The argument for the Jackson's superiority made sense when the USF sincerely struggled with any sort of anti-tank duties in earlier versions of the game. Now that we have the Pershing seeing more use, and their handheld AT options being more viable, I feel like it needs to be toned down. I'd support a 50 range Jackson.
The Pershing is only available in ONE doctrine. What is more viable about USF "handheld at options" exactly? Are you talking about doctrinal Rangers? |
The argument for the Jackson's superiority made sense when the USF sincerely struggled with any sort of anti-tank duties in earlier versions of the game. Now that we have the Pershing seeing more use, and their handheld AT options being more viable, I feel like it needs to be toned down. I'd support a 50 range Jackson.
The Pershing is only available in ONE doctrine. What is more viable about USF "handheld at options" exactly? Are you talking about doctrinal Rangers? |
I don’t think it’s wrong at all. Fallschrimjägers are the best infantry in the game, no argument from me on that point. I just don’t see a problem with them being the best infantry in the game, I mean one unit has to be the best infantry right? I think the real problem isn’t that they’re the best infantry in the game so much as they’re the best infantry and belong to OKW.
Fallschrimjagers wouldn't be a problem if the faction they were a part of didn't also have the best engineer unit, mainline infantry, artillery, light, medium and heavy armor in the game. OKW has always been overkill. |
Infantry can counter their counter (machine guns) with clever maneuvering.
Tanks can counter their counter (anti-tank guns) with clever maneuvering.
Casemate TDs can be countered by what they counter (tanks) if those tanks maneuver cleverly.
The Jackson cannot be similarly outmaneuvered because of its 0.75 moving accuracy and its turret.
Is it wrong for a tank destroyer to be that flexible? No. But we shouldn't pretend that it's not a huge advantage over the SU-85 and Firefly.
I don't think it's wrong at all. The Jackson is the best tank destroyer in the game, no argument from me on that point. I just don't see a problem with it being the best TD in the game, I mean one unit has to be the best TD right? I think the real problem isn't that it's the best TD in the game so much as it's the best TD and belongs to USF. |
Not really both Puma is flanker since it needs to close in to get good penetration and accuracy or attack side or rear/side armor.
Puma has less penetration than T-34/76 at max range.
M36 can snipe all day long and have near 100% chance to hit and penetrate from range 60.
But when you're talking about light vehciles is there any light vehcile that can bounce a hit from a Puma at any range? |
Actually when you think about it why not give Rifle Company access to M1919s? |
One to provide stats, like accuracy and penetration values to back at that claim? Because the 2 unit have completely different weapon profiles.
I'm not trying to say they're exactly the same but they have similar characteristics and fill a similar role. The difference is the scale at which they preform. The Puma is like the Jackson of light vehicles. The Jackson is like a large Puma for use against medium and heavy armor |
List of tank destroyers tanks can counter is the enemy is caught off guard:
Su76
Su85
Puma
JP4
Jagdtiger
Stug
Elefant
Firefly
M10
List of tank destroyers that, even when caught ou of position have a great chance of making it a fair fight at the very least:
Jackson
The jackson is too forgiving to be as potent offensively as the other TDs, yknow the ones that CAN be countered by getting caught in a bad position. The ones that can't slug it out, or flee or slug it out WHILE fleeing and that actually swinging RNG into its own favour.
The M10 is just a mini-Jackson and the Puma a micro-Jackson. I'd say they have basically the same preformance characteristics being highly mobile lightly armored anti-armor platforms. The Jackson is just a larger later game version of those two. The Panther is up there with the Jackson as far as preformance but it is heavily armored despite it's speed and with the doctrine that gives it smoke it's way more broken than the Jackson's current state but I don't see anyone complain about that.
I could live with maybe a little MP cost increase on the Jackson to bring it inline with a Firefly but that's it. |
Truth is JPIV counters Jacksons and people just refuse this idea. They would rather nerf Jackson than use the right tool for the job. If Jackson is such a broken TD (while not having been changed for a loooong time now), why don't we see USF meta winning every tournament of various gamemodes?
This is what I've been saying. The Jackson isn't some unkillable jack of all trades vehicle. It is vulnerable to all sorts of infantry and crewed weapons plus a few vehicles if used correctly. The (alleged) problem is that it isn't effectively countered by tanks because Axis players like to build armor and expect it to be supeiror to all allied vehicles.
A tank cannot effectively counter a tank destroyer...OMG! Get out the nerf hammer! |
What you're suggesting amounts to an accross the board nerf for USF. These commanders are saturated with units and abilites because of the incomplete and risky non-linear tech tree USF has compared to all other factions. If you want to make it more fair you have to make some things non-doctrinal such as the Sherman dozer upgrade, the M3 halftrack, the M1919 MG. |