so is the okw p4 even more trash ?
Nope, it simply isn't easy mode answer to all that P5 is.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
so is the okw p4 even more trash ?
Posts: 4474
but if the easay 8 is bad and it's a better p4 J then by logic that p4 is trash
Nope, it simply isn't easy mode answer to all that P5 is.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
but if the easay 8 is bad and it's a better p4 J then by logic that p4 is trash
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Balance team already nerfed jackson after months of brainstorming, case closed.
Easy8 was good unit only when it was no tech call in. After it was tied to tech it disappeared from the game. Meanwhile panther got reworked to better do its job and is now extremaly common. Solution still applies.
Posts: 450
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
but if the easay 8 is bad and it's a better p4 J then by logic that p4 is trash
Posts: 5279
Balance team already nerfed jackson after months of brainstorming, case closed.
Easy8 was good unit only when it was no tech call in. After it was tied to tech it disappeared from the game. Meanwhile panther got reworked to better do its job and is now extremaly common. Solution still applies.
Posts: 528 | Subs: 1
Aaaaaaaand there's exactly what they half assed it. The "nerf" +5 fuel is so inconsequential that it might as well not have happened. It has no impact what so ever and the performance of the Jackson *gasp* is still too much.
The Jackson should be returned to its old squishy state and swapped with the m10.
The m10 fits the usf the usf design of mobility far better than a TD that is mobile but doesn't actually need it at all.
It would also allow doctrinal units the like 75mm and E8 have an attempt at a role instead of being absolutely made redundant by the Jackson.
The Jackson would fall into a glass cannon doctrinal role where those that can micro it are rewarded heavily with a beast of a TD, but without it holding the usf players hand and also allow the commander to bring something more unique to the table.
Posts: 359
Aaaaaaaand there's exactly what they half assed it. The "nerf" +5 fuel is so inconsequential that it might as well not have happened. It has no impact what so ever and the performance of the Jackson *gasp* is still too much.
The Jackson should be returned to its old squishy state and swapped with the m10.
The m10 fits the usf the usf design of mobility far better than a TD that is mobile but doesn't actually need it at all.
It would also allow doctrinal units the like 75mm and E8 have an attempt at a role instead of being absolutely made redundant by the Jackson.
The Jackson would fall into a glass cannon doctrinal role where those that can micro it are rewarded heavily with a beast of a TD, but without it holding the usf players hand and also allow the commander to bring something more unique to the table.
Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3
Posts: 5279
So basically that would be the only commander picked ever? The M10 cannot be used effectively against late game axis STOCK armor. Why are people so obsessed with kneecapping usf by removing the Jackson from Major? The Jackson is fine, if it gets nerfed, Axis late game armor has to see armor nerfs.
Posts: 450
The entire point of high armour values is to not be countered frontally with no effort.
M10 HVAP could be tuned to allow for a good chance of frontally penning but there is no reason for a quick, 60 range, full health (640) turreted TD to be able to invalidate armour frontally if say the same damn thing if it was an Axis unit. Once you get into the finer details too like HVAP and self healing via crew it gets even more silly.
The m10s cheapness would allow for more representation of the usf industry. And highlight the mobility and superior numbers the usf is supposed to represent.
Additionally, as I said previously, taking the Jackson out of the stock equation you leave more room for the specialist Sherman's to actually be an option. You will NEVER need a 75mm or E8 as long as you can get a Jackson. You might pick it for the luls but it won't ever actually have a proper place in a lineup.
Posts: 1979
Posts: 888
Ok, you and vipper seem really pasionate about jackson and both of you would do better job at balancing coh2 than current amateur team im sure. Why wont you go and make thread about jackson and how it should be nerfed more?
No, killing off jackson wont make easy8 or 76mm any more viable, it will just push usf back to garbage faction status.
Posts: 5279
Frontal armour values would work if there was side armor in the game. That is why jacksons have to pen from the front. You can nerf the jakson but usf will need 76 Shermans. I think USF players would be happy if relic nerfed rof or accuracy on the move on the jakson as long as we get easy 8's in return. E8's pen values need to go up though.
i mean yeah the jackson is overperforming and overshadowing practically every other USF unit... but a total rework to doc isnt my fix... id just bump the jackson to 155 fuel and 17 popcap to prevent spam and lower its cost efficiency... another option is to lower its overall DPS
Posts: 450
Deflection damage would also be an acceptable alternative to side armour (cause engine limitations) so that frontal armour means more than "use the same unit you use for the low armour units"
The answer for lower pen DEDICATED AT units would be to basicly batter the enemy into submission. Usf AT oriented vehicles also have HVAP (E8 aside iirc) so that can be a tool to allow for more reliability as well.
The current Jackson absolutely kills unit diversity in the usf match ups. Heavier armour doesn't bring much advantage due to a shut down mechanic in place via high pen values. Health and mobility make a more durable tank than armour does.
And I disagree that usf would NEED a 76mm, they have great tools but all have fallen by the way side as all balance points have looked at is the Jackson. I want combined arms man. 57mm is great with HAVP, Stuart could get some love, the sherman AP is above average for pen, an m10 would allow for easier adaption towards AT instead of the current all or nothing Jackson design, zooks could get a looksy...
There are optioms
Also the E8 is actually one of the best tanks out there statistically. The only thing the t34/85 has on it is health and main gun aoe. The E8 has more everything else iirc. We just never see it...
Oof. That's a nerf. If the Jackson is to stay as USF's only AT unit, I don't want to to be super expensive because then it HAS to be over powered, which is bad. If you do some how end up losing the most mobile TD in the game then you are completely dicked because replacing it is too expensive.
But I maintain, as long as all you need is a Jackson you won't ever find a workable and unique place for the sherman variants with an AT focus.
Posts: 359
Deflection damage would also be an acceptable alternative to side armour (cause engine limitations) so that frontal armour means more than "use the same unit you use for the low armour units"
The answer for lower pen DEDICATED AT units would be to basicly batter the enemy into submission. Usf AT oriented vehicles also have HVAP (E8 aside iirc) so that can be a tool to allow for more reliability as well.
The current Jackson absolutely kills unit diversity in the usf match ups. Heavier armour doesn't bring much advantage due to a shut down mechanic in place via high pen values. Health and mobility make a more durable tank than armour does.
And I disagree that usf would NEED a 76mm, they have great tools but all have fallen by the way side as all balance points have looked at is the Jackson. I want combined arms man. 57mm is great with HAVP, Stuart could get some love, the sherman AP is above average for pen, an m10 would allow for easier adaption towards AT instead of the current all or nothing Jackson design, zooks could get a looksy...
There are optioms
Also the E8 is actually one of the best tanks out there statistically. The only thing the t34/85 has on it is health and main gun aoe. The E8 has more everything else iirc. We just never see it...
Oof. That's a nerf. If the Jackson is to stay as USF's only AT unit, I don't want to to be super expensive because then it HAS to be over powered, which is bad. If you do some how end up losing the most mobile TD in the game then you are completely dicked because replacing it is too expensive.
But I maintain, as long as all you need is a Jackson you won't ever find a workable and unique place for the sherman variants with an AT focus.
Posts: 211
Posts: 888
Most USF tanks get penned frontally by a panther no problem. Why is it an issue when a end game tank destroyer can effectively engage and kill axis tanks? Even then, good micro is required in the USF side when fighting even higher armored tanks like Tiger II. If Jackson needs to be toned down, so too does axis armor. Both have seen power creep to this point. Normally I like your balance suggestions but Jackson being doctrinal and making USF have to use m10s to fight axis armor is laughable man.
Posts: 810
39 | |||||
16 | |||||
1 | |||||
114 | |||||
20 | |||||
11 | |||||
10 | |||||
8 | |||||
4 | |||||
2 |