Jagdpanzer IV Refit

I am starting to feel that you are arguing for the point of arguing to be honest, since you are contradicting yourself.

According to you:

and making cheaper will not change its performance vs allied TDs. Actually my suggestion would make it less attractive than a JP4 that can fight all enemy armor from mediums to Super heavies as you propose.

making it cheaper would improve its performance vs allied TDs... not in terms of raw stats of course... but in terms of efficiency... since it can be made into a cost efficient 120 fuel 60 range reduced armor anti TD specialist...

As for your scenario of building both JP4 and Panther I sincerely doubt that unless trolling in 4vs4. The picture of Panther "running amok killing infantry and tanks with machineguns and 75mm rounds" is probably from another game...

One could argue about the Tiger/JP4 combo but I am not sure how problematic that might since one can already use a Pershing M36 combo.

though not truly relevant in 1v1s this is quite often the case in 4v4s... id hate this change to ruin 4v4 balance (where a large portion of the community plays)

Again an exaggeration as allied TDs are NOT the "sole" counter to Panthers, the same things that counter JP4 can also counter Panther like ATGs and AT infatry especially one with elite bazookas.

Panther "spam" is not really an option unless again in 4vs4.

everything is a counter when you have enough of it... even PTRS can beat down a panther if you have a hundred of them shooting at a panther... but that doesnt mean the counter is efficient...

tds thus far are the most cost efficient counter... and have brought a semblance of balance in what was once a very inefficient encounter... introducing a unit that can cost efficiently counter them would result into imbalance again which is the point of the whole discussion...

We might be playing a different game since in the game I play I see allot mote Pershings, IS-2, Churhcills, Comets than I do Sherman, T-34/76 or Cromwell.

i see both quite often tbh... depending on the gamemode at least...

The Panther is not a premium medium tank, it Role is that of countering heavy tanks and thus it has an AT main gun. You can call it a hybrid if you like but it is not a main battle tank.

not quite sure about this one... but a discussion here would be off topic... lets reserve this one for another time

I have clearly presented my point of view, back it up with stat and have little to add. You are entitled to your opinion. Lets agree to disagree (not sure on what we disagree on) and lets pls move on.

for clarity`s sake ill raise my point once more here...

tds thus far are the most cost efficient counter... and have brought a semblance of balance in what was once a very inefficient encounter... introducing a unit that can cost efficiently counter them would result into imbalance again which is the point of the whole discussion...

which is why making the JP4 a dedicated anti TD unit would be a horrible idea...

Someone should repost the stats but include rof, armor, and hp. You will get a clearer picture then.

Something like this you mean?

Ok lets compare the JP 4 and SU-85 at vet 0
JP vs SU-84
cost: 400/135 vs 350/130

pop: 15 vs 15

Accuracy:
0.065/0.05/0.04 vs 0.055/0.045/0.04

Penetration: 200/185/170 vs 240/230/220

Reload: 4.75 average vs 5.4

Speed: 5.5 vs 5.7

Accel: 1.9 vs 2.1

Rotate: 20 vs 22

Armor: 230/80 vs 140/70

Health: 640 vs 640

Target size: 17 vs 18

Now pls try to read before starting to point fingers.

i would start by making the vet req = to allied TD not doubled and changing vet 5 either to raw pen buff or change first strike bonus to 100% pen and 100% damage for the first shoot

In which situations is its Armour actually useful?

Against Medium Tanks who shouldn't be in range to fire?

Against TDs who have enough pen to ignore its Armour in the first place?

againt AT guns who have the same range and might return fire if you push up too far, against a bull rush of armour trying to exploit the casemate design, against AT infantry

against an su76 who cant flank
against an m10 who will probably shoot before it gets a flank off


and also against a non vetted allied TD who has a chance to bounce off the jp4 (slim, but more of a luxury than allied tds have against the jp4 so it could be the difference of life and death, hell the faster reload means if it rolls a bounce it has a clear cut advantage in a slugging match)

when is armour useful... what a stupid question....

Something like this you mean?

Now pls try to read before starting to point fingers.

I did not even mention you in my original post. Just annoyed by all the skewed fact showing.

Point is the jagpanzer has 230 armor, 800 hp from vet, stealth, and a crazy high rof. It makes it the perfect counter to tds.

I did not even mention you in my original post. Just annoyed by all the skewed fact showing.

No you did not me personally but you have not excluded me either. On the other hand you accused people of presenting half the stats when I have presented most of them including the ones you claimed that where missing.

Point is the jagpanzer has 230 armor, 800 hp from vet, stealth, and a crazy high rof. It makes it the perfect counter to tds.

JP4 can counter allied Tds but it simply is not the "perfect counter" to Tds since it has about the same cost and the same Pop. Dedicated counters are usually cheaper and have lower pop.

The armor has minimal contribution vs TDs since even at ranger 60 FF/Su-85/M36 has 91% chance to penetrate going up to 100% at range 45 (around 52.5 in the case of FF).

HP is actually a great buff but comes at vet 2 and JP4 does not vet that fast (it vet slower than SU-85 in most cases).

Stealth is buggy and the unit many times does not auto fire while it reduces the speed of the vehicle to 50%.

As for the "crazy" ROF it is not much faster than that of the cheaper SU-85, only 0.65 secs faster at vet 0 and 0.045 secs at vet 3. I doubt the difference is even noticeable.

Worth noting is the higher Penetration of the SU-85 gun.

Now why don't you follow your own advice and present the stats when you make your claims?

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.

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.

And that makes it vet slower than FF/M36 and SU-85 since it can damage reliably only lower XP value targets.

(The double part he is probably referring to vet 5 as it has been done with other OKW units where vet 5 is closer to vet 3 for other factions. TBH the first strike bonus does not seem to good when it requires double the XP value of vet 3 Su-85)

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.

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.

It rather depend on what one call "reliably" and I would call anything below 60% as reliably.
JP chance to penetrate at range 60 vs
Churchill avre 58%
Churchill Croc 58%
Comet 58%
KV-1 63%
KV-2 57%
Persing 63%
...

JP ROF compared to SU-85,is only 0.65 secs faster at vet 0 and 0.045 secs at vet 3. I doubt the difference is even noticeable while having higher penetration and lower XP value.

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.

Axis tanks have generally higher XP value.

Difference here is that other okw get mostly utility bonus not combat bonuses while the SU-85 gets better bonuses up to Vet 3 than the JP up to vet. JP4 need to get to vet 4 to significantly better ROF and the Vet 5 bonus is actually rather poor for the XP value required. A single shot doing 200 damage does not really seem that great.

If armor is what in your opinion make the difference simply lower it to 160 and adjust cost/pop and XP value. The unit will become more attractive.

I do find it frustrating using JP due to penetration and allot of misses. I notice the projectile always hit the ground more often then using SU-85. This tank is no where worth its price.

I would much rather have the JP4 reliably penetrate allied heavies than have a higher ROF over other TDs. I rarely if ever feel it is a better option to go JP4 vs allied mediums over a P4 that has a similar cost/timing and the ability to combat infantry.

I would much rather have the JP4 reliably penetrate allied heavies than have a higher ROF over other TDs. I rarely if ever feel it is a better option to go JP4 vs allied mediums over a P4 that has a similar cost/timing and the ability to combat infantry.

I agree with sully (as always) but on top of his point the only real issue is the monster armor allied units like the IS2 and ISU. If we lowered their armor in exchange for something else, it would theoredically fix their pen issues.

I've mentioned this many times before, but I do not see the panther as a heavy counter. It has the penetration, but lacks the RoF to go through massive meat tanks like the churchill. JP4 has the RoF but lacks the pen to go through things like the IS2. They both club mediums though, that is for sure, I just always found axis means to kill heavies an issue because of the low pen casemate TDs and panthers being outranged by allied TDs.

If your answer is ele/JT, why should a nondoc counter require a doctrinal counter? If your answer is because they get other things like the brummbar and nondoc obers/KT/panthers, then why do you argue for asymmetry? If you're for symmetry you probably agree

Maybe the answer is to keep JP4 as it is but give it an HVAP ability like Jackson. The ability would give penalty to reload time while at the same time giving a significant penetration boost and 200 damage per shot (like Jackson HVAP). That way JP4 would be suitable in countering heavy tanks while staying the same against everything else.

That being said the JP4 is really only bad against IS2 and ISU. All the other high armour allied units are either slow (Churchill Crocodile + AVRE, KV1) or have relatively small HP pool (Pershing, Comet). The regular Churchill is perfect for the JP4 as it will penetrate with high % (Churchill has only 240 frontal armour) while pumping out lots of damage due to fast reload.

Edit: What Lago said in OP is a good idea.

I would much rather have the JP4 reliably penetrate allied heavies than have a higher ROF over other TDs. I rarely if ever feel it is a better option to go JP4 vs allied mediums over a P4 that has a similar cost/timing and the ability to combat infantry.

JP4 has much better synergy with Tiger and KT as it keeps Allied TDs at bay with camo + 60 range + high HP + small target size.

What everyone ignores for some reason is accuracy and target size.

JP4 has a 96% chance to score a natural hit against a Jackson at range 60.

Jackson has a 59% chance to score a natural hit against a JP4 at range 60.

That alone makes a huge difference.

I've mentioned this many times before, but I do not see the panther as a heavy counter. It has the penetration, but lacks the RoF to go through massive meat tanks like the churchill. JP4 has the RoF but lacks the pen to go through things like the IS2. They both club mediums though, that is for sure, I just always found axis means to kill heavies an issue because of the low pen casemate TDs and panthers being outranged by allied TDs.

the JP4 can counter the churchill pretty well as it isnt that well armored... its just very beefy... it struggles against the IS-2/ISU but thats doctrinal

If your answer is ele/JT, why should a nondoc counter require a doctrinal counter? If your answer is because they get other things like the brummbar and nondoc obers/KT/panthers, then why do you argue for asymmetry? If you're for symmetry you probably agree

isnt the IS-2 doctrinal aswell?

the JP4 can counter the churchill pretty well as it isnt that well armored... its just very beefy... it struggles against the IS-2/ISU but thats doctrinal

isnt the IS-2 doctrinal aswell?

Yeah I don't understand it either. JP4 counters every single non-doctrinal Allied vehicle with high efficiency. JP4 is criminally underrated on this forum.

Yeah I don't understand it either. JP4 counters every single non-doctrinal Allied vehicle with high efficiency. JP4 is criminally underrated on this forum.

+1

Yeah I don't understand it either. JP4 counters every single non-doctrinal Allied vehicle with high efficiency. JP4 is criminally underrated on this forum.

yea pro too always use it..... wait a second