COH: Europe In Ruins

Re-Making this a thread since it seems a number of us couldn't get along in the previous Pershing thread.

My main issue with the pershing is it's penetration; there's really no reason why it shouldn't have a good penetration value against Hetzers and heavy tanks. It so happens that the pershing will prioritize the Hetzer, leaving the pershing to be attacked by panther.. or whatever is there. The Hetzer can penetrate the pershing's front armor and can deal a dair amount of damage, so ignoring the Hetzer and going around it to kill something else isn't something advisable.

My suggestion is to change the veterancy bonus obtained at vet 1 to include Penetration +1.2. This doesn't mean I want it's other bonus removed (*received damage 0.85*). The reason for this is that every Wehrmacht tank gets *received damage 0.85* at vet 1.

Another issue of mine is what Smokaz brought to the table - The pershing handles like a shopping cart. And I don't think it's because of the track movement.. I think it's due to how maneuverable the pershing is so the turret does not respond correctly to the movement of the vehicle. However I think this may be corrected with it's current veterancy bonus at vet 2, which is *turret rotation +1.2*. So I think the handling of the tank is fine for now.

Lets also try and keep in mind this thread is in response to an impending calliope nerf which is duly needed. But at the same time there needs to be a change to the pershing so that the armored company isn't entirely nullified; as the reason people use the calliope is due to the fact the pershing is considerably weaker than axis armor and therefor has little desire to be used.

Guidelines for posting in this thread:
-Please don't post over-sized images in the thread itself, if they have relevance to your argument please link them.
-Please don't start flaming each other over calculations.(In fact, why don't we just try and leave the calculations out. Because stats don't affect the outcome of balance issues it's how the unit is played with.)
-Please don't post if you have a biased opinion and what you have to say is going to be counter-productive to the issue.
-Please also try and include a suggestion of change or a reason why mine is far-fetched or undesirable.

Highlights brought to the table last thread:

For once i have to agree with Tym.

The Pershing is a great tank hunter-killer, just like the panther, except it beats the panther, which is also reflected in the slight cost difference = balanced.

It doesnt snipe infantry very well - does tho have a nice splash damage, but not much in sniping - this is very much like the Panther, which doesnt snipe at all, and doesnt even have the slightest amount of splash - which is OK since the pershing is more expensive.

When it comes to the killing of infantry in buildings, theres really nothing to say about that, ive seen pershings one shot MG's outta buildings, seen Panthers do the same, just thinking whoever had trouble doing that, was unlucky.

The Pershing is great at what it does, I just think alot of allied players are having issues using it correctly, since most allied tanks are much better at Anti-Inf than Anti-Tank, theyre simply not used to the idea of a tank being good at 1 thing, and almost solely that purpose.

About the AT difference between the teams, I agree that the Axis does have the AT advantage ATM, which ofcourse makes the Pershing less viable since its primary weakness is PAKS. This does tho have to be compared to the fact that Americans have plenty of Arty/Elite Fire-Up units, to take the PAKs out of the game prior to doing their Pershing-Blitz, just like axis players have to hande the 57's prior to rushing tanks into the fray. And yes, there will ALWAYS be some kind of arty/fireup/heroic-charge/sniper to handle potential AT-gun threats. Its called combined arms, and L2P.

The last relevant thing i have to say, is that the Pershing beats a Tiger, so stop saying the Tiger is as good as it at Anti-Tank, and yes, the Tiger is better against Inf. and buildings, which is just balanced cause of its LOW speed, HIGH pop and HIGH price - quit yer' whinin.

On a sidenote, the above statement is also reflected onto british guys, theyre complaining about the Firefly -another specialized Tank Hunter-killer- being too weak against infantry, but most of the time seeing past the point that its a VERY mobile 17pounder-boomstick, with plenty of armor to disregard anything other than AT-guns and Panthers - AND infantry, cause its not SUPPOSED to be good at killing inf.

The Pershing is tricky to use but that has never stopped me from using it or even fielding two.

(http://g.imagehost.org/t/0935/Untitled0-19-15-48.jpg) (http://g.imagehost.org/view/0935/Untitled0-19-15-48)

(http://g.imagehost.org/t/0406/Untitled0-19-16-1.jpg) (http://g.imagehost.org/view/0406/Untitled0-19-16-1)

I think that pretty much sums it up.


(http://g.imagehost.org/t/0668/Untitled0-19-18-46.jpg) (http://g.imagehost.org/view/0668/Untitled0-19-18-46)

(http://g.imagehost.org/t/0634/Untitled0-19-18-53.jpg) (http://g.imagehost.org/view/0634/Untitled0-19-18-53)

ROFL

I think the problems with the big heavy tanks are that they are not more effective than smaller, more flexible at solutions. Sure you can get a panther or a pershing to hunt armor.. but in the end at guns/paks elite inf/shreks are just better at the job, for less pop.. This is particulary evident with axis since they have the largest selection of super-heavies, which all have to back up and away from stickies and bren squads..

How are you gonna circle the tiger lol? The other guy will just wait until you are behind his tiger and then go afk.. last time I checked the pershing is not more maneuvrable or faster than the sherman, and the sherman cant even circle the KT..

Its called rotating the KT in the same direction as the turret spin

it is possible to maneuver a sherman around a KT even when you rotate the tank with the turret

it depends from what angle you start...when the turret is almost pointed to the sherman you can stop and drive backwards...because of the aimtime and deacceleration the KT will not manage to shoot the sherman

I did this all the time when I used KT's. It's extremely easy. Just click and hold under the KT. Then drag in the direction you want it to face, but not more than a 180 degree turn, as this will cause is to turn the wrong direction. I once killed 4 shermans with a KT this way...at the same time, no other units involved, just the 4 shermans that rushed. KT lost less than half health and every one of them tried to circled strafe me at the same time, (it was 2 players micro-ing 2 shermans) so of course the KT is trying to target the one opposite like a retard. But seriously guys, it can be done, and it helps to be on a road, too.

And while you are right, Smokaz. The sherman micro has to be much better than the KT. The KT micro can be pretty sloppy and it will still work, whereas the sherman micro has to be much better to pull off a circle strafe of someone who knows what they are doing.

Its pretty average knowledge really, its the only way for the p4 to keep up with m10, quads etc

I have a solution to the pershing debate. There's a beta change where when you upgrade the 75mm on the sherman anda get 76mm, the pershing gets hvap rounds which deal higher penetration and since the devs have been implementing a lot of beta changes, why not this one? have a buyable upgrade for the pershing where you can upgun it to hvap, although i'm sure it'll be more than the 100 right now for Shermans, i'm sure some of you would pay for it though, although it might sac your infantry killing ability.

Why would I want yet another purchasable upgrade when something so simple as giving it an addition 20% penetration at vet 1 will suffice? Are you suggesting that the pershing ordinarily is not worthy of an innate bonus as a reward, but rather more worthy of an upgrade costing more than 100munitions?

why not? it's going to be in the beta, I'm just making a suggestion because the dev team has been known to do this.

and why would you want it to be a vet upgrade? that's just kinda silly pesonally, it still makes it the same at reg but with a purchasable upgrade, you can choose just like with the Sherman, more penetration power, or better inf fighting capability

there is only a pershing with hvap rounds and i don't know if this is still in

din't played the beta a long time because to few ppl onl.

i know that a penetration of at least 1 or more to almost all axis tanks

and this

(http://www.abload.de/thumb/bla8c6m.jpg) (http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=bla8c6m.jpg)

would make some people very horny and thats for the price of a panther and comming with infantry killing capabilities

but when this happens the pershing needs an price (means ca. 100 more fuel and 100 more MP) increase to be between the tiger and the tiger ace

or when that should be an upgrade it has to be at least 100 fuel and 100 MP

in current state it is fine and positioned between panther and tiger but a little bit to close to a panther

You can keep up with an M10 circling you, with the KT, you think the sherman should fare much better with it's lower speed?
I seriously can't even imagine a Pershing circling a Tiger, it just can't happen.
I think the main problem with the pershing is the fact it's penetrated so easily on the front by paks, which leads to the pershing user constantly having to retreat and repair - and why OBM was so powerful on pershings. Without OBM Pershings... Well, they're Pershings, you brought htem on with OBM just to attrition the enemy.
That said, back in EiR me and deadb0lt(I think it was with him) kept doing a double pershing assault start, when neither of us had OBM(I didn't even have Field Repairs at the time) and it worked pretty darn well. The pershing is a shock unit.. Just it gets shocked rather badly by paks :S.

Yet again.. you guys are coming up with arguments based on a program's calculations.

You know that the program is wrong... why insist on using it? I'm so glad that in every scenario its just a Pershing and some other unit by themself on the battlefield.


Apparently you have no idea the implications of giving the allies yet another expensive upgrade. I'll break it down for you.

Armored Company: (Since thats what we're talking about here)
Anti-tank effective units only (Munitions cost tracking)

Rifleman - Grenade 45m, BAR 75m, Sticky 80m = Potential 200m spent
Sherman - Upgun 100m, 50cal 50m, Smoke 30m, Crabflail 40m - Potential 220m spent
57mm ATG - APR 50m = Potential 150m spent
M10 = 0m spent
Pershing = 0m spent

Highlighted in green are the upgrades to make allies more effective at taking on armor. Highlighted in red is the potential cost of every unit in munitions. Now as you can see... If we were to implement another upgrade for the pershing costing 100m+... One of these upgrades or more would have to be forfeited. Now the point of this thread is to increase the effectiveness of the Armored Company.. Against armor through the pershing... Or not. So by you saying.. just give it an upgrade.. You're keeping the AT effectiveness the same because you're taking away the AT capabilities from another unit.

Now lets have a look at Terror:
Again anti-tank effective units only (Munitions cost tracked)

Volksgrenadiers - mp40 75m, Faust 50m, medkit 15m = Potential 140m spent
Grenadiers - Shreck (1) 120m, Shreck (2) 130m, Lmg42 75m, Grenade 45m, medkit 15m = Potential 310m maximum spent
Knights Cross - Faust 60m, Assault 50m, medkit 15m = Potential 125m spent
Pak 38mm = Potential 100m spent
Panzer IV = 0m spent
Panther = 0m spent
King Tiger = 0m spent
Tiger Ace = 0m spent

Now by looking at the munitions potential of all units and then look just above this and see how much munitions axis have to pay on their tanks to make it more effective.

Thank you and good night.

its all about math

and math is much more obvious then "own biased observations"

when i read from people that a pershing couldnt penetrate a panther in 5 hits while the panther penetrate the pershing in every hit..or a pershing sucked against a hetzer then i have to laugh...and cannot say more than bad luck and not the average


what are you talking about? a pak38 is 140 munition and not 100 compared to a AT57mm for 110muni
did you ever played wehrmacht?

and the 50 muni AP rounds AT57mm upgrade make it by far supperior (500% penetration and 25% more damage than default)

i've 4 AT57mm in my standard US build 2 have AP rounds that i get out when heavy tanks hit the field
just lean back and enjoy


i second this

Oh my.. I missed 40 munitions.. I feel so ashamed of myself.

Edited personal attack.  -Das.

You KNOW off hand that a Panther can go head to head with a Pershing.. you KNOW that a Pershing never beats a Tiger.. So why try and bring these weak-ass calculations to the table when you've seen it and you KNOW? Why do you insist on irrefutable evidence? You've seen it happen a thousand times!


And that's my entire fucking point, "Tough Luck". Company of Heroes already sucks as a competitive RTS based on the virtue of thousands and thousands of dice rolls to win a game. And when you blatantly ignore the fact that because of these idiotic algorithms that occur during battle; units that shouldn't be overpowered Are.. and units that shouldn't be underpowered Are.

This is why I ignore your calculations.. I ignore the battle simulation. Because they mean absolutely nothing on the field of battle.

It's funny because Starcraft was originally balanced by observation and they're currently doing the same with Starcraft II.

Of course all games have stats behind them and are always taken into account.. But Company of Heroes is one of the only games out there that incorporates CHANCE into it's build. So yes.. I'm going to go out on a limb and say fuck what the stats say, "the Pershing NEEDS a buff."

Exactly, I once had 2 greyhounds destroy 5 conscecutive platoons of an enemy player, without any kind of buffs to the greyhound, just the skirts and the 50 cal, because his shreks and paks kept missing me. Didn't mean the greyhounds were OP.
I also once had a pershing of god, that managed to drive off-map while Out Of Control, and after that dodge the "final" shrek/pak shot that should have killed it at least 15 times, in another game.
Doesn't mean the Pershing can dodge 15 shots in a row all the time.

Are you blind Scyn? Look at the screenshots again please, they say the same thing you just posted.

There's lies, there's damned lies and then there's statistics.

Edited this entire thread.  Please keep it topic specific and do not reference other players if you cannot say something positive.

It was on page 3 before... and now it is on page 2.  Lets keep it to the topic at hand, "Pershing balance," and leave the personal crap out of it.


Thanks

Das

Contrary to popular conception, Starcraft isn't balanced at all. Some units are OP (Defilers vs. Terran), some units are UP (Valkyries). On a nice, open map, Zerg would dominate everybody. Starcraft also uses chance; there's a 30% chance that a unit will miss against another unit on a cliff.

However, the Starcraft factions are different enough so that the gameplay can be balanced by maps, not the units. There's a reason why maps have been rotating in and out of the proleague.

Furthermore, each race's OP units are nicely countered by the other race's OP units. Muta stack kills Terran. Corsairs own every Zerg air unit for cost. The Terran Tank Push is nigh-unstoppable by any race if said Terran has the correct timing. And, due to the current Starcraft metagame, UP units now have their own little niche as cheese weapons; Valkyries are crap vs. anything but stacked Mutas...but every Zerg player nowadays does Muta harrass. Queens are largely a waste of time and energy, but, with enough micro, they can stop Medic/Marine cold in its tracks. Of course, a lot of this stuff is only doable by pros...but Ghosts are still useless.

I hate the chance involved in COH. It's completely against the notion of balance in said game. But it does make COH its own unique little game...if less competitive. Though it will never be competitive.

Meh, I'm off-topic again.

I hate deterministic systems

i would never, ever want to think "Ok I have a double shrek squad; I will always win against a Sherman."

that kind of gameplay sucks imo.  Chance makes every firefight interesting, and requires that you always have a backup plan. 

PM sent to DS in order to avoid thread derailment. Please respond when you have the time.