M36 Jackson

...

1. Here you have it.

2. You ever played Scott?

3. You ever played the game? Scott will hit on the move, it will hot with attack ground. It is op.

...

No, Axis team lost because OKW player was not playing in the same level in that game as the OH, USF and UKF one.

-If you float 600/800 munition while the rest of the 3 players are constantly using nades, smoke and commander abilities, you deserve the loss.

-If you are not making coordinating pushes and assisting each other, you deserve to lose when the enemy 2v1 you.

-If you build the wrong units and recrew units filling popcap which you don't need, you will lose. OH adapts perfectly with triple PG camo shreck when the enemy comp is basically full tanks.
Do you need SIX MGs to counter a single Rifle and 3 IS ?
SP with shreck are not the most cost effective unit, but if you are facing tanks with 0 AI you might as well help your units to take them down. You might be able to use some of that munition to put mines to help against the tanks base rushing you ? LM died quite long ago.

-If you lose the veterancy on your tanks while the enemy holds their own, guess who ends up having a more effective army ?

The game could had gone for any side till the end. OKW getting his army wiped constantly was the reason they finally lost. In that last push, if he had more support from his infantry covering his raks maybe he would had been able to save one of his tanks or at least trade with the whole USF tank army, instead of gifting his CMD PV.

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?

The Jackson's vastly superior acceleration was obviously intended as part of my definition of "faster". If you've ever played the actual game itself with as much proficiency as you have pedantry, you would realise that acceleration is many times more important than max speed when it comes to kiting.

Yeah sure, at least on my playercard I'm top 100 or so in all 5 factions, while you're a rank 5000 one-faction neanderthal who thinks it's somehow feasible to simply encircle the Jackson from 6 directions while your opponent goes afk for the next 10 minutes.

If you think having 20 additional range, vastly superior acceleration, and higher top speed with 100% pen chance is only a "minor advantage", I'm not even sure how to describe the elo you're playing at. I can speak for a reasonably high level of 1v1 play - unlike you, and the Jackson in a rank 100 player's hands can effortlessly kite a P4 being controlled by a top 10 player.

Watching streams of top 1v1 players, I hardly ever see them manage to acquire the "minor" advantage of being able to teleport within knife range of a Jackson which has no infantry or AT support nearby. Like I said, even when I've gone Pathfinders (no snares) my Jackson can easily pull back from a P4 attempting to dive to close range, or just win the tank fight outright.

No one was taking the illogical extreme that P4s should stomp Jacksons - that would obviously be ridiculous. The fact of the current game though is that Jacksons hard-counter mediums so hard it's not funny even when you're the USF player. It definitely needs either an accel + speed nerf or a ROF nerf.

https://youtu.be/lhzZ4rL5wjQ

What do you guys think about this game?
Double jackson double firefly shut down triple panthers without a sweat. We can talk all day of panther armor and hp, but vetted alllies td simply scale way better and ignore everything. Look at the number of shots panthers suffered out of counter range.
[...]

Notable moments:

Misplay by OKW player that results in trade of Command Panther for 2 M4A2 76(W) Shermans https://youtu.be/lhzZ4rL5wjQ?t=2403

Greedy play results in losing overextended Panther by OST player https://youtu.be/lhzZ4rL5wjQ?t=2645

Right after that another greedy play and bad raketen micro by OKW player (could take out one Jackson easily) results in another Command Panther traded for Sherman in 1 vs 2 players engagement. Right after that his OST teammate almost lost his already damaged Panther too trying to help him.
https://youtu.be/lhzZ4rL5wjQ?t=2697

I'd say they've lost mostly because OKW player was less experienced than other 3 players.

Of course this is true.
Without M36 USF could only fight mediums at best, because Stuarts and the US Pak do not have the pen to deal with anything heavier than a Stug. So the M36 needs the pen to damage a Panther and even heavier. It's not well designed, but that's what we got.

Yes the M36 should be able to fight the Panther and heavier.

On the other hand it should not be able to Penetrate the Panther with 100% chance to hit and penetrate at range 60 nor it should be able to completely shut down the PzIV.

Superior allied infatry and TDs that can penetrate axis armor from range 60 is bad designed that reduce the diversity of built orders.

Yes the M36 should be able to fight the Panther and heavier.

On the other hand it should not be able to Penetrate the Panther with 100% chance to hit and penetrate at range 60 nor it should be able to completely shut down the PzIV.

Superior allied infatry and TDs that can penetrate axis armor from range 60 is bad designed that reduce the diversity of built orders.

The Jackson vs Panther dynamic's already fine. The Panther has the edge within 50 metres, so the Jackson has to leverage its extra range. It's a lot like SU-76 vs Panzer IV.

A token penetration adjustment adds annoying low probability bounces without making the Panther meaningfully stronger. A more substantial adjustment would give the Panther a universal edge, turning it into a vehicle that counters the entire USF motor pool.

And the shutting down the Panzer IV thing is total bullshit. The Panzer IV is a generalist tank: it can still fight infantry.

The Jackson vs Panther dynamic's already fine. The Panther has the edge within 50 metres, so the Jackson has to leverage its extra range. It's a lot like SU-76 vs Panzer IV.

The m36 has will still have edge because it has range even without 100% chance to hit and penetrate at range 60. It current penetration value make even the HVAP round a noob trap ability, a player has little reason to use it other than damage (which is situational).

A token penetration adjustment adds annoying low probability bounces without making the Panther meaningfully stronger. A more substantial adjustment would give the Panther a universal edge, turning it into a vehicle that counters the entire USF motor pool.

The game is design around probabilities it is not AOE.

Middle ground exist, in balance there is not only OP and UP.

And the shutting down the Panzer IV thing is total bullshit. The Panzer IV is a generalist tank: it can still fight infantry.

You are entitle to your opinion but so are others PLS mind the language.

PzIV can not fight infatry if that infatry is supported by M36.

If M10/Stug/SU-76 are enough to fight a mediums there is little reason why M36 should be even more effective than those.

USF have access to very cost efficient unit and the only reason one does not seem them is that M36 is so good vs every enemy vehicle. The performance of the M36 vs mediums not only make mediums a bad choice for axis but also for allies and it make "infatry/TD" the optimum strategy.

Buff pz4 rof so it can consistently beat m36.
No more issues

The m36 has will still have edge because it has range even without 100% chance to hit and penetrate at range 60. It current penetration value make even the HVAP round a noob trap ability, a player has little reason to use it other than damage (which is situational).

It has that penetration so it can deal with heavy tanks.

The game is design around probabilities it is not AOE.
Middle ground exist, in balance there is not only OP and UP.

I mean the tanks are already well balanced against each other. If you make the Panther better against the Jackson, then you give the Panther an edge.

If you give the Panther an edge, then USF has no stock answer to it.

You are entitle to your opinion but so are others PLS mind the language.

I apologise.

PzIV can not fight infatry if that infatry is supported by M36.

It can. The Jackson isn't going to one-shot it.

You can play a Panzer IV into a Jackson the same way you can play a Centaur into a Panzer IV. You keep AT support nearby, and when your anti-infantry vehicle takes too much heat you pull it back to safety. Repair, repeat.

If M10/Stug/SU-76 are enough to fight a mediums there is little reason why M36 should be even more effective than those.

Is it? Based on the numbers I'd say it's about the same.

USF have access to very cost efficient unit and the only reason one does not seem them is that M36 is so good vs every enemy vehicle. The performance of the M36 vs mediums not only make mediums a bad choice for axis but also for allies and it make "infatry/TD" the optimum strategy

I don't think nerfing the Jackson against medium tanks would change that. If the enemy is building medium tanks and USF has the infantry advantage, it's going to go for a tank destroyer anyway. Why build anti-infantry vehicles when you're already winning the infantry battle?

In contrast, Ostheer is usually losing the infantry battle at that point, so it desperately wants the P4.

It has that penetration so it can deal with heavy tanks.

It has AP round vs Heavy tanks and since it has high penetration it does not needs accuracy and accuracy vet buff.

In addition Heavy tanks are slower thus it it can kite them. The point it does not need such high accuracy and penetration at range 60. The current numbers simply do no make sense.
A) the units optimum range is 60 vs nearly all target and has no reason to move closer
B) the veterancy bonuses are wasted in most cases since accuracy and penetration caps are exceeded
3) Vet ability is wasted since it reduce ROF and offer little in return while costing mu.

I mean the tanks are already well balanced against each other. If you make the Panther better against the Jackson, then you give the Panther an edge.

If you give the Panther an edge, then USF has no stock answer to it.

A) Panther is more expensive thus outnumbered
B) Panther has limited AI even it if defeats a M36 Ostheer wil have little to defeat the USF infatry
C) The suggestion is not that Panther should defeat the M36 but it should either be an XP source being hit and penetrate with 100% chance at Range 60. The current situation simply promote static play from USF player either their static play should become weaker or Ostheer offensive play should be buffed to above USF.

I apologise.

Apology accepted and I have to say "bravo" for it. It is refreshing and admirable to see it in this forum. It also understandable we all rage a bit at some point or another.

It can. The Jackson isn't going to one-shot it.

You can play a Panzer IV into a Jackson the same way you can play a Centaur into a Panzer IV. You keep AT support nearby, and when your anti-infantry vehicle takes too much heat you pull it back to safety. Repair, repeat.

Difference here is that PzIv has to close to range 40 and not 60. In order for that to work PzIV should have its armor vet bonus replaced with +5 range at vet 2 another +5 at vet 3.

Is it? Based on the numbers I'd say it's about the same.

Only Su-76 has range 60 and its DPS is far lower at that range. I suggest you do the calculations you might be surprised.

I don't think nerfing the Jackson against medium tanks would change that. If the enemy is building medium tanks and USF has the infantry advantage, it's going to go for a tank destroyer anyway. Why build anti-infantry vehicles when you're already winning the infantry battle?

In contrast, Ostheer is usually losing the infantry battle at that point, so it desperately wants the P4.

USF wouldn't have to built anti infatry vehicles like the Scott but they would a reason to all the Sherman models like Easy8, Dozer Sherman, 105mm Sherman, 76mm Sherman and the M10.

Exactly so Ostheer investment should be one that carrier in late game and PzIV should not simply be a shock unit that becomes obsolete even when vetted once FF/SU-85/M36 hit the field.

In the end of the day it Panther and Tiger is the issue simply delay the appearance and also delay the appearance of these Heavy TDs.

To summarize giving 100% chance to hit and Penetrate at range 60 vs the majority of target is bad design harming the diversity of unit built for both axis and allies.

It is probably unnecessary, there is also little evidence to support that the that reducing the effectiveness of there vehicles vs PzIVs or reducing the effectiveness of these vehicles at range 60 would be problematic. Even if does prove problematic is worth testing and reverting if no other solution is found since the change will sift the current boring meta.

Notable moments:

Misplay by OKW player that results in trade of Command Panther for 2 M4A2 76(W) Shermans https://youtu.be/lhzZ4rL5wjQ?t=2403

Greedy play results in losing overextended Panther by OST player https://youtu.be/lhzZ4rL5wjQ?t=2645

Right after that another greedy play and bad raketen micro by OKW player (could take out one Jackson easily) results in another Command Panther traded for Sherman in 1 vs 2 players engagement. Right after that his OST teammate almost lost his already damaged Panther too trying to help him.
https://youtu.be/lhzZ4rL5wjQ?t=2697

I'd say they've lost mostly because OKW player was less experienced than other 3 players.

To be fair the Okw player is already on 32 points while the Usf is 25. A reason to say Usf is playing passively. This has been my experience too, Td shut down any pushes to clear infantry. Just use Scott to snipe.

I dont think Okw is that inexperienced, he saw an opening to kill the scott and chases it, but panther moving accraucy + smaller scott target size + scott speed + smoke + hp, it is very frustating to hard counter this unit. And you know later, he will 1-click crew repair for free repair!

While okw panther stayed too long later, he tried to support with 2 raks, but you have 5 allies turret pointing at it! 2FF 2Jackson 1Ez8. Just before this encounter, the 4 Td knocks out 1 of 2 panthers chasing the slow churchill. The 60 range helps to contact faster, no way for panthers to escape out even AFTER engaging blitz!

Took 2 panthers + 1 PG shrek to kill 1 slow churchill in 25second. Which is enough time for allies Td to rotate and come over. The Okw player was dealing with the left VP earlier against Scott and Ez8, and probably waiting for repairs after being shot by Jackson(44:00). It is not easy to support if your enemies are camping in together in the middle, because they have 60 range and/or faster moving accruacy.

So you have the dynamics where expensive panther is totally exposed when making dives.

Btw 44:43, rear armor hit from the sides.

If you see the resources, Okw is manpower limited while Wehr is fuel limited to remake another panther. While Allies can stay away thanks to the range. On Veterancy, they dont even care about panther armor.

So are MGs.
Yet for some incomprehensible reason, infantry in HMG range is obsolete and can't do anything.

Thats absolutely untrue.

Apart from the fact that late game blobs can delete HMGs with LMGs, HMGs only counter infantry of course in its arc. If you were actually to make the HMG/M36 analogy fair, you would have to give the HMG a 360 degree arc or the m36 a cone like a casemate TD.

Thus a 360 degree hmg would be op in the same way a TD that counters everything in its 360 degree arc is OP.

Thats absolutely untrue.

Apart from the fact that late game blobs can delete HMGs with LMGs, HMGs only counter infantry of course in its arc. If you were actually to make the HMG/M36 analogy fair, you would have to give the HMG a 360 degree arc or the m36 a cone like a casemate TD.

Thus a 360 degree hmg would be op in the same way a TD that counters everything in its 360 degree arc is OP.

You've confused intended role of the unit with how its supposed to do it.

Presence of turret doesn't make jackson have different role then SU-85, both are intended to hardcounter everything that isn't an infantry and both are vulnerable to a flank(just one can attempt to defend itself, but it'll still die as P4 shoots faster and panther will outlast it without any effort).

...
Presence of turret doesn't make jackson have different role then SU-85, both are intended to hardcounter everything that isn't an infantry and both are vulnerable to a flank(just one can attempt to defend itself, but it'll still die as P4 shoots faster and panther will outlast it without any effort).

But katitof, you know that the turret on M36s allows them to reverse and aim and also its high moving acc enables them to deal more damage to the diving tank than the later mentioned one.
Its weakness (being flanked) is more like a trap instead, any other TD would have already lost the fight.
There is a double risk in hunting M36s than any other heavy TD and they also outperform panthers (wether we like it or not everyone uses them as a benchmark).

Make the sum: +1 great range and pen / +1 moving acc and speed / +1 fast repairing with crews
(Only if) -1 Too reliant on mobility (but so does almost all tanks)

Any other TD will have at least one flaw (Su-85; FF; M10) and costs for Jacksons is not comparable to panthers if they were to be nemesis, even if we lay out the entire teching and opening for US/Axis.

Panthers do put up a fight but they have fair disadvantages and they share one with M36s, being outnumbered.

Other solution would be go give stugs a long range snare. With no mobility jacksons become quite vulnerable.

My point is, a good unit withouth vulnerabilities its too dominant. The only viable solution is doctrinal heavy TDs for axis and they have been nerfed quite much and most commanders are out of the meta now.

My point is, a good unit withouth vulnerabilities its too dominant. The only viable solution is doctrinal heavy TDs for axis and they have been nerfed quite much and most commanders are out of the meta now.

The Jackson's vulnerable to non-vehicular AT. It'll also lose to its weight in light AT vehicles.

You've confused intended role of the unit with how its supposed to do it.

Presence of turret doesn't make jackson have different role then SU-85, both are intended to hardcounter everything that isn't an infantry and both are vulnerable to a flank(just one can attempt to defend itself, but it'll still die as P4 shoots faster and panther will outlast it without any effort).

Ah the mythical "intended role" that you use to wave away at any over/under performing unit. Wasn't the last time I checked, the "intended role" of a m36 was to be a 480 HP glass cannon?

And I dont know if you have actually used a tank with a turret (since you dont play the game) but having one absurdly adds to the role of a unit. Apart from the fact that a turret with a fast rotation speed (unlike the FF) makes flaking mildly pointless, having a turret adds this thing called maneuverability, useful when chasing tanks and performing flanks itself.

>

It'll also lose to its weight in light AT vehicles.

Two Pumas vs a M36 may win, but the Jackson still outrages the puma, is as fast and has better accuracy. I don't think there is anything two pumas can do to chase down and kill a Jackson if inf or AT support is in reverse range. I dont think building pumas vs a Jackson is a sustainable trade to be making.

Ah the mythical "intended role" that you use to wave away at any over/under performing unit. Wasn't the last time I checked, the "intended role" of a m36 was to be a 480 HP glass cannon?

Nope.
It was still a dedicated tank destroyer that was supposed to engage all armor.
It simply had different application then current one(as it couldn't even begin to contest any armor below 40 range).

different application

Different application = different intended role.

Unless of course you admit that "intended role" is just something you are making up, as you did not develop this game and thus actually dont know what the devs "intended"

Different application = different intended role.

Unless of course you admit that "intended role" is just something you are making up, as you did not develop this game and thus actually dont know what the devs "intended"

Nope.

Go compare soviet M5 Quad and OKW AA HT.
Both are AA vehicles that also suppress infantry.
They have the same role, but a different application of that role.

Same with maxim vs hmg42.

Same with LITERALLY ALL MAINLINE INFANTRIES - they ALL have the same role of factions mainline infantry and all have different combat application due to context of their position on the army, but cons aren't less of a mainline then grens just because cons can't a-move.

Same with jackson, su-85, firefly and panther - they all are supposed to hardcounter tanks(tank destroyer/hunter role) and they all do it in different ways.

There is an intended role of the unit and then there is HOW that unit is supposed to perform that role.

Nope

Yup, you are again just making up definitions to suit your needs. Since there is no objective listing of "intended roles" you are just trying to get away with subjective opinion as fact.