While this keeps coming up every now and then, the M20, at least in its current iteration, is by no means better than the Stuart AI-wise. In any typical in-game scenario (engagement range of 25 m onward) quite the opposite it true.
Now I gotta admit I haven't specifically tested it, but as long as my DPS calc isn't too far off the Stuart should actually have about twice the anti-infantry DPS and KPS than the M20 even under the most unfavorable conditions (i.e. (1) absence of cover or RA bonuses for the target and (2) wide squad formation). Lower target size and/or clumping up behind cover would skew things even more in favor of the Stuart.
Granted the Luchs, T-70 or M-8 are absolutely in another league when it comes to fighting infantry, but the Stuart is far from useless in this role. Not to mention it is also very capable against any LV it can possibly face.
They're both equally bad, both serves as stop-bleed/supporting your rifle push while the UC, 222, WC51, AAHT etc... are real light vehicles able to harass/kill and force retreat accordingly to their respective prices and timing.
the m20 and stuart are overly used in 1vs1 because of timing and the stop-bleed, because AAHT is far too late and you need the early HMG anyway, you can't rely only on the AAHT to suppress your opponent's infantry.
But they are bad, the M20 can spend 20 seconds firing at a squad without damaging any model and is helpless vs cover and the Stuart is simply unreliable. One game you get it vet1 with 0 kill after 5 minutes of intensive micro, next game you get it kill 5 models in 5 shots in less than a minute.
==> They only shine at killing low life models. I guess once you know that that make them good enough to be used. But they both share the title of worst light vehicles in the game for what they're supposed to to.
Note that the heaviest nerf the M20 recieved in this last iteration of the game wasn't because of its anti infantry but because it was too hard to kill with a 222, you couldn't recklessly rush it...
I've asked you multiple times now to explain how the Jackson becomes overly weak, how this delay has not been taken into account yet and to make show that this is indeed a bigger issue.
I've tried to put it into context and quantify the problem at least to the (little) extend that it is possible. You've not answered any of those core questions.
I'll leave it at that, I've made my points. You are absolutely free to disagree, but unless there is a totally new point to be made, there is not much more to say from my side. Whoever reads this can decide on their own whose argumentation they find more convincing.
Couple of posts you implied I wanted to use a strawman argument and now pull off this one.
I never said that was making the Jackson overly weak, I said it makes it never fire first on even in time when tanks are at range. Now you tell me its part of its design, well that your opinion and I'm not agreeing with because this delay implies much more micro management and situation awareness for the player using it than for his opponent.
And yes, those gimmicks that force the player to do more micro to reach the same outcome than with other tanks is the reason why we politely say USF needs to be played perfectly to shine.
At player level this delay is an issue because the player has to wait 1 second more to asses if he is at firing range or not. 1 second is a lot to wait to take decision, during that time the player may be to quick and consider that he is not at range and move his Jackson closer.
- If the Jackson was indeed at range, now he is firing on the move instead of being still stand.
- If he moves and his opponent move also in his direction he is simply letting him close the distance faster and now he also need to stop and move backward losing a lot of time.
All of this because of a 1 second delay where the Jackson does absolutely nothing and let you beleive it is still out of combat. And that's not just on me, I've seen and analysed many replays, everybody does that with the Jackson, wrong assessement based on a stupid unique gimmick feature that in reality fuck the player.
So what is the point?
If the balance team deemed the Jacksons alpha strike capabilities as too little, they would have buffed it 1 million times as well?
Jacksons mobility is very high, it can run away if ambushed, it can run to safety if ambushed. If not, it was out of position. This works the same way for every other tank.
The situations you talk about happen, but are also not the stuff that happens every second time. And in even fewer cases, this half second made an actual difference.
Exactly that's what I am talking about.
Jackson has already been balanced towards its faction and its own performance. Improve it, and it needs to pay somewhere else.
Why do you assume that the Jackson has been balanced in all its strengths to its faction and environment, but suddenly this wind up oddity that has been there in plain sight since the very beginning has not?
It is indeed shitty that this small delay is not directly communicated to the player. But neither are veterancy bonusses, mobility and penetration for example, and in contrast to the delay that even the dude starting CoH2 for the first time could notice, they are also not directly visible in game. Yet you argue that all those more invisible and sometimes even harder to grasp stats have been taken into account so that the Jackson can make up holes in the USF roster, but wind up has been forgotten.
You got the answers what those stats do in literally the first couple of posts in this thread.
Oh yeah because we can't nerf Jackson as much as we want let's make it unreliable. That's a way to balance it I guess. And it participate to the story that USF need to be played perfectly every game to win.
Mobility matters a lot. The Jackson can withdraw from a fight much more easily than slower vehicles. It can't if Axis absolutely force it, but the Jackson has a decent area it can cover, even if ambushed. This makes it easier to retreat to supporting units and thereby increase the risk for the diving Axis tank. If you want to argue that a half second dela for the shot matters a lot in many scenarios, you can't seriously argue that high mobility suddenly unimportant.
Performance against JT and Ele is also unimportant. With any Allied TD, you eat a shot, fire one back if you can and have to leave. The second shot of the Ele/JT comes late enough to stay half a second longer. I mean, you're not being ambushed by one at close range, so you probably need to bridge only 10 meters before being out of range if your Jackson has been somewhat properly positioned. The point that you're refering to THE two top tier doctrinal TDs to partially support your argument shows what I have been saying in the first place: it's not a big deal.
Now, to repeat myself:
This is not a performance issue that has recently come up or was hard to spot. This is an issue literally every player can see every game a Jackson is bought. It has very likely already priced into the overall cost and performance of the Jackson. The Jackson is good generally and good for the price even with it. It is a property of the Jackson like the slow ROF is a property of the Firefly. If you're aware of this specialty, great. Place your Jackson slightly more conservatively according to the dangerous situations you refer to above, and you'll get even more out of it than other players. If you want to buff the Jackson in some way to compensate the slower alpha shot, something else has to give.
Jackson's mobility matters in a way because there literally nothing able to cover the Jackson. You're reverting the reality, Jackson's stat aren't the cause but the consequence of serious gaps in USF roaster. If its mobility could have been reduced it would have been done 1 million times by the modding team the same way they reduced its armor to the bare minimum because why not.
From that point onward you can't compare mobility which is a stop gap covering the rest of USF late game issues and Wind up that's here only for nothing.
If wind up is not so important, then why only the Jackson and M10 have them? every tank has the stat available, you just need to add the same value for all of them and suddenly there isn't anymore one tank that fire sometime due to RNG or whatever 2 seconds after the others.
Again:
The wind up time matters for 3 meters. The distance you have to spot further than other Allied factions is pretty much exactly 3 meters, and now consider this because this is important: against a rushing enemy at top speed. 43/53 meters instead of 40/50. Then the shot of a Jackson will hit around the same point as a shot of the SU85/Firefly/basically any other tank.
That's literally what you're complaining about. Not nothing, but also not huge.
Not necessarily, you're stuck with one from many scenarios. There are quantity of map where you need to take risk and close the distance with the Jackson to simply do something, maps where you'll never be able to keep the distance because shot blockers don't allow it, and last but not least you're also facing JTG and Elef which fire faster their opening shot at long range.
Speed and mobility is irrelevant here, the Jackson isn't significantly faster than other tank to make this stat much relevant, and Axis tank get blitz at vet1 and various doctrinal options to take on the Jackson range and mobility.
At the end your answer is that it doesn't matter, well it does as per the video I posted and the nature of the game in which shooting first gives you an edge, even more when your opponent has a guaranteed penetration unlike you.
Now we can argue about skill so it doesn't happen if you do it well but skill would be a more valid argument if in reality who's played better shot first and not the game deciding that yeah maybe you played better but not enough to shot first because wind up for you only.
Sorry, that was a personal joke. But I laugh so hard reading him, couldn't resist. He hates me and can't reply to me without insult, everytime. I did something to him in the past I'm not aware of...
Don't overexaggerate.
Every Allied TD is absolutely supposed to be vulnerable below range 40, either by slow ROF or not having a turret. This is fully intended.
The only difference the wind up time makes is the very first shot where about half a second delay is introduced. The only situations in which it really matters is a top speed P4 or Panther rushing you (allowing it to move 3-4 meters closer than to any other tank). And an occasional shot you won't get on a retreating enemy tank.
Any pot shots you take at the enemy and in prolonged fights, it does not matter.
That's it.
Can you explain how this makes the Jackson really suffer? It's definitely not a plus, but again: We've had years of balance patches, and the Jackson is an overall good TD. While this should be an issue obvious to everyone, you're the first person complaining about this years after the release of USF. You need to make a really strong case here.
What can be more explicit than -You're always going to shot second, never first.
Now, don't do a strawman, I never said Jackson should win engagement below range 40 or whatever, I said whenever there is a slugfest between tanks at firing range you're never going to shot first with the Jackson unless your opponent need to rotate their turret (and even here that's not always garantie).
In a game where majority engagement last couple of seconds, it matters a lot who shot first.
Riflemen: 5 man, 0.63 target size
Tommies: 5 man, 0.66 target size
Grenadiers: 4 man, 0.91 target target size with 20% damage reduction. They have the same effective hp vs explosives and way less vs small arms.
As usual, Esxile talking forum-approved rubbish. Yes, Grenadiers are really strong and imo the best mainline at most skill brackets. No, Grenadiers are not more durable than Allied mainlines because of literal stats.
Lol so much hate I can feel it, I feel... empowered, I dominate you, you're like a little dog glapping for some attention .
I was excessive I admit it, but still 240mp 4men squad as durable as 280mp 5men squad is as a result more durable per entities. They stand impacts they shouldn't if they were balanced around being 4men squad and not simili 5men.
Then their RA is balanced around their cost and being long range unit.
To be fair, the M10 and Jackson are the only tanks/TDs that have windup, which is the only significant delay out of the two anyway. Still, I don't think the additional 0.5 s is that much of a handicap, especially since you'd have the superior range and mobility of the Jackson to make up for it with proper positioning and scouting.
It just ensures that your always firing after other tanks, and sometime make the M36 not firing at target on the fog of war on tanks that reveal themselves. Nothing of a big deal indead, just making sure you never have an edge.
The Panther is also an example, but you need to prove how they are suffering from it.
The M36 is a good TD, increasing its ROF would not be a great idea. You can obviously have a different opinion, but then provide a reasoning for it. The wind up increasing the time for the first shot is indeed one point, but to be honest I assume that the unit has been balanced around that after 4 years of community patches. The Jackson has very good offensive power, at range 60 you'll get the first shot regardless and at lower ranges the Jackson is supposed to lose.
There surely are some cases in between where the wind up time actually makes a difference, but I don't see a reason why those should be hugely problematic.
Iirc, the balance team has also increased the reload veterancy bonus slightly to make up for the fact that a larger part of the cycle is made up by wind times after this has been pointed out to them.
So if you don't have 60 range you're supposed to lose? I think mapmakers didn't get your memo.
. 
![[DGM]Estal'xile flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
[DGM]Estal'xile
Tuty
![[DGM]Estal'xile flag](/images/replay/usf_flag.jpg)
[DGM]Estal'xile
Regis
Relic Entertainment
