Login

russian armor

Jackson Overperforming

23 May 2018, 15:22 PM
#81
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

before changes jackson would lose a 1 vs 1 vs p4 (at 45 range) thanks to faster realod and hp but would deal with it well at range now it does both and has no real counter strategy other than cath it off guard (faster than PG and at guns), u can compare it to the jp4: one only counter medium armor can be flanked has limited vision and is slow so a sole t 34 can kill it alone, not the same can be said for the jackson

There’s this really cool thing called the panzerfaust. There’s another really cool thing called a mine. A lot of people seem to forget that sometimes it takes more than one unit to counter another unit. If the panther with much more armor and blitzkrieg is killable then so is the jackson.



Obviously there would be many stat changes to the M10 as well as teching price and building price adjustments. No shit just adding it to Captain tech would be OP.

Right now the M10 is more or less pointless being a doctrinal TD, tied to Major tech that is worse in pretty much every way compared to the Jackson.

A rework to make the M10 counter light vehicles and medium tanks while being tied to a lower tech (or multiple lower techs, such as building it from the Captain building but only once you’ve also bought the Lieutenant.)

This would allow the Jackson to become a TD that counters heavy tanks (high penetration and damage but a low rate of fire and long range) while the M10 has higher health, shorter range, less penetration but a higher rate of fire and better speed to allow it to out DPS a medium tank but not penetrate a heavy well enough to reliably counter it. Thus, Jackson doesn’t need to counter everything and Jackson and M10 can be counters with vehicle play if you pick the right type, without crippling US lategame.

How would you propose making it effective against mediums without completely destroying vehicles like the 222 and luchs though? Because if it’s able to do anything against mediums it would completely trash a poor 222 that it would hit the field like 1 minute after.
23 May 2018, 15:31 PM
#82
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1

old sight range jackson

His point was that the p4 cannot and never did shoot past 40 range, therefore it would be impossible for the p4 to win any engagement at a range of 45. Not sure if the old jackson sight range increased p4 range, but I highly doubt it ;)
23 May 2018, 15:36 PM
#83
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808




Obviously there would be many stat changes to the M10 as well as teching price and building price adjustments. No shit just adding it to Captain tech would be OP.

Right now the M10 is more or less pointless being a doctrinal TD, tied to Major tech that is worse in pretty much every way compared to the Jackson.

A rework to make the M10 counter light vehicles and medium tanks while being tied to a lower tech (or multiple lower techs, such as building it from the Captain building but only once you’ve also bought the Lieutenant.)

This would allow the Jackson to become a TD that counters heavy tanks (high penetration and damage but a low rate of fire and long range) while the M10 has higher health, shorter range, less penetration but a higher rate of fire and better speed to allow it to out DPS a medium tank but not penetrate a heavy well enough to reliably counter it. Thus, Jackson doesn’t need to counter everything and Jackson and M10 can be counters with vehicle play if you pick the right type, without crippling US lategame.


ppl (aka usf players) dont want the m10 to be reworked like ur suggesting because that would mean ther glorious Jackson will be nerfed, they wna keep it easy and have the Jackson completely shit on every other tank, though u do make a very good and better balanced suggestion.

Right now Jackson is blatantly OP, the mod team knows this hence ther attempts to nerf it since in team games its the only real tank they can rely on in the late game. I do hope ur suggestion does gets considered for the future
23 May 2018, 15:47 PM
#84
avatar of Mr.Flush

Posts: 450

I think the only way you can balance the jakson is giving usf an easy 8 in their standard roster, but the easy 8 is going to need a penetration buff at vet 1 or 2. The jakson could receive rate of fire nerf, but the jakson will need penetration increases to keep it performing the same vs heavies.
23 May 2018, 15:48 PM
#85
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474


His point was that the p4 cannot and never did shoot past 40 range, therefore it would be impossible for the p4 to win any engagement at a range of 45. Not sure if the old jackson sight range increased p4 range, but I highly doubt it ;)
by 45 i meant the starting fight range if i said 60 would u think that p4 had 60 range ? 45 would be the range where jackson could shoot first but still lose thanks to the high reload and the uselss 200 damage vs medium (at 60 jackson could win if all hit ty to the 2 extra shoot)
btw all this is behind the point ( that jackson still counter the p4 and now is much safer and faster in doing so)
23 May 2018, 15:54 PM
#86
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

Jackson is the only answer to Panthers/late game tank for US. AT guns dont cut it against T4 Wehrmacht when Panzerwerfer hits the field. If US had upgraded Sherman ability, than Jackson should be adjusted for such things.
23 May 2018, 16:07 PM
#87
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1

by 45 i meant the starting fight range if i said 60 would u think that p4 had 60 range ? 45 would be the range where jackson could shoot first but still lose thanks to the high reload and the uselss 200 damage vs medium (at 60 jackson could win if all hit ty to the 2 extra shoot)
btw all this is behind the point ( that jackson still counter the p4 and now is much safer and faster in doing so)

I completely agree with the statement, if there is another unit spotting for the jackson, but then the "old jackson sight range" has pretty much nothing to do with it since the jackson had 35, then 40 and now again 35 sight range. You need another unit to spot and then I 100% agree.
23 May 2018, 16:22 PM
#88
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


I completely agree with the statement, if there is another unit spotting for the jackson, but then the "old jackson sight range" has pretty much nothing to do with it since the jackson had 35, then 40 and now again 35 sight range. You need another unit to spot and then I 100% agree.


JUNE 21st BALANCE UPDATE (2016)
M36 Jackson

Developer Comments: Increased LOS to allow the M36 to better kite, locate and hunt enemy armor without boosting its firepower any further.

LOS from 35 to 40
Tank acceleration increased from 2.5 to 3
Veterancy 2 sight radius bonus changed from 30% to add 5

total sight for vet 2 M36 45 pre-patch, a bit more with bulletin (+2).
23 May 2018, 16:26 PM
#89
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 May 2018, 16:22 PMVipper


JUNE 21st BALANCE UPDATE (2016)
M36 Jackson

Developer Comments: Increased LOS to allow the M36 to better kite, locate and hunt enemy armor without boosting its firepower any further.

LOS from 35 to 40
Tank acceleration increased from 2.5 to 3
Veterancy 2 sight radius bonus changed from 30% to add 5

total sight for vet 2 M36 45 pre-patch, a bit more with bulletin.


I know the patch notes, pretty sure he meant a vet 0 jackson since at vet 2 jackson would get also -20% reload ;)

Since I love exercises like this, I ran the numbers. With the results I'm pretty sure he couldn't have meant a vet 2 jackson, since the difference in time to kill is 1.1 second, which is far to close to call since the p4 needs to bridge the distance to a jackson that is probably also starting to reverse. This is not a bet I would like to make since it can go either way, especially considering the p4's lower moving accuracy.



I have to wait and see to tell whether the jackson is too strong. The sight reversal might have been what was needed.
23 May 2018, 16:50 PM
#90
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



100/120/140

Not as good as I thought. Thanks for the correction. Perhaps that can be changed tho. Make the AP better at tanks and worse at infantry to make the shells more of a choice
23 May 2018, 17:06 PM
#91
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


...

You need to take into account ready aim, fire aim (they are the same for the 2 units), wind up, wind down and the reload min- reload max.
23 May 2018, 19:37 PM
#92
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1


There’s this really cool thing called the panzerfaust. There’s another really cool thing called a mine. A lot of people seem to forget that sometimes it takes more than one unit to counter another unit. If the panther with much more armor and blitzkrieg is killable then so is the jackson.

How would you propose making it effective against mediums without completely destroying vehicles like the 222 and luchs though? Because if it’s able to do anything against mediums it would completely trash a poor 222 that it would hit the field like 1 minute after.


Adjusting costs and timing.

You’re right. An M10 would absolutely wreck a 222 or Panzer II, and it should. But it would be possible to adjust the cost of the M10 in order to make it come late enough that light vehicles would still have a window of opportunity.

Basically I think the M10 and Jackson should function similar to how the SU-76 and SU-85 interact. One is a light/medium counter that is available earlier, but can’t effectively fight late game heavy tanks, and the other is a late game heavy tank destroyer that has the power and range to tackle Heavy tanks, but is more expensive and has a lower rate of fire that keeps it from being superior in every way. This should promote a mix of units if done well.

I understand that it requires a significant change to US teching and if done poorly it could result in how SU-76s used to be.
23 May 2018, 19:45 PM
#93
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1




I understand that it requires a significant change to US teching and if done poorly it could result in how SU-76s used to be.


There going to leave it as it is. Or the Jackson will be OP and USF playable or UP and USF unplayable. That's it.
23 May 2018, 19:53 PM
#94
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


....

Basically I think the M10 and Jackson should function similar to how the SU-76 and SU-85 interact. One is a light/medium counter that is available earlier, but can’t effectively fight late game heavy tanks, and the other is a late game heavy tank destroyer that has the power and range to tackle Heavy tanks, but is more expensive and has a lower rate of fire that keeps it from being superior in every way. This should promote a mix of units if done well.
...


Only both Stugs and Su-76 can fight heavy tanks adequately when in number and FF, M36, and Su-85 can fight medium tanks.
23 May 2018, 20:13 PM
#95
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

Yes, firefly and Jackson both can fight all types of vehicles because they are the USF and UKF sole TD that is non doctrinal.

StuG is also the Whers only actual TD. The Panther is sort of a TD/Heavy tank/Medium tank hybrid.

And yes, SU-76s can fight heavies in the late game in massed numbers, but they aren’t designed to do that. They should receive a slight penetration nerf in order to resolidify their role as a light/medium counter.

The comparison is in theory what the units are supposed to do, not an example of how that theory is being implemented currently.

Because, yeah, SU-76 is kinda OP and SU-85 is kinda meh. Lol
23 May 2018, 21:17 PM
#96
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Yes, firefly and Jackson both can fight all types of vehicles because they are the USF and UKF sole TD that is non doctrinal.

StuG is also the Whers only actual TD. The Panther is sort of a TD/Heavy tank/Medium tank hybrid.

And yes, SU-76s can fight heavies in the late game in massed numbers, but they aren’t designed to do that. They should receive a slight penetration nerf in order to resolidify their role as a light/medium counter.

The comparison is in theory what the units are supposed to do, not an example of how that theory is being implemented currently.

Because, yeah, SU-76 is kinda OP and SU-85 is kinda meh. Lol

Funny enough usf and UKF are also the only factions in the game that can turn LITERALLY any infantry they can field into an AT squad, and many of whom can are also 5 man squads or can be them.
23 May 2018, 21:40 PM
#97
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



Adjusting costs and timing.

You’re right. An M10 would absolutely wreck a 222 or Panzer II, and it should. But it would be possible to adjust the cost of the M10 in order to make it come late enough that light vehicles would still have a window of opportunity.

Basically I think the M10 and Jackson should function similar to how the SU-76 and SU-85 interact. One is a light/medium counter that is available earlier, but can’t effectively fight late game heavy tanks, and the other is a late game heavy tank destroyer that has the power and range to tackle Heavy tanks, but is more expensive and has a lower rate of fire that keeps it from being superior in every way. This should promote a mix of units if done well.

I understand that it requires a significant change to US teching and if done poorly it could result in how SU-76s used to be.

I think that might actually be a good idea if the M10 is properly adjusted but then there’s still the glaring issue of a large disparity between lt and captain as the lt wouldn’t have access to the M10 and would then only be able to use Shermans and Jacksons while the captain would have the fuller roster. IMO usf teaching should just be completely reworked to be linear. Usf was supposed to be a versatile faction in the first place, and it usually can’t even use all its units.
23 May 2018, 23:03 PM
#98
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

The idea of splitting OKW's T3 into two tech levels has been thrown around a few times and the same idea would apply well to the USF. Major's costs are halved from live and unlocks Scotts + M10s, upgrading Battalion Command (or whatever its called) for the other half unlocks Shermans and the old glass-cannon Jackson. Less on topic, but combine that with swapping the AT Gun and .50 cal in tech and USF tech wouldn't be half bad.
24 May 2018, 01:01 AM
#99
avatar of swordfisch

Posts: 138

Absoulte last thing the game needs is yet more tech tree shake ups. It already took almost 2 years to sort OKW out.

All the game needs from here is minor changes, eg current soviet sniper, making useless units useful (sexton, valentine)
24 May 2018, 02:03 AM
#100
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930




How much HP does the Jackson have?


480.

it was a three hit kill.

jump backJump back to quoted post23 May 2018, 07:36 AMzarok47


All great and dandy, but a high micro lategame tank is too much to handle for the average player (and quite alot of "top" players too) so that is why the jackson got it's hp buff.

So instead of focusing what went wrong, try to focus on how to fix it. Which is, as you stated, giving the jackson the same weakness as the firefly: slow speed and maybe slower turret rotation.



Sounds like a fun challenge, I'll do it for our next 2vs2 game.


The USF doesn't need to turn into the same brute force faction as the okw.

and the flak ht and puma are pretty survivable even into the late game. The smoke is one of the best ability in the game.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

467 users are online: 467 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM