Jackson VS Puma

This is a off branch from a previous thread discussing a slight M36 armor nerf to reduce P4 bounces at long range. The thread continued with the puma as a light vehicle having some opportunity in a 1v1 vs M36.
https://www.coh2.org/topic/103431/jackson-armor-nerf/page/6

Puma vs jackson discussion should be continued here from now on.

Not sure if it needs to be branched into another thread, but it's still worth discussing.

In general, I like the idea of making the Puma a viable deterrent (not a counter) to the M36, but it would take a few more changes than expected. In the previous thread, it was suggested that reducing the M36's armor to 110 (from 130) would be a good idea as a balance/QOL change when engaging with the OST/OKW P4 (they would no longer bounce). I've incorporated that idea into my suggestion.

My idea (which also borrows from a comment by Hannibal, linked further down), is to put the Puma vs. M36 matchup in a state where a 56.4% to 75% hp M36 (361 to 480hp) should have a 50:50 change of winning against a puma at max range, when both are moving. Ideally I wanted this to be a 60% HP M36 (386hp), but since damage output is quantized, any value between 361 and 480 requires 4 hits from the puma.

I've found that there are two ways to do this (there may be more), one that I think is viable, and the other which would make the Puma absurdly overpowered (let's not do that 2nd one).

Idea #1
M36 front armor: 110 from 130
Puma moving accuracy mult: 0.6 from 0.5

If the puma is at vet 1, and lands its "lock turret" ability immediately, this will give it enough time to reduce the M36s HP to a point where once its turret 'unlocks', the M36 and Puma should have a 50:50 win ratio - essentially a coin flip. This fight will take along time though; on average, about 47 seconds. This is so long that either player should have time to disengage, or bring other units to the fight.

Idea #2
M36 front armor: 110 from 130
Puma moving accuracy mult: 0.75 from 0.5
Puma far accuracy: 0.029 from 0.025

The goal of this change is the same outcome as in idea #1, but with one key difference: it works with the puma at vet 0. Because of this difference, the M36 will be able to return fire the entire time, meaning that the Puma will need to do damage much quicker. Increasing its moving accuracy multiplier as well as its far accuracy rating will mean that when the puma engages an M36 at 480hp (out of 640hp), there should be a 50:50 outcome between the two. Note, however, that engagement will be much shorter; only 32.5 seconds on average.

In general, this is a really bad idea. While moving, and at maximum range, this change would nearly double the Puma's damage output. This would be absurdly overpowered for when it arrives, especially when fighting other LVs.

This idea exists more as example to show the power difference between the two units, rather than as an actual suggestion.


The math, copied from my other post:

Show Spoiler

Effort appreciated

I think the puma vs. jackson matchup is fairly reasonable as is.

You've alluded to it before, but the puma has a lot of utility in its favor. Smoke can be clutch, aimed shot can really throw the jackson off, and the puma will be getting the first shot off because of its sight range. Add to that its phenomenal vet, and a well vetted puma has a good chance to take on a jackson if you play it right.

And the jackson has its own potential advantages. HVAP allows the jackson to two shot the puma. Range is in its favor.

All said, I think it's close to being one of the most interesting vehicle matchup dynamics as is, and the puma doesn't really need buffs.

Buffing Puma is a big no. Puma is already super strong as it is. We shouldn't look at Puma vs Jackson but more Puma vs AEC/Stuart/T70/Cromwell/Sherman/T34 etc. And in that role the Puma is awesome in the right hands.

Buffing Puma is a big no. Puma is already super strong as it is. We shouldn't look at Puma vs Jackson but more Puma vs AEC/Stuart/T70/Cromwell/Sherman/T34 etc. And in that role the Puma is awesome in the right hands.

Here’s the thing. You can already do the proposed Puma vs Jackson counter as OKW against another faction: Soviets

The Puma soft counters the SU85 by running around it. Since that matchup isn’t problematic, I don’t see why letting the Puma fight Jacksons more effectively is a problem. Also I don’t think anyone suggested buffing the Puma, just nerfing the Jackson armour.

Buffing Puma is a big no. Puma is already super strong as it is. We shouldn't look at Puma vs Jackson but more Puma vs AEC/Stuart/T70/Cromwell/Sherman/T34 etc. And in that role the Puma is awesome in the right hands.

And surprisingly, multiple Pumas versus IS-2s.

The Puma's big secret party trick is a hefty penetration spike at close range, which lets it punch far above its weight if it gets in close enough. The Puma has 160 penetration at point blank, which is more than the P4.

Personally I'd add this feature to every vehicle, but failing that, I think the AEC at least should get it. UKF could really do with that sort of intermediate AT.

Here’s the thing. You can already do the proposed Puma vs Jackson counter as OKW against another faction: Soviets

The Puma soft counters the SU85 by running around it. Since that matchup isn’t problematic, I don’t see why letting the Puma fight Jacksons more effectively is a problem. Also I don’t think anyone suggested buffing the Puma, just nerfing the Jackson armour.

Puma being 50% cheaper might have something to do with why that IS a problem.

Also, jackson isn't exactly a casemate TD that can't turn its gun around, so what's your point here?

Puma being 50% cheaper might have something to do with why that IS a problem.

Also, jackson isn't exactly a casemate TD that can't turn its gun around, so what's your point here?

I think his point is pretty clear, jackson being on the top of the food chain be able to be bullied by some of the lowest steps to turn the pyramid into a cycle. It keeps lategames fluent instead of "mass wathever the lategame unit you have" logic.

50% cheaper is a straight up fallacy. Its 50% FU cheaper, even when we speak about non-bleeding vehicles, MP cost is roughly equal. In the case of TD vs Tank a cost difference is justified, why in this case it is not? Why is so hard to imagine a "Anti-TD" light vehicle role?

T70 can solo bully a Stug the same way a puma does to SU85. Damn even FF suffer from fast moving lights, a P4 can cause some serious trouble 1v1 up close.

T70 can solo bully a Stug the same way a puma does to SU85.

Straight up fallacy. At point blank range the t70 has 50 penetration. The stug has 140 armor. It can most certainly not "bully a stug"

Puma meanwhile has more pen at max range then t70 has up close...

Straight up fallacy. At point blank range the t70 has 50 penetration. The stug has 140 armor. It can most certainly not "bully a stug"

Puma meanwhile has more pen at max range then t70 has up close...

Stug is a casemate TD, so the T70 can drive behind its rear armour and kill it.

Stug is a casemate TD, so the T70 can drive behind its rear armour and kill it.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it can't "bully" a stug. Certainly not the same way a Puma can to an su85, as was specifically said

T70 isn't even guaranteed to pen stugs rear armor lol (70)

And I'm far from saying it should, just correcting a false claim

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it can't "bully" a stug. Certainly not the same way a Puma can to an su85, as was specifically said

T70 isn't even guaranteed to pen stugs rear armor lol (70)

Well he probably meant “bully” as in the T70 drives behind it and eventually kills it while there’s nothing the StuGG can do.

It’s the same principle as Puma circling a FF or SU85, though way slower.

Well he probably meant “bully” as in the T70 drives behind it and eventually kills it while there’s nothing the StuGG can do.

It’s the same principle as Puma circling a FF or SU85, though way slower.

Then it's not the "same way" a Puma can bully an su85 is it?

Time is what matters here. The more time it takes the more time you have for help to get there

T70 cant bully anything above 222 and luchs, it bullies a p4 and a stug the same way 222 bullys a t34 or a SU76

it is lightyears away of what the puma can do, and significantly worse than the stuart

I didn't say it was impossible.

Jump back to quoted post22 Jan 2020, 17:06 PMSkysTheLimit

Straight up fallacy.

I said it can't "bully" a stug.

None of your post makes any sense.

Why dont you correct yourself in the first place? You know its true but when you get on to someone you start going personal, literal and semantic alltogheter. Just to gaslight other people and disuade their arguments.

Sadly i am right and the fallacy is your argumentation. A 1v1 T70 vs stug (as i said) is bullied to death, even if it takes a year or a minute, THE SAME WAY a puma 1v1 vs su85.

We have to start reading and stop flaming...

Why dont you correct yourself in the first place? You know its true but when you get on to someone you start going personal, literal and semantic alltogheter. Just to gaslight other people and disuade their arguments.

Sadly i am right and the fallacy is your argumentation. A 1v1 T70 vs stug (as i said) is bullied to death, even if it takes a year or a minute, THE SAME WAY a puma 1v1 vs su85.

We have to start reading and stop flaming...

No one is flaming. You are just wrong in this instance

You said t70 can bully stug "the same way" a puma can bully the su85. It can't, it takes WAY WAY longer

That means it is not the "same way". If it takes longer that means help can arrive before the stug dies

No one is flaming. You are just wrong in this instance

You said t70 can bully stug "the same way" a puma can bully the su85. It can't, it takes WAY WAY longer

That means it is not the "same way". If it takes longer that means help can arrive before the stug dies

Because you defined "THE SAME WAY" as a TIME EXPRESSION does not make it valid.
You simply change the meaning of the words on your convenience.

You perfectly understand its about circling and runing away of the cone of fire, hitting the rear armor until it gets destroyed.

But because you NEED to F people minds you play semantics gimnastics.

If you really need Out of the void comparison you could present them in a constructive way.
"Mr fallacy"

Because you defined "THE SAME WAY" as a TIME EXPRESSION does not make it valid.
You simply change the meaning of the words on your convenience.

You perfectly understand its about circling and runing away of the cone of fire, hitting the rear armor until it gets destroyed.

But because you NEED to F people minds you play semantics gimnastics.

If you really need Out of the void comparison you could present them in a constructive way.
"Mr fallacy"

Its not semantics. I just explained why it matters a great deal

If it takes way longer to kill, then you have more time to send help to prevent it.... More time to retreat your stug...

All said, I think it's close to being one of the most interesting vehicle matchup dynamics as is, and the puma doesn't really need buffs.

Buffing Puma is a big no. Puma is already super strong as it is. We shouldn't look at Puma vs Jackson but more Puma vs AEC/Stuart/T70/Cromwell/Sherman/T34 etc. And in that role the Puma is awesome in the right hands.

The 0.5 -> 0.6 moving accuracy mult buff on the puma wouldn't really be that big of a game-changer, it's a slight adjustment to improve the puma's ability to deter a much heavier TD. If the USF player wanted, their M36 could still easily push off the Puma (unless it was turret-locked), and in any case, 2x M36s would completely ignore this change.

More importantly, the moving acc. buff would only help when chasing, since that's when the stat actually comes into play. When the puma is stationary, it would behave exactly the same, which is more likely to happen when it's being used defensively.

As for the concerns regarding the Puma vs. other LVs, I agree this could be a problem. This could be compensated for by a small price increase on the puma, or by doing a more drastic stat change, regarding far accuracy in combination with the moving accuracy mult. If we lowered it's far accuracy but increased its moving accuracy mult, the change should be much less noticeable against the smaller LVs, but still have an impact against the larger M36.

That said, I haven't done the math to figure out what those numbers would be.

Also I don’t think anyone suggested buffing the Puma, just nerfing the Jackson armour.

I was suggesting buffing the puma, slightly. Moving accuracy mult from 0.5 to 0.6, in combination with lowering the M36 front armor to 110 from 130.

Yes, it's a minor change, but it's should have a noticeable impact.

I think his point is pretty clear, jackson being on the top of the food chain be able to be bullied by some of the lowest steps to turn the pyramid into a cycle. It keeps lategames fluent instead of "mass wathever the lategame unit you have" logic.

This is pretty much the intention, yea.

More time to retreat your stug...

Stug Speed: 6
T70 Speed: 6.9

Good luck "retreating", you are still wrong sir.

And before you even mention it, if you really want a real case scenario just mention it.