Login

russian armor

jackson armor nerf

PAGES (19)down
20 Jan 2020, 14:59 PM
#21
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

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.


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?
20 Jan 2020, 15:09 PM
#22
avatar of mons7erz

Posts: 90



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


Now, I'm not trying to sound undermining here; but if that happened because you got bad RNG, then the results could not be reliably reproduced, therefore the nerf wouldn't make sense outside of someone venting their frustrations with the RNG. Unless they can be reproduced, I currently dont see a need to hit the jackson with the nerf stick. I've seen a cromwell tank bounce 6 shots off a crippled P4 (happened recently, Should of saved the replay, was pretty funny.) But we're not asking for the P4 nerf, because it happened as a result of a one-off.

Personally, I think the P4 is a very balanced tank. Sometimes bad RNG just gets ya.

But back to the OP, If this were happening all the time (with evidence) I'd be on board, but as far as I see, and the millions of jacksons I've used, I dont believe I've ever come accross a P4 who has bounced 4 times hahaha

If someone can test it, and post their findings, would be interesting to look at, but I can't see that result being reproduced.
20 Jan 2020, 15:11 PM
#23
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563



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

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.
20 Jan 2020, 15:14 PM
#24
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

Yeah I see no reason why the Jackson should be able to deflect occasional p4 shots

AND I don't see how nerfing m36 armor by 20-30 would seriously change balance, unless I'm missing something. I agree with Lago that the puma deserves to be a good option against Jackson
20 Jan 2020, 15:17 PM
#25
avatar of mons7erz

Posts: 90


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.


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!
20 Jan 2020, 15:25 PM
#26
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563



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!

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.
20 Jan 2020, 15:31 PM
#27
avatar of mons7erz

Posts: 90

jump backJump 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?


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!




20 Jan 2020, 15:35 PM
#28
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563



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!





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.
20 Jan 2020, 15:36 PM
#29
avatar of mons7erz

Posts: 90


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.


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.
20 Jan 2020, 15:38 PM
#30
avatar of mons7erz

Posts: 90


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.


Jacksons are the fireflys of the USF, you lose your tiger to a Jackson (ONE jackson) you're in too deep my friend.
20 Jan 2020, 15:41 PM
#31
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563



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

Well, then if you would loose your jackson to the PUMA then that would mean your too deep too m8.
20 Jan 2020, 15:58 PM
#32
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563



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.

if I remember correctly m1919 and mg42 have similar dps at all ranges. unrelated question: what's a good commander to buy between these 3: urban defense(sovs), elite troops(ost), mech assault(ost)???
20 Jan 2020, 16:12 PM
#33
avatar of mons7erz

Posts: 90

jump backJump 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?


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?
20 Jan 2020, 16:18 PM
#35
avatar of mons7erz

Posts: 90


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


That depends on the context of the scenario.
Jackson v Tiger is pretty forward--Tiger pushes, Jackson fires 4 times, tiger retreats. the jackson,and TDs in general, exsists so heavies like the tiger cant go ham without being punished

Jackson v. Puma:
-Jackson pushes, Puma stuns, Jackson gets hammered by p4/tiger/panthers/etc. that would be a l2p issue
or
-Puma flanks, hits jackson once or twice/stuns, jackson gets pushed by tanks, dies. that would be an outplayed issue.

depends on the scenario, really. most times the jackson is at the back line, so its hard to say.

20 Jan 2020, 16:22 PM
#37
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

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
20 Jan 2020, 16:24 PM
#38
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



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?


2 pumas are equal or more costly than a jackson and you know you will loose one at the expense of not getting the jackson.

A puma checking a m36 is like a stug checking a IS2, its unlikely but posible
20 Jan 2020, 16:24 PM
#39
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

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


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.
20 Jan 2020, 16:25 PM
#40
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



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.

Agreed, but i would also implement some buffs for pumas, like turret rotation speed and decreased target size.

I really like the 1 snare TDs idea
PAGES (19)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

501 users are online: 501 guests
4 posts in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49918
Welcome our newest member, Iveltofe
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM