Login

russian armor

Jackson needs a slight buff

PAGES (7)down
11 Jan 2015, 15:43 PM
#61
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jan 2015, 22:01 PMKatitof

Even more reason why stuka should get HP nerf.




The OKW inability to defend it is another reason why the Stuka should get an HP nerf? Strange logic.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jan 2015, 22:01 PMKatitof


(CBA to get real value, calculate it yourself, its simple math and I have too high fever to do it)



No, please do the math for me. You don't know the costs of teching yet you make a statement that it costs twice as much? You're still getting tanks that can directly kill infantry.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jan 2015, 22:01 PMKatitof


And lets go with the survivability further, it takes 4 Su-76 shots to kill stuka. Even more imbalanced now compared to puma.



Why are you using the SU76 in this comparision? Nobody uses them anymore. You're just using one of the most weakest tanks as an example, should I start complaining how long it takes for the 222 to take down a t70?

11 Jan 2015, 16:03 PM
#62
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



The OKW inability to defend it is another reason why the Stuka should get an HP nerf? Strange logic.

What inability to defend it? You have cheap mines, you have shreck blob, you have puma in the same building and that puma will arrive just 3-4 minutes later at worst. Its easier to defend stuka then it is to defend katiusha or even pwerfer. On top of that allies do not have burst infantry AT and good luck sending lone, unsupported tank behind OKW lines.



No, please do the math for me. You don't know the costs of teching yet you make a statement that it costs twice as much? You're still getting tanks that can directly kill infantry.

Since I feel better today(yay! no more fever!) I shall shine upon you my elementary math skills you seem to not posses:
Soviets:
120fu+85fu+25fu(because you WILL have AT nades by that time, likely molos as well, but lets skip it for now).
Which gives us 230fuel needed to get out Katiusha.
OKW:
Now, we need to save 5 fuel for the truck as OKW starts with 35 and 100 for the stuka, which gives us 105 fuel.
Lets use another healthy assumption, that conversion mun to fu will be off. OKW gets 0.66 fuel penalty, so we need to multiply cost by 1.34 rounding slightly up, which gives us: ~140fu needed.

Should I call math scientist to further explain to you why stuka is much cheaper to get then katy if for some unknown reason you can't see it yet yourself?


Why are you using the SU76 in this comparision? Nobody uses them anymore. You're just using one of the most weakest tanks as an example, should I start complaining how long it takes for the 222 to take down a t70?


1) Because its still in the same tier as katy, same as puma is in Stuka tier.
2) Because its apparently supposed to be light tank destroyer(well, no one really knows what its supposed to be, not even devs, but lets assume that role until proven otherwise), just like puma.
3) Because they have pretty much exactly same cost.

But sure, lets say T-70, which means it needs 8 shots instead of 2 that drop katy. I don't really know how does that reinforce your argument, but there you go.
11 Jan 2015, 16:43 PM
#63
avatar of ungodlike

Posts: 62

Ostheer teching needs to be sorted out so that the PIV comes out when it needs to, preferably before the Jackson and the Panther not long after the Jackson. The t4 Jackson should kill t3 medium tank in 3 shots or so, most German t0/t4 heavy/"medium" tanks kill allied medium tanks in 2-5 shots.

The problem with Jackson is its cost and the cost of what it kills. It should cost maybe a 145fuel if not more, with slightly better armour and penetration so they can't be mass produced, forcing the USF player to use maybe one in tandem with shermans, while the teching costs to get Ost PIV and Ost Panther need to come down so they actually show up when they need to.
11 Jan 2015, 17:02 PM
#64
avatar of luvnest
Strategist Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 1094 | Subs: 20

It would probably destroy the walking stuka with one shoot, if it wasn't for the engine damage crit, he heavy engine crit, the main gun destroyed crit, the abandonned crit, after recapturing the walking stuka another abandonned and then it gets destroyed all with just one sliver of health left.
11 Jan 2015, 17:15 PM
#65
avatar of Fearless Prince

Posts: 35 | Subs: 1

What would you do about people who spam Jackson then.
11 Jan 2015, 17:36 PM
#66
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

What would you do about people who spam Jackson then.


Laugh at them and mow them down effortlessly with superior infantry?
11 Jan 2015, 17:56 PM
#67
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637

What would you do about people who spam Jackson then.


Shrek, Pak, Rak, Mines etc etc or just hit it with a stiff breeze. Dont worry its MGs cant hurt your infantry...because it has none...

Lower its damage to 200 and increase its Pen. Best solution there is. No Ost buffs needed and it can be good against heavies. Also there will not be a need for a Pershing.

11 Jan 2015, 19:13 PM
#68
avatar of pussyking
Donator 11

Posts: 551



As long as building pershing locks out jackson i'm good.Pershing meatshield in front with jackson kiting from back is OP.


How can a pershing be OP if its not even in the game
11 Jan 2015, 19:24 PM
#69
avatar of pussyking
Donator 11

Posts: 551

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Jan 2015, 17:02 PMluvnest
It would probably destroy the walking stuka with one shoot, if it wasn't for the engine damage crit, he heavy engine crit, the main gun destroyed crit, the abandonned crit, after recapturing the walking stuka another abandonned and then it gets destroyed all with just one sliver of health left.


If Jacksson had a 50 cal upgrade if would finish Stuka off with one canon shot and a burst from 50 cal 100% guaranteed
11 Jan 2015, 21:34 PM
#70
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026



Thats team games where resources allow fielding of multiple panthers.In low levelk games it would be end.


IS2 + SU85 are also possible in 1v1 duder. And if there's enough fuel for Jacksons + Pershing, the Axis player should have enough fuel to get out stuff to deal with that. Or they don't even need fuel because Panzershreks will annihilate any Jackson caught out of position. If they've sunk 200 fuel into a Pershing that means they haven't sunk it into Shermans and Scotts to deal with infantry blobs that are such a heavy part of the meta right now.
11 Jan 2015, 22:42 PM
#71
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Jan 2015, 16:03 PMKatitof

What inability to defend it? You have cheap mines, you have shreck blob, you have puma in the same building and that puma will arrive just 3-4 minutes later at worst. Its easier to defend stuka then it is to defend katiusha or even pwerfer. On top of that allies do not have burst infantry AT and good luck sending lone, unsupported tank behind OKW lines.



you bring up cheap mines and somehow the much cheaper mines the Soviet posses seem to disappear in your mind.

Shreck blobs but shit AT guns, that's great we should always rely on blobbing because the raketenwerfer is shit.

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Jan 2015, 16:03 PMKatitof



Since I feel better today(yay! no more fever!) I shall shine upon you my elementary math skills you seem to not posses.



No, I was to lazy to look up the costs of buildings ( as you were ). Now is that any reason to be derogatory when all I asked you to back up your statement?

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Jan 2015, 16:03 PMKatitof

2) Because its apparently supposed to be light tank destroyer(well, no one really knows what its supposed to be, not even devs, but lets assume that role until proven otherwise), just like puma.

But sure, lets say T-70, which means it needs 8 shots instead of 2 that drop katy. I don't really know how does that reinforce your argument, but there you go.


Light tank destroyer that does 80 damage, that doesn't seem like Relic intended it to be a tank destroyer. Still you are comparing one of the weakest tanks in the game to back up your point. I didn't bring up the t70 to show how fast it kills a katyusha or Stuka (obviously) I brought it up just so show you how unconvincing it is to bring up a vehicle that is weak to support your statement. Apparently, you didn't catch that.
11 Jan 2015, 22:59 PM
#72
avatar of pussyking
Donator 11

Posts: 551

Actually raketenwerfer is not a shit weapon. It deals a decent punch while having an ability to retreat.

At vet 3 it gains increasing range making it viable to counter even soviet heavy armor.

AND it can comuflage itself in a cover.

A Great unit. Good design.

11 Jan 2015, 23:40 PM
#73
avatar of Leodot

Posts: 254

12 Jan 2015, 01:28 AM
#74
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705



King Tiger + Jadgpanzer
Sturmtiger + Jadgpanzer
Panther + Jadgpanzer
Panther + Jadgtiger
Panther + Elephnat
Tiger + Panther

Everything within 1 faction so why USF can get Pershing and Jackson?

You have 240dmg and 60 range but no armor, low hp, medium penetration.
On the other hand you hvae 160dmg, 60 trange, great armor and very good penetration (Jadgpanzer).


Jagdpanzer doesn't have 240 dmg..hats the main thing and no turret.Also for fuel starved OKW getting KT plus say 2 jagds is very difficult.Pershing plus 2 jacksons won't be as difficult.
Can't remember the last time i saw tiger and panther together from 1 player.
Also americans alreday have far superior infantry,if they also have tanks that way-ostheer has no chance.
12 Jan 2015, 01:33 AM
#75
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

Ostheer teching needs to be sorted out so that the PIV comes out when it needs to, preferably before the Jackson and the Panther not long after the Jackson. The t4 Jackson should kill t3 medium tank in 3 shots or so, most German t0/t4 heavy/"medium" tanks kill allied medium tanks in 2-5 shots.

The problem with Jackson is its cost and the cost of what it kills. It should cost maybe a 145fuel if not more, with slightly better armour and penetration so they can't be mass produced, forcing the USF player to use maybe one in tandem with shermans, while the teching costs to get Ost PIV and Ost Panther need to come down so they actually show up when they need to.


Pz 4 costs same as jackson.Gets 3 shotted-first 2 shots from out of range.(40 vs 60)Its a joke.
12 Jan 2015, 01:34 AM
#76
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

Actually raketenwerfer is not a shit weapon. It deals a decent punch while having an ability to retreat.

At vet 3 it gains increasing range making it viable to counter even soviet heavy armor.

AND it can comuflage itself in a cover.

A Great unit. Good design.



Huge aim time,bad accuracy,1 shotted by mediums(they can get close due to short range).
12 Jan 2015, 01:38 AM
#77
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705



IS2 + SU85 are also possible in 1v1 duder. And if there's enough fuel for Jacksons + Pershing, the Axis player should have enough fuel to get out stuff to deal with that. Or they don't even need fuel because Panzershreks will annihilate any Jackson caught out of position. If they've sunk 200 fuel into a Pershing that means they haven't sunk it into Shermans and Scotts to deal with infantry blobs that are such a heavy part of the meta right now.


Su-85 plus is-2 is very intimidating.However atleast su-85 can be flanked easily due to bad agility and no turret,not so jackson.Moreover jackson does 240! dmg.
And also soviet infantry is not equal of huge rifle/para blob which will decimate everything in their path save -tiger/large nos of vet 3 lmg grens/obersoldaten.
12 Jan 2015, 02:33 AM
#78
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

Ostheer teching needs to be sorted out so that the PIV comes out when it needs to, preferably before the Jackson and the Panther not long after the Jackson.


that's impossible. the jackson and IV are very close (the same) in fuel cost and the V is way the fuck more expensive than either. if the jackson's fuel price was increased you could have timing like that but it would have to be buffed which would make IVs even more shitty against it.
12 Jan 2015, 02:34 AM
#79
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

The Pershing wouldn't be a "superior tank", it would be probably the least powerful of the 3 "tiger class" vehicles - IS2 > Tiger > Pershing. It could be uniquely AT focussed, or AI focussed, or forced to switch rounds like the Sherman. There are a lot of possibilities for how you could handle it.

I'm just saying that conceptually, adding a heavy to USF will not ruin balance in and of itself. The specific stats of the tank would dictate whether it was OP, along with the quality of the doctrine it was included in. For example, no Airborne, no 1919 unlocks means the infantry that support them are less effective.
12 Jan 2015, 03:40 AM
#80
avatar of AssaultPlazma

Posts: 300

The Pershing wouldn't be a "superior tank", it would be probably the least powerful of the 3 "tiger class" vehicles - IS2 > Tiger > Pershing. It could be uniquely AT focussed, or AI focussed, or forced to switch rounds like the Sherman. There are a lot of possibilities for how you could handle it.

I'm just saying that conceptually, adding a heavy to USF will not ruin balance in and of itself. The specific stats of the tank would dictate whether it was OP, along with the quality of the doctrine it was included in. For example, no Airborne, no 1919 unlocks means the infantry that support them are less effective.



anyone care to explain why an IS-2 is roughly equal to a Tiger I when its more in line with a Tiger II?
PAGES (7)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

857 users are online: 1 member and 856 guests
Brick Top
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50008
Welcome our newest member, Goynet40
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM