M36 90mm Jackson and Sherman Variant overpriced in manpower

[MenciusMoldbug]

I have no problem with the fuel cost of these tanks, but why is the manpower cost so high? US works in a way that you have cheap manpower buildable units which is offset by the high (and sometimes insane) upkeep to prevent you from overloading on them. The difference between the Jackson and Pershing in manpower cost is only 180. So if I'm floating bucket loads of fuel (and in some games as allies this is very easy to get too) why would I ever get the Jackson, or the more manpower expensive Sherman variant over the Pershing? They don't have HE shells to work with either while the Pershing does.

I think it's helpful to look at how other TD's are priced. You will find comparing these TD's on similar playfields that the Jackson is the outlier. The Achilles is 430 MP; The long barrel Jagdpanzer (IV/70(V) gun) is 600 and goes down to 540 after the cheaper unlock; Even the Nashorn with a king tiger gun and similar paper armor is 560 MP— Way more cost efficient and much more deadlier than a Jackson.

It should be brought back in line with the other TD's in terms of manpower cost. Considering it is a US vehicle and not a German or British one; the cost should be 500 MP, and the sherman variant can be 550 MP (which is the same amount of MP a firefly costs). Somewhere around there, as US already pays high upkeep in MP and fuel for all these vehicles anyway.

[The New BK Champion]

Agree

[Mr. FeministDonut]

+1

[Panzerblitz1]

We have also the same concern on some axis tanks, its in discussion.

[Walderschmidt]

+1

[mofetagalactica]

+1

[Viper]

agree jacksons manpower can be less.

We have also the same concern on some axis tanks, its in discussion.

yes. panther.g is overpriced.
890 manpower. 155 fuel and 7 command point.
it can be 800 manpower and 145 fuel. nothing too special about this tank anymore after losing the scope upgrade.

tiger1 cost too much manpower too.

sturmtiger too cheap for just 700 manpower. should be 900 manpower.

[Walderschmidt]

Tiger's just plum not worth unless you manage to get it to vet 2.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

I was thinking about changes in axis tank unlock design.

Instead putting a simple line where Panther is put between Tiger and Tiger II i would make it two seperate branches.

Both Start with tank IV H/J with 1-2 CP unlock. Then you can either go Tiger for 1-2 CP (max 3 CP for H/J and Tiger)) followed by KT (for 4 more CP). The Panther would be a seperate unlock from Tank IV for 3 CP and considered medium tank that follows tank IV. Slightly less HP, perhaps a bit more vulnerable to 76 guns (roughly 35% pen chance for 76 HVAP at max range. Currently its roughly 25%)) and cheaper to build (roughly 680/110 for Panther A). In return a slight upkeep increase to 4.5 fuel upkeep per min (same level as shermans have).

[Viper]

panthers should never be weaker. otherwise people will just build panzer4.h

[MarKr]

US works in a way that you have cheap manpower buildable units which is offset by the high (and sometimes insane) upkeep to prevent you from overloading on them.

I would say that US works the way that you have cheap manpower buildable units that are meant to be used in groups and the lower MP cost was there to be able to get the units to the field. Jacksons and Pershigs deviate from the general "style" of US (weaker units but more of them) because they have guns that can mess up the Axis units (apart from the strongest) relatively easily. These are not meant to be used in numbers but rather as a support to the main combat force and so they don't follow the general "low MP cost" rule of US units.

You also compare the Jacksons to other TDs, especially the Achilles. It is worth mentioning that M36 Jackson has the chassis of M10 but had a bit better armor than standard M10 so in the game the M36 has armor comparable to M4 Sherman (which is a bit better than M10) so the M36 is kind of like "Firefly with 90mm gun and camo". Then the M36B1 has chassis of Sherman but also had reinforced armor so it actually has its own armor type in the game and it is noticeably better than any 76mm Sherman (excluding 76mm Jumbo). So comparing price of M36 to Achilles has its problems too.

However, as Pblitz said, some price revision is planned for both Axis and Allied units.

[Shanks]

@mencius...it's a bit disturbing, knowing that the USA will have the Achilles' twin brother, will it be good for the balance? ... WM is not that strong, and in fact, right now the armor doctrine is strong, better than bk doc, especially because they have the engineers who repair at the speed of light..taking into account that right now, the only strong thing about the WM is the king tiger, Panther G AS tiger... the normal tiger is not the big deal, and the elephant is a slow unit, however, even the M10 is a headache for the tiger or panther G, if you use the special shot that is very effective, the hellcat can kill the tiger too, if we add to this the decrease in Jackson's price, you will have a very fast hard weapon, which will push backwards slowly or very quickly to the axis, especially WM

just one opinion

[Mr. FeministDonut]

@mencius...it's a bit disturbing, knowing that the USA will have the Achilles' twin brother, will it be good for the balance? ... WM is not that strong, and in fact, right now the armor doctrine is strong, better than bk doc, especially because they have the engineers who repair at the speed of light..taking into account that right now, the only strong thing about the WM is the king tiger, Panther G AS tiger... the normal tiger is not the big deal, and the elephant is a slow unit, however, even the M10 is a headache for the tiger or panther G, if you use the special shot that is very effective, the hellcat can kill the tiger too, if we add to this the decrease in Jackson's price, you will have a very fast hard weapon, which will push backwards slowly or very quickly to the axis, especially WM

just one opinion

Dude WM two doctrines all well-rounded, they got everything better than US.
Terror:
Better and cheap grens? - Check
Best Panthers in game? - Check
Best WM late tank? - Check
Best in game rocket artillery? - Check
-
Blitz:
Best WM stormtroopers than any allied infantry? - Check
Spammable good all-rounded middle game vehicles? - Check
Rocket artillery, that could destroy land AT? - Check

p.s: You see, Jacksons are only tied to the one doctrine, that is only good being at deploying best vehicles in the game, while vulnerable with no having shock abilities, like off-map artillery, air support, good infantry or playing against TH doctrine. Even Armor doctrine need to get all the upgrades, such as basic supplies and shermans sand bags to not lose support for the Sherman 75mm, that is giving only reliable source of AI damage.

Even more I think that Jackson's fuel cost is too high, drop off like 10-15 fuel would be alright for them, as it is only 30 fuel difference

[Shanks]

@Mr.FeministDonut...surprising explanation, you solved one of the problems of the millennium, they will give you 1 million dollars ... is it really seriolys what you say ?, the late game is a separate story, the initial and middle game is another, and in these stages armor Doc is strong, enough to define bk and terror doc, certainly terror and bk have good inf, but you have in armor doc good tanks that can destroy complete units of infantry of a single shot with "HE" (expensive units, by the way) , with the captain you can call the riflemen who are fully equipped only for 300 MP, and the best part is that you save ammunition and is available for all doctrines, this infantry is not harmless, on the contrary, it is very good, you have the caliope, you have Jumbo a very good tank to advance, too the sherman can be cheaper in this doctrine, he can have "HE" for free, and you can recover all the sherman lost in battle, thanks to a skill ... does that seem little to you?..you have the M20, which gives good bonuses... if you talk about the heavy German tanks, I could talk about the pershing and SP, which are at the same level ... by the way, the best artillery of WM is in def doc, but you do not use it, so you do not know....everything I told you about armor, you can check

Note:What I would like to suggest, is that sacks of sand and sacks of sand with concrete, have a reduction of the cost, something like 200 MP-15 fuel for both , and raise the cost of the chassis of the easy 8 to 35 fuel, just a suggest

[Mr. FeministDonut]

Seems that you didn't know that Jumbo countered by just AP shells of stug or PZ F2, everything else described in my post that you didn't bothered to read completly...

[Shanks]

someone had made a post, like 1 month ago I think, and showed that the jumbo destroyed the tiger 1v1 , but I see that the one who does not bother to read the post of other people, is you..although I do not think it is necessary to mention it, obviously the stug 3, 4 or late version or PZ f2 are not more likely to beat Jumbo, than the Jumbo has vs them ... maybe someone who manages the statistics could demonstrate this with Highest precision, warhawks or markr, idk

[Panzerblitz1]

Jumbo frontally is a tough cookie to crack for medium axis tanks, side rear is destroyable by any 75mm guns.

[Warhawks97]

Jumbo frontally is a tough cookie to crack for medium axis tanks, side rear is destroyable by any 75mm guns.

this is another funny story.

The Jumbo is actually a heavy tank that was well armored not just at the front like the panther. It was more comparable to a Tiger (even better in many ways).

However:
Axis 50 mm pen chance vs Jumbo from max range against rear: 50% (with ambush even more)
Allis 57 mm vs Tiger rear: 14%.

I know the 50 mm has less than 1% chance vs jumbo frontal while the 57 mm has a 7% chance vs tiger but the Jumbo does not really fill its role as heavy breakthrough tank it was designed for and we keep treating it more like a Panther medium tank with weak sides and rear. Its understandable for balance since the jumbo does not even need a unlock in inf doc.....

When it comes to 75 and 76 guns it is as follows:
Axis 75 mm pak 40/kwk 40 vs Jumbo rear max range: 144 and 175%
US 76 mm gun vs tiger rear max range: 80%.


Why we cant we get a jumbo as a heavy tank in terms of armor like a tiger and churchill?



And as we are currently debating who needs what:
Luft doesnt need a Panther (and perhaps not even Hetzer)
RAF not neccessarly need a Firefly
And inf doc definitely needs not a Jumbo tank...And even less off map+jumbo for in total 4 CP when it is an inf orientated doctrine.


Jumbos should be armor doc and a bit more tec required (like for example both tank depot upgrades or a wsc unlock like e8). In return better all-round protection against the most common axis 75 mm guns and 50 mm guns should not go through its sides so easily.





As for the main topic: I agree with the cost of jackson (A at least, i usually dont use the other so i cant say there).