Nevyen
Honoured Member
 Posts: 2365
|
|
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2010, 01:15:01 am » |
|
well tbh the issue with the pak40 im neither here or there with though the cloaking in my mind should not happen.
But i think its more important that the 17pdr is changed to man packed. That's a critical damn thing is useless in the modern game which is a real shame as it should be a key piece of equipment on the field for the British and allies alike.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| smurfORnot
|
|
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2010, 03:13:10 am » |
|
exactly. they get ap rounds cuz of axis heavy tanks.
Pershing > Panther
Tiger > Pershing
King Tiger > Pershing
Jagdpanther > Pershing
see how that works?
except that peshing will beat tiger if he has those apcr or how is it called... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Demon767
Warmap Betatester
EIR Veteran Posts: 6190
|
|
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2010, 03:16:59 am » |
|
except that peshing will beat tiger if he has those apcr or how is it called...
say what? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Generalleutnant of The Reichs Wolves  Nevergetsputonlistguy767 |
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
 Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2010, 03:20:00 am » |
|
He means HVAP. and it's a trade off to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
He thinks Tactics is a breath mint Wow I think that was the nicest thing brn ever posted!  the pussy of a prostitute is not tight enough for destroy a condom  |
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2010, 03:23:24 am » |
|
The Pershing is most definitely better than the Tiger even if it's just because it's faster.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Demon767
Warmap Betatester
EIR Veteran Posts: 6190
|
|
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2010, 03:26:06 am » |
|
i dunno, when i used the pershing it seemed the axis had far better counters against it. Paks penetrated it. Storms fked it up. Panthers could challenge it, couldnt take on tigers etc. bad accuracy against infantry.
I felt the tiger was a more solid vehicle without any buffs. pershing without any buffs feels lackluster
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Malgoroth
Donator
 Posts: 960
|
|
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2010, 03:43:20 am » |
|
i dunno, when i used the pershing it seemed the axis had far better counters against it. Paks penetrated it. Storms fked it up. Panthers could challenge it, couldnt take on tigers etc. bad accuracy against infantry.
I felt the tiger was a more solid vehicle without any buffs. pershing without any buffs feels lackluster
It's the speed that makes the Pershing so beastly to fight against (imho). It'll crash through hedges or zip around corners and blast the jesus shit out of all my mans then zip away before I can really get my AT on it. I don't see how you can say it has bad accuracy against infantry. One on one I feel its speed even puts it on even ground with tigers. Not that the allies need any help killing tigers. Then there's the field repairs the allies get... God I hate the allies. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Demon767
Warmap Betatester
EIR Veteran Posts: 6190
|
|
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2010, 05:32:36 am » |
|
i had all the field repairs, double repairs etc. my pershing constantly missed german infantry. i mean constantly i used it for a whole month. i gave up on pershings and went back to the good ol spam m10s AP round. its better to spread out your assets than rely on one super unit. as it can be royally fucked if you mess up. besides.. m10s kill infantry and do like more damage + more range than pershings and you can have more of them
i dunno i calculated that i killed more with a 4 m10 coy+ 4 t17s than a 2 pershing company with stags
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 05:36:25 am by Demon767 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Smokaz
Honoured Member
Posts: 11418
|
|
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2010, 05:34:44 am » |
|
well tbh the issue with the pak40 im neither here or there with though the cloaking in my mind should not happen.
But i think its more important that the 17pdr is changed to man packed. That's a critical damn thing is useless in the modern game which is a real shame as it should be a key piece of equipment on the field for the British and allies alike.
I completely agree - and get rid of the 6 pounder. It only overlaps, while the greatness of the 17 pounder isn't allowed to come to fruit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
SlippedHerTheBigOne: big penis puma
SlippedHerTheBigOne: and i have no repairkits
SlippedHerTheBigOne: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
|
|
|
| Nimitz
|
|
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2010, 05:37:01 am » |
|
Yea one thing OMG did better was make brits get a movable 17p. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Demon767
Warmap Betatester
EIR Veteran Posts: 6190
|
|
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2010, 05:37:17 am » |
|
id be shitting bricks if i had to vs mobile 17 pounders if i was axis
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Nimitz
|
|
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2010, 05:44:40 am » |
|
id be shitting bricks if i had to vs mobile 17 pounders if i was axis
They fire and turn slower than normal ATGs, not to mention have only two crew members.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
Posts: 18379
|
|
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2010, 06:10:34 am » |
|
The cloaking is a bug and will be removed.
The high accuracy against infantry is also a bug.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 06:12:55 am by Unkn0wn »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Demon767
Warmap Betatester
EIR Veteran Posts: 6190
|
|
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2010, 06:15:12 am » |
|
They fire and turn slower than normal ATGs, not to mention have only two crew members. Longer ranged ATG similar to 88's with damage MOBILE! large gun health compile that with certian things as priests to dismantle and mortars and it becomes beast. and you have brens to support it with button to make up for its slower turn rate |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nevyen
Honoured Member
Posts: 2365
|
|
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2010, 07:22:15 am » |
|
yet in its current iteration its bloody useless and a waste of resources. there needs to be a balance struck and putting it in an emplacement is not the answer. there has to be a better way otherwise remove the unit and replace it with something the British can use.
Or better still keep the 6pdr and relegate a movable 17pdr to engineers similar to an 88 for defensive.
Either way it needs to be man packed. I spent allot of time arguing that but i cant see it happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| rifle87654
|
|
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2010, 07:46:56 am » |
|
exactly. they get ap rounds cuz of axis heavy tanks.
Pershing > Panther
Tiger > Pershing
King Tiger > Pershing
Jagdpanther > Pershing
see how that works?
Why doesn't 90mm Pershing > 88mm Tiger? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah
Does he have a problem? Anyway he's hilarious. |
|
|
bbsmith
The Brain and Muscle
Posts: 2778
|
|
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2010, 07:48:32 am » |
|
Diameter inst everything?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
prove it and you'll win
I win.
k u win.
|
|
|
| Kaleunt
|
|
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2010, 07:58:07 am » |
|
Size always matters, but shape too   More seriously, the 90mm gun of the Pershing was more or less the equivalent of the german 88mm mounted on KT....so not that much difference in terms of penetration and so on...on the contrary, KT front armor was 150mm thick while Pershing's was only 100... Most of all, road speed of KT and Pershing were more or less equivalent (more difference when rolling cross country?? couldn't find it out, though KT was really really slow then at average 17mph), which is definitely not the case in the game....just think that it had the same motor than a sherman, but with a 12t overweight!!! Pros and cons about modifying Pershing ingame to match the reality.... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 08:27:40 am by Kaleunt »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TheWindCriesMary
The Ethics Police
EIR Veteran Posts: 2630
|
|
« Reply #38 on: October 11, 2010, 10:17:50 am » |
|
As someone who has used the Armour and Blitz doctrines the most in this version of EiR more than anyone else, I feel sufficiently qualified to say that the pershing is by far the tank i'd rather (and have chosen to) use more.
I played over a hundred games with Tigers on my blitz account before trying out pershings on my americans, and after using them I never went back to Tigers again. They are far better performers, and far easier to keep alive and vet due to the axis having way fewer threats (such as stickies, extra mines, airborne, button fast tank destroyers).
Pershing > Tiger by a landslide.
-Wind
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Vermillion Hawk: Do you ever make a post that doesnt make you come across as an extreme douchebag?
Just sayin'
|
|
|
tank130
Sugar Daddy
 Posts: 8889
|
|
« Reply #39 on: October 11, 2010, 10:27:43 am » |
|
Wait a minute.....
you are suggesting the Brits need a Fire fly, Piats, cloak able 6 Pdr, and a movable 17Pdr
Hmmmmmm
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Geez, while Wind was banned I forgot that he is, in fact, totally insufferable
I'm not going to lie Tig, 9/10 times you open your mouth, I'm overwhelmed with the urge to put my foot in it.
|
|
|
|
