I dont think you can nerf its performance too much, but Lago's point about cost efficiency makes plenty of sense.
You can always just increase the cost and not touch the performance. If the US needs the Jackson at its current level, but that level is too good for its current price, that's the way to go.
Here we both agree, jacksons have an edge with most armour, they have a hard time against panthers (and vice versa) and only superheavy doctrinal tanks displace him (displace, not beat) and it is also relatively cost effective. USF pays a lot for premium mainline inf and it was their tech and lackluster support units the counter weight.
Now USF has been lifted some of those chains. Jacksons mimic the premium TD design and are also cost effective for what they can do. To nerf their cost efficiency seems fit. But i doubt that will fix the issue. Just a little too much nerf and jacksons will have close to no opportunity window and panthers will bully anything. Thats a no-go zone for me. |
bad design? U maybe dont know that but all faction have minimum 2 non doc AT option for example soviets su76 and su85 one is better versus heavy another versus medium armor. Okw jagpanzer and panther wermaht stug and panther. Brits? Firfly hmm and comet ? This one maybe not exactly. Usf players rely on jackson not because they like it because there is nothing else.
The guy said, "nerf m36, USF goes to oblivion". There are no options in between. That drastic point of view is as hurtful as saying that M36 needs buffing.
All factions have power peaks but no balanced factions has to rely on a single unit for it. Take as an example OKW JLI if you wish. That was a good example of a bad balance. |
I play all sides equally, I dont really care what your opinion of me is
Then use common ground logic here, specially out of bias arguments to let others understand properly.
I dont want to compare them, I'm not the one who made a blanket statement about Ost teching in a thread about the Churchill and KV1...
If you answer a 'blanket' statement, then you are already part of it.If your counter argument cant be counter counter argumented, its like killing a man and getting out of jail for free.
I think its for the best for all of us to be wise using words.
Okay but thats not what he said. He said its MUCH MUCH more prohibitive than all other factions. Stop rambling about nonsense that has nothing to do with my point, or his, or the thread.
Actually OST tech is not 100% prohibitive. Since you unlock some tools with it. A 100% prohibitive tech would be one that you only pay for the sake of it. No new buildings, no snares. Not even OST has that, so saying is much more prohibitive is more accurate too.
As far as i can understand, to ramble is to force others out of their place.
Im just saying that you are claiming false arguments.
Jesus christ can we stop expanding the scope of this thread even further? I'm well aware of the trade-offs. Ost has plenty of issues, teching is not one of them anymore. That's all I'm saying....
Who brougth up SU to discuss side techs? |
Feed the USF at-gun some muni and it becomes the best AT-gun vs any target. And it´s cheaper than Pak40,Zis3 and 6 pounder too. IMO this is not a valid point. Bazookas aren´t overly effective but I don´t see how PIATs or PTRS (unless we are talking Guards PTRS) are any better. So I don´t think this is a fair point either.
I don´t think anyone claimed the Jackson wins 1v1 aganist a Panther. Of course that´s not going to happen.
Both valid points. IMO similar skill players, using Panther vs Jackson 1v1 would end just avoiding each other. Maybe trade some shots but when a couple of bounces favours one, that will force a dive-to-kill maneuver. |
No. Nerf this unit and see USF tumble into nothingness again.
This clearly shows that M36 are to be nerfed. If a unit relies so much on a single *not OP* heavy TD then what the rest of the faction for? The last time i saw M10s was when i fielded them and it was quite a while ago.
Now, in a more neutral tone. A faction can have a single tool to deal with tanks/inf/indirect fire. But it shouldnt only depend on it. Thats why there are call-ins, commanders and multiple variations using skills and upgrades. That way the only OP thing is the good player and not the units he commands.
If M36 had to pay for a single, mutually exclusive upgrade. One being better motor and the other being upgunned to almost HVAP levels. That coupled with a moderate nerf (not those triple ban hammer). IMO can be a good start. |
First of all, sorry im late, but this post got me real good.
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.
LMAO, the "rubber proyectile AT gun" and the "poop bazookas" made my day. Haha.
Its true, USF could use more conventional AT power along the game instead of waiting up until the end to get jacksons. This forces to always stock up fuel in the case of needing to rush for it.
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.
Panther spam is very annoying, point taken. But also expensive and hardly rushed, specially on OST. That could be hardly compared to a chuirchull spam. But on teamgames is doable. |
Seriously? Uhhh, because Ost unlocks snares, weapon upgrades, AND grenades in their tech for "free". YOU said Osts teching is more prohibitive, if you want to accurately compare costs, you need to include EQUIVALENT sidetechs. Nobody gets a free repair station, so thats far from equivalent
To unlock the same things, soviets need to spend more fuel. It is 100% false to say Osts teching is more prohibitive. Its flat out wrong.
well this is simply false. First of all, neither OST tech has 'free' tools (we have already discussed this, if you want to define a custom meaning for the word free, then please be specific about it) nor that 'equivalent' sidetechs. Its like changing the rules of the game, ingame. Factions are different and you pretend to justify your point using BS leverage.
"if you want to accurately compare costs" first you should take account opportunity/timing ratio. I doubt you understand axis factions opportunities/timings since you keep failing at the arguments logic. Secondly it is neccesary to understand what those cost mean for the faction, some pay more for TDs other pay more for better infantry, since balance is a complex equation, cost are meant to guide the avability of impactful units.
To compare teching, but using fictional game situations for it, is just plain flawed logic. Numbers dont mean anything if they are out of context. Some techings are meant to slow or limit progression (OST,UKF), others are more like a unfolding strategy (SU,OKW,USF).
Straight comparation 1v1 OST vs Brits, brits have an easier time. Sidetechs are recommended but not neccesary. AEC or cromwell is a must in a normal game, but so is a 222 or a P4.
"To unlock the same things, soviets need to spend more fuel." -I think soviets are very out of the scope of the current discussion. There is no need to mention them, since each building they get opens their rooster. If you want to compare SU vs OST building cost, you are missing a big point.
"It is 100% false to say Osts teching is more prohibitive. Its flat out wrong." -It is true that OST tech is prohibitive as long as each tech doesnt bring anything new to OST. Its a tax you pay to unlock abilities and buildings. It is prohibitive, it limits things from happening. And its cost arent cheap too. |
Woah, I see you're on a roll here, but I'm gonna stop you right there.
We have well established that churchill does need plenty of support, mainly in the field of AT as its own gun is pretty impotent against late game vehicles as well as it does need some minimal infantry or at least anti infantry support to not get fausted as that means certain death for it(its not going to crawl back with that massive, overpowered, imbalanced acceleration, when its top speed drops from pathetic 4 to standstill 2).
I agree with you and i might me overlooking a lot of things. I dont pretend to know more than anyone here.
But both teams should have at least a few troops able to support their tanks, or at least other units aswell.
But i tried to say that churchills need a little less support than other heavy tanks.
Edit: Damn i would even say that panthers should not be as nearly as effective against churchills as they have always been. Because of that is really hard to pull a good balance. Nerfing panthers because of this is a bit too much though
Edit2: I understand that a big HP pool helps with such a low speed and when snared it can give precious seconds to try to save the tank from becoming a husk. Im not against that at all, i think its good for the unit design too. High acc is a must too, because that way the speed curve is similar to any other tank. I wonder if churchills could be buffed with a self critical repair skill to figth that crawlspeed could be possible. |
|
According to many POV chiurchuills are a though version of cromwells, a late game heavy tank, a skill based anti infantry tank, a versatile tank that supports other units instead of needing support itself.
Because of that it has to have high armor, hp pool, smoke pots, AI skills, high acc (with low final speed tho), high rotation speed (i disagree with this) and be cost effective.
I think the unit design is overloaded with features and posible uses, its a noob+pro tank, it has low punishment for mistakes (has lots of HP, self smoke), has anti ATG features (the turret and the grenade) and is able to fight axis mediums 1v1 not being cost effective and late game TDs being same cost effective (to receive hits and doing nothing in return is not being considered though)
If you consider axis tools to deal with such a behemoth, its possible to understand it is overperforming. Some might say that it HAS to have such advantage, others pretend to know what is going to happen with chiurchulls if they receive a nerf and others even dare to say such a well positioned unit should receive damage buffs.
IMO it doesnt need buffs, simply because brits already rely too much on it. But to nerf any of their current skills means its no longer a temptative option, simply because they are not great all-arounders anymore.
If you want to clone other unit design, then i would suggest not to. Chirchulls have a unique aspect of them worth saving, but it can changed in such a way that either high skilled players get the most of them or being toned down to a good all-arounder withouth many features, suitable for newer players
the worst case is when combined arms are supported by the heavy tank and vice versa.
IMO if brits should depend on a unit to define their lategame, churchills must not be the one. Since they are half the options for lategame and since they are designed for a specific role, a more defensive oriented one. Sure it can beat a panther 1v1 but even a shield can be used as a weapon given the oportunity and if you can buy time with it. I'd say that cromwells or fireflies are better candidates for a core unit rather than churchulls.
Weapon sponges are hard to 'balance' because getting hit is not a desired feature, but if the objective of such unit is to secure its survability, it can be useful. Hence better armor instead of HP pool. Panthers got an armor/HP trade off to become better brawlers. Chiurchulls are meant to be brawlers too?
*Edited: removed some unneccesary details and changed some wording to let a clearer opinion. |
|
I would say there are two very different approaches about commanders and metagame. One hooks the player into a semi addictive game style, where only one commander is meta and one faction is OP at turns, this way you are forced to learn all the game mechanics, one turn at a time. Some players will still play up factions but they will be minority and the difficulty will propose a challenge that people like.
On the other side, when there is a wide variety of meta options, people will refine their playstyle and challenge themselves when they face a Better player, some will play less factions than others but that depends in the Mount of time and investment each one want to put into the game. As a game of chess not all the moves leads to a win, but each turn is fun if both players have similar skill
Options add diversity and new scenarios to learn and solve. It's harder to lean a game that diverse but its plentiful of challenges and non linear fights.
Community could be really engaged to share their POV and strategies if the game is equally balanced, meta game stable and diverse |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
