You know very well it won't ever be 1 vs 1 due to teching and unit cost disparity.You deliberately ignored the jacksonS part in my post.
... are you complaining that multiple Jacksons will defeat a single Panther? Two Jacksons is 290 fuel, versus 175 for Panther. Multiple Jacksons definitely should win an engagement with a Panther. As should 1 Jackon and 1 Sherman.
If you want to factor the rest of the armies in, the Axis are not exactly starving for AT. If you're OH you could have various T2 units assisting you. Mines are tricky - they're perfect if you have support ready to pounce but obviously if you don't the Jackson will crit repair in short order. If you're OKW, the newly buffed Raketen can threaten them and volks shreks will still scare them off. AT strafe, JPZIV, Tiger etc. The Jackson didn't recieve a huge buff, it was made somewhat more effective against heavies but less effective overall (and T3 will be more viable against it as OH - 4 shots required to kill PZIV, with slow-as-shit ROF). |
|
Honestly the biggest shock for me is that CAS doctrine didn't get nerfed. |
Panther could fend off is-2s and kill it only with support,and could beat jacksons.Now they can't beat jacksons and are only useful for fending off is-2 pushes.With its massive teching and cost its useless.
Panther front armor is 320, new Jackson Pen at max range is 200. 62.5% chance to penetrate, or 75% at close range. With slow rate of fire on the main gun. It takes 4 penetrating hits for the Jackson to kill the Panther. It takes 3 penetrating hits for the Panther to kill the Jackson, and every shot is a guaranteed peneration. Panther is clearly going to win that fight unless you get very unlucky with death crits or the shots missing. |
It still does more damage and is far, far more mobile. While also having more penetration for ~reasons~ now.
You can probably solo a Jackson with a Panzer IV now and have a reasonable chance of winning (probably comes down to who hits first). The Jackson is supposed to be hard-counter to armor, and costs more than a PzIV. It doesn't do shit to infantry, it doesn't have an mg upgrade. It's sole redeeming feature is the high first-shot damage. It's rate of fire is poor, and in a stand-up fight an SU85 outperfored it even before this patch. The 40 damage reduction means a 16.67% reduction in DPS, and an extra hit required to kill a PzIV. This is critical and Ost T3 will perform much more favourably against USF Jacksons now because of it. |
|
They already have microtransactions for the game, quite a lot of them. There's no real justification for the high pricetag of AA outside of "we wanted more money, so we charged more". We got two campaigns and two new factions in OF for a substantial discount over a full retail game price. What we get now is all of the components of an expansion pack split up and sold separately, the total cost of which is higher than the expansion packs of ye olde england. The same or higher price as the full base retail game in fact. It's certainly not more content than the full retail game. Then on top of this they also ship the AA campaign alongside FOX COMPANY RANGERS DLC.
I'm not about to start a boycott or something but I can't imagine how anybody could be pleased about the monetisation model of this game. |
Well, they don't run charity and you don't just snap your fingers and poof, suddenly 2 new armies.
Doesn't have to be free, but the pricing model for WFA+AA wound up giving us one expansion pack's worth of content for the price of the full retail game originally (or more, depending on what region you were in). AA being 40 eur was in particular a slap in the face for people there. |
jackson + pershing would be an unbeatable combo.
Is Jackson and IS2 an unbeatable combo in team game? Because that's more powerful than Jackson + Pershing would be. This combo is seen in basically every joint US/Soviet team game. Somehow, Axis still have a major advantage despite this "unbeatable" combination of highly armored, extremely powerful heavy tank backed up by long range, powerful TD. In a solo context, the US player can't build swarms of mediums then also get some kind of free superheavy beast (only Elite Troops gets to do that  ), it's an either/or proposition. If there has been enough fuel going around for the US to build T4, a Jackson, and call-in a Pershing (200+ fuel alone), the Axis has no excuse for not being able to field an effective fighting force of its own, and the USF player has, up to this point, sacrificed its combat effectiveness substantially by not opting to gets its most effective mid-late unit (i.e. the Sherman). And since they've picked this doctrine, it means no 1919s, no Airborne, no P47 strike, no Flamer riflemen, no Easy 8s.
And this is all assuming that the Pershing is beastly at killing infantry / team weapons, because if it's not (i.e. if the 90mm gun performs similarly to the M36 90mm), then Shreks and Paks will be fantastic counters to this combination, given that the Pershing has thinner armor than an IS2 or Tiger.
It's really weird to see people say that the Pershing+Jackson combo would be unbeatable, like you've imagined that it would be unbeatable in your head then complained instead of considering ways in which it could actually be a balanced unit. |
Then why having it in the first place? Why having a unit that performs worse then core units?
M-42?
Irregulars?
ML-20 and leIH?
Penals?
222?
Partisans?
DSHK?
KV-2?
We do NOT need that list to expand.
And if it was stronger then core, then we wouldn't see another doc ever picked, pretty much like soviets are pidgeon holed into shock rifle or guard motor in general-that is NOT healthy design.
And as you can see for yourself, the best and only option here is NOT to have it.
Um I didn't say "worse than stock units". I'm merely saying that a unit existing doesn't mean it's going to dominate the meta or being imbalanced. We know this because there exist doctirnes that offer units that are either underused because they are not good overall, and some doctrines that are viable (i.e. the ideal) without being dominant. The Easy 8 Sherman is a great unit, offering a tougher Sherman with better anti-armor performance. It's not necessarily better than the stock Sherman in all circumstances, but it's a unit that offers better performance in other circumstances. Rifle doctrine is popular, but not dominant. Why? Because it's not necessarily better overall than Airborne, or Infantry.
A Pershing would be a useful unit that fills a gap in the US lineup. But would we really expect it to be chosen every game? Would players really want to give up Airborne + P47 strike every game? No more 1919 riflemen and Priests and arty? Do you not think it would even be conceptually possible for the Pershing doctrine to merely be one of several viable doctrines?
In my mind, the Pershing doctrine would be partially viable in 1v1s, but mainly designed to augment USF lineups in team games, where the absence of a heavy is most painful. The doctine would not have much going for it early-game, and thus represent a risk over doctrines that give you more powerful things at 2 or 3cp. No Elite Riflemen, no flamers, no 1919s. Teams would benefit from having them in lieu of a Soviet player to provide heavies, however the other doctrines would still provide something quite useful, so you wouldn't want the whole team to go for Pershings, since P47 strikes, AB and SP arty have their place too. Pershing + Rifle + Airborne? Pershing + Inf + AB should both be nice, viable combinations. Actually builds without AB being viable at all would be a nice bloody change of pace, let me tell you.
|
Having the Pershing locked into a commander would immediately outclass every single other USF commander and would only serve to limit an already limited meta. As a HUGE USF fan, I really hope they don't introduce the Pershing.
That entirely depends on balance. It could easily turn out to be underwhelming and almost never used if it kinda sucks as a unit. Most people are also proposing balance changes like making the Jackson less effective vs T3 Ost and more effective vs Heavies (higher pen, lower damage) which would make the stock USF a bit better late game. The quality of the doctrine it's in would determine whether or not it truly "outclassed" everything else. If the Pershing is the only great thing in the doctrine, and the rest is kind of bleh, then it would probably never see much use in 1v1s. The focus on it being a late game doctrine in a faction that is all about winning in the early-mid tiemframe means that it would, in general, not dominate the meta. For team games, particularly large team games, it might be a very popular choice. But then, the current meta is "all airborne all the time" with maybe some Infantry/Rifle company mixed in. AB's late game strike is so completely necessary for killing heavies as USF that any deviation from this meta would be a welcome change.
Pershing+AB+Inf doctrines as a viable USF 3v3 team? Dream come true. Because now there's basically no such thing as a viable USF 3v3 team.  |
|
I don't think Chaffe is a good idea. It's just a Sherman with less armour and HP. And a Hellcat would be worse than the M36, terrible armor, but with less offensive punch. Why would I want that? The USF isn't hurting for offensively respectable but highly vulnerable tanks. In team games, it's hurting for a heavy. In 1v1s it's not really hurting for anything. The synergy you get from having a Soviet Ally that can field heavy tanks is huge, a Pershing, even if it's not an "amazing" tank overall in the game, would be a step towards making USF viable in team games (especially larger ones) wihtout Soviet assistance. |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
