Login

russian armor

M36 Jackson

9 Feb 2016, 16:51 PM
#61
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1



HVAP is vet ability. How the vehicle can vet up is another story. If there is no penetration, then there is no HVAP. Bringing HVAP to argue is the same with bring Blitzkrieg or Tactician Smoke to argue.

From my previous experience, M36 fare better chance against medium, because shot always penetrate. Against heavy armor like Panther, Tiger and higher, M36 become RNG dependency. If player is unlucky, the heavy will laugh and start to slaughter, maybe not the M36, but the infantry or vehicle it suppose to cover. Once the heavy finish its role, it retreats back and M36 cannot venture to chase because of its measly hp.


I agree with this. The issue for me is not that I want a TD that destroys every piece of German armor on site, but I would like to see the Jackson become less micro intensive so it can do its work.

Pathing is particular bad, but the high investment in AT should provide the USF player a comfort that a single Panther is not going to simply charge the line and destroy his Jackson before retreating.
9 Feb 2016, 17:33 PM
#62
avatar of FG127820

Posts: 101

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Feb 2016, 08:05 AMGlokta


The US TD doctrine was a failure so maybe the games being fluffy.


Perhaps the Germans had the best equipment of the war, but generally the US can produce more tanks. They won the war with the help of other factors including air superiority towards the late war.
9 Feb 2016, 18:14 PM
#63
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

Just a tip. If you are worried about armor running through your lines, get a stuart. The stun shot works wonders in combination with jacksons.
9 Feb 2016, 18:41 PM
#64
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2


I think the 4v4 tourney Showed that allies and USf are not weak 4v4( some May say op when allies have 100% winrate in that tourney lol), it's just much more coordination required to keep up a aggressive playstyle in 4v4

Dont keep these Myths alive with lategame instant lose or 2v2+ axis so OP, because its not, it's just a matter of l2p.


L2P
=> Maxim spam + Whatever good commander with call in tanks
=> Rifle + Quad + Stuart + CalliOP
=> Aec/Cromwell + Artillery cover
=> Fill with one of the above

4v4 problems at not "pro" levels are mostly not gameplay/design rather than balance.
9 Feb 2016, 18:50 PM
#65
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

the jackson is very good in one specific situation: on an open field with something spotting for it. in any other situation it does poorly, which is an issue because USF doesn't have anything with decent pen that preforms in small areas (something found on a LOT of maps) other than the M20 mine.
9 Feb 2016, 19:30 PM
#66
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2


I think the 4v4 tourney Showed that allies and USf are not weak 4v4( some May say op when allies have 100% winrate in that tourney lol), it's just much more coordination required to keep up a aggressive playstyle in 4v4

Dont keep these Myths alive with lategame instant lose or 2v2+ axis so OP, because its not, it's just a matter of l2p.


BS, just try to play a teamgame without USF P2W (Calli and Pershing) docs or without broken brits and you will feel the agony/challenge of playing allies in 4v4 before brit release .
9 Feb 2016, 19:37 PM
#67
avatar of whitesky00

Posts: 468



BS, just try to play a teamgame without USF P2W (Calli and Pershing) docs or without broken brits and you will feel the agony/challenge of playing allies in 4v4 before brit release .


Lol, Axis players cannot recall pre-UKF release games as Allies or pre USF release. Fightin' the uphill battle!
9 Feb 2016, 19:46 PM
#68
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1



BS, just try to play a teamgame without USF P2W (Calli and Pershing) docs or without broken brits and you will feel the agony/challenge of playing allies in 4v4 before brit release .


ok
9 Feb 2016, 21:13 PM
#69
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

One other issue not discussed yet is the MT on the CmdPanther which makes the Jackson basically a one shot vet target. To heavier tanks that it is supposed to be afraid of it has to run and cower.

While I agree the Stuart offers exceptional utility, in larger games where 2-3 panthers may push at the same location a single stuart will only be capable of annoying the Panthers. The mciro requirement is also quite high compared to the German player that can follow up with a volks blob. I want a TD that can damage the Panthers consistently. However, I do concede the point that the USF does have some snares to help the Jackson. Snares are however, only part of the larger problem with the unit.
9 Feb 2016, 23:46 PM
#70
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

One other issue not discussed yet is the MT on the CmdPanther which makes the Jackson basically a one shot vet target. To heavier tanks that it is supposed to be afraid of it has to run and cower.

While I agree the Stuart offers exceptional utility, in larger games where 2-3 panthers may push at the same location a single stuart will only be capable of annoying the Panthers. The mciro requirement is also quite high compared to the German player that can follow up with a volks blob. I want a TD that can damage the Panthers consistently. However, I do concede the point that the USF does have some snares to help the Jackson. Snares are however, only part of the larger problem with the unit.

You cant argue that in a team game the enemy pushing together vs your TD with only a Stuart to back it is so much an issue on the Jackson than poor play on your teams part. A Jackson behind an armful of t34s or a soviet mine field (or even a pair or REAL at guns is nasty, throw in a con army of at nades and you have a few dead panthers. HOWEVER the lack of durability on allied TDs is amplified by the SHIT pathing in this game and I agree that heavy crush would be a great buff that isnt really a performance change, more "relic proofing" the unit...
10 Feb 2016, 00:34 AM
#71
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2


You cant argue that in a team game the enemy pushing together vs your TD with only a Stuart to back it is so much an issue on the Jackson than poor play on your teams part. A Jackson behind an armful of t34s or a soviet mine field (or even a pair or REAL at guns is nasty, throw in a con army of at nades and you have a few dead panthers. HOWEVER the lack of durability on allied TDs is amplified by the SHIT pathing in this game and I agree that heavy crush would be a great buff that isnt really a performance change, more "relic proofing" the unit...


It's not just a pathing issue. If you have 3 (48 pop) Panthers rushing in on you alone on a map like Steppe you need around 6 Jacksons (84 pop) to counter them effectively. The result will be most likely 1 instant dead Jackson and a hell lot of micro.
10 Feb 2016, 01:24 AM
#72
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770



HVAP is vet ability. How the vehicle can vet up is another story. If there is no penetration, then there is no HVAP. Bringing HVAP to argue is the same with bring Blitzkrieg or Tactician Smoke to argue.

From my previous experience, M36 fare better chance against medium, because shot always penetrate. Against heavy armor like Panther, Tiger and higher, M36 become RNG dependency. If player is unlucky, the heavy will laugh and start to slaughter, maybe not the M36, but the infantry or vehicle it suppose to cover. Once the heavy finish its role, it retreats back and M36 cannot venture to chase because of its measly hp.


Now you are just whining. this TD penetrates heavy armour 2/3 of the time. much higher rate then the stug or jp4 against the allied heavies like the comet pershing and is2.

10 Feb 2016, 01:59 AM
#73
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2016, 01:24 AMZyllen


Now you are just whining. this TD penetrates heavy armour 2/3 of the time. much higher rate then the stug or jp4 against the allied heavies like the comet pershing and is2.



German tank destroyers dont have to fight vehicles with high armor that often. Pershing and IS-2 are doctrinal. Comets are more expensive and for brits only.
The Panther however is a regular and common tank for axis.

German and soviet tank destroyers excel in rate of fire making them much more effective than they might seem from their penetration values.

Jagdpanzer4 far DPS: 28.88
Effectiveness against IS-2: ~13 dps
Jackson far DPS: 21.24
Effectiveness against KT: ~11.3 dps

This is the closest the Jackson can get. Data from stat.coh2.hu

10 Feb 2016, 04:20 AM
#74
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

remove the extra 5 range on heavy tanks (tiger, king tiger, and pershing. IS2 range is actually still at 40).

increase pershing hp to 1040.

buff 57mm penetration by about 30%.

the jackson is fine, the problem is with the increased range on tiger.
10 Feb 2016, 10:27 AM
#75
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1

remove the extra 5 range on heavy tanks (tiger, king tiger, and pershing. IS2 range is actually still at 40).

increase pershing hp to 1040.

buff 57mm penetration by about 30%.

the jackson is fine, the problem is with the increased range on tiger.


USF at gun is already the best AT gun (with vet)
10 Feb 2016, 10:38 AM
#76
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1



German tank destroyers dont have to fight vehicles with high armor that often. Pershing and IS-2 are doctrinal. Comets are more expensive and for brits only.
The Panther however is a regular and common tank for axis.

German and soviet tank destroyers excel in rate of fire making them much more effective than they might seem from their penetration values.

Jagdpanzer4 far DPS: 28.88
Effectiveness against IS-2: ~13 dps
Jackson far DPS: 21.24
Effectiveness against KT: ~11.3 dps

This is the closest the Jackson can get. Data from stat.coh2.hu



neutral post, just wanted to add that you may need to consider that the KT costs 100 fuel more than IS2 and the dps difference is still only 1.7 less.
10 Feb 2016, 12:49 PM
#77
avatar of Nepomuk

Posts: 3

I find it quite unbalanced that the factions with the best tanks (KT, Tiger) have the best antitank (shreks, pak, JT, Elefant, Panther) with the best escape (Blitz and Fog).
10 Feb 2016, 13:08 PM
#78
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096

I think the USF lacks a TD/Tank which is durable enough to risk giving chase after a damaged enemy tank.

You simply cannot risk it with a jackson. By the time you've moved you're spotter up the tank is long gone. You try and yolo after him (in one of those one more shot and he's toast moments) and run into any form of tank/at gun/shreks and you will almost certainly lose the jackson due to its tiny hp pool/armour and lack of heavy crush.

10 Feb 2016, 15:51 PM
#79
avatar of whitesky00

Posts: 468


You cant argue that in a team game the enemy pushing together vs your TD with only a Stuart to back it is so much an issue on the Jackson than poor play on your teams part. A Jackson behind an armful of t34s or a soviet mine field (or even a pair or REAL at guns is nasty, throw in a con army of at nades and you have a few dead panthers. HOWEVER the lack of durability on allied TDs is amplified by the SHIT pathing in this game and I agree that heavy crush would be a great buff that isnt really a performance change, more "relic proofing" the unit...


But please look at the micro... low HP M36 and low HP stuart. Both units require munitions/timed ability/cooldown to counter be effective versus the panther. Panther micro requires? click forward and click backwards or rear reverse.

t34s in front of m36? do you play team games? that's a waste of MP and fuel. Not to mention, the moment the t34 dies, you lose LoS with the fire and smoke. That gives the panther even MORE time to close in, flank and kill low hp M36. M36 is micro heavy. Panther is just expensive.
10 Feb 2016, 16:29 PM
#80
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1


You cant argue that in a team game the enemy pushing together vs your TD with only a Stuart to back it is so much an issue on the Jackson than poor play on your teams part. A Jackson behind an armful of t34s or a soviet mine field (or even a pair or REAL at guns is nasty, throw in a con army of at nades and you have a few dead panthers. HOWEVER the lack of durability on allied TDs is amplified by the SHIT pathing in this game and I agree that heavy crush would be a great buff that isnt really a performance change, more "relic proofing" the unit...


If we want balance at all levels we need to think about how the team games also play out, partially because many players are in each format.

Your comment has been partially dissected before so I won't labor over it, but the increased micro, the inability to chase, the high pop cost and MP investment, the inability to so much as scare an infantry unit, and the very likely outcome of at least one lost Jackson for nothing are all present.

I would also like to point out that while the 57mm does a decent job in smaller games as indirect fire grows in larger games it becomes completely useless. It gets wiped so fast it cannot keep vet, and it is a MP sink. Late game it struggles to penetrate and gain vet. No other AT gun suffers from this. [side note] Why is focus forward not passive as soon as you hit vet 1? Don't you always want it on? Therefore, the USF has to rely on doc AT tanks to maintain presence, and their options are simple, Jackson or nothing. The Jackson does not give them enough AT to provide critical map presence in the late game.

Another problem, against the super heavies it is no more than vet for those units, and this means that USF without Calliope can do nothing in a team game but rely upon its Allies to break through and then try to widen the gap. If there is no breakthrough its tanks sit completely impotent on the side line, and this leads to unsupported infantry, which leads to more map loss, etc.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

United States 25
Russian Federation 5
Peru 3
unknown 1

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

833 users are online: 1 member and 832 guests
NigelBallsworth
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50009
Welcome our newest member, qq801com
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM