One to provide stats, like accuracy and penetration values to back at that claim? Because the 2 unit have completely different weapon profiles.
I'm not trying to say they're exactly the same but they have similar characteristics and fill a similar role. The difference is the scale at which they preform. The Puma is like the Jackson of light vehicles. The Jackson is like a large Puma for use against medium and heavy armor |
List of tank destroyers tanks can counter is the enemy is caught off guard:
Su76
Su85
Puma
JP4
Jagdtiger
Stug
Elefant
Firefly
M10
List of tank destroyers that, even when caught ou of position have a great chance of making it a fair fight at the very least:
Jackson
The jackson is too forgiving to be as potent offensively as the other TDs, yknow the ones that CAN be countered by getting caught in a bad position. The ones that can't slug it out, or flee or slug it out WHILE fleeing and that actually swinging RNG into its own favour.
The M10 is just a mini-Jackson and the Puma a micro-Jackson. I'd say they have basically the same preformance characteristics being highly mobile lightly armored anti-armor platforms. The Jackson is just a larger later game version of those two. The Panther is up there with the Jackson as far as preformance but it is heavily armored despite it's speed and with the doctrine that gives it smoke it's way more broken than the Jackson's current state but I don't see anyone complain about that.
I could live with maybe a little MP cost increase on the Jackson to bring it inline with a Firefly but that's it. |
Truth is JPIV counters Jacksons and people just refuse this idea. They would rather nerf Jackson than use the right tool for the job. If Jackson is such a broken TD (while not having been changed for a loooong time now), why don't we see USF meta winning every tournament of various gamemodes?
This is what I've been saying. The Jackson isn't some unkillable jack of all trades vehicle. It is vulnerable to all sorts of infantry and crewed weapons plus a few vehicles if used correctly. The (alleged) problem is that it isn't effectively countered by tanks because Axis players like to build armor and expect it to be supeiror to all allied vehicles.
A tank cannot effectively counter a tank destroyer...OMG! Get out the nerf hammer! |
What you're suggesting amounts to an accross the board nerf for USF. These commanders are saturated with units and abilites because of the incomplete and risky non-linear tech tree USF has compared to all other factions. If you want to make it more fair you have to make some things non-doctrinal such as the Sherman dozer upgrade, the M3 halftrack, the M1919 MG. |
I just find it hilarious that people are saying since the Jackson is effective and overshadows the other Sherman variants (except the M4A3) the solution is to nerf the Jackson instead of buff the Easy 8 and 76mm Sherman. It's funny because that's not what they do with OST and especially OKW. If Fallschrimjagers, JLI, and PFs don't preform well relative to Obers or Volks well, we just buff those units to OP territory and see what happens.
The real solution is to make the E8 and 76mm a little better at killing infantry, something the Jackson cannot do. Just give them WP shells for this.
You can't nerf the Jackson. That will screw the whole faction. |
Can you please stop making balance threads? Noone cares about the balance suggestions of a rank 1300.
Well excuse me. Yeah I am just a rank 1300er but I guess I do know enough not to expect to counter a tank destroyer with a tank and then cry about it because it blows up my tank. |
The Jackson needs to retain its peak effectiveness because it's the sole counter to heavy armour in the USF lineup.
What it doesn't need to retain is its positional flexibility. The Firefly and SU-85 play like big anti-tank guns: they need to set up in a good position with support to defend them from dives, and if they get caught out of position they're usually dead.
The Jackson plays like a medium tank: it can quite merrily maraud around the map, if it gets caught out of position it can happily fight back on the move and it stands a good chance to win that fight.
The Jackson's problem isn't its firepower: it needs that. Its problem is the flexibility with which it can apply it.
The Jackson is not flexible at all. The Pershing is flexible, the M4A3 is flexible, the Panther is actually a lot more flexible than a Jackson is. The Jackson only is effective against vehicles and that's why it's fine the way it is, there is NOTHING wrong with where its at except for in my opinion it deserves a longer sight radius.
|
Rifle Company should get some kind of vehicle to make them more viable. Something like either an M3 or M5 halftrack. |
That’s one decision everyone would applaud.
Yeah then you can play only custom OKW vs OKW matches and things will finally be perfectly balanced the way the Wehraboos want it. |
I said this before and will say this again. The jackson basically carries USF late game espically in those teamgame slugfest. Nerfing it basically cripples USF late game as USF lacks any viable AT option. USF AT guns requires muni dumps everytime anything stronger than a ostwind comes around(even HVAP isnt that powerful at vet 2 shot HVAP bounced on a brumbar on a very recent game) . Nerfing its health will cause tanks like elephant to basically wipe late game USF . I agree the jackson is a bit to strong but because it has to. If u want to nerf it you need to make another solid non-doc AT option. This means buffing the M1 AT gun/sherman/ add 76 sherman/zooks.
Please dont make the panther doctrinal. Its fine in its current state.
This is true. The fact is I don't really want to see Panthers become doctrinal and with that you can't nerf the Jackson. People are acting like it's some jack of all trades impossible to counter vehicle. It literally only does one thing and that is destroy vehicles, particularly tanks...I guess that's why it's a "tank destroyer" yet Wehraboos feel like they should be able to blitz it with a Panzer IV. If the balance team caves to the Wehraboos on this next patch I think I'd seriously be done with this game. |