M36 Jackson

The big difference between TDs of all kinds and the thing they are meant to counter is that if the TD wins, then the infantry now must win their fight as well in order to win the whole fight. If the tanks beat the TDs, then it’s pretty much game over for the infantry the TDs we’re supporting.

This is why the Jackson must always win vs tanks of all kinds in the games current state. It’s just the nature of TD play that necessitates it. If you want to have a less do-all anti-armor TD for USF then they need another TD.

Each tier of each faction is supposed to be equipped to deal with the next higher tier of their opponent, in the defensive. This is why PaK40s clobber Soviet T-34s and SU-76s can fight Panzer IVs.

Soviet and WM teching is a great place to look for how the tiers are supposed to stack.

To apply this to USF, I still say add the M10 to Captain tech. M10s then can fight the Panzer IVs is USF falls behind, but WM or OKW can counter them by either getting a heavy that cannot be easily beaten by an M10 or anything else in Captain tech, or they can switch gears and play a heavy infantry style with multiple squads of Obersoldaten that can’t be fought by the M10.

By adding the M10 to USF tech, it allows for better counterplay by all sides, incentivizes back teching to Captain (if WM spams Panzer IVs and you went LT straight to Major for example) and it allows the Jackson to be given a rebalancing in order to make it counter heavies only.

More Rock Paper Scissors gameplay for all sides and more variety of tech choices.

I know, it’s a good idea. You can thank me later. No big deal. lol

It's a good solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Are you stating a fact or expressing your opinion?

If, as you suggest, you give the Jackson one set of shells for heavies and one set of shells for mediums, you can balance them independently and change the performance of one without changing the performance of the other. You trade simplicity for flexibility.

No you simply balance the performance of the unit vs medium and super heavies separately, it does not have to do with simplicity or flexibility.

An alternative would be to increase the target size of Super heavies and reduce the size of mediums so that it has a good chance to hit Super heavy and bounces and will always penetrate mediums and some time miss.

But there isn't widespread agreement that there's anything wrong with the Jackson vs Panzer IV matchup in the first place. You think there is, yes, but it doesn't seem to be a common viewpoint.

Are you stating a fact or expressing your own personal opinion?

If you have any stat on how many people think there is something wrong with Jackson vs Panzer IV and how many people think there is nothing wrong with it pls share.

Finally how much weight do you put in "common viewpoint" when ti comes to balance? I know some people who have turned claiming that only Top player opinion matter when it comes to balance into a carrier.

Like what? The Jackson, by necessity, is a cost efficient nondoctrinal counter to every enemy vehicle.

• It beats both Panzer IVs unless they can get in close without being hit, in which case it's a fair fight.
  
• All things considered it's a fair fight against the more expensive Panther.
  
• The StuG can only attack frontally and has 50 range. A vetted Jackson three-shots it.

And all those assume the Jackson has no support to fall back to.

That only really leaves the JPIV.

Maybe that's the answer? Leave the Jackson be and buff the range on the StuG? Even the SU-76 has 60 range.

That way both OKW and OST have a unit that can trade efficiently with a Jackson at range, but both those units are casemates that can be circlestrafed and outmaneuvered up close?

Like pzshreck and pak40 that always pen jacksons. (or almost) I mean it is not like USF had could fight so easily the panther with zooks and ATG without spending a shitone of munition in the balance.

In my opinion, you'r taking the Jackson's design from the wrong side, Jackson isn't the cause but the consequence of Axis medium tanks powercreep. The jackson would be fine to be only good at countering panthers and KT/T/ST (and being more expensive) if the sherman was able to counter both Pz4.

In my opinion there is a design flaw with USF and Axis faction. Both axis factions have access to medium tank destroyers to counter medium tanks but still both Pz4 are superior in duel with the Sherman. So nobody really build more than 1 sherman and exclusively for AI, then nobody build medium TD but only Pz4 and since USF only has the Jackson... well you end up only building Jacksons for your late game because sherman suck hard in AT even vs Pz4.

My solution is that the food chain should be the contrary between the sherman and Pz4s first, then Medium TDs counter the sherman and then making Jacksons only good vs Panther and heavy tanks.

So in conclusion you have
Medium fight = Axis TD > Sherman > Both Pz4s
Heavy fight = Panther/heavy tanks = Jacksons
With the sherman superior to Pz4 and Jacksons only good vs Panther, the USF players would use much more their sherman and Axis their medium TDs. So less Jacksons and also less Panther on the field. Everyone is happy!

I can agree with you, but if you let me add a little detail. M36 are very good and useful TD, versatile to say the least, able to dominate the tank territory (unless they get outnumbered, of course).
If they were to be so good that risking some of the midgame is worth to get a jackson in time or that it is so useful it can turn tides in lategame because axis tank are bein pray instead of predator, then we have a usf metagame that centers about the jackson instead of a usf starving of AT tools.
Its perfectly fine for tides to turn, but the only and best tool to get that done is for the USF, the jacksons. There is a before and after a jackson field the game, not to mention when 2 of them are present.

In other words, USF is not lacking of AT tools, its that jacksons are so worth they force most of the sensible players to rush and get one ASAP. I've seen lots of complaints of USF players of the grenade and racks sidetech, only because they slow the jackson timing.

On the other side, As long as axis superheavys have to be countered by other tanks and TD (and not other game mechanics), jacksons are a necesary evil. But an evil unit aswell. Sadly there is no simple solution for this, there has been countless threads about jacksons. But this might get things right for once, i hope. Maybe if M36 can find itself a good spot between the other allied TD we can call it a day.

As i said earlier, USF mechanic is to have unit upgrades and lots of muni price tags, to enable them to adapt and punch hard at the same time. Most units are cost effective to allow high risk plays to be often executed and force trades that will mostly corner axis.

Hm I can't agree with that. I think the fundamental problem lies in the other options of USF not cutting it. The Jackson is good, don't get me wrong. But it isn't the monster you make it out to be. If the other factors are not addressed, then the Jackson will need to have the same performance but with an increased price.

I can live with the JAckson's performance but i think the unit should lose "crew repair". Axis tanks can punished hard for attacks in terms of long repair times but the dedicated us counter to tanks can take damage, drive behind the lines and repair without pioneers.
Jackson should need rear echelons for repair like the pershing.

PIVs can and do beat jacksons. If you get two and flank a jackson, it will die very quickly. That the reverse is not true (shermans vs panthers) is one of the main reasons USF is forced to spam jacksons in the first place. If a single jackson shuts down a single PIV - it should, because it's A) a specialized tank destroyer, while PIV is a generalist medium and B) costs more; but what jacksons do not do is make PIVs obsolete, unless you let the USF player match you tank for tank.

If you're playing at an elo where your opponent can be flanked despite his unit being significantly faster and having 20 extra range (and you're also outnumbering him 2:1 in effective tank count AND he has no snares or AT guns), I'm not sure how much your balance opinions matter. Either that or matchmaking is really bad and you're getting opponents that aren't anywhere comparable in skill.

Jacksons are beastly and virtually uncounterable in 1v1, even though I'm certain most people here are talking about team games.

Look at your last sentence - it is incredibly illogical. You're pretty much acknowledging that to beat Jacksons, the Axis player needs to have an overwhelming armour advantage. Why on earth are we even assuming that Axis would have an overwhelming fuel advantage? In any case Jacksons do make P4s obsolete - they're going to get reduced to half health before they even start accelerating for a dive - and they're going to fail that dive because the Jackson is incredibly fast.

Even when I play with Pathfinders and have no snares (or mines) I've found it incredibly easy to escape from medium tank dives. The difficulty is with finishing them off without snares, but that's hardly the Jackson's fault. It was mine for choosing to skip Riflemen.

In my opinion there is a design flaw with USF and Axis faction. Both axis factions have access to medium tank destroyers to counter medium tanks but still both Pz4 are superior in duel with the Sherman. So nobody really build more than 1 sherman and exclusively for AI, then nobody build medium TD but only Pz4 and since USF only has the Jackson... well you end up only building Jacksons for your late game because sherman suck hard in AT even vs Pz4.

My solution is that the food chain should be the contrary between the sherman and Pz4s first, then Medium TDs counter the sherman and then making Jacksons only good vs Panther and heavy tanks.

So in conclusion you have
Medium fight = Axis TD > Sherman > Both Pz4s

Seems an interesting solution but requires a very very serious overhaul in terms of stats and costs. I hope you'd remember though that the OKW P4 costs 30 fuel more and doesn't have HE rounds, in-built smoke launchers, or 0.75 moving accuracy when adjusting those numbers. Shermans would need to be changed from AI beasts to being kinda like EZ8s.

Many USF players complain about Shermans being bad at AT while ignoring the fact that HE Shermans have a ridiculously high AOE of 4 - I basically use Shermans exclusively to bleed/wipe (like a super T70), and use Jacksons for the AT role. Wouldn't mind that dynamic being changed, might make the game more interesting.

Are you stating a fact or expressing your opinion?

I think pretty much everything involved in balancing the game at this point is opinion. The only facts the balance team has to work with are unit stats.

No you simply balance the performance of the unit vs medium and super heavies separately, it does not have to do with simplicity or flexibility.

I mean switchable rounds are more complicated than non-switchable rounds.

I don't think that's a contentious statement.

Are you stating a fact or expressing your own personal opinion?

If you have any stat on how many people think there is something wrong with Jackson vs Panzer IV and how many people think there is nothing wrong with it pls share.

A rough impression from reading the forums. You're the only person I recall complaining about the Jackson/P4 matchup.

Finally how much weight do you put in "common viewpoint" when ti comes to balance? I know some people who have turned claiming that only Top player opinion matter when it comes to balance into a carrier.

Now that's a question and a half.

Empirically, I'd say Relic's current method has worked so far.

I think pretty much everything involved in balancing the game at this point is opinion. The only facts the balance team has to work with are unit stats.



I mean switchable rounds are more complicated than non-switchable rounds.

I don't think that's a contentious statement.



A rough impression from reading the forums. You're the only person I recall complaining about the Jackson/P4 matchup.



Now that's a question and a half.

Empirically, I'd say Relic's current method has worked so far.

Ok then imo the current performance of the M36 makes PzIV obsolete even when the PzIV is vetted.
That imo is problem because the PzIV is can not be refunded and end up either being drug taking up pop or feeding experience to the M36. (the problem affect other units also and not just m36/PzIV)

A solution imo are the different types of munition. This solution imo does not affect the M36 Panther relationship and should be rather easy to implement.

Now if I understand your point of view the relationship between PzIV is not an issue.

Would in your opinion the relationship be an issue if the M36 gun had the stug's characteristics or Su-76 or M10?

Is your only objection that it will make the of M36 more complicated for the user?

Because if that is the issue one can simply not switch munition as someone using the Sherman vs AI can choose not load HE but keep the AP that still get the job done vs AI. After all it will be an option.

What is Relic current method?, I am sincerely curious. It used to have a developer and closed beta team and then switched to open betas/previews. I am pretty sure it is not "voting" to find the common viewpoint on everything.

USF more than any other faction are supposed to rely on their tank destroyers to fight tanks. Of course in real life the M4A3 Sherman Medium tank was equal or better than the Panzer IV in basically every way (and I am talking about the short barreled Sherman vs the Panzer IV with the KwK 40 L/43 gun too), but that’s not how the game works so let’s move on.

Basically the real US doctrine of using tanks to attack and TDs to counterattack against enemy armor is reflected in game by making the standard Sherman the best medium tank for attacking enemy infantry with its HE rounds, while making the Jackson your go to for fighting enemy tanks.

I would be interested in seeing play testing where both players were banned from using TDs, USF vs WM, where both players could use only M4 Shermans and Panzer IVs as your armored units. I think you’d find that both factions tanks perform well enough against each other when supported properly.

This supports my opinion that the Jackson is a result of the OKW tanks and WM Panther and Heavy tanks, that the Sherman just can’t fight in game.

By adding the M10 to Captain tier and rebalancing the Jackson to be a dedicated heavy killer and the M10 to be like it is now, a cost effective medium hunter, you open up more play styles and room for counter play by both sides where it doesn’t necessarily have to devolve into Jackson vs Panther in the late game.

Sherman vs Panzer IV should be about equal. Same as Sherman vs StuG and Panzer IV vs M10, but the TD is cost effective and serves as your comeback and counterplay unit.

To hard counter too many Shermans you get a Panther. To counter a Panther you get a Jackson. To counter the Jackson you go back to Panzer IVs or StuGs to be more cost effective. To counter the Panzer IVs you get either Shermans or M10s to equalize or counter with cost effectiveness depending on your resources available. Doctrinal only units like the Easy Eight and Sherman 76 should allow the Shermans to fight Panthers and beat Panzer IVs, but it wouldn’t upset the overall dynamic between Panzers, StuGs, Panthers, Shermans, M10s and Jacksons.

But this only works if you have a non doctrinal M10 at the Captain level. Other wise it’s just Jacksons all the way if you face any German armor and you want to win.

Is your only objection that it will make the of M36 more complicated for the user?

If the Jackson needs to be balanced separately against mediums and heavies, then switchable rounds are a solution.

If the Jackson doesn't need to be balanced separately against mediums, then switchable rounds are an unnecessary complication.

I think the Jackson/Panzer IV interplay is fine. You don't. Therefore we disagree on switchable rounds.

What is Relic current method?, I am sincerely curious. It used to have a developer and closed beta team and then switched to open betas/previews. I am pretty sure it is not "voting" to find the common viewpoint on everything.

Their current approach is for balancing decisions to be made by a broad panel of experts: the Balance Team. They take feedback from the community in general but make all the final decisions based on collective judgement and discussion.

If you're playing at an elo where your opponent can be flanked despite his unit being significantly faster and having 20 extra range (and you're also outnumbering him 2:1 in effective tank count AND he has no snares or AT guns), I'm not sure how much your balance opinions matter. Either that or matchmaking is really bad and you're getting opponents that aren't anywhere comparable in skill.

Jacksons are beastly and virtually uncounterable in 1v1, even though I'm certain most people here are talking about team games.

Look at your last sentence - it is incredibly illogical. You're pretty much acknowledging that to beat Jacksons, the Axis player needs to have an overwhelming armour advantage. Why on earth are we even assuming that Axis would have an overwhelming fuel advantage? In any case Jacksons do make P4s obsolete - they're going to get reduced to half health before they even start accelerating for a dive - and they're going to fail that dive because the Jackson is incredibly fast.

Even when I play with Pathfinders and have no snares (or mines) I've found it incredibly easy to escape from medium tank dives. The difficulty is with finishing them off without snares, but that's hardly the Jackson's fault. It was mine for choosing to skip Riflemen.

Jackson is not significantly faster than PIVs, they have a .2 difference in top speed. The only difference is Jackson accelerates faster. And apparently you're at the ELO where you think flanking is accomplished by driving directly into the middle of the enemy's forces to get at their tank, so I can understand why you would think that's a problem. And you don't need an overwhelming advantage to beat jacksons, only a minor one, but even if you did, why exactly should generalist mediums be any better at beating specialized tank destroyers? Is having nearly the same top speed, almost guaranteed penetration, and enough damage to wipe them out in the same hits your PIV can take against it not enough for you to figure out how to beat them?

If the Jackson needs to be balanced separately against mediums and heavies, then switchable rounds are a solution.

If the Jackson doesn't need to be balanced separately against mediums, then switchable rounds are an unnecessary complication.

I think the Jackson/Panzer IV interplay is fine. You don't. Therefore we disagree on switchable rounds.

That is an accurate description but the complication i.y.o. is it in making the patch or to user and is it big complication or a small one?

At this point I have to point out that the change might have effect beyond the m36. It probable that is will make other options like the Easy8, Sherman 76 and m10 more attractive and thus increase built diversity.

Their current approach is for balancing decisions to be made by a broad panel of experts: the Balance Team. They take feedback from the community in general but make all the final decisions based on collective judgement and discussion.

If the opinion of broad panel of experts is what matters, why do we even bring up the "common viewpoint"?

I brought up something to the attention of the panel of experts they can decide if it is something worth changing. It should make little difference if it the majority of users, half of the user, a small minority or simply me.

For instance the crush capability of the valentine was only brought up by me as far as I know yet a change was implemented or the rear armor of the OKW PzIV was again only brought up by me and it seem it going to be implemented.

Jackson is not significantly faster than PIVs, they have a .2 difference in top speed. The only difference is Jackson accelerates faster. And apparently you're at the ELO where you think flanking is accomplished by driving directly into the middle of the enemy's forces to get at their tank, so I can understand why you would think that's a problem. And you don't need an overwhelming advantage to beat jacksons, only a minor one, but even if you did, why exactly should generalist mediums be any better at beating specialized tank destroyers? Is having nearly the same top speed, almost guaranteed penetration, and enough damage to wipe them out in the same hits your PIV can take against it not enough for you to figure out how to beat them?

Imo you should take into account more parameters and their effects:

For instance:
The chance to hit and penetrate on the move for both vehicles
The chance to score collision hits when one misses
The importance of acceleration when traversing terrain and when using glide shots

If the USF snare wasn't so trash, USF's shermans easily being wiped by the panthers, then maybe nerf the USF's only decent non-doctrinal tank.

I mean, when you compare both faction's mediums to their counterpart's tank destroyers: pz4 to a jackson and sherman to a panther, pz4 at least has a chance if it is in range, sherman has none against a panther, I think you can see why jackson has the stats it has right now and any nerf to jackson is a huge nerf for whole USF

This thread is officially out of sense. Sadly. People saying that 2 shermans cant beat a panther is worrying. Even though 2 Pz4 can kill a M36, no one takes account of moving acc, armor and such, making it a RNG duel too. Because you sometimes can loose a Pz4 meanwhile chasing the M36. And sadly none of those duels happen in a void battlefield. They all have supporting infantry. And the attacking side has the disadvantage. Same can be considered when 2 shermans attack a panther too.

Opportunity/Luck/stats favout M36 in all situations, fictional and real game.

To remove jacksons fast healing sounds good.

Finally, to those who say i just want to 'nerf' jacksons. The metagame is already stale of heavy TD dominating and many new additions dont appear normally because of the 'easiest' route to simply get a jackson and solve the rest with inf and support weapons. That is the balance flaw. Jacksons are not needed to be OP, USF players are simply accustomed to that.

Discussions of performance forget to take 2 crucial factors into account that have nothing to do with he unit: 0.75 moving accuracy modifier and crew repais. This means that if you take the exact same unit, say a panther, and give it to both a usf and okw faction, the usf one has a huge advantage in offensive capability and repair times by default due to the faction design.

Just leave it or start usf balance rollercoaster again just to make people like viper happy. Now i just wait for scott nerf thread. I hope mod team knows better what is good for balance

Strange question here: the kv series has a damage reduction so that they repair more quickly.... Is it possible to adjust received damage to the Jackson so that it simply takes longer to repair? (adjusting hard HP so that EHP remains the same)

Strange question here: the kv series has a damage reduction so that they repair more quickly.... Is it possible to adjust received damage to the Jackson so that it simply takes longer to repair? (adjusting hard HP so that EHP remains the same)

Could just nerf the crew repairs to dust. OP as shit anyways.