jackson armor nerf

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2020, 23:46 PMHannibal

It might the slight nerf that the Jackson could take without interfering with the rest of the balance.
Decent idea. 5-10 armor nerf might actually be enough so that a P4 would hit very reliably. The only thing to watch out for is indeed the Puma since it could be a very easy and sacrifice to get a Jackson that might have already been hit. Especially with the smoke it could really cheese a Jackson kill if it penetrates too reliably.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 14:53 PMFire and Terror

this woudnt change the Jacksons performance at all, only stupid rng moments when p4 bounces

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 14:39 PMmons7erz

Fantastic Suggestion! I'd love to get my hands on a Non-vetted Snare, Cheap field upgrade, and a rifle grenade!.

I Would be all for it!

Edit: Forgot to mention the cheaper reinforcement cost. God I would love that

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 15:11 PMZeroZeroNi

Why stop there,
Why not loose a model
get dramatically lower dps at all ranges and while moving
get a grenade that can't be used at close range.
loose a base upgrade that does not upgrade dps at all ranges and while moving.

Yeah don't you want these too m8. These are good things too.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 15:17 PMmons7erz

Sounds great to me, if it means I dont have to side tech grenades AND Weapon racks, I'd happily drop a model, and reduce my moving DPS for a grenade that can be reliably fired over any LOS blocker.

You underestimate how much I'd appreciate these things, and im not even kidding. Grens, personally, are some of the best infantry in the game with their utility. Oh you forgot to mention being able to build bunkers.

Now THAT, THAT would be great!

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 14:59 PMLago

Is the Puma being a counter to the Jackson that bad an idea though?

The Jackson is the only tank destroyer in a faction who's AT is otherwise all geared towards killing lights (low pen ATG, low pen bazookas, pathetic pen Stuart).

If the Jackson needs a vehicular counter, what better vehicle than the one USF is best equipped to deal with without a Jackson?

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 15:31 PMmons7erz

Cost is a big factor, for one.

Puma 370MP 70FU.
Jackson 400MP 145FU

I don't believe a vehicle that's literally half the cost, should be able to counter. if we're re scaling costs/Performance, it wouldn't be a bad thing, i guess. Or, we could just make the M10 viable again, there would probably be less Jackson play. making the Puma a hard counter to the jackson would just push the poor soul in the dark more...
Think of the m10s!

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 15:25 PMZeroZeroNi

You: They can build bunkers
Grens: What do you think we are Pioneers

Also no would you also like side tech not give you bars a single nerfed m1919???? Also you also like you snare to misfire and fizzle out on occasions.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 15:35 PMZeroZeroNi

Jackson 400MP 145F
Tiger 630MP 230F
Tiger ACE 800MP 250F
KT 720MP 280F

It seems that you fine with a unit being able to counter something that cost 1.5~2.0 times as much. Seems like a double standard.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 15:38 PMmons7erz

Jacksons are the fireflys of the USF, you lose your tiger to a Jackson (ONE jackson) you're in too deep my friend.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 15:36 PMmons7erz

too late there bud, ,m1919s have already been nerfed loads. so we already have that. paras are the only ones effectively able to use them. would take an LMG 42 over that anyday. Still need to be static to fire them(m1919 and LMG42). we're making progress!

at least when they fire (which according to you, only happens every so often), you're going to pen at least 98% of the time.

We are getting way off topic here, and I'd rather not get invised, so please stay on topic.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 14:59 PMLago

Is the Puma being a counter to the Jackson that bad an idea though?

The Jackson is the only tank destroyer in a faction who's AT is otherwise all geared towards killing lights (low pen ATG, low pen bazookas, pathetic pen Stuart).

If the Jackson needs a vehicular counter, what better vehicle than the one USF is best equipped to deal with without a Jackson?

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 15:41 PMZeroZeroNi

Well, then if you would loose your jackson to the PUMA then that would mean your too deep too m8.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 16:12 PMmons7erz

How would you see it implemented? I mean, the Puma does a decent job at providing a check for the Jackson, meaning you will get punished if you over extend, especially if its vet 1?

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 16:22 PMdistrofio

Currently Jacksons are a beat-all-of-the-kind tank, it destroys lights because they are 2 shoted, they obliterate mediums because they are more reliable on the move than those and finally but not least, beat the crap out of heavies because their superior range and penetration bonuses.

Damn they are the best FU investment to deny all other FU from axis.
Pair that with a solid lategame infantry and you got 2 out of 3 main army components (infantry-armor-indirect fire), from that its a simple linear fight and steamroll over.

I admit that lategame is for allies, but unless axis spams ATGs and HMGs they are simply rolled over, generally speaking

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2020, 16:24 PMT.R. Stormjäger

If there was some counterplay, for instance if snares always dealt engine crits and if armour was lower to allow Puma to fight it off, then the Jackson would be in a much better spot.