Jackson needs some more buffs

Euhm

JK that got removed last year, my bad. Still dont think jackson should have .5

Making it miss more often just doesnt seem like a great way to balance it. Reload speed and cost make the most sense to me

He didn't make an argument he made a statement of fact. Most vehicles go up in range increments of 10, the ones that don't are things like Tigers and Comets not TDs

Range is not the way to nerf the Jackson, there's a reason that change got reverted



Maybe .65 like panther, but i see no reason for going straight down to standard tank moving accuracy

Tanks are being standardised to have 0.5 moving accuracy, why should the Jackson be exempt from it? in the past it couldnt pen certain tanks reliability from the front thus they needed the move acc to flank heavy tanks but with the buffs in penetration and hp over the years, ther is no justification for it to have 0.75 acc on the move.

Tanks are being standardised to have 0.5 moving accuracy, why should the Jackson be exempt from it? in the past it couldnt pen certain tanks reliability from the front thus they needed the move acc to flank heavy tanks but with the buffs in penetration and hp over the years, ther is no justification for it to have 0.75 acc on the move.

It also did 240 dmg back then, and could 3 shot medium tanks which it had no trouble penetrating

That's also not the reason for the moving acc multiplier. A) a the various Shermans have it too, it's a USF thing not the Jackson.

B) heavy tanks have massive target sizes so they're hard to miss, the moving accuracy had little to do with that

JK that got removed last year, my bad. Still dont think jackson should have .5

Making it miss more often just doesnt seem like a great way to balance it. Reload speed and cost make the most sense to me

That would just make it a more mobile firefly though wouldn't it that trades tulips for a crew.

I don't think that being omni potent but expensive is a good way to balance something so important as a TD. it needs an exploitable weakness (other TDs lack turrets, those with turrets lack mobility or range) being stupid expensive means that if the usf can't get the fuel they don't have a reliable vehicle counter or if they get it out something like stuka close air support could be worth its weight in gold by being bale to knock it out with it being so hard to replace.if its to be the only reliable way to fight tanks it needs to be accessible, if it's going to be accessible it can't be able to counter dives with ease even unsupported.

That would just make it a more mobile firefly though wouldn't it that trades tulips for a crew

Imo "more mobile" is a massive understatement

And i think it's currently better than the Firefly while costing less, that's the only reason i go for a cost change

I do like your suggestion from the previous page about making hvap more of a need less of a bonus, that's not a bad way to do it either

Limit jacksons to 1 per player, like KT, adjust cost if necessary...
Voila! Problemo resuelto!

i recommend swapping the prices of the jackson and the firefly... it is a much easier way to fix both vehicles

If the M10 was non-doctrinal you could do a lot more with the Jackson and make it work.

Jacksons are absolutely needed to counter the Panther and Axis heavy cats, which Shermans are entirely ineffectual at combatting and which can easily outmaneuver or (with exception of Panther, generally) even outfight AT guns unless built in bulk (subject to its own limitations). Often, particularly in team games, multiple Jacksons will be required. In this regard, any sort of nerf regarding damage capability seems unwise.

If it gets nerfed at all it should be a higher fuel cost, which pushes its availability back further towards the Panthers and etc it is required to counter. Even that's a little bit iffy to me. This thing has absolutely 0 AI capability, and seems to me just to do its job of destroying tanks, and actually reasonably well. A Jackson cannot lead a push or dive on an artillery piece, or soak up AT damage in the way that, say, a Panther can. Considering the flaws and weaknesses in the USF design it also seems reasonable to me that it could be the best TD at its price, as it's not like there aren't other units in this game miles better than their competitors at the same or comparative price (the MG42 comes to mind).

Of course, if the M10 was non-doctrinal, a price raise would be totally inconsequential, considering a budget TD exists to tackle lesser AFVs. Not saying it should be, but that'd solve a big part of this balance problem.

If you increase its price, Atgun needs to be in T0. I have the feeling people see the Jackson performance only though the teamgame scope.
USF is still the only faction that don't get reliable ATgun before the Jackson.

Dunno, maybe add an upgrade to the Stuart giving health/damage/penetration bonus so USF T1 wouldn't be completely doom with such change.

I think a price increase is the wrong direction. Counterplay is a major point of this game. All TDs in the game are vulnerable to being rushed if unsupported... Except the Jackson. And that's the problem. Not only does it have the health/mobility/ accuracy to put the hurt on while on defence, if the enemy breaks off its capable of fixing itself,which makes it so incredibly resilient that it shouldn't be so forgiving.

Tbh and I have said this before, if the m10 was stock acting like a stug with a turret that, with HVAP, able to tackle heavier armour the Jackson could return to its glass cannon design via doctrine.

Balancing the jackson via cost means making or breaking a game by killing it and that's not a good direction. You would KNOW that if you killed it, or perhaps saw a sherman first, that you more or less have armour impunity (especially as okw who has 234 as a minimum for armour on mediums) which doesn't make for a good game.

All the TDs?

The M10 is mobile. The Firefly has a turret and enough mobility and tulips. Honourable mentiones to the Puma and Panther as mobile vehicle hunters, if not proper TDs.

The vulnerable to rushes part is purely for fixed casemate TDs like the SU85 and JgPz IV and StuG.

What they are all actually vulnerable to is infantry, for which they have zero response. And the jackson is as weak there as any other TD.

All the TDs?

The M10 is mobile. The Firefly has a turret and enough mobility and tulips. Honourable mentiones to the Puma and Panther as mobile vehicle hunters, if not proper TDs.

The vulnerable to rushes part is purely for fixed casemate TDs like the SU85 and JgPz IV and StuG.

What they are all actually vulnerable to is infantry, for which they have zero response. And the jackson is as weak there as any other TD.

while the firefly DOES have a turret, its rotation is slow, as is its overall speed making maginaly better than a case mate at fighting against a rush.an unsupported firefly is as dead as an unsupported su85 or jp4
similar but different, a puma wont be bouncing any shots, and absolutely does not have the health to slug it out while fleeing. furthermore, the puma's accuracy is unreliable at the best of time, let alone on retreat fighting for itsl life...

panther i guess would be the lone exception, but many would argue that its a medium tank with an AT focus rather than a proper TD due to its acceptable AI performance due to its mgs

additionally, one of the unspoken advantages of the jackson is that its so good at AT that its usually all you need, so focusing you infantry as AI is perfectly serviceable, which eats up the jacksons vulnerability to infantry. you could say that shreks are a threat, but requiring 3 volleys combined with its mobility requires you to play against helen keller to actually kill a jackson with infantry AT
infantry isnt a realistic option anymore than any other TD- all of which have a PROPER exploitable weakness like mobility or case mate design or health pool. jackson has all the tools it had to survive being actually fragile, meaning anyone that was able to make use of them then has nothing but breathing room now that it is as forgiving as anything without out literally any draw backs

i dont consider myself biased by any means, and can say that with earnest, but the when using the jackson you have to fuck up to lose one, not be out played because it is so forgiving and that is the problem.the level required to kill one vastly exceeded the power it brings to the field as well as what it takes to kill one. its like killing any tank,, but with 50% more range meaning it should be clear of snares and more mobility than most meaning... well fuck you basicly....

I mean. The jackson is uniquely disadvantaged when fighting unsupported because it has a gimped LoS. It can't chase because it can't self spot and it can't well defend itself alone because it can't see anything.

That is, in ny book, a proper weakness. Not as crippling as the casemate lack of turrets, but it also costs more than an su85, and the su85 not only has normal sight but two different ways to improve on it.

Saying it has no weaknesses it a little disingenuous.

I mean. The jackson is uniquely disadvantaged when fighting unsupported because it has a gimped LoS. It can't chase because it can't self spot and it can't well defend itself alone because it can't see anything.

That is, in ny book, a proper weakness. Not as crippling as the casemate lack of turrets, but it also costs more than an su85, and the su85 not only has normal sight but two different ways to improve on it.

Saying it has no weaknesses it a little disingenuous.

It's not "uniquely disadvantaged" nor does it have "gimped LoS", it has 35 sight like most other tanks.

The only chasing Axis tanks that would have a sight advantage are OKW tanks with Panzer Commander, the Command Panther or any tanks affected by the aura of the Command Panther. It would easily outrun a tank that would try to use spotting scopes or breakthrough for sight while chasing.

It's not "uniquely disadvantaged" nor does it have "gimped LoS", it has 35 sight like most other tanks.

The only chasing Axis tanks that would have a sight advantage are OKW tanks with Panzer Commander, the Command Panther or any tanks affected by the aura of the Command Panther. It would easily outrun a tank that would try to use spotting scopes or breakthrough for sight while chasing.

Could have sworn it was dropped to 30, not simply put back to the normal 35.

Mea culpa. It has been a while since I played USF myself.

Off to the scrubbing block with me.




Here's a thought, what if we cut its LOS so it can't self spot as effectively?

i dont consider myself biased by any means, and can say that with earnest, but the when using the jackson you have to fuck up to lose one, not be out played because it is so forgiving and that is the problem.

Same for the panther, tiger, king tiger, churchill etc... even the OKW Pz4 could be included into this list.

People are simply focusing too much on the Jackson in a vacuum and don't want to look a the faction as a whole. The Jackson is the only mobile dedicated AT unit USF have and this is the root issue of what the Jackson is today. Adding that the second AT unit USF have is locked behind a optional tech make the USF faction overly depending on Jackson to be its bread and butter for AT.

Note that Ranger's change with super-zook gave new opportunities to USF players (at least on 1vs1) to be less dependent on Jackson to counter medium tanks and Panthers.

The vulnerable to rushes part is purely for fixed casemate TDs like the SU85 and JgPz IV and StuG.

When was the last time you played against a half brained axis player? If they are able to get two Pz4s they'll rush your jackson into the depths of your base and further to trade 1 for 1 at best. If Pz4 could float they keep going to america and to the factory the jacksons came from

Same for the panther, tiger, king tiger, churchill etc... even the OKW Pz4 could be included into this list.

People are simply focusing too much on the Jackson in a vacuum and don't want to look a the faction as a whole. The Jackson is the only mobile dedicated AT unit USF have and this is the root issue of what the Jackson is today. Adding that the second AT unit USF have is locked behind a optional tech make the USF faction overly depending on Jackson to be its bread and butter for AT.

Note that Ranger's change with super-zook gave new opportunities to USF players (at least on 1vs1) to be less dependent on Jackson to counter medium tanks and Panthers.

like ukf ? i don't remember them getting 2 td

Same for the panther, tiger, king tiger, churchill etc... even the OKW Pz4 could be included into this list.

Yeap, that's not a biased comment at all...

People are simply focusing too much on the Jackson in a vacuum and don't want to look a the faction as a whole. The Jackson is the only mobile dedicated AT unit USF have and this is the root issue of what the Jackson is today. Adding that the second AT unit USF have is locked behind a optional tech make the USF faction overly depending on Jackson to be its bread and butter for AT.

Then after the nerf, USF will have 0 (Zero) "mobile dedicated AT unit" because it proved to be unbalanced and people didnt want to let a slight nerf to adjust it.
(I sincerely wont miss him)

You can always buff other AT options after nerfing the big boy