Reduce Allies Tank Destroyers' Target size can be fair.

you know, around a year, Medium tank's Target size is decreased, Shermans became X23 to X21(Bulldozer 105mm is X22, and Dozered 75mm sherman still X23), Cromwell, PZ4s and T-34s became X22 to X20.

But JPIV(X17), StuGs(X17), Jackson(X24) Su-85(X18), Firefly(X23), Wolverine/Achilles(X22), Su-76(X20)
yeah, Tank Destroyers didn't get target reduce.

Yeah, more medium tank use-rate is relic's will.
but I think, some light/medium tank destroyers Target size should be reduced.

First, SU-76, It's a Light-Tank based Tank destroyer which has Lower Damage(120), Long Range(60) and weak durability(400, 70/35armor), so I think SU-76's right target size can be X16~X17.

Second, Jackson.
this is the only tank destroyer which does not gets maneuver bonus with Veterancy. and It has same target size as pershing. so, I think give Jackson some Mobility bonus with veterancy(you know, over a year. jackson keep get nerfed and nerfed, so adding some mobility vet bonus can be a good payback and make its Character better.) and Reduce its Target size to X20~X22. Frankly. Jacksons and Wolverines made for reducing armor of Sherman and open-toped turret for Less hit size, More Sight Range, and More evasion with its light, better-mobility.

Third. M10s.
This TD's Concept is Also high-maneuver Flanking one. and have lower pen(180~140) and range(50)
and also based by Shermans, and It used to Brawl. so I think this M10s MUST have lower target size than shermans. I think X18~X20 can be match for M10s.

yeah, some may can say why not StuGs and JP4s?
but it already have its concept, Low.Flat hull for ambush adjusted by low Target size, yeah. X17.
I think X17 is enough for StuGs and JP4s.

you know, around a year, Medium tank's Target size is decreased, Shermans became X23 to X21(Bulldozer 105mm is X22, and Dozered 75mm sherman still X23), Cromwell, PZ4s and T-34s became X22 to X20.

But JPIV(X17), StuGs(X17), Jackson(X24) Su-85(X18), Firefly(X23), Wolverine/Achilles(X22), Su-76(X20)
yeah, Tank Destroyers didn't get target reduce.

Yeah, more medium tank use-rate is relic's will.
but I think, some light/medium tank destroyers Target size should be reduced.

First, SU-76, It's a Light-Tank based Tank destroyer which has Lower Damage(120), Long Range(60) and weak durability(400, 70/35armor), so I think SU-76's right target size can be X16~X17.

Second, Jackson.
this is the only tank destroyer which does not gets maneuver bonus with Veterancy. and It has same target size as pershing. so, I think give Jackson some Mobility bonus with veterancy(you know, over a year. jackson keep get nerfed and nerfed, so adding some mobility vet bonus can be a good payback and make its Character better.) and Reduce its Target size to X20~X22. Frankly. Jacksons and Wolverines made for reducing armor of Sherman and open-toped turret for Less hit size, More Sight Range, and More evasion with its light, better-mobility.

Third. M10s.
This TD's Concept is Also high-maneuver Flanking one. and have lower pen(180~140) and range(50)
and also based by Shermans, and It used to Brawl. so I think this M10s MUST have lower target size than shermans. I think X18~X20 can be match for M10s.

yeah, some may can say why not StuGs and JP4s?
but it already have its concept, Low.Flat hull for ambush adjusted by low Target size, yeah. X17.
I think X17 is enough for StuGs and JP4s.

Allied tank destroyers already have the advantage of superior range and/or penetration over axis TDs, with the SU-85 already even having a comparable RA. The stug has a better RA as it necessarily needs to be more durable due to its closer proximity to enemy vehicles, and the JP has a better RA as its role is actually to be able to fight other TDs, rather than defeat heavy tanks (due to inferior penetration combined with higher fire-rate).

The SU-76 is the only one there I'd argue could do with a buff, but I still think the units' role should change, as opposed to improving its' target size. It's also a multi-role vehicle with its barrage currently.

The M10 is just a pointless unit in most cases.

In the case of the Jackson; It doesn't gain mobility with vet as it is ALREADY the fastest (stock) TD at vet 0, being beaten only slightly by the SU-85 and JP at vet-3 (and beaten quite convincingly by the Stug at vet3), while also having the best AT performance and having an usable turret. (and in the case of the Stug, a 10-range advantage). Despite the nerfs it has received, it is still an exceptional tank destroyer.

All in all, Allied Tank Destroyers aren't really in need of buffs.

Yep. Allied TDs are fine. Last round of buffs fixed up the FFs massive pain points and the other 2 are already quite good. Jackson has huge pen, great speed. Su85 is affordable and has lower target size.

The M10 could do with extra range or lower target size. It isnt strong enough to actually handle the job securely, and shows up kinda late while having no actual scaling to deal with late game armor. Flanking doesn't count, we cant just give everything Hunt. If it was a call-in and not a build-able it would be fine, but no one wants to deal with panic tanks again.

Allied tank destroyers already have the advantage of superior range and/or penetration over axis TDs, with the SU-85 already even having a comparable RA. The stug has a better RA as it necessarily needs to be more durable due to its closer proximity to enemy vehicles, and the JP has a better RA as its role is actually to be able to fight other TDs, rather than defeat heavy tanks (due to inferior penetration combined with higher fire-rate).

The SU-76 is the only one there I'd argue could do with a buff, but I still think the units' role should change, as opposed to improving its' target size. It's also a multi-role vehicle with its barrage currently.

The M10 is just a pointless unit in most cases.

In the case of the Jackson; It doesn't gain mobility with vet as it is ALREADY the fastest (stock) TD at vet 0, being beaten only slightly by the SU-85 and JP at vet-3 (and beaten quite convincingly by the Stug at vet3), while also having the best AT performance and having an usable turret. (and in the case of the Stug, a 10-range advantage). Despite the nerfs it has received, it is still an exceptional tank destroyer.

All in all, Allied Tank Destroyers aren't really in need of buffs.

But I thought for Keep getting nerfed near years. so I thought Jackson can get less than other TDs(20%) but 10% max speed, Accelation, and Traverse bonus, then That can follow USF Armor's Color(High maneuver, Low defence) can be much stronger.

but...... yeah, I cannot take back my opinion for Wolverines. haha.

Allied tank destroyers already have the advantage of superior range and/or penetration over axis TDs, with the SU-85 already even having a comparable RA. The stug has a better RA as it necessarily needs to be more durable due to its closer proximity to enemy vehicles, and the JP has a better RA as its role is actually to be able to fight other TDs, rather than defeat heavy tanks (due to inferior penetration combined with higher fire-rate).

The SU-76 is the only one there I'd argue could do with a buff, but I still think the units' role should change, as opposed to improving its' target size. It's also a multi-role vehicle with its barrage currently.

The M10 is just a pointless unit in most cases.

In the case of the Jackson; It doesn't gain mobility with vet as it is ALREADY the fastest (stock) TD at vet 0, being beaten only slightly by the SU-85 and JP at vet-3 (and beaten quite convincingly by the Stug at vet3), while also having the best AT performance and having an usable turret. (and in the case of the Stug, a 10-range advantage). Despite the nerfs it has received, it is still an exceptional tank destroyer.

All in all, Allied Tank Destroyers aren't really in need of buffs.

according to price and timing. stug 3 must be compared to su-76. not 85 or jackson.
meanwhile axis no need to use TDs while panther are good enough.

currently Thing about tank phase that we should concern is popcap.