AS Pershing for inf Doc

[Shanks]

Dear players of this honorable forum, today I want to make a proposal that I do not think is very far-fetched, I would like to propose that for the next beta the AS Pershing for the doctrine of Infantry is included, and that the SP be the only option of armor


I will explain my point of view

First. Why am I proposing this?

Doing a quick comparison with WM, you can see that you get panthers quickly if you are bk doc, apart from an airplane, elite infantry (which can move camouflaged), maultier, even a good spam from Stug and Panzer N etc. If you are defensive doctrine, as its name indicates, you give a good def support to your allies, in addition to this, you have very good tanks capable of destroying even Pershing like the L / 70 tank, added to this are the good bonuses of the grenadiers, the grille (I love this unit), you have static arty with a greater range than the US, you can ask for an elephant (great when advancing), you have the necessary tools to eliminate infantry indisputably, etc. If you are the doctrine of Terror, you have the best tiger tanks very quickly, you have King tiger in this doctrine, you get stukas that are formidable when it comes to counterattack (the brother of the hocthkiss), as for the infantry this doctrine disappoints me , but it's still acceptable, it has nebels, you have the glorious Stug latest version (other of my favorite units), etc

What do I want to get with this data in general terms? It is simple,explain what, the As Pershing as soon as it is on the battlefield, the WM will already have units capable of destroying it, and that it will not negatively affect the balance, in fact I think that this will make the games more interesting, since the doc inf will have good support
If I talk about the EP, we all know that EP can destroy the Ace Pershing in all doctrines, in SE with the Narshon, hetzer, good infantry, light tank with stielgranate, in ts it can destroy it more easily with everything it has and in luft it has aera patrol, gebirjagers with panzerfauts (I don't remember how it was written, haha) panther, fjg, 88 mm emplacements, and if I'm not mistaken in fact the car with the stielgrante is in all the PE doctrines, which is good in trouble

As you will realize, for PE it will not be a big problem if the infantry doctrine has the As Pershing.
at least that's what I feel at first glance

Second.What could be replaced in the infantry doctrine to be added the As Pershing?

I think here we could eliminate the long tomp, and it would be good in some way (less arty in the game), and re-modify the tree to get the Ace Pershing in 7 CP, I don't think it's impossible, if you don't want the long tomp to disappear , they could introduce it into the airbone doctrine, which could need it much more than the infantry doctrine (in that case, I think it would be convenient for it to be enabled with advanced infantry training, and it can only be used by the special squad of the 101, the one with a sniper with them.Anyway, when the US entered Normandy, they were supported with artillery from ships,
doesn't fit too bad i think )

Third.Good motivation

I really don't think it's such a bad idea, because I don't see a considerable negative impact for the axis troops, the pvp will be more intense with this, and the new players will not feel that the allies are weak, this is one of the main Reasons in fact, usually if you put two noob to play pvp, the one who plays axis will win most of the time, somehow it is easier to use (apparently), since in pvp pro, this depends on the skill of the players, on the other hand we will not leave aside the As pershing, because honestly I prefer an SP in armor and I think that most of players would get for the same option, because in a 3v3 game the SP actually makes a noticeable difference unlike an Ace Pershing

Note:

I am doing this post very seriously, and I would like the players present in this forum to express their opinion about it, and of course, also the developers.If you took the time to read this post completely, I thank you very much

[Warhawks97]

I don't feel like it's necessary to have even more persings. Especially not in a doc with good inf, jumbo Sherman, emplacement and arty. The long Tom should stay and being as effective as the Def doc 150 mm strike. Persings should not become a throw around unit.


Inf doc would benefit a lot more from 76 guns and Sherman guns in general that would penetrate targets.

Honestly inf doc suffers far more from tank IV and III spam and stug spam than from heavy tanks.
And panther would not be an issue if Jackson's wouldn't cost more than those.

Pershing won't help you with German mid armor spam due to the cp cost and it won't save the day VS elephants etc either.

So what's its point then?
Fix Sherman guns and Jack's cost issue and this doc would actually have something to handle armor.

[Shanks]

Hadn't I told you before? The 76mm Sherman is currently effective, only the latest version stug is a big problem, the rest of the stug are not a big deal and in particular I never had a problem dealing with the stug, the only thing that could give you a problem is a panther or a heavy tank like the tiger, and at no time did I say that pershing can destroy an elephant ... or did I say so?

The AS pershing will be a good support for the infantry doctrine, especially vs panthers, which have lethal machine guns for your infantry, and that you cannot destroy it only with a bazooka squad, unlike the stug , also if bk doc having good infantry, it also has good tanks ... why not give an Ace pershing support to doc inf? do you understand my point now?

[Sparrow]

Well, from my hummble opinion, I think that it became habitual for the allies to win without heavy armor support. I support your idea Shanks, it would be nice for allies, because axis has panthers and tigers mostly in all of their doctrines, but I would be happy with Hellcat and M10 at the same time in inf doc.

Jackson of inf doc are good, against Panthers, but I dont feel the same against Tigers. I would request the inf doc Jackson be able for the Armor doc, as a rewards unit who can be changed for the actual Jackson of that doc.

Stug III or IV are who still make the differece in early game. What we should fix in Inf doc is the howitzer. That unit fails a lot a one by one against defensive howitzer. Short range, and less damage.

[Warhawks97]

Hadn't I told you before? The 76mm Sherman is currently effective, only the latest version stug is a big problem, the rest of the stug are not a big deal and in particular I never had a problem dealing with the stug, the only thing that could give you a problem is a panther or a heavy tank like the tiger, and at no time did I say that pershing can destroy an elephant ... or did I say so?

The AS pershing will be a good support for the infantry doctrine, especially vs panthers, which have lethal machine guns for your infantry, and that you cannot destroy it only with a bazooka squad, unlike the stug , also if bk doc having good infantry, it also has good tanks ... why not give an Ace pershing support to doc inf? do you understand my point now?

It's mid game axis armor that usually causes big pain with insta panzer iv and III that literally out spam at guns and at squads and having armor to withstand medium at decently.

So if 76 gun could handle axis medium armor, Jackson's being cheaper to handle panthers better and to give fire support (2 unit cap), why would I need Pershing? If you are attacking, Sherman's, smoke and arty is well enough against inf, hmgs and what's not. Pershing would be a pointless waste of res, cp which maybe or maybe not can handle one panther at a time.

[Shanks]

Hadn't I told you before? The 76mm Sherman is currently effective, only the latest version stug is a big problem, the rest of the stug are not a big deal and in particular I never had a problem dealing with the stug, the only thing that could give you a problem is a panther or a heavy tank like the tiger, and at no time did I say that pershing can destroy an elephant ... or did I say so?

The AS pershing will be a good support for the infantry doctrine, especially vs panthers, which have lethal machine guns for your infantry, and that you cannot destroy it only with a bazooka squad, unlike the stug , also if bk doc having good infantry, it also has good tanks ... why not give an Ace pershing support to doc inf? do you understand my point now?

It's mid game axis armor that usually causes big pain with insta panzer iv and III that literally out spam at guns and at squads and having armor to withstand medium at decently.

So if 76 gun could handle axis medium armor, Jackson's being cheaper to handle panthers better and to give fire support (2 unit cap), why would I need Pershing? If you are attacking, Sherman's, smoke and arty is well enough against inf, hmgs and what's not. Pershing would be a pointless waste of res, cp which maybe or maybe not can handle one panther at a time.

the jackson is fine like this, but if you have an Ace pershing in the doc inf, you have a tank that will come only for mp and with veteran, and as I told you before, I never had a problem dealing with the spam from stug, if you used more followed the smoke screen you would understand me, and obviously the 76 mm sherman, which apparently you do not use, a long time ago the sherman was garbage and I complain a lot about that, today it is a reliable tank for me

[mofetagalactica]

Hello, im pretty much againts any pershing in more doctrines, changes were made to make doctrine good at everything but excel at a certain scheme/theme that the doctrine is about, wich means it should still have heavy tanks able to deal with other heavy tanks wich is why jackson was added into inf.

A good start would be by just getting rid of the reward choice between jackson/jumbo and have both units available with jackson recieving a reduction cost comparable to firefly.

This way you could use jumbos as sponge while the jacksons shoots from behind (since it armor was nerfed to sherman stats).

--------------------

Regarding Pz4's vs shermans 76 i think they're fine at their current state, with just the Pz4 F Long barrel missing his own armor table.

[Warhawks97]

I used probably more Shermans than anyone else in bk over years.

And if there hasn't been a change recently the 76 is largely garbage afterall.

[Shanks]

I used probably more Shermans than anyone else in bk over years.

And if there hasn't been a change recently the 76 is largely garbage afterall.

you should try the shermans now, the 76mm vs stug from doc bk 1v1, with a friend of yours and then tell me the results ... yes? I think they are not garbage, although previously yes, and I hated it ... it seems that you speak of very old versions of bk mod

[Warhawks97]

I used probably more Shermans than anyone else in bk over years.

And if there hasn't been a change recently the 76 is largely garbage afterall.

you should try the shermans now, the 76mm vs stug from doc bk 1v1, with a friend of yours and then tell me the results ... yes? I think they are not garbage, although previously yes, and I hated it ... it seems that you speak of very old versions of bk mod

I do not lol.

Stugs have weak armor against 76 guns but the ambush more than just compensates it and Stugs are cheaper and earlier available.

All pz IV have much better armor and 76 often enough struggles VS the f2.

I played the beta many times and the Shermans lacked pen power and got out spammed.

[Shanks]

I used probably more Shermans than anyone else in bk over years.

And if there hasn't been a change recently the 76 is largely garbage afterall.

you should try the shermans now, the 76mm vs stug from doc bk 1v1, with a friend of yours and then tell me the results ... yes? I think they are not garbage, although previously yes, and I hated it ... it seems that you speak of very old versions of bk mod

I do not lol.

Stugs have weak armor against 76 guns but the ambush more than just compensates it and Stugs are cheaper and earlier available.

All pz IV have much better armor and 76 often enough struggles VS the f2.

I played the beta many times and the Shermans lacked pen power and got out spammed.

seriously warhawks? Camouflaged units will always be dangerous, your problem is not the stug, your problem is that you do not know how to break a formation of camouflaged units, soon I will make a post about that point too

[Warhawks97]

Delete

[Warhawks97]

Dude....
Its that 76 gun sucks vs PANZER IV'S.

And stugs? They get spammed too early too cheap..

And how I handle ambushes? Well, I drive into them with spam tank IV and steamrole them.
As US things get more tricky of course.


The 76 gun is a well known issue and sucks even against the lightest armored tank.
Even when revealing ambushes the 76 likes to fail.

I mean the whole point is: why Pershing in inf doc.
If the 76 wouldnt fail so badly and the Jack's wouldn't cost so freaking much to handle panthers.

And super heavy tanks are less a threat for inf doc than spammy mediums against which your available tools are inadequate or cost ineffective

[Shanks]

I do not know what you are talking about, for me the sherman fulfills its function, and if we talk about why I want an Ace pershing in inf doc it is simple, a tank much more armored than the jackson, an Ace and that you will only need MP and CP to obtain it, if the Germans can have Ace tiger in Terror, Ace panther in bk, and Elephant in def doc .... why the infantry doctrine cannot have a heavy armored support only for MP? ... you understand?..If you really want balance, the developers should try to balance forces in the calls that only consume MP and CP, also I want to tell you that the jackson is good, more if you use it with an m10 + special anti-armor ammunition (pierces yes or yes to the tigers and panthers)

[Warhawks97]

I do not know what you are talking about, for me the sherman fulfills its function, and if we talk about why I want an Ace pershing in inf doc it is simple, a tank much more armored than the jackson, an Ace and that you will only need MP and CP to obtain it, if the Germans can have Ace tiger in Terror, Ace panther in bk, and Elephant in def doc .... why the infantry doctrine cannot have a heavy armored support only for MP? ... you understand?..If you really want balance, the developers should try to balance forces in the calls that only consume MP and CP, also I want to tell you that the jackson is good, more if you use it with an m10 + special anti-armor ammunition (pierces yes or yes to the tigers and panthers)

Get rid of fuel free tank call ins and make aces single time call in.

[Shanks]

do you want the game to be very boring?

[Diablo]

Get rid of fuel free tank call ins and make aces single time call in.

This should actually be discussed on a general level.
Do we need the ability to field tanks without having control of fuel points, aka if long-term map control was lost?

And one time call-in Aces could be a sort of counterpart to the one time use Super Pershing. Their tank commanders being highly vetted though.
If they are nerfed in this way, i'd suggest to simply unlock them with the corresponding buildable tank or some tank related unlock. E.g. Tiger Ace with either Tiger I unlock or Tigerphobia. No additional CP slot used.

[/my two cents]

[CGarr]

The Jackson B just needs to be given some additional functionality to make it worth the cost, inf doesn't need pershings. Additionally, the jumbo should be available at the same time (no reward unit choice) to soak up hits when making advances since the Jackson is a glass cannon. If 76mm's ever get fixed, air is prob fine with just M18's. An aggro sink like a 75mm Jumbo or concrete armor shermans would make sense for them since Luft has some, but having one isn't vital to their playstyle and I'd imagine people would probably complain. They definitely shouldn't have pershings though.

[Shanks]

The Jackson B just needs to be given some additional functionality to make it worth the cost, inf doesn't need pershings. Additionally, the jumbo should be available at the same time (no reward unit choice) to soak up hits when making advances since the Jackson is a glass cannon. If 76mm's ever get fixed, air is prob fine with just M18's. An aggro sink like a 75mm Jumbo or concrete armor shermans would make sense for them since Luft has some, but having one isn't vital to their playstyle and I'd imagine people would probably complain. They definitely shouldn't have pershings though.

In particular I do not need Pershing with inf doc to win, only that there are many players who complain about the jackson, and I hate that it is so ... that's why I proposed an AS pershing as a support unit, it does not seem unfair to me

[Walderschmidt]

I think thread could be solved by just removing the reward choice from Infantry Doctrine and allowing it to access both the Sherman 76mm Jumbo and the M36 Jackson.

Wald

[kwok]

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3841