Why should a Panzer IV be able to take on a Jackson?

For the record, such a change not effectively being a nerf is mostly impossible because the only reasonable damage increase (from 160 to 200) with an accompanying ROF nerf would actually increase the TTK for the most common targets (medium tanks at 640hp) even if DPM was kept the same, as the number of shots required to kill such a vehicle would remain the same because of overkill damage. It would be a good way to make the Jackson more balanced (becoming less effective against everything and becoming more specialized against heavy armor) but it definitely would be a nerf and it would require other changes for compensation.

Well, the Jackson loss the glass but retained the cannon for years now so a change like that we could pretend it's accompanying this changes they should have all those patches ago.

I don't know but i'd(and probs you too) be pretty pissed if I couldn't beat a stug3 or JP4 from close range with things like croms/shermans/t34's and those things need more involved control from the player than the jackson. I'd imagine the reason is the same.

USF doesn't have a friggen Panther or King Tiger as part of it's standard load out. The Jackson is literally the best there is and it's a one trick pony, nerfing it is nerfing the whole faction which has basically been nerfed since day 1.

For the record, such a change not effectively being a nerf is mostly impossible because the only reasonable damage increase (from 160 to 200) with an accompanying ROF nerf would actually increase the TTK for the most common targets (medium tanks at 640hp) even if DPM was kept the same, as the number of shots required to kill such a vehicle would remain the same because of overkill damage. It would be a good way to make the Jackson more balanced (becoming less effective against everything and becoming more specialized against heavy armor) but it definitely would be a nerf and it would require other changes for compensation.

Ah I had understood that damage/reload time would be balanced so that mediums would be 3 hit for Jacksons and increased reload time would have benefited p4s so that they could play around the longer reload time for their advantage. I think this would be a great change if they would somehow introduce the m10 as a default vehicle and put Jackson behind some extra major tier and balance that out. But without this kind of compensation I find it hard to justify why Jackson should be nerfed against medium tanks. But that being said not every faction have the same structure and some have weaknesses and strengths that are necessary for balance. Jacksons should still dominate mediums in able hands if this change would be introduced.

I choose not to play brits because of psychological damage from roos but I don't preach to other players about how to play Brits. Custom stomp games are largely irrelevant.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/franz-stigler-charlie-brown

Obviously you don't have to look far to discover atrocities but there are pockets of humanity like the above story

A) I don't preach anything. Just my personal opinion/feeling that has nothing to do with any of you, nor should it concern you
B) I agree, pretty much everyone committed some sort of atrocity. Hell, look at what "democratic" atrocities Americans are committing today under different disguises.

Jackson and USF have fell out of favor very hard due to the recent nerfs. T2 is heavily unreliable and if the player has opted for T3, he would have to spend 30 fuel just for getting Mgs.

Jackson should have its priced reduced in the wake of comparison made by OP. Jackson vs OST pz 4 is no match, which is explained by their fuel cost differences. But it gets interesting when Okw pz4 is considered:

1. Jackson is only 5 fuel costlier than pz4, I don't remember the MP difference, Pz costs 380-140 but I dont remember jackson 390-145 I guess.
2. Jackson has a far pen value of 220 which is at 60 range, Pz 4 has frontal armor of 234 at vet 0. So at max range Jackson depends on RNG for a frontal armor hit. This should not be the case since Jackson is a dedicated TD and pz4 is a medium so a TD should demolish a medium tank and not bet on rng to function.
3. With veterancy Jackson does its job EOD, however in case of pz4 you have an option to blitz at vet 1 so if the max range shots of Jackson do bounce because of RNG it is very much possible that pz4 can kill the jackson.

Also OST pz4 gets the same frontal armor at vet 2 hence it can also bounce shots from a unit 35 fuel costlier than itself.OST pz usually hits the field at around 13 min mark whereas the Jackson hits the field at max 18-19 min mark. Both the tanks have almost the same speed with pz having a blitz and panzer tactician option to dodge or rush jackson.

So yeah 145 fuel is too much for a unit which can find it difficult to counter a vet 110 fuel unit which is a medium. Even vet puma can kill a jackson now it is a paper ball.

Stuff

Idk man, jackson having a 94% pen rate at 60 range against a vet2/okw panzer 4 sound pretty good.

Idk man, jackson having a 94% pen rate at 60 range against a vet2/okw panzer 4 sound pretty good.

True, the 94% is a penetration most of the time so it's pretty good. It's not 100% but pretty pretty close. Don't think that should be the issue here.

2. Jackson has a far pen value of 220 which is at 60 range, Pz 4 has frontal armor of 234 at vet 0. So at max range Jackson depends on RNG for a frontal armor hit.

That's a 94% chance to penetrate at max range up to a 100% chance at about range 40-45 (where it still outranges the P4). The RNG involved there is basically negligible and the Jackson certainly doesn't depend on it. The only noticeable RNG involved is accuracy, but that's still in favour of the Jackson with its higher moving accuracy.

The idea that TDs should be able to damage (hit and penetrate) mediums tanks at range 60 with 100% chance is simply flawed.

Especially the ones that are mobile and have a turret.

USF doesn't have a friggen Panther or King Tiger as part of it's standard load out. The Jackson is literally the best there is and it's a one trick pony, nerfing it is nerfing the whole faction which has basically been nerfed since day 1.

so...... OST doesn't have 5 man squads by default, everything of OST is a one trick pony too. So whats your point.

The idea that TDs should be able to damage (hit and penetrate) mediums tanks at range 60 with 100% chance is simply flawed.

Especially the ones that are mobile and have a turret.

Why?

TDs are stronger, incomparably more expensive, mobile ATGs.
ATGs don't struggle with penning meds.

Idk man, jackson having a 94% pen rate at 60 range against a vet2/okw panzer 4 sound pretty good.

True, the 94% is a penetration most of the time so it's pretty good. It's not 100% but pretty pretty close. Don't think that should be the issue here.

That's a 94% chance to penetrate at max range up to a 100% chance at about range 40-45 (where it still outranges the P4). The RNG involved there is basically negligible and the Jackson certainly doesn't depend on it. The only noticeable RNG involved is accuracy, but that's still in favour of the Jackson with its higher moving accuracy.

Okay so after analysis I found out that there is a penetration chance and you can calculate it by dividing the Pentration of the source with the armor value of the victim and that will give you the penetration chance! Thanks for bringing this into the light for me!

Whaat I believed was that pz4's frontal armor is more than M36's pen so M36 will have to depend on RNG to pen but now with 94% it seems good.

so...... OST doesn't have 5 man squads by default, everything of OST is a one trick pony too. So whats your point.

Compared to rifles the compensate that with higher dmg from kar98 and better accuracy standing still vs Rifles and with G43s better moving accuracy and also higher damage but lower overall accuracy. You win some, you lose some. Also cheaper so it does fit in nicely overall with OST.

I'd say Jackson should penetrate 9/10 hits on max range to most mediums. Less than that it becomes slightly unreliable since it can't bounce anything. It's still a greater matter of map design and game mode than any "balance" problem.

OST Panzer IV can take on Jackson if it gets close to it, easily since the large target size won't matter close range to P4s 0.5 moving accuracy.. If the Jackson is supported by at least one unit to utilize max range and get the first shot in, then no. Even with the windup/down, Jackson is the best AT tank currently in the game, probably followed by Stug or JP4.

Vetted Firefly is cancerous when supported. There is no doubt that Jackson is on top of the food chain when it comes to pure AT power, denied only by heavy tank destroyers and paks. Does that warrant a nerf? Not really. Something else would take the spotlight then as the best AT gun and there would be debates about that being OP.

This whole thread is pointless tbh. Jackson is only good vs AT and P4s is a generalist tank and both can kill each other and excel in different parts of the game, with different timings. Heck, 1v1, AEC can take on KT by just running around it. Doesn't mean AEC is OP nor KT is UP.

Why?

TDs are stronger, incomparably more expensive, mobile ATGs.
ATGs don't struggle with penning meds.

If you are going to quote me at least read what you are quoting before responding.

This is what I wrote:

"The idea that TDs should be able to damage (hit and penetrate)"

Compared to rifles the compensate that with higher dmg from kar98 and better accuracy standing still vs Rifles and with G43s better moving accuracy and also higher damage but lower overall accuracy. You win some, you lose some. Also cheaper so it does fit in nicely overall with OST.

I'd say Jackson should penetrate 9/10 hits on max range to most mediums. Less than that it becomes slightly unreliable since it can't bounce anything. It's still a greater matter of map design and game mode than any "balance" problem.

OST Panzer IV can take on Jackson if it gets close to it, easily since the large target size won't matter close range to P4s 0.5 moving accuracy.. If the Jackson is supported by at least one unit to utilize max range and get the first shot in, then no. Even with the windup/down, Jackson is the best AT tank currently in the game, probably followed by Stug or JP4.

Vetted Firefly is cancerous when supported. There is no doubt that Jackson is on top of the food chain when it comes to pure AT power, denied only by heavy tank destroyers and paks. Does that warrant a nerf? Not really. Something else would take the spotlight then as the best AT gun and there would be debates about that being OP.

This whole thread is pointless tbh. Jackson is only good vs AT and P4s is a generalist tank and both can kill each other and excel in different parts of the game, with different timings. Heck, 1v1, AEC can take on KT by just running around it. Doesn't mean AEC is OP nor KT is UP.

My point is everyone has something that other do and some that they don't.

Compared to rifles the compensate that with higher dmg from kar98 and better accuracy standing still vs Rifles and with G43s better moving accuracy and also higher damage but lower overall accuracy. You win some, you lose some. Also cheaper so it does fit in nicely overall with OST.




Even with the windup/down, Jackson is the best AT tank currently in the game, probably followed by Stug or JP4.

I dont disagree with all you posted, I just want to clear these two up.

Rifles may have lower accuracy but they make up for it in other areas such as having no wind down time while grens have a 1.3 second wind down. A single gren has more dps then a single rifle at mid and long range but standard grens are 4 men and rifles 5. Obviously both can be upgraded.
If you want to compare unit stats on a graph, you can do so here:
https://coh2.serealia.ca/



I would argue the SU85 is the second best Non doc TD(unless you count the Puma as a TD). The ability to self spot, low cost and the high penetration make it very cost effective and even give it a secondary recon role. Of course it does have its drawbacks like MOST other TDs.

My point is everyone has something that other do and some that they don't.

Ain't that the truth. I wholeheartedly endorse the assymetric balance of the game. However, in such scenarios, one can always find and deem something OP or UP. It's just human nature and the fact that people balance the game, not quantum computers.

It is easy to give an answer. If Jackson-player isn't able to use the 60 range benefit, Panzer 4 should win the fight.

e.g. if StuG-player isn't able to micro the reverse gear it should lose versus quicker battle-tanks. Oh, wonder, same works for Elefant, Jagdtiger and Jagdpanzer 4.

20 more range. If a P4 is even shooting at your Jackson that's your own fault and an L2P issue.

20 more range. If a P4 is even shooting at your Jackson that's your own fault and an L2P issue.

Then why bother nerfing the armor? I mean, the faction already had the worst cost-benefit ratio for it's units by far, so why make them worse and cost more? It's consistent pattern with USF.