Login

russian armor

Pershing Madness

15 Oct 2014, 04:59 AM
#21
avatar of TheMightyCthulu

Posts: 127

I don't want a heavy tank for the USF because I feel it would compromise their unique play style. The fix needs to be done to the existing units, or by adding units that compliment their current play style.

First and foremost, games need to be balanced around 1v1 and, to a lesser extent, 2v2.

The only good thing, IMO, about a commander with a Pershing would be American players would stop picking Elite Infantry.
15 Oct 2014, 05:12 AM
#22
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

At least a Jumbo 76mm (hopefully non-doctrinal).....
15 Oct 2014, 05:17 AM
#23
avatar of LemonJuice

Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7

why do people insist that the jackson is bad? it one shots mortar halftracks, two shots stugs, and 3 shots panzer 4s. it costs 350/125, WHICH IS THE SAME AS A PANZER4. its not at all expensive for the massive firepower it can bring to bear.
15 Oct 2014, 05:24 AM
#24
avatar of AchtAchter

Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3

why do people insist that the jackson is bad? it one shots mortar halftracks, two shots stugs, and 3 shots panzer 4s. it costs 350/125, WHICH IS THE SAME AS A PANZER4. its not at all expensive for the massive firepower it can bring to bear.


Because too much people use it as a main battle tank. They scout with Jacksons, drive into enemy lines to fight panthers head on and then wonder why their tank destroyer explodes so quickly.
15 Oct 2014, 05:38 AM
#25
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239

why do people insist that the jackson is bad? it one shots mortar halftracks, two shots stugs, and 3 shots panzer 4s. it costs 350/125, WHICH IS THE SAME AS A PANZER4. its not at all expensive for the massive firepower it can bring to bear.


It's supposed to be the USF answer to heavy armor and it doesn't do a very good job at it. 160 long range penetration is pretty meh for a unit that is supposed to fight tanks with 300+ armor. It also has a very long reload time until vet 2/3 while also being made of cardboard held together with duct tape. 480 health/130 armor means a single mistake will cost you the Jackson, and since it is useless against infantry it is incredibly vulnerable to OKW volks blobs.

Add all of this with terrible pathing and Axis tanks being naturally faster (looking at you Panther) and/or having blitz, and it is a glass cannon that seems to be missing part of the cannon.
15 Oct 2014, 05:39 AM
#26
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4883

why do people insist that the jackson is bad? it one shots mortar halftracks, two shots stugs, and 3 shots panzer 4s. it costs 350/125, WHICH IS THE SAME AS A PANZER4. its not at all expensive for the massive firepower it can bring to bear.


Personally I don't like it because it's way too all-or-nothing, and too RNG. It's not much more mobile than a regular tank but much easier to kill, it has longer range but normal vision, and it has high damage but bleh penetration. One flank and it's dead, and sometimes this isn't even preventable (unless you're psychic, I guess).

In the end, you have a glass cannon that struggles to utilize it's range to its advantage, with average visibility preventing it from 'sniping' 1v1, but also accuracy and penetration problems at longer range even with a spotter.

Now that I think about it, passive vehicle detection could also really benefit units like the M10, M36, and JP4, who have long range but average vision because they aren't meant for recon.
15 Oct 2014, 05:40 AM
#27
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned
why do people insist that the jackson is bad? it one shots mortar halftracks, two shots stugs, and 3 shots panzer 4s. it costs 350/125, WHICH IS THE SAME AS A PANZER4. its not at all expensive for the massive firepower it can bring to bear.


I would agree with you.. IF it could CONSISTENTLY PENETRATE
15 Oct 2014, 06:21 AM
#28
avatar of LemonJuice

Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7

youre doing it wrong if youre building just one jackson. usually a pack of two or even three is enough to handle most armor. lets not forget that the USF have the scot, which completely destroys blobs and elite infantry.

if it could consistently penetrate, it would need a huge price increase, because for something that is 350/125, it works quite well at the moment.
15 Oct 2014, 06:25 AM
#29
avatar of Spanky
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2

give americans the sherman crocodile and i'm all good.

PS: Calliope would float my boat aswell. :D
15 Oct 2014, 06:26 AM
#30
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

If added to USF arsenal, Pershing should NOT be doctrinal. It should be in T4 but while all existent armor shuld be available as soon as you called the major, Pershing should require an unlock, payable in something: mp + fuel, mp, you choose it. Then it should have its own price. That way, USF players will have to decide if they want to hold the line aiming for pershings or will use current armor in larger quantities.
If it's doctrinal, 80% of USF players will use that doctrine, and the diversity will suffer.
15 Oct 2014, 06:30 AM
#31
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2816 | Subs: 1

Since when is the unit considered fast ?
Well son, dont you remember Relic telling us that the tanks of USF can rely on their speed?

Dang, dem jokes
15 Oct 2014, 06:56 AM
#32
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4883

youre doing it wrong if youre building just one jackson. usually a pack of two or even three is enough to handle most armor. lets not forget that the USF have the scot, which completely destroys blobs and elite infantry.

And I don't understand why allies are expected to spam tanks to be effective, but don't get any fuel bonus or cheap tanks to do so.


Since when is the unit considered fast ?
Well son, dont you remember Relic telling us that the tanks of USF can rely on their speed?

Dang, dem jokes

Yeah I don't understand it either, allied tanks are less mobile than their axis counterparts. Mobility differences between the medium tanks are negligible, the Panther is more mobile, and even the King Tiger can go haul ass at Vet 1.
15 Oct 2014, 08:47 AM
#33
avatar of MazerRackham

Posts: 73

youre doing it wrong if youre building just one jackson. usually a pack of two or even three is enough to handle most armor. lets not forget that the USF have the scot, which completely destroys blobs and elite infantry.

if it could consistently penetrate, it would need a huge price increase, because for something that is 350/125, it works quite well at the moment.
I agree. A blob of 4 deals with Tigers effectively. What's bullshit is when a squad of 4 take on a King Tiger and 15/16 shots donk. That's fucking bullshit. Happened last game.

What's also bullshit is when a pack of 4 Jacksons try to flank a JagdTiger and get sniped through trees thanks to its fucking RailUberMegaLazerFuckTHEUSA Cannon.
15 Oct 2014, 08:58 AM
#34
avatar of Glassfish
Benefactor 340

Posts: 88

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2014, 06:25 AMSpanky
give americans the sherman crocodile and i'm all good.

PS: Calliope would float my boat aswell. :D


I miss my crocodile soo bad and i want the Callipoe from Vcoh blitzkreig mod that fired constantly for like 30 seconds it actualy fired all 60 of its rockets
15 Oct 2014, 09:05 AM
#35
avatar of Glassfish
Benefactor 340

Posts: 88

why do people insist that the jackson is bad? it one shots mortar halftracks, two shots stugs, and 3 shots panzer 4s. it costs 350/125, WHICH IS THE SAME AS A PANZER4. its not at all expensive for the massive firepower it can bring to bear.


thats what i've been trying to say in a 1v1 with a Pershing suported by two jacksons tell me that a tiger and two P4s will be able to take that considering Persing will most likley be simmilar cost as a tiger and we already know Jacksons are the same price as a p4

the German player could get panthers but they are way more expensive and the chance of having two and a tiger in a 1v1 are pretty slim based on pop cap and cost

send the Pershing in as a meat shield and let the Jacksons kite tell me what armor that couldn't take down
15 Oct 2014, 09:37 AM
#36
avatar of y3ivan

Posts: 98

3 reason why ppl believe that jackson is bad

1. blitzkrieg
2. panzershreck
3. pak 40

Its not that jackson does not matchup with OH/OKW tanks, is that OH/OKW support weapons are too good at performing AT, making it extremely risky to flank with jackson.
15 Oct 2014, 12:05 PM
#37
avatar of MoBo111

Posts: 150

Im talking purely from a 1v1 perspective i said it at the beginning of the post based on the fact that if relic makes a change like a Pershing it will effect all aspects of the game

Team games obviously offer a completely different dynamic considering that they last much longer and players are able to combine forces how relic can balance all game modes with the same set of stats and units i don't know

i do think that a Jagd tiger needs to be looked at considering it can out kite everything and shoot through stuff

i also dont like the German blitzkreig ability i think its counter intuitive to the German armor style of play having German tanks with thick armor and big guns out maneuver Amrican tanks is
absurd

I like the idea of a sherman jumbo though as i think most U.S tanks are flakey in terms of armor, having something that could absorb punishment while Jacksons kite could work

im not totally against having a Pershing in the game i just think that it may a little overkill considering the U.S. can get powerful medium tanks and tank destroyers on the cheap as well as all their other AT it just dpends on how it is implemented


Jagd is able to kite something? Sorry but what the fuck!?! It's the slowest vehicle in the entire game, on territory with craters and stuff it's even slower if you are able to catch it anywhere with the rear or side armor it's as good as dead. It get's stunned and the only advantage it has besides it's high penetration and the high damage is it's wall shooting. If you kill it it's mostly gg. It's not meant as a mobile field at in the state it is right now. Oh and have you ever tried to use a b4 against it? And don't forget that it doesn't spot the enemy by himself like the isu.
15 Oct 2014, 12:08 PM
#38
avatar of Kronosaur0s

Posts: 1660

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2014, 12:05 PMMoBo111


Jagd is able to kite something? Sorry but what the fuck!?! It's the slowest vehicle in the entire game, on territory with craters and stuff it's even slower if you are able to catch it anywhere with the rear or side armor it's as good as dead. It get's stunned and the only advantage it has besides it's high penetration and the high damage is it's wall shooting. If you kill it it's mostly gg. It's not meant as a mobile field at in the state it is right now. Oh and have you ever tried to use a b4 against it? And don't forget that it doesn't spot the enemy by himself like the isu.


Finally something coherent
15 Oct 2014, 12:48 PM
#39
avatar of Glassfish
Benefactor 340

Posts: 88

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2014, 12:05 PMMoBo111


Jagd is able to kite something? Sorry but what the fuck!?! It's the slowest vehicle in the entire game, on territory with craters and stuff it's even slower if you are able to catch it anywhere with the rear or side armor it's as good as dead. It get's stunned and the only advantage it has besides it's high penetration and the high damage is it's wall shooting. If you kill it it's mostly gg. It's not meant as a mobile field at in the state it is right now. Oh and have you ever tried to use a b4 against it? And don't forget that it doesn't spot the enemy by himself like the isu.


we're not even debating that but never mind, this is not a Jagdtiger balance thread we're talking about the possibility of adding a pershing
15 Oct 2014, 20:26 PM
#40
avatar of acosn

Posts: 108 | Subs: 1

Problems with the Jackson-


1: The 90mm gun was actually quite adequate at anti-infantry roles. Two machine guns on the tank only furthered this. You see no such thing in this game and honestly I think the only AT platform that is worse at dealing with infantry either has to be AT guns or an elephant.


2: Low HP. The Jackson actually had thicker armor than an M4 Sherman and in a straight up fight the open top legitimately would not contribute significantly to it being vulnerable. Maybe against artillery, mortars, and aircraft, but not another tank.


3: Trying to excuse weak penetration with high damage. Never mind the fact that the staggered penetration values by range makes no sense for a tank Relic's already gone out of their way to give weak survivability on, this tank is only good with vet, it has a difficult time surviving fire fights to maintain that vet, and relies on button pushing to actually deal with any tank because normal rounds suck.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
ML5: Grand Final

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag Scoped
  • U.S. Forces flag AceHiro
uploaded by AceHiro

Board Info

98 users are online: 8 members and 90 guests
miragefla, Pip, Vipper, JPA32, Mithiriath, Vladislavs89, Katitof, Protos Angelus
102 posts in the last 24h
803 posts in the last week
3949 posts in the last month
Registered members: 37186
Welcome our newest member, nervy
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM