Jackson Nerf vs Making Panther Doctrinal

The Jackson only is effective against vehicles and that's why it's fine the way it is, there is NOTHING wrong with where its at except for in my opinion it deserves a longer sight radius.

so buff the jackson further 10/10

let's send those nazis into the next dimension

Come on, distrofio, you know that's not true.

Allright you caught me, I was being drastic just to fight fire with fire, and I admit it, that was ok. I stand corrected.

I know jacksons are needed evil because of Panthers but this specific topic is frustrating and also hard to balance.

I agree with supremestefan about okw Panthers being doctrinal. But that change should have consequences on allied factions or on okw itself.

Afaik about the units design, Panthers depend on their armor and jacksons on their firepower, both have great mobility but Panthers dont flank, they chase, jacksons should flank but their current pen is good enough to allow them to fire frontally, all because of super heavies armor. Those differences make their balance really hard.

Flexibility isn't just about what kinds of targets a unit can engage, it's also about the different methods a unit can use to engage a specific target.
The jackson is flexible because its speed, turret, range, penetration and reload allow it to engage armor in a variety of ways and situations that something like a Jp4 or stug could not-despite both of them being decent units.

Agree with Serrith, the Jackson has some of the best aspects of the Panther but is cheaper overall, it has good mobility, good penetration, and can snipe units at a distance. It's also moderately durable allowing it to out slug Axis mediums in a head on fight and flanking the Jackson is difficult because it has so many good characteristics. I would be fine with the Jackson receiving some slight nerfs but in change its cost is lowered again to compensate. In a 1 to 1 fight with a Panther the Jackson won't win but when you are able to kite and backpedal constantly it makes it really difficult to actually get on top of the Jackson's without taking loads of damage.

Those are "Sabot Rounds" not HVAP and thus my confusion.

M1 with Sabot has 195 max range which higher than the Pak while having better ROF and cone and Brummbar has the same frontal armor as KV-8 and lower rear.

Aha I didnt know they had a different name

Yes I agree with you in either instance anyway, just cleared up what he was trying to say. Brum and panther armor have been lowered quite a bit so with Sabot rounds the AT gun does plenty well, especially with take aim too. Tbh I felt like it did fine before the armor nerfs

The Jackson is not flexible at all. The Pershing is flexible, the M4A3 is flexible, the Panther is actually a lot more flexible than a Jackson is. The Jackson only is effective against vehicles and that's why it's fine the way it is, there is NOTHING wrong with where its at except for in my opinion it deserves a longer sight radius.

You're stuck in this 'A CoH Match is two blobs A-Moving into each other' mentality. That's not how the game works beyond low ranks.

The Jackson is positionally flexible. It's fast, has good moving accuracy and has good turret rotation, which means it can be played like an AT-only medium tank.

By contrast, the SU-85 has no turret and the Firefly's turret is so slow it's actually a liability half the time. You can't play these vehicles like AT-only mediums because if an enemy tank approaches them from the side, rear or gets close they're fucked. These units play more like anti-tank guns: you position them somewhere safe and you support them with snare infantry and mines.

If the enemy gets a Panzer IV, you can build a Jackson, hunt it down and kill it. The SU-85 and Firefly cannot do the same: without hefty support they'll be outmaneuvered and killed by the very unit you bought them to counter.

If the enemy gets a Panzer IV, you can build a Jackson, hunt it down and kill it. The SU-85 and Firefly cannot do the same: without hefty support they'll be outmaneuvered and killed by the very unit you bought them to counter.

You can however place su85 on mid VP and let it zone out any armor with selfspotting ability while you guard flanks with PTRS penals.

You can also use firefly tullips to stun enemy armor and nuke it from 100 to 0 with superior alpha damage and support of best at gun in the game, 6pdr (clone of pak40). Not to mention you have stock heavy/brawler tank.

You cant do any of this with jackson. What you were trying to say is different factions have different (dis)advantages.

You can however place su85 on mid VP and let it zone out any armor with selfspotting ability while you guard flanks with PTRS penals.

You can also use firefly tullips to stun enemy armor and nuke it from 100 to 0 with superior alpha damage and support of best at gun in the game, 6pdr (clone of pak40). Not to mention you have stock heavy/brawler tank.

You cant do any of this with jackson. What you were trying to say is different factions have different (dis)advantages.

I'm saying there's a fundamental difference in playstyle between the SU-85/Firefly and the Jackson, and that's that makes the Jackson the AT panacea it is.

The SU-85 co-exists so well with the M4C and the T-34/85 because they play so differently. The Jackson plays like a medium tank.

You can't lump the three tank destroyers together when one of them plays very differently to the others.

Im not lumping them together. You are, and you say jackson should be nerfed because its not su85 or firefly. You mention all the things su85 and firefly cant do and conclude thats the reason jackson should be nerfed. Jackson is different unit in different faction with different playstyle and has different set of (dis)advantages.

What is the reason jackson should be nerfed other than being different unit from other TDs and whining from axis mains?

Im not lumping them together. You are, and you say jackson should be nerfed because its not su85 or firefly. You mention all the things su85 and firefly cant do and conclude thats the reason jackson should be nerfed. Jackson is different unit in different faction with different playstyle and has different set of (dis)advantages.

What is the reason jackson should be nerfed other than being different unit from other TDs and whining from axis mains?

I don't think the Jackson needs to be nerfed. I think the Jackson was buffed to its current state for a reason: the 480 HP Jackson just didn't cut it in long range slugging matches, and the rest of USF's AT lineup is so ridiculously geared towards anti-light vehicle duty that it was just too easy to overrun.

However, if there's a way to make the Jackson vulnerable to close range flanking without crippling it in long-range slugging matches, it'd be good for strategic diversity within the USF faction. The 76mm and the Easy Eight are always going to struggle to find their place when the Jackson can do their job and usually do it better.

Ostheer p4 wins vs jackson if it gets in range. 120 fuel generalist medium tank vs 140 fuel specialized TD. You wont get the same result even if you close in on panther rear with easy8. I think this case is closed.

Jackson is different unit in different faction with different playstyle and has different set of (dis)advantages.

The same can be said with the advantages, each faction has different advantages. If i were to name a few, SU ones for example, i could include the 6 man squads, self spot TD, mortar flares and stuff.

What is the reason jackson should be nerfed other than being different unit from other TDs and whining from axis mains?

For USF we could mention it has the biggest variety of medium tanks but also the best TD when played half decently (the most skill rewarding of any allied TD). One trait overshadows the prior one, and thats bad design. Its not about jackson OP vs axis, its about jackson OP vs its own faction.

Secondly. Risk/reward logic.
How many times USF players that invested heavily in mediums either lost their games to axis tanks because:
-They get outmatched (OKW P4 and P5 are superior in AT and better armored) by axis late game options
-Axis Super heavies are a pain to bring down without some serious AT capability
-OST medium spam is a slippery slope and have the best AT/AI ratio, in numbers they can carry games.
-Axis non frontliners vehicles (Stukas, Pzwerfer, 251, Opel blitz, scout 222, Pumas) require a good ambush or a fast vehicle to chase, otherwise they can escape.

All this situations are some of the hardest challenges to overcome when fighting vs axis. M36 is able to solve them and when compared to other solutions, the latter are either more difficult to pull off or they cant cover the whole spectrum, (an example is E8 not being as good vs super heavies). Other challenges like infantry superiority can be solved by the rest of USF rooster withouth the need of mediums, but i dont want to offtopic.
An experienced USF player understands the risks of having or not having the right units in the field for when the enemy comes, M36 is the safest bet even when its somewhat expensive but also very cost efficient and effective. Because of this M36 are much more worth than other midgame and lategame strategies. This is bad also.

Its not about nerfing USF lategame AT, its about bringing the faction new life through diversity of tactics and better shaped challenges/tools between factions.

I think OP got 1 point right, we can enhance the whole game by nerfing M36 and panthers altogether.

Added:

Ostheer p4 wins vs jackson if it gets in range. 120 fuel generalist medium tank vs 140 fuel specialized TD. You wont get the same result even if you close in on panther rear with easy8. I think this case is closed.

P4 winning a M36 is L2P, only in a face to face AFK fight P4 will win, otherwise M36 firing range is superior and on the move M36 are superior. I think finding specific scenarios involving low player response is lowkey when discussin about performance.
Jacksons are not a case of "a specialist TD that is not able to keep up" so this is not a case closed.

This is true. The fact is I don't really want to see Panthers become doctrinal and with that you can't nerf the Jackson. People are acting like it's some jack of all trades impossible to counter vehicle. It literally only does one thing and that is destroy vehicles, particularly tanks...I guess that's why it's a "tank destroyer" yet Wehraboos feel like they should be able to blitz it with a Panzer IV. If the balance team caves to the Wehraboos on this next patch I think I'd seriously be done with this game.

What a loss to the game that would be! But surely instead of quitting you could try playing vs the Easy AI? That'd be the perfect training ground for you to get better at the game. After you get to the level whereby you're able to compete versus the Normal AI, you can come back to us with more of your balance opinions.

Ostheer p4 wins vs jackson if it gets in range. 120 fuel generalist medium tank vs 140 fuel specialized TD. You wont get the same result even if you close in on panther rear with easy8. I think this case is closed.

Except it doesn't. It's a battle between two vehicles pretty much guaranteed to penetrate each other with similar reloads. The attacker (the P4) is likely to get the first shot off, but the Jackson has better moving accuracy.

A fair fight is not a counter.

Run the same scenario with a Firefly or SU-85 and the tank destroyer is screwed.

Ok, make panther doctrinal

Good lad

Replace Panther with Elephant.

Replace Panther with Elephant.

Fun fact: It was a stock unit just before release.
Fun fact 2: It would require further massive buffs to allied AT to counter it.

Except it doesn't. It's a battle between two vehicles pretty much guaranteed to penetrate each other with similar reloads. The attacker (the P4) is likely to get the first shot off, but the Jackson has better moving accuracy.

A fair fight is not a counter.

Run the same scenario with a Firefly or SU-85 and the tank destroyer is screwed.

.. Yea to lose a Jackson to a p4 the usf player would have to have its engine damaged and attacking the ground in a different direction.

It has all of the power of other TDs, with all the advantages of the usf with none of the weaknesses of either except that the main gun doesn't damage infantry

How do some players rotate atgs on the spot (without moving them)?

How do some players rotate atgs on the spot (without moving them)?

You attack move it to the position you want, and it automatically sets up to target any assailant that moves into range.