Profile of JHeartless

are we already comparing Tigers and Shermans? ),.

Look at the AOE profile of the HE shell. Then look at the Tiger. They are VERY similar. The Tiger beats the Sherman HE of course but not by huge margin.

And I think soft counter medium armor is more accurate. In most cases 1v1 without support a P4 should beat a Sherman. Unless the Sherman had amazing RNG and first shot advantage. Much like the T34/76 vs the Sherman matchup.

I get what your saying man but I dont think an Infantry Support tank such as a M4 Sherman should run in fear from four little men. The Easy 8 I could accept.

And I am not talking about whipes from the USF. I am talking about the horrible bleed if you try such a thing. The bleed those tanks can inflict on Zookd Rifles would be much greater then the damage traded. So USF may not get whiped out but will bleed for less damage. And bleed ALOT.

I dont think anyone thinks that squad whipes without warning from full health are OK. But thats not a Pgren exclusive problem. Rnades do this by the 1000s as well as a whole host of Non Sherman things.

I firmly believe that the Pgrens are fine and shouldnt be expected to beat a Sherman 1 on 1. Which costs more anyway? Sherman with an MG or a Pgren with a Shrek? What costs more tech? Which loss is more impactful?

And in an even 1v1 If I rush for a Sherman I tend to get it at the 13 Min mark at the EARLIEST. I wouldnt call that fast myself. Seeing as I typically see Tigers at 17.

Jacksons don't suck. Especially with veterancy they become incredibly good, a much better option than Su85, for example.

But without veterancy, Jackson shots will relatively frequently bounce off Panthers, Brummbars, Tigers, and not to mention superheavies. And bounced shots do not grant even a sliver of vet. Axis tanks reliably penetrate allied tanks, so they get a steady supply of vet, and a very useful vet1 ability. They also can bounce shots meaning they can disengage with their vet intact.

Axis tanks also have a luxury that I feel is underrated when discussing game balance - namely, they can afford to enter the visual range of enemy infantry and not lose half health instantly. They can afford to maybe get stuck on pathfinding around an obstacle without that second volley of handheld AT destroying them.

Couldnt have said it better. +1 sir.

thats not comparable at all.

if you cant destroy the KT, itll go on to destroy all your infantry, defenses, and then your base.

If you cant destroy a jackson, it just sits idle with nothing to do.

(I'm not advocating any changes to the jackson though- if anything needs changes its the wolverine)

If you dont destroy 260 Fuel worth of Shermans they will do the same as a KT. Not sure what your getting at. Heavies make Mediums not viable. Similar to how the Jackson makes Ostheers T3 not AS viable or desirable considering they have a heavy option.

The Jackson comparison stands on the AT level. Why would you bother to go Medium if you knew it was voluntarily putting yourself on the backfoot? I sure as hell wouldnt. Give me a Tiger clone as the USF that I can stall for! I would pick it 9/10 times.

That's exactly what I'm talking about! It's a multi-role unit, mostly AI which can carry his weight vs medium armor and help other units when fighting heavier units, it performs well against Puma,Ostwin,Stug and even PzIV. But it's HE round have a great potential to insta-wipe entire squads, that's messed up. With the new cover system, those poor Pzgren bastards die the moment they take cover. So I'm not arguing about Sherman being OP or anything.

I'm not saying it's sherman's fault, but right now Shermans are hard counters of their soft counter (Pzgrens). Pzgrens are also very expensive (teching, MP, and 120 freaking muni) so they have to be more viable against Medium armor.

Sherman does to Pgrens what Tigers/P4s/Stugs to a lesser degree/Brummbars/Luchs/Ostwinds do to Bazooka squads. I see no real issue with this. The Sherman being what the Sherman is defines the USFs core advantage. Flexibility.
The Sherman is best at AI. I would classify it personally as an AI tank. Thus not cost effective to counter with Infantry. And the sole reason its justified Pound for Pound Axis tanks have better armor and AT ability.

If the Infantry vs AI tank Meta needs to be adjusted then Zooks should be looked at I would think.

In terms of damage no, Jackson does not have problem with heavy armor. Since your UP Volks get vet 4 & 5 bonuses, the long range accuracy of these shreks makes it very difficult for this glass canon.

So you are willing to nerf a hard counter and the one of the "Best" AT tank because it rapes P4s? By this logic I want Jagd's damage to be nerfed as it rapes all medium tank. Why is Axis allowed to have the best infantry, best AT infantry, best medium tank & best heavy armor but Allies cant? If you nerf the damage on Jackson than US will have nothing to quickly finish off Panthers and heavies, Zooks (pshh), AT guns (yea right).

Wingzero. Its damage is a misnomer against Heavies. Because its ROF is low compared to all the Casemate TDs out there. And since all that damage is wrapped up into a huge RNG ball of joy the bounces of heavies soak more of the damage then the 240 a shot.

If it had 160 damage a shot with higher penetration it would actually perform better then it did with lower Pen and higher damage per shot unless RNG just loves the shit out of you.

Lower damage per shot and higher Pen to reduce RNG from the USF AT line up please. Lets take out some of the Panthers teeth and allow this unit to get Vet.