That doesnt mean the Jackson shouldnt be tweaked, but I think the reasoning for it being better than Firefly and su85 is the surrounding vehicle roster
I can see why its stats are the way they are, but it seems way more cost efficient than its Soviet and UKF counterparts. It makes the SU-85 and Firefly look kinda shit. |
Look at the other AT sources from USF, they got a rubber projectile AT gun that is awesome vs light tanks but trash vs any tank on okw p4 level or higher.... and they have poop bazookas which have a similar behavior like their AT gun. There is a reason why USF has the best standalone TD from the allies.
And please show me how a Jackson wins a 1v1 vs a Panther. When Jacksons were still 480HP, teamgames were pretty annoying on many maps cuz you couldnt stop the panther spam.
Doesn't the USF AT gun have an ability on it that takes its penetration from worst to one of the best? Sure, it drains munitions where the other four don't, but it's hardly obsolete.
Are bazookas really worse than PTRS rifles and PIATs?
Jackson vs Panther's always been a fair fight in my experience. The Jackson has range, the Panther can take an extra two hits. I can see how a 480 HP Jackson'd just get stomped, but the 640 does fine.
Would you say the Firefly is too expensive rather than the Jackson too cheap? |
|
So I've been comparing the three Allied tank destroyers.
The Firefly's got the lowest damage output thanks to its awful reload, but good burst damage. It's also got a medium tank's armour and Tulips if you're willing to feed its ravenous hunger for munitions. It has a turret but it turns slowwwwwwwwwwwwly...
The SU-85 is a casemate, which means it's a slow lumbering beast in desperate need of protection. It's got a better damage output than the Firefly and can self spot. It's also got better penetration than the Firefly and it's cheaper.
Between these two I can see the tradeoff. The SU-85 is cheaper and puts out more damage faster, but the Firefly is more independent.
Then we come to the Jackson.
It's got the price and damage output of the SU-85, the best penetration before you bring in its HVAP ability, good turret rotation and 0.75 moving accuracy. Put all this together and it can roll up to an enemy medium Panther-style and splatter it. The other two can't: the SU-85 gets flanked and the Firefly'll lose because of how long it takes to reload.
I'm fairly sure it used to only have 480 health (three hit kill like a light vehicle), but went up to 640 in DBP.
There's no real contest here: the Jackson is the best of the three in almost every department. It just seems like a better Firefly for less.
What gives? Does it need toning down? Do the other TDs need toning up? Or is it like this to compensate for some factional weakness I'm missing? |
Aha, so I suppose the SU-85 requires just as many shots as a Firefly, in your calculation?
It's also a 185 fuel tank destroyer, which is more than any of these vehicles. The difference between a Jackson and a Panther is almost the difference between a Panther and an IS 2(if you just conveniently ignore tech costs)
You think the SU-85 costs 185 FU? When did you last play the game? |
I knew that there's not going to be a single rebuttal directed at the core argument. That a tank destroyer more expensive than the unit it's supposed to counter fails at countering it
Can anyone imagine the ass blast the forum would erupt into if a Panther could just ignore an SU-85 or a Jackson? What about a Firefly? The tears generated on the forum would be enough to terraform Mars. Holy shit, imagine a vetted SU 85 bouncing of the rear of a P4. Imagine it bouncing on a Panther even, or a KT. It would be a tornado of tears.
But this actually a bad example, because of course a Panther is more expensive than Firefly, Jackson and SU-85. Even much more so for Wehrmacht, because tech for Wehrmacht is much, MUCH more prohibitive than for other factions.
I have no idea about unit values since all related sites are down, and I have no interest in diving in game files. But I think the general direction of introducing units as easy to use as the Churchill is bad for the game.
The very notion of high rear armour values was early on in COHs life cycle recognized as a fundamental no-no. Together with things such as high survivability units+out of jail free cards, or spammable, potent units with both AT and AI, or also units with AT weapons AND snares.
A Panther doesn't need to ignore the Jackson, Firefly and the SU-85. Since its HP buff, it can just outright kill them. It's a 50 range, heavily armoured tank destroyer that can take six hits.
The Churchill may take its dear sweet time exploding when under Panther bombardment, but it's not going to win that fight unless you're up against a player who advances with the Reverse key. |
Okay, steering this conversation back on track and out of 'red units op' and 'my opinions are facts' territory...
For:
- The Churchill's huge HP pool means it can slug it out even with its dedicated counters for quite a long time.
- The Churchill's high rear armour means flanking manevers aren't rewarded much, so no matter how cleverly you maneuver you still need to get Panthers or doctrinal super TDs.
Against:
- The Churchill needs this giant HP pool to do its job: all its abilities are geared towards close combat so it's got to survive in close combat. If you nerf its survivability, you kill it as a viable option.
The best way I can see to reconcile these are to tone down the Churchill's durability to normal heavy tank levels, then give it abilities to support its breakthrough tank role.
Make it worse at sitting there getting shot, then make it better at making space for infantry.
|
Penetration at max range on a StuG and JgPz IV is 170 (at vet 0) to the rear armour of 180 on a Churchill. Claiming this will 'bounce lots of shots' is pure fabricated BS when the percentage chance of it happening is a aingle digit at vet 0
Is rear armour penetration on a StuG or JPIV really relevant? They're casemates, so they're not going to flank it.
StuGs reliably getting rear armour shots on a Churchill's almost as daft as Shermans reliably getting long range rear armour shots on a Panther. |
All that while being several orders of magnitude more of an investment.
A Churchill is 490 MP 165 FU if memory serves.
A Panther is 490 MP 185 FU.
They're both behind a 200ish MP 50 FU additional tech above medium armour tier.
20 FU is not several orders of magnitude. It's not even one order of magnitude.
Is the Churchill's HP pool ridiculous? Probably. But let's not fly off the deep end of hyperbole and pretend the Panther isn't its counter. |
That's the point. Range shot should be for td.
Med tanks need to put some work coming at axis tanks. Same way axis now have to push, micro stop to shoot.
Then I feel the need to question why medium tanks are getting long range shots on your Panther's rear armour in the first place. |
Hey guys, what you think of making panther and p4 with armor skirts vet, rear armor becomes 120.
It make allies med tanks max range shot harder to deal 160 damage. Makes more sense with tiering. Cheap sherman t34 or aec still deals heavy damages just because.
Doing so will preserve allies tanks for more AT duties
The rear armour of a skirted Ostheer P4 is already 117. 120 would make next to no difference to any weapon.
It's also unlikely to make a difference to the Panther: all mediums have at least 120 near penetration. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
