That would just make it a more mobile firefly though wouldn't it that trades tulips for a crew
Imo "more mobile" is a massive understatement
And i think it's currently better than the Firefly while costing less, that's the only reason i go for a cost change
I do like your suggestion from the previous page about making hvap more of a need less of a bonus, that's not a bad way to do it either |
Tanks are being standardised to have 0.5 moving accuracy, why should the Jackson be exempt from it? in the past it couldnt pen certain tanks reliability from the front thus they needed the move acc to flank heavy tanks but with the buffs in penetration and hp over the years, ther is no justification for it to have 0.75 acc on the move.
It also did 240 dmg back then, and could 3 shot medium tanks which it had no trouble penetrating
That's also not the reason for the moving acc multiplier. A) a the various Shermans have it too, it's a USF thing not the Jackson.
B) heavy tanks have massive target sizes so they're hard to miss, the moving accuracy had little to do with that |
Euhm
JK that got removed last year, my bad. Still dont think jackson should have .5
Making it miss more often just doesnt seem like a great way to balance it. Reload speed and cost make the most sense to me |
when the Jackson is one of the fastest tank the argument is not valid (6.5 with 3 acceleration), especially considering the 0.75 accuracy on the move that helps keep it at range
He didn't make an argument he made a statement of fact. Most vehicles go up in range increments of 10, the ones that don't are things like Tigers and Comets not TDs
Range is not the way to nerf the Jackson, there's a reason that change got reverted
Moving acc from 0.75 to 0.50 for now.
Maybe .65 like panther, but i see no reason for going straight down to standard tank moving accuracy |
10-15 fuel increase is barely a deserving nerf, the Jackson is blatantly OP and has nothing to do with the price, its the performance which needs to be looked at
Do you have a specific suggestion? I think its current performance is needed for US to compete late-game. Just not expensive enough
The price cant have "nothing to do with it", that doesnt make any sense. If you think its overperforming, then its too strong for its cost... |
Jackson used to be 125, now its 140. That was a 15 fuel increase, and that one actually came along with some buffs
A 15 fuel increase with no buffs is not nothing, more expensive tanks have received even smaller cost adjustments |
Zookas are already available to potentially literally every American infantry unit anyway.
Yeah but at least they get the elite zooks now, and they can equip 3 of them if they want
If all 3 penetrate thats 300 dmg, the most AT damage any infantry squad can do at once i believe |
Personally I think screwing with Bolster is a bit dangerous, although I wouldn't mind at least making new 5 men IS/RE cost more. But I think first we will have to see how the IS changes feel.
Fair enough that makes sense, i like that cost idea too |
The messenger might be making the case the wrong way, but the jackson is still really freaking good
Fuel cost should be increased by 10-15
Mediums used to be able to kill it reliably if they snuck up on it. Now the jackson can usually survive long enough to escape range, and it shoots faster/misses less often than it used to so it can turn the tide on chasing mediums more easily |
Preliminary changes:
- Lee Enfield damage from 16 to 14 to reduce burst potential (5x16=80 damage = one model's health) and to slightly reduce their DPS versus heavy cover;
- Lee Enfield accuracy increased to have the same total DPS as before
This seems like a very good idea, like the others too
What about making bolster a squad by squad upgrade? So the more 5 man tommies you want, the more you pay. Could still have an initial unlock cost too
|