Jackson spam

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 22:08 PMG4bb4_G4nd4lf

You don't really outrange Jacksons though. Panthers get 60 range which is pretty cool.

I really like hulldown and the commanders in which you find this ability.

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 22:10 PMAlexzandvar

They get slightly more than 60 range, but Jacksons can't see as far as they can shoot either.

For best results make sure to hulldown a CPIV because it get's an insanely good ROF.

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 22:26 PMG4bb4_G4nd4lf

Hmm. I thought the hulldown bonus increased range by 20% which would increase Panther range to exactly 60.

Either way, it's a very good ability.

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 22:26 PMG4bb4_G4nd4lf

Hmm. I thought the hulldown bonus increased range by 20% which would increase Panther range to exactly 60.

Either way, it's a very good ability.

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 22:48 PMKatitof

25% range, 0.8 rec dmg, 20% or 25% RoF I believe.

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 21:13 PMJohnnyB

...I mean going in with a Tiger and turning upside down an entire enemy line may be sexy, may be real....

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 23:24 PMAvNY

they would have a 50% chance of breaking down just upon entering the battlefield. .

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 03:40 AMGrumpy

So two Jacksons that cost the same as a Tiger shouldn't counter it, even when they have no AI ability? Are two Jacksons considered spam? I'd be surprised if anyone built three because they have no AI.

More than anything else, the problem right now is that a lot of the better players were in the alpha, and a lot of the remaining random automatch players (particularly in 4v4) are really bad.

Jump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 17:35 PMRobocopHighlander

Everyone here in the thread missing the real point of the thread - the original poster doesn't know how to play, so all your suggestions are invalid. Somehow he still hasn't commented on why he doesn't just make 1-2 paks - literally the best AT option in the game to support his tigers. You guys can keep replying to him with many different options (as we have done) but you can't teach someone who has already made up their mind. He didn't make this thread to find out how to deal with it - in his mind this thread was made to teach all of you something that he already knows to be fact. Maybe a mod will think this is trolling, but I think it is important even for the poster to realize that this is what he is doing so he can think about whether he is really better than and knows more than the experienced players who have come to reply on his thread.

Any USF player knows that you can't just "replace the jackson whenever you want". If you are playing 4v4 and the game has gone long, maybe you are floating enough fuel to just replace them as you lose them in a game that you are already handily winning anyway. But in 1v1 and even 2v2, if you lose your jacksons you are going to have a very hard time recovering. There is also the issue of build time - they build pretty slow considering you have basically no decent AT while you are waiting.

Jump back to quoted post1 Jun 2015, 02:25 AMJason

I brought up the cost-effectiveness of the jackson in comparison to the majority of Ostheers tanks in this thread, specifically the tiger (which is the most expensive.) At 125 fuel it hard-counters a 230 fuel tank. In comparison a 125 fuel Pz4 doesn't hard-counter an IS2, nor a Stug or a panther. And so they shouldn't as they're all cheaper. Ofcourse this isn't the case with the jackson. At 125 fuel they easily destroy tigers and Pz4's, and are easily replaceable. It's fine to have this role but its price must be raised to reflect its effectiveness.

Someone here mentioned the jackson costs slightly more than a tiger (because of the tech)? That would be true if the USF didn't have such a huge early game advantage against Ostheer. Map control = more resources.

I will await your reply.

Jump back to quoted post1 Jun 2015, 02:25 AMJason

I brought up the cost-effectiveness of the jackson in comparison to the majority of Ostheers tanks in this thread, specifically the tiger (which is the most expensive.) At 125 fuel it hard-counters a 230 fuel tank. In comparison a 125 fuel Pz4 doesn't hard-counter an IS2, nor a Stug or a panther. And so they shouldn't as they're all cheaper. Ofcourse this isn't the case with the jackson. At 125 fuel they easily destroy tigers and Pz4's, and are easily replaceable. It's fine to have this role but its price must be raised to reflect its effectiveness.

Someone here mentioned the jackson costs slightly more than a tiger (because of the tech)? That would be true if the USF didn't have such a huge early game advantage against Ostheer. Map control = more resources.

I will await your reply.

Jump back to quoted post1 Jun 2015, 04:04 AMOmega_Warrior

T
So while you are paying more for the Tiger, you are still functionally paying for less AT power then a you would if you were purchasing a tank destroyer like the Jackson.

Jump back to quoted post1 Jun 2015, 04:04 AMOmega_Warrior

The jackson on the other hand puts almost the entirety of it's stats into only speed and AT power. Even it's health and armor are lower then most vehicles of it's tier. It's only role is in destroying tanks and it's cost reflects this limited role.