What the point of it? Would it make you build a Puma to counter a Jackson? Would it make you rely on an -already built Puma to counter a Jackson?
The point is that it gives OKW (and OST, sometimes) another option to delay the M36. Other than doc-locked vehicles, Axis only has the JP4 at 60 range, and that comes fairly late. Buffing the puma slightly (0.5 -> 0.6 moving acc) gives it just enough strength to be able to hold off the M36 (when the puma has vet 1) for a while.
Also, the Puma's moving accuracy is really annoying to deal with. As it's been brought up, you basically need to 'stop and start' repeatedly for it to hit anything on the move. This would slightly improve the situation, without changing anything else.
This change won't entirely fix the M36's over performance, but at least its a step in the right direction.
After all those theorycrafting around making Puma hard countering Jackson, can we have the same about Su76 hard countering Panther?
My suggested changes are intentionally designed to not make the puma a hard counter to the M36. They wouldn't even make the puma a soft-counter. At best, it would be a vague deterrent.
The setup:
There are no other units.
M36 at between 361 to 480hp, out of 640hp (56.4% to 75% hp)
M36 at vet 0
M36 front armor reduced to 110 from 130
Puma at 400 out of 400hp (100%)
Puma at vet 1
Puma moving accuracy mult from 0.5 to 0.6
The engagement:
Both are at max range, both moving at max speed (and stay this way the entire time).
The puma immediately lands it's vet 1 ability (45 muni), locking the M36 turret.
The puma moves out of the way of the M36's fixed turret
The puma continues to fire at the M36 for 15 seconds (duration of the ability) 15 seconds pass
The M36 can now fire on the Puma
The puma continues to fire on the M36 Another 32 seconds pass
There is a 50:50 chance as to which unit survives
You may confused my actual suggestion (above) with my terrible suggestion (below), which still only makes the puma a soft counter to the M36, at best.
Not sure if it needs to be branched into another thread, but it's still worth discussing.
In general, I like the idea of making the Puma a viable deterrent (not a counter) to the M36, but it would take a few more changes than expected. In the previous thread, it was suggested that reducing the M36's armor to 110 (from 130) would be a good idea as a balance/QOL change when engaging with the OST/OKW P4 (they would no longer bounce). I've incorporated that idea into my suggestion.
My idea (which also borrows from a comment by Hannibal, linked further down), is to put the Puma vs. M36 matchup in a state where a 56.4% to 75% hp M36 (361 to 480hp) should have a 50:50 change of winning against a puma at max range, when both are moving. Ideally I wanted this to be a 60% HP M36 (386hp), but since damage output is quantized, any value between 361 and 480 requires 4 hits from the puma.
I've found that there are two ways to do this (there may be more), one that I think is viable, and the other which would make the Puma absurdly overpowered (let's not do that 2nd one).
Idea #1
M36 front armor: 110 from 130
Puma moving accuracy mult: 0.6 from 0.5
If the puma is at vet 1, and lands its "lock turret" ability immediately, this will give it enough time to reduce the M36s HP to a point where once its turret 'unlocks', the M36 and Puma should have a 50:50 win ratio - essentially a coin flip. This fight will take along time though; on average, about 47 seconds. This is so long that either player should have time to disengage, or bring other units to the fight.
Idea #2
M36 front armor: 110 from 130
Puma moving accuracy mult: 0.75 from 0.5
Puma far accuracy: 0.029 from 0.025
The goal of this change is the same outcome as in idea #1, but with one key difference: it works with the puma at vet 0. Because of this difference, the M36 will be able to return fire the entire time, meaning that the Puma will need to do damage much quicker. Increasing its moving accuracy multiplier as well as its far accuracy rating will mean that when the puma engages an M36 at 480hp (out of 640hp), there should be a 50:50 outcome between the two. Note, however, that engagement will be much shorter; only 32.5 seconds on average.
In general, this is a really bad idea. While moving, and at maximum range, this change would nearly double the Puma's damage output. This would be absurdly overpowered for when it arrives, especially when fighting other LVs.
This idea exists more as example to show the power difference between the two units, rather than as an actual suggestion.
You're already getting everything handed to you as OKW. Why should they hand you a Jackson nerf too? What's that saying? L2p?
The puma is also available to OST, although only through one obscure and/or unpopular doc (it was never used in WCS). I did suggest a few pages back to make the puma non-doc for OST as well, but that seems to have been missed.
Puma
Pz4
Jadpz4
Panther
King
- Each of these unit and pen Jack & Sherman.
- - -
Stuart
Sherman
Jackson
- Stuart and Sherman can not pen anything above Pz4
- Only Jackson with 240pen have chance on Panther 260armor. Not mention King 375armor.
Why do I see some people want USF have to use Sherman & Zook to fight their Panther & King?
Like, guys? You talk like USF have Pershing & IS2 non doc.
Are Panther 960hp & King 1280hp are not enough to fight against 2-3 Jackson 640hp?
Firstly, the M36 armor nerf really wouldn't do all that much to the M36, in terms of player use. All it does is remove the (rare) possibility of the P4 bouncing on it, which only happens 5% of the time at close range, and 15% at max range. Many would consider this a QOL change, rather than a balance change.
The vast majority of axis AT has over 130 pen at max range (such as the JP4, panther and KT that you listed), meaning they already pen 100% of the time. The exception, as others have pointed out, is the puma; it sits at 80 pen, so the M36's armor being reduced to 110 from 130 actually increases its pen chance from ~60% to ~70% (exact numbers posted a few pages back).
This is where the discussion was a bit earlier; should the puma become a somewhat viable deterrent (note, not a counter) to the M36?
Secondly, this thread has tried to focus on M36, P4, Puma, in hopes of somewhat containing the chain of 'knock on' problems changing any of these would make. If a change was made to the Puma, or M36, other units would also have to change.
Okay but it will clearly change the game by preventing the scenario I just described to you. Again, not every single change needs to be the cure to cancer. If you want to talk about big sweeping changes that effect the entire meta, don't post in a thread where the OP could not have made the topic any clearer and more concise
Yes, as a pseudo bug-fix, not as a balance change. Balance changes are intended to change how the game is played, at least to some degree. This change won't impact anyone's use of either the M36 or P4; no one is going to decide against an attack they would have decided in favor for, entirely based on a 20 armor reduction.
this woudnt change the Jacksons performance at all, only stupid rng moments when p4 bounces, its more a QOL change then a nerf
Furthermore, the entire point of the forum is to discuss ideas/suggestions. Since I don't think (not going to check) anyone's said "no, -20 armor is a bad change", this thread would've stopped after the 5th reply. Instead, we've had a lot of other good suggestions and discussions that add to OP's suggestion.
I've used it multiple times to save my walking stuka from diving tanks. I'm sorry you don't like my definition of deterrence, but that's not my problem
I generally defend my WStukas better; they aren't dived on in the first place. What I do have problems with is 2-3 M36s (or more in team-games) driving in and deleting all my armor.
Yeah and not a single fucking person needed you to repeat it. Why are you still saying this?
Because for the last few pages you've continuously implied that I've been trying to change the Puma into that.
I've literally seen p4 deflections off Jackson armor change a game. I benefited from it. My 160 hp vet 3 Jackson was retreating from killing a JP4. His teammates p4 came in fired a shot which deflected. He missed his next shot and couldn't chase any further
10 minutes later I kill a Tiger ACE with that vet 3 Jackson. Yes you can say he got bad luck, but I really don't think the m36 has any business deflecting ANY p4 shots, no matter how rare
Sure, it can happen - it's just incredibly rare. Chances are the +5 fuel increase also delayed an M36 by just enough that it cost someone a game as well.
I agree that the M36 shouldn't bounce P4 shots, but to me that change is more of a "bug fix" than a "balance change". It's not going to change how anyone uses their M36s or P4s.
What's not viable? Hitting a Jackson with aimed shot? Why? Self-spotting makes it very viable
What's not viable is suggesting that a muni-heavy, vet dependent ability is a deterrent. A proper deterrent has 100% up-time.
Killing the Jackson with that Puma is another thing sure. But I'm not saying it needs to be able to do that....
Yeah and what I've been trying to tell you is that you can stop talking about this. At zero point did anyone need this explained to them... I haven't been saying to make Puma into a Jackson killer. I still have no clue why you keep talking about it
I'm not. At no point, at all, have I said or suggested making the Puma an "M36 Killer".
I've just stated, repeatedly, that to make the puma an effective deterrent (note; NOT a counter) it needs either minor buffs (in combination with its vet 1 ability), or major buffs (without its ability), that would make it overpowered against other targets.
Since, as I've stated before, I don't think muni-heavy, vet-locked abilities should be factored into balancing the core stats of a unit, that only leaves the "overpowered" option, which I'm against implementing.
That means that I believe that even with the -20 (or more) reduction to the M36's armor, the puma will NOT be an effective deterrent.
Why the hell are we making balance decisions based on what things looked like? What?
Btw, Relic increased the Jacksons cost by 5 fuel last year. Not even 10. 5 effing fuel. So debate the philosophy on small changes with them if you must
That's what I'm saying; a -20 armor change would (essentially) be a change in name only - it only looks good on paper. From a gameplay perspective the change would be so minor that it wouldn't matter. It would be "symbolic", much like the +5 fuel cost change a while ago. I doubt anyone thought that made a difference, either.
If we want changes that actually impact gameplay, rather than just looking nice, they need to be bigger. CoH2 isn't as finely balanced as SC2, where +/-5% changes are actually noteworthy.
Except for the fact that no one uses emplacements and you'll see the Jackson almost every single game. When a unit is that common, any little thing you can use against it counts and is helpful
They did, back when they were OP - and no one would've accepted WStuka-incendiary as a counter. Sure, it's a thing that exists, but it's not really viable.
I didn't say I wanted to Puma to win a fight against the Jackson. I just want it to be able to fight it slightly better
The Jackson is too good but it is also the crutch of USF. Making large changes to it hasn't really gone so well for us so far
Yea, and like I've said several times now, the puma still wouldn't win against an M36. It would only be in bizarre scenarios where it would win, similar to how a T70 can technically beat a KT.
Yes I agree it's a minor change. That's literally the best way to tweak balance
If you read the original post of this fucking thread you will see the entire topic the OP wanted to discuss was a specific minor change
I see the Jackson deflect a p4 shot like once a month. Of course it's not going to be a huge change, the point is to make it even less likely. One shot can effect a game, if we can reduce that from happening that's a good idea in my book
Not every change has to be the fucking cure to cancer
But then what's the point? A 20 armor reduction really won't do anything outside of looking like a nerf. It would be like arguing for a +10fuel cost on the Tiger(s) - and only a +10 fuel cost. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but no one is ever going to notice it.
Yeah being fired from a unit that costs almost half the fuel of the Jackson... And if it keeps the Jackson from diving in, that's deterrence.
A deterrent based on a muni-heavy, vet-locked ability isn't a deterrent. It's similar the WStuka's incendiary barrage being great deterrent to UKF emplacements. It's true, but it's niche.
Where are you getting "my" number of 110 from? Drop it to 100 even, now it's an 80% chance at max range. That's reliable enough for me for an armored car
Accuracy is where it gets finicky, I agree
Alright, fair point. I had missed you had suggested 90-100 a few pages ago. I assumed since you've been trying to stop any other suggestions, that 110 was your number as well.
What?
Why are you talking to [m]e like [...] what I'm asking [for is] a light tank that you can build in potentially your first tech building, to kill a tank destroyer locked behind mjr tech.
I'm not [suggesting that's what you want], because it wouldn't [result in a light tank that you can build in potentially your first tech building, to kill a tank destroyer locked behind mjr tech.]
(at least, that's what I assume you meant, and what I was trying to say)
This change wouldn't result in the Puma countering the M36, except cases so extraordinary that the USF player deserved to lose the M36:
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
Puma moving acc: 0.5 -> 0.6
This change would result in the Puma putting up a decent fight against a moderately damaged (480/640hp) M36, but it would still only 'win' 50% of the time:
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
Puma moving acc: 0.5 -> 0.75
Puma far acc : 0.025 -> 0.029
That 2nd change would also make the puma horrendously OP.
No I'm not. Nerfing the Jacksons armor isn't an insane change. It would barely effect gameplay outside of Puma and P4, that's the genesis of this entire conversation
It wouldn't even do that for the puma - that's the problem. While nerfing the armor down to 110 gives the P4 a 100% pen chance, it changes the puma from 61.5% to 72.7% at max range. Even for the P4, you're only going increasing its chance to pen by 4% (close) and 15% (far).
This is such a minor change that most players probably wouldn't even notice it in game, and instead would only notice it when reading the patch notes and thinking "huh, they slightly nerfed the M36".
It literally already works as a vague deterrent. A Jackson with a locked turret has to back off. That qualifies as "vague" fucking deterrence, especially if the OKW player has literally anything else in the area
That's not a deterrent, that's a situational "go away for 15 seconds in exchange for 45 muni". The USF player can then back off, repair (thanks to the M36 crew), and then dive in again. This time the turret-lock will probably be on cooldown, or the axis player might not have enough muni to use it again. Additionally, this requires a vet 1 puma to work, which isn't ideal.
I just want it to reliably penetrate the Jackson at any range, at minimum.
The change your proposing (M36 front armor to 110) doesn't accomplish that. For that to happen, we'd need to drop the M36's armor to 80, or buff the Puma's pen to 110. A 110 armor M36 is only penned by a puma 72.7% of the time at max range.
That's why I'm suggesting alternatives to changing the armor/pen values, such as increasing the Puma's moving accuracy multiplier and/or far accuracy to compensate for the 27.3% of shots that will bounce.
I am not expecting a light tank that you can build in potentially your first tech building, to kill a tank destroyer locked behind mjr tech. Why are you talking to be like that's what I'm asking.....
I'm not. Because it wouldn't. The only way the Puma would destroy the M36 is if all those things happened, at the same time; which means the USF player made a massive mistake. In a normal scenario, such as the M36 having full HP, or there being shot blockers, the axis player not having turret-lock for any reason, or the USF player having anything with more than 25 pen nearby, the Puma wouldn't destroy the M36.
Just to clarify, these are the proposed stat changes:
Your suggestion:
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
My suggestion:
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
Puma moving acc: 0.5 -> 0.6
OR
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
Puma moving acc: 0.5 -> 0.75
Puma far acc : 0.025 -> 0.029
I'm arguing that the 2nd set of changes (0.75 and 0.029) would be too much, but I'm also saying that those changes would be required to make the puma an actual deterrent to the M36.
No you assumed all of that in a scenario where you decided the result needed to be the Jackson killed in order for it to be a success. I'm not saying that
I'm literally just saying "let's make the Puma slightly better, and the Jackson slightly worse." You are talking about making the Puma THE main counter against the Jackson. I don't think that's possible either
I've haven't come even close to saying "let's make the Puma be able to kill the Jackson", but for some reason that's the argument you're pushing against. I really don't get it
We should be taking about balance in the forms of small adjustments over time. Not overhauling units like Relic did when they changed the m36
No, you're still missing the point. Even with all of these insane changes and scenarios, the puma is still only 50% effective. 50% success isn't a counter, it's a coin flip. It means that when we're outside of these scenarios, the puma's actual efficiency will be much, much lower.
Getting the Puma to work even as a vague deterrent against the M36 requires such an incredible buff (or nerf to the M36) that it'll make one of the two completely imbalanced - that's how incredibly large the power difference between the two is.
Elchino7 pointed out the same thing; the puma isn't a counter, it's not even a deterrent.
Additionally, thanks to Elchino7's new numbers, I've redone my calculations; and they're even more in favor of the M36. The results basically show that diving the M36 with a puma (even after the M36's proposed armor nerf) only makes sense when the M36 is below 120 hp - literally only requiring one puma shot to defeat it.
Getting the puma to the state where it can dive an M36 at 480hp (1 pak shot taken), with the Puma landing a turret-lock shot instantly, still would require the puma receiving a DPS increase of over 40%.
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
