Profile of Firesparks

Well, sov mortar was always terribad.

the soviet mortar's lower firing rate was balanced by the fact it had a six men crew like everything else.

the enlarged crew isn't as useful for the mortar as it is for the atg and maxim but it still come in handy (arty duel). Lastly, even with the lower firing rate the mortar was still okay enough.


vet0 flare is just providing too much synergy for the sov. It's just too simple for the Soviet to flare and barrage the axis into oblivion.

The soviets are already the most artillery resistant faction in the game due to their squad size, and with the flare their artillery are also the most efficient.


The Scatter bonus/penalty are there to reward faction who use frontline and support unit together.

It forces the player to put their own unit at risk by limiting the effectiveness of blind artillery. The british have the best scouting of all five faction in the game and also subsequently the worst artillery aside from post-release dlc. 50-60 sight unit are also typically weak in combat in mid-late game. Snipers are expensive.

I dont see an issue with making Strums the same pop as other pios while giving them double upgrades. By the late game their AI isnt nearly as oppressive as early game and it doesnt force the player to choose between shreks or sweeper

The advantages sturmp have over the other engineer are still there, even if it's not that good.

Sturmp lack the long range dps for line fighting, but their dps are still useful from time to time.

To be fair ive never retreated an mg42 because "combat" "engineers" flanked it, it would actually probably take 3 to be any threat at all...

Cant say the same for sturms

Aside from just general repair duty sturma can also heal 3 squads without vet (and faster than pios who require vet 1)

Even after they have lost their ability to assault they retain the ability for opportunity jumps (especially when armed with a sweeper since they can put it away) and guarding flanks. They are more because they are better, not objectively better, but better in all ways (except for sappers obviously but thats because tommies are super squishy out of cover and bleed like a stomach wound...oh wait)

flanking opportunity for sturmp lessen as the game move into mid and late game. Commandos have cloak. Shocktroops are extremely durable and have smoke. Paratrooper and ober get alternative upgrade.

Yes, that capability is still there, but support is going to be the more important role for sturmpio. (which is why I don't think sturmp should be 5 pop like the other squad).

The Puma works, because it's not the end game AT for the faction and is an early-middle vehicle which can scale into the late game. But PUMA can't do shit, against MASS amount of vehicles.
Jackson needs a weakness, but i'm not sure if been 2 shot by heavy AT vehicles or boom rushed down is the one to be looking for. If USF had a meatshield (upgraded Sherman) to screen for them, it might work, but right now you are asking to give USF an M10 on steroids (mobile, turreted TD with smoke) which is not what USF needs for the late game.
Nerfing rotation, mobility, Rof or even cutting range by 5 would make it similar to the FF but from what it has been discussed you dislike the idea of having a similar unit although you are advocating for a pseudo Puma clone.

I'll prefer cutting down slightly different aspects while still retaining it's current role (55 range, less acceleration but same speed, slightly less RoF).

Puma's main weakness preventing it from scaling is its lack of penetration, something the 90mm has plenty of.

and Over stacking the Jackson with roles doesn't work. It is the one unit holding up the USF late game. It's just bad design to revolve the USF late game around one single unit.

Even with the jackson at its current strength, USF still get completely snubbed in team games. Trying to "balance" the 640 hp with stuff like reduced mobility, range, or ROF is just spinning in circle.


Trying to fix USF in team game by concentrating on one single unit is not going to work.

Each unit in the major's building need to be clear examined and having a clear idea of how each of them should perform in relationship to each other and how should the USF late game resolve.

Balancing a unit is as much about giving the Unit a weakness as well as giving them something they are good at, and then how the various unit's own strength and weakness interact with each other.

But that model didn't work. Same as OKW been an aggressive truck emplacement faction in order to get resources or been resource starved.
M10 should had been non doctrinal, if that is your view on USF TD playstyle, and Jackson been a late late game unlock (maybe after all tiers are researched).

That model never applied to jackson, which always was ranged one, but it was exploited already by old M10 and proved to fail(anyone remember the famous vid, where 3x M10 engage KT, 2 of them get on KT rear and all of them die? yeah, that was a call for USF TD changes).

the model worked, on the Puma.

The jackson didn't work because it was not properly built. It had a large target size (24), lack good sight (regular 35), lack agility (30 rotation), and lastly smoke.

The top open turret on the US TD were suppose to provide its crew with better sight, and lower the height and weight of the vehicle, none of which were appropriately modeled in game.

or just nerf the range so it remains a chaser/runner TD unique to usf but pak/jagdp4 works as a counter as they out range it (rak still cries in the corner)

the okw vs current jackson boil down to use of jp4. They both cost around the same (jackson being more expensive)and occupy similar place in the tech tree. In a head on fight the jp4 have the advantage although jackson is more flexible.

it's really the Wehr having trouble since pak40 are just so flimsy and the stug get out range. I do think the stug should really get 60 range since the pak40 is just a huge liability at this point.

My entire point about 480 hp + puma kit is to give the jackon an Achilles's heel, that being the 480 hp. Remember that puma's 400 hp still effectively give it 3 shot-kill against the standard 160 damage. The puma is a high micro unit and player will mess up.

TD's are as much characterized by their Achilles's heel as much as their firepower. Su-85, stug, and jp4 are casemate. Firefly are slow with a even slower turret (the turret is slower than the one on the tiger). Those weakness make them vulnerable to medium tanks if caught out of position.

Jackson's weakness was HP, but that got removed in a misguided attempt to buff it. Now it doesn't really have a weakness exploitable by medium tank.

No I did not. I created this thread especially to explain the difference puma has to other AT vehicles. Besides where I post is quite irrelevant to my point and once more I really do not see why you perusing this. When I post in the m36 explaining about the differences with the Puma you complain about going off topic, when I post here you complain it is the wrong thread.

The point remain the same regardless of which thread it is posted, Puma and M36 have a different kit available to them.

The entire point of giving jackson the puma's survivability kit like the puma is to create something unique.

Anyone who have ever gotten a Puma would have undoubtedly wish it had more penetration and range.

It was a unique possibility unfulfilled by any unit currently in the game, which is why I wanted to use the jackson. It was having serious problem before the HP buff and a "super puma" was something the game lack.

Instead of relying on armor and HP to survive late game like so many axis or even allied late game tank, Jackson will rely on speed and agility.


all this complaining about Puma vs jackson is missing the point entirely, of creating a unique late game unit.