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

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2020, 04:38 AMCODGUY

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.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2020, 04:38 AMCODGUY

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.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2020, 04:38 AMCODGUY

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.

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2020, 14:50 PMGachiGasm

I mean it might have been neede but presenting it as "THE FIX" makes it look funny.

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2020, 15:10 PMSkysTheLimit

In order to make the Jackson slightly more vulnerable to medium tanks when caught out of position, its armor has be decreased.

What does "THE FIX" even mean? That just seems like an arbitrary term you just made up

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2020, 20:05 PMGachiGasm

Because Armor is not the reason Jackson is not being vulnerable. If jackson is caught out of the possition it would either die or run away.

With PIV you want to get as close as possible and possible circle around, you never ever want to engage jackson frontally at such ranges where it can bounce.

Its a change to remove very rare and uncommon RNG. Pointless overall change if you ask me, not to mention considering cost of the jackson it might have diserve the chance to bounce ones in a full moon in his upperhand invirement.

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2020, 22:44 PMSkysTheLimit

Okay? This has nothing to do with your last comment, you said it was presented as "The Fix". It wasn't, it was simply done to get rid of something that shouldn't have been happening in the first place

Of course it's rare, everyone knows this. The point was that there was no reason for there to be ANY chance of it, no matter how small. It's an easy change to fix a small nuisance

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2020, 14:50 PMGachiGasm

Honestly its still a stupid change. Most of the time PIV is misses, because of the move penalties.

I mean it might have been neede but presenting it as "THE FIX" makes it look funny. Probably now some individuals would say "SEE JACKSON ARMOR WAS NERFED, NOTHING WRONG WITH IT".

But hey, PIV wont deflect at max range frontally against jackson now, yay. Not like its the worst scenario situation you can put your PIV but still.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY

Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY

Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY

Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY

If it were a good against infantry like the Elefant

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 00:14 AMGachiGasm

Notes says

"In order to make the Jackson slightly more vulnerable to medium tanks when caught out of position, its armor has be decreased."

And I said its not a fix neither any significant change to address perfomance and vulnerable of Jackson against TDs.

Thats why I said its not the fix of jackson vs medium match up.

If the notes were saying "We want to remove chance of the bounce, to remove un-intentional RNG" then it would be a different story.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 15:48 PMSkysTheLimit

You're arguing semantics. I don't know why your talking about the Jackson vs TDs, the change was specifically meant to impact medium tanks. Nothing else. It was not advertised as a major fix

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY

Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not