So it was taken into account, but never landed on preview, got it, ty for clarification.
It was discussed when the first iteration of the patch was drawn up, but ultimately it was decided against putting the Ostwind and Jagdpanzer IV in the first stage of tech out of concern for the Ostwind simply likely being overpowered at that timing and the Jagdpanzer IV potentially shutting down Allied mediums too early. The Hetzer was included when the split was 80/40, but was dropped when it became 60/60, again because of timing concerns. |
And that makes it vet slower than FF/M36 and SU-85 since it can damage reliably only lower XP value targets.
I don't really agree with that, the Jagdpanzer IV can quite reliably damage anything that isn't an IS-2 or ISU-152, and it still has higher DPM than the other TDs to help compensate. Regardless, Allied TDs also do not have the durability that the Jagdpanzer IV has, so I'd say the vet requirements are fair.
Also I don't know of any OKW unit that has its vet 5 on par with vet 3 of other factions. Almost all units (like Ostwind, Puma, Tiger) that are shared with Ostheer, have pretty much the same vet 1-3 requirements and vet 4 and 5 are extra. Units like Volksgrenadiers or Obersoldaten also have vet 3 requirements that are comparable to Allied infantry vet 3 requirements, again with vet 4 and 5 being extras. If there are any units with vet 5 being equal to vet 3, they are an exception.
I agree the Jagdpanzer IV's vet 5 isn't too useful, but I don't really mind either, because a vet 4 Jagdpanzer IV already has such amazing DPM and durability that it doesn't really matter. |
and on life support in 2v2?
Out of curiosity, any proof (a good amount of personal experience playing 2v2s counts) for that? Because I play UKF in 3v3s and they are still very strong in team games. I personally haven't really noticed a difference since the patch (quite the opposite actually, as their lategame got a pretty decent buff because Comets are good now) except I'll have to get Brens a bit more often. I still see plenty of UKF players in 3v3s.
|
i would start by making the vet req = to allied TD not doubled
It has pretty much exactly the same vet 1-3 requirements as the Firefly and the Jackson (see my previous post). Only the SU-85 has slightly lower requirements, but then the SU-85 is a lot less durable. |
@vipper how does the vet requirements stack up against other TDs?
Jagdpanzer IV
2150/4300/8600/10750/14298
SU-85
1790/3580/7160
Jackson
2160/4320/8640
Firefly
2160/4320/8640
|
That's an understandable concern, but what about the Vickers HMG? Can't it do the same thing, but more effectively due to the larger arc and superior suppression?
The Vickers can initially be equally effective at locking down lanes, but with its lower crew size and slower pack up and set up time it's forced off by a flank a lot easier than the Maxim. It's also less of an issue simply because players tend to build only one or two, rather than three or even four Maxims. |
Thanks for the reply. There are a couple things about this that I'd challenge. The first is that OKW has a hard time Maxims on Red Ball. It takes 3 Maxims to lock down either of the fuel lanes. I've never seen anyone try the center lane
The center lane only has one entrance into the side lanes on each side (not counting the entrances near the base exits), which makes it quite easy to spot a flank and reface HMGs. Furthermore in 4v4s, the middle will always be fully occupied with plenty of allied infantry, so 2-3 Maxims would be enough to lock down a VP and the fuel for quite a long time. Anyway, Red Ball Express was just an example. To continue on examples, there's also the forest half of Lienne Forest, Across The Rhine, Angermunde, Port of Hamburg, Lorch Assault, that are all quite laney and would make it quite easy to completely shut down OKW in the first five minutes, if Maxims had better suppression.
Also, if buffing the Maxim is a problem for OKW, then how is the current MG42 NOT a problem for the UKF, especially with Sections nerfed RA while moving on open ground.
The UKF has quite a decent T0 counter to the HMG 42, which is the UC with Vickers or the WASP. They also have the Vickers that can out-DPS an HMG 42 in a heavy cover or garrison fight, and Infantry Sections do a lot better versus a 4 men HMG 42 team than Volksgrenadiers do against a 6 men Maxim. Furthermore, the HMG 42 has a long pack up and set up time and basically always has to retreat when flanked, as opposed to Maxims that can reface or relocate quite fast.
I rarely see Soviets try Maxim spam
As sad as it is to see a unit underused, it is the preferred alternative to going back to the Maxim spam that everyone dreaded. |
So imo a vet 3 JP 4 has inferior bonus to a vet 3 SU-85 to M36 I would even go so far to say even to FF.
If we are comparing the accuracy/reload vet bonuses by themselves, then yes. But the Jagdpanzer IV has better base stats (accuracy and ROF). The vet 1 ability and the vet 2 extra hitpoints are incredibly useful, especially when fighting other TDs. A vet 4 Jagdpanzer IV has the fastest reload and the highest accuracy in the game of any vehicle IIRC. The only thing its veterancy lacks is extra penetration, but that is on purpose. |
The core concept here is a sidegrade that shifts the JPIV from a high damage, low pen tank destroyer into a lower damage, higher pen tank destroyer.
Would that really change anything, though? A lower damage, high pen tank destroyer is exactly what the Panther is. There would still be not much of a reason to build a Jagdpanzer IV for that purpose, because the Panther has a lot more advantages with its turret, higher mobility and higher durability for only a slightly higher cost.
What makes the Jagdpanzer IV attractive is its higher range, high accuracy, and (with vet) very high DPM compared to the Panther, which makes it an excellent alternative in large team games maps or when facing multiple Allied TDs, or when supporting a heavy tank. |
I personally think the Jagdpanzer IV is fine, it's a damn good unit with great veterancy. In team games it fits quite perfectly into OKW as an alternative to the Panther for either large open maps or to counter Allied TDs. They are very good at supporting a Tiger/Tiger II from afar. For clustered/urban maps, or when facing high armor targets, there's the Panther. There's even the doctrinal HEAT shells to make it put out a ridiculous amount of DPM with high pen.
Some units are simply not viable in certain gamemodes (1v1) while being (very) good in others (team games). The Jagdpanzer IV and Tiger II are good examples of this. Can't really make it better for one mode without potentially breaking it in the other. |