jackson armor nerf

That's easy. They were fine with their faust before they got buffed. Then they got overbuffed. Now we remove faust to partially compensate for lack of nerf when they got buffed.

Yay! And now we’re left with a dead doctrine! Hurray! Balance!

Jackson armor nerf will bring us back to the squishy tank destroyer state that we moved away from. Just remember, in 4 v 4s Jacksons are much more likely to face panther spams and have to flank Elephants and JTs almost every game.

Jackson also has an open top turret. Realistically indirect fire and fighter MGs should kill it.

Agreed that it’s not realistic.

Jacksons were later supplied with a 1/2 inch thick steel top cover. Some even had a bow mounted MG.
They basically evolved into an actual tank as time went on.

Jackson armor nerf will bring us back to the squishy tank destroyer state that we moved away from. Just remember, in 4 v 4s Jacksons are much more likely to face panther spams and have to flank Elephants and JTs almost every game.

Armor nerf won't change the M36 vs Panther or Heavy TD/Heavy Tank matchup since those vehicles have 100% penetration on it already.

Jackson armor nerf will bring us back to the squishy tank destroyer state that we moved away from. Just remember, in 4 v 4s Jacksons are much more likely to face panther spams and have to flank Elephants and JTs almost every game.

Could you kindly run the numbers on how dropping the armour literally any value whatsoever will effect the ttk when being shot at by panthers, elefants, Jagdtigers, jagdpanther, paks and Shreks?.
The only change it will effect is panzer4s and pumas realistically. All the other units ALREADY pen it with ease to the point you could lower the armour to 1 and these units chance to pen would be unchanged.

If you sre going to whine at least try having numbers support it.

Not to turn this into a historical thread, but....

Show Spoiler

Sorry for getting off topic. So, the Jackson performs very well. If it were nerfed, what would they need to change about USF to compensate?

I would suggest some form of intermediate AT.

The core issue stems from the M36 needing to be the counter to anything with more than 130 armor, since it's the only unit that can reliably pen that much. If USF gets an "intermediate" AT solution, such as a non-doc M10, then the M36 can be made much more expensive as it only needs to counter super-heavies.

Hellcat should have been stock

120 damage, 150/160/170 pen, 45 range, great mobility, decent RoF, Stug health

Rework Jackson to be much weaker against mediums, like it was at launch. Maybe bring back 3 shots to kill it

Probably too drastic a change, but that's my 2 cents

Could you kindly run the numbers on how dropping the armour literally any value whatsoever will effect the ttk when being shot at by panthers, elefants, Jagdtigers, jagdpanther, paks and Shreks?.
The only change it will effect is panzer4s and pumas realistically. All the other units ALREADY pen it with ease to the point you could lower the armour to 1 and these units chance to pen would be unchanged.

If you sre going to whine at least try having numbers support it.

So again here is the question no one wants to answer:

Why should a Panzer 4 and Puma be able to take on something beyond their weight class like a Jackson?

So again here is the question no one wants to answer:

Why should a Panzer 4 and Puma be able to take on something beyond their weight class like a Jackson?

Because a Jackson isn't beyond the Panzer IV's weight class?

It's a lightly armoured medium tank with a really powerful gun on it.

So again here is the question no one wants to answer:

Why should a Panzer 4 and Puma be able to take on something beyond their weight class like a Jackson?

I dunno, why should a Jackson take on a KT or a Tiger or a Panther? They're above its weight class.

And before you say it's a TD, that's what the Puma is as well and you just dismissed it as ludicrous that it could potentially be a M36 counter.

I'm eagerly awaiting for a proper response.

Why should a Panzer 4 and Puma be able to take on something beyond their weight class like a Jackson?

What the hell does weight class mean in your context? Cause in MMA it literally means the weight of the fighters

Jackson and P4 are similar weight IRL, not that it matters lol

So again here is the question no one wants to answer:

Why should a Panzer 4 and Puma be able to take on something beyond their weight class like a Jackson?

The -20 armor nerf would only increase the P4's chance to pen by 15% at max range (45) and 4% at close range. It would increase the Puma's chance to pen by 11% at max range and 7.3% at close.

That's not going to drastically change anything.

Also, I did answer this question before.

2. No one is asking for the OST or OKW P4 to beat the M36. The problem is that the M36 currently makes everything irrelevant, from dedicated TDs (STUG), to mediums, premium mediums, and even heavies - it beats them all with ease, when in the right hands.

This is partly because of its range (60), which means that those tanks can never actually return fire (except for the JP4, all have 50 or less range), but also because of its incredible mobility. Its faster than every axis tank in both acceleration and top speed - with the single exception being the panther, which has an ever so slightly higher top speed (but it has 10 less range). Then, on top of all that, the M36 has a 0.75 moving accuracy modifier, which makes it 50% more accurate than every axis tank in the game when moving. It also has very good base stats (that make sense), such as very high pen at all ranges (220+), high damage (160), and average reload (iirc around 9.7sec?).

And of course, it has the bonus of being a USF tank, meaning it can self-repair with its crew, force enemy vehicles to stop targeting it by jumping out, and it can help USF bypass the pop-cap.

Any one of those benefits would make it an strong unit; the problem is the combination of all three. The "downside" of the M36 is supposed to be that its a 'glass cannon', but that's irrelevant if it can't be hit 95% of the time (also it has 640hp).

Nerfing the Jackson's armor has never been about seriously changing the Jackson. Its been about removing a small chance of deflection that has no business being there in the first place

The jackson is still too good for other reasons. OPs point about Jackson armor had nothing to do with that, and only to do with getting rid of those silly deflections you occasionally get

The Jackson should be deflecting bullets, and literally nothing else IMO. Even if the chances of M36 deflecting P4 are rare, it would be nice if they were closer to 0 and that doesn't seem too hard to fix

Could you kindly run the numbers on how dropping the armour literally any value whatsoever will effect the ttk when being shot at by panthers, elefants, Jagdtigers, jagdpanther, paks and Shreks?.
The only change it will effect is panzer4s and pumas realistically. All the other units ALREADY pen it with ease to the point you could lower the armour to 1 and these units chance to pen would be unchanged.

If you sre going to whine at least try having numbers support it.

Then why don't you use those "all other units ALREADY pening it" instead of Pz4 or Puma?

I think it's bad that my 900 rank has anything to do with my input. Maybe we need to have a minimum rank to contribute, since the experiences of the best players are the only ones welcome.

The problems with most of these arguments would be better served by making changes to axis units. The armor change to m36, doesn't matter to me. However, I used to think that the problem I had with all other USF AT weapons was they had shit penetration, but that's not the actual problem. When I grab an axis weapon, they suck too. Axis armor values are just not balanced. Maybe some allied heavies have this problem too. The fact is, regardless of whether I am using an allied or axis anti tank gun, they all bounce on axis stuff. Pak and raketen bounce on panthers and tigers. Frequently too. The sherman is pretty bad, even vs p4. You think p4 vs m36 is unfair because 1 shot may ping off or it has lower range? Try sherman vs puma, that's an even worse matchup. Puma can kite the sherman all day long, massively outrange it, seems faster(doesn't matter anyway, since it's firing out the fog most of the time). Sherman gets wrecked by a cheaper unit. Stug vs Sherman is almost the same thing(have to flank duh).

I don't think that lowering axis armor values will affect 1v1 much either. I don't think the players at the top are risking their games on bounced shots, they are making better calculated assaults and flanks. Am I wrong? Are top players back there talking after a game "good thing my panther bounced those two atg shots, that could have cost me the game." The unbalanced armor values allow people to play lazier when they play as axis, which is exactly what I do when I play axis. I'm lazy af and usually still win with relative ease. It's boring, that's why I don't play axis. In coh1, axis was difficult, even with the cool tanks. However, I couldn't just park my shit in front of atg's and look back 10 seconds later and expect them to not be a burning wreck. I still had to flank. I had to think. I don't have to think when I play axis in coh2. There is no challenge I don't have a tool for as axis in coh2. When I get beat as axis in coh2, it's because the other guys had much more cumulative skill than my team.

Then why don't you use those "all other units ALREADY pening it" instead of Pz4 or Puma?

Because managing to fuck up so a p4 or puma is in range of your 60 range highly mobile TD shiuld be punished. Kinda like it is for every single other TD in the game, y'know, the ones that don't have all the advantages the Jackson has but also have a weakness to exploit so if you are bad you will lose it. If you can keep it out of range (like you should) it shouldn't be an issue.

I think it's bad that my 900 rank has anything to do with my input. Maybe we need to have a minimum rank to contribute, since the experiences of the best players are the only ones welcome.

The problems with most of these arguments would be better served by making changes to axis units. The armor change to m36, doesn't matter to me. However, I used to think that the problem I had with all other USF AT weapons was they had shit penetration, but that's not the actual problem. When I grab an axis weapon, they suck too. Axis armor values are just not balanced. Maybe some allied heavies have this problem too. The fact is, regardless of whether I am using an allied or axis anti tank gun, they all bounce on axis stuff. Pak and raketen bounce on panthers and tigers. Frequently too. The sherman is pretty bad, even vs p4. You think p4 vs m36 is unfair because 1 shot may ping off or it has lower range? Try sherman vs puma, that's an even worse matchup. Puma can kite the sherman all day long, massively outrange it, seems faster(doesn't matter anyway, since it's firing out the fog most of the time). Sherman gets wrecked by a cheaper unit. Stug vs Sherman is almost the same thing(have to flank duh).

I don't think that lowering axis armor values will affect 1v1 much either. I don't think the players at the top are risking their games on bounced shots, they are making better calculated assaults and flanks. Am I wrong? Are top players back there talking after a game "good thing my panther bounced those two atg shots, that could have cost me the game." The unbalanced armor values allow people to play lazier when they play as axis, which is exactly what I do when I play axis. I'm lazy af and usually still win with relative ease. It's boring, that's why I don't play axis. In coh1, axis was difficult, even with the cool tanks. However, I couldn't just park my shit in front of atg's and look back 10 seconds later and expect them to not be a burning wreck. I still had to flank. I had to think. I don't have to think when I play axis in coh2. There is no challenge I don't have a tool for as axis in coh2. When I get beat as axis in coh2, it's because the other guys had much more cumulative skill than my team.

While it's not the case that your opinion isn't welcome, you have to bear in mind that as a very low-skill player, you're really not in a position to suggest that far more skillful players are "not using their tools right".

The other problem that you don't seem to realise is that as a player of really low skill, you aren't exactly privy to the issues that players face in competitive ranked games. Your constant poo-pooing of these issues belies a grotesquely over-inflated self-assessment of your own understanding of the game.

There's plenty of terrible misconceptions you have - the first of which being "unbalanced" armour values. All units pay for their armour. It's factored into their cost, and considered along with all of its other stats like accuracy, range, penetration, reload, speed, hp, to name a few. A Sherman with AP rounds is almost 50-50 vs an Ost P4 while it has vastly superior anti-infantry performance with HE shells. The Ost P4 is far more user-friendly even though statistically the Sherman is a far superior unit. I think that's one of the major points of confusion you have - You're confusing ease of use with combat potential.

And yes top players are risking their games on bounced shots, just like everyone else. Because that's the design of the game. A T34-76 can frontally pen a KT and its shots can also bounce off of a Tiger's rear armour. AT guns have neither guaranteed pen on heavy tanks nor guaranteed hits on medium and light vehicles - we live and die by the RNG.

Lastly - if you "usually win with relative ease as Axis", it'd show. We'd be looking at a top 50 1v1 Axis main instead of a bottom 10 to 20% ranked USF-only 4v4 player.

Honestly at your skill level I'd always hesitate to attribute either wins or losses to balance. If you win it's because your opponents were really bad at the game. If you lose it's because you are really bad at the game. And honestly it's impossible to separate player skill from the value of their input. I'd much rather listen to a chess grandmaster (or at least someone with 2000 elo) than to the ramblings of an 800 elo novice.

I think it's bad that my 900 rank has anything to do with my input.

Why? Do you think if I start playing Starcraft 2 for the first time in my life tomorrow noon and a few hours later I make a huge post in the forums about changing core mechanics and matchups, that people will care about what I have to say?

The problem is at low ELOs there is a huge variability in wins because people cannot use the tools they have properly, so you get some wild misconceptions from people who don’t understand what they”re doing. The balance team takes advise into consideration from high ELO players because at that level personal incompetence is much less prevalent and they have a much better understanding of balance.

I don’t think you should keep quiet about what you consider to be issues, but be very careful about what you bring up and how you phrase certain things as being balance issues.

A prime example is the Puma vs M4 matchup, which is very odd since for me it’s the exact opposite and I find the Puma very ineffective at zoning out the M4 due to its armour, mobility and smoke, especially since the M4 can support infantry and the Puma can’t.

Because managing to fuck up so a p4 or puma is in range of your 60 range highly mobile TD shiuld be punished. Kinda like it is for every single other TD in the game, y'know, the ones that don't have all the advantages the Jackson has but also have a weakness to exploit so if you are bad you will lose it. If you can keep it out of range (like you should) it shouldn't be an issue.

You can never balance P4/Puma with Jacksons because of the USF army design. USF only have Jackson that can fight Panthers while Axis has variety of options from Puma, P4 (can fight infantry!), stug, Panther, & JP.

If you want to nerf Jackson's armor or reload than give USF non-doctrinal choices for alternatives. USF late game AT options are limited to Jackson spam almost every game.

snip

I will say that every opinion is welcome, as long as it doesnt disrupt the thread, personal accusations are often the wrong move, specially when targetting highers skill players. IMO every player could post, even more those who care about the game and listen as much as they speak.

The game has a complex yet rewarding design, with assymetric factions, RNG and lots of stats. High skill proves that a player mastered a concept, but also means changing it will put said player in the same room as newer ones. I often see top skill players denying hurtful truths because that means a change for them. Newer players often missunderstand balance or suggest way too radical ideas (i did it myself) but as long as there is a positive or neutral feedback every opinion contributes.

With regards armor of axis, it is frustrating that axis bounce a lot of other mediums shells but it is also frustrating for axis infantry squads that get caught very often on cheesy wipes or engagements turn faster than expected, because of their model count. Roughly speaking axis infantry demands more micro, allied mediums and TD require more micro to succed. If you "reliably nerf" axis armor, you should do it aswell with allied strenghts, to keep balance at a certain state, otherwise the game meta will cascade into a one side abuse.

There is a lot of controversy about RNG but once you tame the concept, random numbers are predictable to a point, risk involved is evaluated and the game becomes much less frustrating. I might be another low skill player putting his 2cents here now.