FBP: M36 Jackson Discussion

Upcoming Changes for 1.2:

-Cost from 380/135 to 400/145
-Accuracy for standard and HVAP from 0.06/0.05/0.03 to 0.055/0.04/0.03
-Far penetration from 180 to 200.

You forgot the 600 -> 640 Hp buff

You know that we make this for free? In our free time! So were is the fairness to us?

Oh im sorry, I guess since youve volunteered your time, us common folk don't get a say in what gets changed.

Jackson still lose 1vs1 vs a j4p on vet 0 already. On vet 2 J4p get Ho boost so its even more ez for j4p.
And wehrmacht has tellermines, pak40, shreks if you don't like a cheap stug. I mean look at the fuel prize jackson vs stug.

Is this how you are actually measuring the effectiveness of the m36? Vs the JP4? WTF

Newsflash. The JP4 is Supposed to beat the m36 since

A) The Jp4 has no turret so will always lose if its not a head on fight.

B) Has kinda crappy pen and accuracy which makes it struggle vs heavy tanks.

If you buff the m36 to the point where it beats the Jp4 in a head on fight, exatly what is supposed to be the jp4s tradeoff for having no turret and low maneuverability?

On vet 2 J4p get Ho boost so its even more ez for j4p.

Its things like this that make me really doubt your credibility.

Earlier in the thread you justified the 600 -> 640 HP buff by saying that 4 shots @ 160 damage a piece will both kill it at both 600 or 640 HP.

Well guess what?

the Jp4 having 640 Hp at vet0/1 and having 800 HP has no bearing on how hard it is to kill with a M36. After all it takes 4 shots to deal 640 damage and 4 shots to deal 800 damage. Its pretty much what you said before to justify the m36 HP buff.

Who sees a JP4 and think "I need a jackson" and who sees a jackson and thinks "I need a JP4" for that?

I see either and get some infantry AT. As OKW though, since panzerschrecks are on Sturmpioneers now, the answer is usually to raketen it.

If you buff the m36 to the point where it beats the Jp4 in a head on fight, exatly what is supposed to be the jp4s tradeoff for having no turret and low maneuverability?

Nazi Cloaking Field?
It's not like OKW lacks AT Options in the Tank deparment, USF currently does, that's why the Jackson is getting buffed.
They need an Anchor to be useful in longer games where they face more than one tank.

Nazi Cloaking Field?

I remember seeing a JP4 Predator Cloak for the first time and I was just thinking, "Did I just see a bug? Damn thing just disappeared in the middle of combat..."

I remember seeing a JP4 Predator Cloak for the first time and I was just thinking, "Did I just see a bug? Damn thing just disappeared in the middle of combat..."

Remember the predator cloak jp4 video where it is impossible to hit it once it is cloaked lol?

So I'm bringing this back up since we've had more time with 1.2. What do people think of the Jackson now?

From my experience, the unit likely needs to be toned down against medium tanks a little more and possibly go to 560 health, which is in discussion behind the scenes. Yes that means it'd go back to getting 2-hitted by Jagdtigers and Elefants and require less to kill from non-160 sources.

Target Tables against mediums might be the answer, but Smith hates those due to the need to memorize damage against specific targets. I'm sure the team could use it though if I push hard enough and maybe if I got the chance to work on some UI-text that would help classify units in their descriptions.

Also I've compiled the notes here and on the main page:

Total Changes

-Cost from 350/125 to 400/145.
-Accuracy from 0.06/0.05/0.03 to 0.055/0.04/0.03.
-HVAP accuracy from 0.06/0.05/0.04 to 0.055/0.04/0.03.
-Penetration from 230/210/200.
-Health from 480 to 640.
-Penetration from 240/220/200 to 280/230/200.

So I'm bringing this back up since we've had more time with 1.2. What do people think of the Jackson now?

From my experience, the unit likely needs to be toned down against medium tanks a little more and possibly go to 560 health, which is in discussion behind the scenes. Yes that means it'd go back to getting 2-hitted by Jagdtigers and Elefants and require less to kill from non-160 sources.

What is going to happen with those changes:

The initial problem of JT and Ele being uncounterable, especially for USF won't be fixed. The Jackson will become too valuable to be actually used for flanking. The Jackson will be stronger against anything that's not a JT/Ele/JP4.

You either allow more diverse counterplay for JT/Ele as ally (especially USF) or you will most likely see axis rely even more on tank destroyers.

I believe Barton suggested to have their range set to 60. Why not use that and keep the damage of 320. Then, those tanks will actually have their advantages but also an actual weakpoint. They will no longer be able inflict damage without exposing them to the enemy. USF would no longer have to fear their tanks being picked off from longer distances...

Can we please stop messing around and move the AT gun to t0 after unlocking LT or Capitan. Ty

Can we please stop messing around and move the AT gun to t0 after unlocking LT or Capitan. Ty

Like the Raketen but locked behind Officer? I guess that's fair, the USF ATG is better than people think it is, even with the munitions required.

Why not lower the damage and add deflection damage ?

So I'm bringing this back up since we've had more time with 1.2. What do people think of the Jackson now?

From my experience, the unit likely needs to be toned down against medium tanks a little more and possibly go to 560 health, which is in discussion behind the scenes. Yes that means it'd go back to getting 2-hitted by Jagdtigers and Elefants and require less to kill from non-160 sources.

Target Tables against mediums might be the answer, but Smith hates those due to the need to memorize damage against specific targets. I'm sure the team could use it though if I push hard enough and maybe if I got the chance to work on some UI-text that would help classify units in their descriptions.

Also I've compiled the notes here and on the main page:

Total Changes

-Cost from 350/125 to 400/145.
-Accuracy from 0.06/0.05/0.03 to 0.055/0.04/0.03.
-HVAP accuracy from 0.06/0.05/0.04 to 0.055/0.04/0.03.
-Penetration from 230/210/200.
-Health from 480 to 640.
-Penetration from 240/220/200 to 280/230/200.

my vote:

Jackson
-Cost from 350/125 to 380/135.
-Health from 480 to 560.

no changes on accuracy, penetration or range. jackson is designed to be a mobile but fragile tank buster, more than 560hp is a big change in his design.

my personal proposal to put more meat on the USF late game, is increase the pershing health form 800 to 960hp, more according with the rest of the heavies. the manpower cost can be increased a little to compensate the new life. form 600 to 630mp.

So I'm bringing this back up since we've had more time with 1.2. What do people think of the Jackson now?

From my experience, the unit likely needs to be toned down against medium tanks a little more and possibly go to 560 health, which is in discussion behind the scenes. Yes that means it'd go back to getting 2-hitted by Jagdtigers and Elefants and require less to kill from non-160 sources.

What about altering the size of the heavies its meant to counter? Right now the super-heavies and a P4 only have 4(?) points of size difference between them, its definitely not enough to make a substantial difference.

I'am still not convinced the changes brought to the Jacksons are going to be balanced in teamgame. I'am really afraid Jacksons + Su85 or Jacksons + FF are going to dominate the 4vs4 meta.
I mean the FBP Jackson is good in 1vs1 and probably 2vs2. But 4vs4 is another story, sadly it is almost impossible to test, I have already difficulties just to do a FBP 1vs1...

In my opinion, TDs/mediums/heavies are balance in the live version today if we exclude the Jagtiger and Elefant from the table. There are some minor changes to be done of course around them but I think the FBP are taking good care of them.

The Jacksons, as much as the USF faction is badly design, is ok today. So why taking the risk to sink the balance between TDs/mediums/heavies in teamgame in order to get the Jackson relevant on late game vs the Efe and Jag? Why not simply work around the Elefant and Jagtiger because they are the biggest offender here.

I don't think those two tanks should see their stats nerfed neither than the Jackson buffed. So the solutions I propose, and many other players already mentioned already are quite simple.

1- Make repairing them cost manpower and fuel, a full repair could cost between 1/3 and 1/2 of their initial price.

2- Make them un-repairable neither from pioneers, sturmpioneers or the OKW truck. Once dead, you must call another one. To mitigate it, remove the engine damage on them.

Both solutions would reduce the resource gap between their initial cost and the resource cost allied factions have to put together to take them down. We all agree that the problem isn't when you kill them but when you leave them at 10% life while losing your tanks. They come back full life couple of minutes later for free while you must reinvest manpower and fuel to try to counter them a new time.

Both solutions would actually make them vulnerable to TDs since each pen shot on them would cost the player resources, or on reparation or after its death to call another one.

Applying one of those solutions would reduce the number of Jag and Ele per game and players would actually think about it before calling them. They would lose their status of TD that counter anything for a high initial cost but in fact quite a small one in comparison with what your opponents must invest to take them down.

This would reward good players on both side and punish sitting ducks that just repair after each attack.

This also wouldn't affect at all the rest of the balance if for instance they become too weak. Some tweek are probably required like increasing a bit more the Efe range.

The main problem here imo is balancing philosophy. Instead of making allies focused more towards quantity instead of quality you try to reproduce axis styled unit. After the changes the only things jackson will be lacking to be identical with axis units is better frontal armor. xD

Problems concerning tank vs tank battles are:
- too narrow maps with not enough flank spaces
- too much mobility for axis tanks
- not enough mobility for allied tanks
- too expensive allied tanks

Axis tanks prefer frontal, long range skirmishes. Hence elephants, jagdtigs, jp4s, panthers etc. Frontal armor on axis tanks is high af like its supposed to be. Armor penetration on most axis tanks is high too. Also cost of axis tanks is high. Now the problem here is retarded blitzkrieg, it makes axis tanks too fast too furious. Being slow with slow turret rotation is literally the only chance for allied tanks.

Now allied tanks have shitty armor pen, no tankiness, bad armor but some of them have somewhat decent mobility. If anyone then allied tanks should have something like blitzkriego mobility to make better raids.

I would concentrate on making allied tanks best for making massed raids with high mobility. Give blitzkrieg to all allied tanks. Lower cost of sherman and make it less effective vs infantry to compensate and voila we have a fun game. One side prefers static frontal skirmishes while the other wants to make big raids. It sounds better than making jackson an axis clone.

I'am still not convinced the changes brought to the Jacksons are going to be balanced in teamgame. I'am really afraid Jacksons + Su85 or Jacksons + FF are going to dominate the 4vs4 meta.

This is where you are wrong. Leaving the super heavies aside there will still be JP4s who are simply outstanding in their performance. This unit itself has one of the smallest target sizes for vehicles in the game. The only vehicles to have a smaller or same target size are the Hetzer, Kübel, M20 and Dodges. Yes, even the russian M3 is easier to hit.

Yes, Ostheer does not possess a 60 range vehicle, yet they are still late-game viable - even on their own.

The real problem with large games is the inflated economy and the ability to instantly replace a Super heavy call in.

The first can be fixed with reducing the turnover of cashes while also increasing the price.

The second can be fixed by making the cooldown start when a Super heavy is destroyed and not from when it called in.

The main problem here imo is balancing philosophy. Instead of making allies focused more towards quantity instead of quality you try to reproduce axis styled unit. After the changes the only things jackson will be lacking to be identical with axis units is better frontal armor. xD

Problems concerning tank vs tank battles are:
- too narrow maps with not enough flank spaces
- too much mobility for axis tanks
- not enough mobility for allied tanks
- too expensive allied tanks

Axis tanks prefer frontal, long range skirmishes. Hence elephants, jagdtigs, jp4s, panthers etc. Frontal armor on axis tanks is high af like its supposed to be. Armor penetration on most axis tanks is high too. Also cost of axis tanks is high. Now the problem here is retarded blitzkrieg, it makes axis tanks too fast too furious. Being slow with slow turret rotation is literally the only chance for allied tanks.

Now allied tanks have shitty armor pen, no tankiness, bad armor but some of them have somewhat decent mobility. If anyone then allied tanks should have something like blitzkriego mobility to make better raids.

I would concentrate on making allied tanks best for making massed raids with high mobility. Give blitzkrieg to all allied tanks. Lower cost of sherman and make it less effective vs infantry to compensate and voila we have a fun game. One side prefers static frontal skirmishes while the other wants to make big raids. It sounds better than making jackson an axis clone.

The quantity vs. quality thinking is exactly what brought us into this mess. Pushing for a certain agenda while ignoring the indidvidual interactions between units is not beneficial.

The real problem with large games is the inflated economy and the ability to instantly replace a Super heavy call in.

The first can be fixed with reducing the turnover of cashes while also increasing the price.

The second can be fixed by making the cooldown start when a Super heavy is destroyed and not from when it called in.

No, it is not. The problem exists when those units are on the field and allow no counterplay. If you can not counter them, you can not kill them. Hence, the discussion about ressources is completely out of place.

Like the Raketen but locked behind Officer? I guess that's fair, the USF ATG is better than people think it is, even with the munitions required.

im tired of going LT just to be punished later by axis armor coz you know usf paper armor

No, it is not. The problem exists when those units are on the field and allow no counterplay. If you can not counter them, you can not kill them. Hence, the discussion about ressources is completely out of place.

You are assuming that there is no counter-play.

If there was not counter play they would be equally problematic in 1vs1 or 2vs2 and they are not.