Profile of FelixTHM

Just make cache cost scale for player count. 4 players? X 4 cost then.

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.

PIVs can and do beat jacksons. If you get two and flank a jackson, it will die very quickly. That the reverse is not true (shermans vs panthers) is one of the main reasons USF is forced to spam jacksons in the first place. If a single jackson shuts down a single PIV - it should, because it's A) a specialized tank destroyer, while PIV is a generalist medium and B) costs more; but what jacksons do not do is make PIVs obsolete, unless you let the USF player match you tank for tank.

If you're playing at an elo where your opponent can be flanked despite his unit being significantly faster and having 20 extra range (and you're also outnumbering him 2:1 in effective tank count AND he has no snares or AT guns), I'm not sure how much your balance opinions matter. Either that or matchmaking is really bad and you're getting opponents that aren't anywhere comparable in skill.

Jacksons are beastly and virtually uncounterable in 1v1, even though I'm certain most people here are talking about team games.

Look at your last sentence - it is incredibly illogical. You're pretty much acknowledging that to beat Jacksons, the Axis player needs to have an overwhelming armour advantage. Why on earth are we even assuming that Axis would have an overwhelming fuel advantage? In any case Jacksons do make P4s obsolete - they're going to get reduced to half health before they even start accelerating for a dive - and they're going to fail that dive because the Jackson is incredibly fast.

Even when I play with Pathfinders and have no snares (or mines) I've found it incredibly easy to escape from medium tank dives. The difficulty is with finishing them off without snares, but that's hardly the Jackson's fault. It was mine for choosing to skip Riflemen.

other factions can buy caches, yes. other factions, at the cost of field presence can increase their trickle of resources. at the cost of manpower, the resource used for everything. OKW can respond with an entire volks squad. the caches are not free (they are a great thing to have, dont get me wrong) but they dont simply generate resources for free like salvage can. the thing i responded to was saying that okw starts -15 fuel behind the ball and can never make that up, but they can and it costs them nothing but a few seconds of their time and the chance to get that 15 fuel and more (again at no cost nor impact to build orders) comes up organically and only increase as the game progresses.

the maxim that cant be buffed for fear of a non penal build being viable can easily turn into a fuel advantage for the OKW (god knows they arent worth recrewing) or AT guns when your army composition doesnt need it. cahces are certainly more consistent (and that right is paid for) but salvage allows for more "bonus" resources and is free.

I go non-Penal builds against Ost, but I simply can't vs OKW. Without M3 cheese you simply can't punch hard enough.

It'd be interesting to see how the SOV-OKW matchup plays out if OKW early-game is weakened.

We have already established that this is a pure bullshit and starting fuel is there only to time tech, otherwise soviets would get 200 more menpower at start when their starting fuel was set from 50 to 20.
Oh, and soviets never had less menpower when they had that 50 fuel at start.

All factions have different starting fuel, because all factions have different tech structures and costs and different supposed timing as well as some are supposed to get tech structure right away while others aren't or are supposed to be able to get other upgrade instead.

So stop repeating that bullshit.

You completely misunderstood the point, as usual. It means "A is their advantage, B is their disadvantage". But of course everything that isn't "Axis needs more nerfs" is bullshit to you.

By "we have established this", you mean you and Tactical Imouto. Because in your world (in which you don't even play this game), starting fuel is somehow totally irrelevant to teching. If OKW started with a pioneer-strength unit and 360mp, both Allied and Axis players would get equal map control. OKW would no longer be able to deny their opponent fuel, and would hence be seriously behind in terms of teching, by virtue of starting with only 5 fuel. Its current tech timings would not be kept - hence reducing or deleting many of the windows of opportunity that currently exist.

For the last time Katitof, "we" have already established that the 5 fuel is the current starting point because having early game strength AND having 20 fuel would mean OKW hits tech timings too fast. They are tied together, and your line of thinking that you should nerf one without adjusting the other is pure bullshit.

For the benefit of people actually interested in civilised discussion, my point was as follows:

a) OKW currently relies on its early game power to deny enemy resources or to secure more map control for itself, so that it can overcome its fuel disadvantage and tech equally or even at a faster pace.

b) The problem is that the early game strength is often able to create cripplingly unequal situations, which outweighs the fuel deficit.

c) We should reduce OKW early game strength, but ensure that OKW teching isn't affected too drastically by late teching, which would completely obliterate the windows of opportunity available to Luchs/Flak HT play.