OKW infantry anti-tank is not sufficient

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 18:02 PMferwiner

nobody bases the ballance around unsupported TDs.

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 16:48 PMKatitof

Quite positive Warp Shift ability was removed from it some time ago.
But I'm not going to bet a hand on that.

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 18:42 PMelchino7

I thought we were talking about back in the past.

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 18:48 PMKatitof

I don't really know what we're talking about anymore.

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 12:42 PMKatitof

Plus, that is my exact point, why get JP4 when panther was vastly superior and barely more expensive back then?

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 19:00 PMelchino7

Back then, cammo micro + possibility of practically auto win tank combats at vet 5 (specially against USF) was the reason you would pick a JPIV. Not 100% sure but stealth changes only fixed the component of been able to insta toggle the cammo, not the "invulnerable" component. Couldn't find it on the changelog.

Jump back to quoted post16 Feb 2018, 17:02 PMFlyingWalrus

Trying to be as objective as possible here.

After the last patch, came a nerf to the OKW panther and KT. This is fine, since both of those units were extremely effective/ hard to deal with. However, these units were so prevalent due to the underlying issue of the current OKW: terrible AT options. As of now, OKW has only the raketenwerfer and the sturmpios shreck upgrade to deal with tanks. The rakenten CAN cloak AND retreat, which is helpful obviously but with it still suffers from its embarrassingly low range. Sturmpios only get 1 shreck, and are so soft that they can be easily wiped in the open by tanks, infantry, and any indirect fire. This means that units anti infy tanks and tank destroyers like the churchill croc, the firefly, the kv8, the centaur, the jackson overperform against OKW. Tanks like the centaur can obliterate a raketen/pios often before it gets more than 1 shot off. Therefore, as long as a single allied AT gun is in support these tanks have free reign even in the mid to late game. Tank destroyers can't be attacked by infantry due to the poor range, so units like the KT are very difficult to use against a competent allied player. The OP panther and KT were a hole that was filling the one that was left by the OKW infantry, and with that gone, as an OKW player i se myself trying to rely on the PAK 43 for my anti-tank. Really not sure why the raketen isn't replaced by the PAK 40, since at it's current performance the OKW really struggle in that regard.

Just my two-cents. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 19:18 PMKatitof

Alright, I'm back on track.

True that, old JP4 with phasing camo and "I 2 shot your KV-2 now" was pretty damn good, but Panther won most picks due to ease of use as it was much more forgiving with Warp Speed, I mean Combat Blitz back then, when it ignored engine damage as well as aforementioned cost of panther not being that much higher.

Oh and THE most important thing why JP4 was a thing back then, it was in battlegroup HQ and you did not needed T4 for it, it could arrive extremely early, even with OKW weird economy. Everpresent shreckvolkblob also made JP4 much more forgiving as there was no way to flank it and get out alive.

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 08:49 AMzarok47

So was okw truck system at release, shall we go back to that?

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 18:02 PMferwiner

nobody bases the ballance around unsupported TDs.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 06:53 AMullumulu

this is the joke: jackson can be good even unsupportet. They can spot for itsself and see what is around them.

i often can play with 2 jackson to flank with them the enemy and kill 1 medium....and run fast back with no problem.

jackson are so mobil, have good suvivabilty, and very fast that is no problem to deal with th armor and maybe one Atgun. the atgun is easy overrun and can get maybe 1-2 hit till the medium is down and you rushing back to your own base.

try this with 2 jpz4.

Jump back to quoted post26 Feb 2018, 10:18 AMullumulu

how could a jpz4 better than jackson in defense? a jackson need only sight on a german armor and can now kit them. because they outrange them with huge range, huge view range and high mobility.

all of that the jpz4 have not. (except same shot range)..it has only higher armor and a lil bit faster reload.

a jpz4 on defence is helpless without support..it cant see anything alone, is slow, has bad accur while moving and is easy flankable...how could it be better? maybe in hose where no tanks can flank you...but most maps have very good flankable positons.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 06:54 AMFiresparks

the jp4 get 45 sight cone 45 degree to the front with a 60m gun.

the jackson have 40 360 degree sight with a 60m gun. At vet 3 it get another 5 meter sight.

the Jackson shouldn't be out ranging the jp4.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 07:10 AMullumulu

who make head on head fight with a jackson vs a jpz4? you can easily flank me and kill my jp4 with get only 1-2 hits.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 07:42 AMEsxile

Good players tend to cover their JP4 flanks.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 08:04 AMullumulu

you must read the other posts.. it goes around a head on head fight vs this two TDs. not in a realistic game fight. a static arraged fight...a jackson will win..every time.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 08:07 AMEsxile

VS you only. I have played enough matchup USF vs OKW to tell you sometime Jackson wins, sometime JP4 wins. It is all about skill.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 06:54 AMFiresparks

the jp4 get 45 sight cone 45 degree to the front with a 60m gun.

the jackson have 40 360 degree sight with a 60m gun. At vet 3 it get another 5 meter sight.

the Jackson shouldn't be out ranging the jp4.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 09:51 AMLiberalPerturabo

>Topic about the fact that OKW lacks proper AT and that's a real balance issue
>Instant reply that you can build a TD in T4 so it's somehow fine (lolwut?)
>jp4 is really lackluster and it doesn't even adress the topic's point. Also jackson is a thing
>lol just cover jp's flanks, it's ez pz if ur good
>The whole topic is literally about how OKW's non-vehicle based AT sucks therefore you can't cover anything properly

Welp, looks like the circle of braindead fanboyism is finally complete. Shall we start again then?

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 09:51 AMLiberalPerturabo

>Topic about the fact that OKW lacks proper AT and that's a real balance issue
>Instant reply that you can build a TD in T4 so it's somehow fine (lolwut?)
>jp4 is really lackluster and it doesn't even adress the topic's point. Also jackson is a thing
>lol just cover jp's flanks, it's ez pz if ur good
>The whole topic is literally about how OKW's non-vehicle based AT sucks therefore you can't cover anything properly

Welp, looks like the circle of braindead fanboyism is finally complete. Shall we start again then?