What is the weakness from Jackson?

The thing is, it might be even correct that the Jackson is too strong right now.
I only find it some kind of disgusting how some people in this thread tend to argue about things.
I really hope they don't do that in real life and in their jobs the same way.

The thing is, it might be even correct that the Jackson is too strong right now.
I only find it some kind of disgusting how some people in this thread tend to argue about things.
I really hope they don't do that in real life and in their jobs the same way.

the thing is: people like you see i postet something in this forum, and have an automatical mechanismus in head that must be wrong what ullumulu say.
it must be biased and totally l2p issue.

maybe.

but look closer and look the real stats before posting something you think is right.

Iam not a good player when you look in my playercard. but that i mostly only with randoms ...u dont see that.

when i play USF as faction-noob in a arranged game with top 300 players...and the axis player struggle hard vs jackson and i can stopp with 3 jackson 3 panther, one KT and a Tiger ace...only losing one jackson..is something wrong in this actuall game status.


and when you look streams from other top players...they say the same: jackson is really over the top...comparde to other TDs and exspacilly for this cost.

Well the other factions don't really need to use TDs as much as USF,

As soviets i usually go T-34/85s if i want a bit of fun, or ISU if i really want an easy win.

As ostheer i see most of my opponents go P4z mass or tiger with mortar ATG support

As brits its really all over the place and on top of that i don't really see people playing it, its a boring faction.

As Okw p4j or double panthers

As USF i usually go Sherman->Pershing or Jackson--->Calliope.

Thats just the meta of the game right now. And the meta for every faction will always be spaming one type of unit or upgrade. (Like g43s for ostheer, or the old double LMG riflemen <---- these guys were true liberators)


I am speaking from mostly 2v2 experience here.
(http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#profile/steam/76561198031315574/standings) my player card.

The Jackson may be overpowered, but i say wait for more time before making it a fact. A lot of people in this thread seem to being having a knee jerk reaction(me included). I as a USF main player disliked the old Jackson. One mistake slight mistake and any other tank in game could rush you down and destroy you. The new Jackson is a breath of fresh air in the USF late game for me now. Something i can use in my arsenal to finally go toe to toe with late game high armour tanks which USF as a legacy for struggling with.

I propose that we wait and see for another month or so before dropping the hammer on the issue.

Well the other factions don't really need to use TDs as much as USF,

As soviets i usually go T-34/85s if i want a bit of fun, or ISU if i really want an easy win.

As ostheer i see most of my opponents go P4z mass or tiger with mortar ATG support

As brits its really all over the place and on top of that i don't really see people playing it, its a boring faction.

As Okw p4j or double panthers

As USF i usually go Sherman->Pershing or Jackson--->Calliope.

Thats just the meta of the game right now. And the meta for every faction will always be spaming one type of unit or upgrade. (Like g43s for ostheer, or the old double LMG riflemen <---- these guys were true liberators)


I am speaking from mostly 2v2 experience here.
(http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#profile/steam/76561198031315574/standings) my player card.

The Jackson may be overpowered, but i say wait for more time before making it a fact. A lot of people in this thread seem to being having a knee jerk reaction(me included). I as a USF main player disliked the old Jackson. One mistake slight mistake and any other tank in game could rush you down and destroy you. The new Jackson is a breath of fresh air in the USF late game for me now. Something i can use in my arsenal to finally go toe to toe with late game high armour tanks which USF as a legacy for struggling with.

I propose that we wait and see for another month or so before dropping the hammer on the issue.

This would be what any good designer would do, let the patch even itself out and collect some data. The USF have had a bad time with heavy tanks, maybe the range does need to be scaled back, maybe the movement accuracy.

But I agree, with the way the jackson worked before it was like micro-managing a sniper, you had to constantly pull them back, pull them forward for the job, disengage, etc. Meanwhile, everyone else got to sit their tanks near the front like AT guns and be ready to fight.. the Jackson on the other hand was just so weak and easy to kill if the other player knew what he was doing.

Perhaps the range, with combination of penetration can be looked at. I can see the Jackson taking on any medium, which it should given its price vs other mediums. But the HVAP or w/e the special shell is could maybe be their way of punching through heavy armor? That way it's similiar to the AT gun in terms of performance?

The only thing I'd argue here is nobody else has to pay munitions to try and counter heavies, their tanks.. just do what they do. Soviet/OST/OKW/UKF and USF already feels micro heavy enough.

its funny thats the only weakness is AI from jackson, while all other TDs have this weakness.


i mean a explicit weakness like to have no turrent, slowly, low accurracy etc


i mean a explicit weakness compared to other TDs.


i cant find one. its the best TD in game

so what its wrong with this ?
Osther has best mg in game right ?
So why usf only late game tank cant be the best tank destroyer? Whats wrong with that ? Usf dont have
rocket arty, nondoc heavy tank no tank similar to brumbar or churchil so why jackson cant be the best in his league comon. Maybe last wermaht tier is not perfect but look how many options osther have-combined arms right? so where is combined arms when u play as usf jackson+jackson ?

jackson must handle usf late game so it must be good

This is exactly why nobody on this forum takes you seriously. All you do is scream bias. You do not disprove anyone, you do not provide any good counter arguments. And you call anyone who opposes anything that isnt in axis favor biased.

Literally feminist behavior.

Ohh the irony...

Like i said, I could have disproved you easily, starting from pathetic ostwind and 20mm penetration, that have ridicolous 31 % chances of penetration .
I didn't simply because you don't deserve.
Somebody that post such a poor video as argument doesn't deserve an answer.
You have posted a video of 3 222 (equal to 90 fuel) shooting to a jackson at the closest range possible, like if it was a normal situation that can occurr in actual game, ignoring that jackson can effectively fire on the move as it retreated back to...anything (simple rifles fire kills it).
Then the next video is a jagdp4, titled "it can't take damage unless rear hit", ignoring that 222 in such a situation could easily stick behind the unturretted slow TD, colliding models to stop it and ACTUALLY WIN the engagement with some micro and rear hits (but again that's a retarded situation that will never occurr in actual game, that's why your stupid example was flawed to begin with).

I don't know what is your problem against feminism, and why are you associating me to extremism and such...but is normal for...human beings to not try to use logic to convince someone who talks like a mad man, even more provide cou ter arguments to the most nonsense crap (i won't call those arguments) those 2 videos are.

so what its wrong with this ?
Osther has best mg in game right ?
So why usf only late game tank cant be the best tank destroyer? Whats wrong with that ? Usf dont have
rocket arty, nondoc heavy tank no tank similar to brumbar or churchil so why jackson cant be the best in his league comon. Maybe last wermaht tier is not perfect but look how many options osther have-combined arms right? so where is combined arms when u play as usf jackson+jackson ?

jackson must handle usf late game so it must be good

no it has a long setup time and it get's beaten by maxim in 1 on 1 , the best mg in game is the the usf one but it comes after 50 fuel and it cost 280 mp so its fair

no it has a long setup time and it get's beaten by maxim in 1 on 1 , the best mg in game is the the usf one but it comes after 50 fuel and it cost 280 mp so its fair

Maxim is horrible compared to an MG42, what are you smoking?

Maybe 1v1 it can beat, but who the hell fights MG's against MG's? the MG42 will suppress in 1 burst, the maxim is lucky if it can get you by burst 3. Which is why It gets naded still very consistantly. The Mg42 can setup, suppress, than it pins on the 2-3rd burst depending on cover, infantry type, etc.

Then it gets to load in some sweet sweet incendiary rounds to shred infantry and be a soft counter to lights... This costs 0 fuel/tech to bring out.

Soviets, do have to pay fuel to unlock the tech of the maxim. I say this because you compared the .50 to a tech unlock.

I build machine guns to suppress and keep the flanks secure. I don't really care if they kill, that's what combined arms is for. But the .50 cal does it all, and that's another arguement entirely by itself (a .50 cal machine gun basically kills a model entity every burst, while OST has 4 man squads? basically retreat or get rekt son).

This is actually one of the main problems. When you duke it out tank vs tank, the jacksons really the only viable solution you can come up with non-doctrinally. The Sherman really can't fight off other mediums reliably at all, so everyone is just dumping into the jackson.

Even the m10 isn't great, and it shouldn't be considering its so cheap, it's like a beefy Su76, that seems.. worse?

Nobody makes shermans...

Nobody makes Shermans....Except everyone? Shermans are beastly AI, even better than P4s. I definitely understand the USF's need for proper AT - last patch even Tigers caused me trouble. But the increase in effectiveness of the Jackson has really been through the roof, and the small nerfs to its cost and damage aren't enough to offset how good it's become.

Maxim is horrible compared to an MG42, what are you smoking?

Maybe 1v1 it can beat, but who the hell fights MG's against MG's? the MG42 will suppress in 1 burst, the maxim is lucky if it can get you by burst 3. Which is why It gets naded still very consistantly. The Mg42 can setup, suppress, than it pins on the 2-3rd burst depending on cover, infantry type, etc.

Then it gets to load in some sweet sweet incendiary rounds to shred infantry and be a soft counter to lights... This costs 0 fuel/tech to bring out.

Soviets, do have to pay fuel to unlock the tech of the maxim. I say this because you compared the .50 to a tech unlock.

I build machine guns to suppress and keep the flanks secure. I don't really care if they kill, that's what combined arms is for. But the .50 cal does it all, and that's another arguement entirely by itself (a .50 cal machine gun basically kills a model entity every burst, while OST has 4 man squads? basically retreat or get rekt son).

i know maxim needs a superssion buff but they win 1 vs 1 with mg 42 (put a maxim vs mg 42) cause of the reload times

Use combined arms to fight, everyones yelled that at allied players for ages, and when axis has to use combined arms to counter a threat its basically impossible even if they have some of the best tools for the job.

Use combined arms vs Jagtiger, since JT can't kill AT guns right? Heck, even a single PIAT/Zook squad can defeat JT.

So why did they nerf JT? Cos the "use combined arms argument" doesn't work when a unit can't be touched. JT had way too much range and two-shotting tanks was way too powerful.

The same way Jacksons can't be touched with 60 range and extremely high speed. All other tank destroyers of its class get rushed/flanked/circle-strafed with relative ease and require protection/escorts - but the Jackson doesn't, and in fact is also the best at diving after tanks because it can get out so quickly.


"It doesn't have enough vision" is also a poor argument. JTs and Elefants don't have enough vision to self-spot either, but that didn't stop them from being problematic balance-wise.

Use combined arms vs Jagtiger, since JT can't kill AT guns right? Heck, even a single PIAT/Zook squad can defeat JT.

So why did they nerf JT? Cos the "use combined arms argument" doesn't work when a unit can't be touched. JT had way too much range and two-shotting tanks was way too powerful.

The same way Jacksons can't be touched with 60 range and extremely high speed. All other tank destroyers of its class get rushed/flanked/circle-strafed with relative ease and require protection/escorts - but the Jackson doesn't, and in fact is also the best at diving after tanks because it can get out so quickly.


"It doesn't have enough vision" is also a poor argument. JTs and Elefants don't have enough vision to self-spot either, but that didn't stop them from being problematic balance-wise.

Earlier up I made concessions on what should be changed. I included range, moving accuracy, and even nerffing penetration except when using HVAP.

Both Axis factions rely on armour to trade effectively/cause bleed vs USF infantry.

Its absolutley possible to beat his inf without the use of front line tanks, and when you do you pretty much win the game.

There are many doctrinal abilities that help you vs infantry.

S - mines are also brutal.

Panzerwerfer is also good (and can be kept safe from Jackson).


Invest in countering his inf and Jackson is useless. It may be overperforming, but its not an I win button. Also I use Tigers mostly when I can put them in urban areas which negates range advantage of TDs.

Its absolutley possible to beat his inf without the use of front line tanks, and when you do you pretty much win the game.

There are many doctrinal abilities that help you vs infantry.

S - mines are also brutal.

Panzerwerfer is also good (and can be kept safe from Jackson).


Invest in countering his inf and Jackson is useless. It may be overperforming, but its not an I win button. Also I use Tigers mostly when I can put them in urban areas which negates range advantage of TDs.

s mines lol u have to be blind to not see the sign

IMO, reduce its accuracy/pen at long range. It can still plink away at range if it really has to (ie, dealing with KT on narrow 2v2 maps), but would function best at shorter ranges where there's more opportunity for counterplay.

remove moving accurracy bonus and the huge view range...and all is fine...

it has more view range than some tanks has shoot range...and the ever-hit-on-move-bonus make it even more worse

s mines lol u have to be blind to not see the sign

S mines win games, they are honestly so good and should not be overlooked.

You can place them on some of his flanking routes, forcing him into your MGs and helping you win engagements much easier.

Sneak pioneer behind and place on retreat path for easy wipes (easy in 1V1).

Put them in hard to spot locations like between buildings and hedges.


People don't realise that sometimes to counter something strong you must focus on the other part of his army. Kinda like facing a Tiger Ace and trying to wipe his inf for bleed.

S mines win games, they are honestly so good and should not be overlooked.

I guess then that MPD-6 mines also win games.

S mines win games, they are honestly so good and should not be overlooked.

You can place them on some of his flanking routes, forcing him into your MGs and helping you win engagements much easier.

Sneak pioneer behind and place on retreat path for easy wipes (easy in 1V1).

Put them in hard to spot locations like between buildings and hedges.


People don't realise that sometimes to counter something strong you must focus on the other part of his army. Kinda like facing a Tiger Ace and trying to wipe his inf for bleed.

You seem to flood alot of munitions as ostheer. Versus above average Playes minefields get cleared via every kind of vehicle, sweepers or indirect fire 4/5 times. As tradeoff your infantry has still stock rifles, your tanks dont have a pintle mg and doctrine abilities are overrated anyway. And who the fuck needs tellermines.

You seem to flood alot of munitions as ostheer. Versus above average Playes minefields get cleared via every kind of vehicle, sweepers or indirect fire 4/5 times. As tradeoff your infantry has still stock rifles, your tanks dont have a pintle mg and doctrine abilities are overrated anyway. And who the fuck needs tellermines.

One or two well placed minefields is affordable and can make a big difference vs USA spam. Its best to place them defensivley where its hard work for detectors to clear them (appart from retreat paths which is a cheeky one, need good timming though).

s mines lol u have to be blind to not see the sign

Even if he did see the sign, they still help win engagements by defending an MGs flank etc. Once you know hes seen it, just send somthing to see off any engies that come.