The Jackson TD is not balanced.
Why? Its sight. Let me give you this comparison: the SU-85 has the ability to extend its frontal vision at the cost of speed and peripheral vision, this is a risk vs reward mechanism. Its vet 1 ability to moderately increase all-round vision, but this is a veterancy reward.
The jackson meanwhile has both the range and vision at no veterancy to snipe off tanks and simply run.
''But it has thin armor''
That is irrelevant because its visibility + range, not speed, makes its armor irrelevant as it can simply fire and run. I am not for slowing it down as that would not reflect its thin armor, I am for normalizing its sight.
The incredible jackson
6 Jul 2016, 06:19 AM
#1
Posts: 168
Of coursh
6 Jul 2016, 06:25 AM
#2
Posts: 1930
The USF have some (really) broken stuff (mortar, double m1919a6), but I wouldn't say jackson is broken.
not only is the jackson flimsy, it's also a huge target. It's the easiest TD to kill if it's caught out of position.
not only is the jackson flimsy, it's also a huge target. It's the easiest TD to kill if it's caught out of position.
6 Jul 2016, 06:30 AM
#3
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
It's fine.
6 Jul 2016, 06:39 AM
#4
Posts: 253
Jackson plays by WFA rules, not vanilla rules.
6 Jul 2016, 07:07 AM
#5
Posts: 1216
I don't agree with OP; nearly half tie I am using the M36, I would have gladly traded it for using an SU-85.
6 Jul 2016, 07:08 AM
#6
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
@OP
Your post makes me doubt if you have ever really used the Jackson.
It does not have the ability to sight for itself. That is to say, the jackson only spots targets as far as the enemies' gun range;
- The jackson open fires
- It becomes momentarily visible and gets shot back
- Since the Jackson is flimsy, it won't end well for the Jackson
Thus, you always need something else to screen for the Jackson and provide sight. Since USF lack decent recon units fit for the late-game, this is usually their precious riflemen. That's why it is always so much fun to fight KTs as USF.
Let's see what normalizing the sight of the Jackson would look like.
- Jackson: 40 sight range (Vet0), 45 sight range (Vet2)
- JP4: 45 sight range (Vet0), 60 sight range (Vet2) self-sighting
- SU85: 35 sight range (70? sight range conical vision with speed debuff, but becomes self-sighting)
- Firefly: 35 sight range, 45 sight range (Vet0, with tank commander); synergy with Hammer
Thus, I have demonstrated that the flimsiest TD also has the poorest sight-range.
QED.
Your post makes me doubt if you have ever really used the Jackson.
It does not have the ability to sight for itself. That is to say, the jackson only spots targets as far as the enemies' gun range;
- The jackson open fires
- It becomes momentarily visible and gets shot back
- Since the Jackson is flimsy, it won't end well for the Jackson
Thus, you always need something else to screen for the Jackson and provide sight. Since USF lack decent recon units fit for the late-game, this is usually their precious riflemen. That's why it is always so much fun to fight KTs as USF.
That is irrelevant because its visibility + range, not speed, makes its armor irrelevant as it can simply fire and run. I am not for slowing it down as that would not reflect its thin armor, I am for normalizing its sight.
Let's see what normalizing the sight of the Jackson would look like.
- Jackson: 40 sight range (Vet0), 45 sight range (Vet2)
- JP4: 45 sight range (Vet0), 60 sight range (Vet2) self-sighting
- SU85: 35 sight range (70? sight range conical vision with speed debuff, but becomes self-sighting)
- Firefly: 35 sight range, 45 sight range (Vet0, with tank commander); synergy with Hammer
Thus, I have demonstrated that the flimsiest TD also has the poorest sight-range.
QED.
You have a great idea that improves the QoL aspects of the game? Please, drop your idea here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
6 Jul 2016, 07:13 AM
#7
Posts: 190
Thus, you always need something else to screen for the Jackson and provide sight. Since USF lack decent recon units fit for the late-game, this is usually their precious riflemen. That's why it is always so much fun to fight KTs as USF.
Hmm... IDK if just mad but i like to recon with major and call major arty strikes..
6 Jul 2016, 07:20 AM
#8
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
Hmm... IDK if just mad but i like to recon with major and call major arty strikes..
Sure thing.
How many shots does the Jackson manage to get off with that single recon sweep? 1? 2 at most?
How many shots does it take to down a KT? Depending on how lucky you are that's between 11 to 14 shots. That's more than a minute.
You have a great idea that improves the QoL aspects of the game? Please, drop your idea here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
6 Jul 2016, 07:37 AM
#9
Posts: 1248
The Jackson TD is not balanced.
Why? Its sight. Let me give you this comparison: the SU-85 has the ability to extend its frontal vision at the cost of speed and peripheral vision, this is a risk vs reward mechanism. Its vet 1 ability to moderately increase all-round vision, but this is a veterancy reward.
The jackson meanwhile has both the range and vision at no veterancy to snipe off tanks and simply run.
''But it has thin armor''
That is irrelevant because its visibility + range, not speed, makes its armor irrelevant as it can simply fire and run. I am not for slowing it down as that would not reflect its thin armor, I am for normalizing its sight.
MingLee
6 Jul 2016, 07:40 AM
#10
Posts: 284
These medium priced TDs are the reason i avoid to use Tigers and KT anymore.. relatively low price compared to heavy tanks, backed up with cheap AT infantry, like PIAT or Bazookas. Easy to afford tons of these... easily replaceable anytime if you lose some.
On the other hand you buy a Tiger, and you must protect it as you would drive on thin ice constantly. The top of it, infantry game is f*cked up properly. Even if you try to use Pgrens or SPs with schrecks against the TDs, the same infantry that backup those TDs will rape you even when they are upgraded with AT weapons. Its not fun at all imo...
On the other hand you buy a Tiger, and you must protect it as you would drive on thin ice constantly. The top of it, infantry game is f*cked up properly. Even if you try to use Pgrens or SPs with schrecks against the TDs, the same infantry that backup those TDs will rape you even when they are upgraded with AT weapons. Its not fun at all imo...
6 Jul 2016, 07:50 AM
#11
Posts: 190
Sure thing.
How many shots does the Jackson manage to get off with that single recon sweep? 1? 2 at most?
How many shots does it take to down a KT? Depending on how lucky you are that's between 11 to 14 shots. That's more than a minute.
Well usually when fighting axis tanks they are not hiding in the FOW they are usually shooting over their infantry thus visible, I can use Jacksons mobility and range to my advantage (and other units). usually (exept KT) axis vehicles start to fall back after 2-3 hits, KT needs "couple" of more. Recon comes when they start to retreat to repairs when they are usually that needed 1-2 hits away from destruction.
And that small recon is usually enough to remember the spots to attack ground that spot later on. People have really bad habit to use the same spot over and over again in games.
And what if they just overrun me? well then i've lost the game at least 15 minutes before that spot.
I don't know if it makes a difference but i usually use them as a pair. Then i can kite in catepillar like manner.
6 Jul 2016, 07:52 AM
#12
Posts: 190
Easy to afford tons of these... easily replaceable anytime if you lose some.
Killing panther or any axis heavy tanks so that i know i will lose a jackson is fair trade as i know it will hurt a lot more the axis player
6 Jul 2016, 08:03 AM
#13
Posts: 284
Killing panther or any axis heavy tanks so that i know i will lose a jackson is fair trade as i know it will hurt a lot more the axis player
Fair trade for the allied player... not for the axis. Especially not for OKW where Panther is 200FU because "F*ck you OKW"
6 Jul 2016, 08:09 AM
#14
Posts: 276
Jacksons are paper TDs. They need that sight and range to not be killed by everything. Kiting with them is also taxing on micro by a LOT (at least in my experience). And if you don't kite your jackson is gardened. Basically what everyone else said in this damn thread.
I am not responsible for anything I say.
6 Jul 2016, 08:19 AM
#15
Posts: 42
The USF have some (really) broken stuff (mortar, double m1919a6), but I wouldn't say jackson is broken.
not only is the jackson flimsy, it's also a huge target. It's the easiest TD to kill if it's caught out of position.
My KT got killed by a vet 2 TD yesterday, i was in a shock! must be something wrong with that TD
6 Jul 2016, 08:27 AM
#16
Posts: 673
I think, I starting to see logic behind all this:
1. If unit of axis performs good/nice - everything OK.
2. If unit of allies performs good/nice - OP, unbalanced, nerfnerfnerf!
That logic works now with people, who whine about new T-34-76 (personal opinion - still doesn't worth buying), about USF mortar (without sight-bug it's FINE!), about new Jackson now.
Jackson is glass-cannon TD. It costs pretty much, it has no armor, and USF has no "meatshield" tanks, like UKF, which could cover Jacksons, because Shermans are also pretty glassy.
So, even if it has big range+vision - it is fine. Same fine as Panther has speed+armor+gunpower combination, and nobody has problems with that. Learn 2 counter them, it's not that dificult.
1. If unit of axis performs good/nice - everything OK.
2. If unit of allies performs good/nice - OP, unbalanced, nerfnerfnerf!
That logic works now with people, who whine about new T-34-76 (personal opinion - still doesn't worth buying), about USF mortar (without sight-bug it's FINE!), about new Jackson now.
Jackson is glass-cannon TD. It costs pretty much, it has no armor, and USF has no "meatshield" tanks, like UKF, which could cover Jacksons, because Shermans are also pretty glassy.
So, even if it has big range+vision - it is fine. Same fine as Panther has speed+armor+gunpower combination, and nobody has problems with that. Learn 2 counter them, it's not that dificult.
6 Jul 2016, 08:55 AM
#17
Posts: 190
Fair trade for the allied player... not for the axis. Especially not for OKW where Panther is 200FU because "F*ck you OKW"
Well one reason i have habit of retreating axis tank if i see it jumping in the air and don't immediately spot the shooter. --> Jackson is so damn fast it can run trought the defensive smoke to hit the killing blow and usually axis player is so panicked that (s)he messes up retaliation against jackson so that the TD usually gets away when it shouldnt.
6 Jul 2016, 09:34 AM
#18
Posts: 1003
Lol whimper thread.
Jacksons are the most difficult tanks for micro. You allways need two and with vehicle path, is hell micro them. One fault in micro = one destroyed Jackson.
But, if you have a good micro, you should be rewarded good efficiency.
Micro Panthers/Comets, It is against it relaxation.
Jacksons are the most difficult tanks for micro. You allways need two and with vehicle path, is hell micro them. One fault in micro = one destroyed Jackson.
But, if you have a good micro, you should be rewarded good efficiency.
Micro Panthers/Comets, It is against it relaxation.
I want to have the same chance, to win for each side.
6 Jul 2016, 10:09 AM
#19
Posts: 284
I think, I starting to see logic behind all this:
1. If unit of axis performs good/nice - everything OK.
2. If unit of allies performs good/nice - OP, unbalanced, nerfnerfnerf!
Yes, thats why OKW kubel, Volks, Obers, JLi, LeIG, Panther, KT, and even the BaseTrucks have been nerfed. Because everything is OK...
6 Jul 2016, 10:12 AM
#20
Posts: 4474
I think, I starting to see logic behind all this:isn't it the contrary like what the fuck is the ost panther and that's why p4 cost more than Cromwell while being much worse
1. If unit of axis performs good/nice - everything OK.
2. If unit of allies performs good/nice - OP, unbalanced, nerfnerfnerf!
That logic works now with people, who whine about new T-34-76 (personal opinion - still doesn't worth buying), about USF mortar (without sight-bug it's FINE!), about new Jackson now.
Jackson is glass-cannon TD. It costs pretty much, it has no armor, and USF has no "meatshield" tanks, like UKF, which could cover Jacksons, because Shermans are also pretty glassy.
So, even if it has big range+vision - it is fine. Same fine as Panther has speed+armor+gunpower combination, and nobody has problems with that. Learn 2 counter them, it's not that dificult.
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
10 | ||
 |
|
|
17 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.271108.715+22
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
774 users are online:
774 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49072
Welcome our newest member, Durddcdy23
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Durddcdy23
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM