jackson armor nerf

What more do you need to counter a medium tank than the best ATG in COH2, two different types of mines (one of them being the most powerful AT mine in the game), snares on all Riflemen and Bazookas on cheap RE squads?

USF fanboys going totally crazy when they think the only thing they can use to counter a fucking P4 is a Jackson.

^ It's not the only thing, it's the easiest thing.
Added. The fuel investment is often not expensive at all since usf atg + team weapons tactics are doable now.

What more do you need to counter a medium tank than the best ATG in COH2, two different types of mines (one of them being the most powerful AT mine in the game), snares on all Riflemen and Bazookas on cheap RE squads?

USF fanboys going totally crazy when they think the only thing they can use to counter a fucking P4 is a Jackson.

Baby rage? I don't know what you're trying to prove, but you've failed. So i guess we can add japanese faction without late game armor but with best at gun and mines why not

There's a distinction that's often missed on the CoH forums, and that's counter versus kill.

You can counter a unit by zoning it out. A tank that can't come near important areas isn't very effective at all.

Anti-tank guns zone out tanks. The SU-85, JPIV and Firefly also zone out tanks: they don't have the mobility or traverse to dive after retreating armour.

The main example of a unit that kills medium armour is the Panther: it's tough and fast, and its playstyle usually involves diving after enemy tanks to finish them off.

The Jackson is a bastard to balance because it's a tank destroyer that shares this ability to dive and secure kills. That makes it fundamentally different to other three 140ish FU tank destroyers.

Should the Jackson fill both roles? Or should it be a cheaper vehicle that only fills one?

What more do you need to counter a medium tank than the best ATG in COH2, two different types of mines (one of them being the most powerful AT mine in the game), snares on all Riflemen and Bazookas on cheap RE squads?

USF fanboys going totally crazy when they think the only thing they can use to counter a fucking P4 is a Jackson.

There isn't a single faction that relies on ATG and mines only to counter tanks. ATG is always a possible way but never the only one.
Late game ATG are simply irrelevant vs rocket artillery and off maps.

I don't know who's the fanboy here. I already gave my opinion on how to rebalance USF late game to make jackson less of a Must Have unit and I never had in mind buffs for it. On the other hand you're just calling for straight out nerfs with zero care for the consequences of it. You're not looking for balance but for vengeance.

There isn't a single faction that relies on ATG and mines only to counter tanks. ATG is always a possible way but never the only one.
Late game ATG are simply irrelevant vs rocket artillery and off maps.

Someone here claimed USF has no other counter to medium tanks than Jackson and that is simply wrong. They have ATG, mines, snares on mainline infantry, Bazookas and the Sherman is almost on one level with Ost P4 too. So really they have everything the other factions have too. The only thing they don't have is a cheap TD option like the Stug. Then they have doctrinal options like EZ8, M10, 76Sherman, Elite Zooks, P47.

Jackson is obviously needed too but that doesn't mean it should keep being way ahead of any other TD because of not having any weakness and on top insane penetration values. SU 85 is casemate. Firefly is slow, has bad reload and gets no penetration boost with vet. Meanwhile Jackson has all you could possibly want without any drawbacks. That's simply bad design.

Someone here claimed USF has no other counter to medium tanks than Jackson and that is simply wrong. They have ATG, mines, snares on mainline infantry, Bazookas and the Sherman is almost on one level with Ost P4 too. So really they have everything the other factions have too. The only thing they don't have is a cheap TD option like the Stug. Then they have doctrinal options like EZ8, M10, 76Sherman, Elite Zooks, P47.

Jackson is obviously needed too but that doesn't mean it should keep being way ahead of any other TD because of not having any weakness and on top insane penetration values. SU 85 is casemate. Firefly is slow, has bad reload and gets no penetration boost with vet. Meanwhile Jackson has all you could possibly want without any drawbacks. That's simply bad design.

"because of not having any weakness" : Yeah, it just gets destroyed by any tank during a rush.

It's like telling me that because you have a sniper rifle i can't take you down with a rifle. Or better, you are saying that it's possible to kill a guy in full body armor with a pencil. In the second case, you just can't. Give an actual AT alternative to USF and then you can talk about "nerfing" the Jackson.

"because of not having any weakness" : Yeah, it just gets destroyed by any tank during a rush.

Except that's untrue. It's as mobile as the enemy, but better on the move.
It deals more damage per shot but has the same health (this means any support will hit a bit harder)
Its got 50% more range so odds are it will have the first shot in and if the enemy pulls out odds are it will have the last shit out.
After receiving damage, even if not killed the Jackson can immediately start repairing itself, including engine damage making it even more likley to escape even the most unfortunate circumstances.

The Jackson has all the same tools to survive as it did when it was a 2 tap, but with double the health and none of its extreme handicaps level out. If you sre losing a Jackson to a tank rush you have to have walked away from the game with the crew out because even a static Jackson will put up a hell of a fight against a p4. Let alone of you micro it....

Except that's untrue. It's as mobile as the enemy, but better on the move.
It deals more damage per shot but has the same health (this means any support will hit a bit harder)
Its got 50% more range so odds are it will have the first shot in and if the enemy pulls out odds are it will have the last shit out.
After receiving damage, even if not killed the Jackson can immediately start repairing itself, including engine damage making it even more likley to escape even the most unfortunate circumstances.

The Jackson has all the same tools to survive as it did when it was a 2 tap, but with double the health and none of its extreme handicaps level out. If you sre losing a Jackson to a tank rush you have to have walked away from the game with the crew out because even a static Jackson will put up a hell of a fight against a p4. Let alone of you micro it....

Jackson's armor = mobility. I don't have to mention how this game is inaccurate, when German tanks are as fast as the allied ones, but you sacrifice something to gain something. You can't be both well armored and fast. This happens only with modern infantry.

As for AT alternatives:
Literally any infantry squad the usf field can be an AT squad, including the 3 you get for free by teching up and the 1 you start with.

If memory serves the sherman has the best pen on its AP shells of any standard medium

The at gun shoots the fastest and with a bit of muni also has the most pen, and with some vet also has the most range. Literally the best in every catagory and is only 270mp if I recall (mad up for by HVAP muni draw)

USF has mines that can immobilize stock. While that itself won't kill a tank, it will give you all the time in the world to plink away at it with any manner of AT you so please

The doctrinal there are a number of sherman variants that never see any use because why risk a 40 range AT tank that can be under return fire when you have a 60 range one that does more damage, has more range and is more mobile to boot?

All usf elite infantry have super bazooka that have perfomance close to Shreks than zooks

If you think usf does have any AT options but the Jackson it's because you never needed to look for any because the Jackson is all you need in literally any scenario ever, overshadowing a number of units and honestly the attraction of most doctrines. Usf has to go out of their way to not have some sort of fall back AT.


Tune the Jackson to heavy AT and let the NUMBER of other already existing medium AT units finally get some sun.

Jackson's armor = mobility. I don't have to mention how this game is inaccurate, when German tanks are as fast as the allied ones, but you sacrifice something to gain something. You can't be both well armored and fast. This happens only with modern infantry.

Except the Jackson also has the ability to bounce p4 and below shells so I guess Jackson armour = mobilty+armour eh?
Literally if it's range fails it it has mobility to fall back on, if it's mobility fails its still got a chance to bounce. If it gets flanked it can flee and return fire and bounce shells. It's draw back is.... What exactly? Compare to the firefly and su85 and tell me what scenarios would you want any of them over the Jackson and by what margin just to see how overperforming the Jackson is.

As for AT alternatives:If memory serves the sherman has the best pen on its AP shells of any standard mediumh

M4A3 has 140/120/100 pen.
Panzer IV J has 125/115/110.
T34/85 has 160/140/120.
EZ8 has 200/165/155.

Someone here claimed USF has no other counter to medium tanks than Jackson and that is simply wrong. They have ATG, mines, snares on mainline infantry, Bazookas and the Sherman is almost on one level with Ost P4 too. So really they have everything the other factions have too. The only thing they don't have is a cheap TD option like the Stug. Then they have doctrinal options like EZ8, M10, 76Sherman, Elite Zooks, P47.

Jackson is obviously needed too but that doesn't mean it should keep being way ahead of any other TD because of not having any weakness and on top insane penetration values. SU 85 is casemate. Firefly is slow, has bad reload and gets no penetration boost with vet. Meanwhile Jackson has all you could possibly want without any drawbacks. That's simply bad design.

You're listing what has been purposely balanced to be supportive to tanks in their battle, for each factions.
But if you're so much in the theory that ATgun and Infantry AT are enough to counter mediums, why don't you apply your own logic and use ATgun and pgshrek and mines vs Jackson. What the purpose of this thread in fact, If Pz4 bounce once every 8-9 shots, where were your atgun and pgshrek group to seal the deal? enlight us.

M4A3 has 140/120/100 pen.
Panzer IV J has 125/115/110.
T34/85 has 160/140/120.
EZ8 has 200/165/155.

T34/85 and ez8 are not standard mediums. They are premium mediums.

At any rate, 140 close is absolutely great pen leaving it on nearly equal terms with an Ost p4. Certainly acceptable in the medium AT role

I think it is very relevant to not just consider the stats of the Jackson, but also what it is up against.

The Jackson should absolutely dominate a p4. 4 shots 100% penetration. There is no reason why it shouldn't, it's singular purpose is that alone.

Against heavier armor, you can talk endlessly about the high penetration, but the fact is, on top of a very large bank of health, shots are going to bounce off and if you count those bounced shots as health, you are looking at a gigantic health. Compare that to the Axis perspective, where the complaint is range (don't complain about speed, because there is barely a difference if any with any vehicles that can damage it)and a player who's attention is now focused on controlling that one unit to stay 5 units out of range at all times. Closing in on a jackson might give it 1 shot where the panther can't return fire due to range. You've got a high chance that the 1 shot will bounce off like it basically never happened. The panther isn't going to bounce a shot off the jackson, the best the USF player can hope for is a missed shot. That's 4 solid shots from the panther. The Jackson needs 6 that actually penetrate. That's 6 MINIMUM. The panther is 4 MAXIMUM. Big difference.

If axis armor was bouncing shots off the front of allied armor as much as allied armor bounces shots off of axis armor, then I would understand the claims of Jackson being unfair.

Regardless of how much higher the penetration is on an allied weapon in comparison to an axis weapon, it barely matters because the two weapons are up against very different challenges. A pak isn't going to bounce shells off of allied armor(some of the UKF stuff will bounce). The 57mm even with higher pen will frequently bounce on heavy armor. To me, the additional penetration doesn't matter/compare to the pak, because the pak isn't facing any armor it can't take on or "zone out". The pak is an EFFECTIVE anti tank weapon. The 57mm is an ineffective anti tank weapon. The Jackson, while still not being as perfect as stock axis solutions is the most effective USF has. Reducing this specialty weapon to be less effective at what it hard counters doesn't seem wise to me.

Comments on some points:

I think it is very relevant to not just consider the stats of the Jackson, but also what it is up against.

The Jackson should absolutely dominate a p4. 4 shots 100% penetration. There is no reason why it shouldn't, it's singular purpose is that alone.

It's purpose is being the high end AT unit of USF. Allied TD pen is so high because otherwise they would not be able to fight against Tiger, KT and so on. Every other faction (beside USF) has an AT gun and normal mines to fight off medium tanks. Still fighting medium tanks is not the sole purpose of the Jackson. It's a hybrid for both mediums and heavies. The StuG is a unit designed for mediums only.

Against heavier armor, you can talk endlessly about the high penetration, but the fact is, on top of a very large bank of health, shots are going to bounce off and if you count those bounced shots as health, you are looking at a gigantic health. Compare that to the Axis perspective, where the complaint is range (don't complain about speed, because there is barely a difference if any with any vehicles that can damage it)and a player who's attention is now focused on controlling that one unit to stay 5 units out of range at all times. Closing in on a jackson might give it 1 shot where the panther can't return fire due to range. You've got a high chance that the 1 shot will bounce off like it basically never happened. The panther isn't going to bounce a shot off the jackson, the best the USF player can hope for is a missed shot. That's 4 solid shots from the panther. The Jackson needs 6 that actually penetrate. That's 6 MINIMUM. The panther is 4 MAXIMUM. Big difference.

Big difference is also the price of which Panther costs 90MP/40FU more. The chance to bounce a shot of the Jackson at range 50-60 is about 15 %. That is not a "high chance", I'd rather say it pens reliably with occasional bounces, but you should not count on the shot penetrating. That brings the Panther up by about one more shot, so it survives ~7 shots with RNG. A vetted Jackson pens a vetted Panther with 100% chance afaik.
An additional problem with the Jackson is it's ability to kite. The SU85 is a casemate which a clear drawback, the Firefly has a low ROF and is also slow, so catching it out of position can be very punishing. The Jackson? Paper armor, yes, but it is very quick so it can kite you deeper into enemy territory which is a dangerous gamble to make with your Panther.

If axis armor was bouncing shots off the front of allied armor as much as allied armor bounces shots off of axis armor, then I would understand the claims of Jackson being unfair.

The only unit against Allied TDs bounce with decent chances are the Panther (if Allied TD is unvetted) and heavies. If you only compare medium tanks at max range, OST P4 gets about 8% higher pen chance than the other way around. This decreases at lower ranges basically same pen chances. Not considering any abilities, the standard P4 gets a slight advantage in exchange for a slightly higher price. Seems fair to me. Allied high tier TD pen all mediums at 100%, and so does the Panther with Allied mediums.

Regardless of how much higher the penetration is on an allied weapon in comparison to an axis weapon, it barely matters because the two weapons are up against very different challenges. A pak isn't going to bounce shells off of allied armor(some of the UKF stuff will bounce). The 57mm even with higher pen will frequently bounce on heavy armor. To me, the additional penetration doesn't matter/compare to the pak, because the pak isn't facing any armor it can't take on or "zone out". The pak is an EFFECTIVE anti tank weapon. The 57mm is an ineffective anti tank weapon. The Jackson, while still not being as perfect as stock axis solutions is the most effective USF has. Reducing this specialty weapon to be less effective at what it hard counters doesn't seem wise to me.

The 57mm with high pen rounds is about as good as a normal ATG regarding penetration. But about twice the fire rate. So if you have ammo and micro, it is a very good unit for the price. If not you can basically throw if away if the mid game is over. I am also very divided about the units design, mostly because it forces USF into a high pen Jackson. Not sure if reworking the 57mm is the way to go in order to bring the Jackson down a little, because this could mean that the USF MUST go Captain every game.


And a final comment: I'm not saying the Panther is completely UP and I also do not disagree with every single of your points, but I think your post fell a bit short on some comparisons that did not take other things into account. Panther is probably in a good state if OST T4 gets an accessibility buff and Jackson gets a nerf to one of its weaknesses, which is the point of this thread.

Except the Jackson also has the ability to bounce p4 and below shells so I guess Jackson armour = mobilty+armour eh?
Literally if it's range fails it it has mobility to fall back on, if it's mobility fails its still got a chance to bounce. If it gets flanked it can flee and return fire and bounce shells. It's draw back is.... What exactly? Compare to the firefly and su85 and tell me what scenarios would you want any of them over the Jackson and by what margin just to see how overperforming the Jackson is.

In all the games and hours I have spent in this game, I have never seen Jacksons bouncing P4 shots. On the other hand, vehicles below P4 are normal to bounce on the Jackson because there is a term called "caliber". Small caliber weapons have difficult time penetrating thick or angled surfaces. Should I continue explaining the concept or I will read on the next reply that a 9mm is capable of penetrating the armor of a M109?

Jackson gets shot and deleted in a tank rush, or just an infantry (equipped with shreks) rush and all shots penetrate it because it doesn't have armor.

In all the games and hours I have spent in this game, I have never seen Jacksons bouncing P4 shots. On the other hand, vehicles below P4 are normal to bounce on the Jackson because there is a term called "caliber". Small caliber weapons have difficult time penetrating thick or angled surfaces. Should I continue explaining the concept or I will read on the next reply that a 9mm is capable of penetrating the armor of a M109?

Jackson gets shot and deleted in a tank rush, or just an infantry (equipped with shreks) rush and all shots penetrate it because it doesn't have armor.

This is a case of observer bias. Jackson has about 15% chance to bounce a max range shot of a P4. Not sure what you want with the caliber of weapons here though. The game works completely differently and is far from realistic.

Also the Jackson should not get touched by Panzerschrecks unless you really misjudged the situation, get caught by surprise during a push of yours (but then there is normally no follow up for the Axis player). The Jackson has 60 range, Schrecks have (don't know exactly) 30/35 (someone please confirm) and need a bit of setup time. If your backline unit gets into knife range with Panzerschrecks that it deserves to be punished. Also in a tank rush it can still drive away unless you're overmicroed heavily or positioned it in front of a path blocker. It does not get deleted much quicker than a similarly prices OKW P4 vs an Allied composition.

The Jackson has no drawback apart from a slightly underwhelming armor for the price. The only reason why it's strong is that it has to be that way due to the design of the whole USF faction. Every other unit in the game has a weakness, either be it a strong counter or a clearly underperforming stat or feature (like casemates) that can be exploited. A Jackson however is usually lost by either the USF player making a mistake or being heavily outplayed which would probably kill every other tank in the game as well.

This is a case of observer bias. Jackson has about 15% chance to bounce a max range shot of a P4. Not sure what you want with the caliber of weapons here though. The game works completely differently and is far from realistic.

Also the Jackson should not get touched by Panzerschrecks unless you really misjudged the situation, get caught by surprise during a push of yours (but then there is normally no follow up for the Axis player). The Jackson has 60 range, Schrecks have (don't know exactly) 30/35 (someone please confirm) and need a bit of setup time. If your backline unit gets into knife range with Panzerschrecks that it deserves to be punished. Also in a tank rush it can still drive away unless you're overmicroed heavily or positioned it in front of a path blocker. It does not get deleted much quicker than a similarly prices OKW P4 vs an Allied composition.

The Jackson has no drawback apart from a slightly underwhelming armor for the price. The only reason why it's strong is that it has to be that way due to the design of the whole USF faction. Every other unit in the game has a weakness, either be it a strong counter or a clearly underperforming stat or feature (like casemates) that can be exploited. A Jackson however is usually lost by either the USF player making a mistake or being heavily outplayed which would probably kill every other tank in the game as well.

As you said yourself, 15% at max range. I want to believe that the bounce rate is reduced as the P4 gets closer. As for the caliber statement, I replied to the other guy that said that vehicles lighter than P4 don't always penetrate the Jackson. It has some armor, not paper armor. Moving on.

3-4 Shrek shots are enough to take down a Jackson. The problem is that the games I play are a blob shitshow from both sides. Enemy brings armor, I respond with Jacksons, he then brings AT equipped squads and I fall back while holding him with my infantry. Still not enough to stop them sometimes.

Yeah, the Jackson is fast, but if you have 1-2 and the enemy rushes you with 2-3 P4s and is focused on taking them down, he won't back down until he destroys the Jacksons. Plus, if you find it difficult to destroy a Jackson with a P4, you have alternatives. And if you don't, then use P4s and go up close and personal. If you can't take it down from far away, get close. Jackson is nothing more than a sniper. Good from afar, mediocre if you get close. This is how I see it.

And a solution would be to make the M10 Wolverine non doctrinal. Seriously, I wouldn't mind having it as a stock unit instead of the Jackson. It costs nothing, you can spam it and it's seriously perfect in every aspect. You don't even have to change it. Spam it, roll over the enemy, replace casualties. What's 80 fuel lost?

Doctrinal units help a lot. The 76mm M4 is pretty accessible in Mechanized and the EZ8 is gonna get a lot more prevalent soon in my opinion.