Login

russian armor

M36 Jackson

PAGES (18)down
6 Jun 2019, 10:11 AM
#81
avatar of justaguywithagun

Posts: 18

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 09:49 AMVipper

It is not simply "too cost effective against mediums" it completely shut downs PzIVs being able to hit and penetrate with (nearly) 100% chance 20% units away from where PzIV can even fire back while being faster and better at firing on the move.

PIVs can and do beat jacksons. If you get two and flank a jackson, it will die very quickly. That the reverse is not true (shermans vs panthers) is one of the main reasons USF is forced to spam jacksons in the first place. If a single jackson shuts down a single PIV - it should, because it's A) a specialized tank destroyer, while PIV is a generalist medium and B) costs more; but what jacksons do not do is make PIVs obsolete, unless you let the USF player match you tank for tank.
6 Jun 2019, 10:38 AM
#82
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3257

Somewhat left field idea here: what if we reduced its armour?

It's got 130/60. That's a little below medium armour.

What if we lowered it to 55/35, like a Panzer II?

It'd make zero difference to anything above a medium. Panzer IVs would lose the small bounce chance they have. Beyond that, it changes nothing to the medium and heavy vehicles the Jackson's meant to knock out.

But now the Jackson is vulnerable to light vehicles. Guaranteed penetration from a Puma. 72% frontal penetration chance from a 222.
6 Jun 2019, 10:44 AM
#83
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 10510 | Subs: 1


Because HVAP on the 76mm was mostly created as an AT shell because its regular shells have AOE damage.

Yet the normal round has high enough penetration and it is better vs medium armored targets tanks since it has better ROF. So you get 1 round vs AI medium armored target and another vs heavily armored targets.

The same logic would apply here only their would be no AI since the the units is a TD.
(Similar to the MOD I created)


Yeah USF is all fun and games against Ostheer Panzer IV, until it gets vet 2 or until an OKW Panzer IV shows up. USF can't deal with 234+ armor tanks without the Jackson. The AP rounds on the M1 is a decent option, but ATGs are vulnerable, it costs a lot of munitions to use continuously and it can be countered by running away and coming back 30 seconds later.

And what is the point of achieving vet 2 with Panzer as it provides nothing vs what you are currently facing the M36?

Saying that "USF can't deal with 234+ armor tanks without the Jackson" is a gross exaggeration They have actually a very large list of options to deal with OKW PzIV like:
Mass bazookas
Super bazookas
M1 AP rounds
M10
Supported Dozer
Easy8
Sherman Dozer upgrade(new)
Sherman 76
Pershing



Yes, did you miss the part where it said tank destroyer?

Tank destroyers does not mean that they should completely shut down enemy Tanks. That was part of the reason Elephant/JT where nerfed and currently have lower DPS vs mediums than M36 at range 60 (if I remember correctly).

I get the feeling at this point that you are simply trying to prove me wrong. I am providing feedback and ideas on how to improve the game. There is little reason to get defensive, you could take the time to read and understand the idea or even test it and simply see if will improve the game or not.
6 Jun 2019, 10:45 AM
#84
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1352

For me it is the out ranging system has to be changed. Next problem is that complete cray accuracy of some units.

E.g. Ele outranges, but has very bad accuracy on move.


For me allii tankhunters need more micro management. The range nerf on movement is a good point in my mind.
6 Jun 2019, 10:46 AM
#85
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 16589 | Subs: 8


E.g. Ele outranges, but has very bad accuracy on move.

That's because ele can't shoot on the move.... none of super heavy TDs can.
6 Jun 2019, 10:47 AM
#86
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 10510 | Subs: 1

For me it is the out ranging system has to be changed. Next problem is that complete cray accuracy of some units.

E.g. Ele outranges, but has very bad accuracy on move.


For me allii tankhunters need more micro management. The range nerf on movement is a good point in my mind.

Range could also be different between normal and "heavy AP shells" and so could be accuracy, ROF, damage...

That is the advantage of this approach more tools to separately balance mediums and super heavies.
6 Jun 2019, 10:52 AM
#87
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 10510 | Subs: 1


PIVs can and do beat jacksons. If you get two and flank a jackson, it will die very quickly. That the reverse is not true (shermans vs panthers) is one of the main reasons USF is forced to spam jacksons in the first place. If a single jackson shuts down a single PIV - it should, because it's A) a specialized tank destroyer, while PIV is a generalist medium and B) costs more; but what jacksons do not do is make PIVs obsolete, unless you let the USF player match you tank for tank.

1) Can and do are different things. Flanking a M36 with a slower tank can happen only under certain circumstance.

2) A flanked Panther will probably lose to 2 mediums

3) PzIV is obsolete once M36 hits the field they M36 has nearly 100 chance to hit the penetrate at max range.

4) Since you brought up cost compare the difference between 2 PzIV vs a M36 and 2 Sherman vs a Panther.

Reducing the effectiveness of stock "heavy" TDs vs mediums can and probably will increase diversity greatly.
6 Jun 2019, 11:07 AM
#88
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 16589 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 10:52 AMVipper

Reducing the effectiveness of stock "heavy" TDs vs mediums can and probably will increase diversity greatly.


Exclusively if you have something for the meds.
USF, for reasons already mentioned by Sander, do not have these alternatives.

There is no "heavy TD" for usf.
There is just THE TD, they have no alternatives without doctrinal commitment.

If in your definition a TD being able to penetrate a tank 100% of the time regardless of range is overpowered, then we also have to nerf StuG, which pens all allied stock meds 100% of the time at all ranges, while having better reload.

Does your argument exclusively focus to allies, or extends to axis as well?
Because OKW for example almost exclusively rushes panther with JP4 being used extremely rarely.
How would you "fix" that to increase diversity?

Tanks are not supposed to be effective and efficient against TDs, its supposed to be the other way around.
I can't see why you struggle with that concept so much.
Bigger TDs are being used, because they are reliable.
They will always be, because they are supposed to.

The last time we've seen anyone go for non top tier stock TD was when KV-1 was a call-in as SU-76 was used to support it, not so much reason for that and you see 85 behind it.

That means you can't increase diversity without making better option inefficient in some area, in which case you will not introduce diversity, you'll just introduce underpowered unit.

And it counts double for a faction that has no alternative at all and just 1 vehicle to deal with all armor.
6 Jun 2019, 11:20 AM
#89
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2736 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 10:44 AMVipper
Tank destroyers does not mean that they should completely shut down enemy Tanks. That was part of the reason Elephant/JT where nerfed and currently have lower DPS vs mediums than M36 at range 60 (if I remember correctly).


The Panther completely shuts down generalist medium tanks and yet everyone is fine with that. The Elefant and Jagdtiger still completely shut down any one Allied tank and yet everyone is fine with that. Now why is that? Because the Panther and the heavy TDs are way more expensive than a generalist medium tank.

The problem with the Jackson isn't so much how effective it is (this is a necessary evil because USF stock lineup has bad AT options and the Jackson's power can't be changed much without ruining the faction). The biggest problem is how cheap it is for what it can do.

Taking away a bit of penetration, or a bit of accuracy, or a bit of mobility is all within the possibilities of making it slightly less overpowered without ruining USF. Going so far as to make it terrible against mediums would be too much without redesigning USF's other AT options or condemning commanders that don't have premiums/TD callins.
6 Jun 2019, 11:59 AM
#91
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2916 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 11:42 AMLago



And on that note, what do you think about making the Jackson's armour awful? Would making Pumas and 222s a cost efficient counter open up any more strategies, or is that sort of light vehicle simply too brittle in teamgames?


Then you'll just need to get 2 or 3 Luch/PUMA to completely shutdown USF entire late game.


6 Jun 2019, 12:27 PM
#92
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 10510 | Subs: 1



The Panther completely shuts down generalist medium tanks and yet everyone is fine with that. The Elefant and Jagdtiger still completely shut down any one Allied tank and yet everyone is fine with that. Now why is that? Because the Panther and the heavy TDs are way more expensive than a generalist medium tank.

The problem with the Jackson isn't so much how effective it is (this is a necessary evil because USF stock lineup has bad AT options and the Jackson's power can't be changed much without ruining the faction). The biggest problem is how cheap it is for what it can do.

Taking away a bit of penetration, or a bit of accuracy, or a bit of mobility is all within the possibilities of making it slightly less overpowered without ruining USF. Going so far as to make it terrible against mediums would be too much without redesigning USF's other AT options or condemning commanders that don't have premiums/TD callins.

No the Panther does not "completely shuts down" mediums and certainly not from range 60 and even if does it cost 185 Fuel and certainly not everyone is happy with that.

In addition as clearly explained this change is recommended for heavy TD and it could extent to Panther if their was a need for it.

No being OP is not a necessary evil on the contrary is simply bad desing because it leaves little reason to use anything else including easy8, Sherman 76mm and M10 that are very good AT units.

And I did not suggested that it should be terrible against medium, it could be as good as Stug and it would still be fine since it would faster and with turret.

If you take "bit of penetration, or a bit of accuracy, or a bit of mobility" it might work vs Panther but it will still dominate the PzIV.

The exact number are irrelevant (stug level or higher) and can changed for balance reason, the bottom line is the change will give the tools to balance the unit separately vs mediums and separately vs Super heavies.
I have not seen a single reason why that in your opinion would be bad.
6 Jun 2019, 12:33 PM
#93
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3257

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 11:59 AMEsxile
Then you'll just need to get 2 or 3 Luch/PUMA to completely shutdown USF entire late game.


Would you?

If mediums or heavies countered the Jackson, then yes, but lights? USF has plenty of stuff to fight lights with.
6 Jun 2019, 12:33 PM
#94
avatar of FichtenMoped
Editor in Chief Badge
Patrion 310

Posts: 4722 | Subs: 3

One personal post edited to be less personal
6 Jun 2019, 12:35 PM
#95
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1352


That's because ele can't shoot on the move.... none of super heavy TDs can.


And that is good, but why not balance meter units and nerf change that actual balance destroyers like Ele and Jagdtiger.

Panther is a hunter, Jackson and Firefly are long-ranger. Nerfing the hunt performance for These two is only logical.

Panther only has 50 range and ~ accuracy.

But Firefly and Jackson have WAY to much accuracy for the 60 range. I am for give them same accuracy as Panther, but give them my move/stop mechanism. If they are stationry they get 60 range, on move nerf to 50.

After that Ele and Jagdtiger can get longer reload etc. because they arn't needed for balance anymore.


Edit: This mechanism can be also made for SU85 with ist sight ability. If it is activated it gets 60 range, when not it has 55 range.

Also Ele can get back this option, like it was 4 years ago.

So that Units get more handycaps.
6 Jun 2019, 12:43 PM
#96
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3257

That'd just make the Panther better against the only nondoctrinal units designed to fight it.

The price could do with tweaking, but you can't screw with the performance too much without moving the lost functionality onto another unit.

The JPIV can be an anti-medium/anti-TD unit because the Panther exists. If it didn't, the JPIV would also need to handle anti-heavy duties.
6 Jun 2019, 12:48 PM
#97
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2916 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 12:33 PMLago


Would you?

If mediums or heavies countered the Jackson, then yes, but lights? USF has plenty of stuff to fight lights with.


OKW and Ostheer also have plenty of stuff to counter Jacksons, even more stuff if we includes mines and medium TDs. So what?

6 Jun 2019, 13:01 PM
#98
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3257

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 12:48 PMEsxile
OKW and Ostheer also have plenty of stuff to counter Jacksons, even more stuff if we includes mines and medium TDs. So what?


Like what? The Jackson, by necessity, is a cost efficient nondoctrinal counter to every enemy vehicle.

  • It beats both Panzer IVs unless they can get in close without being hit, in which case it's a fair fight.
  • All things considered it's a fair fight against the more expensive Panther.
  • The StuG can only attack frontally and has 50 range. A vetted Jackson three-shots it.

And all those assume the Jackson has no support to fall back to.

That only really leaves the JPIV.

Maybe that's the answer? Leave the Jackson be and buff the range on the StuG? Even the SU-76 has 60 range.

That way both OKW and OST have a unit that can trade efficiently with a Jackson at range, but both those units are casemates that can be circlestrafed and outmaneuvered up close?
6 Jun 2019, 13:13 PM
#99
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 10510 | Subs: 1



Exclusively if you have something for the meds.
USF, for reasons already mentioned by Sander, do not have these alternatives.


There is no "heavy TD" for usf.
There is just THE TD, they have no alternatives without doctrinal commitment.

If in your definition a TD being able to penetrate a tank 100% of the time regardless of range is overpowered, then we also have to nerf StuG, which pens all allied stock meds 100% of the time at all ranges, while having better reload.

Does your argument exclusively focus to allies, or extends to axis as well?
Because OKW for example almost exclusively rushes panther with JP4 being used extremely rarely.
How would you "fix" that to increase diversity?

Tanks are not supposed to be effective and efficient against TDs, its supposed to be the other way around.
I can't see why you struggle with that concept so much.
Bigger TDs are being used, because they are reliable.
They will always be, because they are supposed to.

The last time we've seen anyone go for non top tier stock TD was when KV-1 was a call-in as SU-76 was used to support it, not so much reason for that and you see 85 behind it.

That means you can't increase diversity without making better option inefficient in some area, in which case you will not introduce diversity, you'll just introduce underpowered unit.

And it counts double for a faction that has no alternative at all and just 1 vehicle to deal with all armor.

Not really. Not having a dedicated TD vs mediums does not necessarily mean one can not deal with mediums. That is a logical leap.

UKF do not have a dedicated TD vs mediums and they can deal with mediums.
Soviet do have one yet as you mentioned it is hardly used.
OKW have one but it is cost inefficient since it cost more than allied mediums.
And that leaves simply Ostheer with Stug that according to the MOD team is UP and it is being buffed.

And again my suggestion is not make the PzIV able to deal with M36 but basically not be an XP source being fired upon from range 60 with 100% chance to be hit and penetrated.

I still have not seen a single reason why this solution is bad.
6 Jun 2019, 13:47 PM
#100
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3257

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 13:13 PMVipper
And again my suggestion is not make the PzIV able to deal with M36 but basically not be an XP source being fired upon from range 60 with 100% chance to be hit and penetrated.

I still have not seen a single reason why this solution is bad.


It's a good solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

If, as you suggest, you give the Jackson one set of shells for heavies and one set of shells for mediums, you can balance them independently and change the performance of one without changing the performance of the other. You trade simplicity for flexibility.

But there isn't widespread agreement that there's anything wrong with the Jackson vs Panzer IV matchup in the first place. You think there is, yes, but it doesn't seem to be a common viewpoint.
PAGES (18)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
King of OKW Showdown

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag Käsezwerg
  • Oberkommando West flag [NS] aerafield
  • Oberkommando West flag CSSSSSSI: Stalingrad
  • Ostheer flag SoE-Sturmpanther-
  • The British Forces flag CPS Make America Great Again!
  • Soviets flag CPS USE-M246
  • U.S. Forces flag CPS Bondage♂Sex♂Party
  • Soviets flag CPS Deep♂Dark♂Fantasy
uploaded by aerafield

Board Info

187 users are online: 8 members and 179 guests
aerafield, piwawsky, Tygrys, destroyerCOH, ZeroZeroNi, leonardoyeh, Stanislav Hronek, Vladislavs89
148 posts in the last 24h
806 posts in the last week
4198 posts in the last month
Registered members: 28766
Welcome our newest member, Trevathan
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM