Jackson Nerf vs Making Panther Doctrinal

Purely a L2P issue on your side. Virtually all good players agree that the T34-85 is the best (or at the very least top 3) medium. Its cost-effectiveness is through the roof since it is highly capable at fighting infantry as well as bullying other mediums. Its health pool also makes it a great choice for taking on the KT.

You might not realise that it has 800 health, more armour, and a lot more pen than the T34-76, but that really matters in tank vs tank fights. Statistically it has approximately a 90% chance of winning 1vs1 against an Ost p4 (significantly higher % chance to pen + 25% more health), which costs 30mp and 10 fuel less. There's literally no medium as cost-efficient as the T34-85.

Ost has plenty of counters to the T34-85, but that doesn't change the fact that the T34-85, in and of itself, is a top-of-class unit. If Ost had a unit that good, you and CODGUY would have quit the game already. Ost P4s already have a slight edge vs Shermans, T34-76s, and Cromwells, but the P4 still gets blown away by T34-85s.

The OKW p4 has high armour that gives it a very light repair burden and great survivability, so certainly an argument can be made that it's the best medium. But dissing the T34-85 simply means you're a really bad player who doesn't understand how incredibly cost-efficient the T34-85 is.

You are comparing a tank that is in a doctrine vs stock P4....

I dont understand your terminology. Usually cost effective means that a unit is very effective for the amount you pay- thus it is cost efficient. You seem to view the terms "cost effective" and "cost efficient" as having different meanings, please explain.

Sure, both words (efficient, effective) seem pretty similar but they are not. Both are aimed towards a process and its results.

Effectivity is how well a job is done. If we are talking about a shooting range, a sniper rifle will almost always hit where you aim, also as dead center as possible.

Efficiency is how certain you are from getting the job done, also with the less amount of effort. I.e. A shotgun if we keep on the previous example. A single pellet hitting the target should do.

A cost-efficient unit is one that mostly trades resources, you might loose a tank in a 2v1 but both tanks you had were less expensive than the other one you were facing.

A Cost-effective unit is one that ensures you the job done, a sniper killing models is one of the best examples. Since the game has flanks, FoW and complex cover mechanics, units are indeed more or less effective at specific tasks. (AI/AT/preservation/mobility)

Thats why there are endless discussions of Squad1 vs Squad2 in the balance forums, people dont realize that unit have multiple tasks to perform and different effectivities at each one. But because unit preservation is paramount in CoH2 the cost-efficient units are often, but not limited to, the hard counters like TD vs Heavy Tanks

What is the difference between "cost-effective" and just regular "effective"? It seems like they are the same but one has cost in front, which is confusing.

What I have known before is that both "cost-effective" and "cost-efficient" mean good for cost, except probably one of them is British English or something like that. If you look them up in the dictionary, it doesn't mention your distinction at all. If you want to say something is effective but expensive you just say it is "effective" or "overpriced" or "effective but overpriced" if you have to be extra clear.

I guess it makes sense that ideally you would have a specific word for this effective-but-costs-too-much concept. But I think trying to bend "cost-effective" to that meaning doesn't work, it's not clear at all. Maybe you should call it "costly-effective", because everyone knows costly is bad. Don't try to call anything "costly-efficient", though, that doesn't make any sense.

Also with your earlier examples, I think sniper is not a good example of a costly-effective unit because it's such a fickle and skill-based unit. If you are great at sniper handling and your sniper survives the whole match getting lots of kills, then it's both very effective and efficient because snipers don't bleed manpower or need repairs. On the other hand, if your sniper kills two men and then walks into an ambush and dies, it's not effective or cost-effective or anything good at all.

A simple example for costly-effective is like, say you're playing as ost against soviets and your opponent is doing some weird joke strategy with lots and lots of quad halftracks and not much else. If you get a panther to counter them, it will work, but it will cost too much because the panzer 4 can do the same thing for much cheaper. So the panzer 4 is more cost-effective and the panther is costly-effective. And panzergrenadiers with panzershrecks aren't even costly-effective, they're just bad because they won't work at all.

TLDR: you should call things "costly-effective" and not "cost-effective".

the JT is undoubtedly effective, but I don't think anyone would say it's cost effective. Doing its job well and doing it effeciently are different.

Sure, both words (efficient, effective) seem pretty similar but they are not. Both are aimed towards a process and its results.

Effectivity is how well a job is done. If we are talking about a shooting range, a sniper rifle will almost always hit where you aim, also as dead center as possible.

Efficiency is how certain you are from getting the job done, also with the less amount of effort. I.e. A shotgun if we keep on the previous example. A single pellet hitting the target should do.

A cost-efficient unit is one that mostly trades resources, you might loose a tank in a 2v1 but both tanks you had were less expensive than the other one you were facing.

A Cost-effective unit is one that ensures you the job done, a sniper killing models is one of the best examples. Since the game has flanks, FoW and complex cover mechanics, units are indeed more or less effective at specific tasks. (AI/AT/preservation/mobility)

Thats why there are endless discussions of Squad1 vs Squad2 in the balance forums, people dont realize that unit have multiple tasks to perform and different effectivities at each one. But because unit preservation is paramount in CoH2 the cost-efficient units are often, but not limited to, the hard counters like TD vs Heavy Tanks

Actually terms effective and efficient are the exact opposite in your description.
Sniper firing a round will be efficient shotgun will be effective. (In terms of ammunition used to take down the target)

What is happening here? I read a similar discussion already. Just no comment.

Jackson is too cheap for what it does and panther too expensive.

In summary:

The same clique of Axis mains want the Jackson nerfed. The same people that got the Churchill nerfed and if they get the Jackson nerfed the Pershing is next and then maybe the dozer Shermans. Mark my words this is what will happen.

Sure, both words (efficient, effective) seem pretty similar but they are not. Both are aimed towards a process and its results.

Effectivity is how well a job is done. If we are talking about a shooting range, a sniper rifle will almost always hit where you aim, also as dead center as possible.

Efficiency is how certain you are from getting the job done, also with the less amount of effort. I.e. A shotgun if we keep on the previous example. A single pellet hitting the target should do.

A cost-efficient unit is one that mostly trades resources, you might loose a tank in a 2v1 but both tanks you had were less expensive than the other one you were facing.

A Cost-effective unit is one that ensures you the job done, a sniper killing models is one of the best examples. Since the game has flanks, FoW and complex cover mechanics, units are indeed more or less effective at specific tasks. (AI/AT/preservation/mobility)

Well I'm not sure if those are even the actual definitions, but for the sake of argument even if they are,
If a unit is "cost effective" or effective for its cost, that means its performance is high relative to its cost.
If a unit is "cost efficient" or efficient for its cost, that means its cost is low relative to its performance.

This is pretty much the exact same thing said in reverse...

Maybe you are getting something like "maximum potential" mixed up with cost effectiveness.

In summary:

The same clique of Axis mains want the Jackson nerfed. The same people that got the Churchill nerfed and if they get the Jackson nerfed the Pershing is next and then maybe the dozer Shermans. Mark my words this is what will happen.

And what about the allied mains that agree with that "clique"?

And what about the allied mains that agree with that "clique"?

What about people with ranks astronomically higher than his as usf who want the Jackson nerfed?

What about people with ranks astronomically higher than his as usf who want the Jackson nerfed?

I think an argument should be able to stand on its merit regardless of the skill of the individual, though that skill level can support the validity of an argument indirectly as it shows the person has(sometimes superior) knowledge to potentially come to a sound conclusion.

In this case though, I don't find the OP's arguments compelling and his rank is kinda poor for him to have super secret special techniques or know-how to offset this.

I think an argument should be able to stand on its merit regardless of the skill of the individual, though that skill level can support the validity of an argument indirectly as it shows the person has(sometimes superior) knowledge to potentially come to a sound conclusion.

In this case though, I don't find the OP's arguments compelling and his rank is kinda poor for him to have super secret special techniques or know-how to offset this.

I don’t disagree, but the thing is when you’re a terribly ranked usf player who keeps making balance threads every week to bitch about the game cannot disallow and invalidate the opinions of other players who have significantly higher ranks than him, thus alluding to significantly more skill and thus better balance opinions, on the basis of them having some kind of positive bias towards Axis factions just because they don’t agree with his absurd opinions on why Allies need a buff to every unit.

Tldr: just cause I don’t agree with this shit player doesn’t mean I can’t have a valid opinion. “hE’S aXIS fANBOI dON’T lISTEN” isn’t an argument,

In summary:

The same clique of Axis mains want the Jackson nerfed. The same people that got the Churchill nerfed and if they get the Jackson nerfed the Pershing is next and then maybe the dozer Shermans. Mark my words this is what will happen.

Your perceived notions of the future are incredible

Churchill is balanced in therms of its tank Vs tank power. 1 Churchill can stand up to 2 stuGs or 1 panther which is fair as they cost about the same amount.

Problem is it has the same ai as a medium but can sit there for twice as long dealing the damage, effectively doubling its ai power. And then it can just smoke + reverse out.

Churchill is balanced in therms of its tank Vs tank power. 1 Churchill can stand up to 2 stuGs or 1 panther which is fair as they cost about the same amount.

Problem is it has the same ai as a medium but can sit there for twice as long dealing the damage, effectively doubling its ai power. And then it can just smoke + reverse out.

That is exactly the problem. Tanks costing that much are good at both roles. Panther is expensive and is only useful as a 'closer' range tank destroyer that can be kited.

That is exactly the problem. Tanks costing that much are good at both roles. Panther is expensive and is only useful as a 'closer' range tank destroyer that can be kited.

Panther can't really be kited by anything due to its speed and vet1.
It can be zoned by ATGs and infantry, but it can't be kited by any allied vehicle.
And its not supposed to outrange, its supposed to outlast.
In plain firefight, it beats all allied TDs without contest.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that churchill is actually good against vehicles - its not, its worse then cromwell as despite it has durability and same gun, it doesn't have speed to flank or finish of anything. Its a damage sponge, not damage dealer.

In summary:

The same clique of Axis mains want the Jackson nerfed. The same people that got the Churchill nerfed and if they get the Jackson nerfed the Pershing is next and then maybe the dozer Shermans. Mark my words this is what will happen.

You seem to think the balance team actually listens to the balance forums.

They don't.

Panther can't really be kited by anything due to its speed and vet1.
It can be zoned by ATGs and infantry, but it can't be kited by any allied vehicle.
And its not supposed to outrange, its supposed to outlast.
In plain firefight, it beats all allied TDs without contest.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that churchill is actually good against vehicles - its not, its worse then cromwell as despite it has durability and same gun, it doesn't have speed to flank or finish of anything. Its a damage sponge, not damage dealer.

churchs own P4 and even make panthers life hard since the panther will need so much shots and churchs have ok chance to penetrate panther...and after that rolling above your infantry

Why do people find it so hard to fight Jacksons when Paks and Shreks get the job done? Jackson has 0 anti infantry capability.

Panther can't really be kited by anything due to its speed and vet1.
It can be zoned by ATGs and infantry, but it can't be kited by any allied vehicle.

IMO it can be kited easily, especially by Jacksons (but even by fireflies and su85s) and lured into at guns/mines/zooks.

And its not supposed to outrange, its supposed to outlast.
In plain firefight, it beats all allied TDs without contest.

but in real game scenario when you and your opponent are on similar level, it won't outlast concentrated fire of cheaper units with longer range. This idea is the crux of the problem. Range is far superior to extra armour as it gives you more tactical possibilities. It wouldn't be such a great problem if the cost was simlar (jackson priced similarly to panther; range/repairs/speed on one side and extra armour and a bit of anty infantry potency on another) but panther is so much more expensive.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that churchill is actually good against vehicles - its not, its worse then cromwell as despite it has durability and same gun, it doesn't have speed to flank or finish of anything. Its a damage sponge, not damage dealer.

Churchill will sponge damage, kill infantry, often at weapons and penetrate mediums. It is usually enough for the rest of UKF units to finish what is left. There are other tanks such as KV and other heavies which panther can't reliably penetrate in contrast to other cheaper TDs.