Login

russian armor

Jackson Nerf vs Making Panther Doctrinal

PAGES (10)down
4 Nov 2019, 02:37 AM
#61
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 963 | Subs: 1



Allright you caught me, I was being drastic just to fight fire with fire, and I admit it, that was ok. I stand corrected.

I know jacksons are needed evil because of Panthers but this specific topic is frustrating and also hard to balance.

I agree with supremestefan about okw Panthers being doctrinal. But that change should have consequences on allied factions or on okw itself.

Afaik about the units design, Panthers depend on their armor and jacksons on their firepower, both have great mobility but Panthers dont flank, they chase, jacksons should flank but their current pen is good enough to allow them to fire frontally, all because of super heavies armor. Those differences make their balance really hard.


Removing the panther for either OST or OKW would require the Stug or jp4 to get buffs to compensate imo.

You could remove the panther for okw only if the jp4 gets a major buff to penetration.
ddd
4 Nov 2019, 09:05 AM
#62
avatar of ddd

Posts: 521 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2019, 16:39 PMLago


Except it doesn't. It's a battle between two vehicles pretty much guaranteed to penetrate each other with similar reloads. The attacker (the P4) is likely to get the first shot off, but the Jackson has better moving accuracy.

A fair fight is not a counter.

Run the same scenario with a Firefly or SU-85 and the tank destroyer is screwed.


Are you trolling right now? You asked for changes to make jackson vulnerable to flanks, there is no need for such changes because cheapest generalist axis medium tank wins frontal engagement if it gets in range. Nobody said p4 counters jackson but you.
4 Nov 2019, 12:34 PM
#63
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2720

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2019, 09:05 AMddd
Are you trolling right now? You asked for changes to make jackson vulnerable to flanks, there is no need for such changes because cheapest generalist axis medium tank wins frontal engagement if it gets in range. Nobody said p4 counters jackson but you.


It doesn't. It's an even fight.

You can't positionally counter a Jackson and it's a top-tier dedicated AT vehicle, so the only direct counter is infantry AT.

The Jackson's in this state by necessity (every other nondoc AT unit in USF is geared towards countering LVs for some reason) but it's not a good design state.

Reworking the Jackson to be more like a Firefly and less of an AT panacea would be a good thing, but it'd need to come with changes to the Stuart and the M1 ATG to fill the gap.
4 Nov 2019, 12:53 PM
#64
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2609 | Subs: 1

.. Yea to lose a Jackson to a p4 the usf player would have to have its engine damaged and attacking the ground in a different direction.

It has all of the power of other TDs, with all the advantages of the usf with none of the weaknesses of either except that the main gun doesn't damage infantry


What are the advantage of the usf?

In fact if you look at all 3 allied faction's design, Jackson is what it is on top UKF and Soviet TDs version for some good reasons.

Soviet have stock sprint on Cons + atnade combo would make a Jackson like too powerful on Soviet roaster, the SU-85 doesn't need speed if the Cons have it. Katy also have a role here since its a perfect unit to blow away enemy defenses from far, that hmg covering the flank for your cons or that pak40 for your T34 to flank. Su-85 doesn't need to be super mobile when other unit can do it for them.

UKF is all about late game, there is no need to draw a picture about what would be a Jackson like Firefly with a Churchill or Comet soaking the damage. We could even consider the Armored car since it has a really good main gun vs medium tanks.

Then USF, well what does have USF that have speed or long range high profile damage or a ton of hp to soak damage and simply that can brawl in the front. Hum? No-thing.

Now I'm not saying this is good design, but make it for the Jackson to be what it is.
4 Nov 2019, 12:59 PM
#65
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 1680

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2019, 12:53 PMEsxile

Then USF, well what does have USF that have speed or long range high profile damage or a ton of hp to soak damage and simply that can brawl in the front. Hum? No-thing.

Now I'm not saying this is good design, but make it for the Jackson to be what it is.

Funny you mention it, but jackson has a healthy mixture of speed, penetration (plus extra pen with muni), health pool and attack range. On top of USF tanks perks (self repair, on the move acc)

It is like P4 on axis, a good combination of stats that make a unit solid. But P4 are not on the top of the food chain.

USF has many doctrinal units that could fill that missing space you mention.
4 Nov 2019, 13:23 PM
#66
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2720

USF has many doctrinal units that could fill that missing space you mention.


PTRS Penals were introduced in the fast place because it was decided making a faction reliant on commanders was a bad thing.

I'm convinced the right design for the Jackson is return it to 480 HP, restoring its identity as an agile sniper tank.

But if you did that, you'd have to rework USF's other AT units to compensate.

Until that happens, the 640 HP Panacea Jackson is a balance necessity.
4 Nov 2019, 13:29 PM
#67
avatar of BlueKnight

Posts: 149

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2019, 13:23 PMLago


PTRS Penals were introduced in the fast place because it was decided making a faction reliant on commanders was a bad thing.

I'm convinced the right design for the Jackson is return it to 480 HP, restoring its identity as an agile sniper tank.

But if you did that, you'd have to rework USF's other AT units to compensate.

Until that happens, the 640 HP Panacea Jackson is a balance necessity.

With Jackson HP decrease, JPIV would counter all USF vehicles even more than it does now. You are making it look like Jackson is solution to every problem which is just not the case.
4 Nov 2019, 13:43 PM
#68
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 6401 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2019, 13:23 PMLago

PTRS Penals were introduced in the fast place because it was decided making a faction reliant on commanders was a bad thing.

Funny that mention Penal since to me an example to be avoided and not be repeated

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2019, 13:23 PMLago

I'm convinced the right design for the Jackson is return it to 480 HP, restoring its identity as an agile sniper tank.

But if you did that, you'd have to rework USF's other AT units to compensate.

Until that happens, the 640 HP Panacea Jackson is a balance necessity.

HP was no the only change to the M36 it also got ROF/Penetration/Damage changes. Imo those are ones the cause the problems and not the HP.
4 Nov 2019, 13:47 PM
#69
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2720

With Jackson HP decrease, JPIV would counter all USF vehicles even more than it does now. You are making it look like Jackson is solution to every problem which is just not the case.


The JPIV is a casemate like the SU-85. Even the AEC can take it out if it gets a good angle on it.

The two TDs that isn't true of are the Jackson and the Panther.

The Panther has a higher price point than other TDs and limited range. The Jackson used to have lower health, meaning it faired poorly in close range engagements.

The Firefly, SU-85 and JPIV fare poorly if flanked, meaning they have to play much more safely.
4 Nov 2019, 14:24 PM
#70
avatar of mondeogaming1

Posts: 460

2014 USF best state of balance
4 Nov 2019, 14:36 PM
#71
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2609 | Subs: 1


Funny you mention it, but jackson has a healthy mixture of speed, penetration (plus extra pen with muni), health pool and attack range. On top of USF tanks perks (self repair, on the move acc)

It is like P4 on axis, a good combination of stats that make a unit solid. But P4 are not on the top of the food chain.

USF has many doctrinal units that could fill that missing space you mention.


Yes indeed, Jackson has a mixture of what the USF faction lack in a whole, thus my idea to give some to the sherman by swapping with Ez8 and reduce the Jackson TD profile to heavy tank counter.

But no, doctrinal units or abilities aren't there to fill a missing space but to add volume in each faction design.
4 Nov 2019, 15:10 PM
#72
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3235 | Subs: 1

Usf doesn't need an E8 stock, it would make the 76mm and m10s as redundant as the current Jackson does. However improving the pen of the AP rounds and reducing the AI of them on the 75mm would work.
Evn as a further separate shell (3 types then, regular, AP and HE to highlight and promote the versatility of the sherman) but there is no need for a beautiful doctrinal unit to become stock in this case.

If the E8 was made stock however I'd treat it like the KT just so it doesn't completely shut out all other sherman variants and lock it behind a complete tech, then the 76mm would still have a spot as an inferior but more easily unlocked variant that only requires teching to major
4 Nov 2019, 15:26 PM
#73
avatar of elnur009

Posts: 30

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Nov 2019, 23:10 PMCODGUY


Well excuse me. Yeah I am just a rank 1300er but I guess I do know enough not to expect to counter a tank destroyer with a tank and then cry about it because it blows up my tank.

i already guess from your threads that you don't give a shit but
when you are rank 1000+ problem is never ever about the balance, you are just really bad at this game
4 Nov 2019, 17:51 PM
#74
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1577 | Subs: 2


i already guess from your threads that you don't give a shit but
when you are rank 1000+ problem is never ever about the balance, you are just really bad at this game


you got it all wrong. USF is just really bad at this game:bananadance:
4 Nov 2019, 17:52 PM
#75
avatar of BlueKnight

Posts: 149

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2019, 13:47 PMLago


The JPIV is a casemate like the SU-85. Even the AEC can take it out if it gets a good angle on it.

The two TDs that isn't true of are the Jackson and the Panther.

The Panther has a higher price point than other TDs and limited range. The Jackson used to have lower health, meaning it faired poorly in close range engagements.

The Firefly, SU-85 and JPIV fare poorly if flanked, meaning they have to play much more safely.

1. You are dodging my point, JPIV counters every single nondoc USF vehicle. Not only that, but also USF AT gun and bazookas bounce on JPIV's armour.
2. If being a casemate is such a huge issue as you say, I guess soviets shouldn't exist with their stock TDs all being casemates and the other vehicle being Snare34. Puma can take them out if it gets good angle on them. Also JPIV gets higher accuracy + higher rate of fire + higher survivability due to more HP and armour than SU-85 while not needing as much pen due to fighting mostly medium armour vehicles.

Truth is JPIV counters Jacksons and people just refuse this idea. They would rather nerf Jackson than use the right tool for the job. If Jackson is such a broken TD (while not having been changed for a loooong time now), why don't we see USF meta winning every tournament of various gamemodes?

JPIV? And what about wehrmacht? It has its own strengths like very good AI Ostwind and Brummbar, cheap AT platform of Stug, the best handheld AT and ATG in the game, sniper and stock rocket arty and very potent doctrines. Wehrmacht has its individual advantages over other factions just as the other factions have advantage over Wehrmacht in the means of stock 60 range TD.
4 Nov 2019, 19:17 PM
#76
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2720

1. You are dodging my point, JPIV counters every single nondoc USF vehicle. Not only that, but also USF AT gun and bazookas bounce on JPIV's armour.
2. If being a casemate is such a huge issue as you say, I guess soviets shouldn't exist with their stock TDs all being casemates and the other vehicle being Snare34. Puma can take them out if it gets good angle on them. Also JPIV gets higher accuracy + higher rate of fire + higher survivability due to more HP and armour than SU-85 while not needing as much pen due to fighting mostly medium armour vehicles.


You're missing the point.

Being a casemate means you can be circle-strafed. Something as small as an AEC or Puma can kill an SU-85 or JPIV if they get behind it. This positionally limits casemates heavily. They've got to stay in range of AT support or have their flanks defended. In essence, they play like anti-tank guns.

This positional restriction offsets their firepower advantage and gives weaker vehicles a way to fight back.

That doesn't make casemates bad any more than it makes ATGs are bad.

But can you really argue that an ATG with a turret isn't more powerful than an ATG with a fixed firing arc?
4 Nov 2019, 19:59 PM
#77
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 575



Truth is JPIV counters Jacksons and people just refuse this idea. They would rather nerf Jackson than use the right tool for the job. If Jackson is such a broken TD (while not having been changed for a loooong time now), why don't we see USF meta winning every tournament of various gamemodes?


This is what I've been saying. The Jackson isn't some unkillable jack of all trades vehicle. It is vulnerable to all sorts of infantry and crewed weapons plus a few vehicles if used correctly. The (alleged) problem is that it isn't effectively countered by tanks because Axis players like to build armor and expect it to be supeiror to all allied vehicles.

A tank cannot effectively counter a tank destroyer...OMG! Get out the nerf hammer!
4 Nov 2019, 20:39 PM
#78
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 1537

Usf doesn't need an E8 stock, it would make the 76mm and m10s as redundant as the current Jackson does. However improving the pen of the AP rounds and reducing the AI of them on the 75mm would work.
Evn as a further separate shell (3 types then, regular, AP and HE to highlight and promote the versatility of the sherman) but there is no need for a beautiful doctrinal unit to become stock in this case.

If the E8 was made stock however I'd treat it like the KT just so it doesn't completely shut out all other sherman variants and lock it behind a complete tech, then the 76mm would still have a spot as an inferior but more easily unlocked variant that only requires teching to major


The Jackson only makes all these mediums redundant because it was apparently decided that the US weren't allowed to have anything with more than 800hp (until recent Pershing change)

Im fine with that, but if NONE of your tanks can soak any damage, the Jackson is gonna be the way that it is and the doc premium mediums will feel redundant

I think the ez8 is special enough, but i dont see much of a reason to get m4cs
4 Nov 2019, 20:46 PM
#79
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3235 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2019, 19:59 PMCODGUY


This is what I've been saying. The Jackson isn't some unkillable jack of all trades vehicle. It is vulnerable to all sorts of infantry and crewed weapons plus a few vehicles if used correctly. The (alleged) problem is that it isn't effectively countered by tanks because Axis players like to build armor and expect it to be supeiror to all allied vehicles.

A tank cannot effectively counter a tank destroyer...OMG! Get out the nerf hammer!


List of tank destroyers tanks can counter is the enemy is caught off guard:
Su76
Su85
Puma
JP4
Jagdtiger
Stug
Elefant
Firefly
M10

List of tank destroyers that, even when caught ou of position have a great chance of making it a fair fight at the very least:
Jackson

The jackson is too forgiving to be as potent offensively as the other TDs, yknow the ones that CAN be countered by getting caught in a bad position. The ones that can't slug it out, or flee or slug it out WHILE fleeing and that actually swinging RNG into its own favour.
4 Nov 2019, 21:41 PM
#80
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 575



List of tank destroyers tanks can counter is the enemy is caught off guard:
Su76
Su85
Puma
JP4
Jagdtiger
Stug
Elefant
Firefly
M10

List of tank destroyers that, even when caught ou of position have a great chance of making it a fair fight at the very least:
Jackson

The jackson is too forgiving to be as potent offensively as the other TDs, yknow the ones that CAN be countered by getting caught in a bad position. The ones that can't slug it out, or flee or slug it out WHILE fleeing and that actually swinging RNG into its own favour.


The M10 is just a mini-Jackson and the Puma a micro-Jackson. I'd say they have basically the same preformance characteristics being highly mobile lightly armored anti-armor platforms. The Jackson is just a larger later game version of those two. The Panther is up there with the Jackson as far as preformance but it is heavily armored despite it's speed and with the doctrine that gives it smoke it's way more broken than the Jackson's current state but I don't see anyone complain about that.

I could live with maybe a little MP cost increase on the Jackson to bring it inline with a Firefly but that's it.
PAGES (10)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

New Zealand 43
unknown 5

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag N1cko
  • Oberkommando West flag Scotch1
  • Soviets flag Frosty
  • Soviets flag Beatricks Swire
uploaded by Frost

Board Info

271 users are online: 4 members and 267 guests
serg_codmod, RepoRogue, MMX, ZeroZeroNi
90 posts in the last 24h
1195 posts in the last week
5206 posts in the last month
Registered members: 68609
Welcome our newest member, ellahalark
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM