DBP USF thread

"To the level of British one" does not mean that it should only change to base stats.

Whenever I use Panther or Tiger and hit by USF ATGun I was like meh, while UKF 6pounder immediate force me to retreat.



As long as you vet it to level 1, have ammo, pay the micro to use its ability...

After the ammo nerf on vet 1 ability, it's never worth unless you play 1v1, when there is no team mate.

don't think that's anything to do with USF AT Gun, more like Brit AT Gun is way too accurate.

Reposting this as it sums up my feelings of the USF changes of the Jackson and how giving RE smoke doesn't diversify USF gameplay but achieves the opposite.

snip

Response to Jackson:
I can understand the increase of hp for preventing one shots which I do approve of but the factor of the Jackson having a turret makes it harder to flank then other TD's, it's mobility, and range makes it a incredibly dangerous tank destroyer with a underused but amazing ability and great veternacy. It's hp is suppose to be it's weakness alongside lack of armor. When it's HP is increased one of it's weakness is patched and it becomes a nightmare for enemy players to face when used by a skilled player as it becomes more difficult to hunt by enemy tanks as while other TDs weakness is lack of turret and inability to return fire the Jackson can deal with enemy armor flanking it if properly support.

The Jackson shouldn't be used to hunt down enemy tanks by itself but with supporting units. The Jackson is meant to used in a different approach compared to other TDs. It's meant to work in conjugation with Shermans to take down heavier enemy tank with their mobility and benefit of rotating turret. Hell it's more to player skill then the Jackson fault that they overextended it, misplayed, or without proper support thinking it's a Panther.

Jackson hp should be enough not to be one shotted but enough to be three shotted by enemy AT guns as to keep it's weakness but least reduce player frustration against one shot weapons. The Jackson is a good tank destroyer and if it wasn't vulnerable to being one shotted then it'd be in a perfect spot. It's a unique tank destroyer with good strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited.

Response to smoke and USF infantry overall:

Giving smoke to RE gives them a combat role, where they lacked any before
RE already have a combat function of being a cheaper, weaker unit compared to Rifles that can suit a more defensive style with BARs, a AT squad, or flamer unit. They're engineers with some combat ability already especially compared to other factions engineer squads with the exception of OKW

Removing smoke from Riflemen, makes them less of an 1-unit army that puts elite infantry into shame, but still allows them to perform well for cost

How does removing smoke from Rifles to give to REs make elite infantry more attractive? Rifles lack hard close range firepower or long range fire power compared to Rangers or Paratroopers who do fill that gap in USF line up. I use them when I need to fill said gap and removing smoke from Rifles wouldn't incline me to use them more. They are meant for a specific purpose.

This increases the added value of USF Elite Infantry, which were massively overshadowed by Riflemen; rather than being the non-meta option you go for to surprise people, those doctrines now actually become more competitive to non-elite infantry doctrines

Reason why USF elite infantry aren't used is due CP timing, need of MP, and upgrades. Paratroopers provide excellent close ranged or long range support to Rifles and Rangers also fill a gap of close range firepower with Thompson. To be fair Rangers due lack much utility with the very least having incredible received accuracy bonuses but even with REs getting smoke why would I get Rangers or Paratroopers? To use USF elite infantry I have to go two REs then two Rifles to afford them when they are unlocked not because they're poor combat units but due to previous said reasons. A doctrine can be good but reason why some things are meta is because the doctrine has some sort of abuse (Lend Lease), good selection of units and abilities (Lightning War), patch a weakness of a faction (Armor Company or Mobile Assault), or for a call in (Heavy Cavalry). DevM went Armor company almost every time as USF because M10 provided counters to Axis medium tanks without need for teching and could reach critical mass to overwhelm heavier tanks. Not due to Airborne being a poor doctrine (even though it could still be adjusted).

It allows RE to better synergise with USF Elite Infantry

Why would RE need better synergy with USF elite infantry? They synergise well with Rifles already given Rifles have smoke in the first place is why and USF elite infantry covering Rifles less optimal range such as close or long range. It's just taking away synergy from one unit to give to another.

It prevents lategame USF play from degrading into Jacksons & Riflemen

Which Riflemen would be countered by heavy mgs, elite Axis infantry, artillery, and a few AT infantry squads or gun throw in and could also be prevented with Jackson HP not being able to take four AT shots.

It turns USF army synergy from Riflemen-centric to Infantry-centric

Whole point of USF was to have the strongest mainline infantry which is more a design fault but still remains why USF is unique. The USF is based around the Rifleman with his M1 Garand. Again moving smoke to REs won't change much as they already have a uses.

It allows USF late-game to transition to lower-upkeep Rear Echelons, without abandoning their smoke

USF has Shermans to provide good late game smoke and any USF player worth their salt will have a sherman or two in their build and use it. Yes REs are cheaper and have lower up but if I need smoke that desperately I'd get a mortar.

Incentivising players to build tanks other than Jacksons (since both M4 and M8 have access to smoke)

How? Shermans and Scotts have a purpose which is countering medium and lower tanks and infantry for the first and providing long range anti infantry firepower and free smoke barrage in case of the latter. It's lack of skill or abuse of doctrines why Shermans aren't used as much like DevM using M10s or Hans using heavy cavalry. Not saying they are only good because of said doctrine as they're still both highly skilled players.

Finally, Riflemen smoke is massively powerful vs OST, where USF does OK against, and almost useless vs OKW where USF gets their ass handed back to them in spades.

That's more due OKW Volksgrenadiers and the rest of that faction in general and to say smoke is useless against OKW is untrue. OKW still have MGs, a flak HQ, and long ranged oriented squads. To see how useful smoke is against OKW I'd recommend watching me against Luvnest as smoke can block LoS for rakets or cover a advance to get close.

To compensate for early lack of Smoke, the USF mortar is now the best smoke dispenser platform in the game. Try it out, and let us know how the faction feels.

Have to say it does feel great that USF mortar smoke ability seems to be done immediately then glitch out for a few seconds which matters greatly when timing a multi-assault as timing is massive for when a Rifle squad is just entering LoS of that HMG and getting suppressed or getting smoke and allowing them move up quickly to help relocate that HMG and support the other two Rifles moving up. I do applaud this fix greatly. Saying that I don't want to have to go mortar every time but I found myself getting a mortar for smoke then purchasing another RE for smoke purposes as least the mortar smoke is free, has greater range, and doesn't bleed like another RE squad would. I found it pointless to get another RE for their smoke grenade as I'd only get another RE squad for other reasons like another AT squad, minesweeper, extra capping power, etc. but not for another squad to smoke with. Granted yes it's helpful that when I get another RE squad I can use smoke on them but I always have two or more Rifles due to them possessing greater anti-infantry capabilities and better veterancy.

Reposting this as it sums up my feelings of the USF changes of the Jackson and how giving RE smoke doesn't diversify USF gameplay but achieves the opposite.

Show Spoiler

At a price point of 400 manpower and 140 fuel, the Jackson should not be a unit with clear and easy to exploit weaknesses like low hp. It is meant to be the ultimate answer from USF to axis armor, and it can still be easily countered By infantry based At.

As someone who plays alot of 4v4, presently this unit is not scary as an axis player unless you have been significantly outresourced and therefore outnumbered, and even then it's very manageable to deal with. As an allied Player, I may build 1 every 10 games, it's just not very good presently, though it should be since you will clearly see the units it's intended to counter very frequently.

In 1v1 as well I find the unit very risky to build as it does not guarantee tank superiority and it still costs a lot, its also hard to take advantage of veterancy if you must play conservatively due to the HP.

It's only 160 hp if you play poorly its still going to die and now it will be an even bigger loss.

snip

I'd argue to just keep the Jackson as is then for these changes to go through. Do note I'm advocating for one v ones not team games as that's not my interest (aside from twos every once in awhile). The Jackson should only be slightly increased in price and hp to prevent one shots and two shots but still be three shotted by enemy AT guns.

The Jackson is USF answer to Axis heavy armor and it does that job well. It has good penetration, long range, and it has a turret which people seem to underestimate the significance of. USF has other tools to deal with Axis medium tanks and below with the 57mm, bazooka's, Shermans, etc. Tell me what weaknesses of the Jackson would remain aside from having no armor? It has 60 range, is mobile, and hard to flank without taking return fire as other Tank destroyers are unable to which is huge. If I allow my Jackson to get chased and destroyed it's because I misplayed from either lack of supporting it, not scouting, or some other reason where I did something wrong.

Why I reached ranked 1 with USF is because I used the Jackson to it's strength as a mobile, long range but fragile turreted tank destroyer. I don't get why people are complaining about the Jackson when they play like a slugger when it's not! If the Jackson gets that HP buff even with the cost increase it will be overpowered in one v ones. I mean this is coming from a player who loves USF to death.

I'd argue to just keep the Jackson as is then for these changes to go through. Do note I'm advocating for one v ones not team games as that's not my interest (aside from twos every once in awhile). The Jackson should only be slightly increased in price and hp to prevent one shots and two shots but still be three shotted by enemy AT guns.

The Jackson is USF answer to Axis heavy armor and it does that job well. It has good penetration, long range, and it has a turret which people seem to underestimate the significance of. USF has other tools to deal with Axis medium tanks and below with the 57mm, bazooka's, Shermans, etc. Tell me what weaknesses of the Jackson would remain aside from having no armor? It has 60 range, is mobile, and hard to flank without taking return fire as other Tank destroyers are unable to which is huge. If I allow my Jackson to get chased and destroyed it's because I misplayed from either lack of supporting it, not scouting, or some other reason where I did something wrong.

Why I reached ranked 1 with USF is because I used the Jackson to it's strength as a mobile, long range but fragile turreted tank destroyer. I don't get why people are complaining about the Jackson when they play like a slugger when it's not! If the Jackson gets that HP buff even with the cost increase it will be overpowered in one v ones. I mean this is coming from a player who loves USF to death.

God Dave has SPOKEN!

[Edited]
Ups, didn't see the last patchnote, remove my comments on the Jackson. I'll try the new stuff this week-end..

I'd argue to just keep the Jackson as is then for these changes to go through. Do note I'm advocating for one v ones not team games as that's not my interest (aside from twos every once in awhile). The Jackson should only be slightly increased in price and hp to prevent one shots and two shots but still be three shotted by enemy AT guns.

You can't have both. 3 AT gun shots deal 480 damage, which is live-version Jackson's HP.

You can't have both. 3 AT gun shots deal 480 damage, which is live-version Jackson's HP.

Not even with Target Table's?

Not even with Target Table's?

I'm so looking forward to going through every single AT-capable weapon in the game and handpicking damage values.
/s

Is the HVAP reload/aim time bug fixed? It might be a good trade off if so.

I'm so looking forward to going through every single AT-capable weapon in the game and handpicking damage values.
/s

/jk

I'd argue to just keep the Jackson as is then for these changes to go through. Do note I'm advocating for one v ones not team games as that's not my interest (aside from twos every once in awhile). The Jackson should only be slightly increased in price and hp to prevent one shots and two shots but still be three shotted by enemy AT guns.

The Jackson is USF answer to Axis heavy armor and it does that job well. It has good penetration, long range, and it has a turret which people seem to underestimate the significance of. USF has other tools to deal with Axis medium tanks and below with the 57mm, bazooka's, Shermans, etc. Tell me what weaknesses of the Jackson would remain aside from having no armor? It has 60 range, is mobile, and hard to flank without taking return fire as other Tank destroyers are unable to which is huge. If I allow my Jackson to get chased and destroyed it's because I misplayed from either lack of supporting it, not scouting, or some other reason where I did something wrong.

Why I reached ranked 1 with USF is because I used the Jackson to it's strength as a mobile, long range but fragile turreted tank destroyer. I don't get why people are complaining about the Jackson when they play like a slugger when it's not! If the Jackson gets that HP buff even with the cost increase it will be overpowered in one v ones. I mean this is coming from a player who loves USF to death.

The problem with the Jackson isn't the Jackson itself - it's the Elefant and JT combo in larger games that make the Jackson worthless after a point. Lack of mines for USF makes it worse. Also, having the pop cap of the super TD's be only slightly larger than a Jackson further complicates matters.

Just out of curiosity, do you use the Stuart in the current patch and if so, when? It only seems to soft counter the flamer halftrack when I use it and is otherwise a waste of pop cap, but it could be user error.

snip

To be quite honest I have no clue how USF functions in teams aside from 2s and I don't play those much anymore either. I solely base my opinions on one v ones. Saying that I'm aware the struggle of the Jackson in team games and I understand the need to have some adjustments of the Jackson in team games. Sadly the team isn't either allowed, unable, or the prospect is too daunting or demanding like damage tables to have patches for ones and for team games.

I use the Jackson well and effectively but it makes me wonder if only I and a few other top USF players can use it then is it under powered? The reason I'm so opposed to the Jackson changes as if they go through then the Jackson will be overpowered in my hands which I disdain the idea of. Take away that vulnerability of being three shotted then one of it's two weaknesses is patched. Yes, it'll have no armor but to take another AT shot is huge when said tank has a turret, 60 range, and great AT statistics.

Stuart Question

On your question I almost always go LT against OST as CPT is not a efficient choice I find. Stuart is fine at being a light AT but its AI capabilities is mediocre. If you're playing against OST I'd say go LT then into AA halftrack as that counters both the Scout Car and Flamer halftrack while also providing good AI firepower. Also, be sure to get some bazooka REs to help cover the AA half track as two scout cars can take it down and even a single one with faust support will also take it out.

Against OKW it's a completely different story, CPT is nearly a must as Luchs provides such a danger. Stuart can ward it off and even chase it if it over extends. Saying that you MUST get some bazooka to help it take it out more quickly, if your Stuart is occupied elsewhere, or OKW gets a Puma to counter Stuart. If you do have the munitions and fuel, getting grenades is a good idea to grenade Rakets but keep it in your back pocket until they think it's okay to let it sit beside a Rifle squad to get that last shot off then to retreat it. Quite effective I find even against highly skilled players.

(And for the love of Uncle Sam be sure to use supervise to quickly tech as I can't empathize more the importance of having weapon unlocks, grenades, or Stuart being able available 300% faster)

A late game Stuart isn't a bad choice either if you keep it alive from your early game as it can use stun rounds to help a tank engagement swing into your favor. It actually allowed me to win a game against Luvnest who Command Panther would've taken out my Jackson if not for the Stuarts stun ability.

Yes Stuart won't kill much but it's utility is useful.

You can't have both. 3 AT gun shots deal 480 damage, which is live-version Jackson's HP.

If that is the case then I'd say keep the Jackson as is. I'm using part of a response I did for someone else but sums up how I feel of this whole Jackson debate. (Also, I'm lazy and don't have much time to write another response)


To be quite honest I have no clue how USF functions in teams aside from 2s and I don't play those much anymore either. I solely base my opinions on one v ones. Saying that I'm aware the struggle of the Jackson in team games and I understand the need to have some adjustments of the Jackson in team games. Sadly the team isn't either allowed, unable, or the prospect is too daunting or demanding like damage tables to have patches for ones and for team games.

I use the Jackson well and effectively but it makes me wonder if only I and a few other top USF players can use it then is it under powered? The reason I'm so opposed to the Jackson changes as if they go through then the Jackson will be overpowered in my hands which I disdain the idea of. Take away that vulnerability of being three shotted then one of it's two weaknesses is patched. Yes, it'll have no armor but to take another AT shot is huge when said tank has a turret, 60 range, and great AT statistics.

snip

I use the Jackson well and effectively but it makes me wonder if only I and a few other top USF players can use it then is it under powered? The reason I'm so opposed to the Jackson changes as if they go through then the Jackson will be incredible overpowered in my hands which I disdain the idea of. Take away that vulnerability of being three shotted then one of it's two weaknesses is patched. Yes, it'll have no armor but to take another AT shot is huge when said tank has a turret, 60 range, and great AT statistics.

snip

I don't think any amount of skill will help Jacksons on maps like Red Ball with a couple of the super TD's being used by roughly equally skilled players. Three Jacksons have roughly the same pop cop as two Ele's or JT's. They outrange you so one of the three Jacksons goes up in smoke immediately. The other two Jacksons might scratch the paint on one of the other two but will have to retreat as soon as they are hit. Those matchups end up being a shitfest of bazooka blobs, Calliopes, Fireflys versus JT, Ele's, KT's, walking stuka's etc. However, USF has nearly disappeared from 4v4's so it's usually just Brits and the occasional Soviet against mostly OKW.

USF would be in a lot better position in those games if all commanders could build a Pershing after getting all of the officers, the same way that OKW can build a KT with any commander. Non-doctrinal mines would help a lot also.

I do get your point about the 640 HP Jackson being too much in a 1v1.

Snip

I'm around rank 30/40 as USF on 2vs2 random and I can tell you I never build Jackson. On team game they are a waste of money and popcap. And I have banned all the corridor maps that favor Jagt and Elef.
USF lategame is all about 3 choices:

1- Artyfest spam Calliope or Priest
2- Pershing
3- Sherman Spam

None of them can counter heavy tank play. It is all about closing the game before OKW and Ostheer reach their critical mass.

Jackson as it is today is more than fine. Problem is USF missing tools around and Jagt/Elef. I think the modification brought to those two monsters are enough to rebalance the power equitably but USF should have access to:

1- stock late game arty, doesn't need to be at Calliope or Priest level but something that can force off your opponent from its position. USF already have something with the PakHowit but it is not enough for the late game.
2- stock heavy tank, doesn't mean to be a pershing but a heavy medium clone to EZ8, something that can take more than 4 hits before retreat, either by having a enough HP or strong armor stats.
3- stock effective AT mines and not being forced to build a m20, M7 mines are interesting but they aren't mean to be effective on the late game.

Without that, the jackson will never find its place on the game, or being too strong or too weak vs Ostheer or OKW.

There is no need to give USF both stock heavy tank and arty, something like UKF tech choice could be done. The player must choose between both and complet it with doctrinal stuff.

To be quite honest I have no clue how USF functions in teams aside from 2s and I don't play those much anymore either. I solely base my opinions on one v ones. Saying that I'm aware the struggle of the Jackson in team games and I understand the need to have some adjustments of the Jackson in team games.

1v1 matches usually end a bit after manpower bleed has started to settle in, USF has started to slump and there's so many paper tanks to micro. For teamgames, just double the effective duration of the match.

There's no point at building Jacksons by that point; everything can kill it in 2-3 shots, and there's so many guns around. Therefore USF goes for the infantry/tactical artillery spam game.

Sadly the team isn't either allowed, unable, or the prospect is too daunting or demanding like damage tables to have patches for ones and for team games.

Damage tables are inconsistent behaviour, and inconsistent behaviour makes the game more difficult to understand, and more difficult to predict.

Let it sink in that the vast majority of the player base don't realise, or don't want to understand that there's a difference between OST Panzer4/Panther/Blitzkrieg and their direct counterparts at OKW, and factor in that you now want to make one unit behave differently, depending on what it is engaging.

I use the Jackson well and effectively but it makes me wonder if only I and a few other top USF players can use it then is it under powered? The reason I'm so opposed to the Jackson changes as if they go through then the Jackson will be overpowered in my hands which I disdain the idea of. Take away that vulnerability of being three shotted then one of it's two weaknesses is patched. Yes, it'll have no armor but to take another AT shot is huge when said tank has

The changes will make it so that the insane micro requirements of the jackson get lifted, but it will do so by losing some firepower.

The jackson feels too crappy at v1.3, if anything. So, some stuff like cost and move accuracy might be reverted. I think it's worth exploring the idea of a 640HP jackson with 160 damage that can shift to HVAP shells every once in a while.

1v1 matches usually end a bit after manpower bleed has started to settle in, USF has started to slump and there's so many paper tanks to micro. For teamgames, just double the effective duration of the match.

There's no point at building Jacksons by that point; everything can kill it in 2-3 shots, and there's so many guns around. Therefore USF goes for the infantry/tactical artillery spam game.



Damage tables are inconsistent behaviour, and inconsistent behaviour makes the game more difficult to understand, and more difficult to predict.

Let it sink in that the vast majority of the player base don't realise, or don't want to understand that there's a difference between OST Panzer4/Panther/Blitzkrieg and their direct counterparts at OKW, and factor in that you now want to make one unit behave differently, depending on what it is engaging.



The changes will make it so that the insane micro requirements of the jackson get lifted, but it will do so by losing some firepower.

The jackson feels too crappy at v1.3, if anything. So, some stuff like cost and move accuracy might be reverted. I think it's worth exploring the idea of a 640HP jackson with 160 damage that can shift to HVAP shells every once in a while.

Here is hoping that the accuracy and cost nerfs get reverted, I'd gladly trade in damage for being able to survive a slip of micro, allowing the Jackson to finally use it's awesome veterancy...
I wouldn't mind some HVAP bugs being fixed as well though! The Aimtime when switching targets is what kills this ability.

The Aimtime when switching targets is what kills this ability.

Aimtime is already fixed.

Aimtime is already fixed.

I assume this also fixes the fix reload after the ability runs out?
Then this might work out for the better, 40 damage isn't that important since USF has bazookas, more mean might mean the Jackson is more reliable and gets it's great veterancy faster.