue is all the COH2 commanders who are completely useless (I'm looking at you Royal Artillery).

  • #19
    3 years ago
    Marcus2389Marcus2389 Caserta, ItalyPosts: 208

    I agree with Dane actually, as proven on tournaments Americans early game strenght can allow them to snowball the game if the late game vehicles options would be stronger than they currently are. Pershing is in a fine spot in my opinion, it's a perfect unit to have on the field to support infantry and other vehicles. Perhaps in teamgames it could have a lower window of opportunity (due to the fact at 13 CPs there are generally a lot of counters to it) so it might benefit from a CP reduction (one CP perpahs?) but otherwise I find the tank worth its price. :)

  • #20
    3 years ago

    Im not so sure but tell me if i'm wrong. it says that the pershing is equal to the panther. but you can get more then one panther so why can we not get more perching tanks. please react :D :D

  • #21
    3 years ago
    omar_empomar_emp United Arab EmiratesPosts: 526

    @SNEEUWBOX lol i agree

  • #22
    3 years ago
    Cpt. BlitzCpt. Blitz Posts: 729

    I'm in agreeance of a tiny buff for the Pershing.

    Either Give it 1080 health and leave it's armor OR Reduce it's price to 560mp and 200fuel.

  • #23
    3 years ago
    daspoulosdaspoulos Posts: 2,633

    @Cpt. Blitz said:
    I'm in agreeance of a tiny buff for the Pershing.

    Either Give it 1080 health and leave it's armor OR Reduce it's price to 560mp and 200fuel.

    tiny? Thats pretty massive. Essentially makes the pershing better than the tiger at everything except reload.

  • #24
    3 years ago
    Cpt. BlitzCpt. Blitz Posts: 729
    edited April 2016

    @daspoulos said:

    @Cpt. Blitz said:
    I'm in agreeance of a tiny buff for the Pershing.

    Either Give it 1080 health and leave it's armor OR Reduce it's price to 560mp and 200fuel.

    tiny? Thats pretty massive. Essentially makes the pershing better than the tiger at everything except reload.

    yeah sorry 1040 health. I don't think that's too much to ask. Tiger has better reload and aoe against infantry doesn't it? If it's going to cost the same amount. Pershing trades that for speed. What's wrong with that?

    Or leave it at 800 health and reduce its price to 560 and 200, completely reasonable.

  • #25
    3 years ago
    Cpt. BlitzCpt. Blitz Posts: 729
    edited April 2016

    In my hopes we'd get a slight buff to IS-2, Tiger, and Pershing for their cost because right now 2 mediums supported by infantry can easily take these tanks down even if the heavy is supported. They come out later too, I just think all 3 could use a bit of adjusting.

  • #26
    3 years ago
    ClassyDavidClassyDav… Posts: 41
    edited April 2016

    I generally find the Pershing in a fine position everytime I use. I wish they buff the range to 50 but with it's AI and AOE it might be OP with that. One thing is that it vets up very fast for a heavy unit, surprising, especially compared to a Tiger. Lastly, a vehicle crew can hope out of another vehicle and tag along to do critical repair a damaged engine. That is very powerful in the right hands.

  • #27
    3 years ago
    BigBearBigBear Posts: 94

    I would rather have an armor increase than a health increase. The bigger issue is that it gets penetrated quite easily, even by medium tanks like the PZIV.

  • #28
    3 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,162 mod

    @ClassyDavid said:
    I generally find the Pershing in a fine position everytime I use. I wish they buff the range to 50 but with it's AI and AOE it might be OP with that. One thing is that it vets up very fast for a heavy unit, surprising, especially compared to a Tiger. Lastly, a vehicle crew can hope out of another vehicle and tag along to do critical repair a damaged engine. That is very powerful in the right hands.

    And don't foget that HVAP round. Has more range, penetration and damage than a regular shot. Can be used to gain the upper hand right away in a fight or knock out a fleeing panzer.

    The Pershing is plenty strong atm.

  • #29
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Currently the Pershing is too squishy to make a meaningful heavy tank, it needs an armor and HP buff, otherwise it doesn't really work in it's intended role.

  • #30
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @MCMartel said:
    Currently the Pershing is too squishy to make a meaningful heavy tank, it needs an armor and HP buff, otherwise it doesn't really work in it's intended role.

    that or you make it a bit cheaper cuz you dont really get your value's worth out of this tank compared to the axis tanks

  • #31
    3 years ago

    i totally agree that the pershing needs a buff because now we have a heavy tank but its a little better than a panther but when the germans spawn in an tiger its just not gonna make it. im not saying that the pershing needs to be as strong as an tiger that would be redicilous but im saying that atleast be able to spawn more or a little buf of the armor and damage would be nice and fair. tell me your thoughts about this idea people :smile: :smiley:

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.