Disclaimer: This article was written in a mood and state of mind far beyond angry or furious. I do appologize if this post offends anybody but after the last game I had I have to blow off some steam.
To give a short description of what happened - a 2v2 match on Autry. A stranger and I against two other strangers. We both choose Wehrmacht - he goes Terror and I do Blitzkrieg Doc. We have the high ground, he on the right and me on the left side. Early and Mid-game are pretty decent, we manage to push down to the fuel points, both sides loose men and machines. It is clear at least one of them has the Armor company. I make the push on my side and down the hill, capping the lower left ammunition point with three Panthers, Panzergrenadiers and Stormtroops. "Almost at their base, almost won." But then. At first one Pershing, takes out one Panther before he is destroyed. Ok, fair enough. I sent my infantry back home as they had suffered too. Another Pershing attacks. I have to fall back, set up a trap and manage to take him out. Then s**t really goes down. Three. Three motherf***ing PERSHINGS! AT ONCE!!! WHERE THE F*** IS THE BALANCE!?! My ally and I get pushed back, the enemy stops attacking us. And now for the next age my ally and I try to handle more Pershings(and even a Superpershing we luckly manage to take down) than Germany had to through the whole war! An endless game where you loose precious troops and tanks to take out ONE Pershing. Thirty seconds later, we are back at three! And not even the Tiger II of my ally could do ANYTHING about it. The enemy could have slaughtered us if they wanted to. I brought this madness to an end and ragequitted after about 2 and a half hours.
-> Limit the amount of Pershingson the battlefield to 1 or 2
-> Decrease the cost for both Panther and Tiger
Why? The Pershing is almost a post War Area Tank and saw almost NO combat action in WWII. Meanwhile the Panther and Tiger saw far more frequent use in the War and therefore should be easier to deploy in combat. And this makes also sense from a gameplay perspective. Yes, the Pershing should remain in the game but the way it is now, THAT IS RIDICULOUS!!! Actually it is not as it more like beating the s**t out of balance.
Tell me what you guys think.
The Pershing Problem
Re: The Pershing Problem
>No
> and no
If you have ye presence of mind to realize you are pissed, you should refrain from posting until... I don't know, you're not pissed? Here's 4 truths from real life that make it to the game, regarding both of your queries.
US had resources and their tanks were relatively simple to make, and Germany was both resource starved and had over engineered most of their late war tanks beyond any real usefulness.
In game, the Pershing costs a metric ton of resources to make, and it's not exactly an all rounder. It's task was to kill tanks, and in game it excels at that, balance kicks in harshly for the Pershing by leaving it almost completely devoid of anti infantry capabilities.
German tanks more often than not can kill all units efficiently, regardless of if the vehicle is primarily anti tank, like the Panthers, which get a superb mounted MG to kill ambushing infantry with. King tiger's would also be able to kill Pershings if it came down to a one on one. The picture changes when supporting arms are taken into consideration. Where you just using tanks against the Pershing? Where the players with the Pershing supporting it with other units?
From your description I can imagine they were if they were winning territory back against both infantry and vehicles.
> and no
If you have ye presence of mind to realize you are pissed, you should refrain from posting until... I don't know, you're not pissed? Here's 4 truths from real life that make it to the game, regarding both of your queries.
US had resources and their tanks were relatively simple to make, and Germany was both resource starved and had over engineered most of their late war tanks beyond any real usefulness.
In game, the Pershing costs a metric ton of resources to make, and it's not exactly an all rounder. It's task was to kill tanks, and in game it excels at that, balance kicks in harshly for the Pershing by leaving it almost completely devoid of anti infantry capabilities.
German tanks more often than not can kill all units efficiently, regardless of if the vehicle is primarily anti tank, like the Panthers, which get a superb mounted MG to kill ambushing infantry with. King tiger's would also be able to kill Pershings if it came down to a one on one. The picture changes when supporting arms are taken into consideration. Where you just using tanks against the Pershing? Where the players with the Pershing supporting it with other units?
From your description I can imagine they were if they were winning territory back against both infantry and vehicles.
-
Krieger Blitzer
- Posts: 5037
- Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
- Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
- Contact:
Re: The Pershing Problem
It's true that the Pershing isn't limited in Bk unlike Tigers or KTs which is fine for sure as it's considered nothing but a triangle mark on the mini map which means that it's a normal medium tank that is even not as heavy as Panthers; they are marked as light squares on the other hand! So, the Pershing is probably just like the Jumbo.. however that yet it's often capable of better competing and usually beating any Panthers when it comes to be about a 1v1 fight... Almost a draw against Tigers or KTs.. but don't forget that the KT actually has a range advantage basically and soon it would have the ALRS a Vet step earlier btw after implementing some certain adjustments regarding this.
The ALRS is currently bugged though but it will be fixed too hopefully...
Also ur Tigers have range advantage on Vet lvl 2, nevertheless as mentioned several times before accordingly.. the ALRS would be again earlier available on the upcoming patch on Vet lvl 1 more likely perhaps. On the other hand Tigers won't be able to use the flank speed ability anymore... Panthers instead but only on Vet lvl 2 maybe!! Pershing would also recieve the RS earlier on Vet lvl 1 having an advantage over Panthers as they could recieve the same ability now only on Vet lvl 2, Pershings are gonna be even so deadlier when they are followed by a command car gaining a range boost... Not to mention that ALL Pershings would be Vet 1 already after the unlock.
SO...
I am afraid limiting Pershings isn't possible! Not a good idea at all. Removing SP is nothing but dreams I would say... Too late to demand this!
Panthers aren't too expensive as well... Keep in mind that.
The ALRS is currently bugged though but it will be fixed too hopefully...
Also ur Tigers have range advantage on Vet lvl 2, nevertheless as mentioned several times before accordingly.. the ALRS would be again earlier available on the upcoming patch on Vet lvl 1 more likely perhaps. On the other hand Tigers won't be able to use the flank speed ability anymore... Panthers instead but only on Vet lvl 2 maybe!! Pershing would also recieve the RS earlier on Vet lvl 1 having an advantage over Panthers as they could recieve the same ability now only on Vet lvl 2, Pershings are gonna be even so deadlier when they are followed by a command car gaining a range boost... Not to mention that ALL Pershings would be Vet 1 already after the unlock.
SO...
I am afraid limiting Pershings isn't possible! Not a good idea at all. Removing SP is nothing but dreams I would say... Too late to demand this!
Panthers aren't too expensive as well... Keep in mind that.
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: The Pershing Problem
The Pershings had support? And whats the name of that guy? I had huge success with my TH doc against pershings. Ambushed AT squad managed to kill one and damaging the other. A frontal assault on two was also possible.
The schrecks have nice pen chance vs pershings but also panther and Tiger have. IIrc the Tiger has even higher pen chance than Panther but idk why. Depending on vet you should win the fight. Tiger long shots clearly give you an egde. But also Panther double and tripple shots are doing very well.
But autry is a nasty map. I never play that map. Silly easy to get fuel point and lots of ammo but low MP income.
The Pershing is or should be limited or has been at least. Limit is 2 or 3 (did exist at least), but not sure. Never had so many anyway and to build more than 3 Pershings wouldnt make sense either. Generally armor players that go only for pershings tend to fail. But if they are protected by shermans as meatshields they can be a pain for some axis tanks.
But i wonder what happend after you destroyed the SP. The KT should have a free run then against US if you use the one with Top MG gunner. Besides arty there shouldnt be much on such a narrow map that stops the KT (or even panthers from terror doc).
In Terms of cost i do think all are ok atm (Tiger, panther, Pershing). What is true is that Pershings and esspecially SP require relatively few CP´s only. I would support CP switches within armor doc. Like making the calli sherman earlier available and taking away CP´s from other unlocks (war machinery ability, tank vets etc) and add it to Pershings and Super Pershing.
As Armacalic says the Pershings job is to kill tanks. It hardly stands infantry and schrecks unless it gets support by shermans etc. The Panther is a way cheaper and less vulnerable to infantry but able to kill those. The panther cost less.
Maybe you have forgott the upkeep. When you have 3 Panther and storms etc then your MP income drops probably down to 220 MP (or even less on this map). Your opponent might had less units and thus much higher income. He waited probably untill he got a huge bunch of res to deploy them quickly and in numbers. But same can work with axis when you wait. Some smart axis players fight with few elite units with ambushes etc untill having enough res to build two Panthers at once. Or at least they keep a reserve to replace a lost panther.
The Pershings also draw down the income by a lot but US can use supply yard to avoid that. So they can maintain a large force with a stable income. But in case of "Pershing only user" i doubt that your opponent used that. Esspecially when he gets no other units first the supply yard makes little sense to be upgraded. So most Pershing players dont build units or tanks untill they get a Jumbo, later Pershings.
The schrecks have nice pen chance vs pershings but also panther and Tiger have. IIrc the Tiger has even higher pen chance than Panther but idk why. Depending on vet you should win the fight. Tiger long shots clearly give you an egde. But also Panther double and tripple shots are doing very well.
But autry is a nasty map. I never play that map. Silly easy to get fuel point and lots of ammo but low MP income.
The Pershing is or should be limited or has been at least. Limit is 2 or 3 (did exist at least), but not sure. Never had so many anyway and to build more than 3 Pershings wouldnt make sense either. Generally armor players that go only for pershings tend to fail. But if they are protected by shermans as meatshields they can be a pain for some axis tanks.
But i wonder what happend after you destroyed the SP. The KT should have a free run then against US if you use the one with Top MG gunner. Besides arty there shouldnt be much on such a narrow map that stops the KT (or even panthers from terror doc).
In Terms of cost i do think all are ok atm (Tiger, panther, Pershing). What is true is that Pershings and esspecially SP require relatively few CP´s only. I would support CP switches within armor doc. Like making the calli sherman earlier available and taking away CP´s from other unlocks (war machinery ability, tank vets etc) and add it to Pershings and Super Pershing.
As Armacalic says the Pershings job is to kill tanks. It hardly stands infantry and schrecks unless it gets support by shermans etc. The Panther is a way cheaper and less vulnerable to infantry but able to kill those. The panther cost less.
Maybe you have forgott the upkeep. When you have 3 Panther and storms etc then your MP income drops probably down to 220 MP (or even less on this map). Your opponent might had less units and thus much higher income. He waited probably untill he got a huge bunch of res to deploy them quickly and in numbers. But same can work with axis when you wait. Some smart axis players fight with few elite units with ambushes etc untill having enough res to build two Panthers at once. Or at least they keep a reserve to replace a lost panther.
The Pershings also draw down the income by a lot but US can use supply yard to avoid that. So they can maintain a large force with a stable income. But in case of "Pershing only user" i doubt that your opponent used that. Esspecially when he gets no other units first the supply yard makes little sense to be upgraded. So most Pershing players dont build units or tanks untill they get a Jumbo, later Pershings.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
-
drivebyhobo
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53
Re: The Pershing Problem
Don't play Autry in general if you like balance. The narrow width of the map and the extremely high resources makes for long slogs.
Also don't play with unlimited population cap.
As for the realism argument, limiting the number of Pershings for the sake of unit composition realism doesn't fit with the mod. This is not the Normandy 44 mod. If you wanted that kind of authentic realism, then the Axis deserves random periods of zero resource income to represent logistic lines being destroyed. That would be no fun for anyone.
Also don't play with unlimited population cap.
As for the realism argument, limiting the number of Pershings for the sake of unit composition realism doesn't fit with the mod. This is not the Normandy 44 mod. If you wanted that kind of authentic realism, then the Axis deserves random periods of zero resource income to represent logistic lines being destroyed. That would be no fun for anyone.