Profile of Protos Angelus

I would test the following:

Cost the same or even a slight decrease

Now has shared veterancy

Can now fire flares

Crew remove/mark target remove/155 barrage remove

Range to 35

Gun upgrade removed passenger automatically crew HMG

Passengers do not die destruction only suppressed maybe take some damage

Can now be "Withdraw and Refit" for a M3

These are great prepositions. Crew removed would be best from the 3.

so...... OST doesn't have 5 man squads by default, everything of OST is a one trick pony too. So whats your point.

Compared to rifles the compensate that with higher dmg from kar98 and better accuracy standing still vs Rifles and with G43s better moving accuracy and also higher damage but lower overall accuracy. You win some, you lose some. Also cheaper so it does fit in nicely overall with OST.

I'd say Jackson should penetrate 9/10 hits on max range to most mediums. Less than that it becomes slightly unreliable since it can't bounce anything. It's still a greater matter of map design and game mode than any "balance" problem.

OST Panzer IV can take on Jackson if it gets close to it, easily since the large target size won't matter close range to P4s 0.5 moving accuracy.. If the Jackson is supported by at least one unit to utilize max range and get the first shot in, then no. Even with the windup/down, Jackson is the best AT tank currently in the game, probably followed by Stug or JP4.

Vetted Firefly is cancerous when supported. There is no doubt that Jackson is on top of the food chain when it comes to pure AT power, denied only by heavy tank destroyers and paks. Does that warrant a nerf? Not really. Something else would take the spotlight then as the best AT gun and there would be debates about that being OP.

This whole thread is pointless tbh. Jackson is only good vs AT and P4s is a generalist tank and both can kill each other and excel in different parts of the game, with different timings. Heck, 1v1, AEC can take on KT by just running around it. Doesn't mean AEC is OP nor KT is UP.

That's the source of 90% of the problems in 2v2.

2v2 engagements are full army engagements that result in the complete rout of the defeated player. There is no room for manouvers or skirmishes. Its full force, all the time. There are limits to what mapmakers can do with the given map size, most of it is creating encased areas (the most glaring examples are the factory in Alliance of Defiance and the castle at Eindhoven Country). Imho, we should experiment with bigger map sizes so there is more room to fight, maybe adapt 3v3 maps instead of forcing 1v1 maps into the 2v2 pool

Mapmakers should follow the example of Whiteball or Steppes in all game modes. Wide open maps of different sizes, not the lane-y BS most maps are.

In teamgames you'll be fighting 300+ population and if Every axis player has 1 or 2 Panthers and the game is getting into the late, you will need a wall of TDs and snares to stop the inevitable Panther dive. Like Gachi said. Allies play TDs because Axis play Panthers, and Axis play Panthers because Allies play TDs. Tigers I and II also included and occasional Elefant or Jagd.

The only units the armor nerf really effected was the puma and the panzer 4. Everything barring light vehicles already penetrated the Jackson 100% of the time. Its not like it went from 640 hp to 320.

As for the allied vs axis players. By the numbers I'm predominantly an allied player-specifically with soviets, but I dont just blindly support every soviet buff or axis nerf.

Ranked, I only play USF. Wouldn't be caught dead playing Nazis with some sort of record being taken. That being said I do play custom games with Axis against other players (and seldom AI after updates). If a nerf/buff is justified for either party, I'm all for it. The balance team is doing a pretty good job if you ask me. You'll always find people complaining on both sides of the pond. Either OKW is UP or USF is UP or this is OP or that is UP. BS if you ask me.