jackson armor nerf

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.

Its not LITERALLY HALF THE COST, you know? First. (30MP - 75FU)
Second, Pumas are not (nearly) as reliable as jackons, nor durable, nor accurate.

if we're re scaling costs/Performance, it wouldn't be a bad thing, i guess.

scaling cost/performance only favours your point of jackson costing more fuel (wich is dirt cheap for what it does) and if we were to consider this logic, all axis tank should OUTPERFORM VASTLY any allied tank.

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?

The way this thread suggests: lower the M36's armour.

The Jackson's a long-running balance headache: reducing its strengths isn't really an option because USF relies so heavily on it, and increasing its cost just delays its timing.

All that leaves is strengthening its weakness: its poor durability.

Reducing its health makes it more vulnerable to the heavy vehicles it's designed to kill, whereas reducing its armour makes it more vulnerable to lights and mediums.

It seems like a sensible approach to me.

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?

Yes I actually do think that this is probably a bad idea.
I mean it's hard to tell how much a small armor change will effect a real game. For the time being we have to keep theorizing about it.

I think it's bad because
1. The Puma already has a role and is a very efficient unit on the battlefield. If OKW absolutely needs to counter the Jackson it can get a JPIV.
2. The cost difference is about double the cost of a Puma. It just seems very high considering the stun shot and smoke that could be cheesed to hell and back. I mean Jackson/Tiger have a similar cost disparity, but the Jackson can't be cheesed as much. On the other hand high skill should be rewarded of course. Again it's hard tp draw a final conclusion on this without seeing it implemented.

The Puma is just already worth it's price, I don't think it needs any indirect buffs that would on top of that marginalize a unit that was partially designed for that purpose even further.

Just to emphasize: I'm not saying 'Don't lower the Jacksons armor', I'm saying the best spot is likel between PIV reliably penetrating and Puma not reliably penetrating

Reducing the M36's armor wouldn't really do anything other than make it look like the M36 has been nerfed. As OP said, the issue 'seems' to be that the M36 can bounce p4 shots; while it can, it only has a 15% chance at long-range, and a 4% chance at short range (110/115/125 pen vs 130 armor).

Is removing that 4 to 15% bounce chance going to suddenly fix the M36, and make it a balanced unit? No, not really. The only purpose of the M36s armor is to protect it from small arms and smaller cannons (222's 2cm, etc.).

The core issue with the M36 is that it simply has too much going for it at the same time:

• High pen (220/240/260)
  
• High damage (160)
  
• High range (60)
  
• Has a turret
  
• High mobility (6.5 speed / 3 accel)
  
• High moving accuracy (0.75)
  
• Decent HP (640)
  
• Affordable (400mp/145f)
  
• Non-doc
  

Simply put, what is it's weakness? By itself, there just isn't one against tanks.
Compare it to OKW's JP4, which is fairly similar in role and price (late-game TD, 400mp/135f).

Show Spoiler

Now consider that the JP4 is the single best TD for Axis, and instead compare the M36 to a STUG or Panther; the comparison becomes even more one sided.

I've suggested it before, but the main issue seems to be that the M36 needs to counter all axis late-game armor. This is a pretty big problem, since the "area" its covering is absurdly high. If we make the M36 a specialized tool against the Panther/Doc-tanks, then USF would be crushed by earlier medium tanks, and if we made the M36 specialize against those, the USF loses its one counter to Panther/Doc-tanks.

Not to resurrect an old thread, but I think the idea is still valid: Give USF an intermediate AT

Jackson also have great vet bonus. A great ability. A low pop cost when you considered it has 1 click repairs.

Add them and we see its role/cost multiplies to greatness.

Lowering its armor is just nerf for the sake, in the same way as recent +5 more fuel. Looks good i agree. Thats all.

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!

Just play Ostheer then dumass

Guaranteed you will win 100% of games

Making infantry and light vehicles a counter to the M36 is a much better course of action than straight up nerfing its combat capabilities.

Making infantry and light vehicles a counter to the M36 is a much better course of action than straight up nerfing its combat capabilities.

How would this work, though?

Infantry will be tough, since OST's only AT-Infantry (Pgrens+Schreks) are 4-model squads, and they'd be facing against a screen of (probably vet 2-3, double bar / M1919) riflemen, which are arguably one of the best infantry squads in the game. Meanwhile, OKW doesn't have any non-doc AT squads, short of single-schreck Sturms. Without adjustments to rifles, this likely wouldn't be possible. It's also important to note that, as it currently stands, AT-Infantry is actually a great counter to the M36 (very high burst damage) provided they can get in range.

LVs could be interesting, but I'm not sure how this would actually work. OST's only non-doc LV that makes sense in this situation is the 222, and its incredibly squishy. A 222 simply isn't going to make it to the M36s before being melted by USF's fast-firing ATGs, .50 MGs, or infantry. The Puma could work (due to range / LOS), but adjusting that unit to be a strong counter to the M36, and also have it not ending up being super-viable in packs against literally everything on wheels/tracks would be tricky.

How would this work, though?

Infantry will be tough, since OST's only AT-Infantry (Pgrens+Schreks) are 4-model squads, and they'd be facing against a screen of (probably vet 2-3, double bar / M1919) riflemen, which are arguably one of the best infantry squads in the game. Meanwhile, OKW doesn't have any non-doc AT squads, short of single-schreck Sturms. Without adjustments to rifles, this likely wouldn't be possible. It's also important to note that, as it currently stands, AT-Infantry is actually a great counter to the M36 (very high burst damage) provided they can get in range.

LVs could be interesting, but I'm not sure how this would actually work. OST's only non-doc LV that makes sense in this situation is the 222, and its incredibly squishy. A 222 simply isn't going to make it to the M36s before being melted by USF's fast-firing ATGs, .50 MGs, or infantry. The Puma could work (due to range / LOS), but adjusting that unit to be a strong counter to the M36, and also have it not ending up being super-viable in packs against literally everything on wheels/tracks would be tricky.

Infantry - Snares always engine crit
Light Vehicles - Puma reliably pens the M36

Infantry - Snares always engine crit
Light Vehicles - Puma reliably pens the M36

The Puma is not an OST unit.

Also I don't think that the infantry crit would help that much. It would help at the only occasion that you get into snare range on an undamaged unit that usually stays at range 60 and therefore behind enemy lines. If there was any fight beforehand so that infantry could close in during the chaos, the Jackson has probably already received damage and would be snarable anyway.

I mean it is a buff, but nothing that really helps OST.

What about making jackson sight dependent on movement?

I mean, its like a passive spottig scopes, but current sight is only when stationary and on the move is half of it, for example.

Jackson will no longer chase reliably, but can defend

The Puma is not an OST unit.

Also I don't think that the infantry crit would help that much. It would help at the only occasion that you get into snare range on an undamaged unit that usually stays at range 60 and therefore behind enemy lines. If there was any fight beforehand so that infantry could close in during the chaos, the Jackson has probably already received damage and would be snarable anyway.

I mean it is a buff, but nothing that really helps OST.

How does this not help Ost? A single Grenadier can prevent a Jackson from diving after wounded tanks.

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.

I love the wheraboos who think grens are the only one who's snare is bugged. The Riflemen AT nade is literally just as buggy and it used to be WAY worse (when it still had minimum range)

But these are bugs, not balance issues. Complaining about them to other users doesn't really make sense, most of us are not equipped to fix this...

The 1 snare idea for TDs only is pretty good imo

I think that armor is not the problem, mobility is, in addition to the accuracy they have. But it is not the only factor, it happens with most TD allies, the accuracy and vision, the price and the time to get one, make them very profitable, this is especially noticeable in team games, I realized that when I play as an ally I have the vision of most of the front almost all the time (flares, global flares, su85 ability) that allows the TD to be used effectively both offensively and defensively, the Panthers are no longer a threat as before, they have good mobility, but sometimes their shots fail even being static.

Infantry - Snares always engine crit
Light Vehicles - Puma reliably pens the M36

How does this not help Ost? A single Grenadier can prevent a Jackson from diving after wounded tanks.

As Hannibal said, the Puma is OKW-only, at least in terms of non-doc.

As for pen, like I said, this really wouldn't help. The M36 has enough HP that even a reductions to near-zero armor (just enough to protect against small arms and 222/Luchs), it really wouldn't change anything. The puma has pretty bad moving accuracy (0.5, like most vehicles), so it won't really be able to chase the M36.

Even then, if we assume a 100% hit rate combined with a 100% pen rate, it'll take the Puma six hits to destroy the M36, which will take around 23 seconds. Meanwhile the M36 can 2-shot the puma - meaning a single hit forces a retreat.


For the Infantry snares, this really only works when Axis is on the defensive, protecting against dives. When being offensive, this just won't do anything. When attacking, no (good) USF player would let your grens get within 30 range of their M36s, either by simply moving the M36 away (it's really fast), or by focus firing the closing 4 model squad with their double-upgraded/vetted rifles. Additionally, by default, when you're closing in on those M36s, you're also closing in on rifles (since they're almost certainly screening for the M36s), which means you're setting up a Gren vs. Rifles at meedium/close fight; that won't go well.

What about making jackson sight dependent on movement?

I mean, its like a passive spottig scopes, but current sight is only when stationary and on the move is half of it, for example.

Jackson will no longer chase reliably, but can defend

While it could work, I think this is just too gimmicky. Not only would it be really frustrating to play with (depending on the severity of the moving penalty), it's just another "we want to nerf the M36 but not really" change.

A similar comparison would be the JP4; for some reason it has a vision 'cone' rather than circle; meaning it can only see in a ~90-degree cone in front of itself, rather than in a full 360 circle. This seems like it would be a pretty big mechanical difference to have, but many players don't even notice it, because other units are giving LOS to the sides/rear of the tank. I only noticed this 'cone' late last year, despite playing OKW since release (or shortly after).

What about making jackson sight dependent on movement?

I mean, its like a passive spottig scopes, but current sight is only when stationary and on the move is half of it, for example.

Jackson will no longer chase reliably, but can defend

What the hell are you on?
Jackson sight was nerfed ages ago, it doesn't chase anything any better then P4.

Why Jackson should have less armor? Simply give StuG 60 range (or ability) and give Jackson some acc. as Panther.

Simply give StuG 60 range (or ability) and give Jackson some acc. as Panther.

This is a pretty good solution. A 60-range STuG would probably need a cost/pop increase (+20f, +3 pop?), but would give Ost a viable TD solution other than Panthers in the very-late game, while also filling that 60-range AT role (which currently only has the Pak40 for non-doc).

I also don't see any major 'knock-on' problems from reducing the M36's moving accuracy to 0.5 (like every other tank). Even if this nerf is 'controversial', it could be done in 2 steps to see how much of an impact it makes. 0.75 -> 0.6 -> 0.5.

This is a pretty good solution. A 60-range STuG would probably need a cost/pop increase (+20f, +3 pop?) and would give Ost a viable TD solution other than Panthers in the very-late game. I also don't see any major 'knock-on' problems from reducing the M36's moving accuracy to 0.5 (like every other tank).

Could also be an upgrade for StuG, saying StuG Ausf. F to StuG Ausf. G. Maybe make the MG42 be an indicator for the version. So it also become a visual change.