Jackson a discussion and compariosn

Jump back to quoted post24 Aug 2014, 18:29 PMand

I don't want the Jackson replaced. I just want it in a state where it is as usable as the heavy tanks other factions have. At the moment it just plain isn't. Maybe it is on paper, but in reality it is way, way too hard to use effectively compared to the heavy tanks other factions have.

Jump back to quoted post24 Aug 2014, 19:00 PMKatitof

I think I've pinpointed your problem.

You think it should be on pair with heavy tanks.
Its not and never will be, because its not a heavy tank, its 'heavy tank' destroyer.

Spot for it and use its range and it will scare away Tigers and KTs away.

Jump back to quoted post24 Aug 2014, 19:07 PMOZtheWiZARD

US would build Pershing - a damage sponge followed by very cheap Jacksons (1226 fuel, 240 dmg).
No, thank you.
If you can't see how broken this combination would be than I have no idea how to explain it to you.

Jump back to quoted post24 Aug 2014, 19:16 PMOZtheWiZARD

@ and

See how top players are using Jacksons. Watch some replays and try to utilize the same tactics. This should help you if you're struggling to use this unit correctly.

Jump back to quoted post24 Aug 2014, 19:16 PMHFSzsoci

I simply not understand that, in this community, lots of people wants buff Jackson, and nerf Puma... This 2 unit have same advantage/weakness vs his targets... If the Puma can outrange all his potencial med tanks targets, with 50 range, and 80 penetration value on long range , why complain people for Jacksons, with 60 ranges, and far better penetration, with DOUBLE damage then puma. In US late game, the Jacksons with 60 range, and good damage, penetration, behind/near the M1 57mm AT gun line, can deal good damage with relative safely vs enemy tanks, and make for the injured, retreated vehicles the final blow.

Jump back to quoted post24 Aug 2014, 22:28 PMelchino7

Puma
Arrives earlier
Has some AI capabilities
It´s WAY MORE MOBILE
Smoke.

Problem with USF late game is that requires more micro than other factions who can rely on heavies or tanks with bigger HP pools. But i guess this is working as intended.

Jump back to quoted post25 Aug 2014, 00:24 AMOZtheWiZARD

You don't expect Jackson's speed to be on pair with ligh vehicles, do you?

It doesn't lack mobility at all, quite the opposite.

Jump back to quoted post25 Aug 2014, 00:24 AMOZtheWiZARD

You don't expect Jackson's speed to be on pair with ligh vehicles, do you?

It doesn't lack mobility at all, quite the opposite.

Jump back to quoted post24 Aug 2014, 23:06 PMHFSzsoci

Jackson have more range, double damage, and when his arrives, you can hide your Jackson safely behind your AT gun wall. OKW has same situation in MID game, requirers more micro than other faction...

Jump back to quoted post25 Aug 2014, 08:51 AMOmega_Warrior

My opinion is that the Jackson itself is fine itself, but the tools the US have to support it just aren't good enough.

1. US have very limited access to mines, and the light AT mines I think are a bit wonky at the moment, unreliable and hard to use (they remind me of pre-buff s-mines).

2. Bazookas aren't much of a threat to tanks and wont discourage multiple tanks or heavies from charging right through them at the jacksons.

3. Shermans are poor meat sheilds since they are almost as flimsy as the Jackson itself and won't last long enough to really protect the Jacksons or provide line of sight for as long as is often needed, plus without flanking they wont penetrate much of any tank themselves.

Overall I think the Jackson is fine in itself, but the US infantry AT and defensive AT aren't quite up to par it is really hard to keep them protected long enough to do damage to mass tanks or heavies, or really discourage the germans from charging straight at the jacksons themselves.